MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136387606 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v12n4p33

Investor Sentiment by Money Flow Index and Stock Return

2021· article· en· W3136387606 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lai Cao Mai Phuong

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconometricsStock exchangeEconomicsFinancial economicsStock marketMarket liquidityStock market indexStock (firearms)Regression analysisBusinessMonetary economicsStatisticsFinanceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Factors affecting stock prices have been studied by many scholars on different stock markets. However, the number of empirical studies applying technical analysis indicators to measure investor sentiment is quite limited. To explore this interesting topic, this study uses the Money Flow Index (MFI) indicator to measure an investor's sentiment by various thresholds and to test its effect on the excess return on Vietnam stock market. Data series including market, interest rate, finance and transaction data of 138 companies listed on the Ho Chi Minh City Stock Exchange from 2015 to June 2020 are used in the equations Regression. The study's findings show that, after controlling for market factors, individual characteristics and liquidity of each company, investor sentiment as measured by the MFI indicator still has a significant impact on the return of stocks at all thresholds. In addition, when the MFI value area is near the starting and ending point of the scale (less than 20, greater than 80), the regression coefficients of these two thresholds and control variables both increase compared to the remaining models, return and significant effect to the excess return of the securities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Financial ResearchSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207