Journal of Information Technology

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 50–69 | Cite as

More than just noise? Examining the information content of stock microblogs on financial markets

  • Ting LiEmail author
  • Jan van Dalen
  • Pieter Jan van Rees
Research Article


Scholars and practitioners alike increasingly recognize the importance of stock microblogs as they capture the market discussion and have predictive value for financial markets. This paper examines the extent to which stock microblog messages are related to financial market indicators and the mechanism leading to efficient aggregation of information. In particular, this paper investigates the information content of stock microblogs with respect to individual stocks and explores the effects of social influences on an interday and intraday basis. We collected more than 1.2 million stock-related messages (i.e., tweets) related to S&P 100 companies over a period of 7 months. Using methods from computational linguistics, we went through an elaborate process of message feature reduction, spam detection, language detection, and slang removal, which has led to an increase in classification accuracy for sentiment analysis. We analyzed the data on both a daily and a 15-min basis and found that the sentiment of messages is positively affected with contemporaneous daily abnormal stock returns and that message volume predicts 15-min follow-up returns, trading volume, and volatility. Disagreement in microblog messages positively influences stock features, both in interday and intraday analysis. Notably, if we give a greater share of voice to microblog messages depending on the social influence of microbloggers, this amplifies the relationship between bullishness and abnormal returns, market volume, and volatility. Following knowledgeable investors advice results in more power in explaining changes in market features. This offers an explanation for the efficient aggregation of information on microblogging platforms. Furthermore, we simulated a set of trading strategies using microblog features and the results suggest that it is possible to exploit market inefficiencies even when transaction costs are included. To our knowledge, this is the first study to comprehensively examine the association between the information content of stock microblogs and intraday stock market features. The insights from the study permit scholars and professionals to reliably identify stock microblog features, which may serve as valuable proxies for market sentiment and permit individual investors to make better investment decisions.


analytics big data intraday analysis sentiment analysis social influence social media stock market trading strategy twitter 



We would like to thank the special issue editors and the anonymous reviewers for useful comments. We appreciate the data collection support of Dennis Sprenger. Earlier versions of this work were presented at the 2012 Workshop on Information Systems and Economics (WISE), 2013 Statistical Challenges in eCommerce Research Symposium (SCECR), City University of Hong Kong, Tsinghua University, and University of Amsterdam.


  1. Aalbers, M. (2015). Corporate financialization. The International Encyclopedia of Geography: People, the Earth, Environment, and Technology. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Antweiler, W. and Frank, M.Z. (2004). Is all that talk just noise? The information content of internet stock message boards. The Journal of Finance 59(3): 1259–1294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aral, S. and Walker, D. (2011). Creating social contagion through viral product design: A randomized trial of peer influence in networks. Management Science 57(9): 1623–1639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baillie, R.T., Booth, G.G., Tse, Y. and Zabotina, T. (2002). Price discovery and common factor models. Journal of Financial Markets 5(3): 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, M. and Wurgler, J. (2007). Investor sentiment in the stock market. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 21(2): 129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barber, B.M. and Odean, T. (2008). All that glitters: The effect of attention and news on the buying behavior of individual and institutional investors. Review of Financial Studies 21(2): 785–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Black, F. (1986). Noise. The Journal of Finance 41(3): 528–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bollen, J., Mao, H. and Zeng, X. (2011). Twitter mood predicts the stock market. Journal of Computational Science 2(1): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chan, W.S. (2003). Stock price reaction to news and no-news: Drift and reversal after headlines. Journal of Financial Economics 70(2): 223–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen, H., De, P., Hu, Y.J. and Hwang, B.-H. (2014). Wisdom of crowds: The value of stock opinions transmitted through social media. Review of Financial Studies 27(5): 1367–1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Das, S.R. and Chen, M.Y. (2007). Yahoo! for Amazon: Sentiment extraction from small talk on the web. Management Science 53(9): 1375–1388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Long, J.B., Shleifer, A., Summers, L.H. and Waldmann, R.J. (1990). Noise trader risk in financial markets. Journal of Political Economy 98(4): 703–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Easley, D. and O’Hara, M. (1987). Price, trade size, and information in securities markets. Journal of Financial Economics 19(1): 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fama, E.F. (1970). Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and empirical work. The Journal of Finance 25(2): 383–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fama, E.F. (1991). Efficient capital markets: II. The Journal of Finance 46(5): 1575–1617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grossman, S.J. and Stiglitz, J.E. (1980). On the impossibility of informationally efficient markets. The American Economic Review 70(3): 393–408.Google Scholar
  17. Hirshleifer, D. and Teoh, S.H. (2003). Limited attention, information disclosure, and financial reporting. Journal of Accounting and Economics 36(1): 337–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Keynes, J.M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. Kogan, L., Ross, S.A., Wang, J. and Westerfield, M.M. (2006). The price impact and survival of irrational traders. The Journal of Finance 61(1): 195–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lagoarde-Segot, T. (2016). Financialization: Towards a new research agenda. International Review of Financial Analysis. doi: 10.1016/j.irfa.2016.03.007.
  21. Lee, E. (2013). AP Twitter account hacked in market-moving attack. Bloomberg. Accessed 24 April 2013.
  22. Lehmann, B.N. (2002). Some desiderata for the measurement of price discovery across markets. Journal of Financial Markets 5(3): 259–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Luo, X., Zhang, J. and Duan, W. (2013). Social media and firm equity value. Information Systems Research 24(1): 146–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Malkiel, B.G. (2003). The efficient market hypothesis and its critics. Journal of Economic Perspectives 17(1): 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mizrach, B. and Weerts, S. (2009). Experts online: An analysis of trading activity in a public Internet chat room. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 70(1): 266–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Muniesa, F. (2014). The Provoked Economy: Economic Reality and the Performative Turn. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Oh, C. and Sheng, O. (2011). Investigating predictive power of stock micro blog sentiment in forecasting future stock price directional movement. In International Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1–19). Shanghai.Google Scholar
  28. Schreiber, P.S. and Schwartz, R.A. (1986). Price discovery in securities markets. The Journal of Portfolio Management 12(4): 43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shiller, R.J. (2003). From efficient markets theory to behavioral finance. Journal of Economic Perspectives 17(1): 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R.W. (1997). The limits of arbitrage. The Journal of Finance 52(1): 35–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sprenger, T.O., Tumasjan, A., Sandner, P.G. and Welpe, I.M. (2014). Tweets and trades: The information content of stock microblogs. European Financial Management 20(5), 926–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tetlock, P.C. (2011). All the news that’s fit to reprint: Do investors react to stale information? Review of Financial Studies, 24(5): 1481–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tetlock, P.C., Saar-Tsechansky, M. and Macskassy, S. (2008). More than words: Quantifying language to measure firms’ fundamentals. The Journal of Finance 63(3): 1437–1467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Time. (2009). Turning Wall Street on its head, 10 ways Twitter will change American business.,28804,1901188_1901207_1901198,00.html.
  35. Tirunillai, S. and Tellis, G.J. (2012). Does chatter really matter? Dynamics of user-generated content and stock performance. Marketing Science 31(2): 198–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Xu, S.X. and Zhang, X.M. (2013). Impact of Wikipedia on market information environment: Evidence on management disclosure and investor reaction. MIS Quarterly 37(4): 1043–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yang, J. and Counts, S. (2010). Predicting the speed, scale, and range of information diffusion in Twitter. In Proceedings of the Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (vol. 10, pp. 355–358). Washington, DC: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  38. Yuan, Y. (2015). Market-wide attention, trading, and stock returns. Journal of Financial Economics 116(3): 548–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yu, Y., Duan, W. and Cao, Q. (2013). The impact of social and conventional media on firm equity value: A sentiment analysis approach. Decision Support Systems 55(4): 919–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zeledon, M. (2009). StockTwits may change how you trade. New York: Bloomberg Businessweek.
  41. Zhang, Y. and Swanson, P.E. (2010). Are day traders bias free? Evidence from Internet stock message boards. Journal of Economics and Finance 34(1): 96–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Information Technology Trust 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ting Li
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jan van Dalen
    • 1
  • Pieter Jan van Rees
    • 1
  1. 1.Rotterdam School of ManagementErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations