Endogenous incomplete markets, enforcement constraints, and intermediation

Alvarez and Jermann (2000) show that the constrained efficient allocations of endowment economies with imperfect risk sharing due to limited commitment can be decentralized as competitive equilibria with endogenous debt constraints that are not too tight. These are the loosest possible borrowing limits that do not allow for default in equilibrium. However, such a decentralization is not possible in the presence of capital accumulation, since changes in the aggregate capital also affect the incentives to default. In a model with endogenous production, aggregate risk, and competitive intermediaries, we show that a decentralization with endogenous debt constraints is possible if one also imposes an upper limit on the intermediaries’ capital holdings.Complete markets, enforcement constraints, intermediation

Dividend and Capital Gains Taxation under Incomplete Markets

The capital income tax cuts that were part of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 are expiring this year and the administration has to decide whether to extend them or not. This paper assesses the effects of these tax cuts in a calibrated dynamic general equilibrium framework with uninsurable labor income risk. In particular, it looks at the effects of dividend and capital gains taxes on investment and welfare in a framework where firms are the owners of capital and make investment decisions to maximize their market value. While the effects of capital gains taxes are qualitatively similar to those found when households own the capital, we find that the effects of dividend taxes are different. Surprisingly, a dividend tax cut leads to a reduction in investment. The reason is that it raises the market valuation of the existing capital stock and households require a lower capital stock to maintain the same level of wealth. As a consequence, dividend tax cuts are welfare reducing in the long run, not only because of the traditional reasons of redistribution from the poor to rich, but also because of a fall in aggregate production and consumption. Taking into account the transition mitigates the losses. Still, with our benchmark calibration, a reduction of dividend and capital gains taxes from 31% and 24% to 19% leads to a reduction of more than 0.5% in aggregate welfare in consumption equivalent terms.Incomplete Markets, Tax Reform, Dividend Taxes, Capital Gains Taxes.

Asset pricing with adaptive learning

We study the extent to which self-referential adaptive learning can explain stylized asset pricing facts in a general equilibrium framework. In particular, we analyze the effects of recursive least squares and constant gain algorithms in a production economy and a Lucas type endowment economy. We find that recursive least squares learning has almost no effects on asset price behavior, for either model, since the algorithm converges fast to rational expectations. At the other end, constant gain learning may sometimes contribute towards explaining the stock price volatility and the predictability of excess returns in the endowment economy. However, in the production economy the effects of constant gain learning are mitigated by the persistence induced by capital accumulation. We conclude that, contrary to popular belief, standard self-referential learning alone cannot resolve the asset pricing puzzles observed in the dataAsset pricing, adaptive learning, excess returns, predictability.

Complete Markets, Enforcement Constraints and Intermediation

Production Economies, Enforcement Constraints, Financial Intermediation

Competitive Equilibria with Production and Limited Commitment

This paper studies a production economy with aggregate uncertainty where consumers have limited commitment on their financial liabilities. Markets are endogenously incomplete due to the fact that the borrowing constraints are determined endogenously. We first show that, if competitive financial intermediaries are allowed to set the borrowing limits, then the ones that prevent default will be an equilibrium outcome. The equilibrium allocations in this economy are not constrained efficient due to the fact that intermediaries do not internalize the adverse effects of capital on default incentives. We also isolate and quantifiy this new source of inefficiency by comparing the competitive equilibrium allocations to the constrained efficient ones both qualitatively and quantitatively. We tend to observe higher capital accumulation in the competitive equilibrium, implying that agents may enjoy higher (average) welfare in the long run than in the constrained efficient allocation.Enforcement Constraints, Intermediation, Risk Sharing, Capital Accumulation.

Complete Markets, Enforcement Constraints and Intermediation

Alvarez and Jermann (2000) show that the constrained efficient allocations of endowment economies with complete markets and limited commitment can be decentralized with endogenous borrowing limits on the Arrow securities. In a model with capital accumulation, aggregate risk and competitive intermediaries, we show that such a decentralization is not possible unless one imposes an upper limit on the intermediaries' capital holdings. Since there is no empirical evidence of such restrictions, we also characterize the equilibrium with no capital accumulation constraints. We show that this allocation solves a similar system of equations to the one of the constrained optimal solution, a result which considerably simplifies the equilibrium computation. In addition, capital accumulation is higher in this case, since the intermediaries do not internalize that fact that a higher aggregate capital increases the incentives to default. Finally, this also implies that agents may enjoy a higher welfare in the long run in spite of the fact that this allocation is not constrained efficientComplete markets, Enforcement Constraints, Intermediation

Capital Ownership Under Incomplete Markets: Does it Matter?

In the macroeconomic literature, the implications of a context with household heterogeneity and incomplete financial markets have been mostly studied under the assumption that households own the physical capital and undertake the intertemporal investment decision. Further, firms rent capital and labor from the households to maximize period profits. The present paper provides the conditions under which this assumption is still irrelevant when markets are incomplete. It shows that, if firms own the physical capital and undertake the investment decision to maximize their asset value, in the sense that they discount future cash flows with positive state price processes that are consistent with security prices, the equilibrium allocations are the same as in the standard setting with static firms. On the other hand, the firm valuation of future cash flows only coincides with the valuation of the unconstrained shareholders. Given this, value maximization may still lead to shareholder disagreement in the presence of effectively binding portfolio restrictions.

Shareholders Unanimity With Incomplete Markets

Macroeconomic models with heterogeneous agents and incomplete markets (e.g. Krusell and Smith, 1998) usually assume that consumers, rather than firms, own and accumulate physical capital. This assumption, while convenient, is without loss of generality only if the asset market is complete. When financial markets are incomplete, shareholders will in general disagree on the optimal level of investment to be undertaken by the firm. This paper derives conditions under which shareholders unanimity obtains in equilibrium despite the incompleteness of the asset market. In the general equilibrium economy analyzed here consumers face idiosyncratic labor income risk and trade firms' shares in the stock market. A firm's shareholders decide how much of its earnings to invest in physical capital and how much to distribute as dividends. The return on a firm's capital investment is affected by an aggregate productivity shock. The paper contains two main results. First, if the production function exhibits constant returns to scale and short-sales constraints are not binding, then in a competitive equilibrium a firm's shareholders will unanimously agree on the optimal level of investment. Thus, the allocation of resources in this economy is the same as in an economy where consumers accumulate physical capital directly. Second, when short-sales constraints are binding, instead, the unanimity result breaks down. In this case, constrained shareholders prefer a higher level of investment than unconstrained ones.

Equity Issuance and Divident Policy under Commitment

This paper studies a model of corporate finance in which firms use stock issuance to finance investment. Since the firm recognizes the relationship between future dividends and stock prices, future variables enter in the constraints and optimal policy is in general time inconsistent. We discuss the nature of time inconsistency and show that it arises because managers promise to incorporate value maximization gradually into their objective function. This shows how one could change managers’ incentives in order to enforce the optimal contract under full commitment. We then characterize several cases where time consistency arises and we study different examples where policy is time inconsistent. This allows us to address some outstanding issues in the literature about dividend policy and equity issuance. In particular, our results suggest that growing firms that can credibly commit will pay lower dividends at the beginning and promise higher dividends in the future, consistent with empirical evidence. Our results also suggests that compensation that is tied to stock options creates incentives to inflate prices and pay lower dividends. This is consistent with the empirical evidence of increased stock option compensation and payout through repurchases instead to dividends during the last decades.Stock Issuance; time inconsistency; dividend policy

Proper Welfare Weights for Social Optimization Problems

Social optimization problems are often used in economics to study important issues. In a social optimization problem, the sum of individual weighted utilities is maximized over all feasible allocations that satisfy certain constraints. In this paper, we provide a mechanism that determines the set of proper individual weights to be applied to social optimization problems. To do this, we first define for every set of individual weights and for every social welfare function the contribution of every individual to the total welfare through the individual’s initial endowments. We then provide an axiomatic approach to the notion of the per unit contribution of every good and every individual. We then define a set of individual weights to be proper iff the weighted utilities of every individual from this allocation are proportional to the contribution of the individual to the total welfare as defined by this set of weights. It is shown that every contribution mechanism that satisfies these four axioms is uniquely determined by a non negative measure on the unit interval. The selection of a specific contribution mechanism (or equivalently the selection of a specific nonnegative measure on the unit interval) determines for a given economy and a given set of weights a proper constrained efficient allocation and a proper set of weights. Finally, we provide several numerical examples that illustrate our methodology. When households are not ex ante identical, the examples suggest that using the proper weights can substantially affect the allocations.Welfare weights, Heterogeneous Households