Mami Kobayashi’s research while affiliated with Kindai University and other places

We consider the role of the nonrecourse financing of securitization by a financial institution (FI). Our model suggests that even though the FI has the opportunity to provide liquidity support afterward, it is optimal for the FI to use the nonrecourse financing of securitization initially, because the nonrecourse security makes liquidation of the original asset more attractive for an FI that knows that the original asset is bad. However, our model also predicts that the nonrecourse financing of securitization, together with short-term maturity financing, forces the financial system to perform inefficiently in handling troubled loans and causes problems with inefficient liquidity support and overinvestment under certain conditions, despite the nonrecourse property of securitization. The theoretical results provide empirical implications for recent problems with securitized and structured finance in the United States and Europe.

We develop a main bank model where the main bank decides whether or not to raise additional funds from the capital market to continue to invest in a borrowing firm when nonmain banks withdraw funds. We show that the threat of withdrawal of nonmain banks is more likely to force the main bank to perform efficiently in handling troubled loans, thereby preventing problems with zombie firms, if the potential cash flow (liquidation value) of the firm decreases (increases) relative to the amount funded by nonmain banks. The theoretical results provide both efficiency evaluations for the renewal of the main bank relation in Japan after the end of the 1990s and empirical implications for the renewed main bank system.

We examine renegotiation in a double moral hazard model with an ex ante budget balancing constraint when both the principal and the agent are allowed to make a renegotiation offer even though the principal proposes an initial contract. Under a belief restriction, any perfect-Bayesian equilibrium leads to an allocation that is superior to the second-best allocation of the standard double moral hazard model without renegotiation. The result of this paper gives some reasons for the existence of intermediary organizations such as holding companies, law houses, consulting firms, investment banks or venture capital. The result can also provide the rationalization for a fund set up by a group of firms of the industry in which their product is legally required to be recyclable.

There are several judicial cases under the US environmental law, in which a lending bank is liable for cleaning up environmentally hazardous materials generated by its borrowing firm. Such a liability rule, so-called lender liability, is applied to a lending bank which has been actively involved in the management of the firm. We first show that the application of lender liability does not necessarily lead to the first-best allocation if the cleanup cost per material depends on an agent who conducts the cleanup. This particularly holds true if the cleanup cost to the entrepreneur is the smallest. We then show that lender liability can lead to the first-best allocation if the bank captures the firm's control right before the environmental agency intervenes.