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



shifts probability mass from high revenue to low revenue outcomes.

Preferences:

All agents are risk-neutral. Firms 1 and 2 are identical. Entrepreneur i’s
von Neumann-Morgernstern utility function is

U(Rbi,ei)=Rbi - Ψ(ei)

where Rbi is the expected monetary payment borrowing firm i receives af-
ter revenues are realized. E
ffort ei costs Ψ(ei) to the entrepreneur. Thus,
were he to receive a
flat payment, he would exert the lowest possible effort.
The function
Ψ ( ∙ ) is strictly increasing, twice continuously differentiable and
convex. Entrepreneurs have reservation wage
Wi . The simplest way to think
of this parameter is in terms of the entrepreneur’s outside wage: how much
he could earn if he did not borrow from the investor to start his own
firm.
A related idea is that the entrepreneur has some bargaining power in dealing
with the investor, and so is able to extract rents of value
Wi . However, one
could also think of
Wi as the best offer that the entrepreneur i has received
from competing investors. In this case a higher
Wi would correspond to more
competition between investors. A third interpretation for
Wi is in terms of
assets provided by the entrepreneur. This third interpretation would result in
the investor solving somewhat di
fferent optimization programs, but the basic
insights would be similar. For concreteness we will proceed in terms of the
first interpretation because it yields the most straightforward analysis.

For notational simplicity, we will omit the subscript 1 when referring to
Firm
1: therefore Firm 1’s return, effort and reservation wage will be Rb , e
and W throughout.

Timing:

t=1 The investor offers a contract to firm 1. Firm 1 accepts or rejects. If
Firm
1 accepts, then it picks a level of effort e [∆, 1]. The effort decision is
pure moral hazard, not observed by the investor.

t=2 The investor decides whether to fund Firm 2 or not; if it decides to
do so, it o
ffers a contract to Firm 2, which then accepts or rejects. Firm 2
observes whether
firm 1 has been funded when considering the investor’s offer.
If Firm 2 accepts the contract, then it picks an e
ffort level e2 [∆, 1].

t=3 Payoffs are realized according to the manager’s level of effort and to
whether the investor has funded one or both
firms

The timing of the model is summarized in the following figure:

standard arguments, we work with the simpler case where efforts are neither complements
nor substitutes in order to focus attention on the new form of entry deterrence.



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. Unemployment in an Interdependent World
3. Deletion of a mycobacterial gene encoding a reductase leads to an altered cell wall containing β-oxo-mycolic acid analogues, and the accumulation of long-chain ketones related to mycolic acids
4. Innovation Trajectories in Honduras’ Coffee Value Chain. Public and Private Influence on the Use of New Knowledge and Technology among Coffee Growers
5. The name is absent
6. Nurses' retention and hospital characteristics in New South Wales, CHERE Discussion Paper No 52
7. The name is absent
8. Ventas callejeras y espacio público: efectos sobre el comercio de Bogotá
9. Evidence of coevolution in multi-objective evolutionary algorithms
10. Protocol for Past BP: a randomised controlled trial of different blood pressure targets for people with a history of stroke of transient ischaemic attack (TIA) in primary care
11. HACCP AND MEAT AND POULTRY INSPECTION
12. MULTIMODAL SEMIOTICS OF SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCES: REPRESENTING BELIEFS, METAPHORS, AND ACTIONS
13. Policy Formulation, Implementation and Feedback in EU Merger Control
14. The Triangular Relationship between the Commission, NRAs and National Courts Revisited
15. Mergers and the changing landscape of commercial banking (Part II)
16. Can a Robot Hear Music? Can a Robot Dance? Can a Robot Tell What it Knows or Intends to Do? Can it Feel Pride or Shame in Company?
17. SLA RESEARCH ON SELF-DIRECTION: THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL ISSUES
18. The name is absent
19. NVESTIGATING LEXICAL ACQUISITION PATTERNS: CONTEXT AND COGNITION
20. Iconic memory or icon?