A Re-examination of Credit Rationing in the Stiglitz and Weiss Model
With a more general setting, we illustrate that credit rationing in the Stiglitz and Weiss (1981) model is sensitive to the ranking of projects. Given that the ranking is according to the mean-preserving-spread, adverse selection and moral hazard cannot co-exist and credit rationing occurs only under extreme conditions. Even if a more general ranking according to the second-order-stochastic-dominance allows for the coexistence of adverse selection and moral hazard, credit rationing implies a take-it-or-leave-it choice for both contract parties and requires that borrowers' collateral amounts are positively correlated with their risk. We argue that these required conditions leave little room for the signicance of credit rationing.
|Date of creation:||05 Nov 2010|
|Date of revision:||31 Dec 2010|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: NHH, Department of Business and Management Science, Helleveien 30, N-5045 Bergen, Norway|
Phone: +47 55 95 92 93
Fax: +47 55 95 96 50
Web page: http://www.nhh.no/en/research-faculty/department-of-business-and-management-science.aspx
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- David de Meza & David C. Webb, 1987. "Too Much Investment: A Problem of Asymmetric Information," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 102(2), pages 281-292.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hhs:nhhfms:2010_014. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Stein Fossen)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.