This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Costly State Verification and Multiple Investors: The Role of Seniority

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Winton, Andrew
Abstract

Many financial claims specify fixed maximum payments, varying seniority, and absolute priority for more senior investors. These features are motivated in a model where a firm's manager contracts with several investors and firm output can only be verified privately at a cost. Debt-like contracts of varying seniority generally dominate symmetric contracts, and, when investors are risk neutral, it is optimal to use debt like contracts where more senior claims have absolute priority over more junior claims. In addition to motivating several features of debt and preferred stock, the model offers an explanation for structures used in leveraged buyouts, asset backed securitizations, and reinsurance contracts. Article published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Financial Studies in its journal, The Review of Financial Studies.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.jstor.org/fcgi-bin/jstor/listjournal.fcg/08939454
File Format: application/pdf
File Function: full text
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to JSTOR subscribers. See http://www.jstor.org for details.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Publisher Info
Article provided by Oxford University Press for Society for Financial Studies in its journal Review of Financial Studies.

Volume (Year): 8 (1995)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Pages: 91-123
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:oup:rfinst:v:8:y:1995:i:1:p:91-123

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Oxford University Press, Journals Department, 2001 Evans Road, Cary, NC 27513 USA.
Fax: 919-677-1714
Email:
Web page: http://www.rfs.oupjournals.org/
More information through EDIRC

Order Information:
Web: http://www4.oup.co.uk/revfin/subinfo/

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)
  1. Rong Fan & Joseph Haubrich & Peter Ritchken & James Thomson, 2003. "Getting the Most Out of a Mandatory Subordinated Debt Requirement," Journal of Financial Services Research, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 149-179, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  2. Urs W. Birchler & Diana Hancock, 2003. "What does the yield on subordinated bank debt measure?," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2004-19, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.). [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  3. Bénédicte Coestier & Nathalie Fombaron, 2003. "L'audit en assurance," THEMA Working Papers 2003-41, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise. [Downloadable!]
  4. Vink, Dennis, 2007. "An Empirical Analysis of Asset-Backed Securitization," MPRA Paper 10382, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 25 Aug 2008. [Downloadable!]
  5. Maciej Firla-Cuchra & Tim Jenkinson, 2005. "Security Design in the Real World: Why are Securitization Issues Tranched?," Economics Series Working Papers 225, University of Oxford, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
  6. Alberto Bisin & Piero Gottardi & Adriano A. Rampini, 2004. "Managerial Hedging and Portfolio Monitoring," CESifo Working Paper Series CESifo Working Paper No. , CESifo Group Munich. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  7. Douglas W. Diamond, 1996. "Financial intermediation as delegated monitoring: a simple example," Economic Quarterly, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, issue Sum, pages 51-66. [Downloadable!]
  8. Parkash Chander, 2004. "Risk Aversion and Income Tax Enforcement," Econometric Society 2004 Far Eastern Meetings 531, Econometric Society. [Downloadable!]
  9. Celli, Gian Luca, 2008. "“Managing Banks’ Optimal Debt Contracts under Costly Enforcement”," MPRA Paper 14545, University Library of Munich, Germany. [Downloadable!]
  10. Maciej Firla-Cuchra & Tim Jenkinson, 2005. "Why are Securitization Issues Tranched?," OFRC Working Papers Series 2005fe04, Oxford Financial Research Centre. [Downloadable!]
  11. Ernst-Ludwig VON THADDEN & Erik BERGLÖF & Gérard ROLAND, 2003. "Optimal Debt Design and the Role of Bankruptcy," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'Econométrie et d'Economie politique (DEEP) 03.13, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, DEEP. [Downloadable!]
  12. Andrew Winton, 1996. "Monitored finance, liquidity, and institutional investment choice," Working Paper 9616, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. [Downloadable!]
  13. Fahad Khalil & David Martimort & Bruno Maria Parigi, 2005. "Monitoring a Common Agent: Implications for Financial Contracting," CESifo Working Paper Series CESifo Working Paper No. , CESifo Group Munich. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? All the bibliographic data shown here has been contributed by volunteers, thereby helping to keep this service free.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-19.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.