MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125158876 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1120.1633

Investor Sentiment, Disagreement, and the Breadth–Return Relationship

2013· article· en· W3125158876 on OpenAlex
Ling Cen, Hai Lu, Liyan Yang

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsEconomicsEconometricsMarket sentimentVariation (astronomy)Aggregate (composite)Financial economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the cross-sectional breadth–return relation by assuming that investors subject to market sentiment hold a biased belief in the aggregate. With a dynamic multiasset model, we predict that the breadth–return relationship can be either positive or negative depending on the relative strength of two offsetting forces—disagreement and sentiment. We find evidence consistent with our predictions. The breadth–return relationship is positive when the sentiment effect is small. However, the relationship becomes negative when (i) the time-series variation of market-wide sentiment is high and (ii) the cross-sectional dispersion of firm-specific exposure to market-wide sentiment variation is large. Our unified framework reconciles a few seemingly inconsistent empirical studies in this literature and explains puzzling cross-sectional return patterns observed during the Internet bubble and the subprime crisis periods. This paper was accepted by Brad Barber, 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)0.001
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 score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.803

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.181 · 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