Ouch Frank! This interview was filled with practices that still need to be eliminated from the venture industry. People who manage other people's money are going to be the slowest to adopt best practices. CIT GAP funds also relies on government grants so they may never change.

It sure would be great if people stop using the word success to refer to investment money. Money invested has to stop being looked at as the goal. Haven't you noticed that it is always a money manager that refers to that as a success? Who's side is he on if he talks like that?

In most cases where state money is involved, if they can show job creation they don't need to show the types of returns that Angels require. With federal money it is usually the case that if the terms of the grant are met, they may not need to show job creation or profit. Tom Weithman is not likely to share all of the same concerns Angels have.

Another practice that needs to change is the idea mentioned in this interview that teaching the fundraising process is teaching entrepreneurialism. Raising money is not the same thing as making money.

I looked at the website for the entrepreneurial bootcamp mentioned by Weithman. I didn't see any courses that are specific to the needs of Angels. What I saw was generic courses that would be applied to any business.

This is not the type of bootcamp that is needed by the venture industry. It has never been the problem in the past that investors are holding onto large sums of money with no where to put it because there is a shortage of people who know how to approach them.

The problem has always been identifying the opportunity that will achieve a high and rapid rate of return. This is a problem shared by both investors and entrepreneurs. The investor needs to learn where to put his money and the entrepreneur needs to learn where to apply his skills. Both groups are looking for the same answer.

A single bootcamp for both groups to discover and or learn where to put their time, money, and energy, would be better than keeping the two groups separated. Angels have long said they want more eyeballs on a deal because there is safety in numbers. Working with entrepreneurs would put more minds to work identifying where and why, one should look to find good opportunities.

Entrepreneurs would take that knowledge and create the opportunities that Angels are already looking for. This would cause Angels and entrepreneurs to be on the same page even before the opportunity was presented.

What's ironic about VCs no longer looking for new deals and instead focusing on extending the runways of their current investments is that they have always said that they need more deals because they are playing a numbers game. By saying they are no longer going to achieve the number of investments required to play the numbers, they are admitting that they will still be reporting failures for quite some time to come.

VCs are not being honest with us or their investors when they say they are focusing on the success of their current portfolio. They know they are holding onto future failures but none of the VCs wants to be the first to say their portfolio is wiped out.

The VCs have a need to say that they still have companies in the pipeline, even if it is at the expense of their investors. This is a conflict of interest for them. Right now they are just using the funds to keep them in business long enough for when they can do more fundraising.

The goal is no longer to make those companies a success. It's an impossible goal anyway. The goal is just to keep their reputation alive long enough until they are able to raise the next fund. If you are an entrepreneur and you want to keep your company alive, show your VC that you are the cheapest one for him to keep while he is looking for more funding.