We examine whether natural disaster experiences affect households’ portfolio choice decisions. Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979, we find that adversely affected households are less likely to participate in risky asset markets. After a disaster shock, households become more risk-averse and lower their expectations on future stock market returns. Such conservative portfolio choices persist even after households relocate to less disaster-prone areas, consistent with risk preferences being altered by disaster experiences. Overall, our evidence suggests that transient but salient experiences can be an important factor in explaining the limited participation puzzle.

We examine the predictability of stock returns using implied volatility spreads (VS) from individual (nonindex) options. VS can occur under simple no-arbitrage conditions for American options when volatility is time-varying, suggesting that the VS-return predictability could be an artifact of firms’ sensitivities to aggregate volatility. Examining this empirically, we find that the predictability changes systematically with aggregate volatility and is positively related to the firms’ sensitivities to volatility risk. The alpha generated by VS hedge portfolios can be explained by aggregate volatility risk factors. Our results cannot be explained by firm-specific informed trading, transaction costs, or liquidity.

We study how firms alter investment projects to mitigate exposure to political uncertainty. We examine deal-level merger data and find that, in addition to delaying and forgoing merger announcements, acquirers shift merger announcements earlier in time to avoid the period between announcement and effective dates overlapping an election, shift targets geographically away from election states, decrease the size of election-year deals, and shift from equity to cash financing for election-year deals. These results are stronger for acquirers with tighter financial constraints and deals more likely to be financed with equity and show financing matters to firms’ responses to election uncertainty.