Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An explorative analysis of sentiment impact on S&P 500 components returns, volatility and downside risk

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The main contribution of this study is to assess whether investor sentiment, as measured through textual analysis of newspaper articles or social media posts, does have an effect on the mean returns and on the variance of financial stocks. The analysis is carried on a basket of the S &P 500 components where stock returns and volatility are modeled within the GARCH family augmented, both in the mean and the variance equation, with an exogenous variable representing the investor sentiment; the latter is measured through specific Bloomberg proprietary scores based on News or Twitter feeds. Empirical results support the hypothesis that these indicators do have a positive impact on stock prices: the Twitter based index positively affects the components returns, confirming the outcomes of existing studies, whereas the news based index has a significant impact on their volatility. We also contribute the literature by performing the same analysis across the 11 sectors of the index, evidencing that investor sentiment has a significant impact on Industrials, Health Care, Consumer Discretionary, Consumer Staples, Information Technology and Communication Services. As a further contribution, we perform an out-of-sample analysis to assess the potential effect of Bloomberg sentiment scores on downside risk measures, such as Value at Risk and Expected Shortfall. This subject is relevant to regulators in order to conceive suitable policy interventions during turmoil periods around specific market sectors or stocks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The data were accessed through Bloomberg on July 19, 2021.

  2. Bloomberg only considers news and messages in English.

  3. Market open is determined based on the composite exchange of parent equity being traded for the company. Securities traded on London or Japan are updated before the corresponding market open time; values for the rest of the world are updated before New York market open time.

  4. A violation is counted at time \(t+1\) if the loss realized at time \(t+1\) exceeds the risk measure computed at time t.

References

  • Abad, P., Muela, S. B., & Martín, C. L. (2015). The role of the loss function in value-at-risk comparisons. The Journal of Risk Model Validation, 9(1), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acerbi, C., & Tasche, D. (2002). On the coherence of expected shortfall. Journal of Banking & Finance, 26(7), 1487–1503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aharon, D. Y., Demir, E., Lau, C. K. M., & Zaremba, A. (2022). Twitter-based uncertainty and cryptocurrency returns. Research in International Business and Finance, 59, 101546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Artzner, P., Delbaen, F., Eber, J. M., & Heath, D. (1999). Coherent measures of risk. Mathematical Finance, 9(3), 203–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atilgan, Y., Demirtas, K. O., Gunaydin, A. D., & Kirli, I. (2022). Momentum and downside risk in emerging markets. The Journal of Portfolio Management.

  • Audrino, F., Sigrist, F., & Ballinari, D. (2020). The impact of sentiment and attention measures on stock market volatility. International Journal of Forecasting, 36(2), 334–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Awartani, B. M., & Corradi, V. (2005). Predicting the volatility of the S &P-500 stock index via GARCH models: The role of asymmetries. International Journal of Forecasting, 21(1), 167–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azar, P. D., & Lo, A. W. (2016). The wisdom of Twitter crowds: Predicting stock market reactions to FOMC meetings via Twitter feeds. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 42(5), 123–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M., & Wurgler, J. (2006). Investor sentiment and the cross-section of stock returns. The Journal of Finance, 61(4), 1645–1680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartov, E., Faurel, L., & Mohanram, P. S. (2018). Can Twitter help predict firm-level earnings and stock returns? The Accounting Review, 93(3), 25–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bi, J., & Zhu, Y. (2020). Value at risk, cross-sectional returns and the role of investor sentiment. Journal of Empirical Finance, 56, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bistarelli, S., Cretarola, A., Figà-Talamanca, G., Mercanti, I., & Patacca, M. (2019). Is arbitrage possible in the bitcoin market? (work-in-progress paper). In M. Coppola, E. Carlini, D. D’Agostino, J. Altmann, and J. Á. Bañares (Eds.), Economics of grids, clouds, systems, and services. GECON 2018. Lecture notes in computer science. (Vol. 11113, pp. 243–251). Springer.

  • Bollen, J., Mao, H., & Zeng, X. (2011). Twitter mood predicts the stock market. Journal of Computational Science, 2(1), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollerslev, T. (1986). Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics, 31(3), 307–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, S. D. (2005). A review of backtesting and backtesting procedures. Finance and Economics Discussion Series.

  • Caporin, M. (2008). Evaluating value-at-risk measures in the presence of long memory conditional volatility. The Journal of Risk, 10(3), 79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, P. (2017). Why is VIX a fear gauge? Risk and Decision Analysis, 6(2), 179–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, T. (2017). Investor attention and global stock returns. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 18(3), 358–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. W., Chou, R. K., & Lin, C. B. (2019). Investor sentiment, SEO market timing, and stock price performance. Journal of Empirical Finance, 51, 28–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cont, R. (2001). Empirical properties of asset returns: Stylized facts and statistical issues. Quantitative Finance, 1(2), 223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coqueret, G. (2020). Stock-specific sentiment and return predictability. Quantitative Finance, 20(9), 1531–1551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cretarola, A., Figà-Talamanca, G., & Patacca, M. (2018). A continuous time model for bitcoin price dynamics. Mathematical and Statistical Methods for Actuarial Sciences and Finance, 273–277.

  • Cui, X., Lam, D., & Verma, A. (2016). Embedded value in Bloomberg news and social sentiment data. Bloomberg LP.

  • Cziraki, P., Mondria, J., & Wu, T. (2021). Asymmetric attention and stock returns. Management Science, 67(1), 48–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Da, Z., Engelberg, J., & Gao, P. (2011). In search of attention. The Journal of Finance, 66(5), 1461–1499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Divernois, M. A., Filipović, D., et al. (2021). Event studies on investor sentiment. Technical report, Swiss Finance Institute.

  • Engle, R. F. (1982). Autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity with estimates of the variance of united kingdom inflation. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 50, 987–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figà-Talamanca, G., & Patacca, M. (2019). Does market attention affect Bitcoin returns and volatility? Decisions in Economics and Finance, 42(1), 135–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figà-Talamanca, G., & Patacca, M. (2020). Disentangling the relationship between bitcoin and market attention measures. Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, 47(1), 71–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, D. (2013). Sentiment during recessions. The Journal of Finance, 68(3), 1267–1300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghalanos, A. (2014). rugarch: Univariate GARCH models. R package version 1.3-5.

  • Glosten, L. R., Jagannathan, R., & Runkle, D. E. (1993). On the relation between the expected value and the volatility of the nominal excess return on stocks. The Journal of Finance, 48(5), 1779–1801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gu, C., & Kurov, A. (2020). Informational role of social media: Evidence from twitter sentiment. Journal of Banking & Finance, 121, 105969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, P. R., & Lunde, A. (2003). Does anything beat a GARCH (1, 1)? A comparison based on test for superior predictive ability. In 2003 IEEE International conference on computational intelligence for financial engineering, 2003. Proceedings. (pp. 301–307). IEEE.

  • Hansen, P. R., & Lunde, A. (2005). A forecast comparison of volatility models: Does anything beat a GARCH (1, 1)? Journal of Applied Econometrics, 20(7), 873–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, B., Yao, X., Luo, Y., & Li, J. (2022). Improving financial distress prediction using textual sentiment of annual reports. Annals of Operations Research, 1–28.

  • Jorion, P. (1996). Risk2: Measuring the risk in value at risk. Financial Analysts Journal, 52(6), 47–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalaycı, B., Özmen, A., & Weber, G. W. (2020). Mutual relevance of investor sentiment and finance by modeling coupled stochastic systems with mars. Annals of Operations Research, 295(1), 183–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearney, C., & Liu, S. (2014). Textual sentiment in finance: A survey of methods and models. International Review of Financial Analysis, 33, 171–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraaijeveld, O., & De Smedt, J. (2020). The predictive power of public Twitter sentiment for forecasting cryptocurrency prices. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 65, 101188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kupiec, P. (1995). Techniques for verifying the accuracy of risk measurement models. The Journal of Derivatives, 3(2).

  • Li, X., Liang, C., & Ma, F. (2022). Forecasting stock market volatility with a large number of predictors: New evidence from the MS-MIDAS-LASSO model. Annals of Operations Research, 1–40.

  • Lillo, F., Miccichè, S., Tumminello, M., Piilo, J., & Mantegna, R. N. (2015). How news affects the trading behaviour of different categories of investors in a financial market. Quantitative Finance, 15(2), 213–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ljung, G. M., & Box, G. E. P. (1978). On a measure of lack of fit in time series models. Biometrika, 65(2), 297–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mai, F., Shan, Z., Bai, Q., Wang, X., & Chiang, R. H. (2018). How does social media impact bitcoin value? A test of the silent majority hypothesis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 35(1), 19–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mao, H., Counts, S., & Bollen, J. (2015). Quantifying the effects of online bullishness on international financial markets. Technical report, ECB Statistics Paper.

  • McNeil, A. J., & Frey, R. (2000). Estimation of tail-related risk measures for heteroscedastic financial time series: An extreme value approach. Journal of Empirical Finance, 7(3–4), 271–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, D. B. (1991). Conditional heteroskedasticity in asset returns: A new approach. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 347–370.

  • Nooijen, S. J., & Broda, S. A. (2016). Predicting equity markets with digital online media sentiment: Evidence from Markov-switching models. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 17(4), 321–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, G. A., Guan, W., & Dong, H. (2022). Ethical fund volatility and inconsistency of investor sentiment. Journal of Business & Management, 28(1).

  • Ratner, B. (2009). The correlation coefficient: Its values range between \(+1/-1\), or do they? Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 17(2), 139–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, P. (2011). Modeling and forecasting the stock market volatility of S &P 500 index using GARCH models. IUP Journal of Behavioral Finance, 8(1), 51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sul, H. K., Dennis, A. R., & Yuan, L. (2017). Trading on twitter: Using social media sentiment to predict stock returns. Decision Sciences, 48(3), 454–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, A., Lachanski, M., & Fabozzi, F. J. (2016). Trade the tweet: Social media text mining and sparse matrix factorization for stock market prediction. International Review of Financial Analysis, 48, 272–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tasche, D. (2002). Expected shortfall and beyond. Journal of Banking & Finance, 26(7), 1519–1533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. C. (2007). Giving content to investor sentiment: The role of media in the stock market. The Journal of Finance, 62(3), 1139–1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. C., Saar-Tsechansky, M., & Macskassy, S. (2008). More than words: Quantifying language to measure firms’ fundamentals. The Journal of Finance, 63(3), 1437–1467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whaley, R. E. (2009). Understanding the VIX. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 35(3), 98–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamai, Y., & Yoshiba, T. (2005). Value-at-risk versus expected shortfall: A practical perspective. Journal of Banking & Finance, 29(4), 997–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, S. Y., Liu, A., Chen, J., & Hawkes, A. (2018). Applications of a multivariate Hawkes process to joint modeling of sentiment and market return events. Quantitative Finance, 18(2), 295–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, S. Y., Mo, S. Y. K., & Liu, A. (2015). Twitter financial community sentiment and its predictive relationship to stock market movement. Quantitative Finance, 15(10), 1637–1656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, G. (2018). Measuring investor sentiment. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 10, 239–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was partially funded by the Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Perugia (Grant No. 2018.0427.021).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Gianna Figá-Talamanca and Marco Patacca have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, University of Perugia, Via A. Pascoli 20, 06123, Perugia, Umbria, Italy

    Gianna Figà-Talamanca

  2. Department of Economics and Finance, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Via Columbia 2, 00133, Rome, Lazio, Italy

    Marco Patacca

Authors
  1. Gianna Figà-Talamanca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marco Patacca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gianna Figà-Talamanca.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

This article does not contain studies with human participants or animals conducted by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Figà-Talamanca, G., Patacca, M. An explorative analysis of sentiment impact on S&P 500 components returns, volatility and downside risk. Ann Oper Res (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-022-05129-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-022-05129-w

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation