When searching for investments startups are looking not only for money, but for a partner that they can trust. My experience with Accel Partners has been so bad that I had to comment about it.

Many VC firms are very busy and it is only natural that they limit the time spent talking on the numerous new deals that come in. However, communicating with Accel is like talking with your long distance company when there has been a mistake on your bill. Long holds, dispassionate voices, constant transfers. I couldn’t even speak to an assistant and constantly was put into voicemail, not the partner’s voicemail, the assistants.

To contrast, Sequoia and Charles River Ventures, who must be much busier than Accel very responsive in getting back to me in a timely fashion and in making me feel like, whether or not my deal was something they were interested in, they at least gave it due consideration. On the other hand, even though I visited Accel Partners in person (which I didn’t for Sequoia and CRV) I couldn’t even get confirmation that my proposal was received.

So while I haven’t worked closely with Accel Partners I feel there are many better choices in the Menlo Park area, and I would advise entrepreneurs not to waste their time with Accel, because Accel will not waste any of their time on you.

This problem has become even more prevalent now for reasons explained earlier. The few companies that survived the Great Freezeout are glad they escaped and then find they are ripe and ready to be exploited by their own investors.

Several quality LPs, on learning certain venture firms had a predisposition for such unconscionable and bordering on illegal practices have pulled back their support of those funds. It didn’t help that these firms were also the worst performing in returns. Which explains why some firms had trouble raising money and are shutting down.

Carveouts are evil . . .:)

There’s a reason why some existing investors drop out of recap rounds. They would rather make money some other way than engage in fraud, misrepresentation, and other behavior that is likely to breach fiduciary duties and end up in court. Explains better (than Dan’s analysis) why Summit dropped out of Rapt’s recap round.

A new investor in a recap round doesn’t mean all is clear. The other (existing) investors usually have ties to the new investor and there is a quid pro quo between them. Invest in this round to save my butt and I’ll do you a favor later.

Incentives for current employees is a good thing but it crosses over into breach of fiduciary duties when it is at the cost of diluting prior shareholders disadvantageously. Giving carveouts to current management is nothing but bribery to buy compliance (to wipe out prior management/shareholders).

Expect more of these to surface. Most venture investments made 1998-2002 are down the toilet. Expect the VCs to milk hard and run dry the few cows that survived that period. When they have nine failures out of ten, why wouldn’t they rape and plunder and engage in every trick in the books, known or unknown, legal or illegal, to extract the last penny out of their one surviving deal? If nobody catches them they get away. If they get caught, they settle and still make out better than if they had stayed straight.

It’d be worthwhile to list firms/partners that are known to engage in this practice. Right at the top will be some firms/partners with poor track records whose LPs already pulled out and have few entrepreneurs to speak for them.