We use a detailed panel data set of Swedish households to investigate the relation between their labor income risk and financial investment decisions. In particular, we relate changes in wage volatility to changes in the portfolio holdings for households that switched industries between 1999 and 2002. We find that households do adjust their portfolio holdings when switching jobs, which is consistent with the idea that households hedge their human capital risk in the stock market. The results are statistically and economically significant. A household going from an industry with low wage volatility to one with high volatility ceteris paribus decreases its portfolio share of risky assets by up to 35%, or $15,575.

Contrary to the theoretical principle that higher risk is compensated with higher expected return, the literature shows that low-risk stocks outperform high-risk stocks. Using a large-scale household dataset, we provide an explanation for this puzzling result that the anomalous negative risk-return relation is only confined to those stocks predominantly held by rich households, whereas the anomaly disappears for stocks held by non-rich households and institutional investors. We find that social status concern of rich households and the induced lottery preference explain wealthy investors’ demand for high-risk stocks, leading to overpricing and low future returns for such stocks.