BTW, if you are finding gaps in the CrunchBase data, please let us know… Sounds you may have gotten some additions / corrections that we missed (O’Reilly AlphaTech Ventures, MMC Ventures, etc.) and we’re doing our best to improve the accuracy and breadth of our dataset – every bit of information helps. Just drop us a note at feedback(at)crunchbase.com.

Matt Kaufman (President @ CrunchBase)

Regarding ability to invest: just looking at North American VC in general, at Bison (www.bison.co) we have tracked 55 fund closings since August 1, 2012 and currently have 149 VC seed / early stage funds that are raising money. The former number points to a steady flow of capital into the VC asset class. Yet, the latter number indicates that there is a funding gap for VCs, with many funds having problems raising capital from traditional LPs. Additionally, 29 of the zombie funds that were previously identified have raised almost $17 billion, in aggregate, since January 1, 2010. Many of these firms are in the middle of their investment period and likely have significant capacity for new investments.

Second, when evaluating a VC/PE firm as an investor, it may be helpful to understand what professional, institutional LPs look for when considering an investment. At least five factors stand out:
 
1. Previous funds:  Date of most recent fund raised can help establish a baseline for evaluating whether a VC firm has monies to invest.  Per Fred Destin’s point, the investment period for most funds is five years, although fundraising typically occurs roughly every three years, when the funds are 70% accounted for (invested, committed and reserved).

2. Currently fundraising:  If the VC firm is currently fundraising, progress on fundraising will help you evaluate how attractive the firm is.  The longer the fund is in market, the more likely you are dealing with a down-trending firm.

3. Past investments:  More than looking for a match between your business and the firm investment approach, you should consider where the firm sources investments from (all YCombinator or TechStars startups or did the founders go to MIT) and if there are any patterns of timing around investments.  The point is to understand if there is a method for finding portfolio companies.

4. Recent exits:  While big exits are always interesting, even smaller exits may be indicative of a firms ability to deliver returns to LPs and should be considered. It is not about the logo of the deals they do, it is about the likely return the firm can generate.

5. Managers:  Previous firms and alumni networks as well as speaking-engagements, news coverage, and twitter activity can be helpful to consider.

We gather a lot of data from a broad number of sources, let us know if we can help you in future analyses!
 
Mike Nugent (CEO @ Bison)

A quick thought re some of the reaction I’ve seen, to the effect of, some companies don’t want others to know they have raised a round. Well, to the extent companies still file Form D’s (and I know many in CA are choosing not to do that in recent years; but many or most still do), both the fact and the size of the rounds become public information.

That the SEC, for a couple years now, makes the Form D’s accessible electronically through the EDGAR database, makes it possible (feasible, too? not sure) to verify, if not exactly the roster of investors, then as I said the fact of the round, its size – and also the number of investors.