Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the significant differences between the venture capital (VC) investment practices in Silicon Valley and China, particularly focusing on the prevalence of "bet-on agreements" or "valuation adjustment mechanisms" (VAM) in China, which are often seen as a form of gambling rather than a neutral financial term [4][5][9]. Group 1: Differences in Investment Practices - In Silicon Valley, less than 5% of VC agreements include buyback clauses, while over 90% of VC investments in China contain such clauses, typically with a 3-year term [4][6]. - The term "对赌协议" (bet-on agreement) reflects the nature of the Chinese investment ecosystem, where it is viewed as a high-stakes gamble between entrepreneurs and investors [4][5]. - The lack of buyback agreements in Silicon Valley is attributed to a more balanced risk-sharing mechanism through preferred stock, which provides investors with liquidation preferences and anti-dilution rights [6][9]. Group 2: Exit Strategies and Market Conditions - Silicon Valley investors have multiple exit options, with only 20% of exits being through IPOs, while many are through acquisitions by major tech companies [7][9]. - In contrast, 2024 saw a significant decline in IPOs in China, with the total fundraising amount dropping to 67.353 billion yuan, the lowest in nearly a decade [8][11]. - Approximately 65% of acquisition transactions in China involved companies with no prior public financing records, indicating a disconnect between the VC investment landscape and the acquisition market [7][11]. Group 3: The Rise of Buyback Agreements - In 2024, there were 1,741 buyback events involving 1,687 project companies and 978 investment institutions, marking an 8.5% increase year-on-year [11][15]. - The increasing reliance on buyback agreements is seen as a response to the tightening exit channels, with many funds facing pressure to provide returns to limited partners (LPs) [12][11]. - The trend of buybacks has shifted from being a last resort to becoming a mainstream exit strategy, as other avenues have become less viable [15][19]. Group 4: Market Innovations and Solutions - New solutions are emerging, such as third-party buyouts where investors can transfer shares to third parties at a price that includes principal plus an annual interest rate of 8%-10% [15][17]. - S funds, which are designed to acquire illiquid shares from VC/PE investors, are gaining traction, allowing original investors to recover some capital without resorting to litigation [15][17]. - Local government funds are also stepping in to acquire difficult-to-exit projects, providing a safety net for the investment ecosystem [17][19]. Group 5: Systemic Challenges and Future Outlook - The article highlights systemic issues in the Chinese investment landscape, where the pressure for quick exits leads to a reliance on buyback agreements, creating a cycle of financial strain for entrepreneurs [12][13]. - The potential introduction of personal bankruptcy laws and tax reforms could provide much-needed relief for entrepreneurs facing overwhelming debt due to failed investments [18][19]. - Despite these innovations, the fundamental problems of a congested IPO market and a stagnant acquisition landscape remain unresolved, indicating that the market is still searching for sustainable solutions [19].

Core Insights - The article discusses the significant differences between the venture capital (VC) investment practices in Silicon Valley and China, particularly focusing on the prevalence of "Valuation Adjustment Mechanism" (VAM) or "bet-on agreements" in China compared to their rarity in Silicon Valley [1][2][3] Group 1: Differences in Investment Practices - In Silicon Valley, less than 5% of VC agreements include buyback clauses, while over 90% of VC investments in China contain such clauses, typically with a 3-year term [1][2] - The term "对赌协议" (bet-on agreement) is a unique Chinese concept that reflects the competitive nature of the investment ecosystem, contrasting with the neutral term "VAM" used in the U.S. [1][2] - Silicon Valley investors utilize preferred stock with liquidation preferences and anti-dilution rights, providing a more balanced risk-sharing mechanism compared to the debt-like nature of buyback agreements in China [3][4] Group 2: Exit Strategies and Market Conditions - In Silicon Valley, 80% of exits occur through acquisitions rather than IPOs, with major tech companies frequently acquiring startups, while in China, 65% of acquisitions involve companies without prior public financing [3][4] - The IPO market in China is facing significant challenges, with 2024 seeing the lowest fundraising total in nearly a decade at 67.35 billion yuan, while the U.S. Nasdaq continues to see substantial IPO activity [4][5] - The tightening of exit channels in China has led to an increase in buyback events, with 1,741 occurrences in 2024, marking an 8.5% increase from the previous year [5][9] Group 3: Systemic Issues and Responses - The pressure from Limited Partners (LPs) in China, often government-backed, necessitates the inclusion of buyback clauses due to strict exit timelines, which do not align with the longer development cycles of many innovative companies [6][8] - The trend of buybacks has shifted from being a protective mechanism to resembling fixed-income products, indicating a fundamental change in the nature of equity investments in China [6][8] - New solutions are emerging, such as S funds that acquire illiquid shares from VC/PE investors, allowing for a more flexible exit strategy [9][10] Group 4: Future Directions and Innovations - The introduction of flexible buyback terms and the establishment of S funds are part of a broader market correction, aiming to address the systemic failures in funding, exit strategies, and legal frameworks [10][12] - Legislative proposals, such as personal bankruptcy laws, are being discussed to provide legal protections for entrepreneurs, potentially alleviating the burden of personal debt from failed ventures [12][13] - The ongoing exploration of new investment tools, such as convertible bonds, reflects a shift towards more adaptable financial instruments that can better accommodate the realities of the Chinese market [12][13]