I'm not so sure I agree with Mark on this one.<p>He asks how Sequoia's 'RIP Good Times' did at spooking the market, well...<a href="http://vator.tv/news/2015-01-13-venture-capital-sees-best-fundraising-year-since-2007" rel="nofollow">http://vator.tv/news/2015-01-13-venture-capital-sees-best-fu...</a><p>The funds themselves were unable to raise as much until 2015. So, yes, the market dropped considerably from 2007.
Of course, we also need to consider not just the VC environment but what was generally happening in public markets at the time. But yes, the market dropped, Sequoia or not.<p>I think what Mark isn't mentioning in this article (from my understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong) is that venture funds have to invest the money they are given within a specified time frame. So the irrationality is driven, in some ways, by an excess of money in the VC pool which is looking for good investments. Everybody tries to pile into the few that will work give positive returns. Which raises the amounts raised for those businesses, where we're seeing $100 million rounds in late stage.<p>In earlier stage investments, the VCs are likely trying to spread the load across as many businesses as possible, except, here again, you have multiple VCs and Angels trying to get in on the market.<p>As Mark said, it is a Market. He does benefit from having lower prices, and convincing other VCs that prices should be lower is the better strategy than trying to convince the start-ups themselves that they should be taking less.<p>It's like buying a house at auction. It doesn't matter what you tell the homeowner the house is worth, they're waiting to see how much they can get when people get excited about buying. But convince the other potential buyers that the market is going to go down and people are spending too much, and they all start second guessing their positions.<p>Have I contradicted myself enough in this comment?