This might be a mind projection fallacy. Arguing that ones view and experience of an industry determine the state of the industry. Added to the fact that it's an authoritative argument, it has the ability to cloud the global view of the market.
I'll give a simple example. The coffee business. Dormans has been struggling with the retail coffee market for the last few years. They had to eventually get Art Cafe to run their outlets. Savannah is also struggling. I'll assume that if you asked the investors in those companies about the state of the coffee market in Kenya, they'd have very different views from Java and Art Cafe. They would not be wrong. That is their experience. It would be wrong, however, to point the entire industry with the Savannah/Dormans brush. Java has never been healthier, they are expanding, going regional. They had stores at the same locations as Dormans for a very long time, oft next to each other (Junction, Capital Center, Yaya Center, Sarit Center, CBD). So it's not the location, or the people, that took down Dormans, rather, the ability of their leadership to execute and take advantage of the opportunity in the market.
The same applies to startups. The investor is in the market for startups worth investing in. The fact that they were unable to find good companies might mean several things but I'll focus on two - they are unable to attract the right startups (an internal issue), the right startups don't exist (market issue). Now, other funds are not complaining, they are actually *increasing* their investment in the market (e.g. BRCK raised > $1M in seed capital, KopoKopo has raised >$2m etc), so it might be that they were unable to attract the right investments.
There are multiple views to a market, you need to ask several people what their views are in order to get a complete picture devoid of bias. I'm reminded of this poem, that I studied in primary school, by John Godfrey Saxe, I've pasted it below, for your amusement.
The Blind Men and the Elephant
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a WALL!"
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, "Ho, what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a SPEAR!"
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a SNAKE!"
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he:
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a TREE!"
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a FAN!"
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a ROPE!"
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!