Title page for E-project-110207-134557

Project Type IQP

Submission date 2007-11-02

Authors
Ramona L. Criddell, CH
Jason C Hilario, MGE
Kristoffer Jensen, CM

URN E-project-110207-134557

Division Science and Technology: Policy and Management

Title The Analysis of the Screening Process of Angel Investors

Advisor
Schaufeld, Jerome, CH

Availability unrestricted

Abstract
The screening process of an angel investing group based in Massachusetts was investigated by analyzing review sheets for screened business proposals that were submitted in 2004. The primary reasons for rejection were ascertained for companies that did not pass into the presentation stage of deal assessment. Rejected companies were contacted in 2007 to determine the operational status, profitability, post rejection action, and source of alternate funding. Data showed that greater authority was given to screeners with industry specific expertise. Weak business plan, high competition, and a lacking market were the most highly cited reasons for rejection. Lastly, there was a significant survival rate for rejected companies due to the plethora of alternate funding sources.

Files
IQP.pdf

Browse by Author | Browse by Department | Search all available E-projects

Questions? Email project-questions@wpi.edu
Maintained by webmaster@wpi.edu

Project Type	IQP
Submission date	2007-11-02
Authors	Ramona L. Criddell, CH Jason C Hilario, MGE Kristoffer Jensen, CM
URN	E-project-110207-134557
Division	Science and Technology: Policy and Management
Title	The Analysis of the Screening Process of Angel Investors
Advisor	Schaufeld, Jerome, CH
Availability	unrestricted
Abstract The screening process of an angel investing group based in Massachusetts was investigated by analyzing review sheets for screened business proposals that were submitted in 2004. The primary reasons for rejection were ascertained for companies that did not pass into the presentation stage of deal assessment. Rejected companies were contacted in 2007 to determine the operational status, profitability, post rejection action, and source of alternate funding. Data showed that greater authority was given to screeners with industry specific expertise. Weak business plan, high competition, and a lacking market were the most highly cited reasons for rejection. Lastly, there was a significant survival rate for rejected companies due to the plethora of alternate funding sources.
Files	IQP.pdf