ABSTRACT We show that characterizing the effects of housing on portfolios requires distinguishing between the effects of home equity and mortgage debt. We isolate exogenous variation in home equity and mortgages by using differences across housing markets in house prices and housing supply elasticities as instruments. Increases in property value (holding home equity constant) reduce stockholdings, while increases in home equity wealth (holding property value constant) raise stockholdings. The stock share of liquid wealth would rise by 1 percentage point—6% of the mean stock share—if a household were to spend 10% less on its house, holding fixed wealth.

Rothstein (2017) successfully replicates Chetty, Friedman, and Rockoff's (2014a, b)—henceforth, CFR's—results using data from North Carolina, but raises concerns about CFR's methods. We show that Rothstein's methodological critiques are invalid by presenting simulations and supplementary empirical evidence which show that (i) his preferred imputation of missing data generates bias; (ii) his “placebo test” rejects valid research designs; and (iii) his method of controlling for covariates yields inconsistent estimates of teachers' long-term effects. Consistent with the conclusions of Bacher-Hicks, Kane, and Staiger (2016) using data from Los Angeles, we conclude that Rothstein's replication study ultimately reinforces CFR's methods and results. (JEL H75, I21, J45)