IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/agr/journl/v3(628)y2021i3(628)p45-56.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Financial contracts with several types of agents

Author

Listed:
  • Laura CONSTANTIN

    (Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania)

  • Ștefan Virgil IACOB

    (“Artifex” University of Bucharest, Romania)

  • Dana Luiza GRIGORESCU

    (Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania)

Abstract

The article analyses the optimal financial contracts with several types of agents, studying the situation of informational symmetry (symmetrical information) and the situation of informational asymmetry (asymmetric information). In the situation of informational symmetry, the equilibrium point between the principal (decision maker, for example the bank) and the agent (a natural or legal person) is determined, respectively the optimal transfer (rate) and the optimal amount that the agent can borrow. The two main characteristics of the contract are highlighted, represented by the situation of Pareto efficiency (Pareto optimality) and the situation in which the Agent obtains exactly the minimum threshold reserved by the market. In the situation of informational asymmetry, it is solved with the help of informational rents and the solution is compared with the first rank solution, where we have symmetrical information. The characteristics of the contract are highlighted, namely the situation in which the efficiency of Pareto is kept only for the efficient agent who obtains an informational rent. For the other agents, the solution is no longer Pareto - optimal. Following the described analysis, models will be obtained that are classified in relation to the types of agent: rich, good payers or not and good professionals.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura CONSTANTIN & Ștefan Virgil IACOB & Dana Luiza GRIGORESCU, 2021. "Financial contracts with several types of agents," Theoretical and Applied Economics, Asociatia Generala a Economistilor din Romania / Editura Economica, vol. 0(3(628), A), pages 45-56, Autumn.
    • Handle: RePEc:agr:journl:v:3(628):y:2021:i:3(628):p:45-56
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://store.ectap.ro/articole/1554.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.ectap.ro/articol.php?id=1554&rid=144
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniela Elena Marinescu & Ioana Manafi & Dumitru Marin, 2012. "An Adverse Selection Model with Finite Number of Types and Informational Rents," International Journal of Economic Practices and Theories, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 2(3), pages 99-108, July.
    2. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L’Haridon, 2008. "A tractable method to measure utility and loss aversion under prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 245-266, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Martín Egozcue & Sébastien Massoni & Wing-Keung Wong & RiÄ ardas Zitikis, 2012. "Integration-segregation decisions under general value functions: "Create your own bundle — choose 1, 2, or all 3!"," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 12057, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    2. Thomas Boyer-Kassem & Sébastien Duchêne & Bart Engelen, 2017. "On Discrimination in Health Insurance," GREDEG Working Papers 2017-23, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France, revised Dec 2017.
    3. Toritseju Begho & Kelvin Balcombe, 2023. "Attitudes to Risk and Uncertainty: New Insights From an Experiment Using Interval Prospects," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, July.
    4. Mathieu Lefebvre & Ferdinand Vieider & Marie Villeval, 2011. "The ratio bias phenomenon: fact or artifact?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 615-641, October.
    5. Sophie Massin & Antoine Nebout & Bruno Ventelou, 2018. "Predicting medical practices using various risk attitude measures," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 843-860, July.
    6. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L’Haridon & Horst Zank, 2010. "Separating curvature and elevation: A parametric probability weighting function," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 39-65, August.
    7. Maren Baars & Michael Goedde‐Menke, 2022. "Ignorance illusion in decisions under risk: The impact of perceived expertise on probability weighting," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(1), pages 35-62, March.
    8. A. Alventosa & Y. Gómez & V. Martínez-Molés & J. Vila, 2016. "Location and Innovation Optimism: a Behavioral-Experimental Approach," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 7(4), pages 890-904, December.
    9. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2009. "Probability weighting and the ‘level’ and ‘spacing’ of outcomes: An experimental study over losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 45-63, August.
    10. Bocqueho, Geraldine & Jacquet, Florence & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Expected Utility or Prospect Theory Maximizers? Results from a Structural Model based on Field-experiment Data," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114257, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Emmanuel Kemel & Muriel Travers, 2016. "Comparing attitudes toward time and toward money in experience-based decisions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(1), pages 71-100, January.
    12. Martin Koudstaal & Randolph Sloof & Mirjam van Praag, 2016. "Risk, Uncertainty, and Entrepreneurship: Evidence from a Lab-in-the-Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2897-2915, October.
    13. Dennery, Charles & Direr, Alexis, 2014. "Optimal lottery," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 15-23.
    14. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.
    15. Alex Imas & Sally Sadoff & Anya Samek, 2017. "Do People Anticipate Loss Aversion?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1271-1284, May.
    16. Enrico Diecidue & Peter Wakker & Marcel Zeelenberg, 2007. "Eliciting decision weights by adapting de Finetti’s betting-odds method to prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 179-199, June.
    17. Ranoua Bouchouicha & Ferdinand M. Vieider, 2017. "Accommodating stake effects under prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 55(1), pages 1-28, August.
    18. Arnaud Reynaud & Cécile Aubert, 2020. "Does flood experience modify risk preferences? Evidence from an artefactual field experiment in Vietnam," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 45(1), pages 36-74, March.
    19. Attema, Arthur E. & l’Haridon, Olivier & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2019. "Measuring multivariate risk preferences in the health domain," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 15-24.
    20. Han Bleichrodt & Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2009. "Additive Utility in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(5), pages 863-873, May.

    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:agr:journl:v:3(628):y:2021:i:3(628):p:45-56. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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: Mircea Dinu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/agerrea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.