Regarding your third point, if I was a VC that was beating the market - and there actually are many - I'd be happy to share my info and put pressure on the weaker VC's to expose themselves.
> Even Sequoia, which seems to have a golden halo around here, had the partners pony up funds in order to keep some funds positive.
Can you clarify what you mean here? Adding capital to a fund doesn't impact the return of the fund. And separately, I think you're factually wrong. (aside, I'm an entrepreneur funded by sequoia)
> Adding capital to a fund doesn't impact the return of the fund.
You know that, I know that, but the folks who do the investment want to see the dollars returned be greater than the dollars invested. Otherwise, they also look like they are mismanaging money.
And separately, I think you're factually wrong.
Why?
(aside, I'm an entrepreneur funded by sequoia)
You think they'd advertise such things to you?
Edit: Apparently they do --
Leone noted that Sequoia has never had a fund that has lost money. There was one time when things were looking like they may go that way in 2002, so the Sequoia partners got out their checkbooks so that no one could say that they lost money investing with Sequoia Capital.
Yes, that's right: That's Leone saying the partners needed to bail out the fund, because their investments were negative. I give him points for honestly admitting that they blew it bad enough to kick back money. Of course, subtract points for the way in which he stated it, requiring carefully parsed words Sequoia has never had a fund that has lost money.
If I were an investor and saw that type of behavior, I would put my money with them. That's a great move. I'd reinvest if the guy said 'we messed up, we're compensating you for it.' Of course if there were any pattern or regularity to the failures I might not continue to invest. But if it happens once and that's the response? I am impressed.
