The last few years have seen a significant re-evaluation of the models used to analyze crises in emerging markets. Recent models typically stress financial constraints or distorted financial incentives. While this certainly represents progress, these models share a weakness with the earlier work: neither is uniquely about emerging markets. Adaptations of the Mundell-Fleming model represent Argentina as a Belgium with larger external shocks. Likewise, emerging market models of financial constraints are adaptations of developed economy ones with tighter financial constraints. In our work, we have advocated a model which distinguishes between the financial constraints affecting borrowing and lending among agents within an emerging economy, and those affecting borrowing from foreign lenders. This 'dual liquidity' model offers a parsimonious description of the behavior of firms, governments, and asset prices during financial crises. It also provides prescriptions for optimal policy responses to these crises.

We propose that the limited financial development of emerging markets is a significant factor behind the large share of dollar‐denominated external debt present in these markets. We show that when financial constraints affect borrowing and lending between domestic agents, agents undervalue insuring against an exchange rate depreciation. Since more of this insurance is present when external debt is denominated in domestic currency rather than in dollars, this result implies that domestic agents choose excessive dollar debt. We also show that limited financial development reduces the incentives for foreign lenders to enter emerging markets. The retarded entry reinforces the underinsurance problem.

To understand which short‐term debt markets experienced “runs” during the financial crisis, we analyze a novel data set of repurchase agreements (repo), that is, loans between nonbank cash lenders and dealer banks collateralized with securities. Consistent with a run, repo volume backed by private asset‐backed securities falls to near zero in the crisis. However, the reduction is only $182 billion, which is small relative to the stock of private asset‐backed securities as well as the contraction in asset‐backed commercial paper. While the repo contraction is small in aggregate, it disproportionately affected a few dealer banks.

US government bonds are considered to be the world's safe store of value, especially during periods of economic turmoil such as the events of 2008. But what makes US government bonds “safe assets”? We highlight coordination among investors, and build a model in which two countries with heterogeneous sizes issue bonds that may be chosen as safe asset. Our model illustrates the benefit of a large absolute debt size as safe asset investors have “nowhere else to go” in equilibrium, and the large country's bonds are chosen as the safe asset. Moreover, the effect becomes stronger in crisis periods.

We integrate a widely accepted version of the separation of ownership and control—Michael Jensen's (1986) free cash flow theory—into a dynamic equilibrium model, and study the effect of imperfect corporate control on asset prices and investment. Aggregate free cash flow of the corporate sector is an important state variable in explaining asset prices, investment, and the cyclical behavior of interest rates and the yield curve. The financial friction causes cash-flow shocks to affect investment, and causes otherwise i.i.d. shocks to be transmitted from period to period. The shocks propagate through large firms and during booms.