We consider a model in which the market period is divided into T rounds of trading, with the arrival of consumers determined exogenously. A monopolistic market maker sets the bid-price and the ask-price in each round, accepting all trades at the stated prices. Optimal prices remain constant when the aggregate supply and demand are known to the market maker, even if supplies and demands within individual rounds are not known. Examples illustrate the endogenous determination of inventory holding costs. The viability of a market-maker system is compared to an auction market with and without a “sophisticated” trader.

An imperfectly competitive economy is very prone to market uncertainty, including uncertainty about the liquidity (or “thickness”) of markets. We show, in particular, that there exist stochastic equilibrium outcomes in nonstochastic market games if (and only if) the endowments are not Pareto optimal. We also provide a link between extrinsic uncertainty arising in games (e.g. correlated equilibria) and extrinsic uncertainty in market economies (e.g. sunspot equilibria). A correlated equilibria to the market game is either a sunspot equilibrium or a non-sunspot equilibrium to the related securities games, but the converse is not true in general.

This paper studies a dynamic model of perfectly competitive price posting under demand uncertainty. Firms must produce output in advance. After observing aggregate sales in prior periods, firms post prices for their unsold output. In each period, the demand of a new batch of consumers is randomly activated. Existing customers who have not yet bought and then new customers arrive at the market in random order, observe the posted prices, and either purchase at the lowest available price or delay their purchase decision. We construct a sequential equilibrium in which the output produced and its allocation across consumers is efficient. Thus consumers endogenously sort themselves efficiently, with the highest valuations purchasing first. Transaction prices in each period rise continuously, as firms become more optimistic about demand, followed by a market correction. By the last period, prices are market clearing.

We analyze a banking system in which the class of feasible deposit contracts, or mechanisms, is broad. The mechanisms must satisfy a sequential service constraint, but partial or full suspension of convertibility is allowed. Consumers must be willing to deposit, ex ante. We show, by examples, that under the so‐called “optimal contract,” the postdeposit game can have a run equilibrium. Given a propensity to run, triggered by sunspots, the optimal contract for the full predeposit game can be consistent with runs that occur with positive probability. Thus the Diamond‐Dybvig framework can explain bank runs as emerging in equilibrium under the optimal deposit contract.

This paper offers a new theory of destructive competition. The authors compare minimum resale price maintenance to retail market-clearing in a model with a monopolistic manufacturer selling to competitive retailers. In both the resale price maintenance and flexible-price games, retailers must order inventories before the realization of demand uncertainty. The authors find that manufacturer profits and equilibrium inventories are higher under resale price maintenance than under market-clearing. Surprisingly, consumer surplus can also be higher, in which case unfettered retail competition can legitimately be called 'destructive.'

This paper offers a new theory of destructive competition. We compare minimum resale price maintenance (RPM) to retail market-clearing in a model with a monopolistic manufacturer selling to competitive retailers. In both the RPM and flexible-price games, retailers must order inventories before the realization of demand uncertainty. We find that manufacturer profits and equilibrium inventories are higher under RPM than under market-clearing. Surprisingly, consumer surplus can also be higher, in which case unfettered retail competition can legitimately be called "destructive."

We experimentally test an endogenous-timing investment model in which subjects privately observe their cost of investing and a signal correlated with the common investment return. Subjects overinvest, relative to Nash. We separately consider whether subjects draw inferences, in hindsight, and use foresight to delay profitable investment and learn from market activity. In contrast to Nash, cursed equilibrium, and level-k predictions, behavior hardly changes across our experimental treatments. Maximum likelihood estimates are inconsistent with belief-based theories. We offer an explanation in terms of boundedly rational rules of thumb, based on insights about the game, which provides a better fit than quantal response equilibrium.