Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T20:48:59.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Labor Income, Relative Wealth Concerns, and the Cross Section of Stock Returns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2016

Juan-Pedro Gómez ,
Richard Priestley  and
Fernando Zapatero
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The finance literature documents a relation between labor income and the cross section of stock returns. One possible explanation for this is the hedging decisions of investors with relative wealth concerns. This implies a negative risk premium associated with stock returns correlated with local undiversifiable wealth because investors are willing to pay more for stocks that help their hedging goals. We find evidence that is consistent with these regularities. In addition, we show that the effect varies across geographic areas depending on the size and variability of undiversifiable wealth, proxied by labor income.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , August 2016 , pp. 1111 - 1133
Copyright
Copyright © Michael G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abel, A. B.“Asset Prices under Habit Formation and Catching Up with the Joneses.” American Economic Review, 80 (1990), 38–42.Google Scholar
Bernile, G.; Korniotis, G.; Kumar, A.; and Wang, Q.. “Local Business Cycles and Local Liquidity.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 50 (2015), 987–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J.; Ivković, Z.; Smith, P.; and Weisbenner, S.. “Neighbors Matter: Causal Community Effects and Stock Market Participation.” Journal of Finance, 63 (2008), 1509–1531.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. Y.“Understanding Risk and Return.” Journal of Political Economy, 104 (1996), 298–345.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. Y., and Cochrane, J. H.. “By Force of Habit: A Consumption-Based Explanation of Aggregate Stock Market Behavior.” Journal of Political Economy, 107 (1999), 205–251.Google Scholar
Coval, J., and Moskowitz, T.. “Home Bias at Home: Local Equity Preference in Domestic Portfolios.” Journal of Finance, 54 (1999), 2045–2074.Google Scholar
Daniel, K., and Titman, S.. “Testing Factor-Model Explanations of Market Anomalies.” Critical Finance Review, 1 (2012), 103–139.Google Scholar
DeMarzo, P.; Kaniel, R.; and Kremer, I.. “Diversification as a Public Good: Community Effects in Portfolio Choice.” Journal of Finance, 59 (2004), 1677–1716.Google Scholar
DeMarzo, P.; Kaniel, R.; and Kremer, I.. “Technological Innovation and Real Investment Booms and Busts.” Journal of Financial Economics, 85 (2007), 735–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeMarzo, P.; Kaniel, R.; and Kremer, I.. “Relative Wealth Concerns and Financial Bubbles.” Review of Financial Studies, 21 (2008), 19–50.Google Scholar
Fama, E., and French, K.. “The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns.” Journal of Finance, 47 (1992), 427–465.Google Scholar
Fama, E., and MacBeth, J.. “Risk, Return, and Equilibrium: Empirical Tests.” Journal of Political Economy, 81 (1973), 607–636.Google Scholar
French, K., and Poterba, J.. “Investor Diversification and International Equity Markets.” American Economic Review, 81 (1991), 222–226.Google Scholar
Galí, J.“Keeping Up with the Joneses: Consumption Externalities, Portfolio Choice, and Asset Prices.” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 26 (1994), 1–8.Google Scholar
García, D., and Strobl, G.. “Relative Wealth Concerns and Complementarities in Information Acquisition.” Review of Financial Studies, 24 (2011), 169–207.Google Scholar
Gómez, J.-P.“The Impact of Keeping Up with the Joneses Behavior on Asset Prices and Portfolio Choice.” Finance Research Letters, 4 (2007), 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez, J.-P.; Priestley, R.; and Zapatero, F.. “Implications of Keeping Up with the Joneses Behavior for the Equilibrium Cross-Section of Stock Returns: International Evidence.” Journal of Finance, 64 (2009), 2703–2737.Google Scholar
Hansen, L.“Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method of Moments Estimators.” Econometrica, 50 (1982), 1029–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, H.; Kubik, J.; and Stein, J.. “The Only Game in Town: Stock-Price Consequences of Local Bias.” Journal of Financial Economics, 90 (2008), 20–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huberman, G.“Familiarity Breeds Investment.” Review of Financial Studies, 14 (2001), 659–680.Google Scholar
Ivković, Z., and Weisbenner, S.. “Local Does as Local Is: Information Content of the Geography of Individual Investors’ Common Stock Investments.” Journal of Finance, 60 (2005), 281–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jagannathan, R., and Wang, Z.. “The Conditional CAPM and the Cross-Section of Expected Returns.” Journal of Finance, 51 (1996), 3–53.Google Scholar
Johnson, T.“Inequality Risk Premia.” Journal of Monetary Economics, 59 (2012), 565–580.Google Scholar
Korniotis, G.“Habit Formation, Incomplete Markets, and the Significance of Regional Risk for Expected Returns.” Review of Financial Studies, 21 (2008), 2139–2172.Google Scholar
Korniotis, G., and Kumar, A.. “Long Georgia, Short Colorado? The Geography of Return Predictability.” Working Paper, University of Miami (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lettau, M., and Ludvigson, S.. “Resurrecting the (C)CAPM: A Cross-Sectional Test When Risk Premia Are Time-Varying.” Journal of Political Economy, 109 (2001a), 1238–1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lettau, M., and Ludvigson, S.. “Consumption, Aggregate Wealth, and Expected Stock Returns.” Journal of Finance, 56 (2001b), 815–849.Google Scholar
Lewellen, J.; Nagel, S.; and Shanken, J.. “A Skeptical Appraisal of Asset-Pricing Tests.” Journal of Financial Economics, 96 (2010), 175–194.Google Scholar
Lewis, K.“Trying to Explain Home Bias in Equities and Consumption.” Journal of Economic Literature, 37 (1999), 571–608.Google Scholar
Massa, M., and Simonov, A.. “Hedging, Familiarity and Portfolio Choice.” Review of Financial Studies, 19 (2006), 633–685.Google Scholar
Mayers, D.“Nonmarketable Assets and Capital Market Equilibrium under Uncertainty.” In Studies in the Theory of Capital Markets, Jensen, M., ed. New York, NY: Praeger (1972).Google Scholar
Ravina, E.“Habit Persistence and Keeping Up with the Joneses: Evidence from Micro Data.” Working Paper, Columbia University (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roussanov, N.“Diversification and Its Discontents: Idiosyncratic and Entrepreneurial Risk in the Quest for Social Status.” Journal of Finance, 65 (2010), 1755–1788.Google Scholar
Santos, T., and Veronesi, P.. “Labor Income and Predictable Stock Returns.” Review of Financial Studies, 19 (2006), 1–44.Google Scholar
Shemesh, J., and Zapatero, F.. “The Intensity of Keeping Up with the Joneses: Evidence from Neighbor Effects in Car Purchases.” Working Paper, University of Southern California (2016).Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Gómez supplementary material

Gómez supplementary material 1

Download Gómez supplementary material(File)
File 1.2 MB