We exploit the restrictions of intertemporal portfolio choice in the presence of nonfinancial income risk to test hedging using the information contained in the actual portfolio of the investor. We use a unique data set of Swedish investors with information broken down at the investor level and into various components of investor wealth, income, and demographic characteristics. Portfolio holdings are identified at the stock level. We show that investors do not hedge but invest in stocks closely related to their nonfinancial income. We explain this with familiarity, that is, the tendency to concentrate holdings in stocks to which the investor is geographically or professionally close or that he has held for a long period. We show that familiarity is not a behavioral bias, but is information driven. Familiarity-based investment allows investors to earn higher returns than they would have otherwise earned if they had hedged.

We exploit the restrictions of intertemporal portfolio choice in the presence of nonfinancial income risk to test hedging using the information contained in the actual portfolio of the investor. We use a unique data set of Swedish investors with information broken down at the investor level and into various components of investor wealth, income, and demographic characteristics. Portfolio holdings are identified at the stock level. We show that investors do not hedge but invest in stocks closely related to their nonfinancial income. We explain this with familiarity, that is, the tendency to concentrate holdings in stocks to which the investor is geographically or professionally close or that he has held for a long period. We show that familiarity is not a behavioral bias, but is information driven. Familiarity-based investment allows investors to earn higher returns than they would have otherwise earned if they had hedged.

We investigate whether mutual fund families strategically transfer performance across member funds to favor those more likely to increase overall family profits. We find that “high family value” funds (i.e., high fees or high past performers) overperform at the expense of “low value” funds. Such a performance gap is above the one existing between similar funds not affiliated with the same family. Better allocations of underpriced initial public offering deals and opposite trades across member funds partly explain why high value funds overperform. Our findings highlight how the family organization prevalent in the mutual fund industry generates distortions in delegated asset management.