Abstract
When firms want to raise external financing, why do they resort to contracts with fixed repayment, i.e., standard debt contracts? The canonical work of Gale and Hellwig (Rev Econ Stud, 52(4):647–663, 1985) gives the following answer to this question: Assuming that only the entrepreneur can observe the project’s outcome free of charge, the standard debt contract proves to be an incentive-compatible financing design. However, this approach remains inadequate, as neither the lender nor the borrower is given the possibility to act strategically. The paper at hand takes up this aspect. By means of a simple game-theoretic model and focusing on a binary outcome setting, it is shown that every risky standard debt contract is dominated by at least one ownership contract. In this respect, costly state verification cannot act as a raison d’etre of contracts with fixed repayment.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
