Market prices are noisy signals of economic fundamentals. In a two-period model, we show that if the central bank uses market prices as guidance for intervention, large strategic investors who benefit from high prices would depress market prices to induce a market-supportive intervention. Stronger anticipated interventions lead to deeper price depressions preintervention and sharper price reversals post-intervention. The central bank intervention harms strategic investors even though it is the investors who tried to mislead the central bank. The model predicts a V-shaped price pattern around central bank interventions, consistent with recent evidence. (JEL G14, G18)

We analyze a model in which traders have different trading opportunities and learn information from prices. The difference in trading opportunities implies that different traders may have different trading motives when trading in the same market—some trade for speculation and others for hedging—and thus they may respond to the same information in opposite directions. This implies that adding more informed traders may reduce price informativeness and therefore provides a source for learning complementarities leading to multiple equilibria and price jumps. Our model is relevant to various realistic settings and helps to understand a variety of modern financial markets.

We investigate the effect of ambiguity about hedge fund investment strategies on asset prices and aggregate welfare. We model some traders (mutual funds) as facing ambiguity about the equilibrium trading strategies of other traders (hedge funds). This ambiguity limits the ability of mutual funds to infer information from prices and has negative effects on market outcomes. We use this analysis to investigate the implications of regulations that affect disclosure requirements of hedge funds or the cost of operating a hedge fund. Our analysis demonstrates how regulations affect asset prices and welfare through their influence on opaque trading.

We develop a model to illustrate that equity-based compensation for non-executive employees and product market decisions are related. When the product market is competitive and employees have low bargaining power , the unique equilibrium is for each firm’s owners to offer equity-based compensation to their employees. In this setting, equity-based compensation leads to a lower wage rate, which makes each firm more competitive with its rival. However, this unique equilibrium is a Prisoner’s Dilemma for the firms’ original owners. Our results are consistent with several empirical regularities and provide predictions on when firms will offer equity-based compensation to their employees.

We model the strategic interaction between fundamental investors and “back-runners,” whose only information is about the past order flow of fundamental investors. Back-runners partly infer fundamental investors’ information from their order flow and exploit it in subsequent trading. Fundamental investors counteract back-runners by randomizing their orders, unless back-runners’ signals are too imprecise. Surprisingly, a higher accuracy of back-runners’ order flow information can harm back-runners and benefit fundamental investors. As an application of the model, the common practice of payment for (retail) order flow reveals information about institutional order flow and enables back-runners to earn large profits. (JEL G14, G18)

ABSTRACT We show that a linear pure strategy equilibrium may not exist in the model of Madrigal (1996), contrary to the claim of the original paper. This is because Madrigal's characterization of a pure strategy equilibrium omits a second‐order condition. If the nonfundamental speculator's information about noise trading is sufficiently precise, a linear pure strategy equilibrium fails to exist. In parameter regions where a pure strategy equilibrium does exist, we identify a few calculation errors in Madrigal (1996) that result in misleading implications.

ABSTRACT We develop a mixed‐duopoly model in which a private firm competes against a state‐owned enterprise (SOE) who cares about social welfare and is privately informed about market demand. When the SOE's social concerns are sufficiently important and when the market competitiveness is sufficiently low, the SOE commits to fully disclose its private information. Otherwise, the SOE commits to withhold its private information. When the disclosure equilibrium prevails, the private firm can be more profitable competing against an SOE than against another private firm. In this mixed‐duopoly setting, the equilibrium social welfare is maximized when the SOE puts a positive weight on both social welfare and its own profit. Our analysis has further implications for both mandatory disclosure and market entry.

We study real-efficiency implications of disclosing public information in a model with multiple dimensions of uncertainty where market prices convey information to a real decision maker. Paradoxically, when disclosure concerns a variable that the real decision maker cares to learn about, disclosure negatively affects price informativeness, and in markets that are effective in aggregating private information, this negative price-informativeness effect can dominate so that better disclosure negatively impacts real efficiency. When disclosure concerns a variable that the real decision maker already knows much about, disclosure always improves price informativeness and real efficiency. Our analysis has important empirical and policy implications for different contexts such as disclosure of stress test information and regulation of credit ratings.

We build a general equilibrium model to examine the implications of prospect theory for the disposition effect, asset prices, and trading volume. Diminishing sensitivity predicts a disposition effect, price momentum, a reduced return volatility, and a positive return-volume correlation. Loss aversion generally predicts the opposite. In calibrated economies, there is a nontrivial range of preference parameters for prospect theory to simultaneously explain the disposition effect, the momentum effect, and the equity premium puzzle. Our model is helpful for understanding a wide range of financial phenomena and it also suggests new testable predictions.

We study the observability of investors’ information-acquisition activities in financial markets. Improving observability leads to two strategic effects on information acquisition: (1) the pricing effect, which arises from interactions between investors and the market maker and can encourage or discourage information acquisition, and (2) the competition effect, which concerns interactions among investors and always encourages information acquisition. We apply our theory to study voluntary and mandatory disclosures of corporate site visits. When the competition effect dominates, investors voluntarily disclose their visits. When the pricing effect dominates, mandatory disclosure is effective. Our analysis sheds novel light on Regulation Fair Disclosure. Authors have furnished an Internet Appendix, which is available on the Oxford University Press Web site next to the link to the final published paper online.