IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wop/callfi/_001.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why is Bankdebt Senior? A Theory of Priority Among Creditors

Author

Listed:
  • Ivo Welch

Abstract

Theories of banks as efficient monitors could suggest that bank debt should be junior to other creditors in order to precipitate bankruptcy when other creditors are still in-the- money. This paper provides an explanation why bank debt is usually senior: banks would more strongly contest the priority structure in financial distress if they were junior, because they are both better organized than public debt and more appreciative of a toughness reputation in repeat relationships with other clients. This paper identifies the conditions under which firms find it efficient to award the ex-post stronger lobbyist/litigant ex-ante priority, because ``deterrence'' can reduce total creditors' expenses associated with a priority contest. For equivalent reasons, the theory can advise when public debt should be senior to trade credit and/or implicit contracts, and can even suggest one rationale for the absolute priority rule (APR). Finally, there are situations in which overall creditors' contest expenses are lower when the firm pays, thus providing a rationale for Chapter~11 creditor reimbursement procedures.

Suggested Citation

  • Ivo Welch, 1995. "Why is Bankdebt Senior? A Theory of Priority Among Creditors," Finance 18-94, University of California at Los Angeles.
  • Handle: RePEc:wop:callfi:_001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://next.agsm.ucla.edu/academic.finance/bankdebt.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Birchler, Urs W, 2000. "Bankruptcy Priority for Bank Deposits: A Contract Theoretic Explanation," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 13(3), pages 813-840.
    2. Luigi Zingales, 2000. "In Search of New Foundations," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(4), pages 1623-1653, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wop:callfi:_001. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Thomas Krichel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fguclus.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.