The ownership structure (a.k.a. cap table) of a startup does matter, but it is not the number of angel investors that will decide if a startup can raise money from a reasonably competent venture investor. And it is not even the cap table as a whole.
A company is doing extraordinarily well that have a motivated founding team will be able to raise capital even with an extremely broken cap table (of which the number of angel investors would at most be a minor issue).
Pia Engholm, Mattias Miksche, Douglas Stark, Eric Quidenus-Wahlforss and Sebastian Knutsson have written an opinion piece in Breakit about angel investors and cap tables.
I think the second to last paragraph captures the main point (translated from Swedish):
“We are not aware of a single instance where a VC has turned down an investment solely because the company had a long cap table. However, your cap table should be well thought out, regardless of its length. A short cap table with passive owners can be a bigger red flag than a longer cap table with highly relevant angel investors. Most importantly, the founders and those actively working in the company should have a solid ownership stake and the right financial incentives.”
Two comments:
Firstly, having many investors early on (say 15+ investors at pre-seed) often indicates that the cap table is not well thought out from a value-add perspective (obviously taking into consideration that the most important thing investors provide is capital). If a company has a long list of angel investors like Pia Engholm, Mattias Miksche, Douglas Stark, Eric Quidenus-Wahlforss and Sebastian Knutsson that is something I (and Alliance VC as a whole) believe that is a very good thing.
Secondly, once a startup has raised venture capital (which is not for everyone) I don’t see angel investors being more reliable and supportive owners than venture funds. Sometimes they are, but mostly they are not.
