In general there are two moral hazard problems related to the capital market.

Why might the effects of moral hazard be smaller than expected?

The term "moral hazard" was first used in the 17th century.

To many Americans, moral hazard is something that only happens elsewhere.

It will dole out some moral hazard to the banks.

In other circumstances, though, moral hazard seems to have a much smaller impact.

If so, this is a kind of moral hazard.

That flaw is known in the insurance business as "moral hazard."

Insurance companies have long been familiar with the phenomenon, which they call moral hazard.

So in that sense moral hazard did affect investors' decisions.

In economics, "moral hazard" as a special kind of market failure.

No military intervention is ever free of moral hazard.

And there certainly are situations where moral hazard does seem to have an effect on people's choices.

Examples of this problem are adverse selection and moral hazard.

"If the only thing coming out of Washington is the confrontation on executive privilege, that's a moral hazard."

There is, finally, at least one good reason to worry about budget deficits: they are a form of moral hazard.

If the policy succeeded, it could create the problem economists call "moral hazard."

"The danger is the spread of moral hazard could make the next crisis much bigger".

This may be called ex post (after the event) moral hazard.

Sometimes moral hazard is so severe it makes insurance policies impossible.

First off, the deal is dripping with moral hazard.

This "moral hazard" version of the story may seem a bit too stark to be believed.

One difficulty comes from what economists call moral hazard.

Moral hazard is what we have when a person in power, like a mayor, does not suffer the consequences of his decisions.

As I argued last year, when it comes to institutions, the moral hazard explanation for what went wrong doesn't really hold much water.