But if s = rD, then (6) implies that P - L, the socially efficient condition for
continuance. Thus, the bank will have an incentive to choose continuance or
liquidation only when that alternative is socially efficient.
We have shown that the me-first rule gives parties socially inefficient incentives
when the possibility of default on bond obligations is introduced.
However, the conditions in (5) are actually sufficient rather than necessary.
The necessary condition for efficiency can be referred to as the indifference
property: it requires that bondholders be indifferent to the liquidation-continuance
decision. Thus, if bondholders receive with certainty the same payment,
K, regardless of the firm's fate, and if S = rD, then (6) becomes P - K - L - Kg
the socially efficient decision criterion. But the law requires full payment to
bondholders under continuance. Therefore, the only indifference point compatible
with the law is that given in (6) of the text.
More realistically, the assumptions made in deriving (6) are unlikely to hold.
Even with top priority, bondholders often get less than the face value of their
claims when liquidation occurs. Alternatively, the bank might have priority over
bondholders for part of their claims, or the interest rates s and rD may differ.
We examine each of these possibilities separately below.
First, suppose bondholders are not always fully paid off if liquidation occurs