English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The strategic timing and adverse events hypotheses of personal bankruptcy have received particular attention. Existing research focuses on proving or disproving either hypothesis, using a strict interpretation of the role of financial benefit in the filing decision. Using a more realistic framework in which financial benefit may affect the filing decision in both hypotheses, we show that endogeneity of financial benefit is a distinguishing factor between the two hypotheses. Using two different datasets, we show that the endogeneity test favors the adverse events hypothesis. Extending the analysis to allow for both types, we find evidence of heterogeneity in filing types, consistent with both hypotheses. On average, approximately 16 percent of households are more likely to behave as strategic types and 84 percent as adverse events types. Several implications of these results are explored.

Personal Bankruptcy: Reconciling Adverse Events and Strategic Filing Hypotheses Using Heterogeneity in Filing Types