拿别人的钱冒险:赌博、有限责任和最优激励

P. DeMarzo, Dmitry Livdan, Alexei Tchistyi
{"title":"拿别人的钱冒险:赌博、有限责任和最优激励","authors":"P. DeMarzo, Dmitry Livdan, Alexei Tchistyi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2324879","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We consider optimal incentive contracts when managers can, in addition to shirking or diverting funds, increase short term profits by putting the firm at risk of a low probability \"disaster.\" To avoid such risk-taking, investors must cede additional rents to the manager. In a dynamic context, however, because managerial rents must be reduced following poor performance to prevent shirking, poorly performing managers will take on disaster risk even under an optimal contract. This risk taking can be mitigated if disaster states can be identified ex-post by paying the manager a large bonus if the firm survives. But even in this case, if performance is sufficiently weak the manager will forfeit eligibility for a bonus, and again take on disaster risk. When effort costs are convex, reductions in effort incentives are used to limit risk taking, with a jump to high powered incentives in the gambling region. Our model can explain why suboptimal risk taking can emerge even when investors are fully rational and managers are compensated optimally.","PeriodicalId":266573,"journal":{"name":"Seventh Singapore International Conference on Finance 2013 (Archive)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"55","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risking Other People's Money: Gambling, Limited Liability, and Optimal Incentives\",\"authors\":\"P. DeMarzo, Dmitry Livdan, Alexei Tchistyi\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2324879\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We consider optimal incentive contracts when managers can, in addition to shirking or diverting funds, increase short term profits by putting the firm at risk of a low probability \\\"disaster.\\\" To avoid such risk-taking, investors must cede additional rents to the manager. In a dynamic context, however, because managerial rents must be reduced following poor performance to prevent shirking, poorly performing managers will take on disaster risk even under an optimal contract. This risk taking can be mitigated if disaster states can be identified ex-post by paying the manager a large bonus if the firm survives. But even in this case, if performance is sufficiently weak the manager will forfeit eligibility for a bonus, and again take on disaster risk. When effort costs are convex, reductions in effort incentives are used to limit risk taking, with a jump to high powered incentives in the gambling region. Our model can explain why suboptimal risk taking can emerge even when investors are fully rational and managers are compensated optimally.\",\"PeriodicalId\":266573,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Seventh Singapore International Conference on Finance 2013 (Archive)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"55\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Seventh Singapore International Conference on Finance 2013 (Archive)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2324879\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seventh Singapore International Conference on Finance 2013 (Archive)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2324879","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 55

摘要

我们考虑最优激励契约,当经理人除了逃避或转移资金外,还可以通过将公司置于低概率“灾难”的风险中来增加短期利润。为了避免这种冒险行为,投资者必须向基金经理支付额外的租金。然而,在动态环境中,由于管理租金必须在业绩不佳后减少,以防止逃避,因此即使在最优合同下,业绩不佳的管理人员也会承担灾难风险。如果公司幸存下来,可以通过事后向经理支付大笔奖金来识别灾难状态,那么这种冒险行为就可以减轻。但即使在这种情况下,如果业绩足够弱,经理也将丧失获得奖金的资格,并再次承担灾难风险。当努力成本是凸的,努力激励的减少被用来限制冒险,在赌博区域跳跃到高动力激励。我们的模型可以解释,为什么在投资者完全理性、管理者获得最优报酬的情况下,次优风险承担仍会出现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Risking Other People's Money: Gambling, Limited Liability, and Optimal Incentives
We consider optimal incentive contracts when managers can, in addition to shirking or diverting funds, increase short term profits by putting the firm at risk of a low probability "disaster." To avoid such risk-taking, investors must cede additional rents to the manager. In a dynamic context, however, because managerial rents must be reduced following poor performance to prevent shirking, poorly performing managers will take on disaster risk even under an optimal contract. This risk taking can be mitigated if disaster states can be identified ex-post by paying the manager a large bonus if the firm survives. But even in this case, if performance is sufficiently weak the manager will forfeit eligibility for a bonus, and again take on disaster risk. When effort costs are convex, reductions in effort incentives are used to limit risk taking, with a jump to high powered incentives in the gambling region. Our model can explain why suboptimal risk taking can emerge even when investors are fully rational and managers are compensated optimally.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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