From Headlines to Forecasts: Narrative Econometrics in Equity Markets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates whether firm-specific narratives extracted from the news add predictive content to monthly stock return models. Using bidirectional encoder representations from transformer-based topic modeling (BERTopic), we processed Microsoft (MSFT) news and constructed monthly narrative activations (binary presence and decay weighting). These narrative activations are used in autoregressive moving-average models with exogenous regressors (ARIMA-X) to analyze MSFT monthly log returns alongside the U.S. Economic Policy Uncertainty (EPU) index from February 2021 to March 2025. Decay models using a similarity-distilled BERT embedding yielded three significant narratives: Media and Public Perception (MPP) (β = 0.0128, p = 0.002), Currency and Macro Environment (CME) (β = −0.0143, p < 0.001), and Tech and Semiconductor Ecosystem (TSE) (β = −0.0606, p = 0.014). Binary activation identifies reputational shocks: the Media and Public Perception (MPP) indicator predicts lower returns at one- and two-month lags (β = −0.0758, p = 0.043; β = −0.1048, p = 0.007). A likelihood-ratio test comparing ARIMA-X models with narrative regressors to a baseline ARIMA (no narratives) rejects the null hypothesis that narratives add no improvement in fit (p < 0.01). Firm-level narratives enhance monthly forecasts beyond conventional predictors; decay activation and similarity-distilled embeddings perform best. Demonstrated on Microsoft as a proof of concept, the ticker-agnostic design scales to multiple firms and sectors, contingent on sufficient firm-tagged news coverage for external validity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".