Difference between revisions of "VC Bargaining"
imported>Ed |
imported>Ed |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
There are some methods that come to mind: | There are some methods that come to mind: | ||
− | we could force | + | we could force an exit once |
:<math>\sum_t (x_t) \ge \overline{x}\,</math> | :<math>\sum_t (x_t) \ge \overline{x}\,</math> | ||
− | + | or once | |
:<math>V_t \ge \overline{V_t}\,</math> | :<math>V_t \ge \overline{V_t}\,</math> |
Revision as of 15:50, 24 May 2011
This page is for Ed and Ron to share their thoughts on VC Bargaining. Access is restricted to those with "Trusted" access.
Thoughts
- We shouldn't include effort from the entrep. - we want a model that has no contract theory, just bargaining.
A Basic Model
The Value Function
- [math]V_t=V_{t-1} + f(x_t) - k \,[/math]
with
- [math]V_0=0, f(0)=0, f'\gt 0, f''\lt 0, k\gt 0 \,[/math]
should do us just fine. Having [math]k\gt 0\,[/math] will force a finite number of rounds as the optimal solution providing there is a stopping constraint on [math]V_t\,[/math] (so players don't invest forever).
There are some methods that come to mind:
we could force an exit once
- [math]\sum_t (x_t) \ge \overline{x}\,[/math]
or once
- [math]V_t \ge \overline{V_t}\,[/math]
or we could try to induce an optimum value
- [math]f'(0) \gt 0, f''\lt 0, \exist z^* s.t. \forall z \gt z^* f'(z)\lt 0\,[/math]
though now that I look at this I realize it isn't going to work using just investment...
or we could just fix [math]t\,[/math], but it would be nice to have it endogenous, otherwise we would need to justify discrete rounds seperately (as we did yesterday evening with the state-tree perhaps).
Bargaining
In each period there is Rubenstein finite bargaining, with potentially different patience, and one player designated as last. This will give a single period equilibrium outcome with the parties having different bargaining strength.