Take the Money and Run: Making Profi ts by Paying Borrowers to Stay Home
AbstractCan a bank increase its profi t by subsidizing inactivity? This paper suggests this may occur, due to the presence of hidden information, in a monopolistic credit market. Rather than offering credit in a pooling contract, a monopolist bank can sort borrowers through an appropriate subsidy to inactivity. Under some conditions, sorting may avoid the collapse of the market and increases the welfare of everybody. The bank increases its profi ts, good borrowers bene fit from lower interest rates and bad potential borrowers from the subsidy. The subsidy policy however implies a cross subsidy between contracts and this is possible only under monopoly.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Scienze dell'Economia e Dell'Impresa in its series Working Papers Series with number wp2012_27.rdf.
Length: 18 pages
Date of creation: 2012
Date of revision:
Credit market; Screening; Subsidy;
Other versions of this item:
- G. Coco & D. De Meza & G. Pignataro & F. Reito, 2013. "Take the money and run: making profits by paying borrowers to stay home," Working Papers wp861, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
- D60 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - General
- D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
- H71 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - State and Local Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2013-01-07 (All new papers)
- NEP-BAN-2013-01-07 (Banking)
- NEP-CTA-2013-01-07 (Contract Theory & Applications)
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.:
- Gruner, Hans Peter, 2003. "Redistribution as a selection device," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 194-216, February.
- Coco, Giuseppe, 2000.
" On the Use of Collateral,"
Journal of Economic Surveys,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(2), pages 191-214, April.
- Francesco Reito, 2011. "Redistribution, Collateral Subsidy and Screening," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 67(1), pages 8-26, March.
- Akerlof, George A, 1970. "The Market for 'Lemons': Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 84(3), pages 488-500, August.
- Beck, T.H.L. & Demirgüç-Kunt, A. & Levine, R., 2006.
"Bank concentration, competition, and crises: First results,"
Open Access publications from Tilburg University
urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-3125498, Tilburg University.
- Beck, Thorsten & Demirguc-Kunt, Asli & Levine, Ross, 2006. "Bank concentration, competition, and crises: First results," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 1581-1603, May.
- de Meza, David & Webb, David, 2000. "Does credit rationing imply insufficient lending?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 215-234, November.
- Innes, Robert, 1991. "Investment and government intervention in credit markets when there is asymmetric information," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 347-381, December.
- de Meza, David & Webb, David C, 1987. "Too Much Investment: A Problem of Asymmetric Information," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 102(2), pages 281-92, May.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Giorgio Ricchiuti).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.