[SilasX]

That's my point: a change from 3 to 3.25% in the prime rate doesn't suddenly make CoolApprfy into a good vs a bad investment. The need to earn higher returns on cash doesn't make CoolApprfy more likely to go big and pay a return; reality doesn't work like that. If you're investing in CoolApprfy to "win back" some income streams, you're doing it for the (very) wrong reasons.

[nostrademons]

My point is that there's a wide variety of beliefs as to whether CoolApprfy is a good company. To get funded, CoolApprfy only needs to identify one person who believes it is.

When money is cheap, it is much more likely that they will be able to find someone controlling money who believes it is. When money is expensive, the intersection of [people who have money] x [people who believe CoolApprfy is a good company] is much smaller. For companies that are actually good companies, this intersection will likely (although not always; good companies fail to get funded in challenging fundraising climates all the time) still be non-zero. For companies that are bad companies, it's much more likely they will be unable to find anyone who believes they are good companies.

Markets are made up as individuals, but they don't behave like individuals. An effect does not have to be observable on the individual level for it to be observable in the behavior of the market as a whole.

[SilasX]

That would still suggest that the set of "VC investments that depend on Fed policy" is the same as the set of "VC investments that will sputter out anyway" (module the fortuitous luck factor).