The article talks about companies growing more than 34% per year as lucky... Because companies growing less than 34% is more likely to produce consistent growth

The article talks about companies growing more than 34% per year as lucky... Because companies growing less than 34% is more likely to produce consistent growth going forward. Hence, we shouldn't look to learn from top performers, but instead learn from consistent performers. The point is that there are few lessons to be learned from lucky top performers. But that there are lessons to be learned from consistent performers. That luck is an ingredient in top performers isn't surprising :) Also who cares about being top performer for one or two years, instead of being a consistent performer. Which isn't as luck dependent :)