Comments on: Are young VCs better VCs?

By: sethlevine

sethlevine — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:29:07 +0000

you point out another flaw in the article. i think their assumption that many venture backed companies are founded by younger teams isnât correct. one look at our own portfolio should confirm that.Â thanks for pointing this out.

By: John Stack

John Stack — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:07:34 +0000

Let's all hope that VCs invest in winners – winning concepts and winning attitudes regardless of age. A team's age should not get in the way of the realization of a potential value to society or to its investors. This entire notion of start team age reminds me of how some people differentiate based on sex, race, or disabilities. An observation: In a way, the whole notion seems kind of paradoxical. Older VCs (say older than 45) still have a predilection to invest in young teams. If they are older, are they still qualified to judge? Are they current enough to understand? Is it he who has the gold? Out of six in the last year, the last four startups we provided consulting services to had founders older than 40. The largest seed round went to the oldest team in terms of age. The investment came from a private investor who is a known VC. The two founders were both nearing 60. What did they have? A winning concept and a winning attitude. What's more, they had contacts and reach. A compromise: Perhaps if VCs have some concerns in this area, they can hedge their bets by suggesting newer members to join the founding team. Usually the founders just want to launch and realize their potential.
I am a 50-year old startup consultant. My partner is my age. I hope what we at 3 Big Heads has to offer is currency in terms of technology and markets seasoned with understanding and experience. We don't find that young founders have a problem with our “advanced” age. They just want our brains!

By: sethlevine

sethlevine — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:25:05 +0000

just âolderâÂ

i agree with your comment. experience is important and partially why one canât over generalize that being young gives one an advantage â experience and the ability to pattern map are definitely important pieces of the puzzle.

By: sethlevine

sethlevine — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:16:04 +0000

Yikes! Youâre absolutely right Scott. Iâm really sorry about that. Correction and apology going up nowâ¦

By: Scott Austin

Scott Austin — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:33:25 +0000

Seth — one thing. The article you are referring to is from The New York Times, not my beloved Wall Street Journal. -Scott Austin

By: sethlevine

sethlevine — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:34:04 +0000

not that i'm aware of mark. it's the right question to ask.

By: Lindel

Lindel — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:25:48 +0000

Did you really just call Brad old? It's fair to say that I agree with your framing, though I do see the benefit of experience as giving older VCs with drive the advantage. It's funny how markets can be different but smell the same.

By: Zach Landes

Zach Landes — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:47:22 +0000

I don't care too much for that article's conclusions. It's based on a few bits of anecdotal evidence. It could have been a useful effort if they had looked at the ages of the VCs who have been making deals in an empirical survey. I agree with you about drive being essential – after all, in what high level business endeavor is it NOT essential?!

By: Rob Go

Rob Go — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:50:41 +0000

Great post Seth. The WSJ article way oversimplified what is indeed an important distinction between “old school” and “new school”.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:50:47 +0000

All good points. But I'm curious, is there any evidence, either statistical or anecdotal, that suggests entrepreneurs prefer younger VC's?