Popular in Professional

Culture and Society

The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place

New York University Harvey Moltoch

Education

The Role of Education in Reducing Racial Inequality

University of Southern California Pedro A. Noguera

Law

Diversity and Social Mobility in the UK legal profession

Law Society I. Stephanie Boyce

Internet Law

The Law of AI for Good

University of San Diego Orly Lobel

Pharmacy

Cytotoxic Activity and Anti-Migratory Effect of Berberine-Phytantriol Liquid Crystalline on Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

University of Technology Sydney Kamal Dua

Human Rights Law

Transforming Restorative Justice for Transitional Settings

University of Nottingham Kerry Clamp

Education

Moral Hazard versus Liquidity in Household Bankruptcy

View more insights in Professional - Finance

View more figures from University of Pennsylvania

View the page of Sasha Indarte

Read the Study

Sasha Indarte reveals the crucial role of moral hazard and liquidity in driving household bankruptcy. Implications for consumption-smoothing are significant.

Image courtesy of interviewee. December 6, 2023

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video video discusses the significance of consumer bankruptcy as a crucial element of the social safety net in the U.S., serving as a mechanism for individuals to reduce their debt burden during tough times. It likens bankruptcy to insurance, suggesting that it helps mitigate the financial impacts of adverse events such as job loss or illness.

Key points include:

1. **Consumer Bankruptcy Statistics**: Approximately 1 million people in the U.S. file for bankruptcy annually, and one in ten people will do so in their lifetime. The financial relief provided through bankruptcy surpasses that of unemployment insurance in many years.

2. **Debate Over Accessibility**: There are discussions on the balance between making bankruptcy easily accessible with generous relief versus potential moral hazards, where individuals might be tempted to file for bankruptcy even when they could repay their debts.

3. **Research Focus**: The author aims to quantify the trade-offs of generous bankruptcy policies by examining the reasons for filing and evaluating the influences of moral hazard versus insurance motives. They note that previous studies have highlighted different aspects of strategic default, particularly concerning mortgages and credit card debts.

4. **Findings**: The research reveals that the insurance motive (liquidity) is substantially stronger than the moral hazard motive. A small increase in bankruptcy costs leads to a slight decrease in filings, suggesting that the fear of bankruptcy is a strong deterrent for many. The results imply that generous bankruptcy policies could be supported due to the limited moral hazard and significant insurance benefits.

5. **Implications**: The study suggests a careful consideration of bankruptcy accessibility policies since the costs associated with moral hazard are relatively low, yet the insurance value of bankruptcy is significant. Factors such as the stigma of bankruptcy and potential future credit access issues also play a role in individuals' reluctance to file.

In summary, the author argues that consumer bankruptcy serves as an essential support mechanism for those facing financial hardships, with a strong emphasis on the need for balanced policies that provide adequate relief while minimizing moral hazard.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.000 --> 00:02.125
The reason I was interested in studying consumer

00:02.135 --> 00:03.365
bankruptcy is

00:03.365 --> 00:06.325
that consumer bankruptcy is actually an important part

00:06.345 --> 00:10.325
of the social safety net in the US by allowing people

00:10.385 --> 00:11.485
to lessen the burden

00:11.825 --> 00:13.685
of debt payments when they fall on hard times.

00:13.975 --> 00:16.805
Bankruptcy acts like a form of insurance similar

00:16.805 --> 00:19.285
to health insurance, unemployment insurance,

00:19.615 --> 00:22.565
bankruptcy can make adverse events like job loss

00:22.825 --> 00:24.765
or illness less costly.

00:24.865 --> 00:28.165
You can essentially think of it as a source of an,

00:28.585 --> 00:30.245
as a insurance for your wealth.

00:31.085 --> 00:33.105
Now, in terms of the importance of bankruptcy,

00:33.135 --> 00:35.665
there's about a million people on average in the US

00:35.855 --> 00:38.305
that seek debt relief through bankruptcy.

00:38.525 --> 00:42.065
In a typical year, one in 10 people in the US file

00:42.085 --> 00:43.825
for bankruptcy at some point in their life.

00:44.485 --> 00:47.065
And if we wanna compare bankruptcy to other parts

00:47.065 --> 00:49.905
of the social safety net, it's quite large overall.

00:50.285 --> 00:52.625
Uh, the size of the wealth transfer in the form

00:52.625 --> 00:53.665
of debt forgiveness

00:53.665 --> 00:56.505
that people receive in bankruptcy is bigger than

00:56.655 --> 00:58.305
what people receive through unemployment

00:58.305 --> 00:59.865
insurance in most years.

01:01.105 --> 01:04.085
Now, it's not obvious how easily accessible

01:04.085 --> 01:06.285
and generous the, debt relief

01:06.285 --> 01:08.405
that bankruptcy provides people should be.

01:08.705 --> 01:10.445
And that's because there are trade-offs

01:10.445 --> 01:13.485
to providing easily available generous debt relief.

01:13.985 --> 01:17.165
On the one hand, making bankruptcy easy to do

01:17.425 --> 01:19.805
and generous could create moral hazard.

01:20.465 --> 01:23.005
If, people stand to gain more from filing

01:23.065 --> 01:26.645
for bankruptcy, this makes for more temptation to file.

01:26.985 --> 01:28.685
But then creditors, the lenders,

01:28.955 --> 01:31.205
lenders are gonna expect bigger losses if more people

01:31.235 --> 01:32.365
file for bankruptcy.

01:32.865 --> 01:36.285
And the broader social cost of that is that,

01:36.475 --> 01:37.965
lenders are gonna be more reluctant

01:38.025 --> 01:39.885
to lend if they expect bigger losses.

01:40.105 --> 01:42.525
So fewer people might be approved for loans,

01:42.825 --> 01:45.045
and even when they get approved, the interest rates

01:45.045 --> 01:47.045
that they pay will be higher.

01:47.705 --> 01:48.805
Now, that's the main cost,

01:48.905 --> 01:51.525
but in terms of benefits, it really comes down

01:51.525 --> 01:54.805
to this insurance like property of bankruptcy

01:55.225 --> 01:57.525
and the insurance that bankruptcy provides is going

01:57.525 --> 02:00.565
to be especially valuable when people are not well insured

02:00.565 --> 02:03.805
against adverse events like job loss, illness, the loss

02:03.805 --> 02:05.765
of a partner, things like that.

02:06.825 --> 02:10.485
Now in my study, what I aim to investigate is,

02:10.845 --> 02:13.765
I wanna quantify the trade-offs of,

02:13.765 --> 02:15.165
providing generous bankruptcy.

02:15.665 --> 02:17.205
And what I do is I use data

02:17.505 --> 02:20.045
to investigate the reasons why people file

02:20.145 --> 02:21.525
and quantify the importance

02:21.525 --> 02:25.085
of this moral hazard motive versus this insurance motive.

02:25.665 --> 02:28.405
So my research builds on a literature that studies

02:29.485 --> 02:31.765
strategic default, which means default, that's driven

02:31.865 --> 02:33.005
by unwillingness

02:33.005 --> 02:36.485
to repay debt rather than the inability to repay debt.

02:37.035 --> 02:40.245
Most of this prior work focuses on mortgage delinquency

02:40.395 --> 02:42.365
that is missing mortgage

02:42.365 --> 02:43.645
payments defaulting on your mortgage.

02:44.065 --> 02:46.245
Uh, one big example in this literature would be work

02:46.245 --> 02:47.485
by Peter Ganong

02:47.485 --> 02:51.045
and Pascal Noel, who study mortgage debt relief,

02:51.045 --> 02:53.045
that was administered through the ham program

02:53.305 --> 02:54.605
during the Great Recession.

02:55.305 --> 02:57.965
In that setting, they find very limited evidence

02:58.185 --> 03:02.045
of strategic default, specifically when people have their,

03:02.545 --> 03:06.365
when people have their mortgage payments unchanged,

03:06.465 --> 03:08.325
the required monthly payments are unchanged,

03:08.545 --> 03:11.765
but the total, amount that they have to repay creditors,

03:11.855 --> 03:13.485
their mortgage lender is lowered.

03:13.755 --> 03:15.725
That is very little effect on the

03:15.725 --> 03:17.045
likelihood that someone defaults.

03:17.665 --> 03:20.765
But instead, if you reduce people's required monthly

03:20.765 --> 03:23.845
payments, even if they have to repay the, the total amount,

03:24.305 --> 03:26.765
the same, the total amount that they have to repay is,

03:27.025 --> 03:30.165
is the same, the reduction in those monthly payments

03:30.315 --> 03:33.205
that make it easier and makes people more able

03:33.205 --> 03:36.005
to afford their mortgage, that has a sizable

03:36.525 --> 03:37.565
reduction in the likelihood

03:37.665 --> 03:39.285
of people defaulting on the mortgage.

03:40.145 --> 03:41.205
Now, there's other work

03:41.205 --> 03:43.045
that finds the opposite in different settings.

03:43.045 --> 03:44.245
So there's work by Will Doby

03:44.245 --> 03:46.285
and Jsong who studied debt relief

03:46.525 --> 03:47.845
provided to credit card borrowers,

03:48.525 --> 03:51.865
and they use a randomized control trial, that,

03:52.095 --> 03:53.305
reduces, that does a mixture

03:53.305 --> 03:55.385
of reducing people's minimum monthly payments

03:55.605 --> 03:57.745
and writing down some of the total amount

03:57.745 --> 03:59.665
of credit card debt that people owe.

04:00.205 --> 04:01.745
Now, what they find is the opposite.

04:02.045 --> 04:04.345
Uh, what they see is that writing down

04:04.345 --> 04:06.545
that credit card debt is much more likely

04:06.565 --> 04:09.465
to make people avoid defaulting on their credit cards,

04:09.575 --> 04:11.345
whereas lowering that monthly payment

04:11.405 --> 04:13.745
for credit cards has very little effect

04:13.745 --> 04:14.865
on the likelihood of default.

04:15.485 --> 04:18.025
So together, this suggests that credit card,

04:18.025 --> 04:20.385
default on credit cards might be more strategic,

04:20.535 --> 04:22.745
that is more driven by, unwillingness

04:22.745 --> 04:24.305
to repay rather than inability

04:24.365 --> 04:26.465
to repay compared to mortgages.

04:26.965 --> 04:28.265
One possible reason for this is

04:28.265 --> 04:30.625
that default on mortgages is very costly.

04:31.045 --> 04:33.145
That's because mortgages are secured.

04:33.445 --> 04:35.985
Unlike credit card debts, they're secured on your home.

04:36.485 --> 04:38.025
And if you default on your mortgage,

04:38.325 --> 04:40.345
and if you don't make up those payments quickly enough,

04:40.575 --> 04:42.825
this could result in foreclosure in losing your home.

04:43.725 --> 04:45.265
Now, bankruptcy, it's also used

04:45.265 --> 04:46.985
to write down unsecured debts.

04:46.985 --> 04:49.585
So for that reason, we might expect that strategic

04:49.805 --> 04:52.545
and moral hazard motives would be an important driver

04:52.605 --> 04:53.825
of the bankruptcy decision.

04:54.405 --> 04:55.505
Uh, that would be the case

04:55.605 --> 04:58.585
unless people, face large costs

04:58.845 --> 05:00.225
of filing for bankruptcy.

05:01.085 --> 05:03.145
Now, another reason we might expect bankruptcy

05:03.245 --> 05:05.785
to also be different from delinquency on credit cards

05:05.785 --> 05:07.985
and mortgages is that the inability

05:07.985 --> 05:11.585
to be paid might force someone to miss a credit card payment

05:11.685 --> 05:13.785
or force them to miss a mortgage payment,

05:13.935 --> 05:17.745
whereas missing payments does not automatically mean

05:17.855 --> 05:19.025
that you're going bankrupt.

05:19.365 --> 05:21.905
So someone could still hold out if they really didn't

05:21.905 --> 05:23.025
wanna file for bankruptcy.

05:23.405 --> 05:25.385
So for these reasons, we might have expected

05:25.415 --> 05:26.785
that moral hazard

05:26.925 --> 05:28.905
and strategic default would be a big driver

05:29.325 --> 05:30.545
of the bankruptcy decision,

05:30.965 --> 05:32.425
but I end up finding the opposite.

05:32.845 --> 05:34.945
So what is consumer bankruptcy?

05:35.665 --> 05:37.425
Consumer bankruptcy is a legal process

05:37.535 --> 05:40.385
that allows households to discharge,

05:40.385 --> 05:44.185
that is erase the obligation to repay unsecured debt.

05:44.965 --> 05:46.585
And, and specifically the kind

05:46.585 --> 05:47.985
of debt people can discharge

05:47.985 --> 05:49.545
through bankruptcy is unsecured.

05:49.545 --> 05:52.545
So that would be things like credit card debt, medical debt,

05:53.145 --> 05:55.665
personal loans, not things like mortgages.

05:56.445 --> 05:58.305
Now, in order order to receive debt relief,

05:58.395 --> 06:01.105
bankruptcy filers have to make partial payments

06:01.105 --> 06:03.665
to their creditors based on the amount of income

06:03.925 --> 06:05.505
and assets that they have.

06:06.435 --> 06:10.015
One of the main policies that we have that governs how much,

06:10.275 --> 06:13.895
or one of the main policies that we have that governs

06:13.915 --> 06:17.295
how generous bankruptcy is a net of the payments

06:17.295 --> 06:20.095
to creditors are state's asset exemption laws.

06:20.355 --> 06:22.415
And these differ significantly across states.

06:23.275 --> 06:25.865
One of the most important exemptions is

06:25.865 --> 06:26.985
the homestead exemption.

06:27.725 --> 06:30.545
The homestead exemption. It protects people's home equity.

06:30.965 --> 06:32.305
For example, if you live in a state

06:32.495 --> 06:35.945
with a $15,000 bankruptcy homestead exemption,

06:36.445 --> 06:39.825
if you had $20,000 in home equity, you would have to pay

06:39.825 --> 06:41.985
that $5,000 difference in order

06:42.005 --> 06:44.225
to access the debt relief in bankruptcy.

06:44.765 --> 06:47.905
The farther above the exemption limit is your home equity,

06:48.165 --> 06:50.425
the more you're gonna have to pay creditors,

06:50.425 --> 06:51.825
when you file for bankruptcy.

06:52.445 --> 06:53.745
The data I use in my study,

06:53.965 --> 06:56.665
it comes from a large database of mortgages.

06:56.965 --> 06:58.865
So one caveat for the study is

06:58.865 --> 07:01.705
that I'm only gonna be studying homeowners who,

07:01.705 --> 07:04.505
contribute to about 40% of bankruptcy.

07:04.505 --> 07:06.385
So we should be cautious about extrapolating my

07:06.385 --> 07:07.625
results to renters.

07:08.405 --> 07:11.025
The data that I have, it covers about half

07:11.125 --> 07:14.425
of us mortgage borrowers over, the period

07:14.425 --> 07:15.985
of 2000 to 2016.

07:16.045 --> 07:18.425
So there's millions of people in this sample.

07:19.355 --> 07:21.695
The data, it has monthly information on whether

07:21.695 --> 07:24.055
or not people file for bankruptcy, the,

07:24.275 --> 07:25.495
the balance on their mortgage,

07:25.715 --> 07:28.135
and also the original sale price of the home.

07:28.395 --> 07:30.775
That's important because it's gonna make it possible

07:30.835 --> 07:35.175
to exactly track how people's home equity evolves over time.

07:36.095 --> 07:38.275
Now, with this data, I do two analyses.

07:38.735 --> 07:40.795
One is to estimate the moral hazard motive,

07:41.095 --> 07:43.555
and the other is to estimate the insurance

07:43.735 --> 07:46.275
or what economists would also call the liquidity

07:46.275 --> 07:47.915
motive for bankruptcy.

07:49.285 --> 07:52.385
The first analysis, it quantifies the moral hazard motive.

07:53.005 --> 07:55.465
Now, the ideal experiment for learning about moral hazard

07:55.525 --> 07:57.105
and bankruptcy would be one

07:57.105 --> 07:59.865
where you could hold fixed the wealth people have available

08:00.015 --> 08:01.185
outside of bankruptcy,

08:01.525 --> 08:03.105
but vary the financial gain

08:03.175 --> 08:05.825
that they would get from filing for bankruptcy.

08:06.645 --> 08:08.865
Now, I approximate that ideal experiment

08:08.885 --> 08:10.545
by using a natural experiment.

08:10.845 --> 08:13.825
And the natural experiment I use is related to

08:13.845 --> 08:16.785
how the homestead exemption works in bankruptcy.

08:17.605 --> 08:20.905
In essence, what I do is measure how the relationship

08:20.905 --> 08:24.585
between the likelihood of filing for bankruptcy varies

08:24.935 --> 08:28.505
with home equity, around the exemption limit.

08:29.385 --> 08:32.405
Now, visually, if we plot this data, what we see is

08:32.405 --> 08:34.965
that once people cross the homestead exemption limit

08:35.385 --> 08:37.685
and home equity is starting to make bankruptcy, more

08:37.685 --> 08:41.645
and more expensive, people become increasingly less likely

08:41.905 --> 08:43.085
to file for bankruptcy.

08:43.265 --> 08:44.805
So we do see that that cost

08:44.805 --> 08:48.405
of bankruptcy is deterring people's willingness to file.

08:49.185 --> 08:51.165
Now, the idea is that as long as the only thing

08:51.165 --> 08:54.405
that's sharply changing, right at that exemption limit

08:55.065 --> 08:57.365
is the cost of bankruptcy, we're able

08:57.365 --> 08:59.605
to learn about the causal effect of the cost

08:59.605 --> 09:02.485
of bankruptcy on people's decision to file.

09:03.185 --> 09:05.765
The second analysis estimates the insurance motive.

09:06.115 --> 09:08.485
This is also known as the liquidity motive.

09:09.145 --> 09:10.805
Now, the ideal experiment,

09:10.805 --> 09:13.765
for estimating this would be one that does the opposite

09:13.785 --> 09:16.445
of the first one specifically, we want a setting

09:16.445 --> 09:20.005
where we can hold fixed the financial gain of filing

09:20.025 --> 09:23.325
for bankruptcy, but very cash on hand that is available

09:23.345 --> 09:26.365
to people whether or not they file for bankruptcy.

09:27.395 --> 09:30.575
Now, for this analysis exploit another natural

09:30.585 --> 09:32.895
experiment related to the design

09:32.955 --> 09:36.535
of adjustable rate mortgages, also known as arms.

09:37.475 --> 09:39.255
Now, this experiment led to

09:39.355 --> 09:41.455
as if random variation in the size

09:41.455 --> 09:43.935
of mortgage payment reductions that people

09:44.045 --> 09:45.855
with arms received.

09:46.275 --> 09:47.775
To understand how this works, I need

09:47.775 --> 09:49.855
to describe a little bit about how arms work.

09:50.595 --> 09:54.375
So arms, they typically have a low fixed rate initially,

09:54.555 --> 09:57.255
and the idea is that that rate typically

09:57.255 --> 09:58.455
after a period of about five

09:58.455 --> 10:01.975
or 10 years, will later on reset to a higher rate.

10:02.395 --> 10:03.415
And that new rate

10:03.545 --> 10:05.765
after the reset is generally going

10:05.765 --> 10:08.685
to be some major interest rate plus something like

10:08.685 --> 10:09.925
half a percentage point.

10:10.785 --> 10:13.245
Now, two popular interest rates in the period

10:13.245 --> 10:16.565
that I study were the treasury rate and the L-I-B-O-R rate.

10:17.105 --> 10:19.645
Now, prior to the global financial crisis, L-I-B-O-R

10:19.645 --> 10:21.725
and Treasury, they basically moved in lockstep

10:21.725 --> 10:24.085
with each other, and it wouldn't matter which one you were

10:24.275 --> 10:25.965
indexed to if you had an arm.

10:26.465 --> 10:29.325
But after the global financial crisis, people

10:29.325 --> 10:32.285
that were resetting in that period, they were surprised

10:32.285 --> 10:34.245
by very different sized,

10:34.245 --> 10:35.965
changes in their mortgage interest rates.

10:36.555 --> 10:38.485
What happened was, during, in response

10:38.485 --> 10:39.885
to the global financial crisis,

10:40.425 --> 10:42.165
fed lowered the treasury rate.

10:42.665 --> 10:45.765
Now L-I-B-O-R, it's a linked to the health

10:45.825 --> 10:47.405
of the interbank lending market.

10:47.475 --> 10:49.925
That is the market where banks are lending to each other.

10:50.635 --> 10:51.685
That market was not doing

10:51.705 --> 10:53.125
so well in the global financial crisis.

10:53.305 --> 10:55.085
So even though L-I-B-O-R did fall,

10:55.305 --> 10:57.005
it didn't fall nearly as much as treasury.

10:57.635 --> 11:01.125
What this meant for people with arms is you could have an

11:01.125 --> 11:02.445
otherwise identical mortgage,

11:02.745 --> 11:05.645
but if you're indexed to L-I-B-O-R rather than treasury,

11:05.985 --> 11:09.085
you would've been paying a couple thousand dollars more each

11:09.085 --> 11:12.165
year, because of, the more limited

11:12.685 --> 11:14.245
decrease in your mortgage payment.

11:14.585 --> 11:16.325
In the first analysis, I find

11:16.325 --> 11:20.165
that while there is a moral hazard motive, it's small, using

11:20.165 --> 11:22.525
that variation from the homestead exemption.

11:22.835 --> 11:26.445
What I find is that when bankruptcy is $1,000 more

11:26.445 --> 11:27.845
expensive, this leads

11:27.865 --> 11:32.525
to only a 0.02 percentage point decrease in the likelihood

11:32.595 --> 11:34.165
that people file for bankruptcy.

11:34.705 --> 11:36.845
In relative terms, this is about a two

11:36.845 --> 11:39.205
and a half percent decrease relative

11:39.205 --> 11:40.445
to the average filing rate.

11:41.195 --> 11:44.735
Now, in the second analysis, I find a much stronger response

11:45.155 --> 11:46.455
to mortgage payments.

11:46.965 --> 11:49.795
Under the most conservative assumptions, I estimate

11:49.795 --> 11:53.525
that a $1,000 one-time reduction in one year's worth

11:53.525 --> 11:54.925
of mortgage payments leads

11:54.925 --> 11:58.885
to at least a 0.09 percentage point decrease in the

11:58.885 --> 12:00.365
likelihood of filing for bankruptcy.

12:00.745 --> 12:05.485
In relative terms, this is about a 12.5% decrease relative

12:05.485 --> 12:06.685
to the average filing rate.

12:07.185 --> 12:08.245
To sum up, I find

12:08.245 --> 12:11.045
that the insurance motive is about five times stronger

12:11.595 --> 12:14.325
than the moral hazard motive for filing for bankruptcy.

12:14.775 --> 12:17.325
These results have several important implications.

12:18.185 --> 12:21.525
The first is that the small moral hazard response indicates

12:21.525 --> 12:24.365
that one of the major determinants of the cost

12:24.545 --> 12:25.925
of providing generous debt relief

12:25.925 --> 12:27.725
through bankruptcy is small.

12:28.185 --> 12:30.485
Now, this doesn't give us a complete picture of the cost.

12:30.625 --> 12:32.365
The total cost is gonna depend on

12:32.585 --> 12:36.165
how strongly creditors react to that additional filing

12:36.385 --> 12:37.925
and to the additional debt

12:38.025 --> 12:39.885
that's being discharged through bankruptcy.

12:40.925 --> 12:42.345
Uh, second,

12:42.665 --> 12:44.465
together these estimates tell us something about the

12:44.465 --> 12:46.185
insurance value of bankruptcy.

12:46.325 --> 12:48.025
So they also speak to the benefits

12:48.165 --> 12:50.985
of providing generous bankruptcy In the paper,

12:51.385 --> 12:54.105
I use economic theory to show how these behavioral

12:54.625 --> 12:58.385
responses reveal how much people value bankruptcy.

12:59.125 --> 13:01.095
Intuitively, the stronger response

13:01.095 --> 13:04.455
to liquidity versus the moral hazard incentive tells us

13:04.455 --> 13:07.255
that people have a strong aversion to bankruptcy.

13:07.715 --> 13:11.015
It takes just a little bit of cash on hand to make people

13:11.665 --> 13:14.615
avoid bankruptcy, but increasing the payoff, even

13:14.675 --> 13:17.615
by a large amount, is not gonna attempt a lot more people

13:17.635 --> 13:20.885
to file for bankruptcy quantitatively.

13:21.235 --> 13:23.405
What I show through the lens of economic theory is

13:23.405 --> 13:26.045
that in order to rationalize these responses,

13:26.585 --> 13:29.605
it must be the case that the marginal bankruptcy filer

13:29.835 --> 13:32.205
that is someone who is on the brink of bankruptcy,

13:32.555 --> 13:36.525
they anticipate their consumption increasing by 50%

13:36.895 --> 13:38.445
after filing for bankruptcy.

13:38.905 --> 13:42.205
So this means that the person who's just right on the brink

13:42.225 --> 13:43.365
in different between filing

13:43.365 --> 13:46.085
and not filing for bankruptcy expects

13:46.085 --> 13:48.965
to get a huge increase in their wellbeing from filing.

13:49.865 --> 13:52.325
Now, on the one hand, this means that the insurance value

13:52.325 --> 13:53.325
of bankruptcy is high,

13:53.665 --> 13:56.805
but at the same time, this means that the,

13:56.805 --> 14:00.285
that people are holding out, avoiding bankruptcy

14:00.655 --> 14:04.405
until they stand to gain a really sizable,

14:04.925 --> 14:07.125
relative increase in their wellbeing from filing.

14:08.435 --> 14:11.865
Third, this reluctance to file in turn also indicates

14:11.865 --> 14:14.865
that people perceive a high cost of bankruptcy.

14:15.605 --> 14:17.865
Uh, this could come from a couple different factors.

14:17.965 --> 14:20.185
So one is that when you file for bankruptcy,

14:20.185 --> 14:22.545
you get a flag on your credit report.

14:22.815 --> 14:25.385
Creditors can see that for up to 10 years,

14:25.845 --> 14:28.945
and they're gonna, they can be less likely, to,

14:28.965 --> 14:30.145
to then give you credit knowing

14:30.145 --> 14:31.465
that you filed for bankruptcy.

14:31.725 --> 14:34.385
So one of the costs could be limited future credit access.

14:34.875 --> 14:36.665
There could also be an earnings cost.

14:36.775 --> 14:40.145
Sometimes employers, they gather, they,

14:40.175 --> 14:42.225
they solicit people's, credit reports

14:42.525 --> 14:43.945
and they can use that information.

14:43.945 --> 14:45.425
Things like whether or not you file

14:45.425 --> 14:47.425
for bankruptcy when considering whether

14:47.425 --> 14:48.705
or not to hire someone.

14:49.085 --> 14:50.305
So it's possible that,

14:50.725 --> 14:53.725
Uh, there may be lost earnings as a result

14:53.725 --> 14:54.845
of filing for bankruptcy.

14:55.425 --> 14:58.125
Uh, finally, there could also be non-monetary costs

14:58.145 --> 15:00.365
of filing for bankruptcy like stigma.

15:01.025 --> 15:03.205
Now, one reason we might think that would be the case is

15:03.205 --> 15:06.165
that there's a survey evidence that shows people,

15:07.045 --> 15:09.805
indicate a strong moral aversion to defaulting.

15:09.905 --> 15:13.325
For example, a survey survey, by Iza, ZA

15:13.325 --> 15:17.125
and NG finds that 83% of people say

15:17.125 --> 15:18.325
that it would be morally wrong

15:18.425 --> 15:20.485
to default on a mortgage when they are

15:20.485 --> 15:22.165
capable of repaying it.

15:23.005 --> 15:26.505
So just to, to sum up, people file for bankruptcy not

15:26.505 --> 15:29.745
because of what they can get, but because of what they lack.

15:30.325 --> 15:31.585
And through the lens of economic

15:31.725 --> 15:35.225
and, through the lens of economic theory, we can infer

15:35.225 --> 15:37.985
that there are large insurance benefits of bankruptcy

15:38.605 --> 15:42.065
and limited moral hazard making generous bankruptcy more

15:42.065 --> 15:42.425
desirable.

00:00 - The reason I was interested in studying consumer bankruptcy is that consumer bankruptcy is actually an important part of the social safety net in the US by allowing people to lessen the burden of debt payments when they fall on hard times.

00:13 - Bankruptcy acts like a form of insurance similar to health insurance, unemployment insurance, bankruptcy can make adverse events like job loss or illness less costly. You can essentially think of it as a source of an, as a insurance for your wealth. Now, in terms of the importance of bankruptcy, there's about a million people on average in the US that seek debt relief through bankruptcy. In a typical year, one in 10 people in the US file

00:42 - for bankruptcy at some point in their life. And if we wanna compare bankruptcy to other parts of the social safety net, it's quite large overall. the size of the wealth transfer in the form of debt forgiveness that people receive in bankruptcy is bigger than what people receive through unemployment insurance in most years. Now, it's not obvious how easily accessible and generous the, debt relief

01:06 - that bankruptcy provides people should be. And that's because there are trade-offs to providing easily available generous debt relief. On the one hand, making bankruptcy easy to do and generous could create moral hazard. If, people stand to gain more from filing for bankruptcy, this makes for more temptation to file. But then creditors, the lenders, lenders are gonna expect bigger losses if more people file for bankruptcy.

01:32 - And the broader social cost of that is that, lenders are gonna be more reluctant to lend if they expect bigger losses. So fewer people might be approved for loans, and even when they get approved, the interest rates that they pay will be higher. Now, that's the main cost, but in terms of benefits, it really comes down to this insurance like property of bankruptcy and the insurance that bankruptcy provides is going

01:57 - to be especially valuable when people are not well insured against adverse events like job loss, illness, the loss of a partner, things like that. Now in my study, what I aim to investigate is, I wanna quantify the trade-offs of, providing generous bankruptcy. And what I do is I use data to investigate the reasons why people file and quantify the importance of this moral hazard motive versus this insurance motive.

02:25 - So my research builds on a literature that studies strategic default, which means default, that's driven by unwillingness to repay debt rather than the inability to repay debt. Most of this prior work focuses on mortgage delinquency that is missing mortgage payments defaulting on your mortgage. one big example in this literature would be work by Peter Ganong and Pascal Noel, who study mortgage debt relief,

02:51 - that was administered through the ham program during the Great Recession. In that setting, they find very limited evidence of strategic default, specifically when people have their, when people have their mortgage payments unchanged, the required monthly payments are unchanged, but the total, amount that they have to repay creditors, their mortgage lender is lowered. That is very little effect on the likelihood that someone defaults.

03:17 - But instead, if you reduce people's required monthly payments, even if they have to repay the, the total amount, the same, the total amount that they have to repay is, is the same, the reduction in those monthly payments that make it easier and makes people more able to afford their mortgage, that has a sizable reduction in the likelihood of people defaulting on the mortgage. Now, there's other work that finds the opposite in different settings.

03:43 - So there's work by Will Doby and Jsong who studied debt relief provided to credit card borrowers, and they use a randomized control trial, that, reduces, that does a mixture of reducing people's minimum monthly payments and writing down some of the total amount of credit card debt that people owe. Now, what they find is the opposite. what they see is that writing down

04:04 - that credit card debt is much more likely to make people avoid defaulting on their credit cards, whereas lowering that monthly payment for credit cards has very little effect on the likelihood of default. So together, this suggests that credit card, default on credit cards might be more strategic, that is more driven by, unwillingness to repay rather than inability to repay compared to mortgages.

04:26 - One possible reason for this is that default on mortgages is very costly. That's because mortgages are secured. Unlike credit card debts, they're secured on your home. And if you default on your mortgage, and if you don't make up those payments quickly enough, this could result in foreclosure in losing your home. Now, bankruptcy, it's also used to write down unsecured debts. So for that reason, we might expect that strategic

04:49 - and moral hazard motives would be an important driver of the bankruptcy decision. that would be the case unless people, face large costs of filing for bankruptcy. Now, another reason we might expect bankruptcy to also be different from delinquency on credit cards and mortgages is that the inability to be paid might force someone to miss a credit card payment or force them to miss a mortgage payment,

05:13 - whereas missing payments does not automatically mean that you're going bankrupt. So someone could still hold out if they really didn't wanna file for bankruptcy. So for these reasons, we might have expected that moral hazard and strategic default would be a big driver of the bankruptcy decision, but I end up finding the opposite. So what is consumer bankruptcy?

05:35 - Consumer bankruptcy is a legal process that allows households to discharge, that is erase the obligation to repay unsecured debt. And, and specifically the kind of debt people can discharge through bankruptcy is unsecured. So that would be things like credit card debt, medical debt, personal loans, not things like mortgages. Now, in order order to receive debt relief, bankruptcy filers have to make partial payments

06:01 - to their creditors based on the amount of income and assets that they have. One of the main policies that we have that governs how much, or one of the main policies that we have that governs how generous bankruptcy is a net of the payments to creditors are state's asset exemption laws. And these differ significantly across states. One of the most important exemptions is the homestead exemption. The homestead exemption. It protects people's home equity.

06:30 - For example, if you live in a state with a $15,000 bankruptcy homestead exemption, if you had $20,000 in home equity, you would have to pay that $5,000 difference in order to access the debt relief in bankruptcy. The farther above the exemption limit is your home equity, the more you're gonna have to pay creditors, when you file for bankruptcy. The data I use in my study, it comes from a large database of mortgages.

06:56 - So one caveat for the study is that I'm only gonna be studying homeowners who, contribute to about 40% of bankruptcy. So we should be cautious about extrapolating my results to renters. The data that I have, it covers about half of us mortgage borrowers over, the period of 2000 to 2016. So there's millions of people in this sample. The data, it has monthly information on whether

07:21 - or not people file for bankruptcy, the, the balance on their mortgage, and also the original sale price of the home. That's important because it's gonna make it possible to exactly track how people's home equity evolves over time. Now, with this data, I do two analyses. One is to estimate the moral hazard motive, and the other is to estimate the insurance or what economists would also call the liquidity motive for bankruptcy.

07:49 - The first analysis, it quantifies the moral hazard motive. Now, the ideal experiment for learning about moral hazard and bankruptcy would be one where you could hold fixed the wealth people have available outside of bankruptcy, but vary the financial gain that they would get from filing for bankruptcy. Now, I approximate that ideal experiment by using a natural experiment. And the natural experiment I use is related to

08:13 - how the homestead exemption works in bankruptcy. In essence, what I do is measure how the relationship between the likelihood of filing for bankruptcy varies with home equity, around the exemption limit. Now, visually, if we plot this data, what we see is that once people cross the homestead exemption limit and home equity is starting to make bankruptcy, more and more expensive, people become increasingly less likely to file for bankruptcy. So we do see that that cost

08:44 - of bankruptcy is deterring people's willingness to file. Now, the idea is that as long as the only thing that's sharply changing, right at that exemption limit is the cost of bankruptcy, we're able to learn about the causal effect of the cost of bankruptcy on people's decision to file. The second analysis estimates the insurance motive. This is also known as the liquidity motive. Now, the ideal experiment, for estimating this would be one that does the opposite

09:13 - of the first one specifically, we want a setting where we can hold fixed the financial gain of filing for bankruptcy, but very cash on hand that is available to people whether or not they file for bankruptcy. Now, for this analysis exploit another natural experiment related to the design of adjustable rate mortgages, also known as arms. Now, this experiment led to as if random variation in the size of mortgage payment reductions that people

09:44 - with arms received. To understand how this works, I need to describe a little bit about how arms work. So arms, they typically have a low fixed rate initially, and the idea is that that rate typically after a period of about five or 10 years, will later on reset to a higher rate. And that new rate after the reset is generally going to be some major interest rate plus something like

10:08 - half a percentage point. Now, two popular interest rates in the period that I study were the treasury rate and the L-I-B-O-R rate. Now, prior to the global financial crisis, L-I-B-O-R and Treasury, they basically moved in lockstep with each other, and it wouldn't matter which one you were indexed to if you had an arm. But after the global financial crisis, people that were resetting in that period, they were surprised by very different sized,

10:34 - changes in their mortgage interest rates. What happened was, during, in response to the global financial crisis, fed lowered the treasury rate. Now L-I-B-O-R, it's a linked to the health of the interbank lending market. That is the market where banks are lending to each other. That market was not doing so well in the global financial crisis. So even though L-I-B-O-R did fall,

10:55 - it didn't fall nearly as much as treasury. What this meant for people with arms is you could have an otherwise identical mortgage, but if you're indexed to L-I-B-O-R rather than treasury, you would've been paying a couple thousand dollars more each year, because of, the more limited decrease in your mortgage payment. In the first analysis, I find that while there is a moral hazard motive, it's small, using that variation from the homestead exemption.

11:22 - What I find is that when bankruptcy is $1,000 more expensive, this leads to only a 0.02 percentage point decrease in the likelihood that people file for bankruptcy. In relative terms, this is about a two and a half percent decrease relative to the average filing rate. Now, in the second analysis, I find a much stronger response to mortgage payments. Under the most conservative assumptions, I estimate

11:49 - that a $1,000 one-time reduction in one year's worth of mortgage payments leads to at least a 0.09 percentage point decrease in the likelihood of filing for bankruptcy. In relative terms, this is about a 12.5% decrease relative to the average filing rate. To sum up, I find that the insurance motive is about five times stronger than the moral hazard motive for filing for bankruptcy. These results have several important implications.

12:18 - The first is that the small moral hazard response indicates that one of the major determinants of the cost of providing generous debt relief through bankruptcy is small. Now, this doesn't give us a complete picture of the cost. The total cost is gonna depend on how strongly creditors react to that additional filing and to the additional debt that's being discharged through bankruptcy. second,

12:42 - together these estimates tell us something about the insurance value of bankruptcy. So they also speak to the benefits of providing generous bankruptcy In the paper, I use economic theory to show how these behavioral responses reveal how much people value bankruptcy. Intuitively, the stronger response to liquidity versus the moral hazard incentive tells us that people have a strong aversion to bankruptcy. It takes just a little bit of cash on hand to make people

13:11 - avoid bankruptcy, but increasing the payoff, even by a large amount, is not gonna attempt a lot more people to file for bankruptcy quantitatively. What I show through the lens of economic theory is that in order to rationalize these responses, it must be the case that the marginal bankruptcy filer that is someone who is on the brink of bankruptcy, they anticipate their consumption increasing by 50% after filing for bankruptcy. So this means that the person who's just right on the brink

13:42 - in different between filing and not filing for bankruptcy expects to get a huge increase in their wellbeing from filing. Now, on the one hand, this means that the insurance value of bankruptcy is high, but at the same time, this means that the, that people are holding out, avoiding bankruptcy until they stand to gain a really sizable, relative increase in their wellbeing from filing. Third, this reluctance to file in turn also indicates

14:11 - that people perceive a high cost of bankruptcy. this could come from a couple different factors. So one is that when you file for bankruptcy, you get a flag on your credit report. Creditors can see that for up to 10 years, and they're gonna, they can be less likely, to, to then give you credit knowing that you filed for bankruptcy. So one of the costs could be limited future credit access. There could also be an earnings cost.

14:36 - Sometimes employers, they gather, they, they solicit people's, credit reports and they can use that information. Things like whether or not you file for bankruptcy when considering whether or not to hire someone. So it's possible that, there may be lost earnings as a result of filing for bankruptcy. finally, there could also be non-monetary costs

14:58 - of filing for bankruptcy like stigma. Now, one reason we might think that would be the case is that there's a survey evidence that shows people, indicate a strong moral aversion to defaulting. For example, a survey survey, by Iza, ZA and NG finds that 83% of people say that it would be morally wrong to default on a mortgage when they are capable of repaying it. So just to, to sum up, people file for bankruptcy not

15:26 - because of what they can get, but because of what they lack. And through the lens of economic and, through the lens of economic theory, we can infer that there are large insurance benefits of bankruptcy and limited moral hazard making generous bankruptcy more desirable.

Faculti AI can make mistakes