search: results update below


browse funds: selections are stored



recently rated:

Rated by 2
4.9

top rated funds:

Rated by 11
2.7
 

Rated by 19
2.7

Rated by 41
2.7

Rated by 35
2.7

Rated by 17
2.7

Rated by 11
2.6
 

Rated by 21
2.6
 

Rated by 12
2.6

Rated by 21
2.6

Rated by 11
2.6
 

Rated by 36
2.6

Rated by 26
2.6

Rated by 13
2.6

Rated by 21
2.6

Rated by 38
2.6

Rated by 25
2.6

Rated by 41
2.6
 

Rated by 10
2.5
 

Rated by 11
2.5
 

Rated by 30
2.4
 

Rated by 22
2.4
 

Rated by 15
2.4

Rated by 23
2.4

Rated by 14
2.3
 

Rated by 11
2.2
 

Rated by 15
2.2
 

Rated by 16
2.2

Rated by 19
2.1

Rated by 19
2.1

Rated by 15
2.1
 

Please take a moment and make a financial contribution to TheFunded. If we have helped you, help us with resources to further grow the both the site and our entrepreneur training program, The Founder Institute.

Pasadena Angels  CERTIFIED

Firm Rating:

Rated 2.1 / 5.0 by 8
Track
Record
2.1
Operating
Competence
2.0
Pitching
Efficiency
2.2
Favorable
Deal Terms
2.0
Execution
Assistance
2.3

Firm Homepage:

FIRM OVERVIEW: Small Angels founded in 2000 based out of Altadena, US (US West)

FIRM DESCRIPTION: We provide long-term human and financial capital to help build successful companies throughout Los Angeles and Southern California. We invest in early stage companies in a broad range of industries including, but not limited to technology, that have the potential to build sustainable and successful businesses.

TEAM MEMBERS: Al Schneider, Bob Aholt, Bruce Blomstrom, Charles Stephens, Dave Wiens, DuWayne Peterson, Elliot Shell, Gary Awad, Jim Schaefer, Joe Platnick, John Delacruz, John Paul Isaacson, Kevin Scanlon, Marcus Filipovich, Stender Sweeney, William Battison, William Zimmerman,

1
Agree
0
Disagree

Worth the Effort

Fund: Pasadena Angels

Posted by Anonymous on 2010-12-10

PUBLIC:

I had a chance to get into one of their pre-screening sessions, in which a short 10 min pitch was made by a number of companies, and I was allowed to stay in the room during the discussions. Team, story, market size, competition etc were discussed in a rapid, to the point, 5-10 min discussion. Some were selected to come for the pitch to all members. I found the opinions expressed to be sharp and insightful, and all the companies were given feedback, even though some were told bluntly that what they presented did was not convincing, and some were told to come back if they solve some issues. Smart people. I had the feeling they may be a bit risk adverse as I noticed in one of the comments, but there is diversity in the group, since all are independent investors, and I understand there have been cases where even one of them decided to solely invest since he believed it was worthwhile, regardless the opinion of others. I would say they are worth pitching to. I did not find them arrogant or hard to approach, while in the same time they clearly can provide feedback which is helpful. Questions asked however were clear to the point, and I know that some of them would have hurt me as an entrepreneur because I did not have a good answer, I almost felt unfair to be asked that...

PRIVATE: Members Only

5
Agree
0
Disagree

Not Sure Why I Bothered

Fund: Pasadena Angels

Posted by kinflip on 2009-04-17

PUBLIC:

It was suggested I submit our exec summary through the Angelsoft website after getting a strong intro to one of the founders of the group. I assumed it was a pro forma exercise to adhere to their internal deal flow process. Submission was rejected out of hand by their screener. Spoke with the founder a number of times after exchanging many emails. Abandoned the idea of pitching the group as it seems like a waste of time.

PRIVATE: Members Only (455 Characters)

3
Agree
0
Disagree

Easy to Approach

Fund: Pasadena Angels

Posted by Anonymous on 2008-08-28

PUBLIC:

Recently pitched Pasadena Angels. Because the members of the consortium are individuals who invest together, meeting face-to-face with one of the 'Directors' is usually the most effective method to engage them. A few of them hold coffee shop pitch sessions throughout the Southland.

PRIVATE: Members Only (281 Characters)

7
Agree
0
Disagree

Low Risk Tolerance.

Fund: Pasadena Angels

Posted by SoCalNoCal on 2007-09-19

PUBLIC:

The Pasadena group is pretty well organized and they have some really sharp people in the group, but in my opinion they are too risk averse. It's not really angel investing if a company has a complete product and is in revenues. I think some of the members won't invest unless you are already profitable. This is supposed to be the high risk/high reward 3% of a portfolio. You are never going to hit a home run if you are swinging for singles.

PRIVATE: Members Only (76 Characters)

1
Agree
0
Disagree

Update on the P As

Fund: Pasadena Angels

Posted by MikeGlanz on 2007-09-17

PUBLIC:

After reading the my post on TheFunded they got into contact with me and apologized for me getting "lost in their system".
They promptly put me in contact with Wayne Carter and we met to discuss the company and funding options. Wayne was a good resource and brought up the tough questions right away (which I take to mean he understood the concept of our company).
Once we actually got into contact with real people over there, they were very considerate and brought great discussion to the table.

PRIVATE: Members Only (625 Characters)

3
Agree
1
Disagree

Beware Unprofessionalism and Cold Shoulder

Fund: Pasadena Angels

Posted by MikeGlanz on 2007-09-07

PUBLIC:

I took the time to create a custom packet for the PAs, and in return I got a cookie cutter email... That was to be expected I guess... I'd send similar packets off to other groups of Angels who were nothing if not impressed by the quality, detail, and good organization of the packet.
The email they sent back mentioned they would get into contact with me in the near future... and it still hasn't happened. I know I'm on the entrepreneur side of the fence, but it seems to me if you want people to jump through hoops for the application (TechCoastAngels did this too) then you can at least have the courtesy of calling and at least pretending like your too busy, or you don't fund this kind of venture or something.

Update: The PA's did eventually get in touch with me.

PRIVATE: Members Only (306 Characters)