In writing this paper I benefited greatly from information provided by visiting scholars (at Berkeley) from the Soviet Union, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Yugoslavia. To them, and to the following friends and colleagues, I am deeply indebted not only for stimulating discussions and research cooperation but also for observations based on personal experience-particularly on issues of fundamental disagreement: Carlo M. Cipolla, Gerard Debreu, Howard S. Ellis, Oldrich Kyn, Abba P. Lerner, Mark Perlman, Richard Roehl, and Benjamin Ward.

Loss aversion is one of the most widely used concepts in behavioral economics. We conduct a large-scale, interdisciplinary meta-analysis to systematically accumulate knowledge from numerous empirical estimates of the loss aversion coefficient reported from 1992 to 2017. We examine 607 empirical estimates of loss aversion from 150 articles in economics, psychology, neuroscience, and several other disciplines. Our analysis indicates that the mean loss aversion coefficient is 1.955 with a 95 percent probability that the true value falls in the interval [1.820, 2.102]. We record several observable characteristics of the study designs. Few characteristics are substantially correlated with differences in the mean estimates. (JEL D81, D91)

I estimate the welfare benefits of eliminating idiosyncratic consumption shocks in the United States related (unrelated) to the business cycle as 36%–39% (lower than 1%) of household utility. Estimates of the former exceed earlier ones because I distinguish between idiosyncratic shocks related/unrelated to the business cycle, estimate the negative skewness of shocks, target moments of idiosyncratic shocks from household-level CEX data, and target market moments. Benefits of eliminating aggregate shocks are lower than 1% of utility. Policy should facilitate the insurance of idiosyncratic shocks related to the business cycle, such as job layoffs, with proof that individuals diligently seek suitable employment during periods of unemployment. (JEL D31, D52, E32, E44, G01, G12)

Asset pricing models predict a strong connection between the real risk-free interest rate and the macroeconomy, but prior research finds little empirical support for the connection when examining expected growth. This paper documents a robust relation between the interest rate and macroeconomic uncertainty (i.e., conditional variance). Consistent with precautionary savings, high uncertainty is associated with a low interest rate using numerous data sources, time periods, and measures. A relation between habit and the interest rate disappears after including uncertainty, and the relation is stronger using long-run uncertainty. The results imply that analyses of the interest rate without uncertainty are seriously incomplete.

We use bank-firm matched data to study how the capital buffers that large U.S. banks must satisfy to “pass” the Federal Reserve's stress tests impact banks’ lending and firms’ loan volumes, overall debt, investment, and employment. We find that larger stress-test capital buffers lead to reductions in banks’ lending, modest increases in loan rates and spreads, and reductions in new loan originations. However, we do not find an impact of higher capital buffers on firms’ overall debt, investment, and employment, suggesting that firms find other credit sources to substitute for the reduction in loans from banks that participate in the stress tests.

We find that the degree of expected idiosyncratic skewness in seasoned equity issuers’ stock returns is an important determinant of flotation costs and subsequent abnormal stock performance. High skewness issuers incur significantly greater offer price discounts, particularly when institutional share allocation is largest, pay higher gross underwriting spreads, and exhibit poorer stock performance in the three years after issuance, all compared to low skewness issuers. These results suggest that skewness-induced overpricing increases the flotation costs of seasoned equity offers and leads to poor subsequent stock performance. Received November 18, 2014; accepted December 17, 2015 by Editor Paolo Fulghieri.

Contrary to the predictions of traditional life-cycle models, household consumption is excessively sensitive to current income. Similarly, weak evidence of income hedging runs against standard portfolio theory. We link these two puzzles by modifying the theoretical framework of Viceira (2001) to study how consumption-income sensitivities generated by income in the utility function affect households' portfolio choices. Empirically, we find that consumption-income sensitivities affect asset allocation through the income hedging channel. In particular, we show that the interaction between consumption-income sensitivity and the correlation of income growth to stock market returns is an important explanatory variable for households' stock market holdings. Received October 20, 2016; editorial decision April 25, 2018 by Editor Wayne Ferson.

We contribute to identifying proxies for the information set of investors in financial markets. We show that the marketwide price-dividend ratio highly correlates with inflation and labor market variables that also forecast consumption, dividend, and GDP growth, but not with aggregate consumption or GDP growth. Our model with learning from inflation and wage earnings rationalizes the moments of consumption and dividend growth, market return, the price-dividend ratio, real and nominal term structures, the low predictive power of the price-dividend ratio for consumption and dividends, and the dynamics of the price-dividend ratio, unlike a nested model with learning from consumption alone. (JEL E3, G12, G14)