Abstract

AbstractWe incorporate loss aversion and power imbalance into a trade credit contract that sets both wholesale price and payment ratio at ordering time. Our models are based on a dyadic supply chain consisting of a loss‐averse supplier and a capital‐constrained retailer who can get finance via bank credit or trade credit. We derive the optimal trade credit contract under the retailer‐dominant noncooperative (RDN) and the supplier‐dominant noncooperative (SDN) games. Our results show that the impact of the supplier's loss aversion depends on whether the supplier dominates the supply chain. Specifically, under RDN scenario, a single bank credit should be adopted by the retailer, irrespective of the supplier's loss aversion. Under SDN scenario, however, a hybrid of bank credit and trade credit should be provided to the retailer when the supplier's loss aversion level exceeds a critical threshold value, and a single trade credit should be granted otherwise. Moreover, we find that the capital‐constrained retailer may benefit from the supplier's loss aversion behavior. Finally, we conduct a serial of numerical examples to develop more managerial insights.

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 call

Disclaimer: 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.