Rational investors:

1. tend to be either overly optimistic or overly pessimistic.
2. cause stocks with similar risks to have similar expected returns.
3. always tend to undervalue stocks.
4. must include all investors if the market is to be efficient.
5. are all arbitrage traders

Mr. smith recently faced a choice between being (a) an economics profes-sor, which pays $60,000/yr, or (b) a safari leader, which pays $50,000/yr. after careful deliberation, smith took the safari job, but it was a close call. "for a dollar more," he said, "i'd have gone the other way."now smith's brother-in-law approaches him with a business proposition. the terms are as follows: - smith must resign his safari job to work full-time in his brother-in-law's business.- smith must give his brother-in-law an interest-free loan of $100,000, which will be repaid in full if and when smith leaves the business. (smith currently has much more than $100,000 in the the business will pay smith a salary of $70,000/yr. he will receive no other payment from the business. the interest rate is 10 percent per year. apart from salary considerations, smith feels that working in the business would be just as enjoyable as being an economics professor. for simplicity, assume there is no uncertainty regarding either smith's salary in the proposed business or the security of his monetary investment in it. should smith join his brother-in-law and, if so, how small would smith's salary from the business have to be to make it not worthwhile for him to join? if not, how large would smith's salary from the business have to be to make it worthwhile for him to join?

Petra contracted to paint bret’s house for $2,000. after beginning the job, petra realizes that the house is really quite big, and she’s not going to make enough profit, so she tells bret she wants another $500 to finish the job. bret doesn’t want to pay more, but he’s afraid that if she walks off the job, he’ll have trouble finding someone else to finish it, so he agrees. is bret legally obligated to pay the extra $500?

The new york times (nov. 30, 1993) reported that “the inability of opec to agree last week to cut production has sent the oil market into turmoil . . [leading to] the lowest price for domestic crude oil since june 1990.” why were the members of opec trying to agree to cut production? so they could save more oil for future consumption so they could lower the price so they could raise the price why do you suppose opec was unable to agree on cutting production? because each country has a different production capacity because each country experiences different production costs because each country has an incentive to cheat on any agreement the newspaper also noted opec’s view “that producing nations outside the organization, like norway and britain, should do their share and cut production.” what does the phrase “do their share” suggest about opec’s desired relationship with norway and britain? opec would like norway and britain to keep their production levels high. opec would like norway and britain to act competitively. opec would like norway and britain to join the cartel.