Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This paper analyzes the adverse incentive effects produced by money injections of benefactors [sugar daddies (SD)]. We show that the existence of a SD induces the club to choose a riskier investment strategy and the more the SD commits to bailout the club, the more the clubs’ optimal level of riskiness increases. Moreover, a private SD bails out the club less often than a public SD. Our model further shows that a ‘too‐big‐to‐fail’ phenomenon exists because it is optimal to always bailout a club if its market size is sufficiently large.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Franck et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: