MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3029603372 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2019.3460

Asymmetric Attention and Stock Returns

2020· article· en· W3029603372 on OpenAlex
Péter Cziráki, Jordi Mondria, Thomas Wu

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnobservableInformation asymmetryStock (firearms)EconomicsPortfolioFinancial economicsAggregate (composite)EconometricsPrivate information retrievalMicroeconomicsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper constructs a new measure of attention allocation by local investors relative to nonlocals using aggregate search volume from Google. We first present a conceptual framework in which local investors optimally choose to focus their attention on local stocks when they receive private news, leading to an asymmetric allocation of attention between local and nonlocal investors. Consistent with the main prediction of this framework, we find that firms attracting abnormally high asymmetric attention from local relative to nonlocal investors earn higher returns. A portfolio that goes long in stocks with high asymmetric attention and short in stocks with low asymmetric attention has an alpha of 32 basis points per month. The results are stronger for stocks with a greater degree of information friction. The new measure of asymmetric attention allows one to infer the arrival of unobservable private information by observing investors’ attention allocation behavior. This paper was accepted by Karl Diether, 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.176 · 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