Abstract In the investment theory, firms with high expected investment growth earn higher expected returns than firms with low expected investment growth, holding investment and expected profitability constant. Building on cross-sectional growth forecasts with Tobin’s q, operating cash flows, and change in return on equity as predictors, an expected growth factor earns an average premium of 0.84% per month (t = 10.27) in the 1967–2018 sample. The q5 model, which augments the Hou–Xue–Zhang (2015, Rev. Finan. Stud., 28, 650–705) q-factor model with the expected growth factor, shows strong explanatory power in the cross-section and outperforms the Fama–French (2018, J. Finan. Econom., 128, 234–252) six-factor model.

Abstract Many recently proposed, seemingly different factor models are closely related. In spanning tests, the q-factor model largely subsumes the Fama–French five- and six-factor models, and the q5 model subsumes the Stambaugh–Yuan four-factor model. Their “mispricing” factors are sensitive to the construction procedure, and once replicated via the traditional approach, are close to the q-factors, with correlations of 0.8 and 0.84. Finally, consistent with the investment CAPM, valuation theory predicts a positive relation between the expected investment and the expected return.

In the investment theory, firms with high expected investment growth earn higher expected returns than firms with low expected investment growth, holding investment and expected profitability constant. Building on cross-sectional growth forecasts with Tobin’s q, operating cash flows, and change in return on equity as predictors, an expected growth factor earns an average premium of 0.84% per month (t = 10.27) in the 1967–2018 sample. The q5 model, which augments the Hou–Xue–Zhang (2015, Rev. Finan. Stud., 28, 650–705) q-factor model with the expected growth factor, shows strong explanatory power in the cross-section and outperforms the Fama–French (2018, J. Finan. Econom., 128, 234–252) six-factor model.