The value premium is relatively small for investors with a material fixed-income exposure, such as insurance companies and pension funds, especially when they are downside-risk-averse. Value stocks are less attractive to these investors because they offer a relatively poor hedge against poor bond returns. This result arises for plausible, medium-term evaluation horizons of around one year. Our findings cast doubt on the practical relevance of the value premium for these investors and reiterate the importance of the choice of the relevant test portfolio, risk measure and investment horizon in empirical tests of market portfolio efficiency.

We examine the risky choices of contestants in the popular TV game show "Deal or No Deal" and related classroom experiments. Contrary to the traditional view of expected utility theory, the choices can be explained in large part by previous outcomes experienced during the game. Risk aversion decreases after earlier expectations have been shattered by unfavorable outcomes or surpassed by favorable outcomes. Our results point to reference-dependent choice theories such as prospect theory, and suggest that path-dependence is relevant, even when the choice problems are simple and well defined, and when large real monetary amounts are at stake.