# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

• Previous Article
A bidirectional weighted boundary distance algorithm for time series similarity computation based on optimized sliding window size
• JIMO Home
• This Issue
• Next Article
Simulated annealing and genetic algorithm based method for a bi-level seru loading problem with worker assignment in seru production systems
doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019131

## Loss-averse supply chain decisions with a capital constrained retailer

 1 School of Marketing and Logistics Management, Nanjing University of Finance and Economics, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province 210023, China 2 School of Business Administration, Hunan University, Changsha, Hunan Province 410082, China 3 Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, School of Engineering and Sciences, Tecnológico de Monterrey, E. Garza Sada 2501 Sur, C.P. 64849, Monterrey, Nuevo León, México 4 School of Business, State University of New York at Oswego, Oswego, NY 13126, USA

* Corresponding author: ottoyang@126.com (Honglin Yang)

Received  February 2019 Revised  July 2019 Published  October 2019

Fund Project: This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 71571065, 71521061 and 71790593 and the Ministry of Education in China of Humanities and Social Science Project under Grant No. 19YJC630242

In real-world transactions, capital constraints restrict the rapid development of the enterprises in the supply chain. The loss aversion behaviors of enterprises directly affect the decision making. This paper investigates the optimal decisions of both the supplier and the capital constrained retailer being loss aversion decision makers under different financing strategies. The capital constrained retailer may borrow from a bank or use the supplier's trade credit to satisfy uncertain demand. With a wholesale price contract, we analytically solve the unique Stackelberg equilibrium under two financing schemes. We derive the critical wholesale price that determines the retailer's financing preference. We identify the impacts of the loss aversion coefficients and initial capital level on the operational and financing decisions. Numerical examples reveal that there exists a Pareto improvement zone regarding the retailer's loss aversion coefficient and initial capital level.

Citation: Wenyan Zhuo, Honglin Yang, Leopoldo Eduardo Cárdenas-Barrón, Hong Wan. Loss-averse supply chain decisions with a capital constrained retailer. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019131
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
The retailer's order quantity changes with $\lambda_R$ under $U(0,250)$
The retailer's order quantity changes with $\lambda_R$ under $N(100,60)$
The retailer's order quantity changes with $\lambda_S$ under $U(0,250)$ with $\lambda_R = 2$
The retailer's order quantity changes with $\lambda_S$ under $N(100,60)$ with $\lambda_R = 10$
The difference of player's expected utility changes with $\lambda_R$ under $U(0,250)$
The difference of player's expected utility changes with $\lambda_S$ under $U(0,250)$
The supplier's expected utility changes with $w_j$ under $U(0,250)$
The supplier's expected utility changes with $w_j$ under $N(100,60)$
The retailer's order quantity changes with $\Omega$ under $U(0,250)$ with $\lambda_R = 2$, $\lambda_S = 1.5$
The retailer's order quantity changes with $\Omega$ under $N(100,60)$with $\lambda_R = 10$, $\lambda_S = 2$
The difference of player's expected utility changes with $\Omega$ under $U(0,250)$
Comparisons of three models with loss aversion
 Literature Financing scheme Loss-averse player Decision objective Upstream Downstream Zhang et al.(2016) BCF Retailer EPM EUM Yan et al.(2018) TCF or SI Retailer EPM EUM This paper BCF or TCF Retailer and Supplier EUM EUM
 Literature Financing scheme Loss-averse player Decision objective Upstream Downstream Zhang et al.(2016) BCF Retailer EPM EUM Yan et al.(2018) TCF or SI Retailer EPM EUM This paper BCF or TCF Retailer and Supplier EUM EUM
Notation
 Notation Definition $p$ Retail price $c$ Production cost $w_j$ Wholesale price, where $j=B,T$ denotes bank credit financing or trade credit financing, respectively (the supplier's decision variable) $X$ Random demand, defined over continuous interval$[0,+∞)$ $f(X)$ Probability density function of $X$ $F(X)$ Cumulative distribution function of $X$ $z(X)$ Failure rate of the demand distribution, $z(x)=\frac{f(x)}{\bar{F}(x)}$ $q_j$ Order quantity, where $j=B,T$ (the retailer's decision variable) $\lambda_i$ Loss-aversion coefficient, where $i=S,R$ denotes the supplier or retailer, respectively $\pi_{ij}$ Profit of player $i$ under financing scheme $j$, where $i=S,R$ and $j=B,T$ $U(\pi)$ Utility function $EU(\pi_{ij})$ Expected utility function $\Omega$ Retailer's initial capital level $r_f$ Risk-free interest rate $r_B$ Interest rate of bank loans $r_T$ Interest rate of trade credit (the supplier's decision variable) For notation purposes, we use the symbols "BCF" and "TCF" to represent "bank credit financing" and "trade credit financing", respectively. In addition, for convenience, we refer to the supplier as "she" and the retailer as "he".
 Notation Definition $p$ Retail price $c$ Production cost $w_j$ Wholesale price, where $j=B,T$ denotes bank credit financing or trade credit financing, respectively (the supplier's decision variable) $X$ Random demand, defined over continuous interval$[0,+∞)$ $f(X)$ Probability density function of $X$ $F(X)$ Cumulative distribution function of $X$ $z(X)$ Failure rate of the demand distribution, $z(x)=\frac{f(x)}{\bar{F}(x)}$ $q_j$ Order quantity, where $j=B,T$ (the retailer's decision variable) $\lambda_i$ Loss-aversion coefficient, where $i=S,R$ denotes the supplier or retailer, respectively $\pi_{ij}$ Profit of player $i$ under financing scheme $j$, where $i=S,R$ and $j=B,T$ $U(\pi)$ Utility function $EU(\pi_{ij})$ Expected utility function $\Omega$ Retailer's initial capital level $r_f$ Risk-free interest rate $r_B$ Interest rate of bank loans $r_T$ Interest rate of trade credit (the supplier's decision variable) For notation purposes, we use the symbols "BCF" and "TCF" to represent "bank credit financing" and "trade credit financing", respectively. In addition, for convenience, we refer to the supplier as "she" and the retailer as "he".
Sensitivity analysis with respect to ${\lambda _R}$
 $\lambda_R$ $w_B$ $w_T$ $q_B$ $q_T$ $\Delta EU(\pi_{R})$ $\Delta EU(\pi_{S})$ $\Delta EU(\pi_{SC})$ 1.0 56.0 64.7 105.8 112.9 -681.9 921.6 239.7 1.5 53.1 59.3 104.3 110.4 -512.6 690.1 177.5 2.0 50.5 55.1 102.7 108.5 -379.6 536.9 157.3 2.5 48.3 51.7 101.2 106.7 -280.4 426.7 146.3 3.0 46.3 48.8 99.9 105.2 -207.1 343.6 136.5 3.5 44.5 46.4 98.8 103.6 -149.3 277.3 128.0 4.0 43.0 44.2 97.3 102.4 -75.8 224.0 148.2 4.5 41.6 42.4 95.9 100.7 -37.0 180.0 143.0 5.0 40.3 40.7 94.6 99.0 -8.5 142.9 134.3 5.5 39.1 39.2 93.4 98.1 38.4 111.3 149.7 6.0 38.0 37.8 92.1 96.9 73.4 84.1 157.5 6.5 37.0 36.6 90.8 95.5 95.0 60.3 155.3 7.0 36.0 35.5 89.9 94.0 118.3 39.9 158.2 7.5 35.1 34.4 88.7 93.1 135.3 21.2 156.5 8.0 34.3 33.4 87.3 91.9 153.1 4.6 157.7 8.5 33.5 32.5 86.4 90.8 155.4 -10.4 145.0 9.0 32.8 31.7 85.2 89.5 157.0 -23.8 133.2 9.5 32.2 30.9 83.6 88.4 175.9 -35.9 140.0 10.0 31.6 30.2 82.3 87.3 187.2 -47.1 140.1
 $\lambda_R$ $w_B$ $w_T$ $q_B$ $q_T$ $\Delta EU(\pi_{R})$ $\Delta EU(\pi_{S})$ $\Delta EU(\pi_{SC})$ 1.0 56.0 64.7 105.8 112.9 -681.9 921.6 239.7 1.5 53.1 59.3 104.3 110.4 -512.6 690.1 177.5 2.0 50.5 55.1 102.7 108.5 -379.6 536.9 157.3 2.5 48.3 51.7 101.2 106.7 -280.4 426.7 146.3 3.0 46.3 48.8 99.9 105.2 -207.1 343.6 136.5 3.5 44.5 46.4 98.8 103.6 -149.3 277.3 128.0 4.0 43.0 44.2 97.3 102.4 -75.8 224.0 148.2 4.5 41.6 42.4 95.9 100.7 -37.0 180.0 143.0 5.0 40.3 40.7 94.6 99.0 -8.5 142.9 134.3 5.5 39.1 39.2 93.4 98.1 38.4 111.3 149.7 6.0 38.0 37.8 92.1 96.9 73.4 84.1 157.5 6.5 37.0 36.6 90.8 95.5 95.0 60.3 155.3 7.0 36.0 35.5 89.9 94.0 118.3 39.9 158.2 7.5 35.1 34.4 88.7 93.1 135.3 21.2 156.5 8.0 34.3 33.4 87.3 91.9 153.1 4.6 157.7 8.5 33.5 32.5 86.4 90.8 155.4 -10.4 145.0 9.0 32.8 31.7 85.2 89.5 157.0 -23.8 133.2 9.5 32.2 30.9 83.6 88.4 175.9 -35.9 140.0 10.0 31.6 30.2 82.3 87.3 187.2 -47.1 140.1
Sensitivity analysis with respect to ${\lambda _S}$
 $\lambda_S$ $w_B$ $w_T$ $q_B$ $q_T$ $\Delta EU(\pi_{R})$ $\Delta EU(\pi_{S})$ $\Delta EU(\pi_{SC})$ 1 65.2 77.8 104.7 116.2 -1642.9 1649.4 6.5 5 65.2 78.6 104.7 114.3 -1711.1 1521.3 -189.8 10 65.2 79.6 104.7 112.0 -1788.8 1369.2 -419.6 15 65.2 80.5 104.7 109.7 -1859.1 1225.7 -633.4 20 65.2 81.3 104.7 107.5 -1922.8 1090.5 -832.3 25 65.2 82.1 104.7 105.3 -1980.4 963.1 -1017.3 30 65.2 82.8 104.7 103.1 -2032.5 843.3 -1189.2 35 65.2 83.4 104.7 100.9 -2079.6 730.6 -1349.0 40 65.2 84.1 104.7 98.9 -2122.0 624.8 -1497.2 45 65.2 84.6 104.7 96.8 -2160.3 525.5 -1634.8 50 65.2 85.1 104.7 94.8 -2194.6 432.3 -1762.3 55 65.2 85.6 104.7 92.9 -2225.5 344.8 -1880.7 60 65.2 86.0 104.7 91.0 -2253.2 262.8 -1990.4 65 65.2 86.3 104.7 89.2 -2278.1 185.9 -2092.2 70 65.2 86.7 104.7 87.5 -2300.4 113.6 -2186.8 75 65.2 87.0 104.7 85.8 -2320.5 45.8 -2274.7 80 65.2 87.3 104.7 84.2 -2338.6 -17.9 -2356.5 85 65.2 87.5 104.7 82.7 -2354.9 -77.9 -2432.8 90 65.2 87.7 104.7 81.2 -2369.6 -134.3 -2503.9 95 65.2 88.0 104.7 79.8 -2382.9 -187.5 -2570.4 100 65.2 88.2 104.7 78.5 -2394.9 -237.7 -2632.6
 $\lambda_S$ $w_B$ $w_T$ $q_B$ $q_T$ $\Delta EU(\pi_{R})$ $\Delta EU(\pi_{S})$ $\Delta EU(\pi_{SC})$ 1 65.2 77.8 104.7 116.2 -1642.9 1649.4 6.5 5 65.2 78.6 104.7 114.3 -1711.1 1521.3 -189.8 10 65.2 79.6 104.7 112.0 -1788.8 1369.2 -419.6 15 65.2 80.5 104.7 109.7 -1859.1 1225.7 -633.4 20 65.2 81.3 104.7 107.5 -1922.8 1090.5 -832.3 25 65.2 82.1 104.7 105.3 -1980.4 963.1 -1017.3 30 65.2 82.8 104.7 103.1 -2032.5 843.3 -1189.2 35 65.2 83.4 104.7 100.9 -2079.6 730.6 -1349.0 40 65.2 84.1 104.7 98.9 -2122.0 624.8 -1497.2 45 65.2 84.6 104.7 96.8 -2160.3 525.5 -1634.8 50 65.2 85.1 104.7 94.8 -2194.6 432.3 -1762.3 55 65.2 85.6 104.7 92.9 -2225.5 344.8 -1880.7 60 65.2 86.0 104.7 91.0 -2253.2 262.8 -1990.4 65 65.2 86.3 104.7 89.2 -2278.1 185.9 -2092.2 70 65.2 86.7 104.7 87.5 -2300.4 113.6 -2186.8 75 65.2 87.0 104.7 85.8 -2320.5 45.8 -2274.7 80 65.2 87.3 104.7 84.2 -2338.6 -17.9 -2356.5 85 65.2 87.5 104.7 82.7 -2354.9 -77.9 -2432.8 90 65.2 87.7 104.7 81.2 -2369.6 -134.3 -2503.9 95 65.2 88.0 104.7 79.8 -2382.9 -187.5 -2570.4 100 65.2 88.2 104.7 78.5 -2394.9 -237.7 -2632.6
 [1] Qiang Lin, Ying Peng, Ying Hu. Supplier financing service decisions for a capital-constrained supply chain: Trade credit vs. combined credit financing. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (5) : 1-22. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019026 [2] Sankar Kumar Roy, Magfura Pervin, Gerhard Wilhelm Weber. A two-warehouse probabilistic model with price discount on backorders under two levels of trade-credit policy. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (5) : 1-26. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018167 [3] Honglin Yang, Heping Dai, Hong Wan, Lingling Chu. Optimal credit periods under two-level trade credit. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (5) : 1-15. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019027 [4] Magfura Pervin, Sankar Kumar Roy, Gerhard Wilhelm Weber. Multi-item deteriorating two-echelon inventory model with price- and stock-dependent demand: A trade-credit policy. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2019, 15 (3) : 1345-1373. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018098 [5] Prasenjit Pramanik, Sarama Malik Das, Manas Kumar Maiti. Note on : Supply chain inventory model for deteriorating items with maximum lifetime and partial trade credit to credit risk customers. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2019, 15 (3) : 1289-1315. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018096 [6] Jui-Jung Liao, Wei-Chun Lee, Kuo-Nan Huang, Yung-Fu Huang. Optimal ordering policy for a two-warehouse inventory model use of two-level trade credit. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (4) : 1661-1683. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2017012 [7] Pin-Shou Ting. The EPQ model with deteriorating items under two levels of trade credit in a supply chain system. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2015, 11 (2) : 479-492. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2015.11.479 [8] Magfura Pervin, Sankar Kumar Roy, Gerhard Wilhelm Weber. An integrated inventory model with variable holding cost under two levels of trade-credit policy. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2018, 8 (2) : 169-191. doi: 10.3934/naco.2018010 [9] Kun-Jen Chung, Pin-Shou Ting. The inventory model under supplier's partial trade credit policy in a supply chain system. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2015, 11 (4) : 1175-1183. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2015.11.1175 [10] Sankar Kumar Roy, Magfura Pervin, Gerhard Wilhelm Weber. Imperfection with inspection policy and variable demand under trade-credit: A deteriorating inventory model. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2019, 0 (0) : 0-0. doi: 10.3934/naco.2019032 [11] Shuai Huang, Zhi-Ping Fan, Xiaohuan Wang. Optimal financing and operational decisions of capital-constrained manufacturer under green credit and subsidy. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (5) : 0-0. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019110 [12] Mohsen Lashgari, Ata Allah Taleizadeh, Shib Sankar Sana. An inventory control problem for deteriorating items with back-ordering and financial considerations under two levels of trade credit linked to order quantity. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2016, 12 (3) : 1091-1119. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016.12.1091 [13] Jun Wu, Shouyang Wang, Wuyi Yue. Supply contract model with service level constraint. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2005, 1 (3) : 275-287. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2005.1.275 [14] Yuan Wu, Jin Liang. Free boundaries of credit rating migration in switching macro regions. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2019, 0 (0) : 0-0. doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2019038 [15] Yinghui Dong, Kam Chuen Yuen, Guojing Wang. Pricing credit derivatives under a correlated regime-switching hazard processes model. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (3) : 1395-1415. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016079 [16] Jian Luo, Xueqi Yang, Ye Tian, Wenwen Yu. Corporate and personal credit scoring via fuzzy non-kernel SVM with fuzzy within-class scatter. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (5) : 1-14. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019078 [17] Yuan Wu, Jin Liang, Bei Hu. A free boundary problem for defaultable corporate bond with credit rating migration risk and its asymptotic behavior. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2017, 22 (11) : 0-0. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2019207 [18] Gongpin Cheng, Rongming Wang, Dingjun Yao. Optimal dividend and capital injection strategy with excess-of-loss reinsurance and transaction costs. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2018, 14 (1) : 371-395. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2017051 [19] Yu-Chung Tsao. Ordering policy for non-instantaneously deteriorating products under price adjustment and trade credits. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (1) : 329-347. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016020 [20] Rafael Diaz, Laura Gomez. Indirect influences in international trade. Networks & Heterogeneous Media, 2015, 10 (1) : 149-165. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2015.10.149

2018 Impact Factor: 1.025