More financially constrained firms are riskier and earn higher expected returns than less financially constrained firms, although this effect can be subsumed by size and book-to-market. Further, because the stochastic discount factor makes capital investment more procyclical, financial constraints are more binding in economic booms. These insights arise from two dynamic models. In Model 1, firms face dividend nonnegativity constraints without any access to external funds. In Model 2, firms can retain earnings, raise debt and equity, but face collateral constraints on debt capacity. Despite their diverse structures, the two models share largely similar predictions.

We test whether the impact of financial constraints on firm value is observable in asset" returns. We form portfolios of firms based on observable characteristics related to financial" constraints, and test for common covariation in the stock returns of these firms. Using several" different measures of financial constraints, we find that financially constrained firms' stock" returns move together over time. This financial constraint factor in stock returns is related to not well explained by, other empirically identified factors in asset returns. Constrained firms" have remarkably low returns in our sample period of 1968-1995, both unconditionally and in the" context of empirical asset pricing models. Financial constraint returns help explain returns" following initial public offerings and dividend omissions. We find only limited support for the" hypothesis that the relative performance of financially constrained firms reflects monetary" policy, credit conditions, and business cycles

We test whether the impact of financial constraints on firm value is observable in assetquot; returns. We form portfolios of firms based on observable characteristics related to financialquot; constraints, and test for common covariation in the stock returns of these firms. Using severalquot; different measures of financial constraints, we find that financially constrained firms' stockquot; returns move together over time. This financial constraint factor in stock returns is related to not well explained by, other empirically identified factors in asset returns. Constrained firmsquot; have remarkably low returns in our sample period of 1968-1995, both unconditionally and in thequot; context of empirical asset pricing models. Financial constraint returns help explain returnsquot; following initial public offerings and dividend omissions. We find only limited support for thequot; hypothesis that the relative performance of financially constrained firms reflects monetaryquot; policy, credit conditions, and business cycles.

Theories of capital market imperfections have strong cross-sectional implications not only for corporate investment, but also for asset prices. Motivated by these theories, we develop a hypothesis about a differential effect of debt capacity on stock returns across financially constrained and unconstrained firms, based on a model of corporate investment under collateral constraints. The findings strongly support the hypothesis. Debt capacity is positively associated with stock returns in the cross section of financially constrained firms, after controlling for theoretical and empirical risk proxies such as beta, size, book-to-market, and momentum. The positive marginal impact of debt capacity is also economically significant. In contrast, debt capacity has no systematic relation with the cross section of financially unconstrained firms' stock returns. The results are robust to the way in which firms are classified into constrained and unconstrained groups and to the way in which debt capacity is measured. The findings suggest that cross-sectional differences in corporate investment behavior arising from financial constraints, predicted by theories of imperfect capital markets and supported by empirical evidence, are reflected in the stock returns of manufacturing firms.

Using multiple discriminant analysis, we construct an index that measures firms' external financial constraints in an Australian setting. We form portfolios of firms based on our financial constraints index and find that financially constrained firms earn lower return than their unconstrained counterparts. Moreover, stock returns of financially constrained firms are found to move together, indicating the potential existence of a financial constraints factor. Neither the variation nor the mean return of the constraints factor are well explained by existing asset pricing models, suggesting an independent role for our financial constraints factor in affecting stock returns.

This paper examines stock liquidity in explaining the mixed relations between financial constraints and stock returns and the pricing of stock liquidity across financially constrained and unconstrained firms. We find a negative relation in liquid portfolios and a positive relation in illiquid portfolios. Financially constrained firms have higher liquidity risk and earn a higher illiquidity premium than unconstrained firms. Financial constraints cannot be independently priced in stock returns and can only be priced in conjunction with stock liquidity in bad economic times. Stock liquidity is independently priced for financially constrained firms or in good times, but not for unconstrained firms.

Using comprehensive firm- and aggregate-level data, this paper studies the real and financial implications of capital market imperfections. We first examine whether financially constrained firms' business fundamentals (capital spending and operating earnings) are more sensitive to macroeconomic movements than unconstrained firms' fundamentals. We then examine whether financial constraint quot;return factorsquot; respond to macroeconomic shocks in tandem with the responses from business fundamentals. The evidence in this paper points to financial constraints affecting both fundamental quantities and asset returns.