> Even better would be a qualification of "successful". Did you... read the article? Fourth paragraph: "Among the top 0.1% of startups based on growth in the

> Even better would be a qualification of "successful". Did you... read the article? Fourth paragraph: "Among the top 0.1% of startups based on growth in their first five years, we find that the founders started their companies, on average, when they were 45 years old. These highest-performing firms were identified based on employment growth. The age finding is similar using firms with the fastest sales growth instead, and founder age is similarly high for those startups that successfully exit through an IPO or acquisition. In other words, when you look at most successful firms, the average founder age goes up, not down. Overall, the empirical evidence shows that successful entrepreneurs tend to be middle-aged, not young." You can _disagree_ with their definition of success, but they certainly have one.