There is a number assigned to every funded startup - a figure announced in press releases, celebrated in headlines, and repeated by founders as though speaking it aloud makes it real. That number is the valuation. And it is, in almost every meaningful sense, a story.

Not a lie, exactly. But not the truth either. Somewhere in between - a collective agreement between investors and founders that a company is worth what they say it is worth, because enough people in the room decided to believe it. The problem begins the moment that story is mistaken for economic fact.

And the market, reliably, makes that mistake every single time.

The Number That Does Not Exist

To understand the trap, you first have to understand the distinction between two numbers that look similar but mean entirely different things: market capitalisation and book value.

Book value is the honest one. It is, quite simply, what a company actually owns minus what it owes - the net of its assets and liabilities as recorded in its financial statements. It is calculated by accountants using standardised rules and represents the closest thing to a company's real, verifiable worth on any given day.

Market capitalisation, by contrast, is the product of a different calculation entirely: the current stock price multiplied by the total number of outstanding shares. For a publicly traded company, this figure moves every second the market is open, responding not to anything that happened inside the company, but to what investors feel about its future. For a private startup, the equivalent figure is the post-money valuation assigned at a funding round, and it is even less grounded, because there is no public market to discipline it.

Here is the critical point: startup valuations are ultimately worth what investors and founders agree they are worth. That sentence sounds reasonable until you follow it to its logical end. It means a company with $200,000 in assets, $80,000 in liabilities, and a book value of $120,000 can be assigned a valuation of $50 million - and the market will treat that $50 million as though it were real.

Why? Because that is how the system was built.

Sentiment Is the Architect

Research published in the Journal of Financial Economics found something that should unsettle every founder who has ever celebrated a funding announcement: the valuations of venture capital-backed startups invested in by mutual funds are driven by their peer valuations - not by their operating performance. Not by revenue. Not by growth rate. By what similar companies in similar sectors were recently valued at.

The same research referenced work by Gornall and Strebulaev, who applied rigorous valuation modelling to a sample of 135 unicorns and found that their reported valuations were, on average, 50% above their true and fair value. In the case of Square's 2015 IPO, the public market valued the company at $2.9 billion - less than half of its last private valuation of $6 billion. Zenefits, another high-profile case, was forced to retrospectively slash its $4.5 billion Series C valuation by more than half to avoid investor lawsuits.

These are not outliers. They are what happens when the veil is lifted.

The mechanism driving this inflation is sentiment. A 2024 State of the Market report found that at the pre-seed and seed stage, investor behaviour - not company fundamentals - plays the dominant role in setting valuations. Meanwhile, academic research on snowballing signalling in startup valuation has shown that even positive media coverage can lower the cost of capital and drive up valuations, creating a feedback loop between narrative and number.

The story inflates the valuation. The valuation attracts more capital. More capital attracts more coverage. The coverage reinforces the story. And somewhere in that cycle, a real company staffed by real people is expected to become the fiction everyone agreed to believe in.

The Weight of a Number You Did Not Earn

This is where the trap closes.

Once a startup accepts a valuation - regardless of whether it is grounded in reality - it inherits the obligations that come with it. Startups with exceptionally high valuations face immense pressure to grow into those numbers. If growth stalls or market conditions shift, the consequences are severe: down rounds, diluted ownership, and damaged investor confidence. The valuation, in other words, becomes a performance target that was never negotiated - only implied.

The response, almost universally, is to spend. To hire aggressively. To scale into markets before the business model is proven. To perform the appearance of the company that the valuation describes. Overhiring before building a steady revenue stream increases monthly expenses rapidly, while aggressive marketing spend and premature market expansion drain resources without guaranteeing returns. The burn rate accelerates not because the business demands it, but because the valuation does.

A Harvard survey found that 91% of venture capitalists believe unicorns are overvalued. Yet the same investors continue to fund them at those valuations, because the alternative - admitting that the number was always a fiction - creates a problem no one in the room wants to own.

The pressure to live up to an inflated valuation does not just strain finances. It warps decision-making. It shortens time horizons. It turns founders into actors performing a role written by a market that confused a story for a balance sheet.

When the Story Breaks: The WeWork Autopsy

No case study illustrates the valuation trap more completely than WeWork.

Founded in 2010, WeWork spent the better part of a decade operating inside a story that SoftBank's Vision Fund helped write: a technology company redefining the future of work, deserving of a tech multiple rather than a real estate one. By January 2019, WeWork had been assigned a $47 billion valuation - one of the highest ever given to a US venture-backed startup - despite a business model built on taking long-term commercial leases and sub-leasing them short-term, an inherently fragile structure that had nothing to do with software.

The valuation demanded that WeWork perform like a $47 billion company. So it did. Between 2010 and 2019, it raised $22 billion in funding, expanded to over 600 locations across the globe, hosted more than 600,000 members, and burned through capital at a rate that only made sense if the story was true. Revenue grew. Losses grew faster.

When WeWork filed its S-1 in preparation for a public listing in 2019, Wall Street did what private investors had declined to do: read the numbers. The IPO attempt forced public markets to scrutinise the business, revealing a fundamental asset-liability mismatch, severe governance failures, and a valuation built entirely on Silicon Valley optimism. The offering was withdrawn. The valuation collapsed from $47 billion to under $10 billion almost overnight. Neumann resigned. Thousands were laid off. And in November 2023, WeWork filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The company did not fail because it had a bad product. It failed because it had been assigned a valuation that required it to become something it was structurally incapable of being - and it spent billions trying to close that gap.

A valuation does not equal value. WeWork is the proof.

Why Does the Market Keep Playing Along?

The reasonable question, then, is why this persists. If valuations are notoriously disconnected from underlying worth - if the research shows that peer comparisons, not performance, drive them, and if the history is littered with cautionary collapses - why does the market continue to respond to these numbers as though they were real?

Part of the answer is structural.

Market capitalisation is one of the simplest and most widely used metrics for communicating a company's perceived worth. It is a single number, uncomplicated, shareable. Book value, by contrast, requires context. It demands that an investor understand depreciation methods, goodwill impairment, and accounting policies. In a media cycle that rewards the headline, market cap wins by default.

Part of the answer is incentive.

Investors who assigned a $2 billion valuation in the Series B have strong reasons to defend that number in the Series C. Founders who announced a $500 million valuation in a press release have reputational skin in the story. The ecosystem is filled with participants who benefit from the fiction holding together, at least long enough for them to exit.

And part of the answer is human.

Investors, ever eager to believe in happy endings, declare the story a closed chapter long before it is - and in doing so, they become architects of the very collapse they will later claim to have not seen coming. The market responds to valuation because valuation has been made to feel like the truth. Not because it is.

The Bandage, Pulled

Here is what the valuation economy produces, stripped of its euphemisms: companies are priced not on what they are, but on what people agree to believe they could become. That agreement, once made, becomes a cage. The company must now spend, hire, expand, and perform its way toward a number that was never derived from its fundamentals - a number that may have no relationship to any business reality it will ever actually inhabit.

When the belief collapses, it is not the investors who bear the full weight of it. It is the employees who were hired to justify the headcount. It is the vendors who extended credit against a balance sheet that was mostly narrative. It is the founders who were rewarded for storytelling and then blamed for the gap between the story and the outcome.

The honest version of a startup's worth is sitting in its accounts - in its assets, its liabilities, its cash on hand, and its revenue. It is not glamorous. It does not produce headlines. But it also does not collapse the moment someone bothers to read the filing.

So here is the question worth sitting with: if the people assigning these valuations know they are inflated - if 91% of venture capitalists say so directly - then what does it mean that the system continues unchanged? Who, exactly, is the valuation serving?

Because it does not appear to be serving the company.

‍

read - SpaceX IPO: Is History About to Repeat Itself?

‍