ABSTRACT We examine the effect of segmented commodity markets on the relation between forward and future spot exchange rates in a dynamic economy. We calculate the slope coefficient in our theoretical economy from regressing exchange rate changes on forward premia. With reasonable parameter values, the slope coefficient is less than unity. However, even for extreme parameters the slope is not less than zero, as found in the data. A negative slope coefficient in a nominal version of the model requires the covariance between monetary shocks and relative output shocks to be significantly negative, in contrast to the covariance in the data.

We examine the effect of segmented commodity markets on the relation between forward and future spot exchange rates in a dynamic economy. We calculate the slope coefficient in our theoretical economy from regressing exchange rate changes on forward premia. With reasonable parameter values, the slope coefficient is less than unity. However, even for extreme parameters the slope is not less than zero, as found in the data. A negative slope coefficient in a nominal version of the model requires the covariance between monetary shocks and relative output shocks to be significantly negative, in contrast to the covariance in the data.

We provide empirical restrictions of a model of optimal order submissions in a limit order market. A trader's optimal order submission depends on the trader's valuation for the asset and the trade-offs between order prices, execution probabilities and picking off risks. The optimal order submission strategy is a monotone function of a trader's valuation for the asset. We test the monotonicity restriction in a sample of order submissions and their realized outcomes from the Stockholm Stock Exchange. We do not reject the monotonicity restriction for buy orders or sell orders considered separately, but reject the monotonicity restriction for buy and sell orders considered jointly.

When investors disagree, speculation between them alters equilibrium prices in financial markets. Because managers maximize firm value given financial market prices, disagreement alters firms' value-maximizing investment policies. Disagreement therefore impacts aggregate investment, consumption, and output. In a production economy with recursive preferences and disasters, we demonstrate that static disagreement among investors generates dynamic aggregate investment that is positively correlated with capital shocks, leading to stochastic volatility in aggregate consumption, investment, and equity returns. The direction of these effects is consistent with business cycle facts, and with several features of the 2008 financial crisis.

ABSTRACT We present a method to estimate the gains from trade in limit‐order markets and provide empirical evidence that the limit‐order market is a good market design. Using observations on order submissions and execution and cancellation histories, we estimate both the distribution of traders' unobserved valuations for the stock and latent trader arrival rates. We use the resulting estimates to compute the current gains from trade, the gains from trade in a perfectly liquid market, and the gains from trade with a monopoly liquidity supplier. The current gains are 90% of the maximum gains and 150% of the monopolist gains.