I haven't seen research that supports this, but I believe there is an anti-Halo Effect.
I've been writing a bit about the Halo Effect recently. Unlike a lot of social science that doesn't replicate, the Halo Effect seems to be well-supported by a number of replicable studies, and I think we all have our own anecdotal evidence that supports the Halo Effect.
The Halo Effect: when something exhibits an observable, desirable phenomenon (beauty, wealth, strength, etc), we assume that person/company/thing has other desirable attributes that are less observable/quantifiable (character, intelligence, discipline, etc).
What if something is exhibiting observable, undesirable stuff instead? Like, I dunno… what if your business revenue is in the shitter for some period of time? Under those circumstances, how do you self-assess less observable/quantifiable qualities like skill, expertise, and value?
As I'm working on the Lead Generation Operating System, I'm especially sympathetic to one of the 3 aspirations that might be part of your context. Those 3 aspirations are Restore, De-Risk, and Level Up. The aspiration to Restore is to re-gain some previous level of success, or keep things from getting worse.
When that's your aspiration, it means you're in a not-great situation. Maybe a bad situation.
When we're in a situation like that, I believe the Anti-Halo Effect kicks in, and the observably bad financial outcomes of the business can lead us to underrate our value to clients.
I'm not exactly sure how to fix this, but i know the first step is awareness. The first step is noticing the ways we might be underrating our intrinsic worth and value to clients based on the currently-bad financial outcomes (which probably have little or nothing to do with our intrinsic worth or market value).