[We take a simple q-theory model and ask how well it can explain external financing anomalies, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Our central insight is that optimal investment is an important driving force of these anomalies. The model simultaneously reproduces procyclical equity issuance waves, the negative relation between investment and average returns, long-term underperformance following equity issues, positive long-term drift following cash distributions, the mean-reverting operating performance of issuing and cashdistributing firms, and the failure of the in explaining the long-term stock-price drifts. However, the model cannot fully capture the magnitude of the positive drift following cash distributions observed in the data.]

We model the interaction of financial constraints, capacity constraints, and the response of production and inventory to cost and demand shocks. The model predicts that in response to favorable shocks, financially constrained firms are unable to build inventory as rapidly as are unconstrained firms. However, because the favorable shocks gradually ease the financial constraints, constrained firms continue to build inventory and eventually carry surplus inventory (relative to unconstrained firms) to unfavorable states. This allows them to deplete inventory more aggressively in response to unfavorable shocks. Our empirical evidence provides broad support for the model’s predictions.Received September 3, 2016; editorial decision January 11, 2018 by Editor David Denis.

We take a simple q-theory model and ask how well it can explain external financing anomalies, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Our central insight is that optimal investment is an important driving force of these anomalies. The model simultaneously reproduces procyclical equity issuance waves, the negative relation between investment and average returns, long-term underperformance following equity issues, positive long-term drift following cash distributions, the mean-reverting operating performance of issuing and cash-distributing firms, and the failure of the CAPM in explaining the long-term stock-price drifts. However, the model cannot fully capture the magnitude of the positive drift following cash distributions observed in the data. The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Society for Financial Studies. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: [email protected]., Oxford University Press.

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.