Why New Venture Investors Overvalue Some Investment Proposals and Undervalue Others: Experimental Evidence

Ashish Vazirani & Titas Bhattacharjee

The Journal of Alternative Investments2025https://doi.org/10.3905/jai.2025.1.251article
AJG 2ABDC B
Weight
0.37

What the paper says

New venture investment decisions reflect misvaluations, as many deserving proposals are rejected at the initial screening phase, whereas most invested proposals fail to provide the required financial returns. This point suggests that investors overvalue and undervalue investment proposals. We use the arguments of dual process theory and salience theory to explain the cause of misvaluations by nonprofessional investors. In an experimental setup, the treated group is given time pressure to make the investment. Results show that investors under time pressure overvalue investment proposals, whereas reference-based comparison of salient information signals results in undervaluation. Results further show a significant impact of time pressure on the reference for the comparison of proposals. Investors under time pressure consider recent proposal as a reference; in contrast, they consider information from multiple previous proposals in the absence of time pressure. This study provides the specific source of misvaluations as per the context of overvaluation and undervaluation of new venture investment proposals.

1 citation

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3905/jai.2025.1.251

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{ashish2025,
  title        = {{Why New Venture Investors Overvalue Some Investment Proposals and Undervalue Others: Experimental Evidence}},
  author       = {Ashish Vazirani & Titas Bhattacharjee},
  journal      = {The Journal of Alternative Investments},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3905/jai.2025.1.251},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Why New Venture Investors Overvalue Some Investment Proposals and Undervalue Others: Experimental Evidence

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.37

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.16 × 0.4 = 0.06
M · momentum0.53 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.