This tells us one of two things (possibly both). Either
1. VCs have an age bias and don't fund older people, or
2. VC is a raw deal and 40+ with successful careers avoid it.
We, however, don't know which is true (or both) unless we can see pitch success rates by age.
However, I'd guess that it's a mix of the two. The age bias probably isn't deliberate. The issue is that VCs aren't passive investors but active managers, and aversion to a younger-boss dynamic is nearly universal, with exceptions only made for obvious outliers. However, I also think that capable older people tend to be savvy enough not to enter the California VC-funded "tech" (actually, mostly marketing using tech) game. There are a lot of great 50-year-olds out there, but very few are interested in anything going on in the Valley these days.
However, I'd guess that it's a mix of the two. The age bias probably isn't deliberate. The issue is that VCs aren't passive investors but active managers, and aversion to a younger-boss dynamic is nearly universal, with exceptions only made for obvious outliers. However, I also think that capable older people tend to be savvy enough not to enter the California VC-funded "tech" (actually, mostly marketing using tech) game. There are a lot of great 50-year-olds out there, but very few are interested in anything going on in the Valley these days.