Weibo vs Wall Street Journal: How are Social & Mass Media Different in the Stock Market?

Hang Dong, Jie Ren, B. Padmanabhan, J. Nickerson
{"title":"Weibo vs Wall Street Journal: How are Social & Mass Media Different in the Stock Market?","authors":"Hang Dong, Jie Ren, B. Padmanabhan, J. Nickerson","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3434161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While investors in financial markets have access to information from both mass media and social media, trading platforms that curate and provide this information have little to go by in terms of understanding their relative value. This research note compares social media with mass media in the stock market from the lenses of information diversity and value in predicting future stock returns. Using nearly a million stock-related news articles and 12.7 million stock-related social media messages from Sina’s Finance news platform and the popular Weibo platform in China for the year of 2014, we find that in the stock market the information coverage of social media is less diverse than that of mass media, a finding that gets exacerbated with increasing volume of media information. In the short-term (one to five days) we show that both types of content have predictive value but are relevant in different time horizons. Our empirical evidence suggests that social media and mass media serve stock market investors differently and have significant practical implications for the design of trading platforms and for future research.","PeriodicalId":301794,"journal":{"name":"Communication & Computational Methods eJournal","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication & Computational Methods eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3434161","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

While investors in financial markets have access to information from both mass media and social media, trading platforms that curate and provide this information have little to go by in terms of understanding their relative value. This research note compares social media with mass media in the stock market from the lenses of information diversity and value in predicting future stock returns. Using nearly a million stock-related news articles and 12.7 million stock-related social media messages from Sina’s Finance news platform and the popular Weibo platform in China for the year of 2014, we find that in the stock market the information coverage of social media is less diverse than that of mass media, a finding that gets exacerbated with increasing volume of media information. In the short-term (one to five days) we show that both types of content have predictive value but are relevant in different time horizons. Our empirical evidence suggests that social media and mass media serve stock market investors differently and have significant practical implications for the design of trading platforms and for future research.
微博vs《华尔街日报》:社交媒体和大众媒体在股市中有何不同?
虽然金融市场的投资者可以从大众媒体和社交媒体上获取信息,但管理和提供这些信息的交易平台在了解这些信息的相对价值方面几乎没有什么可参考的。本研究报告从信息多样性和价值预测未来股票收益的角度比较了社交媒体和大众媒体在股票市场中的作用。利用2014年新浪财经新闻平台和中国流行的微博平台近100万篇股票相关新闻和1270万条股票相关社交媒体信息,我们发现,在股票市场中,社交媒体的信息覆盖面不如大众媒体的信息覆盖面多样化,这一发现随着媒体信息量的增加而加剧。在短期内(一到五天),我们发现两种类型的内容都有预测价值,但在不同的时间范围内是相关的。我们的实证证据表明,社交媒体和大众媒体为股市投资者提供的服务不同,这对交易平台的设计和未来的研究具有重要的现实意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信