💳💳💳💳💳💳💳💳💳. I have just posted a noteworthy revision of my paper “Risk-Based Borrowing Limits in Credit Card Markets.” The main novelty of the paper and its findings are the same. Why is the revision of interest then? Read on to find out: (1/10). 💳💳💳💳💳💳💳💳💳.

I had a very productive day on Monday presenting my paper on patent screening at the @BUQuestrom IP Day. It is a great event that I hope to attend again in future years.

Excited to share two policy pieces I wrote on patent quality and the USPTO backlog. Both are summaries of our longer report, which you can watch the launch video of here:. We have a 3-page summary and a 1-page "fact sheet" if you are short of time.

Almost two years at @RHULECON now, and still nowhere near over how gorgeous this campus is. @RoyalHolloway

You can see the details of the revision here:.. Let me know if you have any comments or questions and I'll happily answer! (10/10).

I am really looking forward to presenting and submitting this paper going forward, knowing that I have addressed this frequent comment. I can finally be at peace with the paper, and now just need to find a home for it. Wish me luck! (9/10).

All other findings in the paper go through, including my favourite figure, included here. It shows that lenders use interest rate tailoring in the counterfactual to price discriminate, rather than control default risk (done separately through tailored credit limits. (8/10)

My estimated costs to lenders of individualizing interest rates are substantial, are higher at lenders known to have more sophisticated customers and correlate positively with individuals’ incomes. So, this change was not just to patch up machinery, but generated insights (7/10).

Then, the counterfactual could be operationalized by turning off the regulatory constraint and setting these costs to zero. Now I am even more confident that the model and counterfactuals are internally consistent. (6/10).

I finally cracked how to model lenders’ interest rate and credit limit choices subject to the regulation. The trick was to include costs to lenders of individualizing interest rates, which I could estimate off the cases where they did choose to deviate from that advertised. (5/10.

While I sympathized with these comments, it was never obvious to me how I could give lenders the potential to individualize interest rates and credit limits in the baseline, subject to the regulation. That all changed at the start of this year, however. (4/10).

Prior to this revision, I was often confronted with the comment that my baseline model did not explain interest rate choices and was therefore not appropriate for a counterfactual in which I take away the regulation limiting lenders in individualizing interest rates. (3/10).

In the paper I use statement-level data to show that UK lenders tailor credit limits, but NOT interest rates, to customers’ risk. They are inhibited by costs of tailoring coming from EU-wide regulations requiring them to advertise an interest rate for each product (2/10).

Includes some very nice photos!.

The full recording of the Council for Innovation Promotion @Council4IP panel on US patent quality is now available:

RT @SunwaterInst: It was a pleasure attending "Patent Quality in the United States: Findings and Recommendations for Policymakers" hosted b….

Several articles written already on the @SunwaterInst Policy Report on patent quality that I contributed to. See:. IP Watchdog: MarketWatch: (a press release of C4IP: .Law360:

I promised more tweets, so here we go!. Today is the launch of a policy report by the @SunwaterInst on US patent quality. Together with Mark Schankerman, our major contribution is to Section 2.1, which describes our research on patent screening by the USPTO. Please check it out.

A difficult 6 weeks: I had to go in for surgery at short notice, meaning I missed work trips to Germany, Amsterdam & Chile. But I'm excited to be better now, and I am on the way to DC to speak at the National Press Club about patent policy. More tweets to follow this week. .