We study the effect of a bond’s place in its issuer’s maturity structure on credit risk. Using a structural model as motivation, we argue that bonds due relatively late in their issuers’ maturity structure have greater credit risk than do bonds due relatively early. Empirically, we find robust evidence that these later bonds have larger yield spreads and greater comovement with equity and that the magnitude of the effects is consistent with model predictions for investment-grade bonds. Our results highlight the importance of bond-specific credit risk for understanding corporate bond prices. Received January 1, 2016; editorial decision June 6, 2017 by Editor Robin Greenwood.

Many studies report that the size effect in the cross-section of stock returns disappeared after the early 1980s. This paper shows that its disappearance can be attributed to negative shocks to the profitability of small firms and positive shocks to big firms. After adjusting for the price impact of profitability shocks, we find a robust size effect in the cross-section of expected returns after the early 1980s. Our results highlight the importance of in-sample cash-flow shocks in understanding cross-sectional return predictability.Received April 2, 2014; editorial decision August 6, 2018 by Editor Laura Starks.

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.

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.

We construct a measure of systematic default defined as the probability that many firms default at the same time. We account for correlations in defaults between firms through exposures to common shocks. Systematic default spikes during recessions, is correlated with macroeconomic indicators, and predicts future realized defaults. More importantly, it predicts future equity and corporate bond index returns both in- and out-of-sample. Finally, we find that the cross-section of average stock returns is related to firm-level exposures to systematic default risk.

We use earnings forecasts from a cross-sectional model to proxy for cash flow expectations and estimate the implied cost of capital (ICC) for a large sample of firms over 1968¿2008. The earnings forecasts generated by the cross-sectional model are superior to analysts' forecasts in terms of coverage, forecast bias, and earnings response coefficient. Moreover, the model-based ICC is a more reliable proxy for expected returns than the ICC based on analysts' forecasts. We present evidence on the cross-sectional relation between firm-level characteristics and ex ante expected returns using the model-based ICC.

This paper is a new incarnation of the defunct work previously circulated under the titles "Neoclassical Factors," "An equilibrium three-factor model," "Production-based factors," "A better three-factor model that explains more anomalies," and "An alternative three-factor model." We are extremely grateful to Robert Novy-Marx

This paper examines whether the firm-level accrual and cash flow effects extend to the aggregate stock market. In sharp contrast to previous firm-level findings, aggregate accruals is a strong positive time series predictor of aggregate stock returns, and cash flows is a negative predictor. In addition, innovations in accruals are negatively contemporaneously correlated with aggregate returns, and innovations in cash flows are positively correlated with returns. These findings suggest that innovations in accruals and cash flows contain information about changes in discount rates, or that firms manage earnings in response to marketwide undervaluation.

Firms with higher R&D intensity subsequently experience higher stock returns in international stock markets, highlighting the role of intangible investments in international asset pricing. The R&D effect is stronger in countries where growth option risk is more likely priced, but is unrelated to country characteristics representing market sentiments and limits-of-arbitrage. Moreover, we find that R&D intensity is associated with higher future operating performance, return volatility, and default likelihood. Our evidence suggests that the cross sectional relation between R&D intensity and stock returns is more likely attributable to risk premium than to mispricing.

Embedding disasters into a general equilibrium model with heterogeneous firms induces strong nonlinearity in the pricing kernel, helping explain the empirical failure of the (consumption) CAPM. Our single-factor model reproduces the failure of the CAPM in explaining the value premium in finite samples without disasters and its relative success in samples with disasters. Due to beta measurement errors, the estimated beta-return relation is flat, consistent with the beta “anomaly,” even though the true beta-return relation is strongly positive. Finally, the consumption CAPM fails in simulations, even though a nonlinear model with the true pricing kernel holds exactly by construction.