每个人都有自己的看法:社交媒体对管理指导反应的信息量

John L. Campbell, Jenna D'Adduzio, James R. Moon
{"title":"每个人都有自己的看法:社交媒体对管理指导反应的信息量","authors":"John L. Campbell, Jenna D'Adduzio, James R. Moon","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3689185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We examine whether the social media reaction to an important firm disclosure provides a signal of the quality of that disclosure and whether capital market participants’ reactions to the disclosure are consistent with the social media reaction. Specifically, we examine the sentiment of posts on StockTwits immediately following management forecasts issued between 2010 to 2017 and offer three main findings. First, we document that the relation between StockTwits sentiment and forecast news is stronger when the forecast is later revealed to be more accurate and less biased, suggesting that StockTwits provides an early signal of forecast quality. Second, we find a positive association between the extent to which social media sentiment agrees with the forecast news and stock price reaction to the management forecast. This suggests that when social media sentiment agrees with management forecast news, investors do too. Finally, we find a positive association between the extent to which social media sentiment agrees with the forecast news and subsequent analyst forecast revisions, particularly when forecast news is positive. This suggests that when social media sentiment agrees with positive management forecast news, analysts do too. Additional analysis suggests that investors appear to underreact to the signal provided by social media sentiment, while analysts appear to overreact to the signal. Overall, our results suggest that the social media reaction to management forecasts provides a timely and accurate reflection of not only the forecast’s quality, but also of how the forecast will be received by important capital market participants.","PeriodicalId":18611,"journal":{"name":"Microeconomics: General Equilibrium & Disequilibrium Models of Financial Markets eJournal","volume":"72 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Everyone Has an Opinion: The Informativeness of Social Media’s Response to Management Guidance\",\"authors\":\"John L. Campbell, Jenna D'Adduzio, James R. Moon\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3689185\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We examine whether the social media reaction to an important firm disclosure provides a signal of the quality of that disclosure and whether capital market participants’ reactions to the disclosure are consistent with the social media reaction. Specifically, we examine the sentiment of posts on StockTwits immediately following management forecasts issued between 2010 to 2017 and offer three main findings. First, we document that the relation between StockTwits sentiment and forecast news is stronger when the forecast is later revealed to be more accurate and less biased, suggesting that StockTwits provides an early signal of forecast quality. Second, we find a positive association between the extent to which social media sentiment agrees with the forecast news and stock price reaction to the management forecast. This suggests that when social media sentiment agrees with management forecast news, investors do too. Finally, we find a positive association between the extent to which social media sentiment agrees with the forecast news and subsequent analyst forecast revisions, particularly when forecast news is positive. This suggests that when social media sentiment agrees with positive management forecast news, analysts do too. Additional analysis suggests that investors appear to underreact to the signal provided by social media sentiment, while analysts appear to overreact to the signal. Overall, our results suggest that the social media reaction to management forecasts provides a timely and accurate reflection of not only the forecast’s quality, but also of how the forecast will be received by important capital market participants.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18611,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Microeconomics: General Equilibrium & Disequilibrium Models of Financial Markets eJournal\",\"volume\":\"72 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Microeconomics: General Equilibrium & Disequilibrium Models of Financial Markets eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3689185\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Microeconomics: General Equilibrium & Disequilibrium Models of Financial Markets eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3689185","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

我们考察了社会媒体对重要公司披露的反应是否提供了披露质量的信号,以及资本市场参与者对披露的反应是否与社会媒体的反应一致。具体来说,我们在2010年至2017年间发布管理层预测后,立即检查了StockTwits上帖子的情绪,并提供了三个主要发现。首先,我们证明,当预测后来被证明更准确、更少偏见时,StockTwits情绪与预测新闻之间的关系更强,这表明StockTwits提供了预测质量的早期信号。其次,我们发现社交媒体情绪对预测新闻的认同程度与股价对管理层预测的反应呈正相关。这表明,当社交媒体的情绪与管理层的预测消息一致时,投资者也会认同。最后,我们发现社交媒体情绪对预测新闻的认同程度与随后分析师预测修正之间存在正相关关系,特别是当预测新闻是积极的时候。这表明,当社交媒体的情绪与积极的管理层预测新闻一致时,分析师也会认同。另外的分析表明,投资者似乎对社交媒体情绪提供的信号反应不足,而分析师似乎对信号反应过度。总体而言,我们的研究结果表明,社交媒体对管理层预测的反应不仅及时准确地反映了预测的质量,而且还反映了重要资本市场参与者对预测的接受程度。
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
Everyone Has an Opinion: The Informativeness of Social Media’s Response to Management Guidance
We examine whether the social media reaction to an important firm disclosure provides a signal of the quality of that disclosure and whether capital market participants’ reactions to the disclosure are consistent with the social media reaction. Specifically, we examine the sentiment of posts on StockTwits immediately following management forecasts issued between 2010 to 2017 and offer three main findings. First, we document that the relation between StockTwits sentiment and forecast news is stronger when the forecast is later revealed to be more accurate and less biased, suggesting that StockTwits provides an early signal of forecast quality. Second, we find a positive association between the extent to which social media sentiment agrees with the forecast news and stock price reaction to the management forecast. This suggests that when social media sentiment agrees with management forecast news, investors do too. Finally, we find a positive association between the extent to which social media sentiment agrees with the forecast news and subsequent analyst forecast revisions, particularly when forecast news is positive. This suggests that when social media sentiment agrees with positive management forecast news, analysts do too. Additional analysis suggests that investors appear to underreact to the signal provided by social media sentiment, while analysts appear to overreact to the signal. Overall, our results suggest that the social media reaction to management forecasts provides a timely and accurate reflection of not only the forecast’s quality, but also of how the forecast will be received by important capital market participants.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Framework for Investing with Altruism The Inviolable Law of Demand How Much Does the Market Know? Who Trades at the Close? Implications for Price Discovery and Liquidity Trade and the Rise of Ancient Greek City-States
×
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