« The Age Question (continued) | Main | Happy Father's Day »
The Age Question (final post)
So yesterday I pissed off Dave Winer, Scott Karp, Steven Hodson, and a host of others who have weighed in heavily in the comments.
I guess I knew it was gonna happen because I was uneasy about writing the post in the first place.
I've been reluctant because I don't want to pick at this scab of a meme. I really don't want to be the guy who made it harder for anyone older than 30 to get funded in the web services market.
It's also a bit frustrating to me to be so misunderstood. Yesterday's post was the third in a series of musings (yes, that is what they are) on the age question.
It all started with a post where I mentioned several conversations with mid life entrepreneurs I know well who are struggling with "what to do next" issues.
That post was also misinterpreted as a "young is better" post. It wasn't. In that post I pointed out that in our portfolio, there are more 40 and 50 somethings than 20 somethings.
But because I was unhappy with the way people interpreted that post, I followed with one where I said age is a mindset and encouraged entrepreneurs of all ages to go for it. Clay accused me of "waffling" with that second post.
I guess I should have left it at that. But Brad and I were talking on Friday about the sheer volume of young entrepreneurs we are seeing that is unprecedented in my 20 years in the VC business. Contrary to one of the comments from yesterday, this is not like what happened during the bubble. Back then it was newly minted MBAs starting companies out of greed. This is different. This is 15 to 20 year old kids building and launching authentic web services that fill a real need in the market.
Let me re-emphasize a point that I've now made three times but seems to be ignored by all the people who I've annoyed. We have funded only one 20 something entrepreneur in close to 15 investments we've made so far in our fund. I am sure we'll do more but we are not going to be a fund focused on 25 year olds and younger as Scott Karp suggests.
Dave Winer has been a frequent recipient of praise on this blog for inventing the concept of syndication that drives the whole distributed media model. He knows that I think his contributions to the Internet and web services are huge.
So to Dave and everyone else I've pissed off, please take a second to read everything I've written on this subject. I am not an ageist. I would gladly back an entrepreneur who was 80 if they were doing something interesting.
This blog is about transparency - sharing with everyone what I am seeing and thinking. I am seeing way more super young entrepreneurs than I've ever seen. That's a fact. End of story. No more posting on this topic.
June 17, 2007 in Venture Capital and Technology | Permalink
Comments
In this post you're saying that you're seeing a lot of kids creating companies that fill a real need. The real need part is hugely debatable, because I've seen a lot of clones, not to mention ripped off code in some of the 'new' efforts. However, I can believe about the companies because any college student can hack together a company.
But you attached this to being able to see or generate a paradigm shift, which is something massively different. Frankly, you do deserve the ageist term being thrown on you, as others have picked up what you said and extrapolated from that to "old guys can't create new things", according to one of your budding young thing billionaire wannabes.
But let's not stop there -- of the companies that we hear much about, many were created by people in school or right out of school, most came from fairly affluent backgrounds with, we assume, more time and money to experiment, primarily American, white, and male, so let's see you continue your post and write about how only affluent, white, American males understand the net enough to innovate. After all -- if we're looking for patterns within the VC funding community, why stop at just age?
Posted by: Shelley | Jun 17, 2007 9:03:06 AM
Fred,
You simply can't win with this one -- any discussion of it, no matter how balanced, is bound to piss of some of the people all of the time or all of the people some of the time.
The reality is that age is a double-edged sword. Younger people don't carry the baggage that often hinders innovation, but they also don't have the experience that can prevent naive mistakes (like not seeing your dialog box options through other people's eyes).
Saying that age is a determining factor in entrepreneurial success is like saying that tireless devotion to your idea and attention to detail are determining factors -- there are many factors that are important, but strengths in some can make up for deficits in others.
What's more important than age is probably the ability to constantly challenge your own assumptions and to see your product/service through the eyes of all of the customers you want to serve.
Perhaps it's a bit like fiction writing -- a great writer can see the world through different characters eyes and is not limited by their own identity.
(And you know I was being facetious about a fund for 25 and under -- a great fund is diverse, just like successful entrepreneurs are diverse.)
Posted by: Scott Karp | Jun 17, 2007 9:20:53 AM
Wow. This points out a big problem with "conversations" in blogs. Personally, I thought your point was clearly articulated, well-made and correct from my perspective.
Your point wasn't that somebody like Winer CAN'T be net native. I consider myself net native -- had a blog and homepage since before they called them "blogs" and since I was 22 or so. But I'm pretty much the only one of my friends from college who is like that. Your point was that this is the first "net native" generation - -where that type of online existence and activity is more normal than abnormal.
Posted by: scotty the body | Jun 17, 2007 9:34:38 AM
Oh, and as a second point. You mention that these "net native" youngsters are the types that whip out a quick web service etc. I think this is where being of this generation of "net native" kids is a small, but growing and, eventually, nearly insurmountable advantage. The great developments in software often come from "scratching an itch" -- creating something that one sees as missing from your tools/world/activities.
oldsters like me, Winer and you are simply not going to have the same itches as these youngsters will as they grow in number and their social/cultural interaction begins to produce these needs. In other words, a top-down marketed phenom like Facebook, that probably wasn't started by the chitlins but was massively adopted by them, can always be a hit. But top-down won't dream up some of the things we'll see in the near future.
Posted by: scotty the body | Jun 17, 2007 9:39:33 AM
It's really not that this specific generation is suddenly more creative, or entrepreneurial. It's that we're all communicating differently.
Posted by: Peter | Jun 17, 2007 9:50:42 AM
The difference between the newly minted MBAs who "got the internet" and people actually building useful applications IS a huge difference, one that I should have realized that you were aware of.
I still think you completely misunderstood the history behind Andreeson's statement:
The web design patterns he's talking about were developed over the last decade by web developers, graphic designers and information architects through many iterations. Are you REALLY better off with a 20 something aping existing design patterns, or a 30 something information architect who spent the last 8 years DEVELOPING those design patterns?
More important than design patterns to my mind is the stable commercial and open source software stack that allows money to be spent on content and business model specific function, and not web infrastructure.
and VASTLY more important that either of those is broadband penetration and the massive increase in the market size of people who are comfortable working, buying and living online.
Posted by: Jonathan Peterson | Jun 17, 2007 9:52:37 AM
Fred - Happy Father's Day!
This has been an interesting topic to read about. I have to agree with Shelley on her comment that you might as well muse about "only affluent, white, American males understand the net enough to innovate" if you are going to muse about "age." My guess is that 90%+ of ventures funded fit the 'white, American male' category...with a majority of the rest being Asian.
From my experience, VCs try to put in a 'box' their expectations of what good businesses/entrepreneurs look like. However, looking back many of the biggest long term success stories in the recent past probably didn't have VC money thrown at them right out of the gate. They had to prove their market and even convince people that what they were doing was going to make sense because often it didn't make sense at the time (e.g., In the '50s I believe the experts felt the market for personal computers would not exceed something like a handful).
As for why you are seeing more really young entrepreneurs than in the past...my guess is that it might be a 'fad.' It's not easy building a company, but people who are financially successful are put forth as heros in our society so why wouldn't a 15 year old 'go for it?' It's the same reason why a lot of 15 year old guys aim to be football/basketball stars. However becoming a millionaire sports figure takes less up front capital than starting a financially successful business. It's a great dream but few make it to the top.
Personally, I find it difficult to apply hard & fast metrics to such a unique career path as entrepreneurship. Financial success comes in all shapes and sizes. If you'd like to see some articles I've co-written on often well known people's views on success, please see http://www.babblesoft.com/articles.php.
Aruni
Posted by: Aruni | Jun 17, 2007 10:02:04 AM
I dont weigh on too heavily on either side but I will say that is good to see you putting yourself out there. Definitely makes for interesting reading and commentary.
FYI I dont think your posts were unbalanced or unclear. I think people who are reacting harshly one way or another need to just step back and look at the data as you have done. Then they can come up with their own musings. Heck if they are half as interesting as yours people might even read them!
Posted by: Jesse Chenard | Jun 17, 2007 10:15:06 AM
I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Fred posts some observations about the numbers he's seeing, and people take it personally. It could hardly be clearer that he's not ageist. This is shooting the messenger.
The world is a changing place, as usual. Technology and knowledge is better understood and packaged and available, especially to youth, as usual. Kids of 15 can do things today (including starting companies, which takes 10 minutes on the web) that older people wouldn't have dreamed of at 15, as usual.
There's a tendency to let two questions overlap here. One is whether young people do better at starting and running companies, etc. The other is whether young people are inherently different simply because they're young.
I don't think there's enough evidence on the first question to know the answer. Personally, I doubt that young inexperienced people are better than older more experienced people on this question.
But, young people ARE different. They think differently. It's very clear. The easiest way to see it is to ask yourself whether (at least with regards to technology) you're more advanced (or similar word) than your own parents? Of course you are. Of course. How could you not be? Ask all your friends the same question, and they'll probably all say the same thing. Now just extrapolate.
The "but we invented it" argument doesn't hold water. Bicycles were invented many generations ago, and in many respects haven't changed that much. But look at the innovations in cycling of the last 20 years! Kids are doing things on bicycles that people of my generation (I'm 43) never contemplated. Or take skateboards. The basic form hasn't changed much in the last 20 years. Arguably, my generation invented the skateboard. But when we were kids the Ollie and grinding etc. hadn't been thought of and the kinds of tricks that regular kids in the street are doing today would have blown our minds in the 70s. We had almost exactly the same gear. Back then, the ultimate in coolness was to do a few 360's and maybe a handstand. If a mundane object like a skateboard or a bicycle can be put to such novel use, who can doubt what the internet/web can be made to do/look like in the hands of people who push the envelope? It's very clear that successive generations of users (aka "kids") push the envelope.
The internet, and of course the web, are not mature technologies. Our kids are still discovering amazing new way to use bikes 120 years after the invention of the "safety" bicycle. So we probably have a fair way to go on the internet/web. The sheer numbers alone argue that most of the innovation will come from people much younger than the current generation of users, some of whom are undoubtedly yet to be born, and none of whom will have had anything to do with the invention.
In summary: are youth better at starting and running companies? Don't know. Are they different from us? Hell yes.
It's probably useful to keep the two questions apart.
Another thought worth considering: in some cases (see above) it may take adults to invent something and bring it to market, but kids to figure out how to really use it.
Posted by: Terry Jones | Jun 17, 2007 10:33:38 AM
Personally, I think it comes down to how far forward you tend to look.
When you're young, you don't have a lot of business experience,so you tend to focus on the immediate: your friends, your users.
When you're older, you focus further out on markets and partnerships -- key areas that can help build a strong, long-term business.
But the Web is expanding and evolving so quickly that thinking too far forward can confuse the clarity and purpose of your startup and really hurt you.
Youtube, for example, would never have been started by a seasoned executive -- it had an anti-business model really (copyright nightmare), but was super-fun for users.
Posted by: Tim | Jun 17, 2007 10:55:51 AM
I think it's good to piss people off, that means you've made some others very happy.
Good to stick to your guns and move on. Happy Father's Day Fred.
Posted by: Eric | Jun 17, 2007 11:34:01 AM
Speaking as one of the younger people, I can say that as far as consumer web products/services go - you couldn't be more on. However, when it comes to running an actual business that depends on something besides AdSense or other online ads? We (my generation) doesn't have the business experience needed to run something like that. The businesses we put together are hacks, that aren't solid, but are "cool" or can get lots of "views" and so they get snatched up.
Posted by: nick | Jun 17, 2007 12:11:56 PM
"Age" is your "eHub". :)
Posted by: Charlie | Jun 17, 2007 12:20:10 PM
I think people misinterpret your observations for an endorsement of the situation. I think it's important to identify the pink elephant in the middle of the livingroom, or however that expression goes. Ageism exists but it's hard to blame the kids, when I was 21 I thought 25 was ancient and had no patience for people over 30 who weren't wildly successful because I assumed that anything could happen in ten years.
Posted by: angela penny | Jun 17, 2007 12:23:24 PM
What's really frustrating about this is that the underlying "age good, old bad" attitude trickles down and infects the entire industry. That 26-year-old CEO is not going to be inclined to hire a 43-year old CTO. He's going to hire his buddy, who will tap his network to fill other key slots. Maybe the VCs will help them hire a CFO, but that CFO will probably be the only 40-something in the organization.
I'm 40, have an MBA, and have been working as a tech professional since 1995. I love this business and I still have plenty to contribute -- including the experience of having had my own startup and working at several others. And I'm finding it harder and harder to get a job. I've dyed out the grey in my hair and chopped all pre-1995 history off my resume, in the hopes that that will help, but I think it's the tell-tale date I graduated from college that's the problem. I haven't resorted to lying about when I graduated but that may well be the next step.
What are all us 40-something technologists supposed to do? Conveniently disappear into obscurity? We're not young and sexy anymore, but we know what we're doing and we love to do it. If only someone would hire us and let us prove it.....
Posted by: Techie from NYC | Jun 17, 2007 12:27:46 PM
Fred, I read your post carefully, and tried to give you the benefit of all the disclaimers you made and wrote mine carefully too.
I don't think I misinterpreted you, rather I didn't interpret you the way you wanted to be interpreted.
I hope this isn't really your final post, because I want this to be the beginning of something, not the end. A long time ago I gave up on being creative with businesses, I think largely because of the bias against people like me. Whether that's a function of age, ethnicity, personal demeanor, appearance, the fact that I blog (and am outspoken) I don't know -- because it's about other people's minds, and I can't read other people's minds.
But I have some ideas and I would love to find a way to work with financiers. So I hope you'll read my post today with an open mind, it's not meant as an attack, it's meant as a proposal to ideate.
Posted by: Dave Winer | Jun 17, 2007 12:36:49 PM
I still say its Asperger's. The first generation has come of age. Selective mutation. Makes me glad I write poetry.
Posted by: jeneane | Jun 17, 2007 12:38:29 PM
I also think that it is a function of the fact that you are a VC who blogs. Of course you're going to see more young people now than you used to! Your blog (and similar VC blogs I read) make VCs seem more open and approachable than I had assumed. I would be willing to bet that you see a higher percentage of young entrepreneurs than non-blogging VCs.
(I am just over 30, so I'm not one of the "net natives" as you defined them, but I'm close. Still, VC blogs have made VCs seem approachable to me, whereas before that was definitely not the case. So, I assume that this applies even more forcefully to young people: I know that when I was 25 I would have never approached a VC, but maybe if I was 25 now I would...)
Posted by: Peter Armstrong | Jun 17, 2007 1:37:10 PM
I'm always in awe when I read a post by Shelley :)
(Sorry for the spam)
Posted by: anon | Jun 17, 2007 2:03:27 PM
Fred,
I think the series of posts were all well-written, and I believe we are unfortunately living in a time where people almost seek to take offense at a comment. I interpret your posts as "there's a whole generation of people whose worldview is heavily influenced on having computers and the Internet always accessible and their inventions will be radically different than generations before them." I still don't get how others are reading "old people are dumb" (or whatever they want to think), but it's disappointing that the main discussion amongst your naysayers has twisted the theme so far.
Keep it up!
jt
Posted by: Jeremy Toeman | Jun 17, 2007 2:14:04 PM
Pissing people off is good. Gets them off their collective asses and might get them starting something they might not have. Your blog posts on this matter were not trolling but they could still make people get riled up enough to finally start that "thing" they always wanted to start. I'm reminded of Principle Skinner in the Simpsons "Oh Edna we both know these children have no future!! *uneasy laughter* Prove me wrong kids, prove me wrong!"
Over here in Ireland it appears we have absolutely no kids and no young people trying their hand at building anything. They all want jobs working in insurance companies and banks. Nobody wants to take risks and be the next "whoever".
Posted by: Damien Mulley | Jun 17, 2007 2:30:59 PM
I believe the string of comments in all the posts related to this topic are a clear indication of how people choose to see themselves and the world. You can accept, perceive or believe what someone else chooses to say based on their observations or come to your own conclusions.
You can allow your own conclusions and those of others to further confirm a belief that will hinder your own actions and decisions or do what you were setting out to do anyway.
Even if it was a fact(which it obviously is not and never will be) that all funds being funded today were those of 15-20 year olds, white or Asian males, it wouldn't stop me from going after my own funding and finding a way to get funded.
Sharing of opinions is wonderful. Making educated and non-emotional decisions is always key, no matter what.
Always keep your course and be careful of what perceptions you choose...because that's when they will become your reality and your excuses.
Posted by: Ann Bernard | Jun 17, 2007 2:38:06 PM
Being a 40+ CEO that is boot strapping a podcast media company startup, with a team of very talented 27 to 50 years olds has been very rewarding.
The risk are more pronounced as we all have families and children to raise. That being said we really examined critically the revenue models so as to make sure what we have road mapped will succeed.
At 40+ I put in 18-20 hours days, seven days a week into the company as the stakes are much larger for us as it would be for a 20 year old that can just move on to the next venture or can fallback to a family support syetsm
The maturity of the team also allows us to pull past experiences into the equation and while my company faces the challenge of not being part of the "IN" crowd in the Valley, and also overcoming perceptions like you have written.
We have team members that are full time on this venture without pay, with families that have made a commitments to this venture beyond what most 20 year olds would ever be able to make in similar circumstances.
Posted by: Todd Cochrane | Jun 17, 2007 3:34:20 PM
Here is a comic take:
http://toondoo.com/toondoo/View.toon?param=28682
Posted by: Sridhar Vembu | Jun 17, 2007 4:07:08 PM
It's not just funding it's management teams too. I'm in my thirties and have much to offer many start ups. Not as many people are reaching out as too many people are still building companies like pyramids instead of tree trunks.
Posted by: David | Jun 17, 2007 5:01:54 PM
losing my edge / lcd sound system
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON1eRJtoOrg
Posted by: cosmicray | Jun 17, 2007 5:12:10 PM
Regarding your "mid-life" entrepreneurs -- come and join me at http://nationalcomputerassociation.com
There is a lot of work to be done -- let's talk about it!!!
Posted by: Doug Skoglund | Jun 17, 2007 5:34:55 PM
Smart is smart. Has nothing to do with age.
I think you're seeing more young entrepreneurs because they're seeing the fun side of instant success, like YouTube. I hate to say it but not one of the 20 somethings I know who have businesses are doing well. They make stupid decisions with the money, struggle with the long hours, still think they need to have the facials and tables at the clubs which their income can't support so it comes out of the company...
Just my 2 cents. I'd take an older, seasoned enterpreneur with the ability to drive the business over anybody 20, any day.
Posted by: Patricia | Jun 17, 2007 6:32:18 PM
"Back then it was newly minted MBAs starting companies out of greed. This is different. This is 15 to 20 year old kids building and launching authentic web services that fill a real need in the market."
these are not mutually exclusive characteristics! . . . greed can fill a real need in a market (supply and demand!) . .. lack of greed doesnt mean the resulting product will serve any need. . .
Posted by: will | Jun 17, 2007 7:36:09 PM
Reconciling the partial truth of what you have noted with the dissenting views is easy and you've started to do it above:
* There are *many* more young people engaging in online biz ideas than there are older startup founders.
* Therefore if you look at successful online biz you'll see more young people in charge of those companies.
However:
Age probably has no predictive power vis a vis successful internet business.
Because:
If you looked at all startups along with age of founders you would (probably) see that age is not correlated with success.
Posted by: Joseph Hunkins | Jun 17, 2007 7:58:14 PM
Any publicity is good publicity, right? I do think age has an impact. It's the old adage of a kid touching the stove, right? The young people I work with are fearless. This is a blessing and a curse.
Without fear, they are willing to take risks. This is fantastic... unless the risk is on your client. I work for a major Email Service Provider. Our product assists marketers in communicating with their customers and prospects.
The problem with acting fearless is that a minor change in the development of the application can have a negative impact across 15,000 users. That's something that demands respect.
I also find that our younger employees don't recognize boundaries and don't fear raising the red flag. This is another blessing and curse. Not recognizing boundaries is okay - unless the boundary you're crossing happens to be someone else's expertise. It's something that requires respect.
Raising the red flag is great, except when a company is full of employees that aren't afraid to do it. The net effect is a production line that can't move.
With experience comes the ability to evaluate these situations and act accordingly. I'm not afraid to fail, but I'm respectful and insistent that my failures won't impact our clients!
It's a good discussion. I suppose at the end of the day, it's all about balance.
Posted by: Douglas Karr | Jun 17, 2007 9:47:14 PM
Please don't start filtering what you say because a couple of "respected" names get upset. This is an interesting topic. If you have another insight or observation on age, let us have it. We subscribe because we're interested in what you think.
Thanks for making the effort to share your thoughts and ideas - more than most of us do.
Posted by: Nate | Jun 17, 2007 10:03:37 PM
You know Fred, this reminds me of the MBA program I attended in France. It was an executive program for people w/a minimum of 10 yrs work experience. The grading was a check or check plus system, no actual grades. The reason being that it was about learning not about ranking/grading students, we were all old enough to be comfortable in our abilities. I was there for the richness of the information being shared by top-notch professors from around the world. Some students however, were up in arms that there wasn't a more formal grading system. They felt slighted. It was actually pretty amazing to see the reactions, as though the info they'd be getting was less valuable because there'd be no grades for their assignments.
All this to say, who cares what Dave & company think, you've merely been reporting on your observations and "them's the facts". I found no value judgments in any of your comments, but to see how some people ran to take positions as though their entrepreneurial integrity was being judged was amazing. I'd say this was more a projection of their own insecurities than anything you actually said.
Thanks for raising the issue, as it was a good one to note.
Posted by: P-Air | Jun 18, 2007 2:35:25 AM
wait, so let me get this straight. you ONLY support young entrepreneurs?! ageist!
Posted by: hmmm | Jun 18, 2007 7:52:27 AM
Aruba, Starent, Infinera are hot 2007 IPO's of note that were recently in the news. None of them were started by 20-somethings.
I think you have a software-centric focus. There may well be a significant number of successful 20-somethings in software businesses. But software is a subset of technology and one cannot apply the observations here to technology in general.
Consider this: the global market for communications equipment exceeds 1 trillion dollars -- there's a lot of opportunity there for domain specific expertise that often times requires an advanced degree and experience in the industry. Companies such as Qualcomm and Broadcom are other examples where the founders were well-established in their careers, i.e. not 20-something.
Posted by: Andrew Haydon | Jun 18, 2007 10:22:10 AM
At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since.
--Salvadore Dali
Old age is like everything else. To make a success of it, you've got to start young.
--Theodore Roosevelt
I think age is a very high price to pay for maturity.
--Tom Stoppard
Posted by: Steve Kane | Jun 18, 2007 11:29:02 AM
Hi, Fred,
This has been a great discussion. I've read all your blogs on the age issue, and a bunch of the comments both here and elsewhere. You really touched a nerve.
To make a point, I'll hugely oversimplify the whole thread:
1. Fred (over several blogs): "In my day-to-day life in this industry segment, I see more companies/ideas generated by the younger population than ever before. So much so that they constitute a large majority of such startups. Something to think about."
2. Lots of other people: "Wait a minute! I'm way older than that, and I'm still good for something!"
My skin in the game: I'm a 40++ CEO of a software development company. In the last 13 years of servicing companies large and small, we've worked with about 30 Internet startups of various flavors. Currently, among other clients, we're working with three startups, all driven by 40+ CEOs.
My first reaction was very much along the line in #2 above - "I'm over 40! How dare he say I'm over the hill! Why, I'm just as Internet savvy as any kid still in high school! I had my first email account in 1981! I ran a small corner of Usenet in 1984! I can still out-create the whole bunch of them! I , I , I....."
And then it hit me.
I've never been anywhere near the middle of the bell curve in my entire life. I'm willing to bet that neither have a lot of others that are unhappy about your description of the ground truth as you sees it right now.
Folks, just because Fred's noticing that the middle of the curve moved to the left along the time axis, doesn't mean he's saying that that the rest of the curve has gone to 0. Those of us who used to be 4 sigma are still just as capable of kicking it in high gear. It's just that for a whole host of reasons, both good and bad, we're now 5 sigma. Or even 6 sigma.
Who cares?!! Either you can still kick it or you never could. Do your own thing, and don't worry about the distance to the middle of the curve so much.
I'm willing to bet that the smart VCs, of which I perceive Fred to be one, are just as willing to fund you now as they always were. They'll fund you based on your idea and your record. Not based on when you were born.
And if a VC worries more about your age than what you can do, then more's the pity for their LPs - their returns, if any, will not be as good as they could be. And they'll be the ones looking from the outside in, as your successful startup leaves the "Liquidity Event" station.
Sorry for a longish rant, Fred. Thanks for kickstarting a great thread.
Posted by: Ben Reytblat | Jun 19, 2007 12:06:42 AM
"this is not like what happened during the bubble. Back then it was newly minted MBAs starting companies out of greed"
Right. Better to fund a bunch of kids who have no experience and aren't interested in making money. Man am I glad I'm not one of your LPs.
Stop digging.
Posted by: wordwarp | Jun 21, 2007 5:49:15 PM
I'm only 50 (not 80), and I'm not even sure if I want venture capital, but I feel there's been a challenge thrown up. Check out my site at http://3dskimaps.com and see if you would find it interesting enough to fund. Bear in mind that there are $185 million being spent this year alone on ski areas in the Ukranian Carpathians and Kazakhstan intends to begin spending millions on seven ski areas, some old and some new.
Posted by: Dale | Jun 22, 2007 12:47:39 AM
