You need your particular brand of venture capital to be perceived to be profitable. If you have $4.2 billion under management during a year, you took $126 million in non-performance based fees that year. A16Z could make a ton of risky investments, collect fees, and die out in 7 years (2009 + 7 = 2016)—it really doesn't matter to its partners. They banked their fees.
Mutual funds aren't necessarily more performant than buying index funds. Many forms of investment aren't. You're not appreciating how a smart manager can use time and a fee structure to enrich himself handsomely without actually delivering results for investors.
Venture capital wouldn't exist if it wasn't profitable, sure, but Sandhill Road? That's an artifact of how venture capital is done and taken advantage of by real human beings, not of how profitable it is.
The people who started A16Z have had multiple billion dollar exits, and are investing their management fee in services for their founders. They only make money from carry (if the fund is successful).
[1] http://fortune.com/2015/05/19/hedge-funds-mediocrity/ [2] http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/08/calpers-private-equit...