社交媒体股票分析文章中的可验证内容:长与短

IF 2.2 3区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Journal of Business Finance & Accounting Pub Date : 2024-09-11 DOI:10.1111/jbfa.12834
Lei Chen, Shuping Chen, Tian Gao, Wuyang Zhao
{"title":"社交媒体股票分析文章中的可验证内容:长与短","authors":"Lei Chen, Shuping Chen, Tian Gao, Wuyang Zhao","doi":"10.1111/jbfa.12834","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Investment‐related social media platforms are transforming the traditional intermediary landscape by rapidly disseminating user‐empowered opinions and recommendations, raising concerns about the credibility of information on such platforms. We examine the differential content verifiability of <jats:italic>SeekingAlpha.com</jats:italic> articles with sell recommendations (short articles) versus articles with buy recommendations (long articles). We find that short articles contain greater verifiable content than long articles, and verifiable content in short articles generates greater market reactions and better mitigates return reversals than that in long articles. This asymmetry contrasts prior research evidence that greater content verifiability accompanies traditional sell‐side analyst reports with buy recommendations. Our results are robust to various confounding factors, including author effects, among others. Our results become more pronounced in the presence of greater retail ownership. Taken together, our results provide new evidence on investors’ assessment of the credibility of information on social media platforms.","PeriodicalId":48106,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Business Finance & Accounting","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Verifiable content in social media stock‐analysis articles: The long and short of it\",\"authors\":\"Lei Chen, Shuping Chen, Tian Gao, Wuyang Zhao\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jbfa.12834\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Investment‐related social media platforms are transforming the traditional intermediary landscape by rapidly disseminating user‐empowered opinions and recommendations, raising concerns about the credibility of information on such platforms. We examine the differential content verifiability of <jats:italic>SeekingAlpha.com</jats:italic> articles with sell recommendations (short articles) versus articles with buy recommendations (long articles). We find that short articles contain greater verifiable content than long articles, and verifiable content in short articles generates greater market reactions and better mitigates return reversals than that in long articles. This asymmetry contrasts prior research evidence that greater content verifiability accompanies traditional sell‐side analyst reports with buy recommendations. Our results are robust to various confounding factors, including author effects, among others. Our results become more pronounced in the presence of greater retail ownership. Taken together, our results provide new evidence on investors’ assessment of the credibility of information on social media platforms.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48106,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Business Finance & Accounting\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Business Finance & Accounting\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12834\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Business Finance & Accounting","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12834","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

与投资相关的社交媒体平台正在改变传统中介机构的格局,迅速传播由用户授权的意见和建议,从而引发了人们对此类平台上信息可信度的担忧。我们研究了 SeekingAlpha.com 上推荐卖出的文章(短文)与推荐买入的文章(长文)在内容可验证性上的差异。我们发现,与长篇文章相比,短篇文章包含的可验证内容更多,而且短篇文章中的可验证内容比长篇文章中的可验证内容能产生更大的市场反应,并能更好地缓解回报逆转。这种不对称性与之前的研究证据形成了鲜明对比,之前的研究证据表明,在传统的卖方分析师报告中,买入建议的内容可验证性更高。我们的结果对各种混杂因素(包括作者效应等)都是稳健的。在散户持股比例较高的情况下,我们的结果会更加明显。总之,我们的结果为投资者评估社交媒体平台上信息的可信度提供了新的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Verifiable content in social media stock‐analysis articles: The long and short of it
Investment‐related social media platforms are transforming the traditional intermediary landscape by rapidly disseminating user‐empowered opinions and recommendations, raising concerns about the credibility of information on such platforms. We examine the differential content verifiability of SeekingAlpha.com articles with sell recommendations (short articles) versus articles with buy recommendations (long articles). We find that short articles contain greater verifiable content than long articles, and verifiable content in short articles generates greater market reactions and better mitigates return reversals than that in long articles. This asymmetry contrasts prior research evidence that greater content verifiability accompanies traditional sell‐side analyst reports with buy recommendations. Our results are robust to various confounding factors, including author effects, among others. Our results become more pronounced in the presence of greater retail ownership. Taken together, our results provide new evidence on investors’ assessment of the credibility of information on social media platforms.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
17.20%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Journal of Business Finance and Accounting exists to publish high quality research papers in accounting, corporate finance, corporate governance and their interfaces. The interfaces are relevant in many areas such as financial reporting and communication, valuation, financial performance measurement and managerial reward and control structures. A feature of JBFA is that it recognises that informational problems are pervasive in financial markets and business organisations, and that accounting plays an important role in resolving such problems. JBFA welcomes both theoretical and empirical contributions. Nonetheless, theoretical papers should yield novel testable implications, and empirical papers should be theoretically well-motivated. The Editors view accounting and finance as being closely related to economics and, as a consequence, papers submitted will often have theoretical motivations that are grounded in economics. JBFA, however, also seeks papers that complement economics-based theorising with theoretical developments originating in other social science disciplines or traditions. While many papers in JBFA use econometric or related empirical methods, the Editors also welcome contributions that use other empirical research methods. Although the scope of JBFA is broad, it is not a suitable outlet for highly abstract mathematical papers, or empirical papers with inadequate theoretical motivation. Also, papers that study asset pricing, or the operations of financial markets, should have direct implications for one or more of preparers, regulators, users of financial statements, and corporate financial decision makers, or at least should have implications for the development of future research relevant to such users.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Out‐of‐sample predictability of firm‐specific stock price crashes: A machine learning approach Verifiable content in social media stock‐analysis articles: The long and short of it Top management team incentive dispersion and management earnings forecasts Coarse performance evaluation for envious agents
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1