Disclosure Sentiment: Machine Learning vs. Dictionary Methods

被引:56
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
[51]   When Is a Liability Not a Liability? Textual Analysis, Dictionaries, and 10-Ks [J].
Loughran, Tim ;
McDonald, Bill .
JOURNAL OF FINANCE, 2011, 66 (01) :35-65
[52]   News implied volatility and disaster concerns [J].
Manela, Asaf ;
Moreira, Alan .
JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL ECONOMICS, 2017, 123 (01) :137-162
[53]   What Makes Conference Calls Useful? The Information Content of Managers' Presentations and Analysts' Discussion Sessions [J].
Matsumoto, Dawn ;
Pronk, Maarten ;
Roelofsen, Erik .
ACCOUNTING REVIEW, 2011, 86 (04) :1383-1414
[54]   The Earnings Quality and Information Processing Effects of Accounting Consistency [J].
Peterson, Kyle ;
Schmardebeck, Roy ;
Wilks, T. Jeffrey .
ACCOUNTING REVIEW, 2015, 90 (06) :2483-2514
[55]   Earnings conference calls and stock returns: The incremental informativeness of textual tone [J].
Price, S. McKay ;
Doran, James S. ;
Peterson, David R. ;
Bliss, Barbara A. .
JOURNAL OF BANKING & FINANCE, 2012, 36 (04) :992-1011
[56]   Disclosure Tone and Shareholder Litigation [J].
Rogers, Jonathan L. ;
Van Buskirk, Andrew ;
Zechman, Sarah L. C. .
ACCOUNTING REVIEW, 2011, 86 (06) :2155-2183
[57]   Do MD&A Disclosures Help Users Interpret Disproportionate Inventory Increases? [J].
Sun, Yan .
ACCOUNTING REVIEW, 2010, 85 (04) :1411-1440
[59]   More than words: Quantifying language to measure firms' fundamentals [J].
Tetlock, Paul C. ;
Saar-Tsechansky, Maytal ;
Macskassy, Sofus .
JOURNAL OF FINANCE, 2008, 63 (03) :1437-1467
[60]   Giving content to investor sentiment: The role of media in the stock market [J].
Tetlock, Paul C. .
JOURNAL OF FINANCE, 2007, 62 (03) :1139-1168