
A Study of 2.7M Startups Found the Ideal Age to Start a Business - nreece
https://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/a-study-of-27-million-startups-found-ideal-age-to-start-a-business-and-its-much-older-than-you-think.html
======
rogerkirkness
It's interesting to see relatively objective data come out about startups
lately and challenge the startup exceptionalism arguments. Such as: founders
must be young and unattached, companies must take VC to be big, you can tell
at the seed stage which bets will pan out and working all the time correlates
well with output. What impact would it have on startups, if those things were
in fact untrue?

------
mdorazio
The article is short and worth a read, but to save you a click: 45.

However, the data is really not presented well and it's hard to cut through
the clickbait aspect of this because the author conflates a few terms and it
at least seems like this is about "entrepreneurs" rather than the HN-type
definition of "startup". If you look at the Kellogg writeup link, the authors
apparently looked at "technology" businesses and limited the set to the 0.1%
"fastest-growing" (not sure how they determined that). The more interesting
metric to me is in the Kellogg writeup as well: average age of tech IPO
company founder is 47.

The takeaway for me is a bit different than the headline - Middle-aged
founders are more likely to start sustainable, long-view companies than their
younger counterparts. However I'd love to slice the data myself to see speed-
to-exit vs. age plotted. I think that might tell a different story and better
match VC models.

