As was shown by Dewatripont, optimal long-term contracts under asymmetric information are generally not time-consistent. This paper fully characterizes the equilibrium of a two-period procurement model with commitment and renegotiation. It also analyzes whether renegotiated long-term contracts yield outcomes resembling those under either unrenegotiated long-term contracts or a sequence of short-term contracts, and links the analysis with the multiple unit durable good monopoly problem.

This paper develops a normative model of regulatory policy toward bypass and cream skimming. It analyzes the effects of bypass on second-degree price discrimination, on the rent of the regulated firm, and on the welfare of low-demand customers. It shows that pricing under marginal cost may be optimal for the regulated firm, excessive cream skimming occurs if access to the bypass technology is not regulated, and the prohibition of bypass may increase or decrease the regulated firm's rent.

We study the behavior of a large trader with private information about the mean of an asset with a risky return. We argue that if the variability of the return is not too great, typically the trader will find it desirable to ensure that the market price does not reveal his information, that is, that a "pooling" equilibrium arises. Such an equilibrium has the advantage of avoiding the incentive constraints that arise in "separating" equilibria, where information can be inferred from prices. Thus the efficient market hypothesis may well fail if there is imperfect competition. Despite the uniformativeness of prices, the other (competitive) traders are also better off in the pooling equilibrium than in any separating equilibrium, again if one assumes limited variability.

We study the behavior of a large trader with private information about the mean of an asset with a risky return. We argue that if the variability of the return is not too great, typically the trader will find it desirable to ensure that the market price does not reveal his information, that is, that a "pooling" equilibrium arises. Such an equilibrium has the advantage of avoiding the incentive constraints that arise in "separating" equilibria, where information can be inferred from prices. Thus the efficient market hypothesis may well fail if there is imperfect competition. Despite the uniformativeness of prices, the other (competitive) traders are also better off in the pooling equilibrium than in any separating equilibrium, again if one assumes limited variability.