This paper considers share repurchases as the way long-term shareholders preserve their ability to use corporate information for speculative purposes when insider trading regulation is enforced. This use of corporate information increases the adverse selection losses of short-term shareholders. Thus, buy-back programs reduce their incentive to invest in stocks that back the most productive technology, leading to a socially inefficient equilibrium. It follows that insider trading should not be banned when share repurchases are allowed. More generally, the paper argues that the regulation of insider trading and repurchases can not be considered in isolation, and analyzes their interplay.

We study the equilibrium implications of a multi-asset economy in which asset managers performance is tied to different benchmarks, reflecting heterogeneity in their investment mandates. Fluctuations in the capital asset managers invest for benchmarking purposes, scaled by the size of the economy, induce price pressure that results in negative spillovers across assets. We characterize a rich structure of asset price comovement within and across benchmarks by analyzing shock elasticities and cross-elasticities of price-dividend ratios. Evidence on the heterogeneity of mutual fund mandates and the benchmarking-induced return comovement across cap-style and industry-sector portfolios corroborates the model assumptions and predictions.

We model asset management as a continuum between active and passive: managers can deviate from benchmark indices to exploit noise trader–induced distortions, but agency frictions constrain these deviations. Because constraints force managers to buy assets that they underweight when these assets appreciate, overvalued assets have high volatility, and the risk-return relationship becomes inverted. Distortions are more severe for overvalued assets than for undervalued ones because trading against the former entails more risk and tighter constraints. We provide empirical evidence supporting our model’s main mechanisms. Using the data, we infer the constraints’ tightness and compute a measure of effective arbitrage capital.

ABSTRACT Real‐world contracts are typically private, observed only by their direct signatories, so agents working together are vulnerable to the principal opportunistically reducing other agents' incentives. The principal can mitigate this commitment problem by giving the most skilled agent a budget and delegating authority to write other agents' contracts. This endogenous hierarchy, never optimal with public contracts, raises effort, output, and compensation but allows rent extraction. The principal prefers it when contracts are opaque enough, skill is sufficiently heterogeneous across agents, and joint output is sensitive enough to effort. Our model provides novel predictions for the structure of banking syndicates.