Does q-theory with investment frictions explain anomalies in the cross section of returns?

Q-theory predicts that investment frictions steepen the relation between expected returns and firm investment. Using financing constraints to proxy for investment frictions, we show only weak evidence that the investment-to-assets and asset growth effects in the cross section of returns are stronger in financially more constrained firms than in financially less constrained firms. There is no evidence that q-theory with investment frictions explains the investment growth, net stock issues, abnormal corporate investment, or net operating assets anomalies. Limits-to-arbitrage proxies dominate q-theory with investment frictions in explaining the magnitude of the investment-to-assets and asset growth anomalies in direct comparisons.