Knowledge that Transforms

We address the monopoly problem of designing and pricing a product line of goods distinguished by different quality and warranty levels. Consumers vary in their evaluations of these attributes, so that the problem is one of screening. It is sufficiently complex that the local approach commonly used does not work. Instead, we use new techniques for dealing with incentive constraints between nonadjacent consumer types. These techniques allow us to characterize optimal allocations that may not be monotonic. In particular, although the more eager types of buyer do pay higher prices and yield the monopoly higher profit, they may receive lower quality or lower warranty coverage. We find preference restrictions that restore monotonicity: concave risk tolerance implies that warranty coverage increases in type, and constant absolute risk aversion implies that quality increases in type.

ABSTRACT In a previous paper, we found systematic price reversals for stocks that experience extreme long‐term gains or losses: Past losers significantly outperform past winners. We interpreted this finding as consistent with the behavioral hypothesis of investor overreaction. In this follow‐up paper, additional evidence is reported that supports the overreaction hypothesis and that is inconsistent with two alternative hypotheses based on firm size and differences in risk, as measured by CAPM‐betas. The seasonal pattern of returns is also examined. Excess returns in January are related to both short‐term and long‐term past performance, as well as to the previous year market return.

ABSTRACT One option‐pricing problem that has hitherto been unsolved is the pricing of a European call on an asset that has a stochastic volatility. This paper examines this problem. The option price is determined in series form for the case in which the stochastic volatility is independent of the stock price. Numerical solutions are also produced for the case in which the volatility is correlated with the stock price. It is found that the Black‐Scholes price frequently overprices options and that the degree of overpricing increases with the time to maturity.

The sphere of modern financial economics encompases finance, micro investment theory and much of the economics of uncertainty. As is evident from its influence on other branches of economics including public finance, industrial organization and monetary theory, the boundaries of this sphere are both permeable and flexible. The complex interactions of time and uncertainty guarantee intellectual challenge and intrinsic excitement to the study of financial economics. Indeed, the mathematics of the subject contain some of the most interesting applications of probability and optimization theory. But for all its mathematical refinement, the research has nevertheless had a direct and significant influence on practice. It was not always thus. Thirty years ago, finance theory was little more than a collection of anecdotes, rules of thumb, and manipulations of accounting data with an almost exclusive focus on corporate financial management. There is no need in this meeting of the guild to recount the subsequent evolution from this conceptual potpourri to a rigorous economic