Editor's Note: Today's guest column comes from Brad Feld, managing director, Foundry Group

In The Beginning There Were Angel Investors...

...And it was good. As individual angel investors made more and more investments, they became super angels. One day a super angel woke up and thought to himself, “Gosh, I could do a lot more investments if I had a fund.” And so the super angels became micro-VCs (or “institutionalized super angels”). Everyone was excited and on the seventh day they did another deal instead of resting.

I’m a huge fan of the super angel movement. Some of my best friends are super angels and I’ve put my own money where my mouth is in funds like Chris Sacca’s, Dave McClure’s, Jeff Clavier’s, Roger Ehrenberg’s, and David Cohen’s. Not only am I an investor in these super angels, I love to have them on board with our investments at Foundry Group. And whenever they bring me something they’ve been working on, I always pay attention--as I know they know what I like to invest in.

But recently the super angel mantra of “traditional VCs suck” has reached a fevered pitch. What started out in Silicon Valley as a new wave of angel investors has evolved into a belief that “VCs are lousy seed investors” and “no one needs a VC--just raise your money from super angels and go to town.”

Fred Wilson from Union Square Ventures recently wrote an excellent blog post titled “The Expanding Birthrate of Web Startups.” As with many of Fred’s posts, the comment section was as useful as the post, and early-stage investors such as Mark Suster, Charlie O’Donnell, Roger Ehrenberg, and Anonymous Coward weighed in. The comments ranged from the now cliche-ish “VCs suck” to “What happens when super angel-backed companies need a new round” to “Companies will never need more capital. It’s a new world out there.” As I read through the comments, I kept pondering the same thought: “What happens in five years?”

Let’s consider a few situations. Take a typical super angel. Assume success. Investors (LPs and individuals like me) want to invest money with the super angel. The super angel probably creates a fund and raises a lot more money. Now the super angel is a micro-VC. Continue to assume success. More money is able to be raised. Now the micro-VC is a mini-VC. Does this keep scaling, or does the mini-VC succumb to the same challenges that $200 million funds ran into when they turned into $1 billion funds?

Now, take a super angel with a 20-company portfolio. The super angel is hyper-connected and works closely with the entrepreneurs he/she invests in. Suddenly he/she has 100 investments. Are the entrepreneurs getting the same attention from that angel--especially when they enter year three of their life, hit a bunch of speed bumps and need a lot of help? Or does this super angel just turn his/her back and say, “Well, that’s the breaks.”

Finally, take a super angel who is used to making $25,000 to $100,000 per investment. He/she becomes a micro-VC, raises a bigger fund, and now invests $500,000 per deal. Is there a difference in his/her behavior with regard to the $25,000 investments vs. the $500,000 investments?

I think the super angel movement is awesome, but the generalization that all VCs suck at seed investing doesn’t make sense to me. Correspondingly, the idea that entrepreneurs only need super angels doesn’t make sense either. There’s a renewed focus and interest in early-stage investing going on in the United States, and it’s being stimulated by a lot of factors. It’s a powerful thing that will continue to evolve, change and challenge all of the participants.

Brad Feld has been a VC for more than 15 years and is a managing director of Foundry Group, an early-stage venture capital firm based in Boulder, Colo. that invests throughout the United States. Prior to co-founding Foundry Group, Feld co-founded Mobius Venture Capital and founded Intensity Ventures. He sits on the boards of BigDoor Media, Gist, Gnip, Oblong, Standing Cloud and Zynga. You can read his blog, “Feld Thoughts,” at www.feld.com, follow him on Twitter at @bfeld and reach him via email at brad@feld.com.

New @peHUB

* First Read, including Encap raising a $3.5 billion fund, Chartbeat raising $3 million in funding, Candover planning to sell its portfolio companies and major hedge funds cutting back on equity risk

* Second Opinion, including Cicsco reportedly sizing up Skype for a possible acquisition before its IPO, HP agreeing to pay $55 million to settle charges of false billing, and billionaire Ron Burkle taking his fight for Barnes & Noble to the mat

* Brokway Moran buys Turning Tech from Talisman

* Loyalty Lab looks for capital infusion

* Alpha Packaging CEO confirms sale to Irving Place

* New funding for motorcycles, marketing and Omega-3

* Hotspur proves it's possible to launch a low-cost med device company

* Is Legg Mason on the block?

Candover Investments PLC plans to wind itself down (it says "up") after failing to sell the business. The private equity shop’s fall was a result of the credit crunch. The London-based firm will sell portfolio companies, including oil field services concern Expro, and return cash to shareholders and investors. More here...

Dell Inc. (DELL.O) is widely expected to bow out of a bidding war with Hewlett-Packard Co. (HPQ.N) for data storage company 3PAR Inc. (PAR.N) because of the increased price tag. A survey of eight technology investors and analysts by Reuters on Monday found most expect Dell to soon give up its pursuit of 3PAR, either ceding to HP's last offer of $30 per share or giving up at a few dollars higher at most. More here...

Institutional Venture Partners closed its Institutional Venture Partners XIII fund at $750 million. The Menlo Park, Calif.-based shop will use the fund to continue its strategy of investing in rapidly-growing technology and digital media companies throughout the U.S. The later-stage venture capital and growth equity firm now has $3 billion in cumulative committed capital. More here...