Journal Article Rents, Rates and Incomes in Bristol Get access A. W. T. Ellis A. W. T. Ellis Bristol Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 11, Issue 2, 1944, Pages 99–108, https://doi.org/10.2307/2295971 Published: 01 January 1944

Abstract We propose and axiomatize the categorical thinking model (CTM) in which the framing of the decision problem affects how agents categorize alternatives, that in turn affects their evaluation of it. Prominent models of salience, status quo bias, loss-aversion, inequality aversion, and present bias all fit under the umbrella of CTM. This suggests categorization is an underlying mechanism of key departures from the neoclassical model of choice. We specialize CTM to provide a behavioural foundation for the salient thinking model of Bordalo et al. (2013, Journal of Political Economy, 121, 803–843) that highlights its strong predictions and distinctions from other models.

This paper discusses different definitions of systemic risk and identifies the challenges, which regulators face in addressing this phenomenon. We conducted a systematic literature review of 4859 abstracts to categorize the various methodologies developed to measure systemic risk. In total, 60 systemic risk measures proposed post-2000 have been critically appraised to inform academics and regulators of their practical applications and model vulnerabilities. This review suggests that most of these methods focus on individual financial institutions rather than on system stability. Those methodologies directly reflect the current regulations, which aim to ensure individual institutions’ soundness. As macro-prudential regulation evolves, policy-makers face the issues of understanding contagion and how regulations should be implemented. This paper also discusses new systemic risk and regulatory challenges resulting from the current COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT In deciding how much information about their firms’ customers to disclose, managers face a trade off between the benefits of reducing information asymmetry with capital market participants and the costs of aiding competitors by revealing proprietary information. This paper investigates the determinants of managers’ choices to disclose information about their firms’ customers using a comprehensive data set of customer‐information disclosures over the period 1976–2006. We find robust evidence in support of the hypothesis that proprietary costs are an important factor in firms’ disclosure choices regarding information about large customers.

We present a decision-theoretic analysis of an agent's understanding of the interdependencies in her choices. We provide the foundations for a simple and flexible model that allows the misperception of correlated risks. We introduce a framework in which the decision maker chooses a portfolio of assets among which she may misperceive the joint returns, and present simple axioms equivalent to a representation in which she attaches a probability to each possible joint distribution over returns and then maximizes subjective expected utility using her ( possibly misspecified) beliefs. (JEL D11, D81, D83, G11)

We estimate and trace a credit demand curve for households that recently experienced damage to their homes from a natural disaster. Our administrative data include over one million applicants to a federal recovery loan program for households. We estimate extensive‐margin demand over a large range of interest rates. Our identification strategy exploits 24 natural experiments, leveraging exogenous, time‐based variation in the program's offered interest rate. Interest rates meaningfully affect consumer demand throughout the distribution of rates. On average, a 1 percentage point increase in the interest rate reduces loan take‐up by 26%. We find a large impact of applicants' credit quality on demand and evidence of monthly payment targeting. Using our estimated demand curve and information on program costs, we find that the program generates an average social surplus of $2900 per borrower.

Experiments suggest that people fail to take into account interdependencies between their choices—they do not broadly bracket. Researchers often instead assume people narrowly bracket, but existing designs do not test it. We design a novel experiment and revealed preference tests for how someone brackets their choices. In portfolio allocation under risk, social allocation, and induced-value shopping experiments, 40–43 percent of subjects are consistent with narrow bracketing, and 0–16 percent with broad bracketing. Adjusting for each model’s predictive precision, 74 percent of subjects are best described by narrow bracketing, 13 percent by broad bracketing, and 6 percent by intermediate cases. (JEL D12, D81, D91)

Too-big-to-fail" is consistent with policies followed by private bank clearing houses during financial crises in the U.S. National Banking Era prior to the existence of the Federal Reserve System. Private bank clearing houses provided emergency lending to

How do collateral requirements impact consumer borrowing behavior? Using administrative loan application and performance data from the U.S. Federal Disaster Loan Program, we exploit a loan amount threshold above which households must post their residence as collateral. Our bunching estimates suggest that the median borrower is willing to give up 40% of their loan amount to avoid posting collateral. Exploiting time variation in the threshold, we estimate collateral causally reduces default rates by 36%. Finally, we structurally estimate households' attachment to their homes, net of any equity, and find a median value of $11,000. Attachment creates a wedge between lender and borrower valuation of collateral of 15%. Our results explain high perceived default costs in the mortgage market, and document the importance of collateral for reducing moral hazard in consumer credit markets.

ABSTRACT This paper provides an analysis of the nature and evolution of a dealer market for Nasdaq stocks. Despite size differences in sample stocks, there is a surprising consistency to their trading. One dealer tends to dominate trading in a stock. Markets are concentrated and spreads are increasing in the volume and market share of the dominant dealer. Entry and exit are ubiquitous. Exiting dealers are those with very low profits and trading volume. Entering market makers fail to capture a meaningful share of trading or profits. Thus, free entry does little to improve the competitive nature of the market as entering dealers have little impact. We find, however, that for small stocks, the Nasdaq dealer market is being more competitive than the specialist market.