We thank Mathias Dewatripont, Patrick Legros, Michael Manove, Jorge Padilla, Marco Pagano, Howard
Rosenthal, Oved Yosha, seminar participants at ULB, CERGEEI, MIT, Stockholm (IIES and SSE), IUE (Flo
rence), London (LSE and CEPRESRC workshop), Lausanne, the CEPR Psychology and Economics workshop,
Rutgers, two anonymous referees and very specially Denis Gromb and Bruno Jullien for helpful comments and
discussions.
Abstract
We analyze investment by a population of hyperbolic discounting entrepreneurs. In order
to avoid inecient procrastination, agents with good prospects about their chances of success
may choose to forego free information and boldly invest. This explains an excessive level of
investment in the economy. Building on this observation, we show that low riskfree interest
rates favor bold entrepreneurship and entry mistakes. Furthermore, public intervention can be
socially desirable: forcing agents to acquire information before deciding whether to invest may
reduce competitive interest rates and be benecial for all individuals in the economy.
Keywords: timeinconsistency, excessive investment, social welfare, entrepreneurial boldness.
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied oer with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.
Hamlet Act 3; Scene 1.
1 Introduction
In manufacturing industries, 61.5% of newly created companies are no longer in business after 5
years (data reported in Camerer and Lovallo, 1999). Similar patterns are observed in the works
of Daly (1990) and Shapiro and Khemani (1987). The behavioral nance literature suggests
that these levels of failure rates can only be explained by entrepreneurial bounded rationality,
in the form of overcondence and/or optimism at the project initiation stage.
1
The objective
of this paper is to turn Hamlets lament on its head. Instead of assuming a cognitive bias
in the process and evaluation of information, we argue that entrepreneurs with initially good
prospects about the chances of success of their investment projects may optimally decide to
keep this positive attitude and boldly invest without looking for additional, free information.
Although individually optimal, this behavior leads to an excessive level of investment in the
economy, and to ineciently high rates of business failure. More importantly, it may have
negative aggregate consequences: welfare Pareto improvements may be reached by forcing all
potential investors to acquire as much evidence as possible before the investment decision.
The argument of the paper is as follows. There is a population of cash constrained agents
who consider the possibility of borrowing capital from banks in order to undertake a risky
investment. Our main departure from standard modelling is the assumption that agents have
dynamically inconsistent preferences (in the sense of Strotz (1956)), with short term events
being discounted at a relatively higher rate than long term events. Although still challenged
in behavioral and experimental economics (see Rubinstein (2000) and Read (2001) among
others), this assumption is becoming more and more accepted in the light of the empirical and
experimental evidence gathered (see Frederick et al. (2002) for a survey). Apart from hyperbolic
discounting, the special characteristics relevant for our model are twofold. First, investment
1
See Larwood and Whittaker (1977), Cooper et al. (1988) and DeBondt and Thaler (1995) among others for
evidence of managerial overcondence.
1
requires a current net cost (eort to nd a potentially valuable project, or foregone xed outside
salary) and yields a delayed expected net benet (prot if the project is successful). Second,
individuals do not know the probability of success of their project, although they can learn it
(for simplicity at no cost).
Combining the taste for immediate gratication to this temporal gap between costs and
benets of entrepreneurial activities, we rst show that individuals who are aware of their
selfcontrol problem may optimally keep good prospects about the value of their project and
make uninformed investments. The reason is that, under hyperbolic discounting, extra pieces
of news have both benets and costs. On the one hand, with more information the entrepreneur
is less likely to undertake worthless projects. However, on the other hand, information can also
plunge the agent into a state of inecient procrastination. Overall, a necessary condition for
ignorance being benecial is that it must induce an extra desire to invest. Hence, our economy
can only be composed of realist agents (who invest according to their costbenet analysis at
the time of exerting eort), bold agents (who remain uninformed and, on average, invest in
excess) or both. This completes the rst step towards rationalizing entry mistakes.
2
The above conclusion is a reminiscent of Carrillo and Mariotti (2000). It relies on individual
investments being selfnanced or, equivalently, nanced at an exogenously xed interest rate.
The novelty of the current paper is that agents need external nancing. Hence, the net returns
for an entrepreneur of a given project and therefore his incentives to remain strategically
ignorant and invest depend on the interest rate set by banks in the economy. Interestingly,
the interest rate will itself be determined depending on the learning decision of all the po
tential borrowers. Therefore, interest rate and level of entrepreneurship in the economy are
jointly determined in equilibrium. Assuming perfect competition between banks and a xed
(exogenous) riskfree rate, the paper draws several conclusions. We show in Proposition 1 that
there is an endogenous negative relation between the proportion of bold entrepreneurs in the
economy and the riskfree rate. In fact, there are two reasons for which agents will undertake
2
Some readers argue that hyperbolic discounting is a form of bounded rationality. We do not see it that way.
In particular, by adding one extra axiom, it is possible to incorporate timevarying preferences in the standard
neoclassical paradigm (see Gul and Pesendorfer, 2001). However, we do not want to focus the debate on this
issue. Therefore, we will from now on simply argue that our agents optimize their decisions in the sense
that: (i) they maximize prots conditional on their information, (ii) they update beliefs in a Bayesian way (i.e.,
unlike optimistic or overcondent individuals, they do not incur systematic biases in judgment and information
processing) and (iii) they acquire the optimal amount of information anticipating future protmaximization.
2
more investments in our economy when the riskfree rate is low. One is rather obvious: if the
opportunity cost of investing becomes lower, the total number of entrepreneurs willing to invest
increases. This eect highlights the usual relation between the state of the credit market and
the number of protable investments undertaken. The other, which is one of the main points
of the paper, is more subtle: as the riskfree rate decreases, more agents are willing to remain
strategically ignorant and blindly invest. This eect relates the state of the credit market to
the number of excessive investment projects undertaken. To understand the intuition, one
must note two things. First, when the riskfree rate is relatively high, competitive banks are
forced to charge high interest rates because the opportunity cost of lending is also relatively
high. Second, when the interest rate charged by banks is high, it is relatively more costly to
undertake an investment, and therefore agents have more incentives to learn their chances of
success before deciding whether to apply for a loan. The combination of both factors leads
to the result. Note that this boldness and excessive entry may explain some aspects of the
DotCom bubble, at a time where external nancing was easy and cheap.
3
At this stage, we can specify in which sense the level of investment in our economy is
excessively high, a concept loosely employed up to now. By denition, the learning and
investment behavior is individually optimal, given the conditions of the market. However,
Proposition 2 highlights a coordination failure: if individuals could be collectively forced to
learn their probability of success before applying for the loan, then the level of investment in
the economy would be smaller and all agents would be strictly bettero. The reason for this
relies on the fact that acquiring information has a public good eect. Indeed, an agent who
learns his probability of success will not apply for a loan if the expected value of his project is
below a certain threshold. Therefore, learning triggers selfselection, which raises the average
quality in the pool of applicants. This decreases the competitive interest rate set by banks
(lower interest rates can be oered if applicants are, on average, better), which is benecial
for all the agents in the economy. When the (individual) benets of remaining ignorant are
oset by the (collective) gains due to a lower interest rate in the economy, then all agents are
strictly bettero with a policy measure that forces them to acquire information. This Pareto
superior result is quite robust in that it applies both from the perspective of the individual
3
We thank an anonymous referee for suggesting this example.
3
who decides whether to learn and from the perspective of the individual who decides whether
to invest. To sum up, this is the rst study in which agents in an economy are linked to each
other by their hyperbolic discounting and, as a result of their timevarying preferences, they
behave in an individually optimal but collectively inecient way. The results hold, although
they are somewhat mitigated, when entrepreneurs can also post some collateral (Proposition
3). Last, when entrepreneurs have dierent levels of ability, those with highest skills are also
most likely to keep positive prospects and invest.
It is interesting to compare our results with the recent developments in behavioral nance.
Just like in our paper, in the literature on optimism and overcondence, individuals have a
tendency to overinvest. There are however two major dierences. First, in our model and
by denition of Bayesian information processing, rstorder beliefs cannot be biased. So, our
agents do not suer from optimism or overcondence. Yet, the endogenous decision to stop the
collection of information aects the higher order moments of beliefs in the population (and in
particular the skewness of the distribution of beliefs), and therefore tilts the aggregate behav
ior towards an excessive level of investment. By contrast, in the recent literature, agents have
(irrational) biased beliefs. In other words our paper provides a reason and a mean to keep a
positive view, whereas these papers assume a cognitive bias and use it to explain other impor
tant phenomena.
4
As developed in the concluding section, the second major dierence is that
changes in the ability to post collateral and in the riskfree rate will have dierent (testable)
eects on the behavior of entrepreneurs depending on whether keeping positive prospects is in
strumental as in our paper or exogenous as in the previously mentioned ones. There is a special
mention to the work by Bernardo and Welch (2001). In that paper, overcondent entrepreneurs
have an excessive tendency to avoid the herd, a behavior which is individually suboptimal but
socially benecial because it conveys valuable information to other entrepreneurs. Thus, in
their paper, optimism exerts a positive rather than negative externality on the population.
5
Last, the reader might wonder how important strategic ignorance is in corporate investments.
4
To give a few examples of this literature, Roll (1986) proposes overcondence as an explanation for the
proliferation of corporate takeovers with no expected gains. Manove (1997) shows that optimistic entrepreneurs
may drive realistic ones out of the market. Manove and Padilla (1999) argue that banks are insuciently
conservative in their dealings with optimistic entrepreneurs. Heaton (2002) proposes managerial optimism as an
alternative foundation for pecking order and agency cost theories.
5
The key dierence with our work is the nature of the private information: pure common value in their paper
and pure private value in ours.
4
Obviously, this is an empirical question. However, casual evidence on reports by bank loaners
suggests that few market studies are conducted by people willing to start small businesses such
as restaurants or night shops. Naturally, this may be simply due to lack of entrepreneurial
skills. We believe instead that weighing the pros and cons of becoming an entrepreneur is the
surest way for Hamlet as well as for most individuals of never making that step.
2 The model
2.1 Preliminaries
We analyze the decision of agents to undertake an investment. Investing requires one unit of
capital and one unit of eort. We denote by e the cost of exerting this eort. One can think of
eort as the search cost in order to nd a suitable project or the opportunity cost of becoming
an entrepreneur and invest rather than being an employee. Agents are cash constrained. They
can borrow from banks the unit of capital only to invest. We denote by R ( 1) the interest
factor i.e. one plus the interest rate charged by banks. Furthermore, agents can also post
some collateral C. For the time being, we assume that R and C are xed, but these values
will be endogenously determined in the optimal contract. The investment has a oneperiod
delayed stochastic payo. More specically, with probability p the investment is successful and
yields benet . With probability 1 p the investment fails and yields 0 benet. Agents are
ignorant of the probability p that their investment succeeds, but they know the probability
distribution F(p) with p [0, 1] from which each p is independently drawn. We assume that
the distribution satises the standard monotone hazard rate condition.
Assumption 1
F(p)
f(p)
is increasing in p.
The payo of not investing is normalized to zero. Agents are riskneutral and have limited
liability. Banks observe whether the investment succeeds or fails, so prots are contractible.
Banks oer a debt contract to the potential applicants at the time where the investment
project has to be initiated. The contract species a repayment R ( ) in case of success and
the appropriation of the collateral C (if any) in case of failure. Last, agents can learn at no
cost the probability p that their own investment is successful the period before investing (i.e.,
5
before meeting the banks and applying for the loan).
6
This learning decision is not observable
by banks. The timing can be summarized as follows.

time
learning contract & investment payoffs
t = 1 t = 2 t = 3
Decision to
learn p or not to learn
Invest (eort + capital)
or not invest
Payo if invest
R w.p. p
C w.p. 1 p
Figure 1. Timing
As the reader can notice, the main assumption in this model is that there is a short run
opportunity cost of becoming an entrepreneur relative to being a salaried employee (extra
eort, search costs, loss of current wage, etc.) which may pay in the long term (extra return
on investment compared to the xed wage). This sequence of payos seems quite natural.
7
Our investigation departs from standard analyses in that agents have dynamically incon
sistent preferences. More precisely, we assume that the periodtoperiod discount rate falls
monotonically. Given our threeperiod model, there is no loss in generality if we use the quasi
hyperbolic discounting introduced by Phelps and Pollak (1968). Formally, from the perspective
of date t, periods t+1 and t+2 are discounted at a rate and
2
respectively (with 1 and
(0, 1)).
8
Individuals are sophisticated, i.e. perfectly aware of the dynamic inconsistency
of their preferences. The key eect of hyperbolic discounting is that the incentives to invest
at t = 2 are dierent if we analyze them from the perspective of the agent at t = 1 (from now
6
The assumption that agents cannot learn the probability of success at the date of exerting eort and investing
is only adopted for simplicity: Carrillo and Mariotti (2000) show that the insights obtained in an innite horizon
model with hyperbolic discounting individuals who can learn at every date are the same as in a threeperiod
model where learning is possible only in the rst one.
7
By contrast, the fact that there is exactly a oneperiod delay between the opportunity cost and the extra
benet of the investment is just a modelling device.
8
In recent years, this particular formalization of timeinconsistent preferences has been used to study dierent
problems. Some examples are: procrastination (Akerlof (1991), ODonoghue and Rabin, 1999), privateside bets
(Caillaud, et al. 1996), consumption (Laibson (1997), Harris and Laibson (2001), Krusell and Smith (2003)),
learning (Carrillo and Mariotti(2000) and Brocas and Carrillo (2001, 2003)) and memory management (Benabou
and Tirole, 2002). See also Loewenstein and Prelec (1992), Ainslie (1992) and Caillaud and Jullien (2000) for a
theoretical discussion of timeinconsistent preferences.
In a dierent vein, a timeinconsistent behavior may result from anticipatory feelings about future events even
if agents discount the future with the traditional exponential functions (see Caplin and Leahy (2000,2001)).
6
on self1) than from his perspective at t = 2 (i.e. by self2). To focus on the interesting
situation, we will assume that in the best possible scenario in which the investment succeeds
for sure (p = 1) and the interest rate is zero (R = 1), self2 nds it optimal to invest.
Assumption 2 ( 1) > e.
We can now analyze the incentives of the dierent selves to invest.
2.2 Intrapersonal conict and incentives to invest
Suppose that the agent at date t = 1 learns his probability of success p. In that case, the
investment has a positive expected utility from the perspective of self1 if and only if:
e +
2
_
p( R) (1 p)C
_
0 p p
1
C +e/
R +C
(1)
However, when date 2 comes, self2 chooses to invest if and only if:
e +
_
p( R) (1 p)C
_
0 p p
2
C +e/
R +C
(2)
First, note that p
1
< p
2
. Hyperbolic discounting induces procrastination: some investments
valuable for self1 are not undertaken by self2. The idea is simple. An agent nds it protable
to exert a cost in the future in order to obtain an expected benet one period later if the
chances of success are suciently important (formally, if p p
1
). However, given that present
payos are overweighed, he may decide not to invest when the time at which the cost e has
to be incurred arrives (formally, this occurs when p [p
1
, p
2
]). This behavior is perfectly
anticipated at date t = 1 by the sophisticated agent. However, in the absence of a commitment
device, he can do nothing to counteract it. Second, both p
1
(R, C) and p
2
(R, C) are increasing
in R and C: the higher the interest factor and collateral, the smaller the agents expected gain
of investing, and therefore the smaller the incentives to invest from the perspective of any self.
Last, when increases, the intrapersonal conict diminishes (p
2
/ < 0) and, naturally, it
vanishes when = 1 (lim
1
p
2
() = p
1
).
Given agents riskneutrality and using (1) and (2), it is immediate that, conditional on not
learning the probability of success at date 1, investment is desirable from self1s viewpoint if
E[p] p
1
and from self2s viewpoint if E[p] p
2
.
7
2.3 Incentives to learn the value of an investment
We now analyze the incentives of an agent to acquire information about his payo distribution,
for any given pair of interest factor and collateral (R, C) set by banks. Self1s expected payo
if he decides to become informed (i.e., to learn the value of p) is:
G
i
(R, C; ) =
_
1
p
2
_
e +
2
p( R)
2
(1 p)C
_
dF(p)
=
_
( R +C)
_
1
p
2
p dF(p) (e + C) [1 F(p
2
)]
_
(3)
Note that, for all (R, C), G
i
(R, C; ) > 0. The problem for self1 is the tendency of self2 to
reject projects that are valuable from his perspective. This ineciency implies zero payo in
cases where positive prots could be achieved. Yet, it can never induce a negative expected
payo from his perspective. Also, G
i
/R < 0 and G
i
/C < 0: an increase in repayment or
collateral decreases the expected benet of the investment.
If self1 chooses to remain uninformed, his expected payo depends on the anticipated
behavior of an uninformed self2. From section 2.2, we know that if E[p] < p
2
the uniformed self
2 will not invest, which implies zeropayo for self1. By contrast, if E[p] p
2
an uninformed
self2 will invest. In that case, self1s expected gain is:
G
u
(R, C; ) =
_
1
0
_
e +
2
p( R)
2
(1 p)C
_
dF(p)
=
_
( R +C)
_
1
0
p dF(p) (e + C)
_
(4)
Again, G
u
/R < 0 and G
u
/C < 0 for all (R, C): as under learning, when self1 remains
uninformed an increase in repayment or collateral decreases the expected prot.
Given (3), (4) and G
i
(R, C; ) > 0, then self1 strictly prefers to ignore the true p rather
than learn it if, conditional on E[p] p
2
, we have:
g(R, C; )
1
_
G
u
(R, C; ) G
i
(R, C; )
_
> 0
which can be rewritten as:
( R +C)
_
p
2
0
p dF(p) > (e + C) F(p
2
) E[p  p < p
2
] > p
1
This result builds on Carrillo and Mariotti (2000) and is summarized as follows.
8
Lemma 1 At date t = 1 the agent decides not to acquire information about his probability of
success if and only if the following two conditions hold:
E[p] > p
2
(R, C) (C1)
E[p  p < p
2
(R, C)] > p
1
(R, C) (C2)
Proof. By direct inspection of G
i
(), G
u
() and g(). 2
The idea is simple. Given timeinconsistent preferences and the costbenet sequence of
payos, when p [p
1
, p
2
] self1 wants to invest but self2 does not. Therefore, the only potential
benet for self1 of remaining uninformed is that it may induce self2 to invest when the true
value of p lies in [p
1
, p
2
]. Naturally, the cost is that self2 may take suboptimal decisions
because of his imperfect knowledge. In particular, he might decide to invest when the true p
is in [0, p
1
]. Overall, a necessary condition for ignorance to be optimal is that it must avoid
inecient procrastination. This is to say that, if self1 does not learn, then self2 must strictly
prefer to invest (C1). However, this condition is not sucient. Given (C1), if the true p lies
in [p
2
, 1] it is irrelevant whether the agent learns it or not. (C2) simply states that, conditional
on p being smaller than p
2
, then the event p [p
1
, p
2
] has to be relatively more likely than the
event p [0, p
1
]. That is, ignorance must have on average and from self1s perspective more
benets (investment when p [p
1
, p
2
]) than costs (investment when p [0, p
1
]).
Conditions (C1) and (C2) in Lemma 1 have been derived for given values of R and C.
However, in our model, the interest factor and collateral will be endogenously determined in
equilibrium by banks. It is therefore important to understand how the incentives of agents to
learn are aected by changes in R and C. We have the following key intermediary result.
Lemma 2 There exists a value
(resp. C
(resp. C < C
). Also,
if the agent learns for some R
(resp. C
(resp. C > C
).
Proof. See Appendix A1. 2
This lemma states that self1 is less likely to remain ignorant the higher the interest rate
and collateral. This occurs for two reasons. First, an increase in R or in C decreases the
9
willingness to invest by an uninformed self2 (p
2
/R > 0 and p
2
/C > 0). So, formally,
(C1) is less likely to be satised when R and C are high. Second and closely related, for any
given probability of success, an increase in R or in C decreases the net prot of investing.
Recall that an uninformed agent always invests with an (exante) higher probability than an
informed one. Therefore, an increase in repayment obligation or collateral has a more frequent
negative impact on the expected payo under ignorance than under learning.
9
Formally, (C2)
is also less likely to be satised when R or C are high.
To sum up, self1s net benet of ignorance decreases as the investment becomes more
costly. Naturally, for some parameter constellations self1 will strictly prefer always to learn or
always to remain ignorant, independently of R and C. These cases are not interesting for the
purpose of the paper, which is to study the endogenous interactions between interest rate and
agents incentives to learn and invest. The next Lemma provides sucient conditions which
ensure that self1s learning decision is aected by R and C.
Lemma 3 There exist two values , (
(C).
Proof. See Appendix A2. 2
Although the analytical derivation of (a) and (b) is somewhat elaborated, the idea behind
these two conditions is in fact simple and intuitive. First, from (C2) we know that igno
rance can be of potential interest for agents only if the true probability of success falls in the
inconsistency region (p
1
, p
2
) relatively more often than below it. However, these cutos are
endogenously determined. Part (a) states the formal conditions on F(), , and e such that,
given (
, 1), p is more likely to take intermediate rather than low values. Second,
9
This is true only if the selfcontrol problem is not excessively acute. Indeed, when the intrapersonal conict
is very important, self2 cares about his current payo and disregards almost completely future ones, whereas
self1 internalizes both of them. In order to avoid this extreme situation, we impose a lower bound in the
inconsistency parameter.
10
the incentives to learn are not monotonic in the taste for immediate gratication. When
is suciently small, self1 anticipates that self2 will not invest if he remains uninformed so
he strictly prefers to learn p. When is suciently high, there is almost no conict between
self1 and self2 and learning p is once again optimal. The interesting situation arises when
the inconsistency parameter takes intermediate values (formally, [, ]).
10
Part (b) states
that, in this case, the benets from learning are mitigated and both (C1) and (C2) will or
will not hold depending on the contract (R, C) oered by banks.
To sum up, when (a) and (b) are both satised, learning is entirely driven by the pair
(R, C) set by banks. Interestingly, in the next section we will show that R and C will be
determined by banks precisely depending on the decision to acquire information by all agents
in the economy. This means that the learning choice of each agent will indirectly be aected
by the choice of all other agents via the contract oered by banks. In order to focus on this
situation, we assume for the rest of the paper that the conditions of Lemma 3 are satised.
Assumption 3 F(), , , , and e are such that conditions (a) and (b) hold.
As a consequence, the utility of each agent can be written as:
u(R, C; ) =
_
G
u
(R, C; ) if R R
(C)
G
i
(R, C; ) if R > R
(C)
(5)
We can now investigate the behavior of banks in a competitive credit market.
2.4 The competitive credit market
Banks determine interest factor and collateral knowing that the contract oered at t = 2 has
been anticipated by agents when selecting at t = 1 their optimal learning strategy. We assume
that there is a large number of riskneutral banks. We denote by
R ( 1) the riskfree interest
factor (i.e., one plus the riskfree rate) and assume that it is exogenously given. Banks do
not observe the learning choice of each borrower and cannot impose it. Therefore, all agents
posting the same collateral can borrow at the same rate. Besides, the entrepreneur and the
bank cannot contract at t = 1 on the investment to be undertaken at t = 2. Banks however
observe whether the investment is a success or a failure, so the contract signed at t = 2 can be
made contingent on the future realization of prots.
10
See equations (2
) and (4
(0), R
N
R
N
(0), R
L
R
L
(0) and drop the argument C from p
1
and p
2
. The banks
debt contract can only specify a repayment R in case of success, which means that they cannot
discriminate between informed and uninformed agents when oering a contract. Given perfect
competition between banks and exante homogeneity of individuals, we can rewrite our problem
as the maximization of the agents utility (5) subject to the banks breakeven constraints (6)
and (7). Formally, we have problem P:
P : max
R
u(R; ) =
_
G
u
(R; ) if R R
G
i
(R; ) if R > R
s.t. E[p] R
R if R R
E[p  p > p
2
(R)] R
R if R > R
and a fraction (
R) of agents learn p, with
(
R
1
) = 0, (
R
2
) = 1, and /
R > 0.
(iii) If
R
2
R, the interest factor is R
L
(with R
L
=
R
E[pp>p
2
(R
L
)]
) and all agents learn p.
Proof. See Appendix A3. 2
The idea behind the dierent cases is the following. If the riskfree rate is suciently small
(
R <
R
1
, see part (i)), banks do not need to set a large interest rate to satisfy the breakeven
constraint. Given Lemma 2, the cost of ignorance is relatively low compared to its gain. Then,
all agents prefer to remain uninformed at t = 1 as a commitment against procrastination and
they invest at t = 2. Overall, this case is characterized by a population of bold entrepreneurs.
Agents are bold, in the sense that they do not acquire information and prefer to blindly jump
into the water. This conduct leads to high failure rates and entry mistakes that could have
been avoided with more acquisition of information.
11
However, it is optimal : rst, individuals
11
Formally, a proportion of agents F (p1(RN)) and F (p2(RN)) invest with expected net losses from self1s
and self2s viewpoint, respectively.
13
take the decision that maximizes their prot conditional on their information and second, the
endogenous decision to acquire pieces of news is itself optimized given the agents preferences.
When the riskfree rate is suciently high (
R >
R
2
, see part (iii)), banks need to impose a
high interest rate to avoid expected losses. In that case, the benets of learning the probability
of success are important relative to the costs of inecient procrastination. All agents strictly
prefer to know the environment they are facing and, at date 2, only a fraction 1 F(p
2
(R
L
))
of them invest.
Last, there is a whole set of values (
R [
R
1
,
R
2
], see part (ii)) for which the interest rate
is xed and equal to R
. If
R is close to
R
1
, a competitive interest factor R
is sustainable
only if almost all agents remain ignorant (weak selfselection). If
R is close to
R
2
, an interest
factor R
R
1
R
2
R
6
Prob. of
investment
1
1 F(p
2
(R
))
1 (
R)F(p
2
(R
))
1 F(p
2
(R
L
(
R)))
optimal for self2
realized at date t = 2
Figure 2. Level of investment in the economy.
It is interesting to compare the logic of our result with the classical reference by Keynes to
the psychological factors aecting expectations: A large proportion of our positive activities
depend on spontaneous optimism rather than on a mathematical expectation, whether moral
or hedonistic or economic. [...] Thus if the animal spirits are dimmed and the spontaneous
optimism falters, leaving us to depend on nothing but a mathematical expectation, enterprise
will fade and die (Keynes, 1936 ch.12). According to his theory, spontaneous optimism
(without any specication about where it comes from) breeds the entrepreneurial appetite,
which aects positively the economy. Our paper links expectations to entrepreneurship in a
very dierent way. First, we claim that bold entrepreneurship is the result of an optimization
process. Second, we show that good credit market conditions (low interest rates) endogenously
foster the willingness to keep positive views and not the other way around.
Before performing a welfare analysis, some points deserve further clarication. First, re
placing hyperbolic discounting by costly learning does not generate the same predictions. An
exponential discounting individual does not acquire costly information if the opportunity cost
of investing is either suciently low (
R small) or suciently high (
R big). The rst case is
characterized by excessive boldness (uninformed investment), and the second one by excessive
conservatism (uninformed noninvestment). In other words, his incentives to acquire pieces of
15
news are not increasing in R as in our Lemma 2 but rather have an inverted Ushape. Naturally,
the combination of hyperbolic discounting and costly information provides mixed results.
Second, an individual can keep the benets of strategic ignorance and reduce the costs
(although never eliminate them completely) by delegating the acquisition of news to a third
party, who only reports a suitably chosen partition of the news collected. Although theoretically
feasible, we nd this possibility farfetched, mainly because it is dicult for a party (i) to
evaluate accurately information about someone elses project and (ii) to know how to optimally
report news so as to avoid procrastination (not to mention the renegotiationproofness problem
it poses). In our view, this explains why we rarely observe delegation in practice.
Third, self1 will be able to bias the behavior in a systematic way only if the optimal level
of investment is a nonlinear function of the probability of success. This rules out the case in
which all agents invest an amount proportional to p.
13
Last and most importantly, we can relate our results to the standard creditmarket lit
erature. Following the seminal paper by Stiglitz and Weiss (1981), most of the literature
compares asymmetric information (informed borrowers and uninformed lenders) to complete
information (informed borrowers and informed lenders). A major result is that, as the interest
rate increases, the adverse selection problem is exacerbated implying that the average qual
ity in the pool of applicants decreases (highrisk borrowers become relatively more attracted
than lowrisk borrowers).
14
By contrast, our work compares imperfect but symmetric infor
mation (uninformed borrowers and uninformed lenders) to asymmetric information (informed
borrowers and uninformed lenders). Interestingly, the conclusions are reversed. As the inter
est rate increases, the average quality in the pool of applicants increases: ignorance becomes
more costly, entrepreneurs are then more likely to learn the quality of their project, so there
is selfselection and application for a loan only if prospects are suciently good. This same
intuition holds in a model of timeconsistent individuals and costly learning if, under ignorance,
a majority of them applies for a loan (see the rst comment above). However, to the best of
our knowledge, such comparison has never been formally studied.
13
On the other hand, the binary choice is not necessary for the results: the same qualitative conclusion would
hold if investment were a continuous variable and zero investment were optimal below a certain threshold.
14
This, in turn, is the main argument for the optimality of credit rationing from the banks viewpoint.
16
3.2 Social welfare
We can now be more precise about what we mean by excessive investment. At the individual
level and from self1s perspective, remaining ignorant implies investing too often although it
may also be the best way to avoid inecient procrastination.
More importantly, we are concerned about excessive investment from a societal perspective
and taking into account the welfare of both self1 and self2. To be more precise, suppose that
the government could force all agents in the economy to learn their probability of success
before applying for a loan. Obviously, this would be benecial for each and every self2, since
they derive no benet from inherited ignorance. Also, it would imply some selfselection and
therefore reduce the level of investment in the economy. The key question is whether such
intervention would be protable also from the agents self1 perspective. If the answer is yes,
then we can claim that a measure that reduces loan applications is Pareto improving, which in
turn suggests that in the absence of such intervention the level of investment in the economy
is excessively high from a social viewpoint. The next proposition answers that question.
Proposition 2 There exists a value
R
1
<
R
1
such that for all
R [
R
1
,
R
2
], the level of
investment is strictly smaller and the welfare of all agents is strictly higher (both from their
self1 and their self2 perspective) when all agents are forced to become informed than when
they freely choose their learning strategy.
15
Proof. See Appendix A4. 2
The idea is simple. An agent who learns his probability of success only applies for a
loan if the quality of his project is above a certain threshold. This selfselection creates a
positive externality on the economy because it induces a reduction in the competitive interest
rate oered by banks. Naturally, agents do not internalize the public good eect of their
learning decision: as we have already pointed out, in the absence of government intervention
some or all of them may nd individually optimal to refuse information and blindly invest.
Under these circumstances, Proposition 2 shows that forcing the acquisition of information
can be desirable. This measure, directed to internalize the positive externality of information
15
If
R
R2, then all agents strictly prefer to become informed, so public intervention is unnecessary.
17
acquisition, decreases the number and increases the quality of projects. It is important to
realize the strength of the result: by decreasing the total number of projects that are nanced,
public intervention increases expected welfare in a Pareto sense, i.e. for all individuals and from
both their self1 and self2 perspective. It is therefore safe to say that, without intervention,
the level of investment in the economy is excessively high from every point of view.
Admittedly, it may be dicult to nd measures that encourage agents to acquire informa
tion. Requiring a market study with every loan application can induce potential investors to
become conscious of their chances of success. A more indirect measure can be simply to enforce
stricter bankruptcy rules: increasing the cost of undertaking bad projects implicitly diminishes
the net value of remaining ignorant.
16
Last, note that if banks could observe whether an ap
plicant has learned or not, then government intervention would be unnecessary: lower interest
rates would be oered to informed borrowers and, as long as
R
R
1
, everyone would have
incentives to learn. However, this would only benet the entrepreneurs because, in equilibrium,
lenders would still compete `a la Bertrand and make no prot.
Note that many papers have already studied individual decisions by timeinconsistent
agents. Just to give a few examples, Harris and Laibson (2001) and Krusell and Smith (2003)
have determined the consumption behavior of a representative agent in dierent models of
timeinconsistency; Carrillo and Mariotti (2000) have shown the gains of strategic ignorance;
ODonoghue and Rabin (1999) have studied interpersonal contracting between a hyperbolic
discounting agent and an exponential discounting principal; Brocas and Carrillo (2001) have
analyzed the costs of cooperation and the gains of competition between several hyperbolic dis
counting agents, etc. The novelty of our work relative to this literature is that the strategic
behavior of each individual with a selfcontrol problem (his decision to learn) inuences the
state of the economy (interest rate), which aects the welfare and behavior of the other agents.
In other words, agents are endogenously linked to each other and to the whole economy by
their timeinconsistency and through the market interest rate (Proposition 1). Furthermore,
this endogenous interaction may result in Pareto inferior outcomes (Proposition 2).
More recent papers have developed related models with endogenous interactions between
agents with selfcontrol problems. In Jovanovic and Stolyarov (2002), each agent prefers an
16
As we will see in section 4.1 below, this measure is qualitatively similar to an increase in collateral.
18
inecient technology as a commitment against future excessive work. However, market forces
destroy the commitment value of rejecting a modern technology and therefore reduces the
welfare of all its members. In Battaglini et al. (2001), observing the behavior of others provides
some information to each agent about the diculty to resist temptations. Multiple equilibria
characterized by selfrestraint or selfindulgence coexist only as a result of social interactions.
4 Extensions
4.1 Learning and investment with collateral
A key reason for the agents willingness to keep positive prospects is the relatively small oppor
tunity cost of investing: when the project fails, the entrepreneur only loses his cost of eort e.
Allowing the use of collateral is likely to alter the cost of ignorance, and therefore the overall
equilibrium in the economy. Suppose that all agents can post a collateral C ( R).
17
Besides,
assume for simplicity that each bank can only x one pair of repayment and collateral (R, C)
(this assumption is not crucial as discussed in remark 1 below). The problem becomes the
analogue of P to the case in which C (0, R). We have:
Proposition 3 When C R, there exists a value
R
0
(<
R
1
) such that:
(i) If
R
R
0
, then no agent learns p. The interest factor and collateral is any combination
(R
N
(C), C) with C [0,
R];
(ii) If
R >
R
0
, then all agents learn p. For each
R, there exists an optimal combination of
interest factor and collateral (R
L
(
C(
R)),
C(
R)) with
C(
R) <
R.
Proof. See Appendix A5. 2
Posting collateral does not aect qualitatively our results; for low values of
R, agents still
prefer to remain uninformed and boldly invest. However, there are two new eects due to
the use of collateral. First, ignorance is less likely to occur in equilibrium (learning becomes
optimal when
R (
R
0
,
R
2
)). The reason is that the inclusion of collateral increases the cost
of default on payment, and therefore the net benets of learning p and avoiding projects with
low chances of success (see Lemma 2). Overall, agents who risk their collateral are less willing
17
A collateral C greater than the repayment obligation R is not enforceable by the US contract law.
19
to boldly invest. However, for a riskfree rate suciently low, blind ignorance still remains
optimal. Thus, in our theory, increasing repayment or collateral has essentially the same eect.
This prediction sharply contrasts with overcondence theories. As a (nonBayesian) individual
becomes more overoptimistic about his chances of success, a high repayment is perceived as
more costly but a high collateral requirement is perceived as less costly.
A second dierence is that, with collateral, informed and uninformed agents do not coexist.
Collateral adds a new dimension in which banks can compete for capturing entrepreneurs.
Therefore, given an interest factor for which agents were previously playing a mixed strategy,
there is now an optimal combination (R, C) such that one of the two alternatives (learning
or ignorance) strictly dominates the other. However, this conclusion should not be taken too
literally because it relies crucially on the twodimension competition between banks (interest
and collateral) and the twotypes of agents (fully uninformed and perfectly informed).
18
Remark 1. Banks could reduce the rents of agents by oering a menu of contracts (R(p), C(p))
such that individuals would pick their preferred pair of reimbursement and collateral depending
on whether they knew their probability of success. A full characterization of the optimal con
tract with a maybe informed agent is certainly interesting, but technically complex and only
tangential to the main point of the paper so we prefer to leave it aside (for an analysis along
these lines, see Cremer, Khalil and Rochet (1998)). Nevertheless, it is safe to say that, even if
we allowed this type of contracts, the incentives for strategic ignorance would still operate.
19
4.2 Entrepreneurial ability and incentives to invest
Are the conclusions reached so far modied if we incorporate dierences in the ability of
agents to undertake (or evaluate) risky projects? Obviously, more able individuals are likely to
succeed better in their investment projects. The interesting question is to determine whether
these agents are more likely to act boldly or conservatively.
We dene a highability entrepreneur as an individual who has a higher probability of
18
For instance, any model with gradual uncertainty resolution (where some individuals can be partially in
formed) will be characterized by a coexistence of agents in the economy with dierent degrees of information.
19
By contrast, if banks could observe whether the entrepreneurs know their probability of success, they would
oer dierent types of contracts to each one. In that case, the decision to learn and invest of each individual
would be independent of the decision of others. Learning would then lose its public good value, agents would
not be endogenously linked to each other by their selfcontrol problem, and the results of Proposition 2 would
not hold anymore.
20
success or who, conditional on succeeding, enjoys a higher payo than other entrepreneurs. One
can immediately see that the eect of increasing the benet of success is exactly the opposite
to that of increasing the repayment obligation: it raises (rather than reduces) the payo in the
good state of nature. Therefore, using the same argument as in Lemma 2 but in the opposite
direction, we conclude that highability agents have more incentives to forego information and
boldly invest than their lowability peers (the formal proof is omitted for the sake of brevity
but it is available upon request). Overall, if we interpret e as the xed shortterm opportunity
cost of entrepreneurship relative to a salaried occupation, agents with high capacity are more
prone to selfselect themselves into becoming investors rather than employees for two reasons.
First and trivially, because the expected payo of their projects is higher. Second, because
they are more willing to avoid information that would discourage some investments protable
from their self1 viewpoint. Hence, there is a positive relation between intrinsic managerial
capacity, decision to become an entrepreneur, and proportion of bold investors in the economy.
At the same time, more capable managers are also more likely to commit entry mistakes.
5 Concluding remarks
Instead of assuming nonBayesian processing of information as the reason for overcondence,
this paper has shown that the willingness of entrepreneurs to keep positive thoughts can be
an optimal choice in order to avoid inecient procrastination. We have also oered some
prescriptions for public intervention that may avoid excessively high levels of investment and be
benecial for all agents in the economy. Our work does not pretend to question the existence of
intrinsic optimists in the population, an observation for which there is large evidence. However,
we feel that deriving from preferences an attitude observationally similar (although certainly
not equivalent) to intrinsic, nonBayesian optimism or overcondence is an important step
towards a better understanding of the motivations behind human conducts.
We would like to conclude by pointing out two directions for future research. First, it
would be interesting to test whether entry mistakes are mainly the result of intrinsic optimism
or instrumental willingness to keep positive views. There are at least two ways to discriminate
between these two theories. In our work, the proportion of entry mistakes over total investments
decreases if agents can post collateral and increases if the riskfree rate diminishes. By contrast,
21
theories based on overcondence suggest the opposite. By denition, optimistic individuals have
an excessively low concern about the payo in case of failure, so the capacity to post collateral
exacerbates their inecient behavior. Similarly, if interest rates are high only optimists apply
for loans whereas if interest rates are low these individuals are diluted in the whole population.
Second, the paper highlights the negative relation between riskfree rate and boldness. From
a dynamic perspective, one may conjecture that if current boldness leads to current entry
mistakes, this may have a negative impact on the future state of the credit market. Should
this be true, the economy could exhibit cycles: periods of low interest rates and high levels
of entrepreneurial activity would be followed by periods of high interest rates and moderate
entrepreneurship.
22
Appendix
A1. Proof of Lemma 2
It is obvious that E[p] p
2
(R, C) is decreasing in both R and C. Noting that p
2
= ( R +
C)
p
2
()
R
and 1 p
2
= ( R +C)
p
2
()
C
, we obtain that:
g(R, C; )
R
= (p
2
p
1
)p
2
f(p
2
)
_
p
2
0
p f(p) dp
g(R, C; )
C
= (p
2
p
1
)(1 p
2
)f(p
2
)
_
p
2
0
(1 p)f(p) dp
Suppose that for some C and (
, 1) there exists
R(C, ) such that g(
R(C, ), C; ) = 0,
and for some R and (
, 1) there exists
C(R, ) such that g(R,
C(R, ); ) = 0. We have:
g(R, C; )
R
R
(p
2
p
1
)p
2
f(p
2
)
F(p
2
)
p
1
g(R, C; )
C
C
(p
2
p
1
)(1 p
2
)
f(p
2
)
F(p
2
)
(1 p
1
)
where stands for proportional to. Given Assumption 1, p
f(p)
F(p)
< 1 for all p. Hence:
(p
2
p
1
)(1 p
2
)
f(p
2
)
F(p
2
)
(1 p
1
) < (1 p
1
)
_
p
2
f(p
2
)
F(p
2
)
1
_
< 0
g(R, C; )
C
C
< 0.
Note also that p
1
(R, C) p
2
(R, C) for all C 0. Therefore, for all >
= 1/2:
(p
2
p
1
)p
2
f(p
2
)
F(p
2
)
p
1
< p
1
__
1
1
_
p
2
f(p
2
)
F(p
2
)
1
_
< 0
g(R, C; )
R
R
< 0.
To sum up, if we x C and (
= R() (1
)
According to Assumption 2, >
e/( 1). Also, R() > 1 for all >
. Therefore,
under Assumption 2 and provided that , and e are such that
e
(1)
< 1, the problem is
well behaved for all R [1, R()].
23
Step 2. Conditions under which (C1) is satised. For all C, E[p] > p
2
(R, C) if and only if:
R <
e
E[p]
C
1 E[p]
E[p]
= R(C, )
Note that R(C, ) is decreasing in C and that R(0, ) =
e
E(p)
<
e
= R(). As a
consequence, there exists
>
such that R(0,
) = 1. Besides, R(C, ) < R(0, ) < 1 for all
<
. In other words, a necessary condition for (C1) to be satised is
=
e
E[p] (1)
provided that , and e are such that
e
(1)
< E[p]. Let
1
and C
1
such that R(C
1
,
1
) =
C
1
= 1. By construction
1
and C
1
are unique and
1
>
.
 for all [
,
1
], there exists a unique C
2
() < C
1
such that R(C
2
(), ) = 1 in which
case (C1) is satised for all C < C
2
() and R [1, R(C, )];
 for all >
1
, there exists a unique C
3
() > C
1
such that R(C
3
(), ) = C
3
() in which
case (C1) is satised for all C < C
3
() and R [C, R(C, )].
Step 3. Conditions under which g(R, C; ) = 0.
g(R, C; )
= ( R +C)f(p
2
)
p
2
(p
2
p
1
) < 0 < 1.
Besides, g(R, C; 1) < ( R+C)F(p
2
)(p
2
p
1
) = 0 since p
2
= p
1
when = 1. When =
,
the only pair (R, C) satisfying (C1) is R = 1 and C = 0 and in that case p
2
= E[p]. Moreover:
g(1, 0;
) = ( 1)
_
E[p]
0
pdF(p) eF(E[p])
and sign g(1, 0;
) = sign
_
E
_
pp < E[p]
_
e
(1)
_
. Then, we have two cases:
F() is such that E
_
pp < E[p]
_
>
E[p]
2
.
 if
e
(1)
_
E
_
pp < E[p]
_
, E[p]
_
, then
> 1/2 and g(1, 0;
) < 0. Since g() is decreasing
in R and C for all > 1/2, g(R, C; ) < 0 for all R and C and the agent always learns.
 if
e
(1)
_
E[p]
2
, E
_
pp < E[p]
__
, then
> 1/2 and g(1, 0;
) > 0. Therefore there
exists >
, C and R
be such that
g(
R(
),
C(
)) = 0. By construction,
>
and for all <
)
24
and for all > , g(R, C; ) < 0 and the agent always learns. Naturally,
by construction.
 if
e
(1)
_
0,
E[p]
2
_
,
< 1/2 and g(1, 0;
) > 0. Moreover,
g
_
1, 0;
1
2
_
= eF
_
2e
( 1)
_
+( 1)
_
2e/(1)
0
pf(p)dp
and sign g(1, 0;
1
2
) = signE
_
pp <
2e
(1)
_
e
(1)
. It is easy to verify that g(1, 0;
1
2
) > 0
when
e
(1)
=
E[p]
2
. Therefore, there exist , e and satisfying
e
(1)
(0,
E[p]
2
] such that
g(1, 0;
1
2
) > 0. In that situation, using the same reasoning as before, we can characterize
>
, ], there exist R
(C), C; ) = 0.
Naturally, if e, and are such that g(1, 0;
1
2
) < 0, the agent learns for all > 1/2 and for all
R and C suitably chosen.
F() is such that E
_
pp < E[p]
_
<
E[p]
2
.
 if
e
(1)
_
E[p]
2
, E[p]
_
, then
> 1/2 and g(1, 0;
) < 0. Since g(R, C; ) is decreasing in
both R and C for all > 1/2, g(R, C; ) < 0 for all R and C.
 if
e
(1)
_
E
_
pp < E[p]
_
,
E[p]
2
_
, then
< 1/2, g(1, 0;
) < 0 and g(1, 0; 1/2) < 0.
Therefore, g(R, C; ) < 0 for all R, for all C and for all > 1/2.
 if
e
(1)
_
0; E
_
pp < E[p]
__
,
< 1/2 and g(1, 0;
) > 0. Here again, if , e and
satisfy
e
(1)
_
0, E
_
pp < E[p]
__
and are such that g(1, 0;
1
2
) > 0, we can determine (as
before) >
, ], there exist R
(C), C; ) = 0.
By contrast, if e, and are such that g(1, 0;
1
2
) < 0, the agent learns for all > 1/2 and for
all R and C suitably chosen.
Step 4. Conditions for R
C
=
g(R
(C), C)
C
_
g(R
(C), C)
R
< 0 (3
)
R
C
=
f(p
2
)(1 p
2
)(p
2
p
1
)
_
p
2
0
(1 p)dF(p)
f(p
2
)p
2
(p
2
p
1
)
_
p
2
0
(p)dF(p)
<
1 E(p)
E(p)
=
R(C, )
C
As a consequence, a sucient condition for R
(
C) = R(
C, ). In that case, we have:
K(C) =
_
R(C, ) if C
C
R
(C) if C >
C
Since R(0, ) = eE(p), in which case p
2
= E(p), there exists (
, ) such that
K(C) = R
)
Naturally, the frontier is kinked when (
, ). 2
A3. Proof of Proposition 1
Note rst that if
R > R() (=
e
as dened by equation (1
, denote by
R
1
and
R
2
(>
R
1
) the values such that:
R
=
R
1
E[p]
=
R
2
E[p  p > p
2
(R
)]
R <
R
1
R
N
< R
R >
R
2
R
L
> R
. Then, R = R
R
1
<
R <
R
2
R
L
< R
< R
N
. In this case, R = R
)] + (1 (
R))E[p]
_
R
=
R (5
)
But, by denition of R
, agents are indierent between learning and not. Hence, for each
R (
R
1
,
R
2
), there exists a value (
R) (0, 1) that satises (5
). 2
A4. Proof of Proposition 2
Given
R, denote by W
L
(
R) and W
N
(
R) the expected welfare of agents from their self1 per
spective when they all learn p and when none of them does, respectively. We have:
W
L
(
R) =
_
1
p
2
(R
L
)
e + p ( R
L
) dF(p), W
N
(
R) =
_
1
0
e + p ( R
N
) dF(p)
26
After some algebra, and given (6) and (7), we get:
W
L
(
R) W
N
(
R) e E[p  p < p
2
(R
L
)] +E[p]R
N
From the denition of R
, we have:
p
1
(R
) = E[p  p < p
2
(R
)] e = E[p  p < p
2
(R
)] E[p  p < p
2
(R
)]R
)] E[pp < p
2
(R
L
)]
_
_
E[pp < p
2
(R
)]R
E[p]R
N
_
When
R [
R
1
,
R
2
), then R
L
(
R) < R
R
N
(
R) and, as a result, W
L
(
R) W
N
(
R) > 0.
Naturally, this same inequality holds for at least some
R <
R
1
. 2
A5. Proof of Proposition 3
Step 1. Isoprot curves. Denote R
u
(C) and R
i
(C) the interest factor functions in the iso
prot curves of an uninformed and an informed agent, respectively. Formally:
G
u
(R
u
(C), C) =
K and G
i
(R
i
(C), C) =
L
where
K and
L are constants. From (3) and (4), we have:
R
u
C
=
G
u
C
_
G
u
R
=
1 E[p]
E[p]
R
i
C
=
G
i
C
_
G
i
R
=
1 E[p]
_
p
2
0
(1 p) dF(p) + (1 p
2
)(p
2
p
1
)f(p
2
)
E[p]
_
p
2
0
p dF(p) +p
2
(p
2
p
1
)f(p
2
)
Step 2. Isoprot curves of banks with informed and uninformed agents. We have:
R
N
C
=
1 E[p]
E[p]
R
L
C
=
_
1
p
2
(1 p) dF(p) (R C)
p
2
C
f(p
2
)(E[p  p > p
2
] p
2
)
_
1
p
2
p dF(p) + (R C)
p
2
R
f(p
2
)(E[p  p > p
2
] p
2
)
Step 3. Comparison of isoprot slopes and banks zero prot condition.
R
C
R
u
C
A
where
A = f(p
2
)(p
2
p
1
)(p
2
E[p]) +F(p
2
)E[p]
_
p
2
0
pdF(p)
27
In R
, A
f(p
2
)
F(p
2
)
(p
2
p
1
)(p
2
E[p]) +E[p] p
1
= k(E[p]). A is increasing in E(p) and positive
when E(p) = p
2
. Therefore for all p
2
> E(p), A > 0. Then,
R
C
Ru
C
< 0. In the same lines:
R
C
R
i
C
A and
R
u
C
R
i
C
A
As a consequence:
C
>
R
u
C
>
R
i
C
(6
)
Also,
R
u
C
=
R
N
C
<
R
L
C
. Moreover, it is easy to check that R
L
(
R) = R
N
(
R) =
R. Last,
R
i
C
>
_
1
p
2
(1 p) dF(p)
_
1
p
2
p dF(p)
=
R
L
C
(R
L
(
R),
R)
(7
)
Step 4. Determination of the equilibria. Denote by
R
0
the value such that R
(
R
0
) =
R
0
.
Note that, given (6
),
R
0
<
R
1
.
R <
R
0
g(
R,
R; ) > 0. Hence, according to (6
), g(R
N
(C), C) > 0 and g(R
L
(C), C) >
0 for all C [0,
R]. This implies that, in equilibrium, agents will never learn p. Given that
Ru
C
=
R
N
C
, every combination (R
N
(C), C) with C [0,
R] yields 0 prots to banks and belong
to the same isoprot curve G
u
(R
N
(C), C; ) =
K.
R
0
<
R <
R
2
for each
R, there exists one and only one value
C(
R) (0,
R) such that:
R
(
C(
R)) = R
L
(
C(
R))
Given (6
), the optimal vector (R, C) compatible with no losses for banks implies: (i) learning
of p, (ii) collateral
C(
R) [
C(
R),
R), and (iii) interest factor R
L
(
C(
R)). The exact value
C de
pends on the sign of
R
i
C
R
L
C
. In any case, given (7
),
C(
R) <
R. Note that (R(
C(
R)),
C(
R))
is the competitive pair of interest factor and collateral if and only if (
R) = 1.
R
2
<
R g(R
N
(C), C; ) < 0 and g(R
L
(C), C; ) < 0 for all C [0,
R] by (6
). Hence,
in equilibrium, agents always learn p. Again, there is an optimal collateral
C(
R) [0,
R). 2
28
References
1. Ainslie, G., 1992, Picoeconomics, Cambridge University Press.
2. Akerlof, G.A., 1991, Procrastination and Obedience, American Economic Review, 81,
119.
3. Battaglini, M., R. Benabou and J. Tirole, 2001, Selfcontrol in Peer Groups, mimeo,
Princeton and Toulouse.
4. Benabou, R. and J. Tirole, 2002, SelfCondence and Personal Motivation, Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 117(3), 871915.
5. Bernardo, A. and I. Welch, 2001, On the Evolution of Overcondence and Entrepreneurs,
Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 10, 301330.
6. Brocas, I., and J.D. Carrillo, 2001, Rush and Procrastination under Hyperbolic Dis
counting and Interdependent Activities, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 22, 141164.
7. Brocas, I., and J.D. Carrillo, 2003, A Theory of Haste, forthcoming in Journal of
Economic Behavior and Organization.
8. Caillaud, B. and B. Jullien, 2000, Modelling TimeInconsistent Preferences, European
Economic Review, 44, 11161124.
9. Caillaud, B., D. Cohen, and B. Jullien, 1996, Towards a Theory of SelfRestraint,
mimeo, Paris and Toulouse.
10. Camerer, C., and D. Lovallo, 1999, Overcondence and Excess Entry: an Experimental
Approach, American Economic Review, 89, 306318.
11. Caplin, A. and J. Leahy, 2000, The Supply of Information by a Concerned Expert,
forthcoming in Economic Journal.
12. Caplin, A. and J. Leahy, 2001, Psychological Expected Utility Theory and Anticipatory
Feelings, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 5579.
13. Carrillo, J.D., and T. Mariotti, 2000, Strategic Ignorance as a SelfDisciplining Device,
Review of Economic Studies, 67, 529544.
14. Cooper, A., C. Woo, and W. Dunkelberg, 1988, Entrepreneurs Perceived Chances for
Success, Journal of Business Venturing, 3, 97108.
15. Cremer, J., F. Khalil, and J.C. Rochet, 1998, Strategic Information Gathering Before a
Contract is Oered, Journal of Economic Theory, 81(1), 163200.
29
16. Daly, M., 1990 The 1980s a decade of growth in enterprise data on VAT registrations
and deregistrations, The Employment Gazette.
17. DeBondt, W.F., and R.H. Thaler, 1995, Financial DecisionMaking in Markets and
Firms: a Behavioral Perspective, in R. Jarrow et al. eds., Handbook in Operation Re
search and Management, vol.9, ch.13. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
18. Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G. and T. ODonoghue, 2002, Time Discounting and Time
Preference: A Critical Review, Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 351401.
19. Gul, F., and W. Pesendorfer, 2001, Temptation and SelfControl, Econometrica, 69,
140335.
20. Harris, C. and D. Laibson, 2001, Hyperbolic Discounting and Consumption, forthcom
ing in Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of the Econometric Society.
21. Heaton, J.B.,2002 , Managerial Optimism and Corporate Finance, Financial Manage
ment, 31, 3345.
22. Jovanovic, B. and D. Stolyarov, 2002, Technology Adoption and Commitments: the
Welfare Costs of industrialization Revisited, mimeo, NYU and Michigan.
23. Keynes, J.M., 1936, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, MacMillan
St. Martins Press.
24. Krusell, P and A.A. Smith Jr., 2003, ConsumptionSavings Decisions with QuasiGeometric
Discounting, Econometrica, 71, 365375.
25. Laibson, D.I.,1997, Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting, Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 112, 443477.
26. Larwood, L., and W. Whittaker, 1977, Managerial Myopia: SelfServing Biases in Or
ganizational Planning, Journal of Applied Psychology, (April), 194198.
27. Loewenstein, G., and D. Prelec, 1992, Anomalies in Intertemporal Choice: Evidence
and an Interpretation, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 573598.
28. Manove, M., 1997, Entrepreneurs, Optimism, and the Competitive Edge, mimeo,
Boston University.
29. Manove, M., and A.J. Padilla, 1999, Banking (conservatively) with Optimists, RAND
Journal of Economics, 30, 324350.
30
30. ODonoghue, T., and M. Rabin, 1999, Incentives for Procrastinators, Quarterly Journal
of Economics, 114(3), 769816.
31. Phelps, E.S., and R.A. Pollak, 1968, On Second Best National Saving and Game
Theoretic Growth, Review of Economic Studies, 35, 185199.
32. Read, D., 2001, Is TimeDiscounting Hyperbolic or Subadditive? Journal of Risk and
Uncertainty, 23(1), 532.
33. Roll, R., 1986, The Hubris Hypothesis of Corporate Takeovers, Journal of Business,
59, 197216.
34. Rubinstein, A., 2000, Is it Economics and Psychology?: the Case of Hyperbolic Dis
counting, mimeo, Tel Aviv and Princeton.
35. Shapiro, D. and R. Khemani, 1987, The Determinants of Entry and Exit Reconsidered,
International Journal of Industrial Organization, 5(1), 1526.
36. Stiglitz, J. and A. Weiss, 1981, Credit Rationing in Markets with Imperfect Informa
tion, American Economic Review, 71, 393410.
37. Strotz, R.H., 1956, Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximisation, Review
of Economic Studies, 23, 166180.
31