ANTI-COMPETITIVE FINANCIAL CONTRACTING: THE DESIGN OF FINANCIAL CLAIMS.



Appendix: Proof of Lemma 1

Substitute RbH = RbL + Ψ0(e) throughout and write the first order conditions
for e and
RbL :

(1) L = RH - Rl - Ψ0(e) - 00(e) + λ [eΨ00(e)] = 0

(2)RL = -1 + λ 0 and (-1 + λ)RbL = 0

where λ is the Lagrange multiplier for the (IR) constraint.

(i) If (IR) does not bind at the optimum, then λ =0 and eM is determined
by
RH - RL = Ψ0(eM) + eMΨ00(eM). From Ψ00(e)>0 and the definition of the
first best effort e*, it follows e < e*. As (IR) is slack, λ = 0 and thus RL = 0.
For this to be the case, the level of effort must satisfy: eMΨ0(eM) -Ψ(eM) W,
i.e. it must be
W W1.

(ii) Suppose instead that W>W1. Then the contract in (i) cannot be the
solution to the program, as it fails to satisfy (IR). Then, either
RbH or RbL must
be raised. As
eM < e*, it is optimal to raise only the entrepreneur’s payment
in the high state, so as to raise his e
ffort. Therefore, RbH = Ψ0(eM(W)), where
eM(W) satisfies (IR) as an equality: eM(W)Ψ0(eM(W)) - Ψ(eM (W)) = W.

34



More intriguing information

1. Kharaj and land proprietary right in the sixteenth century: An example of law and economics
2. The name is absent
3. The name is absent
4. DISCUSSION: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS OF EMERGING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES
5. The name is absent
6. The name is absent
7. The name is absent
8. Optimal Private and Public Harvesting under Spatial and Temporal Interdependence
9. Deprivation Analysis in Declining Inner City Residential Areas: A Case Study From Izmir, Turkey.
10. Trade Openness and Volatility