Bibliographic record
Abstract
(preliminary, incomplete) In this paper we study the optimal life cycle portfolio choice for households with both taxable accounts (TA) and tax-deferred accounts (TDA). According to the 2001 Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF), 46 % of households have positive balances in both accounts and their investment in stock represents 87 % of total stock holding of the entire SCF population. There are completely different patterns over life cycle in terms of stock market participation rate and stock share in TA and TDA. As a fraction of these households, the stockholders in TDA decrease considerably from 90 % when households are young to less than 50 % when they are old, while the stockholders in TA increase from 34 % to 70%. For stock market participants, the mean (median) stock share in TDA is very high and varies little over life cycle, while the mean (median) stock share in TA is decreasing with age. We calibrate a life cycle model which generates patterns of stock share in TA and TDA for participants similar in the data. The model explicitly incorporates labor income risk, progressive tax, accessibility restrictions on TDA and other features.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".