What it means
The pattern comes from behavioural research on how people make estimates under uncertainty. Given a starting figure, people adjust away from it, but they almost always adjust too little and stop short of the answer their own evidence supports.
In business the consequences are expensive and easy to miss. Whoever names the first number in a negotiation sets the range that both sides then argue within, and the eventual settlement usually lands closer to that opening figure than to the other side's independent analysis.
Budgeting shows the same effect every year. A department that starts from last year's spend plus a percentage is anchored on history rather than on what the work actually needs now, which is precisely the problem that zero-based budgeting was designed to address.
Valuation and forecasting are not immune. Analysts revising a target price tend to creep towards the current market price rather than restate their own number, and acquirers who see an ambitious asking price often end up paying well above their own pre-negotiation range.
Sellers and pricing teams use the effect deliberately. A premium package on a pricing page, a recommended retail price printed beside a discount, or an opening offer well above expectation all exist to set the reference point before the real discussion starts.
The defences are practical rather than clever. Write down your own number with its reasoning before you hear theirs, decide a walk-away figure in advance, and when a number is quoted at you ask what evidence supports it rather than starting to adjust from it.
In practice
Real-world examples.
Example
A candidate asked for her salary expectation says $95,000, and the final offer comes in at $98,000 even though the employer had budgeted $115,000 for the role. The first number set the range for the whole discussion, and the $17,000 difference never came up.
Example
A software company adds a $2,400 a month enterprise tier it rarely sells. Its $600 a month mid tier now looks modest by comparison and take-up of that plan rises, because buyers judge it against the higher anchor on the page rather than against rival products.
Example
A finance team builds next year's marketing budget as this year's $480,000 plus 5%, giving $504,000, without asking what the campaigns planned for next year actually cost. A zero-based rebuild from the campaign plan comes out at $410,000, so the anchor on last year's spend was quietly costing $94,000.
Formula
Calculation
There is no standard formula, but the effect can be measured on any deal:
Anchoring gap = Agreed price - Independent valuation
Adjustment rate = (Anchor - Agreed price) / (Anchor - Independent valuation)
A buyer values a small warehouse at $850,000 after its own survey and rental analysis. The seller opens at $1,200,000 and the parties settle at $1,080,000. The anchoring gap is $1,080,000 - $850,000 = $230,000, so the buyer paid $230,000 more than its own analysis supported. The adjustment rate is ($1,200,000 - $1,080,000) / ($1,200,000 - $850,000) = $120,000 / $350,000 = 34%, which means the buyer travelled only about a third of the distance from the seller's anchor to its own valuation.Case study
Seen in the real world.
Thornbury Signs is an illustrative, fictional signage manufacturer that wanted to buy a smaller competitor. Its own analysis, based on $340,000 of sustainable annual profit and a multiple of four, produced a value of $1,360,000, with a walk-away ceiling of $1,500,000.
The seller opened the conversation at $2,400,000 and justified it with a revenue multiple drawn from a much larger transaction. Negotiations ran for weeks between $2,400,000 and $1,900,000, and the owner of Thornbury found himself defending why he would not pay $1,900,000 instead of why the business was worth $1,360,000.
In the illustrative ending, the finance director reread the pre-negotiation note, reminded the board of the $1,500,000 ceiling and walked away. The competitor sold eight months later for $1,450,000 to another buyer, which is roughly where Thornbury's own analysis had been all along.
Watch out
Common mistakes.
- Letting the other side name the first number without having written down your own valuation and walk-away point first.
- Building a budget as last year's figure plus a percentage, which anchors spending on history instead of on the work planned.
- Believing that knowing about anchoring protects you from it, when research consistently shows that awareness alone barely reduces the effect.
Questions
People also ask.
Is anchoring always harmful?
No, a well-reasoned anchor speeds up decisions, and the damage comes from adjusting too little away from an anchor that has no evidence behind it at all.
Should I open first in a negotiation?
Open first when you have done the analysis and know your range, because the opening number shapes everything that follows, and let the other side open when you genuinely lack information about value.
How can a finance team reduce anchoring?
Require a written independent valuation or a zero-based build before any number from the other side is discussed, record the walk-away figure in the file, and have someone other than the deal owner check it.
From the founder's library
Take it further with the book.
Build your financial confidence beyond this definition. Shihan's full-length guide, Accounting Fundamentals, takes the same plain-English approach and turns it into a complete, practical playbook for non-finance managers, business owners and students - with chapter-end quiz answers and presentation slides included.
25% off with code MMHQ25, applied at checkout. Priced in USD - checkout may show the equivalent in your local currency.
View the book and save 25%