Cross-Sectional Tobins Q

Frederico Belo

University of Minnesota
Chen Xue

University of Michigan
Lu Zhang

The Ohio State University

Abstract
The neoclassical investment model matches cross-sectional asset prices both in rst dierences
and in levels. With ten book-to-market deciles as the testing portfolios, the investment model
largely matches the Tobins Q spread and the average return spread across the extreme deciles.
The parameter estimates imply low adjustment costs around 1.7% of sales. The models t
results from three aspects of our econometric strategy: (i) We test the model at the portfolio
level to alleviate the impact of measurement errors; (ii) we match the rst moment to mitigate
the impact of temporal misalignment between asset prices and investment; and (iii) we allow
for nonlinear marginal costs of investment. Our evidence suggests that any dierences between
the intrinsic value of equity and the market value of equity tend to dissipate in the long run.

Finance Department, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, 3-137 CarlSMgmt, 321 19th
Avenue South, Minneapolis MN 55455. Tel: (612) 626-7813 and e-mail: [email protected].

Finance Department, Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, 701 Tappan Street, Ann Arbor
MI 48109-1234. Tel: (734) 358-9834 and e-mail: [email protected].

Department of Finance, Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University, 760A Fisher Hall, 2100 Neil
Avenue, Columbus OH 43210; and NBER. Tel: (614) 292-8644 and e-mail: [email protected].

For helpful comments, we thank Andrew Abel, Kerry Back, Gurdip Bakshi, Jonathan Berk, Mark Flannery,
Vito Gala, Eric Ghysels, Bob Goldstein, Rick Green, Burton Hollield (UBC discussant), Urban Jermann, Pete
Kyle, Mark Loewenstein, Stavros Panageas, Jay Ritter, Paulo Rodrigues (EFA discussant), Neng Wang, Toni
Whited, and seminar participants at the 2010 CEPR/Studienzentrum Gerzensee European Summer Symposium
in Financial Markets, Duke University, the 2010 European Finance Association Annual Meetings, Federal Reserve
Bank of New York, McGill University, Michigan State University, Rice University, Shanghai University of Finance
and Economics, Tsinghua University, the 2010 University of British Columbia Phillips, Hager and North Centre for
Financial Research Summer Finance Conference, University of Florida, University of Maryland, and University of
Minnesota. The portfolio data and the SAS and Matlab programs for the construction of the portfolio data and
GMM estimation and tests are available upon request. We are responsible for all the remaining errors.
1 Introduction
What determines equity valuation? This economic question has immense practical importance. A
vast literature in accounting has built on the dividend discounting model and the residual income
model to tackle the valuation question (e.g., Ohlson (1995), Dechow, Hutton, and Sloan (1999), and
Frankel and Lee (1998)). Widely practiced in the nancial services industry, equity valuation is at
the core of standard business school curriculum around the world, with many textbook treatments
(e.g., Palepu and Healy (2008), Koller, Goedhart, and Wessles (2010), and Penman (2010)). Al-
though the accounting models are conceptually sound, their implementation often involves ad hoc
(and unrealistic) assumptions that seem to leave at least some room for an alternative approach.
In asset pricing, unlike the cross section of returns, the cross section of equity valuation is vir-
tually a virgin territory. In particular, following the major breakthroughs of Cochrane (1991, 1996)
and Berk, Green, and Naik (1999), investment-based asset pricing has experienced a period of rapid
growth. However, the literature has so far focused exclusively on cross-sectional returns. Reecting
on the severe (and surprising) lack of valuation research in asset pricing, Cochrane (2011) writes:
We have to answer the central question, what is the source of price variation? When
did our eld stop being asset pricing and become asset expected returning ? Why are
betas exogenous? A lot of price variation comes from discount-factor news. What sense
does it make to explain expected returns by the covariation of expected return shocks
with market market return shocks? Market-to-book ratios should be our left-hand vari-
able, the thing we are trying to explain, not a sorting characteristic for expected returns
(p. 23, original emphasis).
As a fundamental departure from the existing literature on cross-sectional asset pricing, we take
a rst stab at the important valuation question. Specically, we develop the neoclassical investment
theory as a valuation tool to understand the levels (Tobins Q) of cross-sectional asset prices, while
maintaining a good t for the rst dierences (stock returns). We incorporate corporate taxes,
1
leverage, and nonlinear marginal costs of investment into the baseline investment model of Cochrane
(1991). The key valuation equation emerges under constant returns to scale: Tobins Q equals
marginal q, which can be inferred from the investment data via a specied adjustment costs function.
The model also predicts that stock returns equal (levered) investment returns, dened as the next-
periods marginal benet of investment divided by the current-periods marginal cost of investment.
We use generalized methods of moments (GMM) to evaluate the models t in matching the cross
section of average Tobins Q and the cross section of average stock returns simultaneously across the
book-to-market deciles. We use the book-to-market deciles because these portfolios exhibit a large
spread in Tobins Q (the value spread) and a large spread in average returns (the value premium).
We see at least three advantages of the investment-based structural approach to valuation over
the traditional accounting-based approaches. First, the only input that the investment approach re-
quires is the current-periods investment-to-capital. As such, the investment approach relieves us of
the burden of forecasting earnings or cash ows many years in the future, a task that is challenging
but is necessary for the accounting models to work. Second, by equating Tobins Q directly to the
marginal cost of investment, we do not need to take a stand on the discount rate. It is well known
that the valuation estimates from the standard accounting models can be extremely sensitive to the
assumed discount rate.
1
Third, at least in principle, the parameter estimates from the structural ap-
proach are technology-driven deep parameters, which should be invariant to changes in optimizing
behavior and economic policy per Lucas (1976). As such, the structural parameters should be more
stable than the non-structural parameters such as the discount rate in traditional valuation models.
Our key nding is that the neoclassical investment model can match both the levels and the
1
For example, Lundholm and Sloan (2007, p. 193) lament: None of the standard nance models provide
estimates that describe the actual data very well. The discount rate that you use in your valuation has a large
impact on the result, yet you will rarely feel very condent that the rate you have assumed in the right one. The
best we can hope for is a good understanding of what the cost of capital represents and some ballpark range for
what a reasonable estimate might be. Alas, a reasonable discount rate estimate is elusive. Penman (2010, p. 666)
write: Compound the error in beta and the error in the risk premium and you have a considerable problem. The
CAPM, even if true, is quite imprecise when applied. Lets be honest with ourselves: No one knows what the market
risk premium is. And adopting multifactor pricing models adds more risk premiums and betas to estimate. These
models contain a strong element of smoke and mirrors.
2
rst dierences of cross-sectional asset prices. When we use the investment model to match the Q
moments only, the model predicts a value spread of 2.83, which is about 94% of the value spread
observed in the data, 3.01. Across the book-to-market deciles, the average magnitude of the model
errors is 0.17, which is less than 11% of the average Tobins Q across the deciles, 1.58. A scatter
plot of average predicted average Tobins Q in the model against average realized Tobins Q in the
data across the testing portfolios is largely aligned with the 45-degree line. Also, the model ts the
value spread with low adjustment costs that amount to 1.61% of sales.
Adding expected return moments in the GMM does not aect the models t on the Q moments.
This t on the levels is achieved without sacricing a good t on expected returns. The alpha of the
high-minus-low decile is only 1.08% per annum, which is substantially smaller than the alphas from
the CAPM (14.61%), the Fama-French (1993) three-factor model (6.71%), and the Carhart (1997)
four-factor model (6.82%). However, the average magnitude of the alphas across the book-to-market
deciles in the investment model is 1.96%, which is smaller than that from the CAPM (4.53%), but
larger than those from the Fama-French model (1.46%) and the Carhart model (1.50%).
The investment model also does a good job in matching the Q levels at the industry level. With
the book-to-market quintiles within each industry as the testing portfolios, the average magnitude
of the Q errors is 0.20, which is less than 11% of the Tobins Q averaged across the industries, 1.85.
The model predicts a value spread of 1.69, which is about 85% of the value spread of 1.99 averaged
across the industries. Because average Q is estimated more precisely than average returns, using
the Q moments facilitates greatly the identication of the models parameters, and increases the
power of the tests. These benets are especially important at the more disaggregated industry
level, in which expected returns are noisy. As such, we argue that cross-sectional valuation should
be taken seriously as a new dimension of the data to discipline asset pricing models.
The neoclassical investment framework is originally developed to understand investment behav-
ior, both at the aggregate level and at the rm level.
2
The failure of this framework in matching
2
The neoclassical investment theory is developed by, among others, Jorgenson (1963), Tobin (1969), Hayashi
3
levels is well known in the literature on standard investment regressions, which in eect test the
model in levels (e.g., Chirinko (1993)). Our key nding that the model matches the cross section
of Tobins Q and the cross section of stock returns simultaneously might be somewhat surpris-
ing. The crux lies in three aspects of our econometric approach. First, we conduct the estimation
at the portfolio level, which mitigates the impact of measurement errors in Tobins Q and other
characteristics, errors that are likely responsible for the empirical failure of investment regressions.
Second, we explore whether investment is a sucient statistic for average Tobins Q. Focus-
ing only on the rst moment alleviates the impact of any temporal misalignment between asset
prices and investment that can arise from, for example, investment lags. Third, while investment
regressions are derived under the standard assumption of quadratic adjustment costs, we allow
the marginal cost of investment to be nonlinear. We show that this nonlinearity is crucial for the
models t. With standard quadratic adjustment costs, the model implied value spread is only
0.57, which is less than 19% of the value spread in the data. Intuitively, Tobins Q is only propor-
tional to investment-to-capital in the quadratic model. With the nonlinearity, Tobins Q is convex
in investment-to-capital. As such, for a given magnitude of spread in investment-to-capital, the
convexity magnies the investment spread so as to produce a larger spread in Tobins Q.
3
Our central nding has important implications. Shiller (1989, 2000) argues that measurement
errors in Tobins Q that are likely responsible for the failure of investment regressions can arise
from the dierences between the intrinsic value and the market value of equity (see also Bond and
Cummins (2000)). Consistent with this view, alternative Q measures that do not rely on the market
value of equity appear to perform better in investment regressions than market-based Q measures.
4
Our evidence that the neoclassical investment model matches the cross section of average Tobins
(1982), and Abel (1983), and applied by, among others, Summers (1981), Abel and Blanchard (1986), Fazzari,
Hubbard, and Petersen (1988), Whited (1992), Erickson and Whited (2000), Abel and Eberly (2001), and Hall (2004).
3
Prior studies have shown that the nonlinearity in the marginal cost of investment is important for understanding
quantity data and stock market data (e.g., Abel and Eberly (2001), Israelsen (2010), and Jermann (2010)). We add
to this body of evidence using data on cross-sectional asset prices.
4
The alternative Q measures include estimates based on cash-ow forecasts (e.g., Abel and Blanchard (1986) and
Gilchrist and Himmelberg (1995)), analyst forecasts of earnings growth (e.g., Cumins, Hassett, and Oliner (2006)),
and bond prices (e.g., Philippon (2009)).
4
Q suggests that the market value of equity and investment data are well aligned on average, and
that, at the minimum, the dierences between the intrinsic value and the market value of equity
are short lived and tend to dissipate in the long run.
The rest of the paper unfolds as follows. We present the investment model and derive its im-
plications for cross-sectional Tobins Q and stock returns in Section 2. We discuss econometric and
data issues in Section 3, present the estimation results in 4, and conclude in Section 5.
2 The Model of the Firms
We specify a neoclassical model of investment to derive testable predictions for both Tobins Q and
expected stock returns in the cross section. Time is discrete and the horizon innite. Firms choose
costlessly adjustable inputs each period, while taking their prices as given, to maximize operating
prots (revenues minus expenditures on these inputs). Taking the operating prots as given, rms
optimally choose investment and debt to maximize the market value of equity.
The operating prots function for rm i at time t is (K
it
, X
it
), in which K
it
is capi-
tal and X
it
is a vector of exogenous aggregate and rm-specic shocks. We assume that the
rm has a Cobb-Douglas production function with constant returns to scale. This assump-
tion implies that (K
it
, X
it
) = K
it
(K
it
, X
it
)/K
it
, and that the marginal product of capital,
(K
it
, X
it
)/K
it
= Y
it
/K
it
, in which is the capitals share and Y
it
is sales.
Capital depreciates at an exogenous rate of
it
. We allow
it
to be rm-specic and time-varying:
K
it+1
= I
it
+ (1
it
)K
it
, (1)
in which I
it
is investment. Firms incur adjustment costs when investing. The adjustment costs
function, denoted (I
it
, K
it
), is increasing and convex in I
it
, is decreasing in K
it
, and has constant
returns to scale in I
it
and K
it
. We allow the marginal costs of investment to be nonlinear:

it
(I
it
, K
it
) =
1

I
it
K
it
_

K
it
, (2)
5
in which > 0 is the slope adjustment cost parameter and > 1 is the curvature adjustment cost
parameter. The case with = 2 reduces to the standard quadratic functional form.
5
We allow rms to nance investment with one-period debt. At the beginning of time t, rm
i issues an amount of debt, denoted B
it+1
, which must be repaid at the beginning of time t + 1.
Let r
B
it
denote the gross corporate bond return on B
it
. We can write taxable corporate prots as
operating prots minus depreciation, adjustment costs, and interest expense: (K
it
, X
it
)
it
K
it

(I
it
, K
it
) (r
B
it
1)B
it
. Let
t
be the corporate tax rate. We dene the payout of rm i as:
D
it
(1
t
)[(K
it
, X
it
) (K
it
, K
it
)] I
it
+B
it+1
r
B
it
B
it
+
it
K
it
+
t
(r
B
it
1)B
it
, (3)
in which
t

it
K
it
is the depreciation tax shield and
t
(r
B
it
1)B
it
is the interest tax shield.
Let M
t+1
be the stochastic discount factor from t to t+1, which is correlated with the aggregate
component of the productivity shock X
it
. The rm chooses optimal capital investment and debt
to maximize the cum-dividend market value of equity:
V
it
max
{I
it+t
,K
it+t+1
,B
it+t+1
}

t=0
E
t
_
_

t=0
M
t+t
D
it+t
_
_
, (4)
subject to a transversality condition given by lim
T
E
t
[M
t+T
B
it+T+1
] = 0.
To express rm is equilibrium market value of equity and stock return as a function of ob-
servable rm characteristics, we let P
it
V
it
D
it
be the ex-dividend equity value and the rms
valuation ratio or Tobins Q as Q
it
(P
it
+B
it+1
) /K
it+1
. The rst-order condition of maximizing
equation (4) with respect to I
it
implies that:
Q
it
= 1 + (1
t
)

_
I
it
K
it
_
1
. (5)
5
We place the slope adjustment cost parameter inside the parentheses of equation (2) to make the unit of
independent of the curvature parameter. With a free curvature parameter, the mean of (Iit/Kit)

varies substantially
with the curvature. The mean is very small when the curvature is high, and large when is low. As such, when is
placed outside the parentheses as in Merz and Yashiv (2007), the point estimate of is aected by the large change
in mean of (Iit/Kit)

. In particular, its point estimate can vary substantially between zero and, when the curvature
parameter is high, values greater than 10,000, causing stability problems in the estimation.
6
As such, Tobins Q is a nonlinear function of investment-to-capital, I
it
/K
it
.
In addition, combining the rst-order conditions of maximizing equation (4) with respect to I
it
and K
it+t+1
implies that E
t
[M
t+1
r
I
it+1
] = 1, in which r
I
it+1
is the investment return, dened as:
r
I
it+1

(1
t+1
)
_

Y
it+1
K
it+1
+
1

I
it+1
K
it+1
_

_
+
it+1

t+1
+ (1
it+1
)
_
1 + (1
t+1
)

_
I
it+1
K
it+1
_
1
_
1 + (1
t
)

_
I
it
K
it
_
1
.
(6)
The rst-order condition of maximizing equation (4) with respect to B
it+t+1
implies that
E
t
[M
t+1
r
Ba
it+1
] = 1, in which r
Ba
it+1
r
B
it+1
(r
B
it+1
1)
t+1
is the after-tax corporate bond re-
turn. Let r
S
it+1
(P
it+1
+ D
it+1
)/P
it
be the stock return and w
it
B
it+1
/(P
it
+ B
it+1
) be the
market leverage. Under constant returns to scale, the investment return is the weighted average of
the stock return and the after-tax corporate bond return (see Liu, Whited, and Zhang (2009)):
r
I
it+1
= w
it
r
Ba
it+1
+ (1 w
it
)r
S
it+1
. (7)
Equivalently, the stock return equals the levered investment return:
r
S
it+1
=
r
I
it+1
w
it
r
Ba
it+1
1 w
it
. (8)
Equations (5) and (8) express rmis Tobins Q and stock return as functions of rm characteristics,
providing the key predictions that we test empirically. To a rst approximation, stock returns can
be viewed as the rst dierences of equity value. Examining equations (5) and (8) simultaneously
allows us to evaluate the t of the model in both the levels and the rst dierences of asset prices,
providing a new cross-sectional test for the neoclassical investment model.
3 Econometric Methodology and Sample Construction
Section 3.1 presents the econometric methodology, and Section 3.2 describe the data.
7
3.1 Econometric Methodology
3.1.1 Moment Conditions
We test if the average Tobins Q observed in the data equals the average Q predicted in the model:
E
_
Q
it

_
1 + (1
t
)

_
I
it
K
it
_
1
__
= 0. (9)
In addition, we test whether the average stock return equals the average levered investment return:
E
_
r
S
it+1

r
I
it+1
w
it
r
Ba
it+1
1 w
it
_
= 0. (10)
To construct a formal test, dene the model errors from their empirical moments as:
e
Q
i
E
T
_
Q
it

_
1 + (1
t
)

_
I
it
K
it
_
1
__
, (11)
e
R
i
E
T
_
r
S
it+1

r
I
it+1
w
it
r
Ba
it+1
1 w
it
_
, (12)
in which E
T
[] is the sample mean of the series in brackets. We call e
Q
i
the average Q error and e
R
i
the average return error. The key identication assumption for estimation and testing is that both
model errors have a mean of zero, an assumption standard in most Euler equation tests.
To see where the model errors come from, we note that although equations (5) and (8) are exact
relations, measurement errors in variables are likely to invalidate them in practice. For equation (5),
measurement errors can arise from mismeasured components of Q that are better observed by rms
than by econometricians, such as the market value of debt and the replacement value of the capital
stock. In addition, the intrinsic value of equity can diverge from the market value of equity (e.g.,
Erickson and Whited (2000) and Eberly, Rebelo, and Vincent (2011)). For equation (8), the model
errors can arise because of measurement or specication errors: Marginal product of capital might
not be proportional to sales-to-capital, and adjustment costs might not be given by equation (2).
8
3.1.2 Estimation Method
We estimate the model parameters, , and using one-stage GMM to minimize a weighted aver-
age of e
Q
i
, a weighted average of e
R
i
, or a weighted average of both e
Q
i
and e
R
i
. When the stock return
and Tobins Q moments are estimated separately, we use the identity weighting matrix in one-stage
GMM to preserve the economic structure of the testing portfolios, following Cochrane (1996). How-
ever, e
Q
i
can often be larger than e
R
i
by an order of magnitude. As such, when we estimate the
expected return and Tobins Q moments simultaneously, we adjust the weighting matrix such that
the weights for dierent sets of moments make their errors comparable in magnitude. Specically,
we multiply the Q moments by a factor of

e
R
i

e
Q
i

, in which

e
Q
i
is portfolio is Q error
from estimating only the Q moments, and

e
R
i
is portfolio is expected return error from estimating
only the expected return moments. In most of our applications,

e
R
i

e
Q
i

is about 0.10.
Following the standard GMM procedure, we estimate the parameters, b (, , ), by min-
imizing a weighted combination of the sample moments, denoted by g
T
. The GMM objective
function is a weighted sum of squares of the model errors, g

T
Wg
T
, in which W is the ad-
justed identity matrix. Let D = g
T
/b. We estimate S, a consistent estimate of the variance-
covariance matrix of the sample errors g
T
, with a standard Bartlett kernel with a window length
of three. The estimate of b, denoted

b, is asymptotically normal with variance-covariance ma-
trix: var(

b) =
1
T
(D

WD)
1
D

WSWD(D

WD)
1
. To construct standard errors for individual
model errors, we use var(g
T
) =
1
T
_
I D(D

WD)
1
D

S
_
I D(D

WD)
1
D

, which is the
variance-covariance matrix for g
T
. We follow Hansen (1982, lemma 4.1) to form a
2
test that all
or a subset of the model errors are jointly zero: g

T
[var(g
T
)]
+
g
T

2
(#moments#parameters),
in which
2
denotes the chi-square distribution, and the superscript + denotes pseudo-inversion.
We conduct the estimation at the portfolio level, for several reasons. First, the use of portfolio
level data signicantly reduces the impact of the measurement errors in rm-level data that
have plagued the empirical performance of the investment model in investment regressions. By
9
aggregating the rm-level data to the portfolio level, the impact of measurement errors, such as those
related to unobserved rm-level xed eects, is reduced. Second, because forming portfolios helps
diversify residual variances, the expected return and Tobins Q spreads are more reliable statistically
across portfolios than across individual stocks. Finally, investment data at the portfolio level are
smoother than rm-level data, consistent with the smooth adjustment costs function in equation (2).
3.1.3 Comparison with Prior Tests on the Neoclassical Investment Model
Cross-sectional Tobins Q is a new dimension of the data not explored in the prior literature. Al-
though the Tobins Q moments in equation (9) are related to the investment Euler equation tested
in, for example, Whited (1992) and Hall (2004), our test design exploits the information contained
in stock valuation data. In contrast, investment Euler equation tests use only investment and cash
ow data, but ignore stock prices. The expected return moments in equation (10) have been ex-
plored in Liu, Whited, and Zhang (2009). We instead focus on the Tobins Q moments. As noted,
understanding valuation in the cross section is an important economic question on its own. In
addition, the Q moments help identify the adjustment cost parameters that are otherwise hard to
pin down from noisy expected return moments, as we show later in Section 4.
Merz and Yashiv (2007) use the neoclassical investment model to study stock market valuation
(see also Israelsen (2010)). We ask a dierent question: What accounts for the large cross-sectional
dierence in Tobins Q between value stocks and growth stocks? The cross section also contains
more valuation information to provide more powerful tests. In addition, our valuation test has sev-
eral advantages over the Merz-Yashiv test. Merz and Yashiv derive and test a valuation equation
from combining the rst-order conditions of maximizing the market value of equity with respect to
I
it
and K
it+1
. Using our notations, we can write their valuation equation as:
Q
it
= E
t
_
M
t+1
_
(1
t+1
)
_

it+1
K
it+1

it+1
K
it+1
_
+
it+1

t+1
+ (1
it+1
)
_
1 + (1
t+1
)

it+1
I
it+1
___
. (13)
10
To implement this valuation equation, Merz and Yashiv must parameterize the marginal product
of capital and the stochastic discount factor, M
t+1
(as the inverse of the rms weighted average
cost of capital). In contrast, we implement directly the Tobins Q equation (5), which is immune
to the specication errors in the marginal product of capital and as well as those in M
t+1
.
The investment regression literature tests whether Tobins Q is a sucient statistic of invest-
ment. The investment regressions are often performed on Tobins Q with cash ow or lagged in-
vestment as controls (e.g., Fazzari, Hubbard, and Petersen (1988) and Eberly, Rebelo, and Vincent
(2011)). As surveyed by Chirinko (1993), the neoclassical investment model is typically rejected
because the investment regressions produce very low goodness-of-t coecients. In addition, cash
ow and lagged investment are often signicant, even when Tobins Q is controlled for, whereas
Tobins Q is insignicant, even when it is used alone.
Our econometric approach diers from the standard investment regressions in three aspects.
First, as noted, we conduct the estimation at the portfolio level, which mitigates the impact of mea-
surement errors in both Tobins Q and other characteristics. Second, we test whether investment is
a sucient statistic for average Tobins Q. Focusing on the rst moment only alleviates greatly the
impact of year-xed eects as well as the impact of any temporal misalignment between asset prices
and investment. The temporal misalignment can arise because investment lags prevent high and
medium frequency movements in asset prices to be reected immediately in the investment data
(e.g., Lettau and Ludvigson (2002)). Also, Tobins Q depends on both existing capital and available
technologies yet to be installed, but investment depends only on currently installed technology. As
a result, Tobins Q is too forward-looking relative to investment, causing investment to be more
responsive to Q at long horizons than at short horizons (e.g., Abel and Eberly (2002)). Third, we al-
low the marginal cost of investment to be nonlinear in the estimation, while the standard investment
regressions can be derived only under the assumption that the marginal cost of investment is linear.
11
3.2 Data
Our sample consists of all common stocks on NYSE, Amex, and Nasdaq from 1965 to 2008. The
rm-level data are from the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) monthly stock le and
the annual Standard and Poors Compustat les. We delete rm-year observations with missing
data or for which total assets, gross capital stock, or sales are either zero or negative. We include
only rms with scal year ending in the second half of the calendar year. We also exclude rms
with primary standard industrial classications between 4900 and 4999 and between 6000 and 6999
because the neoclassical investment theory is unlikely to apply to regulated or nancial rms.
3.2.1 Portfolio Denitions
We use ten book-to-market deciles from Fama and French (1993) as the main testing portfolios.
We focus on these portfolios because book-to-market predicts cross-sectional returns and because
these portfolios generate a large cross-sectional spread in Tobins Q. Following Fama and French,
we sort all stocks on book-to-market equity at the end of June of year t into ten deciles based on
the NYSE breakpoints for the scal year ending in the calendar year t 1. Book-to-market equity
is book equity for the scal year ending in t 1 divided by the market equity for December of year
t1.
6
Firm-year observations with negative book equity are excluded. We calculate equal-weighted
annual returns from July of year t to June of year t + 1 for the portfolios, which are rebalanced
at the end of each June. We use equal-weighted portfolio returns because these returns present a
higher hurdle for asset pricing models to pass than value-weighted returns.
The construction of the book-to-market deciles includes rms from dierent sectors of the econ-
omy. As such, the construction ignores the fact that technologies (in particular, the capitals share
6
Following Fama and French (1993), we measure book equity as stockholder equity plus balance sheet deferred
taxes (Compustat annual item TXDB if available) and investment tax credit (item ITCB if available) plus post-
retirement benet liabilities (item PRBA if available) minus the book value of preferred stock. Depending on data
availability, we use redemption (item PSTKRV), liquidation (item PSTKL), or par value (item PSTK), to represent
the book value of preferred stock. Stockholder equity is equal to Moodys book equity (from Kenneth Frenchs Web
site), the book value of common equity (item CEQ) plus the par value of preferred stock, or the book value of assets
(item AT) minus total liabilities (item LT). The market value of common equity is the closing price per share (item
PRCC F) times the number of common shares outstanding (item CSHO).
12
and the adjustment cost parameters and ) might vary across industries. To alleviate this concern,
we also perform an industry-level analysis by constructing ve book-to-market quintiles within each
industry. We examine quintiles instead of deciles in each industry to guarantee that each portfolio
contains a sucient number of rms to alleviate the impact of measurement errors in rm-level data.
We construct the book-to-market quintiles within each industry following the Fama-French (1993)
procedure. The only dierence is that we use all rms within a given industry (not just NYSE rms)
to construct the breakpoints because the number of NYSE rms in some industries is too small.
3.2.2 Variable Measurement and Timing Alignment
We largely follow Liu, Whited, and Zhang (2009) in measuring accounting variables and in aligning
their timing with the timing of stock returns at the portfolio level. We make two adjustments. First,
we equal-weight corporate bond returns for the testing portfolios to make the weighting scheme
of bond returns consistent with that of stock returns. In contrast, Liu et al. value-weight bond
returns. Second, we include in the sample all the rms with scal year ending in the second half
of the calendar year. In contrast, Liu et al. only include rms with scal year ending in December.
Our procedural change substantially enlarges the sample.
The capital stock, K
it
, is gross property, plant, and equipment (Compustat annual item
PPEGT), and investment, I
it
, is capital expenditures (item CAPX) minus sales of property, plant,
and equipment (item SPPE if available). The capital depreciation rate,
it
, is the amount of depre-
ciation (item DP) divided by the capital stock. Output, Y
it
, is sales (item SALE). Total debt, B
it+1
,
is long-term debt (item DLTT) plus short term debt (item DLC). Market leverage, w
it
, is the ratio
of total debt to the sum of total debt and the market value of equity. We measure the tax rate,
t
,
as the statutory corporate income tax (from the Commerce Clearing House, annual publications).
The after-tax corporate bond returns, r
Ba
it+1
, are computed from r
B
it+1
using the average of tax
rates in year t and t +1. For the pre-tax corporate bond returns, r
B
it+1
, we follow Blume, Lim, and
Mackinlay (1998) to impute the credit ratings for rms with no rating data from Compustat (item
13
SPLTICRM), and then assign the corporate bond returns for a given credit rating (from Ibbotson
Associates) to all the rms with the same credit ratings. Specically, we rst estimate an ordered
probit model that relates credit ratings to observed explanatory variables using all the rms that
have credit ratings data. We then use the tted value to calculate the cuto value for each credit
rating. For rms without credit ratings we estimate their credit scores using the coecients esti-
mated from the ordered probit model and impute credit ratings by applying the cuto values of
dierent credit ratings. Finally, we assign the corporate bond returns for a given credit rating from
Ibbotson Associates to all the rms with the same credit rating.
7
The Compustat dateset records both stock and ow variables at the end of year t. In the model,
however, stock variables dated t are measured at the beginning of year t, and ow variables dated
t are realized over the course of year t. To capture this timing dierence, we take, for example,
for the year 2003 any beginning-of-year stock variable (such as B
i2003
) from the 2002 balance sheet
and any ow variable over the year (such as I
i2003
) from the 2003 income or cash ow statement.
We aggregate rm-level characteristics to portfolio-level characteristics as in Fama and French
(1995). For example, Y
it+1
/K
it+1
is the sum of sales in year t + 1 for all the rms in portfolio i
formed in June of year t divided by the sum of capital stocks at the beginning of year t +1 for the
same set of rms. I
it+1
/K
it+1
in the numerator of r
I
it+1
is the sum of investment in year t +1 for all
the rms in portfolio i formed in June of year t divided by the sum of capital stocks at the beginning
of year t+1 for the same set of rms. I
it
/K
it
in the denominator of r
I
it+1
is the sum of investment in
year t for all the rms in portfolio i formed in June of year t divided by the sum of capital stocks at
the beginning of year t for the same set of rms. Because the rm composition of portfolio i changes
7
The ordered probit model contains the following explanatory variables: interest coverage, the ratio of operating
income after depreciation (Compustat annual item OIADP) plus interest expense (item XINT) to interest expense;
the operating margin, the ratio of operating income before depreciation (item OIBDP) to sales (item SALE),
long-term leverage, the ratio of long-term debt (item DLTT) to assets (item AT); total leverage, the ratio of
long-term debt plus debt in current liabilities (item DLC) plus short-term borrowing (item BAST) to assets; the
natural logarithm of the market value of equity (item PRCC C times item CSHO) deated to 1973 by the consumer
price index; and the market beta and residual volatility from the market regression. We estimate the beta and
residual volatility for each rm in each calendar year with at least 200 daily returns from CRSP. We adjust for
nonsynchronous trading with one leading and one lagged values of the market return.
14
from year to year due to annual rebalancing, I
it+1
/K
it+1
in the numerator of r
I
it+1
is dierent from
I
it+1
/K
it+1
in the denominator of r
I
it+2
. Other characteristics are aggregated analogously.
4 Estimation Results
We report the estimation results from the sample including all publicly traded rms in Section 4.1
and from industry-specic samples in Section 4.2.
4.1 Matching Average Tobins Q and Stock Returns in the Cross Section
4.1.1 Descriptive Tests
Table 1 reports the averages and standard deviations of stock returns, Tobins Q, and other ac-
counting characteristics for each book-to-market decile as well as for the high-minus-low decile.
We dene the value spread as the Tobins Q of the low book-to-market (growth) decile minus the
Tobins Q of the high book-to-market (value) decile.
8
From the rst row of the table, sorting on
book-to-market equity produces a large value spread of 3.01 with a standard error of 1.13. We also
observe a large spread of 14.84% per annum in the average equal-weighted return, which is more
than 4.5 standard errors from zero. This large spread is a well established fact known as the value
premium (e.g., Rosenberg, Reid, and Lanstein (1985)).
The volatility of Tobins Q is, in relative terms, smaller than the volatility of stock returns. The
annualized return volatility averaged across the deciles is 25.16%, which is more than 1.5 times the
average return of 16.23% across the deciles. In contrast, the volatility of Tobins Q averaged across
the deciles is 0.59, which is less than 40% of the average Tobins Q of 1.58. This evidence means
that valuation moments are more precisely estimated in the data than expected return moments.
As such, using the Q moments in testing the investment model increases the power of the tests.
Equation (5) shows that Tobins Q is an increasing function of the current investment-to-capital,
8
Albeit related, our denition of the value spread diers from Cohen, Polk, and Vuolteenahos (2003). Cohen et
al. dene the value spread as the log book-to-market equity of the value decile minus the log book-to-market equity
of the growth decile. We adopt our denition based on the spread in Tobins Q because Q arises more naturally
from the neoclassical investment model (see equation (5)).
15
I
it
/K
it
. Table 1 shows that consistent with the cross-sectional variation in Tobins Q, value rms
have lower current-periods investment-to-capital on average than growth rms: 0.07 versus 0.17 per
annum. Equations (6) and (8) provide a list of expected return components. The predicted stock re-
turn in the model is increasing in the growth rate of investment-to-capital, (I
it+1
/K
it+1
)/(I
it
/K
it
),
market leverage, w
it
, and the next-periods marginal product of capital, Y
it+1
/K
it+1
, as well as
decreasing in the current-periods investment-to-capital, I
it
/K
it
. Table 1 also shows that value
rms have higher growth rates of investment-to-capital and higher market leverage than growth
rms. These cross-sectional variations go in the right direction in accounting for the cross-sectional
variation in expected stock returns. Going in the wrong direction, however, value rms also have
lower next-periods marginal product of capital than growth rms.
4.1.2 Point Estimates
Table 2 reports the point estimates and overall performance of the investment model using three
sets of moments. In the Q column, we match average Tobins Q using moment condition (9). In
the r column, we match average stock returns using moment condition (10). Finally, in the Q+r
column, we estimate the two sets of moment conditions jointly.
There are only three parameters in the model, the slope adjustment cost parameter, , the
curvature adjustment cost parameter, , and the capitals share parameter, . Table 2 shows that
the parameter estimates seem stable across the three sets of moments. The estimate ranges from
4.58 to 5.15, and is always signicant. The estimate ranges from 4.17 to 5.65, and are signicantly
positive. In addition, the estimates are signicantly above two when the Q moments are used in
the estimation. The evidence suggests that the adjustment costs function in the Tobins Q data
exhibits more curvature than the standard quadratic functional form. The point estimates of and
also imply that the adjustment costs function is increasing and convex in investment-to-capital.
The capitals share parameter is estimated to be 0.24 when matching the expected return moments
and 0.23 when matching both expected return and Tobins Q moments.
16
To interpret the magnitude of the adjustment costs, Table 2 reports the implied proportion of
sales lost due to adjustment costs, computed as
it
/Y
it
= (I
it
/K
ij
)

/(Y
it
). We calculate this pro-
portion by rst computing the portfolio-level time series of realized adjustment costs-to-sales ratio
and then averaging this ratio over time and across portfolios. The estimated magnitude of the ad-
justment costs is small across all sets of moments. The adjustment costs range from 1.61% (estimat-
ing Tobins Q moments only) to 1.67% (estimating expected return moments only). These ratios are
at the lower end of the empirical estimates surveyed in, for example, Hamermesh and Pfann (1996).
4.1.3 Overall Model Performance
Table 2 also reports three overall performance measures: the mean absolute Q errors (m.a.q.e.),
the mean absolute return errors (m.a.r.e.), and the
2
test. The m.a.q.e. and the m.a.r.e. are the
means of the absolute errors across portfolios given by equations (11) and (12), respectively.
According to all three metrics, the investment model performs well in matching average returns
and Tobins Q simultaneously across the testing portfolios. The m.a.q.e. is 0.17 both when we
estimate the Tobins Q moments only and when we estimate the expected return and Q moments
jointly. These errors are small, representing less than 11% of the average Tobins Q of these port-
folios (1.58, see Table 1). For expected returns, the m.a.r.e. ranges from 1.81% (matching expected
return moments only) to 1.96% (matching expected return and Qmoments jointly). These errors are
also small, representing less than 12.5% of the average return of these portfolios (16.23%, see Table
1). The model is not rejected by the
2
test across any set of moments, with p-values all above 20%.
4.1.4 Individual Model Errors
The mean absolute errors and the
2
test reported in Table 2 only indicate overall model perfor-
mance. To provide a more complete picture of the t, Table 3 reports the average Q errors from
equation (11) and the expected return errors from equation (12) for all the individual portfolios,
as well as their corresponding t-statistics. To put these expected return errors into perspective, we
also report traditional asset pricing tests such as the CAPM, the Fama-French (1993) three-factor
17
model, and the Carhart (1997) four-factor model on the ten book-to-market deciles. The data for
the factor returns and the risk-free rate are from Kenneth Frenchs Web site. We also report the
mean absolute error for each model, computed as the mean of the absolute alphas across portfolios.
Panel A in Table 3 reports the Q errors when we use the model to match the average Q mo-
ments only. Even though the errors are economically small, with the average magnitude being less
than 11% of the average Tobins Q across the deciles, most Q errors are more than two standard
errors from zero. The signicance of the model errors results from the fact that the Q moments
are estimated precisely in the data. All the parameters and the moment conditions are estimated
precisely. As such, even economically small errors lead to formal statistical rejections.
Panel B in Table 3 reports the expected return errors when the model is estimated to match
average stock returns only. The model generates low model errors, and compares well with the
performance from standard asset pricing models. Nine out of ten individual expected return errors
are insignicant. The high-minus-low decile has an error of 1.21% per annum, which is substan-
tially lower in magnitude than the errors from the traditional models: 14.61% from the CAPM,
6.71% from the Fama-French model, and 6.82% from the Carhart model. The mean absolute error
is 1.81% in the investment model, which is somewhat higher than 1.46% in the Fama-French model
and 1.50% in the Carhart model, but lower than 4.53% in the CAPM.
Panel C in Table 3 reports the Tobins Q errors and the expected return errors when we use
the model to match both sets of moments simultaneously. Overall, the model does a good job in
matching the moments. Because of the lower precision of the stock return moments, all the moment
conditions are less precisely estimated. As such, most of the individual Tobins Q errors are not
signicant. The Q error for the high-minus-low decile increases in magnitude slightly from 0.18
from Panel A to 0.22. However, the expected return error for the high-minus-low decile even
decreases somewhat in magnitude from 1.21% per annum in Panel B to 1.08%. The average
magnitude of the Q errors across all ten deciles remains at 0.17 with and without estimating the
18
Q moments jointly with the expected return moments. The average magnitude of the expected
return errors increases slightly from 1.81% when we estimate the expected return moments only to
1.96% when we estimate the expected return moments and the average Q moments jointly.
Figure 1 illustrates the investment models t across dierent sets of moment conditions. We
plot the average predicted Tobins Q against the average realized Tobins Q (Panels A and C), as
well as the average levered investment returns against the average realized stock returns (Panels
B and D) for the ten book-to-market deciles. If the models t is perfect, all the scattered points
should lie exactly on the 45-degree line. The gure shows that the scattered observations are largely
aligned with the 45-degree line. In addition, comparing Panels A and C shows that the models
t on the average Q moments is robust to the addition of the expected return moments into the
GMM estimation. Similarly, comparing Panels B and D shows that the models t on the expected
return moments is robust to the addition of the average Q moments into the GMM estimation.
The bottomline is that the neoclassical investment model matches the data on cross-sectional asset
prices not only in rst-dierences (stock returns), but also in levels (Tobins Q).
4.1.5 Parameter Stability
The models parameters are in principle deep structural parameters, describing the nature of
production and capital adjustment technologies, which should be invariant to changes in optimizing
behavior and economic policy per Lucas (1976). As such, any evidence of parameter instability
would indicate specication and measurement errors in the model.
9
We study the stability of the
parameter estimates in two ways, subsample analysis and recursive estimation. The main nding is
that adding the Q moments in the estimation makes the parameter estimates more stable over time.
Table 4 reports the GMM estimation and tests over two 25-year subsamples, with the testing
portfolios formed annually in June based on book-to-market equity at the end of scal year ending
9
Although rarely discussed in the nance literature, such parameter instability in structural models is not
uncommon in macroeconomics. For example, Oliner, Rudebusch, and Sichel (1996) show some parameter instability
when estimating investment Euler equations. Fernandez-Villaverde and Rubio-Ramrez (2007) nd similar results
when estimating dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models.
19
in calendar year from 1965 to 1989 and from 1983 to 2007. The table shows that the Tobins Q
moments seem important for identifying the structural parameters. The parameter estimates when
we use the Tobins Q moments are more stable across subperiods. In particular, when only expected
return moments are used, the capitals share parameter, , is estimated to be 0.21 (t = 4.12) in the
rst subsample, but 0.57 (t = 0.45) in the second subsample. As such, the second estimate is less
precise. In contrast, when we add the Tobins Q moments jointly with expected return moments,
the estimate varies from 0.20 to 0.22 across the two subsamples, with t-statistics both above ve.
Another indication of the parameter stability provided by the Q moments is the implied adjust-
ment costs-to-sales ratio, /Y . With only expected return moments, this implied ratio is 0.91% in
the rst subsample, but is 13.6% in the second subsample. Once we add the average Q moments into
the GMM estimation, the implied ratio varies only from 0.51% to 1.85% across the two subsamples.
The increased stability reects the fact that the Tobins Q moments are more precisely estimated
than the expected return moments. In turn, this precision gives rise to the higher precision of the
point estimates when we include the average Q moments.
10
Table 5 provides further evidence on parameter stability by estimating the model recur-
sively using a series of expanding windows. The expanding windows start from 1965. At year
T = 1989, . . . , 2007, we use all the accounting variables up to year T and stock returns up to year
T + 1 to estimate the models parameters. Table 5 reports the time series of the point estimates.
From Panel A, the point estimates from matching average Q moments are stable. The slope ad-
justment cost parameter, , is on average 4.79 with a coecient of variation (C.V., calculated as
standard deviation divided by mean) of 4.35%. The curvature parameter, , is on average 6.26
with a C.V. of 6.12. From Panel B, estimating expected return moments only shows more time
variation in the parameter estimates. In particular, the C.V. for the parameter is 9.93%, and the
10
In untabulated results, we have experimented with halving the full sample by using the 19651987 and 19862008
subsamples. The average Q moments play an even more important role in stabilizing the parameter estimates. With
only expected return moments, the estimate is 0.22 in the rst subsample, but it hits the upper bound of one in
the second subsample. Adding the Q moments brings the estimate back to 0.24 in the second subsample.
20
C.V. for the parameter is 20.63%. Panel C shows that adding the Q moments more than halves
the C.V.s of the estimates: The C.V. for the estimate drops from 9.93% to 4.77%, and the C.V.
for the estimate from 20.63% to 10.24%. Finally, with the terminal year of expanding windows
starts from 1989, the estimates are stable with and without the Q moments in the GMM.
4.1.6 The Role of Nonlinearity in the Marginal Cost of Investment
To quantify the importance of the parameter for matching Tobins Q, we estimate the restricted
version of the model with quadratic adjustment costs. In particular, we set = 2 before choosing
freely the and parameters to minimize the GMM objective function. From Panel A of Table
6, the adjustment costs implied from the quadratic model are higher than those from the baseline
model. In particular, the adjustment costs-to-sales ratio is 11.21% when estimating expected return
moments only. The ratio is between 46% when the Q moments are included. The average Q error
is 0.62 when estimating the Q moments only and 0.66 when estimating the Q moments and the
expected return moments jointly. In contrast, the average Q error is only 0.17 in the baseline model.
Panel B of Table 6 reports large errors for individual portfolios from the quadratic model. In par-
ticular, when estimating the Q moments only, the model underpredicts the Tobins Q of the growth
decile by 1.77, and overpredicts that of the value decile by 0.67. As such, the model underpredicts
the value spread by 2.44, which is more than 80% of the value spread (3.01) in the data! Panel A of
Figure 2 conrms that the quadratic model fails miserably to match the value spread: The scatter
plot is only slightly upward-sloping, deviating substantially from the 45-degree line. The t on the
Q moments from matching the Q moments and the expected return moments is largely similar (see
Panel C of Figure 2). Finally, consistent with Liu, Whited, and Zhang (2009), the quadratic model
matches well the expected return moments. The m.a.r.e. is only 2.36% per annum, and the error
for the high-minus-low decile is 0.33%. Comparing Panels B and D in Figure 2 shows that including
the Q moments into the estimation only deteriorates slightly the t for the expected returns.
Why does the curvature parameter help the model to match the Tobins Q levels? Intuitively,
21
with quadratic adjustment costs, investment-to-capital is proportional to Tobins Q because the
marginal cost of investment is linear in investment. With curvature, Q is a nonlinear function of
investment. For a given magnitude of spread in investment-to-capital, the nonlinearity magnies
the investment-to-capital spread to produce a larger spread in Tobins Q.
4.2 Matching Expected Returns and Average Tobins Q Within Each Industry
We also ask whether the investment model can capture the value spread and the value premium
at the more disaggregated industry level. Because the magnitudes of the value spread and the
value premium exhibit some variation across industries, this extension provides an additional set
of moments for the model to match. An additional benet is that we allow the production and
adjustment costs technologies to dier across industries.
4.2.1 Descriptive Tests
Using the Fama and French (1997) 17-industry classication, we test the investment model across
the following industries: food, mines, oil, clothes, durables, chemicals, consumer, construction,
steel, fabricated paper, machinery, cars, transportation, and retail. Out of the 17 industries, we
exclude nancials and utilities because these rms are not included in the main sample. In addition,
we exclude the other industry because of its insucient number of rms to form portfolios.
Table 7 reports the time series averages of selected characteristics of the book-to-market quin-
tiles within each industry. We report the value premium, r
S
HL
, the value spread,

Q
L

Q
H
, as well
as the m.a.r.e. and the high-minus-low alphas,
HL
, for the CAPM, Fama-French model and the
Carhart model for each industry. The value premium is positive across all the industries, but its
magnitude shows some cross-industry variation. The value premium is high in the oil (17.34% per
annum) and the chemicals (17.49%) industries, but is low in the car (2.94%) industry. The average
value premium across all industries is 11.75%. The magnitude of the value spread also varies across
the industries. It is high among the consumer goods industry (5.40) and low in the oil (0.77) and
steel (0.86) industries. The average value spread across all industries is 1.99.
22
The average m.a.r.e. for the CAPM across the industries is 5.22% per annum. The CAPM alpha
of the high-minus-low quintile,
HL
, is typically large (on average, 10.96%) and signicant across
all but two industries. The average m.a.r.e. for the Fama-French model (4.12%) and the Carhart
model (3.43%) are similar. Although smaller than the errors for the CAPM, the alphas of the high-
minus-low quintile for the Fama-French and Carhart models are also large, with cross-industry
averages being 6.91% and 6.53%, respectively, and are signicant across many industries.
4.2.2 Point Estimates
Panel A of Table 8 reports the parameter estimates and GMM tests when we use the investment
model to match the average Q moments of the book-to-market quintiles within each industry. The
parameter estimates vary across industries and seem economically reasonable. The slope adjust-
ment cost parameter, , is signicantly positive, and the curvature adjustment cost parameter, ,
is always above two. Conrming the results from the full cross section of rms, the importance of
curvature for matching Tobins Q is clear. The curvature parameter is estimated to be signicantly
above two across most industries. The implied magnitudes of adjustment costs are small across
most industries. On average, the estimated adjustment costs represent about 2.20% of sales. The
average adjustment costs are high in the consumer goods industry, about 7.90% of sales, and low
in the steel and the oil industries, on average 0.07% and 0.25% of sales, respectively.
Panel B reports the parameter estimates and GMM tests when we match average stock returns
of the book-to-market quintiles within each industry. In contrast with the results for the Tobins Q
moments, the parameter estimates are in general imprecisely estimated, and some estimates even
take extreme values. The slope adjustment cost parameter, , hits the lower bound of zero for
four industries (mines, construction, cars, and retail). With estimated to be zero, the curvature
adjustment cost parameter, , is not identiable from the expected return moments for these four
industries. The estimate also hits the upper bound of 15 for four other industries (durables, chemi-
cals, steel, and fabricated paper). Panel C reports the parameter estimates and GMM tests when we
23
use the investment model to match both average Tobins Q and average stock returns of the book-
to-market quintiles within each industry. Because Tobins Q moments are included, the parameter
estimates are precisely estimated. The parameter is estimated to be signicantly positive across
all but one industries. The parameter is estimated to be above two, except for the durables and
car industries. The average adjustment costs continue to be low, on average about 2.24% of sales.
4.2.3 Overall Model Performance and Individual Model Errors
From Panel A of Table 9, the investment model produces small Q errors across all the industries
when matching the Q moments. The cross-industry average m.a.q.e. is 0.20, which is slightly above
10% of the average value spread across the industries. The Q errors for the high-minus-low quin-
tile, e
Q
H
e
Q
L
, are insignicant for all but three industries (oil, clothes, and steel). The model is
rejected by the
2
test in only two out of the fourteen industries: oil and transportation. Given
the parsimonious investment model with only one capital input, the rejection of the model across
some industries is perhaps not surprising. For example, other inputs such as intangible capital or
quasi-xed labor (due to staggered labor contracts, for example) are omitted for parsimony, but
these inputs can contribute to the measured Tobins Q. What is perhaps more surprising, at least
to us, is the economically small Q errors for many industries achieved by this parsimonious model.
Figure 3 illustrates the good t of the investment model in matching the Q moments in most
industries. We plot the average predicted Tobins Q against the average realized Tobins Q for the
book-to-market quintiles. The portfolios are mostly aligned with the 45-degree line. The t of the
model is good in the clothes, durable goods, chemicals, construction, machinery and retail indus-
tries, but is more modest in the mines, oil, steel, fabricated paper and transportation industries.
When the model is estimated to match the cross section of average stock returns, the model
produces average model errors that are lower than those from standard asset pricing models. The
average m.a.r.e. across industries is only 2.31% per annum in the investment model. This error
compares favorably with the average pricing errors of the CAPM (5.22%), the Fama-French model
24
(4.12%), and the Carhart model (3.43%) (see Table 7). Also, all but two industries have insignicant
expected return errors of the high-minus-low quintile (e
R
H
e
R
L
) in the investment model.
The model produces small return and Q errors even when matching average Tobins Q and
expected returns simultaneously. Both expected return errors and the Tobins Q errors increase
somewhat, as expected, because the model is forced to match more moments. The m.a.r.e. increases
from 2.31% (when matching return moments only) to 3.60%. These average return errors are still
smaller in magnitude than the errors from the Fama-French model (4.12%), even though the Fama-
French model is not required to match the Q moments. The average Tobins Q error increases
somewhat, from 0.20 (when matching Tobins Q moments only) to 0.25. Also, when both Tobins
Q and return moments are included, the
2
test does not reject the model in any of the industries.
Taken together, the industry level analysis provides robust evidence that the cross section of
Tobins Q is a useful dimension of the data that should be taken seriously in estimating the neo-
classical investment model. The cross section of average returns provides a set of moments that
is imprecisely estimated. The imprecision is more severe when the tests are performed at the
more disaggregated industry level, at which industry-specic idiosyncratic variance is not diversi-
ed away. As a result, the statistical tests have lower power, and the moment conditions are not
precise enough to identify the parameters. The low precision can also lead to extreme parameter
estimates occasionally. Adding the Tobins Q moments in the estimation signicantly increases the
models ability to identify the structural parameters and the statistical power of the tests.
5 Conclusion
The neoclassical investment model matches cross-sectional asset prices both in rst dierences and
in levels simultaneously. When confronted with average Tobins Q and average stock returns mo-
ments across the book-to-market deciles, the model predicts a Tobins Q spread of 2.79 and an
average return spread of 15.92% per annum. The valuation error of 0.22 is about 7% of the Tobins
Q spread (3.01) observed in the data, and the expected return error of 1.08% is also about 7% in
25
magnitude of the value premium (14.84%) observed in the data. The model matches these key mo-
ments with reasonable parameter estimates for the production and capital adjustment technologies.
In particular, the implied adjustment costs are low, about 1.66% of sales.
By providing the technological underpinnings of asset prices, our work has some implications on
the popular view that the market value of equity often deviates from the intrinsic value of equity. In
an endowment economy, because quantities are xed, investor irrationality will fully impact on asset
prices. At the other extreme, in a linear technologies economy without adjustment costs, investor
irrationality will only impact on quantities through the optimal investment behavior of rms, leaving
no trace in asset prices. The adjustment costs economy, which is what we model, lies somewhere in
between the two extremes. Investor irrationality could put a short term dent on asset prices, but
rational rms will eventually enter the economy, pay up adjustment costs, and ood any re of
asset pricing bubble with the water of investment. In the long run, the water extinguishes any
impact of irrationality on asset prices. Our evidence seems consistent with this interpretation.
We view our work as a rst step toward integrating asset pricing with the equity valuation and
fundamental analysis literature in accounting. The quantitative results from the rst step are en-
couraging! Ultimately, valuation should be done at the rm level. Additional productive inputs such
as labor and intangible assets should be incorporated into the neoclassical model. Nonconvex adjust-
ment technologies that are likely relevant at the rm level should be incorporated as in, for example,
Abel and Eberly (1994). More generally, a deep unication between asset pricing and the standard
valuation framework in accounting (e.g., Koller, Goedhart, and Wessles (2010)) should be pursued.
26
References
Abel, Andrew B., 1983, Optimal investment under uncertainty, American Economic Review 73,
228233.
Abel, Andrew B., and Olivier J. Blanchard, 1986, The present value of prots and cyclical
movements in investment, Econometrica 54, 249273.
Abel, Andrew B., and Janice C. Eberly, 1994, A unied model of investment under uncertainty,
American Economic Review 84, 13691384.
Abel, Andrew B., and Janice C. Eberly, 2001, Investment and q with xed costs: An empirical
analysis, working paper, Northwestern University and University of Pennsylvania.
Abel, Andrew B., and Janice C. Eberly, 2002, Q for the long run, working paper, Northwestern
University and University of Pennsylvania.
Berk, Jonathan B., Richard C. Green, and Vasant Naik, 1999, Optimal investment, growth options,
and security returns, Journal of Finance 54, 11531607.
Blume, Marshall E., Felix Lim, and A. Craig MacKinlay, 1998, The declining credit quality of
U.S. corporate debt: Myth or reality? Journal of Finance 53, 13891413.
Bond, Stephen R., and Jason G. Cummins, 2000, The stock market and investment in the new
economy: Some tangible facts and intangible ctions, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity
1, 61108.
Carhart, Mark M., 1997, On persistence in mutual fund performance, Journal of Finance 52,
5782.
Chirinko, Robert S., 1993, Business xed investment spending: Modeling strategies, empirical
results, and policy implications, Journal of Economic Perspectives 31, 18751911.
Cochrane, John H., 1991, Production-based asset pricing and the link between stock returns and
economic uctuations, Journal of Finance 46, 209237.
Cochrane, John H., 1996, A cross sectional test of an investment-based asset pricing model, Journal
of Political Economy 104, 572621.
Cochrane, John H., 2011, Discount rates, forthcoming, Journal of Finance.
Cohen, Randolph B., Christopher Polk, and Tuomo Vuolteenaho, 2003, The value spread, Journal
of Finance 58, 609641.
Cummins, Jason G., Kevin A. Hassett, and Stephen D. Oliner, 2006, Investment behavior,
observable expectations, and internal funds, American Economic Review 96, 796810.
Dechow, Patricia M., Amy P. Hutton, and Richard G. Sloan, 1999, An empirical assessment of
the residual income valuation model, Journal of Accounting and Economics 26, 134.
Eberly, Janice, Sergio Rebelo, and Nicolas Vincent, 2011, Investment and value: A neoclassical
benchmark, working paper, Northwestern University.
27
Erickson, Timothy, and Toni M. Whited, 2000, Measurement error and the relationship between
investment and q, Journal of Political Economy 108, 10271057.
Fama, Eugene F., and Kenneth R. French, 1993, Common risk factors in the returns on stocks
and bonds, Journal of Financial Economics 33, 356.
Fama, Eugene F. and Kenneth R. French, 1995, Size and book-to-market factors in earnings and
returns, Journal of Finance 50, 131155.
Fama, Eugene F., and Kenneth R. French, 1997, Industry costs of equity, Journal of Financial
Economics 43, 153193.
Fazzari, Steven M., R. Glenn Hubbard, and Bruce C. Petersen, 1988, Financing constraints and
corporate investment, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1, 141195.
Fernandez-Villaverde, Jes us, and Juan F. Rubio-Ramrez, 2007, How structural are structural
parameters? NBER Macroeconomic Annual 83137.
Frankel, Richard, and Charles M. C. Lee, 1998, Accounting valuation, market expectation, and
cross-sectional stock returns, Journal of Accounting and Economics 25, 283319.
Gebhardt, William R., Charles M. C. Lee, and Bhaskaram Swaminathan, 2001, Toward an implied
cost of capital, Journal of Accounting Research 39, 135176.
Gilchrist, Simon, and Charles P. Himmelberg, 1995, Evidence on the role of cash ow for
investment, Journal of Monetary Economics 36, 541572.
Hall, Robert E., 2004, Measuring factor adjustment costs, Quarterly Journal of Economics 119,
899927.
Hamermesh, Daniel S., and Gerard Pfann, 1996, Adjustment costs in factor demand, Journal of
Economic Literature 34, 12641292.
Hansen, Lars Peter, 1982, Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators,
Econometrica 40, 10291054.
Hayashi, Fumio, 1982, Tobins marginal q and average q: A neoclassical interpretation,
Econometrica 50, 213224.
Israelsen, Ryan D., 2010, Investment based valuation, working paper, Indiana University.
Jermann, Urban J., 2010, The equity premium implied by production, Journal of Financial
Economics 98, 279296.
Jorgenson, Dale W., 1963, Capital theory and investment behavior, American Economic Review
53, 247259.
Koller, Tim, Marc Goedhart, and David Wessels, 2010, Valuation: Measuring and Managing the
Value of Companies, 5th edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Lettau, Martin, and Sydney C. Ludvigson, 2002, Time-varying risk premia and the cost of capital:
An alternative implication of the Q theory of investment, Journal of Monetary Economics
49, 3166.
28
Liu, Laura Xiaolei, Toni M. Whited, and Lu Zhang, 2009, Investment-based expected stock
returns, Journal of Political Economy 117, 11051139.
Lucas, Robert E. Jr., 1976, Econometric policy evaluation: A critique, Carnegie Rochester
Conference Series on Public Policy 1, 1946.
Lundholm, Russell J., and Rochard G. Sloan, 2007, Equity Valuation and Analysis, 2nd ed.,
McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Merz, Monika, and Eran Yashiv, 2007, Labor and the market value of the rm, American Economic
Review 97, 14191431.
Ohlson, James A., 1995, Earnings, book values, and dividends in equity valuation, Contemporary
Accounting Research 11, 661687.
Oliner, Stephen D., Glenn D. Rudebusch, and Daniel Sichel, 1996, The Lucas critique revisited:
Assessing the stability of empirical Euler equations for investment, Journal of Econometrics
70, 291316.
Palepu, Krishna G., and Paul M. Healy, 2008, Business Analysis and Valuation: Using Financial
Statements, 4th edition, South-Western.
Penman, Stephen H., 2010, Financial Statement Analysis and Security Valuation, 4th ed.,
McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Philippon, Thomas, 2009, The bond markets q, Quarterly Journal of Economics 124, 10111056.
Rosenberg, Barr, Kenneth Reid, and Ronald Lanstein, 1985, Persuasive evidence of market
ineciency, Journal of Portfolio Management 11, 917.
Shiller, Robert J., 1989, Market volatility, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Shiller, Robert J., 2000, Irrational exuberance, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Summers, Lawrence H., 1981, Taxation and corporate investment: A q-theory approach, Brookings
Papers on Economic Activity 1, 67127.
Tobin, James, 1969, A general equilibrium approach to monetary theory, Journal of Money, Credit,
and Banking 1, 1529.
Whited, Toni M., 1992, Debt, liquidity constraints, and corporate investment: Evidence from
panel data, Journal of Finance 47, 14251460.
29
Table 1 : Descriptive Statistics of Ten Book-to-Market Deciles
For each book-to-market decile, we report the following statistics: the time series average,

Q
it
,
and the annualized standard deviation,
Q
i
, of Tobins Q; the average stock return in annualized
percent, r
S
it+1
; the annualized volatility in percent of stock return,
R
i
; the average growth rate
of investment-to-capital from time t and t + 1,
I
it+1
/K
it+1
I
it
/K
it
; the average investment-to-capital at t,
I
it
/K
it
; the average market leverage, w
i
; and the average sales-to-capital over t + 1, Y
it+1
/K
it+1
.
The HL is the high-minus-low book-to-market decile, and Avg. is the averages across deciles.
Low 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 High HL Avg.

Q
it
3.83 2.40 1.92 1.63 1.30 1.11 0.99 0.93 0.89 0.82 3.01 1.58

Q
i
1.28 0.83 0.81 0.75 0.50 0.38 0.33 0.31 0.33 0.34 1.13 0.59
r
S
it+1
9.22 11.18 13.38 15.47 16.15 16.59 18.05 18.17 20.06 24.06 14.84 16.23

R
i
27.16 24.78 24.59 24.55 24.94 24.15 25.22 23.86 24.07 28.30 20.14 25.16
I
it+1
/K
it+1
I
it
/K
it
0.98 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.01 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.01 0.03 0.99
I
it
/K
it
0.17 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.11
w
it
0.11 0.17 0.22 0.25 0.27 0.29 0.31 0.37 0.43 0.56 0.45 0.30
Y
it+1
/K
it+1
1.93 1.89 1.77 1.65 1.55 1.44 1.33 1.36 1.32 1.34 0.60 1.56
30
Table 2 : Parameter Estimates and Tests of Overidentication
The table reports the estimation results via GMM on the Tobins Q moments and the expected
return moments given by equations (9) and (10), respectively, using ten book-to-market deciles as
the testing portfolios. is the capitals share, is the slope adjustment cost parameter, and is
the curvature adjustment cost parameter. The t-statistics, denoted [t], test that a given estimate
equals zero. /Y is the ratio (in percent) of the implied capital adjustment costs-to-sales ratio.
m.a.r.e. is the mean absolute return error in percent, and m.a.q.e. is the mean absolute valuation
error.
2
, d.f., and p-val are the statistic, the degrees of freedom, and the p-value testing that all
the errors are jointly zero. The Q column is for estimating the Q moments only, the r column for
estimating the expected return moments only, and the Q+r column for estimating the Q moments
and expected return moments jointly.
Q r Q+r
Panel A: Point estimates
5.15 4.58 5.15
[t] 15.78 2.59 14.71
5.65 4.17 5.55
[t] 11.17 1.97 8.53
0.24 0.23
[t] 5.43 6.45
Panel B: Adjustment costs
/Y 1.61 1.67 1.66
Panel C: Tests and pricing errors
m.a.q.e. 0.17 0.17
m.a.r.e. 1.81 1.96

2
10.46 6.72 10.93
d.f. 8 7 17
p-val 0.23 0.46 0.86
31
Table 3 : Euler Equation Errors
The table reports the Euler equation errors implied by the estimation of the investment model
via GMM on the Q moments and the return moments given by equations (9) and (10), using ten
book-to-market deciles as the test portfolios. e
Q
i
is the Tobins Q error dened in equation (11).
e
R
i
is the expected return error dened in equation (12).
i
is the intercept in annual percent from
monthly CAPM regressions,
FF
i
is the intercept in annual percent from monthly Fama-French
(1993) three-factor regressions, and
CARH
i
is the intercept in annual percent from the Carhart
(1997) four-factor model that includes the Fama-French factors and the momentum factor. The
data for the risk-free rate and the factor returns are from Kenneth Frenchs Web site. m.a.e. is the
mean absolute error computed as the mean of the absolute value of the corresponding row variable.
Low 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 High HL m.a.e.
Panel A: Matching average Q moments only
e
Q
i
0.06 0.10 0.31 0.11 0.05 0.13 0.22 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.18 0.17
[t] 2.46 1.21 2.95 1.46 1.10 2.23 2.85 2.88 2.94 2.72 2.19
Panel B: Matching expected return moments only
e
R
i
1.04 1.09 3.77 0.27 0.74 0.45 4.26 1.45 2.80 2.25 1.21 1.81
[t] 0.54 0.72 1.81 0.21 0.60 0.31 2.00 0.75 1.33 1.67 0.60

i
4.07 1.66 0.62 2.70 3.34 4.02 5.26 5.70 7.41 10.53 14.61 4.53
[t] 2.22 1.11 0.39 1.51 2.10 2.69 3.06 3.29 4.31 4.85 7.65

FF
i
2.45 1.85 0.96 0.11 0.08 0.18 1.31 1.11 2.28 4.26 6.71 1.46
[t] 2.37 2.43 1.17 0.13 0.10 0.23 1.39 1.25 2.89 3.76 5.63

CARH
i
2.37 1.34 0.96 0.18 0.25 0.77 1.26 0.76 2.60 4.45 6.82 1.50
[t] 2.24 1.66 1.15 0.21 0.32 0.95 1.34 0.85 2.94 3.68 5.45
Panel C: Matching average Q moments and expected return moments jointly
e
Q
i
0.02 0.09 0.3 0.09 0.07 0.14 0.23 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.22 0.17
[t] 0.29 0.89 1.94 0.79 0.59 1.47 2.1 2.6 2.75 2.72 1.72
e
R
i
0.85 0.56 4.50 0.40 0.60 1.46 4.24 1.76 3.31 1.93 1.08 1.96
[t] 0.22 0.10 1.65 0.16 0.38 0.89 1.82 1.00 1.42 0.55 0.17
32
Table 4 : Parameter Estimates and Tests of Overidentication: Subsample Analysis
The table reports the estimation results using GMM on the average Q moments and the expected
return moments given by equations (9) and (10), using ten book-to-market deciles as the testing
portfolios. is the capitals share, is the slope adjustment cost parameter, and is the curvature
adjustment cost parameter. The t-statistics, denoted [t], test that a given estimate equals zero.
/Y is the ratio (in percent) of the implied capital adjustment costs-to-sales ratio. m.a.q.e. is the
mean absolute Tobins Q error, and m.a.r.e. is the mean absolute return error.
2
, d.f., and p-val
are the statistic, the degrees of freedom, and the p-value testing that all the errors are jointly zero.
The Q columns report the results from estimating the average Q moments only, the r columns
report the results from estimating the expected return moments only, and the Q+r columns report
the results from estimating the average Q moments and the expected return moments jointly.
Subsample: 19651990 Subsample: 19832008
Q r Q+r Q r Q+r
Panel A: Point estimates
4.47 3.13 4.36 6.43 8.15 6.39
[t] 18.15 3.83 13.73 24.29 1.05 21.74
6.87 3.47 8.17 6.55 3.14 5.88
[t] 8.59 1.23 3.98 10.27 1.53 8.77
0.21 0.20 0.57 0.22
[t] 4.12 5.13 0.45 5.89
Panel B: Adjustment costs
/Y 0.79 0.91 0.51 1.59 13.6 1.85
Panel C: Tests and pricing errors
m.a.q.e. 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.26
m.a.r.e. 1.86 2.2 3.95 4.84

2
6.75 5.65 6.87 6.33 5.16 6.79
d.f. 8 7 17 8 7 17
p-val 0.56 0.58 0.99 0.61 0.64 0.99
33
Table 5 : Time Series of Parameter Estimates from Recursive Estimation
We estimate the models parameters recursively using a series of expanding windows. The
expanding windows start from 1965. T denotes the terminal year from which accounting variables
are used in the estimation in a given expanding window. We estimate only the average Tobins Q
moments in Panel A, only the expected return moments in Panel B, and both the Q moments and
expected return moments in Panel C. is the slope adjustment cost parameter, is the curvature
adjustment cost parameter, and is the capitals share parameter. The last three rows report,
for each corresponding column, the mean, standard deviation, and the coecient of variation in
percent, denoted C.V.%, which is dened as standard deviation/mean times 100.
Panel A: Q Panel B: r Panel C: Q+r
T
1989 4.47 6.87 3.13 3.47 0.21 4.37 8.09 0.20
1990 4.51 6.80 3.33 3.57 0.22 4.44 7.52 0.20
1991 4.54 6.77 3.50 3.76 0.22 4.49 7.21 0.21
1992 4.58 6.75 3.64 4.26 0.22 4.53 7.33 0.22
1993 4.62 6.66 4.03 4.99 0.22 4.60 6.83 0.22
1994 4.65 6.54 4.10 5.14 0.22 4.63 6.69 0.22
1995 4.67 6.47 4.04 5.06 0.22 4.64 6.69 0.22
1996 4.70 6.33 4.32 5.75 0.22 4.69 6.42 0.22
1997 4.73 6.23 4.28 5.16 0.23 4.72 6.27 0.22
1998 4.77 6.09 4.16 4.67 0.22 4.76 6.15 0.22
1999 4.81 6.07 4.12 5.28 0.22 4.79 6.24 0.22
2000 4.85 6.05 4.35 7.90 0.21 4.81 6.40 0.22
2001 4.90 6.09 4.31 6.22 0.21 4.87 6.29 0.22
2002 4.94 6.08 4.22 5.35 0.21 4.91 6.24 0.22
2003 4.96 6.05 4.23 4.82 0.23 4.95 6.12 0.23
2004 5.01 5.91 4.34 4.64 0.23 5.00 5.90 0.23
2005 5.06 5.82 4.46 4.83 0.23 5.05 5.82 0.23
2006 5.11 5.72 4.55 4.32 0.24 5.11 5.62 0.23
2007 5.15 5.65 4.58 4.17 0.24 5.15 5.55 0.23
Mean 4.79 6.26 4.09 4.91 0.22 4.76 6.49 0.22
Std 0.21 0.38 0.41 1.01 0.01 0.23 0.67 0.01
C.V.% 4.35 6.12 9.93 20.63 3.93 4.77 10.24 3.41
34
Table 6 : Parameter Estimates, Tests of Overidentication, and Euler Equation Errors,
Quadratic Adjustment Costs
Panel A reports the GMM estimation results on the Tobins Q moments and the expected return
moments given by equations (9) and (10), respectively, in which = 2. The testing portfolios are
ten book-to-market deciles. is the capitals share, and is the slope adjustment cost parameter.
The t-statistics, denoted [t], test that a given estimate equals zero. /Y is the ratio (in percent)
of the implied capital adjustment costs-to-sales ratio. m.a.r.e. is the mean absolute return error in
percent, and m.a.q.e. is the mean absolute valuation error.
2
, d.f., and p-val are the statistic, the
degrees of freedom, and the p-value testing that all the errors are jointly zero. The Q column is for
estimating the Q moments only, the r column for estimating the expected return moments only,
and the Q +r column for estimating the Q moments and expected return moments jointly. Panel
B reports the Euler equation errors. e
Q
i
is the Tobins Q error dened in equation (11), in which
= 2. e
R
i
is the expected return error dened in equation (12), in which = 2. m.a.e. is the mean
absolute error computed as the mean of the absolute value of the corresponding row variable.
Panel A: Parameter estimates and tests of overidentication
Q r Q+r
3.33 5.04 3.59
[t] 9.94 1.29 7.37
0.45 0.33
[t] 1.26 6.04
/Y 4.88 11.21 5.69
m.a.q.e. 0.62 0.66
m.a.r.e. 2.36 2.41

2
10.65 6.94 11.17
d.f. 9 8 18
p-val 30.01 54.27 88.7
Panel B: Euler equation errors
Low 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 High HL m.a.e.
Matching average Q moments only
e
Q
i
1.77 0.48 0.11 0.16 0.43 0.55 0.66 0.70 0.69 0.67 2.44 0.62
[t] 3.16 2.98 1.26 1.63 3.11 3.23 3.20 3.21 3.21 3.23 3.20
Matching expected return moments only
e
R
i
2.79 2.28 2.67 1.19 1.41 0.92 4.88 1.38 2.96 3.11 0.33 2.36
[t] 1.35 1.71 1.56 0.97 1.06 0.58 2.09 0.72 1.17 1.90 0.26
Matching average Q moments and expected return moments jointly
e
Q
i
1.59 0.33 0.02 0.28 0.55 0.66 0.77 0.81 0.79 0.75 2.35 0.66
[t] 3.01 2.10 0.15 1.75 2.51 2.80 2.83 2.87 2.90 2.98 3.19
e
R
i
4.13 3.61 3.30 0.37 0.94 0.93 4.65 1.72 3.24 1.18 2.95 2.41
[t] 1.58 1.67 1.64 0.24 0.64 0.68 2.27 1.02 1.47 0.36 0.62
35
Table 7 : Descriptive Statistics of Five Book-to-Market Quintiles Within Each Industry
The table reports the averages of selected characteristics of ve book-to-market quintiles within each
industry. For each industry, we report the value premium, measured as the average stock return
of the high-minus-low book-to-market quintile, r
S
HL
, the value spread, measured as the average
Tobins Q of the growth quintile minus the average Q of the value quintile,

Q
L

Q
H
. m.a.e. is
the mean absolute error using the CAPM, the Fama-French (1993) model, and the Carhart (1997)
model in each industry.
HL
is the intercept for the high-minus-low book-to-market quintile. Ave.
is the average of the absolute value of the variable in each column.
Averages CAPM Fama-French Carhart
Industry r
S
HL

Q
L

Q
H
m.a.e.
HL
[t] m.a.e.
HL
[t] m.a.e.
HL
[t]
Food 11.80 3.16 5.04 10.46 3.26 3.00 7.28 2.33 3.03 8.13 2.53
Mines 13.24 1.63 6.13 10.80 1.89 4.82 8.89 1.54 3.66 5.69 1.00
Oil 17.34 0.77 7.30 14.51 5.02 5.04 12.69 4.21 4.46 12.27 3.94
Clothes 10.39 3.55 4.19 10.43 2.98 4.59 7.11 2.06 3.13 5.19 1.49
Durables 11.10 1.59 4.72 10.67 3.16 4.13 5.65 1.84 2.96 5.35 1.69
Chemicals 17.49 1.24 6.39 14.68 4.52 4.25 9.37 3.05 4.15 9.28 3.01
Consumers 11.52 5.40 6.16 10.25 2.27 4.88 4.19 0.97 4.38 4.31 1.01
Construction 7.52 1.28 3.75 7.15 2.61 3.58 2.58 0.99 2.49 1.61 0.54
Steel 14.74 0.86 5.94 14.11 3.50 4.74 10.08 2.51 5.00 12.63 2.98
Fab Paper 14.50 1.53 6.32 14.72 3.25 4.64 11.44 2.57 4.51 10.55 2.43
Machinery 14.98 2.68 7.27 15.78 6.02 4.01 9.03 4.11 3.31 6.88 3.20
Cars 2.94 1.03 2.10 3.53 0.84 3.78 1.47 0.38 1.80 0.80 0.20
Transportation 8.35 1.05 3.98 8.74 3.55 3.41 6.68 2.88 2.89 6.21 2.53
Retail 8.31 2.07 3.75 7.60 2.23 2.80 3.28 1.08 2.20 4.11 1.28
Avg. 11.73 1.99 5.22 10.96 4.12 6.91 3.43 6.53
36
Table 8 : Parameter Estimates from Industry-by-Industry Estimation
The table reports the estimation results using GMM on the return and valuation moments given by equations (10) and (9), using ve
book-to-market quintiles as the test portfolios within each industry. is the share of capital in the production function, is the slope
adjustment cost parameter, and is the curvature adjustment cost parameter. The t-statistics denoted [t] test that a given estimate
equals zero. /Y is the ratio (in percent) of the implied capital adjustment costs-to-sales ratio, measured as (I
it
, K
it
)/Y
it
.
Panel A: Panel B: Panel C: Matching
Matching Tobins Q Matching expected returns Tobins Q and expected returns
Industry [t] [t] /Y [t] [t] [t] /Y [t] [t] [t] /Y
Food 6.24 32.78 7.89 4.25 1.02 5.50 10.92 8.30 1.31 0.10 6.47 0.35 6.21 24.83 7.74 4.80 0.09 5.30 1.00
Mines 3.55 17.05 3.27 4.64 5.23 0.00 0.00 0.16 5.03 0.00 2.77 5.90 6.30 1.95 0.16 3.73 0.60
Oil 2.51 7.30 10.79 0.43 0.25 2.91 14.97 9.75 1.94 0.30 7.35 1.23 2.63 34.01 8.78 2.07 0.31 7.59 0.50
Clothes 5.65 20.68 4.33 9.13 1.51 4.28 3.54 2.53 1.37 0.13 2.26 1.74 5.64 21.59 4.31 11.56 0.09 2.71 1.50
Durables 5.51 24.23 4.15 6.99 2.91 3.49 3.38 15.00 0.22 0.10 6.05 0.01 3.25 4.72 1.64 5.69 0.18 4.56 4.97
Chemicals 5.10 24.73 8.94 2.65 0.37 4.63 1.59 15.00 0.13 0.23 9.93 0.03 4.87 85.05 15.00 1.85 0.23 9.60 0.07
Consumer 7.00 26.05 4.75 6.16 7.90 7.36 2.04 4.71 2.36 0.02 0.15 10.01 6.99 20.96 4.85 5.49 0.03 0.66 7.82
Construction 5.67 12.03 3.57 2.66 1.98 0.00 0.00 0.10 4.82 0.00 4.55 6.98 2.37 2.91 0.13 2.95 2.78
Steel 5.15 20.41 8.65 1.24 0.07 5.08 2.30 15.00 0.20 0.19 5.91 0.01 5.09 51.69 15.00 0.94 0.19 6.07 0.01
Fab Paper 5.45 22.48 6.48 3.08 0.90 4.19 6.36 15.00 0.29 0.13 8.77 0.02 5.02 8.68 3.92 3.18 0.11 2.79 1.44
Machinery 4.98 14.87 3.31 14.10 5.59 3.58 13.80 11.59 0.59 0.14 8.36 0.23 4.90 13.52 3.79 5.72 0.18 5.77 4.58
Cars 4.76 13.25 4.95 2.70 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.10 7.71 0.00 1.01 0.55 1.00 1.11 0.18 4.02 4.55
Transportation 4.29 11.81 11.52 0.40 0.20 4.89 2.00 2.69 1.64 0.26 3.55 5.48 3.72 5.38 3.70 2.71 0.20 7.17 1.06
Retail 4.05 20.41 4.04 7.71 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.07 5.97 0.00 3.70 19.13 8.85 2.30 0.07 5.60 0.44
Ave. 4.99 19.15 6.19 4.73 2.20 3.28 4.35 9.96 1.01 0.15 5.88 1.37 4.31 21.64 6.23 3.73 0.15 4.89 2.24
3
7
Table 9 : Tests of Overidentication and Euler Equation Errors in Industry-by-Industry Estimation
The table reports the estimation results via GMM on the return and valuation moments given by equations (10) and (9), using ve
book-to-market quintiles as the test portfolios within each industry.
2
and p-val are the statistic and the p-value, respectively, testing
that all the errors are jointly zero. m.a.r.e. is the mean absolute return error, and m.a.q.e. is the mean absolute valuation error.
e
Q
H
e
Q
L
is the dierence in the valuation error between the high and low quintiles. e
R
H
e
R
L
is the dierence in the expected return
error between the high and low quintiles. Signicant values of e
Q
H
e
Q
L
and e
R
H
e
R
L
at the 5% signicant level are underlined. Ave. is
the average absolute value of the variable in each column.
Panel A: Panel B: Panel C: Matching
Matching Tobins Q Matching expected returns Tobins Q and expected returns
Industry
2
p-val m.a.q.e. e
Q
H
e
Q
L

2
p-val m.a.r.e. e
R
H
e
R
L

2
p-val m.a.q.e. e
Q
H
e
Q
L
m.a.r.e. e
R
H
e
R
L
Food 3.41 33.26 0.17 0.11 1.23 54.09 1.97 0.33 5.12 64.58 0.20 0.27 2.97 9.08
Mines 2.88 41.03 0.31 0.45 1.77 41.32 3.72 3.47 5.48 60.15 0.27 0.25 5.91 7.52
Oil 10.81 1.28 0.19 0.44 2.52 28.34 1.04 0.78 10.94 14.11 0.20 0.33 1.22 0.67
Clothes 8.17 4.26 0.09 0.22 1.10 57.58 2.47 1.92 9.00 25.29 0.09 0.26 4.12 0.06
Durables 3.54 31.60 0.10 0.03 1.16 55.95 1.65 0.93 8.94 25.70 0.39 1.25 4.25 10.03
Chemicals 3.49 32.20 0.06 0.11 2.14 34.33 1.88 3.53 7.69 36.08 0.07 0.09 2.17 6.73
Consumer 2.59 45.97 0.52 0.12 2.32 31.34 4.13 0.66 4.90 67.19 0.52 0.23 4.60 0.64
Construction 3.56 31.27 0.13 0.03 6.61 3.68 2.81 3.37 7.96 33.64 0.22 0.52 5.54 8.37
Steel 7.08 6.94 0.24 0.60 0.11 94.57 3.22 13.03 9.74 20.39 0.25 0.67 3.22 13.04
Fab Paper 3.37 33.80 0.28 0.69 0.03 98.44 2.65 6.98 8.16 31.91 0.31 0.95 3.39 4.48
Machinery 5.01 17.10 0.11 0.11 1.74 41.86 0.88 0.72 8.32 30.48 0.17 0.12 3.40 7.67
Cars 8.65 3.44 0.29 0.59 0.57 75.03 1.38 3.11 10.97 13.98 0.34 1.03 1.46 3.68
Transportation 10.50 1.48 0.21 0.43 3.72 15.54 4.03 7.31 10.72 15.15 0.27 0.61 6.49 19.57
Retail 7.84 4.94 0.09 0.22 0.30 86.01 0.52 0.39 9.91 19.37 0.22 0.07 1.65 0.65
Ave. 5.78 20.61 0.20 0.30 1.81 51.29 2.31 3.32 8.42 32.72 0.25 0.48 3.60 6.59
3
8
Figure 1 : Average Predicted Tobins Q versus Average Realized Tobins Q and Average
Predicted Returns versus Average Realized Returns, Separate and Joint Estimations
The results are from estimating the model via GMM using the average Tobins Q moments given
by equation (9), the expected return moments given by equation (10), or both sets of moments
simultaneously. The test portfolios are ten book-to-market deciles. Portfolio 1 is the growth decile,
and 10 is the value decile.
Panel A: Tobins Q errors,
matching average Tobins Q only
Panel B: Expected return errors,
matching expected returns only
0 1 2 3 4
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Realized Q
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

Q
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8
9
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Realized returns
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

r
e
t
u
r
n
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Panel C: Tobins Q errors, matching expected
returns and average Tobins Q jointly
Panel D: Expected return errors, matching
expected returns and average Tobins Q jointly
0 1 2 3 4
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Realized Q
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

Q
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8
9
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Realized returns
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

r
e
t
u
r
n
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
39
Figure 2 : Average Predicted Tobins Q versus Average Realized Tobins Q and Average
Predicted Returns versus Average Realized Returns, Separate and Joint Estimations,
Quadratic Adjustment Costs
The results are from estimating the model via GMM using the average Tobins Q moments given
by E
_
Q
it

_
1 + (1
t
)
2
_
I
it
K
it
___
= 0, the expected return moments given by equation (10), in
which the investment return is given by equation (6) with = 2, i.e.,
r
I
it+1

(1
t+1
)
_

Y
it+1
K
it+1
+
1
2
_

I
it+1
K
it+1
_
2
_
+
it+1

t+1
+ (1
it+1
)
_
1 + (1
t+1
)
2
_
I
it+1
K
it+1
__
1 + (1
t
)
2
_
I
it
K
it
_ ,
or both sets of moments simultaneously. The test portfolios are ten book-to-market deciles.
Portfolio 1 is the growth decile, and 10 is the value decile.
Panel A: Tobins Q errors,
matching average Tobins Q only
Panel B: Expected return errors,
matching expected returns only
0 1 2 3 4
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Realized Q
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

Q
1
2
3 4
5
6 7 8
9
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Realized returns
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

r
e
t
u
r
n
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Panel C: Tobins Q errors, matching expected
returns and average Tobins Q jointly
Panel D: Expected return errors, matching
expected returns and average Tobins Q jointly
0 1 2 3 4
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Realized Q
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

Q
1
2
3 4
5
6 7 8
9
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Realized returns
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

r
e
t
u
r
n
s
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
40
Figure 3 : Average Predicted versus Realized Tobins Q Within Each Industry
The testing portfolios are ve book-to-market quintiles within each industry. The results are from
estimating the model via GMM in each industry with the Tobins Q moments in equation (9).
Portfolio 1 is the growth quintile, and portfolio 5 is the value quintile.
Panel A: Food Panel B: Mines
0 2 4 6 8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Realized Q
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

Q
1
2 3
4
5
0 2 4 6 8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Realized Q
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

Q
1
2
3 4
5
Panel C: Oil Panel D: Clothes
0 2 4 6 8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Realized Q
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

Q
1
2
3 4 5
0 2 4 6 8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Realized Q
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

Q
1
2
3
4
5
Panel E: Durables Panel F: Chemicals
0 2 4 6 8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Realized Q
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

Q
1
2
3
4
5
0 2 4 6 8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Realized Q
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

Q
1
2
3 4 5
41
Panel G: Consumer Panel H: Construction
0 2 4 6 8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Realized Q
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

Q
1
2
3
4
5
0 2 4 6 8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Realized Q
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

Q
1
2
3
4
5
Panel I: Steel
Panel J: Fab paper
0 2 4 6 8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Realized Q
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

Q
1
2
3
4
5
0 2 4 6 8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Realized Q
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

Q
1
2
3 4
5
Panel K: Machinery
Panel L: Cars
0 2 4 6 8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Realized Q
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

Q
1
2
3
4
5
0 2 4 6 8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Realized Q
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

Q
1
2
3
4
5
Panel M: Transportation
Panel N: Retail
0 2 4 6 8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Realized Q
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

Q
1
2
3
4 5
0 2 4 6 8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Realized Q
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

Q
1
2
3
4
5
42