This can be done with a low level of risk. So why isn't there any attention given to companies that, given a couple years of salaries for a few technically comp

This can be done with a low level of risk. So why isn't there any attention given to companies that, given a couple years of salaries for a few technically competent founders, could reliably and sustainably deliver 20-40% growth over the next couple of decades? I don't see this. I do see a lot of companies founded by a couple technically competent cofounders, who spend two years on the project, and end up nowhere. Building software is high risk because there is much competition and the landscape is changing so fast. If you have product ideas that are low risk, feel free to share ... :-) Some of those products end up as successful, cash-cow small businesses. Some show traction, end up taking venture money, grow at 200% for a couple years before de-accelerating to a more sustainable 20% growth rate. Also, it is exceptionally rare for a software product to grow sustainably over multiple decades. You usually are the best product for a given platform, and you take off, and you remain hot for five to ten years while that platform is hot. Or you are an also-ran and don't see enough traction to be sustainable at all. It should also be noted that while Snapchat and these hyper-growth consumer apps get the headlines, most startups do not have that trajectory (and are not designed to have that trajectory). The trajectory for most companies is spend one to three years building a product and getting to product market fit, spend a couple years at 100-300% annual growth as your product breaks through, and then decelerate gradually down to 20% growth, where you last until a new platform comes along and disrupts you. (A good company will be able to disrupt itself, and build new successful products, bad companies will decline and self-liquidate). One big hole in the investment scene is that it is very hard for first-time founders to get seed investment pre-product and pre-traction. You basically either have to bootstrap, get into YC, have connections, or get very lucky and meet an angel who is in love with the vision. That said, angel investors are probably making the economically correct choice in not funding these founders, so I'm not sure what could be done about it. I am curious if you have examples of the types of 20-40% sustained growth businesses that could exist, but don't get funded. I don't see those kind of opportunities, but maybe I am missing out.