Do VCs Make Less Than You Think?

For some reason, I find myself reading a fair number of VC blogs. This is mostly out of curiosity. Though I've never raised venture capital for a startup before, I find the industry interesting. What's disappointing about VC bloggers is how few VCs actually write about the internal workings of their industry. This is why, the venture industry continues to be reasonably opaque to most people that are outside the business. Sure, you can read about how VCs make money (management fees, carry, etc.), but rarely do you find information on the internal dynamics of the business and how things are evolving (or not). This is why I found a recent article by venture capitalist Jeff Bussgang, titled "

1. In theory, is it in an entrepreneur's interest (all other things being equal) to raise funding from a fund that is likely to generate carry for it's GPs? My gut tells me yes, but this is based primarily on the fact that funds generating carry are usually successful funds. It is almost always better to raise funding from a successful fund (if you can) than a not-so-successful one. 2. If the GP that has funded your startup does indeed get "poached" and moves to a different firm, how does that impact your life as an entrepreneur? My guess is that this would be a setback as a GP doing his or her job would likely have learned a fair amount about your business, its competition and its strategy. A new GP is less likely to generate the same "value". 3. If the venture firm is at the tail-end of its' current fund (i.e. most of the capital has already been deployed), and the probability of a carry being generated is reasonably well known, are they likely to push the startup more or less to exit?

If there are entrepreneurs that have been impacted by this (either by raising a round from a fund that has had lack-luster success, or having their GP move to a different firm), would love to hear your comments? On the other hand, even if you have good, plausible theories too, feel free to chime-in.