I show that when an issuer has superior information about the value of its assets, it is better off selling assets separately rather than as a pool due to the information destruction effect of pooling. If, however, the issuer can create a derivative security that is collateralized by the assets, pooling and “tranching” may be optimal. If the residual risk of each asset is not highly correlated, tranching allows the issuer to exploit the risk diversification effect of pooling to create a low-risk and highly liquid security. In contrast, for an uninformed seller, pure pooling reduces underpricing and is preferred to separate asset sales. These results lead to a dynamic model of financial intermediation: originators sell pools of assets, some of which are purchased by informed intermediaries who then further pool and tranche them. Pooling and tranching allow intermediaries to leverage their capital more efficiently, enhancing the returns to their private information.

We present a rational general equilibrium model that highlights the fact that relative wealth concerns can play a role in explaining financial bubbles. We consider a finite-horizon overlapping generations model in which agents care only about their consumption. Though the horizon is finite, competition over future investment opportunities makes agents' utilities dependent on the wealth of their cohort and induces relative wealth concerns. Agents herd into risky securities and drive down their expected return. Even though the bubble is likely to burst and lead to a substantial loss, agents' relative wealth concerns make them afraid to trade against the crowd.

We characterize equilibrium leverage dynamics in a trade‐off model in which the firm can continuously adjust leverage and cannot commit to a policy ex ante. While the leverage ratchet effect leads shareholders to issue debt gradually over time, asset growth and debt maturity cause leverage to mean‐revert slowly toward a target. Investors anticipate future debt issuance and raise credit spreads, fully offsetting the tax benefits of new debt. Shareholders are therefore indifferent toward the debt maturity structure, even though their choice significantly affects credit spreads, leverage levels, the speed of adjustment, future investment, and growth.