Abstract:At least one co-author has disclosed a financial relationship of potential relevance for this research. Further information is available online at http://www.nber.org/papers/w22209.ack NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.
“…This will result in a risk-return tradeoff that resembles the standard case. Further, Hoopes et al (2017) show evidence that investors do react to changes in volatility with more sophisticated investors (e.g., those in highest income brackets) responding most quickly. That is, it does not appear agents are not aware and do not act on changes in volatility.…”
Section: Alternative Explanationsmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Finally, both the individual survey evidence from Giglio et al (2019) and the evidence on actual trading behavior in Hoopes et al (2017) suggest that heterogeneity in beliefs about risk is important, though our model features a representative agent.…”
Section: Model Shortcomings and Extensionsmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Giglio et al (2019) also find that agents views about risk are directly informative for their portfolio decisions, with higher expectations of stock market risk being associated with a lower allocation to stocks. A shortcoming of our model is that it features a representative investor and so does not speak directly to this evidence (as there is no trade in equilibrium), though modest extensions of the model which allow for differences in the amount of bias would naturally be consistent with the evidence on trading behavior in Hoopes et al (2017).…”
Section: Evidence On Actual Trading Behaviormentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Hoopes, Langetieg, Nagel, Reck, Slemrod, and Stuart (2017) show evidence that investors do react to changes in volatility with more sophisticated investors and older investors responding more strongly. Specifically, they show that higher income and older investors sell more aggressively following increases in volatility.…”
Section: Evidence On Actual Trading Behaviormentioning
and two anonymous referees for comments. We thank James O'Neill and Alvaro Boitier for excellent research assistance. We thank Ing-Haw Cheng, Stefano Giglio, Ian Dew-Becker, and Travis Johnson for making data available. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.
“…This will result in a risk-return tradeoff that resembles the standard case. Further, Hoopes et al (2017) show evidence that investors do react to changes in volatility with more sophisticated investors (e.g., those in highest income brackets) responding most quickly. That is, it does not appear agents are not aware and do not act on changes in volatility.…”
Section: Alternative Explanationsmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Finally, both the individual survey evidence from Giglio et al (2019) and the evidence on actual trading behavior in Hoopes et al (2017) suggest that heterogeneity in beliefs about risk is important, though our model features a representative agent.…”
Section: Model Shortcomings and Extensionsmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Giglio et al (2019) also find that agents views about risk are directly informative for their portfolio decisions, with higher expectations of stock market risk being associated with a lower allocation to stocks. A shortcoming of our model is that it features a representative investor and so does not speak directly to this evidence (as there is no trade in equilibrium), though modest extensions of the model which allow for differences in the amount of bias would naturally be consistent with the evidence on trading behavior in Hoopes et al (2017).…”
Section: Evidence On Actual Trading Behaviormentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Hoopes, Langetieg, Nagel, Reck, Slemrod, and Stuart (2017) show evidence that investors do react to changes in volatility with more sophisticated investors and older investors responding more strongly. Specifically, they show that higher income and older investors sell more aggressively following increases in volatility.…”
Section: Evidence On Actual Trading Behaviormentioning
and two anonymous referees for comments. We thank James O'Neill and Alvaro Boitier for excellent research assistance. We thank Ing-Haw Cheng, Stefano Giglio, Ian Dew-Becker, and Travis Johnson for making data available. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.
“…Two recent studies use US tax-return data that include information on sales at a less aggregated frequency. Hoopes et al (2016) have daily data on sales, but their study is not about tax effects. Dowd and McClelland (2019) use American IRS data on capital realizations for directly held assets on the level of the single transaction.…”
We exploit a large reform of capital-gains taxation in Germany combined with portfolio-level daily panel data to study the causal effect of taxes on individual stock-trading behavior and the disposition effect. We find substantial spikes in selling probabilities around an intertemporal tax discontinuity, and no such spikes after the abolishment of the discontinuity. Using difference-in-bunching methods, nonparametric regressions and effective tax rates, we quantify the tax effect and identify interesting patterns of heterogeneity. We further find evidence that the wellestablished disposition effect is strongly affected by the tax discontinuity through tax motivated selling of both gains and losses.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.