Why do business angels invest? Uncovering angels’ goals

Falcão, Rui; Carneiro, Maria João; Moreira, António Carrizo Article Why do business angels invest? Uncovering angels’ goals Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Falcão, Rui; Carneiro, Maria João; Moreira, António Carrizo (2023) : Why do business angels invest? Uncovering angels’ goals, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 10, Iss. 2, pp. 1-28, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2234134 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/294529 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 Cogent Business & Management ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20 Why do business angels invest? Uncovering angels’ goals Rui Falcão, Maria João Carneiro & António Carrizo Moreira To cite this article: Rui Falcão, Maria João Carneiro & António Carrizo Moreira (2023) Why do business angels invest? Uncovering angels’ goals, Cogent Business & Management, 10:2, 2234134, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2023.2234134 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2234134 © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Published online: 14 Jul 2023. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1401 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 2 View citing articles MANAGEMENT | RESEARCH ARTICLE Why do business angels invest? Uncovering angels’ goals Rui Falcão 1 , Maria João Carneiro 1,2 and António Carrizo Moreira 1,2,3,4 * Abstract: Despite the increasing importance of business angels (BAs) as crucial players in the growth of high-potential early-stage startups, their motivations are not fully understood. Many of the perceptions of BAs deviate significantly from more conventional views of conventional economic and financial models. To gain a comprehensive understanding of BAs’ goals, qualitative techniques from marketing and consumer behaviour as additional lenses (including laddering and meansends chains) were employed to allow currently active BAs to articulate their goals in ways that forced-choice, quantitative methods do not achieve. Additionally, to determine if entrepreneurs perceive BAs in the same way BAs see themselves, entrepreneurs were asked to provide their perspectives on why BAs choose to become angel investors, based on their experiences with BAs. The findings reveal that traditional financial viewpoints do not adequately capture the depth and driving force behind BAs’ goals, while entrepreneurs appear to be overly influenced by conventional assumptions about these goals. The study also provides valuable insights into the relationships and hierarchy among BAs’ goals, and on the relevance of each goal. The paper ends with reflections on the practical implications of this research for BAs, entrepreneurs and policymakers. Rui Falcão ABOUT THE AUTHORS Rui Falcao is a passionate angel investor, cofounder and managing partner of COREangels and REDangels, the leading angel groups in Portugal. Rui is a serial entrepreneur of the internet booming days, participating as entrepreneur and angel investor in more than 20 startups in technologies and communications sector. Rui has a PhD on Marketing and Strategy form the University of Aveiro (UA), Portugal. Maria João Carneiro is Assistant Professor of Tourism at the University of Aveiro. She holds a Degree in Tourism Management and Planning from UA, an MBA from New University of Lisbon and a PhD in Tourism from UA. She is the Director of the degree program (licenciatura) in Tourism of the UA. António Carrizo Moreira is an Associate Professor with Habilitation at DEGEIT, University of Aveiro, Portugal. António holds an MBA from Porto Business School. He holds a Ph.D. in Management from the University of Manchester, England. PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT Business angels are a special kind of investors, normally previous entrepreneurs or experienced managers, that put their time and money to support promising but risky startups from their very early stage. Statistically, most of their investments fail and only a few compensate for all the losses. Understood generally as “money makers”, the reasons why business angels invest and back entrepreneurs go further the obtention of financial gains. This paper explores consumer behaviour techniques to uncover the real reasons why business angels invest, finding behind the economic reasons there are emotional, symbolic and entrepreneurial goals higher in relevance than the economic ones. Some of the explanations are related to a holistic view of the angel investor and the growing importance of alignment of professional and life goals that guarantee deeper and long-term satisfaction on their entrepreneurial investing journey. Falcão et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2234134 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2234134 Page 1 of 28 Received: 16 December 2022 Accepted: 04 July 2023 *Corresponding author: António Carrizo Moreira, DEGEIT—Department of Economics, Management, Industrial Engineering and Tourism, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal E-mail: [email protected] Reviewing editor: Pablo Ruiz, Universidad de Castilla- La Mancha, Spain Additional information is available at the end of the article © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. Subjects: Business & Policy; Entrepreneurship Keywords: angel goals; business angel identity; investor goals; entrepreneur; selfdevelopment 1. Introduction Business angels (BAs), consistently defined as high net-worth individuals who invest their own money along with mentoring, networking and expertise in startups with no family connection, in the expectation of financial gain (Mason, 2006), are widely recognised as the main contributors in financing early-stage startups (EBAN, 2019). In the funding process, BAs are a group somewhere between crowdfunding and venture capital concerning the amount of money invested (higher than crowdfunders and lower than venture capitalists (VCs)) and, to some extent, the stage of the startup development (they invest in earlier stages than venture capitalists, similarly to crowdfunders) (Grundy & Ohmer, 2016), helping startups to overcome the difficult period of validation, sometimes referred to as the “death valley” (Morales-Alonso et al., 2020). In contrast with VCs and crowdfunders, angels involve themselves directly with the entrepreneurs and invested startups to create value (Linde & Prasad, 2000; Mason & Botelho, 2014; Politis, 2008; Ramadani, 2012). The angel profile and motivations were mainly researched in the first generation of angel studies in the early 1980s and 1990s, being revisited from time to time in the following decades (e. Benjamin & Margulis, 2005; Freear et al., 1994; Tenca et al., 2018). Perspectives on BAs’ goals have varied from more restrictive and financial ones (e.g. Hill & Power, 2002; Morrissette, 2007), to broader behavioural and holistic perspectives (e.g. Baker & Ricciardi, 2014; Bonnet et al., 2022; Croce et al., 2020; Pompian, 2006, 2012; Puustinen et al., 2013). Moreover, the circumstances in which BAs and the angel market operate have also changed dramatically in recent years (Harrison & Mason, 2019; Mason et al., 2016) with new group investment approaches and the democratisation hype of the investing process (Mollick & Robb, 2016; Townsend & Hunt, 2019), as well as the appearance of new players such as those related to crowdfunding in the early stage investing arena (Block et al., 2018; Islam et al., 2020). All these changes justify revisiting angel goals, to obtain a current, more holistic view of this field, using consumer behaviour and marketing as new lenses of analysis. Despite all the work done on the angel profile and motivations, empirical research on BAs’ goals is still scarce. The research undertaken on perceived investment value (Puustinen et al., 2013), which could also provide some insights into BAs’ goals, was developed for stock exchange investors, whose characteristics are distinct from those of angel investors. Regarding methodology, most studies on BAs’ motivations adopt quantitative approaches such as survey questionnaires, which are greatly influenced by researchers’ perspectives and lead to BAs’ forced choices based on a set of predetermined goals. This prevents researchers and society as a whole from gaining a broader and deeper view of BAs’ personal motivations and goals (Farrell, 2005; Morrissette, 2006). The only two studies found to adopt qualitative approaches (Farrell, 2005; S. Shane, 2005) were based on interviews and focus groups. Although these techniques allow greater exploration of BAs’ goals than quantitative studies, they do not reveal the main goals that guide BAs. Previous research refers mainly to general motivations, discarding specific personal goals and how those goals are related to each other, and their relative importance. Nevertheless, theories such as the laddering theory (Pieters et al., 1995; Reynolds & Gutman, 1988), grounded on means-end chain theory, initially proposed to uncover information such as links between consumers’ personal values and attributes of products or services (e.g., Grunert & Valli, 2001; Pike, 2011), have already been applied to examine goal-directed behaviour, especially to uncover hierarchies between abstract and concrete goals (Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998). These theories, some approaches underlying them, and some techniques used to assess the centrality of nodes in the hierarchy algorithm (e.g. Bonacich, 1987, 2007; Freeman, 1978), could reveal a hierarchy among BAs’ goals and thus understanding of how each goal may contribute to satisfying others and identifying these goals’ centrality and relevance. Falcão et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2234134 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2234134 Page 2 of 28 This study seeks to fill the research gaps previously identified, and more specifically, to answer the following research questions: What drives individuals to become angel investors? How can angel goals be hierarchically organized? What are the most relevant angel goals? This study is anchored by goal-directed behaviour, laddering theory and perceived investment value (Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998; Puustinen et al., 2013; Reynolds & Gutman, 1988). More specifically, the uniqueness of the present research lies in creating a new analytical framework to reveal the hierarchy and relevance of BAs’ goals, showing their interrelationships and levels of abstraction, also identifying short-term versus long-term goals (Austin & Vancouver, 1996; Pieters et al., 1995). This paper makes important theoretical contributions. It provides a framework to categorise the diverse goals of BAs and offers an overview of the importance of goals and the relationship between them, considering the perspectives of BAs and entrepreneurs. It also provides relevant managerial implications, namely greater understanding of angel goals and how they can be achieved. Moreover, policy implications for different stakeholders of the entrepreneurial system are revealed. 2. Literature review on angels’ goals 2.1. The financial perspective Two different streams of thought have dominated perspectives of the goals of angel investing: the financial and behavioural perspectives. On one hand, grounded on microeconomic and standard finance theories (Fama, 1970; Markowitz, 1952; Persky, 1995), the rational economic perspective advocates that investor decisions are based on the rational trade-off between risk and profit (Keynes, 1955; Persky, 1995). Consequently, according to these theories, the primary goal of angel investors is to earn money (e.g., Baty, 1963; Morrissette, 2007; Murnieks & Mosakowski, 2007; Riding, 2008; Van Osnabrugge, 1998). Based on the traditional finance stream, a substantial part of the angel literature points out the economic goals of angel investors such as: (i) opportunity for high capital appreciation (e.g. Baty, 1963; Hill & Power, 2002; Linde & Prasad, 2000; Morrissette, 2007; Murnieks & Mosakowski, 2007); (ii) acquisition of new clients for their other companies (Baty, 1963; Linde & Prasad, 2000); (iii) participation in a growing business that will have a great impact (the next big thing) (Benjamin & Margulis, 2005); or (iv) to exploit technologies that promise capital growth (Baty, 1963). The angel literature has many references to BAs’ motivations, with economic goals being considered the most common reasons for angel investing (Croce et al., 2020; Morrissette, 2007). 2.2. The behavioural perspective In contrast to the financial perspective, the behavioural perspective considers the contributions of other social sciences, such as anthropology, sociology and psychology, also providing insights into investor choice theory. Investor decision-making can be motivated by feelings of greed and fear (Redhead, 2008) and embedded with common biases such as optimism, overconfidence and false consensus (N. C. Barberis & Thaler, 2003; Thaler, 2000). Kahneman and Tversky (1979, 2013) argue that investment valuations are based on a subjective perception of value. This investor feeling, difficult to reconcile with pure rationality, has been incorporated in some investment models (N. Barberis et al., 1998; Shleifer, 2000). Sullivan and Miller (1996) identified three groups of informal investors, with two groups—hedonistic and altruistic investors—representing, jointly, slightly more than economic investors. Supported by behavioural and experiential arguments, some angel research suggests that economic goals may not be the most important (Hill & Power, 2002). According to Freear et al. (1995), 50% of BAs accept lower financial returns because part of their income is considered to be a psychological return. Some research highlights that non-economic factors are important drivers for a considerable number of BAs (Croce et al., 2020). Those motivations include: co-investing, Falcão et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2234134 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2234134 Page 3 of 28 socialising and learning from more experienced angels (Bonnet et al., 2022); the inherent status of the BA condition (Mulcahy, 2005); improving public recognition (Benjamin & Margulis, 2005); supporting the local community to praise political forces (S. A. Shane, 2009); the joy of giving back to society and boost local economic development (Bonnet et al., 2022; Rose, 2014); supporting a socially beneficial product (Morrissette, 2007; Sullivan, 1991); and helping young entrepreneurs (Hill & Power, 2002; Morrissette, 2007). Living the experience of supporting and developing a startup has been recognised as a fundamental motive to become a BA (Fili & Grünberg, 2016; Ramadani, 2012; Rose, 2014). Researchers argue that BAs and also entrepreneurs, besides financial gains, have other hidden or less obvious motives to invest, including fulfilment, fun, excitement, pride, desire to contribute and obtain personal recognition (Benjamin & Margulis, 2005; Murnieks et al., 2020; Rose, 2014; S. A. Shane, 2009). The last decades witnessed a new, growing community of BAs (impact investors) who are predominantly intrinsically motivated to finance projects that answer social and environmental challenges and generate significant changes with high impact worldwide (OECD, 2011). The literature also recognises that BAs invest through passion (Croce et al., 2020) to obtain emotional outcomes including: fun from participating in attractive investments (Brettel, 2003; Landstrom, 1993); excitement of being connected to new venture startups (Linde & Prasad, 2000); and adrenaline and stimulation resulting from risk-taking (Freear et al., 2002). Other motivations capture the entrepreneurial value of BA activity, namely: the enjoyment of being involved with young entrepreneurs, nurturing their development (Rose, 2014); the gratification from having an active role in a startup (Mason, 2006; Van Osnabrugge, 1998); and the pleasure of repeating an exit or success story already achieved by the BA as a previous entrepreneur (Benjamin & Margulis, 2005). The BA literature advocates that BAs are a different and special class of investors with a strong entrepreneurial orientation, expecting to obtain entrepreneurial value in the exercise of their BA activity (e.g. Politis & Landstrom, 2002). According to Mason (2008), BAs have unique characteristics, since they invest their own money and do not manage others’ money like venture capitalists (VCs), reveal high-risk capacity by investing in early-stage startups, and get involved with the startups in question. It is also stated that many BAs have startup experience (Brettel, 2003; Gaston, 1989; Landstrom, 1993), viewing themselves as entrepreneurs, “co-creators” and “co-founders” of new ventures, rather than purely financial investors (Fili & Grünberg, 2016). This behavioural and experiential stream of thought suggests that standard assumptions and narratives about BAs, confined to economic goals, are incomplete or mistaken, and may prevent both the effectiveness of BAs’ activity and BAs’ opportunity of living a full angel experience. The assumptions behind financial perspectives rest on how angels as rational investors ought to behave, while the behavioural perspective assumes there are limitations to rationality. Experience, emotions and uncertainty may play an important role in framing angel goals. The types of goals previously identified are aligned with personal values and objectives, but there is a lack of research on how important these goals are, and whether they are long or short-term oriented. Although both rational and behavioural perspectives make positive contributions, they lack a deep integrative and holistic view of the purpose and goals that drive BA investors. 2.3. The holistic perspective In recent years, some investing literature suggests a holistic view of investor behaviour, supported by: new approaches to behavioural finance (Baker & Ricciardi, 2014; Pompian, 2006, 2012); perceived investment value (Puustinen et al., 2013); and the expected investment value (Lounio, 2014). These new approaches go beyond the traditional financial theories grounded on the rational trade-off between risk and profit (Fama, 1970; Markowitz, 1952). They are grounded in psychology, sociology, marketing and consumer behaviour, the literature suggesting that investors evaluate Falcão et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2234134 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2234134 Page 4 of 28 investment opportunities based on holistic perspectives that include the investing experience, personal values and affect, which go well beyond the utilitarian and rational perspectives (Aspara & Tikkanen, 2011; Beal et al., 2005; Fama & French, 2007; Pasewark & Riley, 2010; Puustinen et al., 2012, 2013). In general, investors like to perceive themselves as rational beings, driven by purely financial data (Hoffmann & Fieseler, 2012); however, the reality of their investing reasons is quite different (Dorn & Sengmueller, 2009). Investment literature compares the diversity of investor goals to a huge emotional iceberg (Peterson & Murtha, 2010), recognising that there are several hidden motivations and goals behind the most visible ones. Making money is “the tip of an emotional iceberg, the most visible and readily comprehensible portion of a much deeper mass of needs, desires, and motivations that lie below the surface” (Peterson & Murtha, 2010, p. 27). A substantial stream of literature relating marketing and finance has been produced, confirming that the type of research methods used to reveal hidden consumer goals in consumption (Khalifa, 2004) are equally appropriate to uncover the multiple investor goals in the investment context (Allen & McGoun, 2001; Canova et al., 2005; Huvaj, 2020; Pasewark & Riley, 2010). The perspective underlying this stream of the literature suggests that the perception of investment value, like in consumption, goes beyond the utility of a product or a service, encompassing a meaningful interactive and emotional experience that responds to higher personal goals (Aspara & Tikkanen, 2011; Pasewark & Riley, 2010; Puustinen et al., 2013). In this context, a goal is understood as a cognitive representation of the desired end state, including a variety of objects, plans, mental images, emotions and behaviours toward which actions may be directed (Pervin, 1989; Touré-Tillery & Fishbach, 2011). Goals are closely related to motivations but are different from them. Motivation has been defined as the intensity of desire and effort put into the process of goal pursuit (Touré-Tillery & Fishbach, 2011), which might be intrinsic—reflecting the inherent benefits of pursuing a goal—or extrinsic—when associated with the process of achieving a goal (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Goal-directed behaviour, with different hierarchical levels of goals, is the essential motivator linking entrepreneurial intention and action (Carsrud & Brannback, 2011; Kirkley, 2016). 2.4. The hierarchical structure of goals Goal-directed behaviour (Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998) and laddering theories (Pieters et al., 1995; Reynolds & Gutman, 1988) are the fundamental theoretical grounding of the present research. Goal-directed behaviour uses cognitive representations to build goal hierarchies relating superordinate abstract goals fulfilled by other focal and concrete goals (Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998). Laddering theory emerges as an adequate practical mechanism (the chain of why questions) that operationalizes the identification of goals, particularly to uncover some goals that may be not so obvious in the mind (Gutman, 1997). Reynolds and Gutman (1988) contend that conventional research methodologies often yield superficial responses and fail to uncover the underlying motivations behind certain behaviours, particularly in sensitive domains. For instance, when purchasing a Porsche, a consumer’s primary objective may not simply be the utilitarian purpose of transportation, but rather the desire to attain the esteemed status associated with owning a Porsche (i.e., a high-level status goal). The same approach can be applied in the investment area to facilitate better understanding of the goals as the underlying reasons for investors investing in certain products such as “stock market” or “startups”. Likewise, the realm of angel investing can be considered a sensitive area due to various factors. Angels are difficult to identify and measure, possess access to confidential information, and often choose not to disclose their financial outcomes (Edelman et al., 2017; Landstrom & Mason, 2016). The comparative research on angel goals is particularly relevant in terms of the practical implications of goal alignment in the angel-entrepreneur relationship. As previously reported, there is no clear Falcão et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2234134 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2234134 Page 5 of 28 understanding in entrepreneurship theory and practice about the goals behind angel investing. Similarly, entrepreneurs may also have a different perception, or even a misconception of the hierarchy of angel goals, and consequently, may not behave in alignment with angel goal expectations. Additionally, how individuals (angels) are perceived by their counterparts (entrepreneurs) is also important as feedback for their self-identity validation (Burke, 2016; Burke & Stets, 2009; Riley & Burke, 1995). The way angels are perceived by entrepreneurs affects the behaviour of both entrepreneurs and angels. Mutual knowledge of each party’s real goals and expectations is critical to creating an aligned view of common goals, without frustrating important individual ones, contributing to building a satisfactory and stewarding relationship between angels and entrepreneurs, and reducing the likelihood of future conflicts (Collewaert, 2010, 2012; Collewaert & Manigart, 2016). If entrepreneurs have a different, misaligned, or wrong perspective of who angels are and what they want, the angel relationship and interaction can be disappointing for both parties and the angel experience will be frustrating. This angel literature review reveals that, despite a complete enumeration of dozens of motives and reasons for angel investing during the last decades (Tenca et al., 2018), there is no framework addressing the different categories of angel investor goals. Empirical research on BAs’ motivations has not yet provided an organised and detailed holistic view of BAs’ goals. Despite angel literature enumerating multiple and diverse goals, no empirical research or instrument was found specifically on organising angel goals in terms of content, hierarchy and temporal process. Moreover, nothing is said about each goal’s importance and level of abstractness, or its relation with and contribution to other goals. Therefore, it seems appropriate to use powerful approaches and techniques based on goal-directed behaviour, laddering theory, and perceived investment value to organise and uncover angel goals that may not be visible with other methods of analysis. 3. Materials and methods As mentioned above, this research intends to provide deeper understanding of why angels invest, uncovering the invisible part of the iceberg of BAs’ goals, understanding their importance and hierarchy, as well as the relationships between them. The research procedure uses the laddering technique, which refers to an in-depth one-on-one interviewing technique (asking why is that important to you?) (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988) and the means-end chain, defined as a hierarchy of goals (Gutman, 1982, 1997). Instead of the traditional laddering model based on a face-to-face interview, and following the research of Puustinen et al. (2012) which adopted the approach of Bagozzi and Edwards (1998), this study applies the model similarly in the form of questions with written open answers, ensuring the richness and diversity captured by qualitative methods. This approach offers considerable efficiency in terms of timesaving by making more observations in a shorter period. Initially, these techniques were proposed to uncover relevant personal information about the consumer, particularly to understand the cognitive linkages between product or service attributes, consequences of the acquisition/experience and personal values (e.g., Grunert & Valli, 2001; Pike, 2011). However, they were applied successfully in other domains, some related to investing, namely: to uncover the reasons for individual savings (Canova et al., 2005); to analyse the hierarchical cognitive structure of entrepreneur motivation toward private equity financing (Morandin et al., 2006); to develop the perceived value concept for stock exchange investments (Puustinen et al., 2013); and to identify the company attributes that are important for investors’ preferences (Schiefelbein, 2016). The major advantage of the combined approach of the laddering technique and the mean-ends method is that they reveal the holistic and hierarchical perspective of individual goals, and at the same time, provide guidance for future action. Creating meaningful mental maps, they perform a more contemporary approach to classical motivation research, stimulating participants to reflect upon their behaviour in a broader way, disconnected from their usual context (Malhotra et al., 2017). A convenience sample was used to gather information from BAs and entrepreneurs. An openended questionnaire was administered to 53 BAs and 35 entrepreneurs who attended a full-day interaction event of REDangels, the largest structured BA group in Portugal. Falcão et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2234134 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2234134 Page 6 of 28 The BAs and entrepreneurs already knew each other and had an investor-investee relationship lasting between three months and four years. The event was chosen as it involved a varied sample of BAs and entrepreneurs. The event was programmed to be a full day of ice-breaking and adding value in comfortable hotel premises to facilitate and inspire the maximum one-on-one interaction between entrepreneurs and angels. The open-ended questionnaire was explained and contextualised by the REDangels’ leader, and distributed on paper to all the participants. Before answering the questionnaire, the respondents were informed about the main objective of the study and were asked for consent for participating in the research. 3.1. Data collection methodology The business angel respondents came from six European countries (Portugal, Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy, Denmark), were aged from 26 to 68 years old, with different levels of angel experience varying from one to 15 years, and all invest in their own country and abroad as shown in Table 1. The same questionnaire, with minor modifications, was also distributed to 35 entrepreneurs (17% female) aged from 19 to 35, with a bachelor’s degree or more, with limited entrepreneurial experience (from 0–6 years) and from three European countries. Data were collected using a laddering self-administered questionnaire in April 2018 (Appendix 1), as carried out by Puustinen et al. (2012), instead of using the traditional laddering face-to-face interview of Canova et al. (2005) and Bagozzi and Edwards (1998). The questionnaire was pilot tested previously with a small group of three BAs. Each BA was asked to identify the four main reasons why is it important for them to be a BA, writing these reasons in the boxes of the first row, at the bottom of the page. Then, each BA should write, in a second row, for each reason, why that reason is important for them, and continue to answer in the same way in the subsequent rows, for each reason, until reaching the fifth level, or a level of abstractness that prevented them to continue. This created a network of goals directly linked to each other. Entrepreneurs were invited to fill in the questionnaire thinking about the specific BAs they have a relationship with and reporting the reasons they think motivate those BAs to be BAs. Thereafter, the procedure was similar to the one followed by the BAs, configuring two independent data sets of respondents. These data let us maintain a separate analysis of each group and simultaneously establish a comparison between the results of the two groups. The questionnaires were written in English since this is the official language of the angel group for interaction and documentation, and also the common language used by angels and entrepreneurs in other entrepreneurial contexts. 3.2. Data analysis methodology The hierarchy of BAs’ goals followed the coding process described in Grunert et al. (2001) and was applied successfully in the investment area by Puustinen et al. (2012). The categories used to classify the goals were identified based on the literature reviewed and some of them emerged from the discourses of BAs and entrepreneurs participating in the study. To analyse the content, different codes were created to reflect what was written and to make it possible to interrelate the codes. The process included several iterative reviews until a final categorised set of terms was considered satisfactory. To increase face validity, as suggested by Hardesty and Bearden (2004), an external expert advisor—the President of FNABA (Portuguese Business Angel Federation), an associate of EBAN (European Business Angels Network), was asked to validate the categories, namely: (i) to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed categories of goals; (ii) to code the terms for those categories; (iii) and to validate the adequacy of each code for the common terms used in the BAs’ vocabulary. An example of the coding process is described next: “Inspiring experience” (goal referred to) → “stay informed about new developments” (first reason mentioned for achieving the goal) → “to have challenging experiences” (n14) → “to keep updated” (n26) → “to learn” (n2) (last reason mentioned for achieving the goal). The final coded sequence of the initial phrase resulted numerically in the sequence 14 → 26 → 2, which afterwards was reflected in the mindmap. As such, there is a relation Falcão et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2234134 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2234134 Page 7 of 28 Table 4. Business angel goals ranked by PageRank PR(g) algorithm (transformed into a 0–100.00 scale) Economic E PR (g) BA PR (g) Functional E PR (g) BA PR (g) Emotional E PR (g) BA PR (g) Symbolic E PR (g) BA PR (g) Entrepreneurial E PR (g) BA PR (g) to make money 14.32 32.46 to reinvest 9.37 12.28 to be happy 83.75 94.79 to feel fulfilled 100.00 100.00 to mentor entrepreneurs 11.91 26.35 to manage risk 13.32 20.34 to plan my career 6.87 6.78 to have challenging experiences 5.82 58.07 to express benevolence 17.85 88.29 to support innovation 11.04 21.87 to get a high ROI 11.61 16.12 to benefit from public incentives 0.00 5.92 to live a pleasant life 19.07 43.81 to improve one’s self-esteem 48.72 67.64 to awake the angel identity 15.65 17.83 to fit basic needs 8.95 5.89 to take care of my family 6.77 22.19 to give back to society 21.26 43.32 to invest in new business 8.50 16.19 to invest conveniently 6.38 5.01 to be active 6.89 18.88 to develop oneself 19.43 33.76 to be part of entrepreneurship 8.64 12.74 to grab the opportunity 5.63 4.34 to be part of something extraordinary 5.74 17.82 to make a better world 34.90 27.61 to help startups grow 15.51 12.53 to socialise with great people 12.20 12.90 to be updated 18.17 23.87 to create an entrepreneurial legacy 16.76 9.98 to have fun 5.02 10.30 to share knowledge and experience 22.17 15.79 to have a great EXIT 2.73 7.26 to have an hobby 4.09 5.52 to learn 24.65 15.04 to interact with other angels 2.73 5.32 to support own country 3.34 14.74 to be involved with startups 3.77 3.77 to do networking 8.85 10.42 to be successful 28.67 4.83 Falcão et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2234134 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2234134 Page 14 of 28 Table 5. Top 10 angel goals ranked with weighted degree algorithm Business angel goals by business angels Business angel goals by entrepreneurs Ranking Goal Weight BAw(g) Type Ranking Goal Weight Ew(g) Type 1 to develop oneself 100 Symbolic 1 to make money 100 Economic 2 to support innovation 94 Entrepreneurial 2 to improve one’s self-esteem 100 Symbolic 3 to make money 85 Economic 3 to be updated 80 Symbolic 4 to improve one’s self-esteem 82 Symbolic 4 to get a high ROI 73 Economic 5 to feel fulfilled 79 Symbolic 5 to invest in new business 70 Entrepreneurial 6 to be updated 74 Symbolic 6 to be successful 67 Symbolic 7 to mentor entrepreneurs 71 Entrepreneurial 7 to share knowledge and experience 63 Symbolic 8 to learn 68 Symbolic 8 to support innovation 63 Entrepreneurial 9 to live a pleasant life 68 Emotional 9 to manage risk 60 Economic 10 to manage risk 68 Economic 10 to feel fulfilled 60 Symbolic Falcão et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2234134 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2234134 Page 15 of 28 Table 6. Top 10 angel goals ranked with page rank algorithm Business angel goals by business angels Business angel goals by entrepreneurs Ranking Goal BA PR(g) Type Ranking Goal E PR(g) Type 1 to feel fulfilled 100 Symbolic 1 to feel fulfilled 100 Symbolic 2 to be happy 94.79 Emotional 2 to be happy 83.75 Emotional 3 to express benevolence 88.29 Symbolic 3 to improve one’s self-esteem 48.72 Symbolic 4 to improve one’s self-esteem 67.64 Symbolic 4 to make a better world 34.9 Symbolic 5 to have challenging experiences 58.07 Emotional 5 to be successful 28.67 Symbolic 6 to live a pleasant life 43.81 Emotional 6 to learn 24.65 Symbolic 7 to give back to society 43.32 Symbolic 7 to share knowledge and experience 22.17 Symbolic 8 to develop oneself 33.76 Symbolic 8 to give back to society 21.26 Symbolic 9 to make money 32.46 Economic 9 to develop oneself 19.43 Symbolic 10 to make a better world 27.61 Symbolic 10 to live a pleasant life 19.07 Emotional Falcão et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2234134 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2234134 Page 16 of 28 perceptions also occur in other goals such as “to do networking”, ranked BAw(g) = 59 and Ew(g) = 23, revealing that BAs want to continue their networking much more than entrepreneurs perceive (Tables 3 and 5). “To support their own country” obtained BAw(g) = 35 and Ew(g) = 7, showing higher patriotic motivations among angels than entrepreneurs. Another notable discrepancy is found in the goal “to be successful”, which is highly ranked by the entrepreneurs, with Ew(g) = 67, getting only BAw(g) = 9 in the view of BAs. These findings suggest that BAs, known as successful people, are not likely to expect angel activity to contribute directly to enhancing their success. One possible explanation is that BAs have already had success previously, and ground the fight for new success indirectly on the entrepreneurs’ hands. The BA goal “to improve one’s self-esteem” was recognised as considerably central by both BAs (BAw(g) = 80) and entrepreneurs (Ew(g) = 100), with the latter finding this goal to be the most central jointly with “to make money”. “to improve one’s self-esteem” is identified by extant literature considering that angel activity enhances angels’ self-esteem, with self-esteem comprising social recognition and status (Rose, 2014), making a huge difference in people’s lives (Peterson & Murtha, 2010) and giving meaning to angels’ lives (Politis & Landstrom, 2002). Other symbolic goals considerably central to both BAs and entrepreneurs are “to feel fulfilled” (BAw(g) = 79, Ew(g) = 60) and “to be updated” (BAw(g) = 74, Ew(g) = 80). 3.2.5. Entrepreneurial goals Several entrepreneurial goals have been identified. Three of them are in the list of the 10 most central goals in the set of both BAs and entrepreneurs: “to support innovation”, “to mentor entrepreneurs”, and “to invest in new businesses”. While “to support innovation” BAw(g) = 94 and “to mentor entrepreneurs” BAw(g) = 71 emerged as central for BAs’ goals, it is surprising that “to mentor entrepreneurs” Ew(g) = 30 is ranked low by entrepreneurs. These unexpected results suggest that BAs and entrepreneurs may have different expectations regarding the angel role. Some angels expect to contribute with high levels of mentoring and money (entrepreneurial role) while entrepreneurs perceive angels to contribute with much more money than mentoring (financial role). This point relates to the expectations of angel involvement discussed previously and to the “coachability” of the entrepreneur. To what extent do entrepreneurs want to receive advice and mentorship from BAs? Angels consider mentorship an important goal for their activity, but entrepreneurs seem to devalue the mentorship goal. BAs prefer to invest in coachable teams that are available to be mentored (Ciuchta et al., 2018). So, a new question emerges from these results. Is mentorship relevant because of the angels or the entrepreneurs? Further research is needed for better understanding of entrepreneurs’ expectations regarding BAs’ mentoring and to better align these expectations and the willingness of BAs to provide mentoring. Finally, the low ranking of “to have a great exit” is remarkable in both groups—entrepreneurs Ew(g) = 3 and BAs BAw(g) = 12. Two situations may occur here. First, working toward exits seems a low priority for BAs, as suggested by Van Osnabrugge (2000), who argues that BAs prefer to wait for VCs to do the exit part of the job. Secondly, most BAs are unlikely “to have a great exit” since research shows that only 7% of angel exits achieve returns above 10 times the invested capital (Rose, 2014; Wiltbank & Boeker, 2007). Perhaps BAs are not over-enthusiastic about exits or do not have easy access to those startups that permit fantastic exits and become unicorns (Aldrich & Ruef, 2018). Possibly, BAs derive satisfaction from the process of being angels more than from the extraordinary result of having a great exit. 3.2.6. The concrete and short-term view Comparing at a glance the two short-term perspectives that come out of the weighted Degree algorithm—from BAs and entrepreneurs – (see Table 5), one main conclusion emerges. There are two angel investor prototypes. While BAs emphasise the continuity of the entrepreneurial career with self-development and support for innovation as priority goals Falcão et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2234134 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2234134 Page 17 of 28 (the entrepreneurial role), entrepreneurs’ view of BAs’ goals emphasises financial investors’ economic perspective, concerned with making money (financial role). This research suggests that entrepreneurs may not perceive how relevant some non-economic goals are for BAs, such as developing themselves continually, being in close connection with the entrepreneurial world, learning, supporting innovation and mentoring entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs understand making money as the most important goal for BAs, jointly with improving one’s selfesteem. These different perceptions can make entrepreneurs invest in aspects of the BA- entrepreneur relationship that are not so relevant for angel investors and give less time and effort to other important BA goals. 3.2.7. The abstract and long-term view The goals identified by BAs as most desirable long-term goals were “to feel fulfilled” BA PR(g) = 100, “to be happy” BA PR(g) = 94.79 and “to express benevolence” BA PR(g) = 88.29. These goals include personal satisfaction, personal fulfilment, personal gratification, happiness, the desire to help others, and a sense of purpose and life meaning (see Table 4 for details). This research supports the idea that angel activity can be pleasurable, creating a sense of satisfaction and sheer joy (Benjamin & Margulis, 2005), and giving BAs the possibility to express their benevolence through helping entrepreneurs (Kotler et al., 2004). Also, BAs invest for altruistic reasons supporting useful social innovation and creating local jobs (Ibrahim, 2008), giving meaning to their life as investors (Politis & Landstrom, 2002) and generating long-term value. Analysing Tables 4 and 6, no substantial differences are found in the results of long-term goals perceived by BAs and entrepreneurs. However, some exceptions are noted. BAs expect higher emotional outcomes than entrepreneurs perceive. Another notable issue is the symbolic goal “to express benevolence”, ranked BA PR(g) = 88.29 based on BAs’ perspective and only E PR(g) = 17.85 based on entrepreneurs’ perspective. Many BAs understand the investing activity as a way to express their benevolence, although entrepreneurs almost ignore this goal. Perhaps BAs do not like to admit to entrepreneurs that, behind the financial investor, they are searching for emotional and symbolic value. 3.2.8. Goals interdependence and visual representation Figures 1 to 4 provide relevant information through the graph representation of angel goals. The nodes represent the goals motivating BAs to be business angels. The edges show the relationship or path between each node and the destination nodes, identified through the answers to the “why” questions. Consequently, these graphical representations show the goals that make other goals achievable and what goals enable specific goals to be reached. The findings reveal, for example, that the most robust relationship involving the money goal is the following: to get a high ROI → to make money → to live a pleasant life (Figures 1 and 2). For an angel investor, making money is an obvious measure of success (Riding, 2008), but giving back to society, supporting innovation and sharing their experience are admirable goals in the community’s eyes (Severinsen et al., 2012). Figure 1 shows, for example, that supporting innovation, improving self-esteem by giving back to society, and developing oneself, are the biggest contributors to BAs feeling fulfilled. The goal “to make money” is not a significant contributor to the goal “to feel fulfilled”, proving angels rely on other types of goals to live a great angel experience. These findings on the interdependence of goals are extremely relevant, not only to help BAs identify strategies to achieve their main goals, but also to guide entrepreneurs and the whole ecosystem in developing strategies to assist angels to attain these goals. 4. Conclusions and implications for the angel ecosystem This paper makes an in-depth analysis of the reasons behind angel investing from the perspective of BAs and entrepreneurs, based on a means-ends chain and network analysis algorithms. Falcão et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2234134 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2234134 Page 18 of 28 Regarding theoretical contributions, first, the paper brings marketing and consumer behaviour theory into angel research, providing tools and methods that enable a holistic and integrated view of the BA investor. Specifically, this research uncovers BAs’ goals, represented in five dimensions, including the four mentioned in the literature on perceived investment value—economic, functional, emotional and symbolic—and highlights the relevance of entrepreneurial goals. Second, by using laddering methodologies and social network algorithms it was possible for the first time in angel research to relate, interconnect, hierarchize and prioritize angel goals. The hierarchy of goals identified through the in-depth network analysis reveals the most relevant short-term and long-term BA goals, showing considerable differences in BAs and entrepreneurs’ perceptions of several goals. The results suggest that entrepreneurs tend to overestimate the importance of some economic goals for angels—e.g. “to earn money”; and “to get a high ROI” – and to underestimate the relevance of some symbolic goals—e.g. “to develop oneself” –, which suggest a personal development motivation, and of goals that favour angels’ deep connection with entrepreneurship—e.g. “to support innovation” and “to mentor entrepreneurs”. Among long-term goals, both groups recognise the relevance of symbolic and emotional goals such as “to feel fulfilled”, “to be happy”, and “to express benevolence”. However, BAs give more relevance to emotional goals, while entrepreneurs seem not to understand that BAs give importance to certain symbolic angel goals such as “to express benevolence”. The findings indicate that for BAs the act of investing is the opportunity, or the instrument, to achieve other types of higher goals besides money, associating the dominant perception of value Figure 1. Angel investors’ goals identified by business angels, using the weighted degree algorithm. Falcão et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2234134 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2234134 Page 19 of 28 with the opportunity for self-development, to feel fulfilled and continue the entrepreneurial career. Contrarily, entrepreneurs tend to focus their perspective of angels on economic goals. BAs should plan their investing career to achieve what they aim for, as well as selecting the BA groups, startups, types of involvement and exit that match their goals. “To develop oneself”, “to support innovation”, “to be fulfilled”, “to be happy” and “to express benevolence” emerged as important goals for BAs, the first two in the short term and the others in the long term. This expresses the aim to develop as a person, improve investor skills, learn, and share ideas, also reflecting BAs’ entrepreneurial nature and passion for innovation. All these goals corroborate the BA literature confirming that BAs are not purely financial investors (e.g. Politis & Landstrom, 2002; Rose, 2014), being quite different from VCs (Hsu et al., 2014). Due to the relevance of these goals, BAs should reflect on whether these goals are important for them and share them with entrepreneurs and gatekeepers so that these agents can help fulfil their expectations. This study reveals that entrepreneurs usually see angels as financial investors whose main goal is money and angels see themselves as entrepreneurs whose main goals are continuing to develop themselves and support innovation. Angels need to satisfy priority goals other than economic ones and need entrepreneurs to allow them to be symbolically and emotionally involved with the entrepreneurial journey, developing themselves, learning, supporting innovation and being part Figure 2. Angel investors’ goals identified by entrepreneurs, using the weighted degree algorithm. Falcão et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2234134 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2234134 Page 20 of 28 of the startup development. Entrepreneurs should understand that angels are much more than financial investors and give them the chance to participate more actively in the entrepreneurial process. A substantial goal alignment between BAs and entrepreneurs is a sine-qua-non condition for both parties to achieve successful outcomes. In addition, this paper provides important managerial implications for several agents in the BAs ecosystem. Gatekeepers and BA network leaders should manage BAs understanding they pursue symbolic, emotional, functional, economic and entrepreneurial goals. Managing BAs efficiently implies helping them achieve their multiple goals, particularly the most relevant ones. The gatekeeper should design the angel group experience and activities according to the type of goals claimed by that specific group of angels. For example, if the consensual group goal is to have a fast financial return, then the initial investment should be made at a later stage and exits should be planned and maximised soon. In contrast, events should be prepared to offer pleasant business moments in attractive premises when the group’s main goal is to have a good time and emotional outcomes. A more in-depth understanding of the BAs’ goals would help these agents to define strategies that help BAs to live a satisfactory angel experience more aligned with their goals. Policymakers should implement measures that stimulate BAs’ personal and professional development, promoting training programmes, stimulating BA grouping and association, and creating new learning environments close to entrepreneurs. Figure 3. Angel investors’ goals identified by business angels, using the PageRank algorithm. Falcão et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2234134 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2234134 Page 21 of 28 Since making money is not perceived as a long-term and abstract goal, but an intermediary objective, measures permitting alternative forms of earlier capitalisation and financial return for angel investors, enabling earlier or medium-term exits, as well as tax compensations to offset the long financial wait, would be appropriate. Notwithstanding its contributions, the study has some limitations. Despite providing a general perspective of BAs’ goals, further research should try to detect differences between the goals of more and less experienced angels, as well as comparing those investing alone with those investing through angel groups and networks. Even though the empirical study was carried out among a set of BAs from six European countries, there was a predominance of Portuguese angels. Further studies should be developed in different regions to understand major cultural and contextual differences, for example taking into account different cultural differences, in the type of goals pursued and how they are related, which may have an impact on the type of goals that explain why BAs invest, and the structure existing among these goals, including long-range and shortrange ones. Since the present study is qualitative, this research should be extended and validated using quantitative multivariate techniques. It would be relevant to analyse the impact of angel goals on some complex factors, such as investment strategy, angel career, type of involvement, and exit strategy. Finally, it would be interesting to continue incorporating marketing and consumer behaviour theory into the entrepreneurship field, developing a deeper understanding of how angels and entrepreneurs’ goals can be aligned to reach the entrepreneurial purpose of value cocreation. Figure 4. Angel investors’ goals identified by entrepreneurs, using the PageRank algorithm. Falcão et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2234134 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2234134 Page 22 of 28 Acknowledgments This work was financially supported by the Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies (UIDB/04058/2020), funded by national funds through FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia. Funding The work was supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [(UIDB/04058/2020)]. Author details Rui Falcão 1 Maria João Carneiro 1,2 António Carrizo Moreira 1,2,3,4 E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6613-8796 1 DEGEIT—Department of Economics, Management, Industrial Engineering and Tourism, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal. 2 GOVCOPP—Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal. 3 INESCTEC—Institute for Systems and Computer Engineering, Technology and Science, Porto, Portugal. 4 NECE-UBI—Research Center for Business Sciences, Universidade da Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Citation information Cite this article as: Why do business angels invest? Uncovering angels’ goals, Rui Falcão, Maria João Carneiro & António Carrizo Moreira, Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2234134. References Aldrich, H. E., & Ruef, M. (2018). Unicorns, gazelles, and other distractions on the way to understanding real entrepreneurship in the United States. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(4), 458–472. https:// doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0123 Allen, D. E., & McGoun, E. G. (2001). Hedonic investment. Financial Services Review, 9(4), 389–403. https://doi. org/10.1016/S1057-0810(01)00077-4 Aspara, J., & Tikkanen, H. (2011). Individuals’ affect-based motivations to invest in stocks: Beyond expected financial returns and risks. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 12(2), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15427560.2011.575970 Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 338–375. https://doi. org/10.1037/0033-2909.120.3.338 Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, E. A. (1998). Goal setting and goal pursuit in the regulation of body weight. Psychology and Health, 13(4), 593–621. https://doi. org/10.1080/08870449808407421 Baker, H. K., & Ricciardi, V. (2014). Investor behavior - the psychology of financial planning and investing. In Investor behaviour: The psychology of financial planning and investing. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/9781118813454 Barberis, N., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1998). A model of investor sentiment. Journal of Financial Economics, 49(3), 307–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X (98)00027-0 Barberis, N. C., & Thaler, R. H. (2003). A survey of behavioral finance. In G. M. Constantinides, M. Harris, & R. M. Stulz (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of finance (pp. 1053–1128). Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S1574-0102(03)01027-6 Baty, G. B. (1963). Financing the New Research-Based Enterprise in New England [Unpublished Master’s Thesis]. Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Beal, D. J., Goyen, M., & Philips, P. (2005). Why do we invest ethically? Journal of Investing, 14(3), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.3905/joi.2005.580551 Benjamin, G., & Margulis, J. (2005). Angel capital: How to raise early-stage private equity financing. John Wiley & Sons. Block, J. H., Colombo, M. G., Cumming, D. J., & Vismara, S. (2018). New players in entrepreneurial finance and why they are there. Small Business Economics, 50(2), 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9826-6 Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures. The American Journal of Sociology, 92(5), 1170–1182. https://doi.org/10.1086/228631 Bonacich, P. (2007). Some unique properties of eigenvector centrality. Social Networks, 29(4), 555–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2007.04.002 Bonnet, C., Capizzi, V., Cohen, L., Petit, A., & Wirtz, P. (2022). What drives the active involvement in business angel groups? The role of angels’ decision-making style, investment-specific human capital and motivations. Journal of Corporate Finance, 77, 101944. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2021.101944 Borgatti, S. P. (2005). Centrality and network flow. Social Networks, 27(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soc net.2004.11.008 Boué, A. R. (2002). Value added from venture capital investors: What is it and how does it get into the venture. IPO Beteiligungs-Management. https://doc player.net/15939254-Value-added-from-venture- capital-investors-what-is-it-and-how-does-it-get- into-the-venture.html. Brettel, M. (2003). Business angels in Germany: A research note. Venture Capital, 5(3), 251–268. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1369106032000122095 Brunsø, K., Scholderer, J., & Grunert, K. G. (2004). Closing the gap between values and behavior - a means-end theory of lifestyle. Journal of Business Research, 57(6), 665–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0148-2963(02)00310-7 Burke, P. J. (2016). Identity control theory. In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology (pp. 2202–2207). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 9781405165518.wbeosi002.pub2 Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. (2009). Identity theory. Oxford University Press. Canova, L., Rattazzi, A. M., & Webley, P. (2005). The hierarchical structure of saving motives. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.joep.2003.08.007 Carsrud, A., & Brannback, M. (2011). Entrepreneurial motivations: What do we still need to know? Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 9–26. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00312.x Ciuchta, M. P., Letwin, C., Stevenson, R., McMahon, S., & Huvaj, M. N. (2018). Betting on the coachable entrepreneur: Signaling and social exchange in entrepreneurial pitches. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(6), 860–885. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1042258717725520 Collewaert, V. (2010). Angel–entrepreneur relationships: Demystifying their conflicts. In H. Landström & C. Mason (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Business Angels (pp. 176–198). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783471720.00014 Falcão et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2234134 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2234134 Page 23 of 28