I meant that I've wondered how much goes from the investors to the VCs (but then not back to the investors) via property rentals. I used "laundering" in the sense of "covering up where the money came from."

In my imaginary property model, the VCs make money regardless of whether the companies they back succeed, while the investors only win 1 out of 7 times, upon company successful exit. To the investors, it _looks_ like they've put a lot of money in the startups, but a significant portion of that goes back to property rental companies via salaries and office rentals. Which would be lower anywhere else, which is why I suspect the VCs are disincentivized to move companies elsewhere (or invest elsewhere). They make the most rent here.

But I don't actually know anything factual, like how many VC people privately hold heavy investments in bay area REITs. Even a well-intentioned (dedicated to making their client companies successful) VC would be a fool to not invest in REITs, now that the cycle is here, but after a few years of that and seeing where their money really comes from, I wonder if they can keep their good intentions.