It’s funny how almost nobody invests in anybody past 40. You can get paid, even paid very well, but not invested in. If it looks like investment in an individual, look again. It will actually be investment in something adjacent like a privileged network position.
Conversation
Replying to
This is a good default btw. Humans fall off an investment-worthiness cliff at 40. Under 40, almost everybody is investment-grade if you look from the right angle and are prepared to do a bit of psyche fixing. Above 40 almost nobody is. Humans turn into bonds at 40 at best.
4
1
24
At 39: “My name is Stock, James Stock.”
At 41: “My name is Bond, James Bond.”
1
1
44
A major reason is that it’s just more expensive to invest in anyone above 40. Typically they have a partner and often kids and houses too. More constraints, higher minimum viable bet, lower risk appetite. But those are not the core. Some sort of cultural phase transition.
3
1
21
Middle age is a better defined life-stage than people realize. It’s not a vague opt-in transition to cringe you choose. It’s as well-defined and inevitable as adolescence. It’s just not very well characterized except in terms of crappening health and cultural tropes.
2
1
21
Replying to
Forget where I saw it, but the ratio of startup success goes up with age of founders.
But older folks aren’t much in the environment where innovation happens, or where the money is being tossed around.
They’re at home, human-ing with their family, as humans do.
1
4
Replying to
the median age of successful founder is 39.2 according to Kaufmann, but notably, the outsize successes tend younger. The older ones produce a higher hit rate of lower magnitude.
1
13
Show replies
Replying to
My mom started her phd at 40 with scholarship and became a professor, etc.
So if you're 5'0" tall, and baby-faced with no gray hair anything is possible! That's why I moisturize and wear sunscreen religiously.
1
10



