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.

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.

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.