This article analyzes the effects of information leakage on trading behavior and market efficiency. A trader who receives a noisy signal about a forthcoming public announcement can exploit it twice. First, when he receives it, and second, after the public announcement since he knows best the extent to which his information is already reflected in the pre-announcement price. Given his information he expects the price to overshoot and intends to partially revert his trade. While information leakage makes the price process more informative in the short-run, it reduces its informative-ness in the long-run. The analysis supports Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation Fair Disclosure. In a perfect world, all investors would receive information pertinent to the value of the stock immediately and simultaneously. In reality, however, some agents like corporate insiders and their favored analysts can receive signals about this information before it is disclosed to the general public. The focus of our analysis is to determine (i) the optimal trading strategy of an early-informed agent and (ii) the implications of this trading behavior

We argue that arbitrage is limited if rational traders face uncertainty about when their peers will exploit a common arbitrage opportunity. This synchronization risk—which is distinct from noise trader risk and fundamental risk—arises in our model because arbitrageurs become sequentially aware of mispricing and they incur holding costs. We show that rational arbitrageurs “time the market” rather than correct mispricing right away. This leads to delayed arbitrage. The analysis suggests that behavioral influences on prices are resistant to arbitrage in the short and intermediate run.

We present a model in which an asset bubble can persist despite the presence of rational arbitrageurs. The resilience of the bubble stems from the inability of arbitrageurs to temporarily coordinate their selling strategies. This synchronization problem together with the individual incentive to time the market results in the persistence of bubbles over a substantial period. Since the derived trading equilibrium is unique, our model rationalizes the existence of bubbles in a strong sense. The model also provides a natural setting in which news events, by enabling synchronization, can have a disproportionate impact relative to their intrinsic informational content.

In our incomplete markets economy households choose portfolios consisting of risky (uninsurable) capital and money. Money is a bubble, it has positive value even though it yields no payoff. The market outcome is constrained Pareto inefficient due to a pecuniary externality. Each individual agent takes the real interest rate as given, while in the aggregate it is driven by the economic growth rate, which in turn depends on individual portfolio decisions. Higher inflation due to higher money growth lowers the real interest rate on money and tilts the portfolio choice towards physical capital investment. Modest inflation boosts growth rate and welfare.

This article studies the full equilibrium dynamics of an economy with financial frictions. Due to highly nonlinear amplification effects, the economy is prone to instability and occasionally enters volatile crisis episodes. Endogenous risk, driven by asset illiquidity, persists in crisis even for very low levels of exogenous risk. This phenomenon, which we call the volatility paradox, resolves the Kocherlakota ( 2000) critique. Endogenous leverage determines the distance to crisis. Securitization and derivatives contracts that improve risk sharing may lead to higher leverage and more frequent crises. (JEL E13, E32, E44, E52, G01, G12, G20)

Forward-looking agents care about expected future utility flows, and hence have higher current felicity if they are optimistic. This paper studies utility-based biases in beliefs by supposing that beliefs maximize average felicity, optimally balancing this benefit of optimism against the costs of worse decision making. A small optimistic bias in beliefs typically leads to first-order gains in anticipatory utility and only second-order costs in realized outcomes. In a portfolio choice example, investors overestimate their return and exhibit a preference for skewness; in general equilibrium, investors' prior beliefs are endogenously heterogeneous. In a consumption-saving example, consumers are both overconfident and overoptimistic.

We provide a model that links an asset's market liquidity (i.e., the ease with which it is traded) and traders' funding liquidity (i.e., the ease with which they can obtain funding). Traders provide market liquidity, and their ability to do so depends on their availability of funding. Conversely, traders' funding, i.e., their capital and margin requirements, depends on the assets' market liquidity. We show that, under certain conditions, margins are destabilizing and market liquidity and funding liquidity are mutually reinforcing, leading to liquidity spirals. The model explains the empirically documented features that market liquidity (i) can suddenly dry up, (ii) has commonality across securities, (iii) is related to volatility, (iv) is subject to “flight to quality,” and (v) co-moves with the market. The model provides new testable predictions, including that speculators' capital is a driver of market liquidity and risk premiums.

We propose a measure of systemic risk, Δ CoVaR, defined as the change in the value at risk of the financial system conditional on an institution being under distress relative to its median state. Our estimates show that characteristics such as leverage, size, maturity mismatch, and asset price booms significantly predict Δ CoVaR. We also provide out-of-sample forecasts of a countercyclical, forward-looking measure of systemic risk, and show that the 2006:IV value of this measure would have predicted more than one-third of realized Δ CoVaR during the 2007–2009 financial crisis. (JEL C58, E32, G01, G12, G17, G20, G32)

We study a simple model of liquidity risk management in which a firm is subject to rollover risk. When a firm is unable to rollover its maturing bonds by issuing new bonds, it may have to seek more expensive sources of financing or even liquidate its assets, possibly at fire-sale prices. One way to reduce this risk is to hold excess cash reserves, which can be expensive in practice (Bengt Holmström and Jean Tirole 2000; 2001). In this paper, we focus on an alternative way of managing liquidity risk, through the optimal (dynamic) choice of the maturity structure of debt. Our analysis highlights one advantage of short-term financing. The firm, while in good financial health, can readjust its maturity structure more quickly in response to changes in its asset value. Ideally, the firm would secure long-term financing just prior to when its financial health may worsen. Through this strategy, the firm can secure financing for the longest continuous period possible without rollover failure, avoiding inefficient restructuring costs. Put differently, the objective of the firm with long-term assets is to maximize the effective maturity of its liabilities across several refinancing cycles, rather than to maximize the maturity of the current bonds outstanding.

We use data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics to investigate how households' portfolio allocations change in response to wealth fluctuations. Persistent habits, consumption commitments, and subsistence levels can generate time-varying risk aversion with the consequence that when the level of liquid wealth changes, the proportion a household invests in risky assets should also change in the same direction. In contrast, our analysis shows that the share of liquid assets that households invest in risky assets is not affected by wealth changes. Instead, one of the major drivers of household portfolio allocation seems to be inertia: households rebalance only very slowly following inflows and outflows or capital gains and losses. (JEL D14, D31)