This paper examines how employee earnings respond to a one-time cash flow shock in the form of a government R&D grant. In a regression discontinuity design, we find that the grant immediately increases average annual employee-level earnings by 2.9%. This benefit accrues only to incumbent employees and rises with job tenure. The grant also affects firm growth, but the initial wage patterns do not appear to reflect growth or productivity. Instead, the evidence supports implicit equity financing within the firm, where employees initially accept lower wages from financially constrained firms and earn more when the firm has ability to pay. Authors have furnished an Internet Appendix, which is available on the Oxford University Press Web site next to the link to the final published paper online.

We analyze early-venture fundraising from dispersed, endogenously informed investors. An entrepreneur chooses a payoff-maximizing offering, and investors communicate their information by either contributing capital or abstaining. The entrepreneur uses the information conveyed by fundraising amounts to decide whether or not to undertake a risky venture. His decision threshold hedges investors against bad projects, creating a “loser’s blessing” that encourages contributing without information. Making the offering less attractive to investors mitigates the loser’s blessing but can give rise to a winner’s curse. Both tensions reduce financing efficiency. Authors have furnished an Internet Appendix, which is available on the Oxford University Press Web site next to the link to the final published paper online.

ABSTRACT This work compares a dealer market and a limit‐order book. Dealers commonly observe order flow and collect information from multiple market orders. They may be better informed than other traders, although they do not earn rents from this information. Dealers earn rents as suppliers of liquidity, and their decisions to enter or exit the market are independent of the degree of adverse selection. Introduction of a limit‐order book lowers the execution‐price risk faced by speculators and leads them to trade more aggressively on their information. Introduction of the book also lowers dealer profits, but increases the informational efficiency of prices.

This work compares a dealer market and a limit-order book. Dealers commonly observe order flow and collect information from multiple market orders. They may be better informed than other traders, although they do not earn rents from this information. Dealers earn rents as suppliers of liquidity, and their decisions to enter or exit the market are independent of the degree of adverse selection. Introduction of a limit-order book lowers the execution-price risk faced by speculators and leads them to trade more aggressively on their information. Introduction of the book also lowers dealer profits, but increases the informational efficiency of prices.

Utility-based models of asset pricing may be estimated with or without assuming a distribution for security returns; both approaches are developed and compared here. The chief strength of a parametric estimator lies in its computational simplicity and statistical efficiency when the added distributional assumption is true. In contrast, the nonparametric estimator is robust to departures from any particular distribution, and it is more consistent with the spirit underlying utility-based asset pricing models since the distribution of asset returns remains unspecified even in the empirical work. The nonparametric approach turns out to be easy to implement with precision nearly indistinguishable from its parametric counterpart in this particular application. The application shows that log utility is consistent with the data over the period 1926–1981.

ABSTRACT Utility‐based models of asset pricing may be estimated with or without assuming a distribution for security returns; both approaches are developed and compared here. The chief strength of a parametric estimator lies in its computational simplicity and statistical efficiency when the added distributional assumption is true. In contrast, the nonparametric estimator is robust to departures from any particular distribution, and it is more consistent with the spirit underlying utility‐based asset pricing models since the distribution of asset returns remains unspecified even in the empirical work. The nonparametric approach turns out to be easy to implement with precision nearly indistinguishable from its parametric counterpart in this particular application. The application shows that log utility is consistent with the data over the period 1926–1981.

Non-fundamental demand shocks have significant effects on asset prices, but observing these shocks is challenging. We use the exchange-traded fund (ETF) primary market to study non-fundamental demand. Unique to the ETF market, specialized arbitrageurs called authorized participants correct violations of the law of one price between an ETF and its underlying assets by creating or redeeming ETF shares. We show theoretically and empirically that creation and redemption activities (ETF flows) provide signals of non-fundamental demand shocks. A portfolio that is short high-flow ETFs and long low-flow ETFs earns excess returns of 1.1–2.0% per month, consistent with non-fundamental demand distorting asset prices away from fundamental values. Moreover, we show non-fundamental demand imposes non-trivial costs on investors, leading to underperformance.

We investigate the optimal savings decisions for investors with access to pre-tax (traditional) and post-tax (Roth) versions of tax-advantaged retirement accounts. The model features a progressive tax schedule and uncertainty over future tax rates. Traditional accounts are valuable for hedging retirement account performance and managing current income near tax-bracket cutoffs, whereas Roth accounts allow investors to mitigate uncertainty over future tax schedules. The optimal asset location policy for most households involves diversifying between traditional and Roth vehicles. Contrary to conventional advice, the substantial economic benefits from Roth investments are not limited to investors with low current income.