MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044927196 · doi:10.1002/ijfe.1931

Relationship between investor sentiment and earnings news in high‐ and low‐sentiment periods

2020· article· en· W3044927196 on OpenAlexaff
Zhuo Li, Meiyu Tian, Guangda Ouyang, Fenghua Wen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Finance & Economics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsEarningsEquity (law)EconomicsStock (firearms)Volatility (finance)Earnings growthStock priceMarket sentimentFinancial economicsStock marketMonetary economicsEconometricsFinanceSeries (stratigraphy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using the Chinese equity market as the testing venue, this study explores how investor sentiment affects the immediate reaction of stock prices to earnings news in high‐ and low‐sentiment periods. Our key finding is that the sentiment‐driven pricing of earnings will differ between the two periods. Specifically, during high‐sentiment (low‐sentiment) periods, the stock price sensitivity to good (bad) earnings news increases (decreases) with investor sentiment, whereas the stock price sensitivity to bad (good) earnings news is unrelated to investor sentiment. Additionally, we find that the effect of sentiment is more pronounced for young, high volatility, growth and distressed stocks. However, contrary to the U.S. evidence, our results show that small stocks are not always more exposed to sentiment. Further analysis of the role of short‐sales constraints in the sensitivity of stock prices to bad earnings news implies that short sales can enhance informational efficiency.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations36
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Finance & EconomicsSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207