I study a general class of noisy rational expectations models that nests the standard Grossman and Stiglitz (1980) and Hellwig (1980) models, but relaxes the usual assumption of joint normality of asset pay-offs and supply, and allows for more general signal structures. I provide a constructive proof of existence of equilibrium, characterize the price function, and provide sufficient conditions for uniqueness within the class of equilibria with continuous price functions, which are met by both the Grossman and Stiglitz (1980) models and the Hellwig (1980) models with a continuum of investors. My solution approach does not rely on the typical "conjecture and verify" method, and I exhibit a number of non-normal examples in which asset prices can be characterized explicitly and in a closed form. The results presented here open up a broad class of models for applied work. To illustrate the usefulness of generalizing the standard model, I show that in settings with non-normally distributed pay-offs, shocks to fundamentals may be amplified purely due to learning effects, price drifts can arise naturally, and the disagreement–return relation depends in a novel way on return skewness.

We allow a strategic trader to choose when to acquire information about an asset’s payoff, instead of endowing her with it. When the trader dynamically controls the precision of a flow of information, the optimal precision evolves stochastically and increases with market liquidity. Because the trader exploits her information gradually, the equilibrium price impact and market uncertainty are unaffected by her rate of acquisition. If she pays a fixed cost to acquire “lumpy” information at a time of her choosing, the market can break down: we show that no equilibria exist with endogenous information acquisition. Our analysis suggests caution when applying insights from standard strategic trading models to settings with information acquisition.

We study how dynamic research affects information acquisition in financial markets. In our strategic trading model, the trader performs costly research to generate private information but does not always succeed. Optimal research activity responds to market conditions and generates novel implications. First, more frequent public disclosures can “crowd in” private information acquisition, increase price informativeness, and harm liquidity, instead of “leveling the playing field.” Second, observed research activity does not necessarily imply that traders are better informed. Finally, improvements in research effectiveness or higher market participation by uninformed investors can simultaneously increase price informativeness and liquidity.

We model the “feedback effect” of a firm's stock price on investment in projects exposed to a systematic risk factor, like climate risk. The stock price reflects information about both the project's cash flows and its discount rate. A cash‐flow‐maximizing manager treats discount rate fluctuations as “noise,” but a price‐maximizing manager interprets such variation as information about the project's net present value. This difference qualitatively changes how investment behavior varies with the project's risk exposure. Moreover, traditional objectives (e.g., cash flow or price maximization) need not maximize welfare because they do not correctly account for hedging and risk‐sharing benefits of investment.

We study debt and equity valuation when investors have private information and may exhibit differences of opinion. Our model generates several predictions that are consistent with empirical evidence but difficult to reconcile with traditional models. Belief dispersion relates to expected equity and debt returns in opposite directions. Similarly, expected debt (equity) returns typically increase (decrease) with default risk, though these relationships reverse for firms close to bankruptcy. Firms’ capital structures affect their valuations even without classical capital structure frictions (e.g., tax shields, distress costs) – when liquidity is higher in the equity than in the debt market, leverage can raise firm value.