Suchergebnisse

Reuse of record except for individual research requires license from Congressional Information Service, Inc. ; "May 2, 1973." ; CIS Microfiche Accession Numbers: CIS 73 J862-9 ; CIS Index 1973. ; Microfiche. ; Mode of access: Internet.

This paper extends the concept of weak renegotiation-proof equilibrium (WRP) to allow for costly renegotiation and shows that even small renegotiation costs can have dramatic effects on the set of equilibria. More specifically, the paper analyzes the infinitely repeated Bertrand game. It is shown that for every level of renegotiation cost, there exists a discount factor such that any collusive profit can be supported as an equilibrium outcome. Hence, any arbitrary small renegotiation cost will suffice to facilitate collusive outcomes for sufficiently patient firms. This result stands in stark contrast to the unique pure strategy WRP equilibrium without renegotiation costs, which implies marginal-cost pricing in every period. Moreover, in comparison to the findings of McCutcheon (1997), who states that renegotiation costs have to be substantial to facilitate collusion, this result points to a quite different conclusion.

A debt contract usually does not include a provision about renegotiation. The right to seize the borrower's asset and the rules of this process are usually stipulated in the contract. Such a promise not to renegotiate is not credible since renegotiation can mitigate the dead-weight loss of liquidating insolvent borrowers. Once the initial contract may not consider the renegotiation procedure and renegotiation may occur, this paper investigates why a complete contract is not offered. It shows that the lender does not need to stipulate the renegotiation procedure on the initial contract because he is indifferent about committing or not to the terms of a contract. This indicates that a complete contract gives the lender the same expected return as an incomplete contract, in which the renegotiation process is determined after the occurrence of default.