10 cards
Microfinance institutions must charge an interest rate of 38% APR (compared to a baseline 17.5% APR) to break even under adverse selection; if moral hazard elasticity exceeds 0.46, no zero-profit separating equilibrium exists at any interest rate.
Derivation shows optimal investment $\alpha^* = \frac{1}{\gamma} [\frac{\overline{R}-\mu}{\sigma_u^2} + \frac{\overline{R}}{\sigma_e^2}]$, proving that reducing expected insurance net cost ($\mu$) or basis risk ($\sigma_u^2$) directly shifts the risk-return frontier outward and increases risky investment allocation ($\alpha^*$).
Micro-entrepreneurs report recovering only 37% of original inventory value in a 24-hour fire sale, with specific sector losses reaching 34% recovery for sari inventory and 10% for tailoring materials; regular contract clients were significantly more likely to sell goods at a discount to meet repayment demands (4.68% control baseline).
Analytical proof establishing that optimal investment in risky projects is strictly decreasing in basis risk and insurance costs, but strictly increasing in exogenous insurance coverage.
Micro-entrepreneurs undertaking illiquid investments experienced 80% higher long-run business capital, higher profit variance across months (an average Rs 600 wider gap between high and low profit months), a 9 percentage point increase in extending customer trade credit, a 10 percentage point increase in customer pre-orders, and reduced long-run business closure rates (31.4% treatment vs 38.6% control).
Pre-treatment loan disbursement was heavily skewed (only 15% in week 1 vs 32% in week 4 across 56 of 61 branches); the intervention drove an 18% increase in new loan origination in weeks 1–2 (p < 0.10) and smoothed loan disbursements toward the target distribution (35% week 1, 25% week 2), eliminating cash flow mismatch and associated transportation/funding costs.
Despite contracts stipulating settlement within 30 days of data release, actual payouts for the 2009 monsoon were delayed until December 2010 and January 2011 (over 12–13 months post-monsoon).
The maximum moral hazard repayment elasticity tolerable for a viable grace period loan product is 0.46 under adverse selection (and 0.80 without adverse selection); empirical literature benchmarks (Karlan & Zinman 2009) indicate real-world moral hazard elasticities often reach ~1.6%, explaining why commercial MFIs cannot offer grace period loans at market rates.
The intervention produced no statistically significant change in branch delinquency rates for current loans (total delinquency coeff = 0.011, p > 0.10) or future 2-month lagged delinquency (coeff = 0.006, p > 0.10), proving that frontloading loan placement by 18% in weeks 1–2 did not compromise credit screening standards.
The median willingness to pay was Rs. 70 per policy, significantly exceeding the actuarial value of Rs. 44–54 [11]. This ratio falls directly within US retail insurance claim-to-premium benchmark ranges (64.7%–76.2%) [11, 12].