Households hold nondiversified stock portfolios of firms headquartered near their city of residence. Explanations assign a causal role for proximity, either in generating an informational advantage or a familiarity bias. Empirical analyses assume households locate randomly, even though they optimally select a city. This selection is important since latent location factors might be correlated with latent demand for local stocks. Building on location choice models from urban economics, we develop a Heckman (1977)-style model to account for the effect of location choices on portfolio choices. Adjusting for selection significantly reduces local bias and the performance of local stock picks.

Households hold nondiversified stock portfolios of firms headquartered near their city of residence. Explanations assign a causal role for proximity, either in generating an informational advantage or a familiarity bias. Empirical analyses assume households locate randomly, even though they optimally select a city. This selection is important since latent location factors might be correlated with latent demand for local stocks. Building on location choice models from urban economics, we develop a Heckman (1977)-style model to account for the effect of location choices on portfolio choices. Adjusting for selection significantly reduces local bias and the performance of local stock picks.

Product advertising captures the attention not only of consumers but also of investors. Constructing a measure of local investment interest in stocks from Google searches and using the Super Bowl as an experiment, we study the effects of advertising expenses on investor attention. We find that the post‐game Monday attention of investors in areas with high viewership increases significantly for both local and non‐local companies that air commercials. Non‐local firms with high advertising exposure in a region attract more interest than local firms with low exposure, suggesting that advertising has a stronger impact on investor attention than the local bias.

No abstract

Households hold nondiversified stock portfolios of firms headquartered near their city of residence. Explanations assign a causal role for proximity, either in generating an informational advantage or a familiarity bias. Empirical analyses assume households locate randomly, even though they optimally select a city. This selection is important since latent location factors might be correlated with latent demand for local stocks. Building on location choice models from urban economics, we develop a Heckman (1977)-style model to account for the effect of location choices on portfolio choices. Adjusting for selection significantly reduces local bias and the performance of local stock picks.