The Effect of Twitter Messages and Tone on Stock Return: The Case of Saudi Stock Market “Tadawul”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims to examine whether corporate Twitter messages and tone have an effect on corporate stock return (RET) for the Saudi Stock Exchange “Tadawul”. The study also investigates whether the association differs across large- and small-sized firms. We used a sample of 11,099 firm-daily observations for non-financial firms that were traded on the Saudi Stock Exchange “Tadawul” across the period 1 April 2020 to 31 December 2020. Using panel ordinary least square (OLS) and two-stage least square (2SLS), we found that corporate Twitter (currently renamed ‘X’) messages is positively and significantly associated with stock return (RET). The findings also suggest that the message tone increases the stock returns. Furthermore, our results show different effects of Twitter messages and tone on stock return across small- and large-sized firms. In addition, our findings show that Twitter tone is positively associated with RET when the firm is large in size. However, when the firm is small, Twitter messages has a stronger effect on RET. Our findings provide policy implications for regulators and investors. Regulators might monitor the information in accurate ways. Also, investors might start to show interest in Twitter channels to follow the firm’s news.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".