← ireadpaper · 顶刊中的公共政策研究

过度乐观借款人的消费信贷

Consumer Credit with Over-Optimistic Borrowers
Journal of the European Economic Association · 2021 · Florian Exler、Igor Livshits、James MacGee、Michèle Tertilt

中文摘要

认知偏误是否要求通过监管限制信贷的使用?我们将过度乐观的借款人与理性借款人纳入一个包含消费者破产的不完全市场模型。过度乐观者面临更严重的收入风险,却错误地认为自己是理性的。因此,两类借款人的行为表现完全相同。贷款人通过形成有关借款人类型的信念——类型评分——来为贷款定价,由此产生了一个易于处理的类型评分理论。由于贷款人无法甄别借款人类型,借款人被部分混同。过度乐观者面临交叉补贴的利率,但会犯下财务错误:借款过多而违约过少。在均衡中,交叉补贴带来的收益超过了错误造成的福利损失。我们将模型校准至美国数据,并定量评估应对这些摩擦的政策:金融素养教育、降低违约成本、提高借款成本以及债务限额。尽管部分政策能够降低债务与破产申请数量,但只有降低违约成本和金融素养教育能够改善福利。然而,金融素养教育仅使理性借款人受益,代价由过度乐观者承担。依评分而定的借款限额可以减少财务错误,但会降低福利。

Abstract

Abstract Do cognitive biases call for regulation to limit the use of credit? We incorporate over-optimistic and rational borrowers into an incomplete markets model with consumer bankruptcy. Over-optimists face worse income risk but incorrectly believe they are rational. Thus, both types behave identically. Lenders price loans forming beliefs—type scores—about borrower types. This gives rise to a tractable theory of type scoring. As lenders cannot screen types, borrowers are partially pooled. Over-optimists face cross-subsidized interest rates but make financial mistakes: borrowing too much and defaulting too little. In equilibrium, the welfare losses from mistakes are more than compensated by cross-subsidization. We calibrate the model to the United States and quantitatively evaluate policies to address these frictions: financial literacy education, reducing default cost, increasing borrowing costs, and debt limits. While some policies lower debt and filings, only reducing default costs and financial literacy education improve welfare. However, financial literacy education benefits only rationals at the expense of over-optimists. Score-dependent borrowing limits can reduce financial mistakes but lower welfare.
在 ireadpaper 查看全部 →