Overview
Arjun had been sent the same unlisted name by three different sources inside a fortnight, each with a screenshot of a rising quote and a reminder that allocation was limited.
This case study is about a decision not to invest. It is included because passing is a legitimate outcome of research, and it is the outcome most case studies quietly leave out.
The situation
The quoted price sat meaningfully above the company's last known primary funding round, with no disclosed transaction to justify the gap. Volume claims were anecdotal, and the spread between buy and sell quotes was wide.
The story attached to the name was strong; the documentation behind the price was not. Arjun's task was to separate the two.
Approach
The steps taken, in the order they happened.
-
1 Asked what the price was based on He requested the reference for the quote — a recent transaction, a primary round or a valuation report. No specific reference was provided.
-
2 Checked the last funded valuation Publicly reported round details set a sanity anchor. The quote implied a large step-up with no disclosed event in between.
-
3 Tested the spread and the exit He asked for an indicative buy-side quote as if he were selling. The gap between the two numbers told him what an early exit would cost.
-
4 Read the risk factors, not the pitch deck Concentration of revenue, cash burn and governance disclosures received more attention than the growth narrative.
-
5 Applied a WittyScore-style scorecard Business quality, financial strength, valuation, liquidity and transparency were scored separately, so a strong story could not mask a weak valuation and disclosure score.
-
6 Set a walk-away trigger before negotiating Unanswered documentation questions were defined in advance as a reason to stop — which removed the pressure to decide in the moment.
The journey
Illustrative scorecard out of 10 for a hypothetical trending name. Scores are for demonstration and are not a rating of any real company.
Outcome
- No position was taken, and no capital was committed to the name.
- The diligence questions that went unanswered were the deciding factor, not the price level itself.
- He redirected the same amount to two names where transaction references and disclosures were available.
- The declined name may still do well — passing was a decision about the information available, not a prediction.
- The scorecard is now reused for every subsequent enquiry, which makes comparisons consistent.
At a glance
Before and after, on process rather than profit. Illustrative.
| Measure | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Price reference requested | Not asked | Asked, not provided |
| Valuation anchor | Quote screenshot | Last primary round |
| Exit test | Ignored | Buy-side quote compared |
| Decision framework | Narrative-led | 5-pillar scorecard |
| Outcome | Under pressure to buy | Declined, capital redeployed |
In their words
Nobody could tell me which transaction the price came from. That silence was the most useful piece of research I got all month.
Related case studies
Tracking NSE India from unlisted to the IPO doorstep
A long-term investor bought NSE India unlisted shares, verified the ISIN before paying, and sat through a listing timeline that kept moving.
Read case study KYC → demat in 2 daysA first-time investor's safe route into unlisted shares
A first-time buyer went from zero paperwork to shares in her demat account in two working days — by doing the boring checks in the right order.
Read case studyIllustrative journey. Past performance is not indicative. Not investment advice.