I don't mean their performance - I mean that relatively speaking I have found Boston VCs to be bigger assholes than CA or NY VCs.

For example, one Boston VC said our company was too soon and if there was any way to help let him know. So I did some research, found a co-investment he did with an angel I wanted to talk to, asked for intro, no response. The only other firm to do that ("can we help?" then no response) was a Seattle firm.

All CA firms have helped. Foundry Group (Boulder) has been the most helpful and set me up some meetings with some high profile CEOs even though they knew they wouldn't be investing.

In truth, I got what you originally meant and was expanding on it.

The fact that VCs can have such a low hit rate and such a low return rate, yet still have a job, is astounding to me.

I think the underlying problem is that there is an incestuous relationship between retirement funds and investors. Nothing else explains why the funds keep giving away 2+20%.

Gotcha. I think if you take the avg fund size divided by # of partners the avg partners gets $30-40mm of a fund. So management fees alone are in the millions for showing up to work. Seems a bit high with no track record. Maybe a better model for LPs would be 1.5-2% for yrs 0-5 (when most investments are usually made) and then 0-0.5%. What do I know...