Abstract This paper studies the effect of investor-specific differential dividend taxation on the dynamics of equilibrium security prices and allocations. In order to deal with the inherent Pareto inefficiency of such an equilibrium as well as the preclusion of tax arbitrage, we construct a continuous-time equilibrium via a representative investor with state-dependent utility. Investors differ in their pricing of risk, inducing investor-specific consumption-based CAPMs, with differential taxation appearing as an additional factor. The interest rate, stock price, and consumption dynamics are also impacted. Under logarithmic preferences, risk is transferred from the higher-taxed to the lower-taxed investor, and the interest rate decreases to counteract extra precautionary savings against this suboptimally shared risk. Numerical analysis reveals further tax rate, time-to-horizon, and dividend risk effects on equilibrium quantities. For most wealth allocations, the stock return volatility is increased above the no-tax benchmark. JEL classification codes: G10, G12, D51, D58, H20

Do stocks bear a crash risk premium? We examine the empirical performance of the tail index measure from Kelly and Jiang (2014). We find that the tail index explains the cross-section of the discount rate component of returns, but not the cash-flow component. Moreover, in the time series the tail index is uncorrelated with theoretically motivated measures of aggregate uncertainty and systemic risk. In contrast, the tail index Granger causes and is Granger caused by the level of the term structure, and the slope of the term structure Granger causes tail risk. Received June 22, 2016; editorial decision December 23, 2017 by Editor Raman Uppal.

We study the consumption-portfolio problem in a setting with capital gain taxes and multiple risky stocks to understand how short selling influences portfolio choice with a shorting-the-box restriction. Our analysis uncovers a novel trading flexibility strategy whereby, to minimize future tax-induced trading costs, the investor optimally shorts one of the stocks (or equivalently, buys put options) even when no stock has an embedded gain. Alternatively, an imperfect form of shorting the box can reduce aggregate equity exposure ex post. Given these two short selling strategies, it is common for an unconstrained investor to short some equity while a constrained investor holds a positive investment in all stocks. With no shorting, the benefit of trading separately in multiple stocks is not economically significant.

Abstract 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 show theoretically that optimism can lead a risk-averse Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to choose the first-best investment level that maximizes shareholder value. Optimism below (above) the interior optimum leads the CEO to underinvest (overinvest). Hence, if boards of directors act in the interests of shareholders, CEOs with relatively low or high optimism face a higher probability of forced turnover than moderately optimistic CEOs face. Using a large sample of turnovers, we find strong empirical support for this prediction. The results are consistent with the view that there is an interior optimum level of managerial optimism that maximizes firm value.