Entrepreneurial Investment Dynamics and the Wealth Distribution

Layer 1: Overview

This paper investigates how the illiquidity of entrepreneurial capital shapes investment dynamics and wealth inequality. The central question is whether entrepreneurship drives wealth heterogeneity or merely attracts the already-wealthy — and, specifically, whether the investment behavior of nascent entrepreneurs can be rationalized by frictions on capital reallocation rather than financial constraints alone.

The empirical foundation is the restricted Kauffman Firm Survey (KFS), a single-cohort panel of 3,140 U.S. firms founded in 2004 and tracked through 2011. The key measurement is the log average revenue product of capital (log ARPK), residualized on two-digit NAICS industry fixed effects and time dummies. Two striking facts emerge. First, the cross-sectional distribution of log ARPK is left-skewed (skewness approximately -0.33, mean -0.49, standard deviation 1.75, kurtosis 5.7). Second, the distribution shows asymmetric persistence: the autocorrelation of log ARPK in the bottom quintile (ρ₁ = 0.897) is statistically significantly larger than in the top quintile (ρ₅ = 0.443), and the diagonal entry of the estimated transition matrix for the first quintile (0.614) substantially exceeds that for the fifth (0.568). These facts are inconsistent with standard models: a frictionless dynamic investment model with time-to-build predicts i.i.d. ARPK; one with collateral constraints predicts right-skewness and right-tail persistence.

The model extends Cagetti and De Nardi (2006) by distinguishing between liquid bonds and illiquid entrepreneurial capital. Capital adjustment generates four friction types: a proportional fixed cost (fs) on upward investment, a proportional transaction cost (λ) on downsizing, an additional proportional cost (ζ) on exit, and a minimum capital requirement on entry. The model is calibrated via indirect inference to identifying moments from the KFS (persistence and skewness of log ARPK, investment rate distribution, share of employer firms, entry and exit rates) plus economy-wide targets (entrepreneur fraction, interest rate of 3–4%).

The FULL-sample calibration yields λ = 0.43 (43% loss on capital sold by continuing entrepreneurs) and ζ = 0.55 (additional 55% write-down upon exit), with a proportional fixed cost fs = 0.035 (3.5%). The effective net collateral constraint is approximately 44% of the real capital value. These frictions are quantitatively large: eliminating them under general equilibrium raises aggregate TFP in the entrepreneurial sector by 23.3% and average welfare by 23.1% in consumption equivalent variation terms. Decomposing the welfare losses relative to a complete-markets benchmark shows that approximately 89% of the total welfare loss (relative to full frictions) is attributable to market incompleteness and financial frictions, with the remaining 11% directly attributable to the illiquidity frictions — that is, frictions alone account for roughly 7.15 percentage points of a total 64.8% lifetime consumption welfare loss.

A key finding on wealth inequality contradicts prior literature. When calibrated to KFS micro-data, the model generates a Gini coefficient of 0.65 (FULL sample) or 0.53 (NAICS54), well below the empirical U.S. Gini of approximately 0.8. The top 1% hold only 26% of wealth in the FULL calibration versus roughly 30% empirically. This contrasts with Quadrini (2000) and Cagetti and De Nardi (2006), who match the wealth distribution by calibrating to PSID or SCF household survey data. The reason for the gap is the left-skewed, illiquidity-depressed returns to entrepreneurship in the KFS: the calibrated returns to scale (ν = 0.79 FULL, 0.82 NAICS54) and the transaction costs together suppress the variance of capital income returns. Removing illiquidity frictions raises the Gini from 0.65 to 0.77 (fixed-r partial equilibrium) or 0.72 (general equilibrium), demonstrating that capital illiquidity compresses the wealth distribution by depressing average entrepreneurial returns.

Three policy experiments — credit expansion (reducing borrowing spreads à la SBA 7(a) programs), a government buyer-of-last-resort for used capital (Resale I), and exit-cost reduction (Fire sale) — all raise welfare by 0.07–0.15% in consumption equivalent terms and TFP by 0.5–0.9% relative to benchmark. Resale policies are preferred by entrepreneurs; workers prefer the credit policy. All three policies benefit lower-wealth households more than wealthy ones (the richest decile suffers welfare losses due to the savings tax used to finance the programs). The paper concludes that policies addressing capital illiquidity can yield welfare gains comparable to or exceeding standard credit provision programs, and that the distinction between illiquidity risk and financial constraint risk has first-order importance for policy design.

Layer 2: Deep Dive

What are the two core empirical facts from the KFS that motivate the paper, and why do standard models fail to generate them?

First, the cross-sectional distribution of log ARPK among KFS firms is left-skewed (skewness ≈ -0.33), not symmetric or right-skewed. Second, log ARPK shows higher persistence in the left tail (autocorrelation ρ₁ = 0.897 for bottom-quintile firms) than in the right tail (ρ₅ = 0.443). A frictionless dynamic model with time-to-build predicts i.i.d. log ARPK that inherits the distribution of TFP innovations, generating no skewness under Gaussian shocks and no persistence. Models with collateral constraints (as in Cagetti and De Nardi 2006) generate right-skewed ARPK with right-tail persistence, because constrained firms operate below optimal scale, pushing ARPK above the unconstrained optimum. Neither class of models can produce the left-skewed, left-tail-persistent pattern in the KFS.

What is the mechanism by which partial irreversibility generates left-skewness and left-tail persistence?

Partial irreversibility creates an asymmetry between the purchase price and the resale price of capital (the resale price being 1 − λ per unit). When a bad productivity shock hits, the option value of waiting to recover is higher than the cost of holding excess capital, so entrepreneurs adopt a ‘wait-and-see’ attitude and maintain oversized firms rather than downsizing immediately. This creates a left tail of low-ARPK, large-capital firms. Moreover, since the incentive to wait is itself persistent (the transitory bad shock must resolve before the entrepreneur will downsize), the left tail displays higher autocorrelation. The exit cost ζ amplifies this for the exit margin: entrepreneurs with poor draws stay in business longer than is efficient, further extending the left tail. The right tail is not symmetrically elongated because entrepreneurs seeking to expand face a different option value (the call option value of capital rises), leading them to invest to smaller sizes, slightly thickening the right tail — but not enough to overcome the left-tail extension.

What is the calibration strategy, and which parameters are identified by which moments?

Eleven parameters are jointly calibrated to KFS moments via indirect inference. The key mappings are: the downsizing transaction cost λ is identified by the asymmetric left-tail persistence of log ARPK (the ratio ρ₁/ρ₅ increases monotonically in λ); the exit cost ζ is identified by the skewness of log ARPK (higher ζ monotonically increases left skewness); the collateral constraint ϕ also affects skewness but has no monotone effect on ρ₁/ρ₅, aiding separation; the returns to scale ν is identified by the coefficient from a log-revenue on log-capital regression for employer firms; the fixed investment cost fs is identified by the fraction reporting positive investment; TFP shock autocorrelation ρ_z is identified by investment rate autocorrelation; the shock standard deviation σ_z by the coefficient of variation of investment rates; and the worker signal distortion and entrepreneur signal distortion parameters control entry and exit rates respectively. The discount factor β pins down the interest rate. Two separate calibrations are run: one targeting full KFS sample moments (FULL) and one targeting the modal industry — Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (NAICS54, 24.7% of the sample) — as a robustness check.

What are the main calibrated parameter values and how do they compare across the FULL and NAICS54 calibrations?

For the FULL calibration: λ = 0.43, ζ = 0.55, ϕ = 0.92, fs = 0.035, ρ_z = 0.66, σ_z = 0.43, ν = 0.79, β = 0.9265, α_e = 0.63. For NAICS54: λ = 0.53, ζ = 0.75, ϕ = 0.035, fs = 0.23, ρ_z = 0.66, σ_z = 0.43, ν = 0.82, β = 0.94, α_e = 0.50. The illiquidity parameters (λ and ζ) are larger in NAICS54 than in FULL. The collateral constraint parameter ϕ differs substantially (0.92 FULL versus 0.035 NAICS54), though the net effective collateral constraint (accounting for λ and depreciation) converges to a similar range in both calibrations.

How are the illiquidity and financial friction channels distinguished both theoretically and empirically?

Theoretically, collateral constraints (parameterized by ϕ) make the lower support of log ARPK truncated from the left (log ARPK ≥ log(r+δ) - log α), generating right-skewness and right-tail persistence. Illiquidity frictions (λ and ζ), by contrast, induce a wait-and-see option value that extends the left tail of ARPK while leaving the right tail relatively thinner, generating left-skewness and left-tail persistence. Empirically, the paper proposes using the sign and magnitude of the skewness of log ARPK (negative implies illiquidity dominates; positive implies financial frictions dominate) and the ratio of left-tail to right-tail persistence (ρ₁/ρ₅ > 1 indicates illiquidity frictions, < 1 indicates financial frictions) as discriminating statistics. Separately, the portfolio composition of entrepreneurs offers a further discriminating test: increasing illiquidity drives entrepreneurs to hold more liquid assets (flight to liquidity), while tightening collateral constraints pushes entrepreneurs toward more illiquid assets in their portfolios.

What are the aggregate TFP and welfare findings from the counterfactual analysis?

Under general equilibrium, removing all illiquidity frictions (λ = ζ = fs = 0) raises entrepreneurial sector TFP by 23.3% and average economy-wide welfare by 23.1% in consumption equivalent variation. Under partial equilibrium (fixed interest rate), welfare gains are even larger: 24.8% (entrepreneur subgroup) and 58.3% (worker subgroup), for an economy-wide average of 16.6%. The GE result is somewhat lower because the interest rate adjusts when more capital flows into entrepreneurship. The average productivity of entrepreneurs (conditional on being an entrepreneur) is 8.8% higher in the no-friction world than in the benchmark. The TFP gains arise from both extensive-margin selection (higher-productivity entrepreneurs enter; lower-productivity ones exit) and intensive-margin reallocation (high-productivity firms operate closer to optimal scale; low-productivity firms downsize rather than persist).

How does the paper decompose total welfare losses between market incompleteness and the illiquidity distortions?

Following Buera and Shin (2011), the paper computes welfare as a fraction of lifetime consumption relative to a complete-markets benchmark (a social planner’s problem where the planner allocates occupational choice and capital optimally). Relative to complete markets, the economy with no illiquidity frictions but with market incompleteness loses approximately 57.7% of lifetime consumption. The benchmark economy (with all frictions) loses approximately 64.8% of lifetime consumption relative to complete markets. The difference — approximately 7.15 percentage points — is attributed to the illiquidity frictions. As a share of the total frictional loss, about 89% is attributable to market incompleteness and financial frictions, and 11% to the illiquidity frictions. While 11% may seem small as a fraction, in absolute terms it is economically non-trivial.

Why does the paper find that entrepreneurship cannot match the empirical wealth distribution when calibrated to the KFS?

The model generates a Gini of 0.65 (FULL) or 0.53 (NAICS54) against a U.S. empirical Gini of approximately 0.8. The top 1% holds roughly 26% of wealth in the FULL calibration versus around 30% empirically. Two factors suppress capital income risk in the KFS-calibrated model. First, the calibrated returns to scale (ν = 0.79 FULL, 0.82 NAICS54) are lower than those used by Cagetti and De Nardi (2006) (ν ≈ 0.88), which were calibrated to PSID/SCF data on large-ish successful firms. Lower ν translates exponentially into lower variance of capital income. Second, the illiquidity frictions directly depress average returns to entrepreneurship by raising the user cost of capital and forcing entrepreneurs into suboptimal firm sizes. These two forces together prevent the model from generating the thick right tail of wealth needed to match empirical distributions. The paper argues that the KFS captures ‘broad’ small-scale entrepreneurship, not the high-growth, high-return entrepreneurs who likely account for the top of the wealth distribution.

How does capital illiquidity affect the wealth distribution conditional on holding returns to scale fixed?

More illiquid capital (higher λ or ζ) compresses the wealth distribution and lowers the Gini coefficient. The Gini rises from 0.65 (benchmark FULL calibration) to 0.77 under partial equilibrium without illiquidity frictions, and to 0.72 under general equilibrium without illiquidity frictions (while holding the net collateral constraint constant). The NAICS54 benchmark Gini is 0.53, rising to 0.76 (PE) or 0.68 (GE) without illiquidity frictions. The mechanism is that illiquid capital depresses the average return to entrepreneurial wealth, which compresses the income process and reduces the variance of wealth accumulation. Additionally, illiquid capital forces entrepreneurs to hold more bonds as a liquidity buffer, reducing the overall scale of their business investment and thus their lifetime income.

What are the three policy experiments and their comparative findings?

The three policies are all financed by a proportional tax on bond savings returns. (1) Credit expansion: the government subsidizes borrowing intermediation costs (analogous to SBA 7(a)/CDC 504 programs), reducing the spread between the saving and borrowing rate. Economy-wide welfare rises by about 0.147%; TFP rises by about 0.9% relative to benchmark. Workers benefit more (0.169%) than entrepreneurs (-0.006% average for all entrepreneurs, since most wealthy entrepreneurs do not borrow and pay the tax). (2) Resale policy I (Buyer of last resort for all used capital): government offers a higher resale price q ≥ 1 − λ. Economy-wide welfare rises about 0.076%; TFP rises 0.6%. Entrepreneurs gain (0.084%) while workers also gain (0.074%) indirectly through the option value of future entrepreneurship. (3) Fire-sale (exit cost reduction only, Resale II): government subsidizes exiting entrepreneurs’ capital resale. Economy-wide welfare rises 0.073%; TFP rises 0.5%. Workers prefer credit; entrepreneurs prefer resale policies. Wealthiest decile suffers welfare losses under all three policies. All welfare numbers are in consumption equivalent variation.

How does the paper relate to Cagetti and De Nardi (2006) and where does it diverge?

The paper builds directly on the Cagetti and De Nardi (2006) framework of occupational choice and incomplete markets with collateral constraints, extending it by separating liquid bonds from illiquid physical capital. In Cagetti and De Nardi (2006), bonds and capital are perfect substitutes; the sole friction is a collateral constraint that limits investment. The paper shows that this one-asset framework generates right-skewed ARPK and right-tail persistence — inconsistent with KFS facts. The paper’s two-asset framework with partial irreversibility generates left-skewed ARPK and left-tail persistence. Furthermore, Cagetti and De Nardi (2006) calibrate to PSID/SCF income data and successfully match the wealth distribution; the paper shows this success partly reflects the higher returns to scale implied by those data. When calibrated directly to KFS firm-level data, the model substantially undershoots the empirical wealth inequality, because the KFS captures a representative sample of small-scale entrepreneurs with genuinely lower returns to scale and significant illiquidity frictions.

What is the role of the options value effect and the collateral constraint channel in the model, and how do they differ?

The options value effect is described as the primary distortion. When capital is illiquid (λ or ζ > 0), the put option value of capital falls (selling capital is costly), raising the threshold signal required for workers to enter entrepreneurship, and raising the threshold signal required for incumbents to exit. As a result, entry rates fall, exit rates fall, potential entrepreneurs delay entry, and poorly performing entrepreneurs overstay. Along the intensive margin, the asymmetric purchase/resale price leads entrepreneurs planning to downsize to wait (operating larger-than-optimal firms) and entrepreneurs planning to invest to be more cautious (operating smaller-than-optimal firms). The collateral constraint channel is a secondary effect: illiquid capital reduces the net resale value that can serve as collateral (effective constraint = (1-λ)(1-δ)(ϕ)k’), tightening the borrowing constraint even when the formal collateral parameter ϕ is moderate. Crucially, while tighter ϕ forces entrepreneurs to hold more illiquid capital (no flight to liquidity), higher λ forces entrepreneurs to hold more liquid assets (flight to liquidity) — a key empirical distinction.

What robustness exercises does the paper conduct?

The paper runs two separate full calibrations: one to the entire KFS sample (FULL) and one to the modal industry NAICS54 (Professional, Scientific and Technical Services, 24.7% of the sample). Both calibrations are used to assess the wealth distribution findings. The paper also examines moments at the two-digit industry level (only one industry shows statistically significant results due to small sample size, though most show economically significant signs). An additional measurement error parameter is explored in the appendix, where capital is assumed to be observed with multiplicative log-normal error; this helps improve model fit to the data. All policy experiments are computed under both partial equilibrium (fixed interest rate) and general equilibrium. The paper also analytically proves (in the appendix) the ARPK distribution properties for the four benchmark frameworks (frictionless, time-to-build only, static collateral constraints, and dynamic collateral constraints), establishing the theoretical necessity of partial irreversibility for the facts.

What heterogeneity in welfare effects is documented across the wealth distribution?

Under all three policy experiments, welfare gains decrease with wealth. The poorest households gain the most in consumption equivalent variation terms because they receive a disproportionate share of the program’s benefits (better borrowing conditions, higher resale prices, improved option value of entrepreneurship) while paying a smaller absolute share of the savings tax used to finance the programs. The top 10% richest households — who are the primary taxpayers — experience welfare losses under all three policies. This pattern holds across credit, resale, and fire-sale policies, though the magnitude varies. Separately, entrepreneurs (who are wealthier on average, with over 50% concentrated in the top wealth decile) mostly lose from the credit policy (they fund it but don’t directly borrow) while gaining from resale policies (they benefit from higher capital resale prices regardless of wealth position). Workers (who are generally poorer) overwhelmingly gain from credit policies since the option value of switching to entrepreneurship rises substantially.

What does the paper imply for interpreting the literature on financial constraints and entrepreneurship?

The paper issues several cautionary findings. First, the implied formal collateral parameter is relatively loose (ϕ = 0.92), consistent with Hurst and Lusardi (2004), Nanda (2011), and Robb and Robinson (2014) — who find no evidence that average entrepreneurs face severe financial constraints. However, once illiquidity is accounted for, the effective (net) collateral constraint is only about 44% of real capital value, consistent with Evans and Jovanovic (1989) and Cagetti and De Nardi (2006). This suggests that what appears empirically as ‘financial constraint’ is partly a manifestation of capital illiquidity: banks lend less against entrepreneurial capital because its resale value is low, not primarily because of limited commitment. Second, empirical studies using regional variation in financial conditions to identify financial constraint effects may suffer from omitted variable bias, since resale prices of capital are also highly correlated with local financial conditions. Third, aggregate statistics such as startup rates and investment levels cannot distinguish between illiquidity shocks and financial constraint shocks; portfolio composition (the ratio of liquid to illiquid assets) is a more informative diagnostic.

What is the paper’s contribution to the misallocation literature relative to Hsieh and Klenow (2009), Asker et al. (2014), and Midrigan and Xu (2014)?

Hsieh and Klenow (2009) and Asker et al. (2014) focus on the dispersion of log MRPK as a measure of misallocation, where adjustment costs (similar to fs and λ here) can generate observed dispersion without implying inefficiency. Midrigan and Xu (2014) focus on financial constraints (similar to ϕ) as the source of misallocation. The paper argues that these frameworks produce observationally equivalent outcomes in terms of log MRPK dispersion alone, making it impossible to distinguish between the two. The paper’s contribution is to show that the skewness of log ARPK and the asymmetric tail persistence are additional moments that can discriminate between the two types of frictions: negative skewness and left-tail dominance point to illiquidity frictions, while positive skewness and right-tail dominance point to financial frictions. This provides a new empirical diagnostic tool for decomposing sources of capital misallocation.

Key Concepts

Average Revenue Product of Capital (ARPK): In the paper’s usage, ARPK = Y_it / K_{i,t-1}, the ratio of a firm’s real revenue to its beginning-of-period real capital stock, used as the primary measure of capital productivity. Log ARPK is residualized on two-digit NAICS industry fixed effects and time dummies before analysis, removing industry-level heterogeneity in capital shares and aggregate shocks.

Partial irreversibility: The friction arising from an asymmetry between the purchase price of new capital (normalized to 1) and the resale price of used capital (1 − λ for downsizing incumbents, and (1 − ζ)(1 − λ) for exiting entrepreneurs). This is modeled as a proportional transaction cost on capital sales and is interpreted as the difficulty of recouping original investment, analogous to a low resale value of used entrepreneurial equipment.

Wait-and-see attitude: The behavioral response of entrepreneurs facing downside productivity shocks when capital is illiquid: rather than immediately downsizing or exiting upon a bad shock, they maintain larger-than-optimal firm sizes while waiting for conditions to improve. This is optimal because the transaction cost of selling capital makes the option of waiting (and possibly recovering) more valuable than the cost of operating an oversized firm.

Net collateral constraint (effective collateral parameter): Denoted ϕ̃ = (1 − λ)(1 − δ)ϕ, this is the fraction of entrepreneurial capital’s real value that can actually be pledged as collateral, after accounting for the reduced resale value from illiquidity (1 − λ) and physical depreciation (1 − δ). The paper distinguishes this from the formal limited-commitment parameter ϕ to show that observed financial constraints partly reflect capital illiquidity rather than contracting failures.

Options value effect: The mechanism through which capital illiquidity distorts both the entry/exit decision and the intensive margin of investment. For downsizing incumbents, the put option value of capital (the option to sell it) falls when the resale price is low, inducing them to delay disinvestment. For potential entrants, the call option value of capital (the upside of entering) falls because losses upon exit are larger, raising the productivity signal threshold for entry. This is described as the primary distortion channel.

Span-of-control parameter (returns to scale, ν): The parameter ν ∈ (0,1) in the entrepreneurial production function y = z(k^{α_e} l^{1-α_e})^ν, capturing the extent to which managerial talent becomes diluted as firm size increases. The paper identifies ν = 0.79 (FULL) from the coefficient of a log-revenue on log-capital regression for employer firms, and shows that ν is the dominant determinant of the variance of capital income returns and hence the model’s ability to generate wealth inequality.

Consumption equivalent variation (CEV): The welfare metric used throughout the paper. For each household i, CEV µ_i is defined as the percentage increase in reference-economy consumption (or lifetime consumption stream) that makes the household indifferent between the reference economy and the economy of interest. Positive CEV means the new economy is preferred. Aggregate welfare is the distribution-weighted average of individual CEVs.

Asymmetric persistence: The empirical fact, documented in the KFS, that log ARPK shows higher autocorrelation at the bottom quintile (ρ₁ = 0.897) than at the top quintile (ρ₅ = 0.443), confirmed by both a conditional autocorrelation regression and a quintile transition matrix. This asymmetry is a key moment used to identify and distinguish illiquidity frictions (which produce left-tail persistence) from collateral constraints (which produce right-tail persistence).