In an experimental setting when outcomes are stochastically related to actions, predictions of equilibrium behavior depend not only on the participants' preference orderings of outcomes, but also on their orderings of lotteries on outcomes as well. We introduce and test a reward structure that can be utilized in any experimental setting to allow the experimenter to decree beforehand the subjects' preferences for lotteries on experimental outcomes. We show analytically that the proposed reward structure can induce subjects to behave as if they have the decreed preference function defined on experimental outcomes. Empirical tests using two different choice settings provide evidence to support this ability to control preferences.

In this paper, we test the arbitrage pricing theory (APT) in an international setting. Inter‐battery factor analysis is used to estimate the international common factors and the Chow test is used in testing the validity of the APT. Our inter‐battery factor analysis results show that the number of common factors between a pair of countries ranges from one to five, and our cross‐sectional test results lead us to reject the joint hypothesis that the international capital market is integrated and that the APT is internationally valid. Our results, however, do not rule out the possibility that the APT holds locally or regionally in segmented capital markets. Finally, the basic results of both the inter‐battery factor analysis and the cross‐sectional tests are largely invariant to the numeraire currency chosen.

In a corporation with many small owners, it may not pay any one of them to monitor the performance of the management. We explore a model in which the presence of a large minority shareholder provides a partial solution to this free-rider problem. The model sheds light on the following questions: Under what circumstances will we observe a tender offer as opposed to a proxy fight or an internal management shake-up? How strong are the forces pushing toward increasing concentration of ownership of a diffusely held firm? Why do corporate and personal investors commonly hold stock in the same firm, despite their disparate tax preferences?