Asymmetric information, capacity constraint and segmentation in credit markets

IF 0.8 Q4 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Pallabi Chakraborty, Amarjyoti Mahanta
{"title":"Asymmetric information, capacity constraint and segmentation in credit markets","authors":"Pallabi Chakraborty, Amarjyoti Mahanta","doi":"10.1108/igdr-03-2022-0042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this study is to propose a model of competition between a formal lender (bank) and an informal lender (moneylender) with informational asymmetry between these two lenders. Further, the authors introduce capacity constraint on the lending capacity of the moneylender and assume that borrowers differ in risk and wealth.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe solution concept of Nash equilibrium has been used to derive the optimal strategies of the lenders.\n\n\nFindings\nThe equilibrium strategies in most of the results depend on the difference between the expected returns from risky and safe projects where the risky project has higher expected returns. The credit market is segmented in terms of risk and wealth levels. Rationing of poor safe borrowers from the credit market is inevitable when the moneylender's capacity is sufficiently small, suggesting a low-income trap for them. Further, when moneylender has capacity constraint of some form, a zero-profit outcome is never a Nash equilibrium outcome.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThere is a possibility of collusion between the lenders. However, the authors do not derive all possible outcomes under capacity constraint\n\n\nPractical implications\nWhen the informal lender has limited capacity, competition between formal and informal lenders may not alleviate credit rationing, instead aggravate the problem. Thus, the government should devise policies to ensure credit availability to resource poor households\n\n\nOriginality/value\nWhile the literature models strategic interaction between lenders under the assumption of zero-profit (Bertrand Paradox) condition, this study shows that zero profit is not the only outcome under such a set-up. Also, in presence of capacity constraint of the moneylender, a zero-profit outcome is never a Nash equilibrium outcome for the lenders. There is an optimal contract at which the lenders differentiate in terms of repayment and collateral and earn positive profits under certain conditions.\n","PeriodicalId":42861,"journal":{"name":"Indian Growth and Development Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Growth and Development Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/igdr-03-2022-0042","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to propose a model of competition between a formal lender (bank) and an informal lender (moneylender) with informational asymmetry between these two lenders. Further, the authors introduce capacity constraint on the lending capacity of the moneylender and assume that borrowers differ in risk and wealth. Design/methodology/approach The solution concept of Nash equilibrium has been used to derive the optimal strategies of the lenders. Findings The equilibrium strategies in most of the results depend on the difference between the expected returns from risky and safe projects where the risky project has higher expected returns. The credit market is segmented in terms of risk and wealth levels. Rationing of poor safe borrowers from the credit market is inevitable when the moneylender's capacity is sufficiently small, suggesting a low-income trap for them. Further, when moneylender has capacity constraint of some form, a zero-profit outcome is never a Nash equilibrium outcome. Research limitations/implications There is a possibility of collusion between the lenders. However, the authors do not derive all possible outcomes under capacity constraint Practical implications When the informal lender has limited capacity, competition between formal and informal lenders may not alleviate credit rationing, instead aggravate the problem. Thus, the government should devise policies to ensure credit availability to resource poor households Originality/value While the literature models strategic interaction between lenders under the assumption of zero-profit (Bertrand Paradox) condition, this study shows that zero profit is not the only outcome under such a set-up. Also, in presence of capacity constraint of the moneylender, a zero-profit outcome is never a Nash equilibrium outcome for the lenders. There is an optimal contract at which the lenders differentiate in terms of repayment and collateral and earn positive profits under certain conditions.
信贷市场中的信息不对称、能力约束和分割
目的本研究的目的是提出一个正式贷款人(银行)和非正式贷款人(放债人)之间的竞争模型,这两个贷款人之间存在信息不对称。此外,作者引入了对放债人借贷能力的能力约束,并假设借款人在风险和财富方面存在差异。设计/方法论/方法纳什均衡的解决方案概念已被用于推导贷款人的最优策略。发现大多数结果中的均衡策略取决于风险项目和安全项目的预期回报之间的差异,其中风险项目具有更高的预期回报。信贷市场按风险和财富水平划分。当放债人的能力足够小时,信贷市场上对贫穷、安全的借款人进行配给是不可避免的,这表明他们陷入了低收入陷阱。此外,当放债人有某种形式的能力约束时,零利润结果永远不是纳什均衡结果。研究局限性/牵连贷款人之间存在勾结的可能性。然而,作者并没有在能力约束下得出所有可能的结果。实际含义当非正规贷款人的能力有限时,正规和非正规贷款人之间的竞争可能不会缓解信贷配给,反而会加剧问题。因此,政府应该制定政策,确保资源匮乏的家庭获得信贷。原始性/价值。虽然文献模拟了在零利润假设(Bertrand Paradox)条件下贷款人之间的战略互动,但本研究表明,在这种设置下,零利润并不是唯一的结果。此外,在存在放债人能力约束的情况下,零利润结果对放债人来说从来都不是纳什均衡结果。有一个最佳合同,贷款人在还款和抵押品方面进行区分,并在某些条件下获得正利润。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信