We show that the performance of the new factor models of Hou et al. (2015) and Fama and French (2015) depends crucially on how their investment factor is constructed. Both models use growth in total assets to measure investment. Their ability to price the cross-section of returns decreases significantly when the investment factor is constructed using traditional investment measures, or measures that also account for investment in intangibles. In contrast, we find that factors based on growth in inventory and accounts receivable contain the bulk of the pricing information in the asset growth factor. We show evidence that the superior performance of the asset growth factor seems to be attributable to its ability to capture aggregate shocks to equity financing costs.

The percentage of U.S. equity mutual funds that outperform the SPY ETF over the last 30 years decreases substantially as the horizon over which returns are measured is increased. Further, some funds with positive monthly alpha estimates have negative long-horizon abnormal returns. These results reflect positive skewness in the distribution of fund returns that increases with horizon, and highlight the limitations of conditional arithmetic means of short-horizon returns (e.g., alpha) for long-horizon investors. We tabulate an aggregate wealth loss of $1.02 trillion to mutual fund investors over our 30-year sample, when opportunity costs are based on beta-adjusted SPY returns.