Financial Forecasting, Risk-taking and Venture Performance



Abstract Views
485

Downloads
372

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Oct 1, 2022
Published Nov 1, 2022
10.24018/ejbmr.2022.7.6.1693

Abstract viewed = 485 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

This conceptual paper develops a model based on prospect theory that explores how the effort entrepreneurs expend developing financial forecasts may influence risk-taking and performance. It proposes that the more effort they expend on developing forecasts, the more likely they will be to use the results of the forecasts as reference points against which they evaluate their ventures’ future performance. Furthermore, we propose that effort leads to more optimistic reference points that are less likely to be adjusted. Our model suggests that these factors are related to subsequent risk-taking by entrepreneurs. The model further suggests that, for entrepreneurs, the relationship between risk-taking and performance is moderated by the level of utility the entrepreneur experiences from venture performance.

Keywords: Forecasting, Prospect Theory, Reference Point, Risk-Taking.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Abeler, J., Falk, A., Goette, L., & Huffman, D. (2011). Reference points and effort provision. The American Economic Review, 101(2), 470-492.
     Google Scholar
  2. Astebro, T., Jeffrey, S. A., & Adomdza, G. K. (2007). Inven¬tor perseverance after being told to quit: The role of cognitive biases. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20(3), 253-272.
     Google Scholar
  3. Baron, R. A. (2004). The cognitive perspective: A valuable tool for answering entrepreneurship’s basic ‘why’ questions. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2), 221-239.
     Google Scholar
  4. Brinckmann, J., Grichnik, D., & Kapsa, D. (2010). Should entrepreneurs plan or just storm the castle? A meta-analysis on contextual factors impacting the business planning-performance relationship in small firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1), 24-40.
     Google Scholar
  5. Cassar, G. (2010). Are individuals entering self-employment overly optimistic? An empirical test of plans and projections on nascent entrepreneur expectations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(8), 822.
     Google Scholar
  6. Chwolka, A. & Raith M. G. (2012). The value of business planning before start-up—A decision-theoretical perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(3), 385-399.
     Google Scholar
  7. Cooper, A. C., & Artz, K. W. (1995). Determinants of satisfaction for entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(6), 439.
     Google Scholar
  8. Cooper, A.C., Woo, C., & Dunkelberg, W. (1988). Entrepreneurs’ perceived chances for success. Journal of Business Venturing, 3(2), 97-108.
     Google Scholar
  9. Corman, J., Perles, B., & Yancini, P. (1988). Motivational factors influencing high-technology entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 26(1), 36.
     Google Scholar
  10. Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T., & Rebmann, A. (2017). Prospect theory and the effects of bankruptcy laws on entrepreneurial aspirations. Small Business Economics, 48(4), 977-997.
     Google Scholar
  11. Hills, G. E. (1985). Market analysis in the business plan: Venture capitalists’ perceptions. Journal of Small Business Management, 23(1), 38.
     Google Scholar
  12. Hills, G.E. & Shrader, R. C. (1998). Successful entrepreneurs’ insights into opportunity recognition. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College: 30-43.
     Google Scholar
  13. Hmieleski K. & Baron R. (2009). Entrepreneurs’ optimism and new venture performance: A social cognitive perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 473-488.
     Google Scholar
  14. Hsu, D. K., Wiklund, J., & Cotton, R. D. (2017). Success, failure, and entrepreneurial reentry: An experimental assessment of the veracity of self-efficacy and prospect theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 19-47.
     Google Scholar
  15. Kahneman, D. & A. Tversky (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.
     Google Scholar
  16. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
     Google Scholar
  17. Kahneman, D., & Lovallo, D. (1993). Timid choices and bold forecasts: A cognitive perspective on risk-taking. Management Science, 39(1), 17-31.
     Google Scholar
  18. Maxwell, A. L., & Levesque, M. (2014). Trustworthiness: A critical ingredient for entrepreneurs seeking investors. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 38(5), 1057-1080.
     Google Scholar
  19. Read, D. (2007). Experienced utility: Utility theory from Jeremy Bentham to Daniel Kahneman. Thinking and Reasoning, 1(13), 45-61.
     Google Scholar
  20. Sandberg, W. R., Schweiger, D. M., & Hofer, C. W. (1988). The use of verbal protocols in determining venture capitalists’ decision processes. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13(2), 8.
     Google Scholar
  21. Shrader R. C., Simon, M. & Stanton, S. (2021). Financial forecasting and risky decisions: an experimental study grounded in prospect theory. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(4), 1827-1841.
     Google Scholar
  22. Simon, M., Houghton, S., & Savelli, S. (2003). Out of the frying pan…? Why small business managers introduce high risk products. Journal of Business Venturing. 18(3), 419 - 440.
     Google Scholar
  23. Simon, M., & Kim, J. (2017). Two sources of overconfidence: Incorporating disconfirming feedback in an entrepreneurial context. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 27(3), 9-24.
     Google Scholar
  24. Simon, M., & Shrader, R. C. (2012). Entrepreneurial actions and optimistic overconfidence: The role of motivated reasoning in new product introductions. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(3), 291.
     Google Scholar
  25. Sykes, H. B., & Dunham, D. (1995). Critical assumption planning: A practical tool for managing business development risk. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(6), 413.
     Google Scholar
  26. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207-232.
     Google Scholar
  27. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
     Google Scholar
  28. Wyer, R. S., Jr. (2008). The role of knowledge accessibility in cognition and behavior: Implications for consumer information processing. In C. P. Haugtvedt, P. M. Herr, & F. R. Kardes (Eds.), Marketing and consumer psychology series: Vol. 4. Handbook of consumer psychology (p. 31–76). Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     Google Scholar