MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2569625516 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2405

Disagreement, Underreaction, and Stock Returns

2016· article· en· W2569625516 on OpenAlexafffund
Ling Cen, Kuo-chiang John Wei, Liyan Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaHong Kong University of Science and Technology
KeywordsStock (firearms)EconomicsEconometricsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We explore analysts’ earnings forecast data to improve on one popular disagreement measure—the analyst forecast dispersion measure—proposed by Diether et al. [Diether KB, Malloy CJ, Scherbina A (2002) Differences of opinion and the cross section of stock returns. J. Finance 57:2113–2141]. Our analysis suggests that changes in the standard deviations of forecasted earnings can work as a complementary disagreement measure that is comparable across stocks and immune from other return-predictive information contained in the normalization scalars of analyst forecast dispersion measures. We also document evidence that the change-based disagreement measure predicts future cross-sectional returns significantly only when changes in the mean forecasts are negative. This finding suggests that the interaction between disagreement and underreaction to earnings news affects asset prices. This paper was accepted by Wei Jiang, finance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.074
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.074
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement ScienceSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207