scholarly journals Disputes, debt, and equity

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 887-925 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfred Duncan ◽  
Charles Nolan

We show how the prospect of disputes over firms' revenue reports promotes debt financing over equity. This is demonstrated in a costly state verification model with a risk‐averse entrepreneur. The prospect of disputes encourages incentive contracts that limit penalties and avoid stochastic monitoring, even when the lender can commit to stochastic monitoring. Consequently, optimal contracts shift from equity toward standard debt. In short, when audit signals are weakly correlated with true incomes, standard debt contracts emerge as optimal; if audit signals are highly correlated with true incomes, optimal contracts resemble equity. When audit costs are sufficiently high, stochastic monitoring may be optimal. Optimal standard debt contracts under imperfect audits are shown to reproduce key empirical facts of U.S. firm borrowing.

2005 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 867-885 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cyril Monnet ◽  
Erwan Quintin

2013 ◽  
Vol 103 (3) ◽  
pp. 406-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
David E Fagnan ◽  
Jose Maria Fernandez ◽  
Andrew W Lo ◽  
Roger M Stein

Traditional financing sources such as private and public equity may not be ideal for investment projects with low probabilities of success, long time horizons, and large capital requirements. Nevertheless, such projects, if not too highly correlated, may yield attractive risk-adjusted returns when combined into a single portfolio. Such “megafund” portfolios may be too large to finance through private or public equity alone. But with sufficient diversification and risk analytics, debt financing via securitization may be feasible. Credit enhancements (i.e., derivatives and government guarantees) can also improve megafund economics. We present an analytical framework and illustrative empirical examples involving cancer research.


2003 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 315-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Attar ◽  
Eloisa Campioni

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 715-761 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Barron ◽  
George Georgiadis ◽  
Jeroen Swinkels

Consider an agent who can costlessly add mean‐preserving noise to his output. To deter such risk‐taking, the principal optimally offers a contract that makes the agent's utility concave in output. If the agent is risk‐neutral and protected by limited liability, this concavity constraint binds and so linear contracts maximize profit. If the agent is risk averse, the concavity constraint might bind for some outputs but not others. We characterize the unique profit‐maximizing contract and show how deterring risk‐taking affects the insurance‐incentive trade‐off. Our logic extends to costly risk‐taking and to dynamic settings where the agent can shift output over time.


2003 ◽  
Vol 93 (3) ◽  
pp. 835-857 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Levin

Standard incentive theory models provide a rich framework for studying informational problems but assume that contracts can be perfectly enforced. This paper studies the design of self-enforced relational contracts. I show that optimal contracts often can take a simple stationary form, but that self-enforcement restricts promised compensation and affects incentive provision. With hidden information, it may be optimal for an agent to supply the same inefficient effort regardless of cost conditions. With moral hazard, optimal contracts involve just two levels of compensation. This is true even if performance measures are subjective, in which case optimal contracts terminate following poor performance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document