This paper models an individual's trading decision, given: (1) his/her demand function to hold shares of an asset, (2) his/her expectation on what the market clearing price will be, and (3) the design of the market which determines how orders will be translated into trades. The particular market design we consider is the batched trading (periodic call) regime. Assuming investors are distributed according to their propensities to hold shares, we model the aggregation of orders to obtain market clearing values of price and volume and to show the way in which, with trading friction, these solutions differ from Pareto efficient values. The importance of this analysis for various issues concerning market design is noted.

The purposes of this paper are twofold. The first is to demonstrate that the expected utility hypothesis is a reasonable description of behavior for consumers who face a low-probability, high-loss natural hazard event, given that they have adequate information. The second is to demonstrate that in California information non earthquake hazards was generated by a 1974 state law that created a market for safe housing that previously did not exist.

The Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT) has been proposed as an alternative to the mean‐variance Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). This paper considers the testability of the APT and points out the irrelevance for testing of the approximation error. We refute Shanken's objections, including his assertion that Roll's critique of the CAPM is applicable to the APT. We also explain the testability of the APT on subsets, and we explore the relationship between the APT and the CAPM.