Startup valuation reassessed: against celebrity, sustainability and state intervention

Christian Hugo Hoffmann
{"title":"Startup valuation reassessed: against celebrity, sustainability and state intervention","authors":"Christian Hugo Hoffmann","doi":"10.1108/jeet-08-2022-0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this study is to showcase that the valuation of startups is still considered to be more “art than science”. Moreover, such non-rigorous approaches often lead to valuations, which turn out to be too high, which in turn has become a well-known phenomenon to a broader audience due to shining examples such as We Work. This is reason enough to revisit the important topic of where we stand today with startup valuation procedures and methodologies.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nLiterature synthesis and exploratory analysis.\n\n\nFindings\nWhile some studies describe sound results about how to assess startups, what the authors found was that many questions remain open or have not been covered at all. This is the reason why the authors needed to apply a substantial amount of reasoning in the analysis of studies, which do not exactly deal with startup companies. The authors provided some interesting impulses for future research.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nBased on an original overview of the current state of research about the valuation of startup companies, this paper makes the following principal contribution to both the literature and practice: on the one hand, the authors assess four impact factors on startup values critically; on the other, the authors provide an outlook on promising future research avenues.\n","PeriodicalId":229407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ethics in Entrepreneurship and Technology","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ethics in Entrepreneurship and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jeet-08-2022-0012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to showcase that the valuation of startups is still considered to be more “art than science”. Moreover, such non-rigorous approaches often lead to valuations, which turn out to be too high, which in turn has become a well-known phenomenon to a broader audience due to shining examples such as We Work. This is reason enough to revisit the important topic of where we stand today with startup valuation procedures and methodologies. Design/methodology/approach Literature synthesis and exploratory analysis. Findings While some studies describe sound results about how to assess startups, what the authors found was that many questions remain open or have not been covered at all. This is the reason why the authors needed to apply a substantial amount of reasoning in the analysis of studies, which do not exactly deal with startup companies. The authors provided some interesting impulses for future research. Originality/value Based on an original overview of the current state of research about the valuation of startup companies, this paper makes the following principal contribution to both the literature and practice: on the one hand, the authors assess four impact factors on startup values critically; on the other, the authors provide an outlook on promising future research avenues.
重新评估创业公司的估值:与名人、可持续性和政府干预相比
本研究的目的是展示创业公司的估值仍然被认为是“艺术而不是科学”。此外,这种不严谨的方法往往会导致估值过高,而由于We Work等闪亮的例子,这反过来又成为更广泛受众所熟知的现象。这个理由足以让我们重新审视创业公司估值程序和方法的现状。设计/方法/方法文献综合和探索性分析。虽然一些研究描述了关于如何评估创业公司的可靠结果,但作者发现,许多问题仍然没有解决,或者根本没有涉及到。这就是为什么作者需要在研究分析中应用大量推理的原因,这些研究并不完全涉及初创公司。作者为未来的研究提供了一些有趣的动力。原创性/价值在对创业公司估值研究现状进行原创性综述的基础上,本文对文献和实践做出了以下主要贡献:一方面,作者批判性地评估了影响创业公司价值的四个因素;另一方面,作者对未来的研究方向进行了展望。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信