3 ms·

I think investing in 20 year olds is a bad idea because at that age, they haven't had the time to properly fail. This makes them arrogant and unwilling to liste

I think investing in 20 year olds is a bad idea because at that age, they haven't had the time to properly fail. This makes them arrogant and unwilling to listen to advice from older people who are smarter but not financially successful.

onion2k 7y ago
I think investing in 20 year olds is a bad idea because at that age, they haven't had the time to properly fail. You're right on average but investors aren't looking for average people to invest in. I was on an accelerator with a very talented founder who had started a company, built it up to something significant, and subsequently cashed out before he was 20. Some 20 year olds are on their second or third business by then. They're exceptions rather than the rule, certainly, but that's exactly who investors should be looking for. The only thing investors need to remember is that age isn't an indication of anything very interesting. People will have amazing ideas and the drive to execute them at 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 80...
- optimuspaul 7y ago
  But have they failed? The arrogance will be even stronger in someone who has had success so early. Risk is much higher with such an individual. I think that you are partially right however, age isn't an indicator but combined with other metrics is an indicator. I'll take a 20 year old who has tried and failed over a 20 year old who has tried and succeeded. My gut tells me the former has learned far more. But those are generalizations, everyone is different, the failure case could actually be ineptitude and they haven't learned anything.
  - SkyPuncher 7y ago
    Failing is merely a path to understanding what success doesn't look like. Lots of founders are extremely aware of their shortcomings and the luck involved - leading appropriately as a result.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    I'm reminded of the joke about the guy who threw away half the CVs he recieved because he didn't want to hire unlucky people.
  - onion2k 7y ago
    But have they failed? The arrogance will be even stronger in someone who has had success so early. Risk is much higher with such an individual. The risk associated with backing a founder who has failed at something is a lot higher than backing a founder who has succeeded in a previous startup. You can't just ignore people's experience and assume that failing at something counts for more than successfully running and exiting a business. There's loads of evidence that people succeed in their second venture after a successful exit more often than founders succeed in their first startup. Investors are very sensible looking at someone's track record.
- cryptica 7y ago
  If a 20 year old succeeds. They got lucky. There are no special skills needed. Even if they are serial entrepreneurs. Once you have the right social network, it doesn't really matter what you do, you will succeed. Anyone who was a friend of Mark Zuckerberg during its growth phase could have been a serial entrepreneur and millionaire many times over even without trying. Heck, the artist who painted their wall made hundreds of millions.
  - onion2k 7y ago
    I think it's fair to say no deep domain knowledge is needed if you succeed by the time you're 20. That takes time. But skills can be learned fast, and sometimes a skill such as selling can be little more than a talent. That can be enough to succeed, and someone who is genuinely good at selling can be well worth investing in. Age is simply not a good metric for choosing who to invest in. It doesn't correlate (or inversely correlate) with any likelihood of success.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

onion2k 7y ago

I think investing in 20 year olds is a bad idea because at that age, they haven't had the time to properly fail. You're right on average but investors aren't looking for average people to invest in. I was on an accelerator with a very talented founder who had started a company, built it up to something significant, and subsequently cashed out before he was 20. Some 20 year olds are on their second or third business by then. They're exceptions rather than the rule, certainly, but that's exactly who investors should be looking for. The only thing investors need to remember is that age isn't an indication of anything very interesting. People will have amazing ideas and the drive to execute them at 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 80...

optimuspaul 7y ago
But have they failed? The arrogance will be even stronger in someone who has had success so early. Risk is much higher with such an individual. I think that you are partially right however, age isn't an indicator but combined with other metrics is an indicator. I'll take a 20 year old who has tried and failed over a 20 year old who has tried and succeeded. My gut tells me the former has learned far more. But those are generalizations, everyone is different, the failure case could actually be ineptitude and they haven't learned anything.
- SkyPuncher 7y ago
  Failing is merely a path to understanding what success doesn't look like. Lots of founders are extremely aware of their shortcomings and the luck involved - leading appropriately as a result.
- pjc50 7y ago
  I'm reminded of the joke about the guy who threw away half the CVs he recieved because he didn't want to hire unlucky people.
- onion2k 7y ago
  But have they failed? The arrogance will be even stronger in someone who has had success so early. Risk is much higher with such an individual. The risk associated with backing a founder who has failed at something is a lot higher than backing a founder who has succeeded in a previous startup. You can't just ignore people's experience and assume that failing at something counts for more than successfully running and exiting a business. There's loads of evidence that people succeed in their second venture after a successful exit more often than founders succeed in their first startup. Investors are very sensible looking at someone's track record.
cryptica 7y ago
If a 20 year old succeeds. They got lucky. There are no special skills needed. Even if they are serial entrepreneurs. Once you have the right social network, it doesn't really matter what you do, you will succeed. Anyone who was a friend of Mark Zuckerberg during its growth phase could have been a serial entrepreneur and millionaire many times over even without trying. Heck, the artist who painted their wall made hundreds of millions.
- onion2k 7y ago
  I think it's fair to say no deep domain knowledge is needed if you succeed by the time you're 20. That takes time. But skills can be learned fast, and sometimes a skill such as selling can be little more than a talent. That can be enough to succeed, and someone who is genuinely good at selling can be well worth investing in. Age is simply not a good metric for choosing who to invest in. It doesn't correlate (or inversely correlate) with any likelihood of success.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]