Market Reaction to Earnings Announcements Under Different Volatility Regimes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the occurrence and persistence of abnormal stock returns surrounding corporate earnings announcements, particularly emphasizing how varying frequencies of financial reporting influence market behavior. Specifically, this research examines the effects of the timing and frequency of disclosures on market reactions and stock price volatility during critical earnings announcement periods. By analyzing firms within the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) from 2014 to 2024, this study evaluates the interplay between financial reporting schedules and market responses to stock prices. Furthermore, it considers the impact of peer firms’ reporting practices on the assimilation of firm-specific information into stock prices. Using econometric models, including Vector Auto Regression (VAR), Impulse Response Functions (IRFs), and Self-Exciting Threshold Autoregressive (SETAR) models, causal relationships between reporting frequency, stock price volatility, and abnormal return patterns across different volatility regimes are identified. The findings highlight that quarterly reporting practices intensify market responses and contribute to significant variations in stock price behavior in high-volatility periods. These insights provide a deeper understanding of the role of financial disclosure practices and forward-looking guidance in shaping market efficiency. This study contributes to ongoing discussions about balancing the transparency benefits of frequent reporting with its potential to amplify market volatility and sector-specific risks, offering valuable implications for policymakers, investors, and corporate managers.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".