This study examines online multi-unit, discriminatory, ascending auctions of certificates of deposit. We find evidence suggesting that the most aggressive bids are likely to occur at the beginning and the end of the auctions. The opening of the auction serves an important role in price discovery. In addition, in multi-unit auctions last-minute bidding is a conditional strategy, and is used only when bidding is intense. Furthermore, we provide evidence suggesting that revenues are increasing in the depth of the market, in the concentration of early bids, and in bank participation relative to the size of the principal.

In this paper we analyze the interrelatedness of security analysis and market-making activities. Our results indicate that there exists a bidirectional and positive relation between analyst following and the number of market makers. Using detailed data on analyst and dealer affiliations, we also find that dealers are more likely to make markets in stocks that are tracked by analysts who are affiliated with the same company. Similarly, analysts follow and issue earnings forecasts more proactively for stocks that are handled by affiliated market makers. We interpret these results as evidence that analysts and market makers work as a team to benefit the company. We discuss a possible conflict of interest between investors and brokerage firms that arises from this collaborative endeavor between analysts and dealers.

Consider a two-player discounted infinitely repeated game. A player's belief is a probability distribution over the opponent's repeated game strategies. This paper shows that, for a large class of repeated games, there are no beliefs that satisfy three properties: learnability, a diversity of belief condition called CSP, and consistency. Loosely, if players learn to forecast the path of play whenever each plays a strategy that the other anticipates (in the sense of being in the support of that player's belief) and if the sets of anticipated strategies are sufficiently rich, then neither anticipates any of his opponent's best responses. This generalizes results in Nachbar (1997).

We model externality abatement as an implementation problem. A social planner would like to ensure efficient behaviour among a group of agents whose actions are sources of externalities. However, the planner has limited information about the agents' preferences, and is unable to distinguish individual agents except through their action choices. We prove that if a concavity condition on aggregate payoffs is satisfied, the planner can guarantee that efficient behaviour is globally stable under a wide range of behaviour adjustment processes by administering a variable pricing scheme. Through a series of applications, we show that the concavity condition is naturally satisfied in settings involving negative externalities. We conclude by contrasting the performance of the pricing mechanism with that of a mechanism based on direct revelation and announcement dependent forcing contracts.

This paper measures the mean, standard deviation, alpha, and beta of venture capital investments, using a maximum likelihood estimate that corrects for selection bias. The bias-corrected estimation neatly accounts for log returns. It reduces the estimate of the mean log return from 108% to 15%, and of the log market model intercept from 92% to -7%. The selection bias correction also dramatically attenuates high arithmetic average returns: it reduces the mean arithmetic return from 698% to 59%, and it reduces the arithmetic alpha from 462% to 32%. I confirm the robustness of the estimates in a variety of ways. I also find that the smallest Nasdaq stocks have similar large means, volatilities, and arithmetic alphas in this time period, confirming that the remaining puzzles are not special to venture capital.

In traditional economic models, individual utility depends only on absolute consumption. These models lie at the heart of claims that pursuit of individual self-interest promotes aggregate welfare. Recent years have seen renewed interest in economic models in which individual utility depends not only on absolute consumption, but also on relative consumption. In contrast to traditional models, these models identify a fundamental conflict between individual and social welfare. The conflict stems from the fact that concerns about relative consumption are stronger in some domains than in others. The disparity gives rise to expenditure arms races focused on positional goods—those for which relative position matters most. The result is to divert resources from nonpositional goods, causing welfare losses. Compelling theoretical and empirical evidence confirms the importance of relative consumption in individual valuations. In light of this evidence, we must question the wisdom of economic policy recommendations stemming from models that ignore relative consumption.