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.

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.

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.

We use the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Housing Choice Voucher program as a setting to evaluate the interaction of homeownership and race on the wealth accumulation of low-income households. Using a within-treatment difference-in-differences framework, we establish that low-income households that receive assistance in owning a home experience increased wealth accumulation relative to their tenure as renters. These wealth gains are not present among low-income minority households. Our findings provide evidence that homeownership is a driver of wealth formation for low-income households and that homeownership does not inherently reduce racial disparities in wealth.

We construct a panel of S&P 500 Index call and put option portfolios, daily adjusted to maintain targeted maturity, moneyness, and unit market beta, and test multi-factor pricing models. The standard linear factor methodology is applicable because the monthly portfolio returns have low skewness and are close to normal. We hypothesize that any one of crisis-related factors incorporating price jumps, volatility jumps, and liquidity (along with the market) explains the cross-sectional variation in returns. Our hypothesis is not rejected, even when the factor premia are constrained to equal the corresponding premia in the cross-section of equities. The alphas of short-maturity out-of-the-money puts become economically and statistically insignificant.

From 2007 to 2016, S&P 500 firms distributed $7 trillion via buybacks and dividends, over 96% of their aggregate net income, prompting claims that “short-termism” is impairing firms’ ability to invest and innovate. We show that, accounting for both direct and indirect equity issuances, net shareholder payouts by all public firms during this period totaled only 41% of net income. And, during this decade, investment substantially increased while cash balances ballooned. In short, S&P 500 shareholder-payout figures cannot provide much basis for the notion that short-termism has been depriving public firms of needed capital. Received September 23, 2018; Editorial decision November 13, 2018; Editor Andrew Ellul

We present a comprehensive analysis of the performance and flows of U.S. actively managed equity mutual funds during the 2020 COVID-19 crisis. We find that most active funds underperform passive benchmarks during the crisis, contradicting a popular hypothesis. Funds with high sustainability ratings perform well, as do funds with high star ratings. Fund outflows surpass precrisis trends, but not dramatically. Investors favor funds that apply exclusion criteria and funds with high sustainability ratings, especially environmental ones. Our finding that investors remain focused on sustainability during this major crisis suggests they view sustainability as a necessity rather than a luxury good.

Global turnover in foreign exchange markets averaged $1.2 trillion per day according to the most recent estimates available from the Bank for International Settlements. 1 Yet, cross-border trade of goods and services accounts for less than 5 percent of the total trading. While it is difficult to get precise estimates on hedging, roughly 20 percent of total trading is aimed at hedging against future exchange rate changes. The remaining roughly 75 percent of total turnover in global foreign exchange markets is believed to be related to short or long term exchange rate speculation. The large fraction of global turnover in currency markets that is unrelated to trade or hedging has lead economists and policy markets to the conjecture that speculation is responsible for the perceived recent increase in volatility in foreign exchange markets. Several economists, most prominently Nobel Laureate Dr. James Tobin, have advocated levying a tax (a "Tobin tax") on foreign exchange transactions to reduce volatility induced by exchange rate speculation. Recently, several European countries spearheaded by France have debated a proposed legislation to impose a tax on currency transactions. 2 However, to date, there is no strong empirical evidence that an increase in transactions costs (which would be the result of a Tobin tax) would significantly dampen volatility. On the contrary, This is the first piece of legislation in the world that would implement a Tobin-type tax. Belgium passed similar legislation in March, 2002, and several other European Union member countries have debated a Tobin tax. See www.currencytax.org.

The strength of economic theory is that it can look at the hypothetical rather than merely ex-post rationalize observed behavior. In particular, it can ask the 'what if' question of how changes in model parameters might affect efficiency and social welfare. Based on the answer, it can then suggest welfare-improving policy measures in situations in which privately optimal outcomes are socially inefficient.