Disclosure Sentiment: Machine Learning vs. Dictionary Methods

被引:46
作者
Frankel, Richard [1 ]
Jennings, Jared [1 ]
Lee, Joshua [2 ]
机构
[1] Washington Univ, Olin Business Sch, St Louis, MO 63130 USA
[2] Brigham Young Univ, Marriott Sch Business, Provo, UT 84602 USA
关键词
textual analysis; machine learning; disclosure; conference calls; INFORMATION-CONTENT; TEXTUAL ANALYSIS; CONFERENCE CALLS; EARNINGS; ANALYSTS; PRESS; RISK; READABILITY; VOLATILITY; MANAGEMENT;
D O I
10.1287/mnsc.2021.4156
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
We compare the ability of dictionary-based and machine-learning methods to capture disclosure sentiment at 10-K filing and conference-call dates. Like Loughran and McDonald [Loughran T, McDonald B (2011) When is a liability not a liability? Textual analysis, dictionaries, and 10-Ks. J. Finance 66(1):35-65.], we use returns to assess sentiment. We find that measures based on machine learning offer a significant improvement in explanatory power over dictionary-based measures. Specifically, machine-learning measures explain returns at 10-K filing dates, whereas measures based on the Loughran and McDonald dictionary only explain returns at 10-K filing dates during the time period of their study. Moreover, at conference-call dates, machine-learning methods offer an improvement over the Loughran and McDonald dictionary method of a greater magnitude than the improvement of the Loughran and McDonald dictionary over the Harvard Psychosociological Dictionary. We further find that the random-forest-regression-tree method better captures disclosure sentiment than alternative algorithms, simplifying the application of the machine-learning approach. Overall, our results suggest that machine-learning methods offer an easily implementable, more powerful, and reliable measure of disclosure sentiment than dictionary-based methods.
引用
收藏
页码:5514 / 5532
页数:19
相关论文
共 60 条
[1]   The Structure of Voluntary Disclosure Narratives: Evidence from Tone Dispersion [J].
Allee, Kristian D. ;
Deangelis, Matthew D. .
JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING RESEARCH, 2015, 53 (02) :241-274
[2]   Machine Learning Methods for Demand Estimation [J].
Bajari, Patrick ;
Nekipelov, Denis ;
Ryan, Stephen P. ;
Yang, Miaoyu .
AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2015, 105 (05) :481-485
[3]   EMPIRICAL EVALUATION OF ACCOUNTING INCOME NUMBERS [J].
BALL, R ;
BROWN, P .
JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING RESEARCH, 1968, 6 (02) :159-178
[4]   Simultaneously Discovering and Quantifying Risk Types from Textual Risk Disclosures [J].
Bao, Yang ;
Datta, Anindya .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2014, 60 (06) :1371-1391
[5]   The financial reporting environment: Review of the recent literature [J].
Beyer, Anne ;
Cohen, Daniel A. ;
Lys, Thomas Z. ;
Walther, Beverly R. .
JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING & ECONOMICS, 2010, 50 (2-3) :296-343
[6]   Do sophisticated investors interpret earnings conference call tone differently than investors at large? Evidence from short sales [J].
Blau, Benjamin M. ;
DeLisle, Jared R. ;
Price, S. McKay .
JOURNAL OF CORPORATE FINANCE, 2015, 31 :203-219
[7]  
Blei David M., 2007, P NIPS 07 20 INT C N, P121
[8]   Latent Dirichlet allocation [J].
Blei, DM ;
Ng, AY ;
Jordan, MI .
JOURNAL OF MACHINE LEARNING RESEARCH, 2003, 3 (4-5) :993-1022
[9]   Hyperbole or Reality? Investor Response to Extreme Language in Earnings Conference Calls [J].
Bochkay, Khrystyna ;
Hales, Jeffrey ;
Chava, Sudheer .
ACCOUNTING REVIEW, 2020, 95 (02) :31-60
[10]   A plain English measure of financial reporting readability [J].
Bonsall, Samuel B. ;
Leone, Andrew J. ;
Miller, Brian P. ;
Rennekamp, Kristina .
JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING & ECONOMICS, 2017, 63 (2-3) :329-357