IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/unm/umamet/2008031.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A noncooperative approach to bankruptcy problems with an endogeneous estate

Author

Listed:
  • Karagozoglu, E.

    (Microeconomics & Public Economics)

Abstract

We introduce a new class of bankruptcy problems in which the value of the estate is endogenous and depends on agents’ investment decisions. There are two investment alternatives: investing in a company (risky asset) and depositing money into a savings account (risk-free asset). Bankruptcy is possible only for the risky asset. We define a game between agents each of which aims to maximize his expected payoff by choosing an investment alternative and a company management which aims to maximize profits by choosing a bankruptcy rule. Our agents are differentiated by their incomes. We consider three most prominent bankruptcy rules in our base model: the proportional rule, the constrained equal awards rule and the constrained equal losses rule. We show that only the proportional rule is a part of any pure strategy subgame perfect Nash equilibrium. This result is robust to changes in income distribution in the economy and can be extended to a larger set of bankruptcy rules and multiple types. However, extension to multiple company framework with competition leads to equilibria where the noncooperative support for the proportional rule disappears. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Karagozoglu, E., 2008. "A noncooperative approach to bankruptcy problems with an endogeneous estate," Research Memorandum 031, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
  • Handle: RePEc:unm:umamet:2008031
    DOI: 10.26481/umamet.2008031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/ws/files/1326499/guid-7fec3d0f-2acc-46f6-bb02-1f52acef7eba-ASSET1.0.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.26481/umamet.2008031?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chun, Youngsub, 1988. "The proportional solution for rights problems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 231-246, June.
    2. Kaminski, Marek M., 2006. "Parametric rationing methods," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 115-133, January.
    3. Dagan, Nir & Serrano, Roberto & Volij, Oscar, 1997. "A Noncooperative View of Consistent Bankruptcy Rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 55-72, January.
    4. Dagan, Nir & Volij, Oscar, 1993. "The bankruptcy problem: a cooperative bargaining approach," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 287-297, November.
    5. Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2009. "The proportional rule for multi-issue bankruptcy problems," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 29(1), pages 474-481.
    6. Moulin, Herve, 2002. "Axiomatic cost and surplus sharing," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 6, pages 289-357, Elsevier.
    7. Ignacio García-Jurado & Julio González-Díaz & Antonio Villar, 2006. "A Non-cooperative Approach to Bankruptcy Problems," Spanish Economic Review, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 8(3), pages 189-197, September.
    8. Young, H Peyton, 1985. "Producer Incentives in Cost Allocation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(4), pages 757-765, July.
    9. Hervé Moulin, 2000. "Priority Rules and Other Asymmetric Rationing Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(3), pages 643-684, May.
    10. Simon Gächter & Arno Riedl, 2005. "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining with Infeasible Claims," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(2), pages 249-263, February.
    11. Mário R. Páscoa & Aloisio P. Araujo, 2002. "Bancruptcy in a model of unsecured claims," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 20(3), pages 455-481.
    12. Carmen Herrero & Juan Moreno-Ternero & Giovanni Ponti, 2010. "On the adjudication of conflicting claims: an experimental study," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(1), pages 145-179, January.
    13. Bergantinos, Gustavo & Sanchez, Estela, 2002. "The proportional rule for problems with constraints and claims," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 225-249, March.
    14. Ju, Biung-Ghi & Miyagawa, Eiichi & Sakai, Toyotaka, 2007. "Non-manipulable division rules in claim problems and generalizations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 1-26, January.
    15. Simon Gächter & Arno Riedl, 2006. "Dividing Justly in Bargaining Problems with Claims," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(3), pages 571-594, December.
    16. Juan Moreno-Ternero & Antonio Villar, 2006. "The TAL-Family of Rules for Bankruptcy Problems," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(2), pages 231-249, October.
    17. Chambers, Christopher P. & Thomson, William, 2002. "Group order preservation and the proportional rule for the adjudication of conflicting claims," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 235-252, December.
    18. Ashlagi, Itai & Karagözoğlu, Emin & Klaus, Bettina, 2012. "A non-cooperative support for equal division in estate division problems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 228-233.
    19. Karagozoglu, E., 2008. "Distributive concerns in the bankruptcy problem with an endogenous estate," Research Memorandum 032, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    20. Thomson, William, 2003. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 249-297, July.
    21. Biung-Ghi Ju, 2003. "Manipulation via merging and splitting in claims problems," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 8(2), pages 205-215, October.
    22. Chun, Youngsub, 1989. "A noncooperative justification for egalitarian surplus sharing," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 245-261, June.
    23. Chang, Chih & Hu, Cheng-Cheng, 2008. "A non-cooperative interpretation of the f-just rules of bankruptcy problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 133-144, May.
    24. M. Angeles de Frutos, 1999. "Coalitional manipulations in a bankruptcy problem," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 4(3), pages 255-272.
    25. Herrero, Carmen & Villar, Antonio, 2001. "The three musketeers: four classical solutions to bankruptcy problems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 307-328, November.
    26. Aumann, Robert J. & Maschler, Michael, 1985. "Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 195-213, August.
    27. Kıbrıs, Özgür & Kıbrıs, Arzu, 2013. "On the investment implications of bankruptcy laws," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 85-99.
    28. Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2006. "Proportionality And Non-Manipulability In Bankruptcy Problems," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(01), pages 127-139.
    29. Oliver Hart, 2000. "Different Approaches to Bankruptcy," NBER Working Papers 7921, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    30. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Osterdal, Lars Peter, 2005. "Inequality preserving rationing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 87(3), pages 355-360, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Karagozoglu, E., 2008. "Distributive concerns in the bankruptcy problem with an endogenous estate," Research Memorandum 032, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    2. J. Arin & V. Feltkamp & M. Montero, 2015. "A bargaining procedure leading to the serial rule in games with veto players," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 229(1), pages 41-66, June.
    3. Cappelen, Alexander W. & Luttens, Roland I. & Sørensen, Erik Ø. & Tungodden, Bertil, 2015. "Fairness in bankruptcy situations: an experimental study," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 17/2015, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    4. Büyükboyacı, Mürüvvet & Gürdal, Mehmet Y. & Kıbrıs, Arzu & Kıbrıs, Özgür, 2019. "An experimental study of the investment implications of bankruptcy laws," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 607-629.
    5. Koster, Maurice & Boonen, Tim J., 2019. "Constrained stochastic cost allocation," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 20-30.
    6. Boonen, Tim J., 2019. "Equilibrium recoveries in insurance markets with limited liability," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 38-45.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomson, William, 2015. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: An update," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 41-59.
    2. Kıbrıs, Özgür & Kıbrıs, Arzu, 2013. "On the investment implications of bankruptcy laws," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 85-99.
    3. Carmen Herrero & Juan Moreno-Ternero & Giovanni Ponti, 2010. "On the adjudication of conflicting claims: an experimental study," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(1), pages 145-179, January.
    4. Thomson, William, 2003. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 249-297, July.
    5. Kasajima, Yoichi & Velez, Rodrigo A., 2010. "Non-proportional inequality preservation in gains and losses," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 1079-1092, November.
    6. Büyükboyacı, Mürüvvet & Gürdal, Mehmet Y. & Kıbrıs, Arzu & Kıbrıs, Özgür, 2019. "An experimental study of the investment implications of bankruptcy laws," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 607-629.
    7. Ju, Biung-Ghi & Miyagawa, Eiichi & Sakai, Toyotaka, 2007. "Non-manipulable division rules in claim problems and generalizations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 1-26, January.
    8. Biung-Ghi Ju & Juan D. Moreno-Ternero, 2006. "Progressivity, Inequality Reduction, and Merging-Proofness in Taxation," WORKING PAPERS SERIES IN THEORETICAL AND APPLIED ECONOMICS 200603, University of Kansas, Department of Economics, revised Feb 2006.
    9. van den Brink, René & Funaki, Yukihiko & van der Laan, Gerard, 2013. "Characterization of the Reverse Talmud bankruptcy rule by Exemption and Exclusion properties," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 413-417.
    10. Jens Leth Hougaard & Juan D. Moreno-Ternero & Lars Peter Østerdal, 2010. "Baseline Rationing," Discussion Papers 10-16, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    11. William Thomson, 2014. "Compromising between the proportional and constrained equal awards rules," RCER Working Papers 584, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    12. Patrick Harless, 2017. "Endowment additivity and the weighted proportional rules for adjudicating conflicting claims," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 63(3), pages 755-781, March.
    13. William Thomson, 2015. "For claims problems, compromising between the proportional and constrained equal awards rules," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 60(3), pages 495-520, November.
    14. William Thomson, 2015. "For claims problems, another compromise between the proportional and constrained equal awards rules," RCER Working Papers 592, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    15. Hokari, Toru & Thomson, William, 2008. "On properties of division rules lifted by bilateral consistency," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(11), pages 1057-1071, December.
    16. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & M. Marco-Gil, 2014. "A new approach for bounding awards in bankruptcy problems," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(2), pages 447-469, August.
    17. Karol Flores-Szwagrzak & Jaume García-Segarra & Miguel Ginés-Vilar, 2020. "Priority and proportionality in bankruptcy," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(4), pages 559-579, April.
    18. Simon Gächter & Arno Riedl, 2006. "Dividing Justly in Bargaining Problems with Claims," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(3), pages 571-594, December.
    19. Rene van den Brink & Yukihiko Funaki & Gerard van der Laan, 2008. "The Reverse Talmud Rule for Bankruptcy Problems," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 08-026/1, Tinbergen Institute, revised 27 Mar 2008.
    20. Yoichi Kasajima & Rodrigo Velez, 2011. "Reflecting inequality of claims in gains and losses," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 46(2), pages 283-295, February.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:unm:umamet:2008031. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/meteonl.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Andrea Willems or Leonne Portz (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/meteonl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.