More Than Words:

Quantifying Language to Measure Firms’ Fundamentals

PAUL C. TETLOCK, MAYTAL SAAR-TSECHANSKY, and SOFUS MACSKASSY*

February 2007

Abstract

We examine whether a simple quantitative measure of language can be used to predict

individual firms’ accounting earnings and stock returns. Our three main findings are:

1) the fraction of negative words in firm-specific news stories forecasts low firm

earnings; 2) firms’ stock prices briefly underreact to the information embedded in

negative words; and 3) the earnings and return predictability from negative words is

largest for the stories that focus on fundamentals. Together these findings suggest that

linguistic media content captures otherwise hard-to-quantify aspects of firms’

fundamentals, which investors quickly incorporate in stock prices.

*
Please send all comments to [email protected]. Tetlock is in the Finance department and Saar-
Tsechansky is in the Information, Risk, and Operations Management department at the University of Texas
at Austin, McCombs School of Business. Macskassy is at Fetch Technologies. The authors gratefully
acknowledge assiduous research assistance from Jie Cao and Shuming Liu. We are thankful for helpful
comments from seminar participants at Goldman Sachs, INSEAD, and UT Austin, and from John Griffin,
Alok Kumar, Terry Murray, Chris Parsons, Laura Starks, Jeremy Stein, and Sheridan Titman. We also
thank two anonymous referees. Finally, we are especially grateful to the editor, Cam Harvey, and an
anonymous associate editor for many helpful suggestions. The authors are responsible for any errors.

1
“Language is conceived in sin and science is its redemption”

– W.V. Quine, The Roots of Reference, p. 68.

There is a voluminous literature that examines the extent to which stock market prices

incorporate quantitative information. Although few researchers study the impact of

qualitative verbal information, there are compelling theoretical and empirical reasons to

do so.1 Theoretically, efficient firm valuations should be equal to the expected present

discounted value of their cash flows conditional on investors’ information sets, which

include qualitative descriptions of firms’ business environments, operations, and

prospects in the financial press. Empirically, Shiller (1981), Roll (1988) and Cutler,

Poterba, and Summers (1989) find that substantial movements in firms’ stock prices do

not seem to correspond to changes in quantitative measures of firms’ fundamentals,

suggesting that qualitative variables may help explain stock returns.

In this paper, we quantify the language used in financial news stories in an effort

to predict firms’ accounting earnings and stock returns. Our study takes as a starting point

Tetlock (2007) who examines how qualitative information—the fraction of negative

words in a particular news column about the stock market—is incorporated in aggregate

market valuations. We extend that analysis to address the impact of negative words in all

Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and Dow Jones News Service (DJNS) stories about individual

S&P 500 firms from 1980 to 2004.2 In addition to studying individual firms’ stock

returns, we investigate whether negative words can be used to improve expectations of

firms’ future cash flows. Overall, this study sheds light on whether and why quantifying

language provides novel information about firms’ earnings and returns.

1
In the literature review below, we discuss the recent studies that examine qualitative verbal information.
2
As in Tetlock (2007), we use negative words from the General Inquirer classification dictionary to
measure qualitative information. Our results are similar for alternative measures that include positive words
from this same dictionary (see footnote 6).

2
 Our first main result is that negative words convey negative information about

firm earnings, above and beyond stock analysts’ forecasts and historical accounting data.

In other words, qualitative verbal information does not merely echo easily quantifiable

traditional measures of firm performance.

A natural next step is to test whether stock market prices rationally reflect the

effect of negative words on firms’ expected earnings. Our second result is that stock

market prices exhibit a delayed response to the information embedded in negative words

on the subsequent trading day. As a result, we identify potential profits from using daily

trading strategies based on the words in a continuous intra-day news source (DJNS), but

not from strategies based on a news source released each morning (WSJ). Accounting for

reasonable transaction costs could eliminate the profitability of the high-frequency

trading strategy, suggesting that short-run frictions play an important role in how

information is incorporated in asset prices.

To interpret these results further, we separately analyze negative words in news

stories whose content focuses on firms’ fundamentals. We find that negative words in

stories about fundamentals predict earnings and returns more effectively than negative

words in other stories. Collectively, our three findings suggest that linguistic media

content captures otherwise hard-to-quantify aspects of firms’ fundamentals, which

investors quickly incorporate in stock prices.

Before delving into our tests, we call attention to two significant advantages to

using the language in everyday news stories to predict firms’ earnings and returns. First,

by quantifying language, researchers can examine and judge the directional impact of a

limitless variety of events, whereas most studies focus on one particular event type, such

as earnings announcements, mergers, or analysts’ recommendations. Analyzing a more

complete set of events that affects firms’ fundamental values allows researchers to

3
identify common patterns in firm responses and market reactions to events. Equally

important, examining all newsworthy events at once limits the scope for “dredging for

anomalies”—the term used by Fama (1998) to describe running event studies on different

event types until one obtains “significant” results.

Second, linguistic communication is a potentially important source of information

about firms’ fundamental values. Because very few stock market investors directly

observe firms’ production activities, they get most of their information secondhand. Their

three main sources are analysts’ forecasts, quantifiable publicly disclosed accounting

variables, and linguistic descriptions of firms’ current and future profit-generating

activities. If analyst and accounting variables are incomplete or biased measures of firms’

fundamentals, linguistic variables may have incremental explanatory power for firms’

future earnings and returns.

As an example of our linguistic quantification method, consider a January 8, 1999

DJNS article entitled “Consumer Groups Say Microsoft Has Overcharged for Software.”

The article’s second sentence is: “The alleged ‘pricing abuse will only get worse if

Microsoft is not disciplined sternly by the antitrust court,’ said Mark Cooper, director of

research for Consumer Federal of America.” We hypothesize that Microsoft investors’

reactions to this sentence depend on the fraction of negative words that the sentence

contains (Tetlock (2007)).3 According to the classification dictionary that we use, the

above sentence contains a fraction of negative words that ranks in the 99th percentile of

sentences within our news story database, which is largely consistent with intuition.4

We do not claim that our crude quantitative measure of language subsumes or

dominates traditional accounting measures of firms’ fundamentals. Instead, we

3
In this example, Microsoft’s abnormal stock returns were -42, -141, and -194 basis points for the three
trading days surrounding the news.
4
There are five negative words (alleged, abuse, worse, sternly, and antitrust) among the 29 total words in
the sentence, or 17.2%, which easily exceeds the cut-off for the 99th percentile of our 1998 news story data.
The tone of the sentence is representative of the entire article, which also ranks in the top decile for 1998.

4
investigate whether the fraction of negative words in firm-specific news stories can

improve our understanding of firms’ underlying values and whether firms’ stock market

prices efficiently incorporate linguistic information. Insofar as negative word counts are

noisy measures of qualitative information, the coefficients in our regressions should be

biased toward zero. The presence of measurement error suggests that our results

understate the true importance of qualitative information.

The layout of the paper is as follows. In Section I, we conduct a brief review of

related research on qualitative information. Section II discusses the properties of the news

stories used in this study. In the Appendix, we explain how we match firms’ common

names used in news stories to firms’ corresponding financial identifier variables. Section

III presents the main tests for whether negative words predict firms’ earnings and stock

returns. In Section IV, we assess whether earnings and return predictability is strongest

for timely (DJNS) news articles that focus on firms’ fundamentals. In Section V, we

present our conclusions and outline directions for further research on media content.

I. Research on Qualitative Information

In addition to the Tetlock (2007) study discussed earlier, several new research

projects investigate the importance of qualitative information in finance. Our study is

most closely related to contemporaneous work by Li (2006) and Davis, Piger, and Sedor

(2006), who analyze the tone of qualitative information using objective word counts from

corporate annual reports and earnings press releases, respectively. Whereas Davis, Piger,

and Sedor (2006) examine the contemporaneous relationship between earnings, returns,

and qualitative information, Li (2006) focuses on the predictive ability of qualitative

information as we do.

5
 Li (2006) finds that the words “risk” and “uncertain” in firms’ annual reports

predict low annual earnings and stock returns, which the author interprets as

underreaction to “risk sentiment.” Our study differs from Li (2006) in that we examine

qualitative information in news stories at daily horizons rather than qualitative

information in annual reports at annual horizons. This allows us to construct more

comprehensive and powerful tests of earnings and return predictability: our tests use over

80 quarters of earnings and over 6,000 days of returns data, as compared to 12 years of

earnings and 12 years of returns data in Li (2006). Other differences between our studies,

such as the measures used, do not seem to be as important. When we use the two words

employed in Li (2006) rather than the negative words category to measure qualitative

information, we find similar albeit slightly weaker earnings and return predictability.

There is also some prior and contemporaneous research that analyzes qualitative

information using sophisticated subjective measures, rather than simple word counts.

However, most of this work focuses on firms’ stock returns, and ignores firms’ earnings.

For example, Antweiler and Frank (2004) and Das and Chen (2006) train algorithms to

reproduce human beings’ subjective “bullish,” “neutral,” or “bearish” ratings of internet

chat room messages and news stories. Neither study finds any statistically significant

return predictability in individual stocks. A recent study by Antweiler and Frank (2006),

which uses an algorithm to identify news stories by their topic rather than by their tone,

does find some return predictability. For many of their topic classifications, Antweiler

and Frank (2006) find significant return reversals in the 10-day period around the news,

which they interpret as overreaction to news regardless of its tone.

Although we view the intersection of computational linguistics and finance

research as fascinating and hope that it continues to progress, we wish to avoid using

models that require thousands of parameter estimates and considerable human judgment.

6
Instead, we rely on word count measures that are parsimonious, objective, replicable, and

transparent. At this early stage in research on qualitative financial information, these four

attributes are particularly important, and give word count measures a reasonable chance

of becoming widely adopted in finance.

II. Stylized Facts about Firm-specific News Stories

We concentrate our analysis on the fraction of negative words in DJNS and WSJ stories

about S&P 500 firms from 1980 through 2004 inclusive. We choose the S&P 500

constituents for reasons of importance and tractability. Firms in the S&P 500 index

compose roughly three-quarters of the total U.S. market capitalization, and appear in the

news sufficiently often to make the analysis interesting. Yet there are not so many firms

that the manual labor required to identify firms’ common names is prohibitively costly.

We obtain the list of S&P index constituents and stock price data from CRSP,

analyst forecast information from I/B/E/S and accounting information from CompuStat.

Merging the news stories and the financial information for a given firm requires matching

firms’ common names used in news stories to their permnos, CUSIPs, or gvkeys used in

the above financial data sets. Although firms’ common names usually resemble the firm

names appearing in financial data sets, a perfect match is an exception, not the rule.

To obtain the common names that we use as search strings for news stories, we

begin with the company name variable in the CRSP data for all S&P 500 index

constituents during the relevant time frame. We use the CRSP company name change file

to identify situations in which a firm in the index changes its name. Throughout the

analysis, we focus on news stories featuring the company name most directly related to

the stock. Thus, for conglomerates, we use the holding company name, not the subsidiary

7
names—e.g., PepsiCo, Inc., or Pepsi for short, rather than Gatorade or Frito-Lay. This

means that we may miss news stories about some firms’ major products.

As our source for news stories, we use the Factiva news database. To find the

name that media outlets use to refer to a firm, we use a combination of four different

methods that are described in detail in the Appendix. Because of the large number of

firms and news stories, we implement an automated story-retrieval system. For each S&P

500 firm, the system constructs a query that specifies the characteristics of the stories to

be retrieved. The system then submits the query and records the retrieved stories.

In total, we retrieve over 350,000 qualifying news stories—over 260,000 from

DJNS and over 90,000 from WSJ—containing over 100,000,000 words. We find at least

one story for 1063 of 1110 (95.8%) of the firms in the S&P 500 from 1980 to 2004 (see

Appendix for details). We include a news story in our analysis only if it occurs while the

firm is a member of the S&P index and within our 25-year time frame. We also exclude

stories in the first week after a firm has been newly added to the index to prevent the

well-known price increase associated with a firm’s inclusion in the S&P 500 index (e.g.,

Shleifer (1986)) from affecting our analysis.

Each of the stories in our sample also meets the requirements that we impose to

eliminate irrelevant stories and blurbs. Specifically, we require that each firm-specific

story mentions the firm’s official name at least once within the first 25 words, including

the headline, and the firm’s popular name at least twice within the full story. In addition,

we require that each story contains at least 50 words in total, at least five non-unique

“Positive” and “Negative” words, and at least three unique “Positive” and “Negative”

words. We impose these three word count filters to eliminate stories that contain only

tables or lists with company names and quantitative information, and to limit the

influence of outliers on the negative words measure described below. We rely on the

8
Harvard-IV-4 psychosocial dictionary word classifications labeled POSITIV

(NEGATIV) to categorize positive (negative) words in each news story. This dictionary

has been used extensively by psychologists employing a well-known semantic text

analysis program called the General Inquirer.5

As our primary measure of media content, we compute the standardized fraction

of negative words in each news story following Tetlock (2007).6 When a firm has

multiple qualifying news stories on a given trading day, we combine all of these stories

into a single composite story before counting instances of negative words. We

standardize the fraction of negative words in each news story by subtracting the prior

year’s mean and dividing by the prior year’s standard deviation of the fraction of negative

words. Formally, we define two negative words measures:

# of negative words
Neg =
# of total words
Neg − µ Neg
neg =
σ Neg

where µNeg is the mean of Neg and σNeg is the standard deviation of Neg over the prior

calendar year. The standardization may be necessary if Neg is non-stationary, which

could happen if there are regime changes in the distribution of words in news stories—

e.g., the DJNS or WSJ changes its coverage or style. The variable neg is the stationary

measure of media content that we employ in our regression analyses.

Before analyzing the predictive power of linguistic media content, we document

an important stylized fact: there are many more firm-specific news stories in the days
5
The Harvard-IV-4 dictionary on the internet General Inquirer’s Web site lists each word in the negative
category: http://www.webuse.umd.edu:9090/tags/TAGNeg.html. See Riffe, Lacy and Fico (1998) for a
survey of content analysis and its application to the media.
6
We find very similar results using combined measures of positive (P) and negative (N) words, such as
(P - N) / (P + N) and log((1 + P) / (1 + N)). In general, using positive words in isolation produces much
weaker results, especially after controlling for negative words. One possible explanation is that positive
words are more frequently used in combination with negations, such as “not good,” which obscures the
relationship between positive word counts and the intended meaning of the phrase. By contrast, the phrase
“not bad” is used less frequently and preserves some of the negative tone of “bad.”

9
immediately surrounding a firm’s earnings announcement. For each firm-specific news

story, we calculate the number of days until the firm’s next earnings announcement and

the number of days that have passed since the firm’s previous earnings announcement.

We plot a histogram of both variables back-to-back in Figure 1. Thus, each story is

counted exactly twice in Figure 1, once after the previous announcement and once before

the next announcement, except the stories that occur on the earnings announcement day.

[Insert Figure 1 around here.]

Figure 1 provides striking evidence that news stories concentrate

disproportionately around earnings announcement days, as shown by the three adjacent

spikes representing the firm-specific news stories one day before, on the same day as, and

one day after a firm’s earnings announcement. This finding suggests that news stories

could play an important role in communicating and disseminating information about

firms’ fundamentals. In the next two sections, we provide further support for this

interpretation of Figure 1.

III. Using Negative Words to Predict Earnings

We now formally investigate whether the language used by the media provides new

information about firms’ fundamentals and whether stock market prices efficiently

incorporate this information.

In order to affect stock returns, negative words must convey novel information

about either firms’ cash flows or investors’ discount rates (Campbell and Shiller (1987)).

Our tests in this section focus on whether negative words can predict earnings, a proxy

for cash flows, and therefore permanent changes in prices. The return predictability tests

in Section IV address the possibility that negative words proxy for changes in investors’

10
discount rates, and therefore lead to return reversals. The idea underlying our earnings

predictability tests is that negative words in a firm’s news stories prior to the firm’s

earnings announcement could measure otherwise hard-to-quantify unfavorable aspects of

the firm’s business environment.

We use two measures of firms’ quarterly accounting earnings as dependent

variables in our predictability tests, because quarterly is the highest frequency for

earnings data. Our main tests compute each firm’s standardized unexpected earnings

(SUE) following Bernard and Thomas (1989), who use a seasonal random walk with

trend model for each firm’s earnings:

UEt = E t − Et −4
UEt − µUEt
SUEt =
σ UE
t

where Et is earnings in quarter t, and the trend and volatility of unexpected earnings (UE)

are equal to the mean (µ) and standard deviation (σ) of the firm’s previous 20 quarters of

unexpected earnings data, respectively. As in Bernard and Thomas (1989), we require

that each firm has non-missing earnings data for the most recent 10 quarters and assume a

zero trend for all firms with fewer than four years of earnings data.

We also use standardized analysts’ forecast errors (SAFE) as an alternative

measure of firms’ earnings to ensure robustness. SAFE is equal to the median stock

analyst’s earnings forecast error divided by earnings volatility (σ), which is the same as

the denominator of SUE. We use the median analyst forecast from the most recent

statistical period in the I/B/E/S summary file prior to three days before the earnings

announcement.7 We winsorize SUE and all analyst forecast variables at the 1% level to

reduce the impact of estimation error and extreme outliers, respectively. Despite the

7
Based on our conversations with WRDS representatives, the median forecast is obtained from the
distribution that includes only the most up-to-date forecasts from each brokerage.

11
well-known biases in stock analysts’ earnings forecasts, we find remarkably similar

results using SUE and SAFE.8

We attempt to match the frequency of our news measure to the frequency of our

quarterly earnings variable. Our measure of negative words (neg-30,-3) is the standardized

number of negative words in all news stories between 30 and three trading days prior to

an earnings announcement divided by the total number of words in these news stories.

That is, we construct the measure exactly analogous to the story-specific measure (neg)

defined earlier, where we treat all the words in the [-30,-3] time window as though they

form a single composite news story. As described earlier, we standardize neg-30,-3 by

subtracting the prior year’s mean and dividing by the prior year’s standard deviation.

The timing of neg-30,-3 is designed to include news stories about the upcoming

quarter’s earnings announcement. Because 30 trading days is roughly one half of a

calendar quarter, it is likely that most of the news stories in the [-30,-3] time window

focus on the firm’s upcoming announcement rather than its previous quarter’s

announcement. In addition, we allow for two full trading days between the last news story

included in this measure and the earnings announcement because CompuStat earnings

announcement dates may not be exact. None of our qualitative results change if we set

the beginning of the time window to 20 or 40 trading days before the announcement, or

set the ending of the window to one or five trading days before the announcement.

In all earnings predictability regressions, we include control variables based on a

firm’s lagged earnings, size, book-to-market ratio, trading volume, three measures of

recent stock returns, analysts’ earnings forecast revisions, and analysts’ forecast

dispersion. We measure firms’ lagged earnings using last quarter’s SUE or SAFE

8
Several studies argue that analyst earnings forecasts are too optimistic (e.g., Easterwood and Nutt (1999)),
overreact to certain pieces information (e.g., De Bondt and Thaler (1990)), and underreact to other
information (e.g., Abarbanell and Bernard (1992)) among other biases.

12
measure, according to which of these two variables is the dependent variable in the

regression.9 We measure firm size (Log(Market Equity)) and book-to-market (Log(Book /

Market)) at the end of the preceding calendar year, following Fama and French (1992).

We compute trading volume as the log of annual shares traded divided by shares

outstanding (Log(Share Turnover)) at the end of the preceding calendar year.

Our three control variables for a firm’s past returns are based on a simple earnings

announcement event study methodology.10 We estimate benchmark returns using the

Fama-French (1993) three-factor model with an estimation window of [-252,-31] trading

days prior to the earnings announcement. We include two control variables for a firm’s

recent returns, the cumulative abnormal return from the [-30,-3] trading day window

(FFCAR-30,-3) and the abnormal return on the day -2 (FFCAR-2,-2). These return windows

end one trading day after our [-30,-3] news story time window to ensure that we capture

the full price impact of the news stories. Our third control variable (FFAlpha-252,-31) is the

estimated intercept from the event study regression that spans the [-252,-31] time

window. We interpret the FFAlpha-252,-31 measure as the firm’s in-sample cumulative

abnormal return over the previous calendar year, skipping the most recent month. The

FFAlpha-252,-31 variable is related to the Jegadeesh and Titman (1993) return momentum

effect, which is based on firms’ relative returns over the previous calendar year excluding

the most recent month.

In all our earnings regressions, we include control variables for the median

analyst’s quarterly forecast revision and analysts’ quarterly forecast dispersion. We

compute the median analyst’s three-month earnings forecast revision (Forecast

Revisions) following Chan, Jegadeesh and Lakonishok (1996). We use three-month

9
The inclusion of additional lags of the dependent variables does not change the results.
10
Controlling for alternative measures of past returns such as raw event returns and the past calendar year’s
return does not change our qualitative results.

13
revision periods rather than six-month periods because these revisions capture new

information after the forecast preceding last quarter’s earnings announcement, which is

already included in our regressions as a separate control. This revision variable is equal to

the three-month sum of scaled changes in the median analyst’s forecast, where the scaling

factor is the firm’s stock price in the prior month. We compute analysts’ forecast

dispersion (Forecast Dispersion) as the standard deviation of analysts’ earnings forecasts

in the most recent time period prior to the announcement scaled by earnings volatility

(σ)—i.e., the denominator of SUE and SAFE. We construct both of these control variables

using quarterly analyst forecasts to match our dependent variables, which are based on

quarterly earnings measures. Because analysts’ quarterly forecasts are unavailable from

I/B/E/S between 1980 and 1983 and for firms without analyst coverage, the earnings

predictability regressions that we report do not include these observations.11

Even though the stock return control variable (FFCAR-30,-3) includes all of the

information embedded in news stories during the [-30,-3] time window, it is possible that

these stories are more recent than the most recent analyst forecast data. Indeed, many

WSJ and DJNS news stories explicitly mention stock analysts, suggesting negative words

in these stories may draw some predictive power from analysts’ qualitative insights. To

guard against the possibility that negative words predict returns solely because they

appear more recently than the quantitative analyst forecasts, we also calculate a “Before

Forecast” negative words measure (neg-30,-3) that includes only the stories that occur at

least one trading day prior to the date of the most recent consensus analyst forecast.12

We estimate the ability of negative words (neg-30,-3) to predict earnings (SUE or

SAFE) using pooled ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions because these standard
11
If we omit the two analyst variables and include these remaining observations in our regressions, we find
very similar results.
12
Because I/B/E/S reviews and updates the accuracy and timing of analyst forecasts even after the date of
the consensus forecast, it is unlikely that news stories from one trading day earlier contain information not
reflected in the consensus. In addition, allowing three trading days does not change our qualitative results.

14
errors are conservative relative to fixed- and random-effects models.13 Because firms’

realized earnings are undoubtedly correlated within calendar quarters, we allow for

arbitrary correlations between firms’ earnings by computing clustered standard errors

(Froot (1989)).14 We choose the quarterly clustering methodology because this produces

the most conservative standard error estimates.

Table I shows estimates of the ability of negative words (neg-30,-3) to predict

quarterly earnings using six OLS regressions: two different dependent variables (SUE

and SAFE) regressed on negative words computed based on different news stories (DJNS,

WSJ, and “Before Forecasts” and “All Stories”). The key result is that negative words

(neg-30,-3) consistently predict lower earnings, regardless of whether we use the SUE or

SAFE measure, and regardless of whether we use stories from DJNS or WSJ or from the

time period before stock analysts state their earnings forecasts.

[Insert Table I around here.]

Although negative words (neg-30,-3) from WSJ stories appear to predict SUE

slightly better than neg-30,-3 from DJNS stories, the WSJ coefficient estimates of neg-30,-3

are not statistically different from the DJNS estimates. All six estimates of the

dependence of earnings on negative words are negative and statistically significant at the

99% level. Because the independent and dependent variables are standardized, the rough

economic interpretation of the “All Stories” SUE estimate is that the conditional

expectation of SUE is 4*(0.064) = 0.255 standard deviations lower as neg-30,-3 increases

from two standard deviations below to two standard deviations above its mean value.

13
The larger OLS standard errors could arise because these estimates are inefficient. If we use fixed- or
random-effects models instead, the point estimates of the key coefficients change by very little and the
standard errors decline. This robustness is comforting because fixed-effects estimators and pooled OLS
estimators for dynamic panel data models with lagged dependent variables show opposite small sample
biases (see Nickell (1981)).
14
In addition, we find qualitatively similar estimates using quarterly cross-sectional Fama-MacBeth (1973)
regressions along with Newey-West (1980) standard errors for the time series of the coefficients. Similarly,
including yearly time dummies in the pooled OLS regressions does not affect our results.

15
 We now analyze the SUE and SAFE regressions that compute negative words

using stories from both news sources in greater detail. Columns Four and Six in Table I

display the coefficient estimates for all independent variables in these two regressions. As

one would expect, several control variables exhibit strong explanatory power for future

earnings. For example, lagged earnings, variables based on analysts’ forecasts and recent

stock returns (FFCAR-30,-3) are all powerful predictors of earnings.

To gain intuition for the importance of language in predicting fundamentals, we

compare the abilities of negative words in firm-specific news stories (neg-30,-3) and firms’

recent stock returns (FFCAR-30,-3) to predict future earnings. The logic of this comparison

is that both variables capture potentially relevant firm-specific information over the same

time horizon—their correlation is -0.05, and strongly statistically significant. This is a

particularly tough comparison for language because the firm’s abnormal return measures

the representative investor’s interpretation of firm-specific news, which is undoubtedly

based on a more sophisticated reading of the same linguistic content that we quantify. In

this respect, it is surprising that quantified language has any explanatory power above and

beyond market returns. Indeed, one could view a firm’s abnormal return (FFCAR-30,-3)

measured over the time horizon in which there is news ([-30,-3]) as an alternative

quantification of the tone of news (e.g., Chan (2003)).

Surprisingly, Columns Four and Six in Table I reveal that negative words and

recent stock returns have almost the same statistical impact and comparable economic

impacts on future earnings. After standardizing the coefficients to adjust for the different

variances of the independent variables, we find that the economic impact of past returns

is 0.127 SUE and the impact of negative words is 0.063 SUE—roughly half as large. We

infer that incorporating directly quantified language in earnings forecasts significantly

improves upon using stock returns alone to quantify investors’ reactions to news stories.

16
 The “Before Forecast” columns (Three and Five) in Table I show that negative

words (neg-30,-3) robustly predict both SUE and SAFE even after we exclude words from

the most recent stories. Surprisingly, the respective neg-30,-3 coefficients change in

magnitude by less than 3% relative to Columns Four and Six, and both remain strongly

significant at any conventional level (p-values < 0.001).

In additional unreported tests, we run separate regressions for two sub-periods,

pre-1995 and 1995-2004, based on the idea that media coverage changed significantly in

1995 with the introduction of the Internet—e.g., the WSJ officially launched WSJ.com on

April 29, 1995. The main finding is that the significance and magnitude of all our results

are quite similar for both sub-periods. In summary, the evidence consistently shows that

even a crude quantification of qualitative fundamentals (neg-30,-3) can predict earnings

above and beyond more recent measures of market prices and analysts’ forecasts.

We now examine the long-run time series behavior of earnings surrounding the

release of negative words in firm-specific news stories. Figure 2 compares the earnings of

firms with negative and positive news stories from 10 fiscal quarters prior to an earnings

announcement up to 10 fiscal quarters after the earnings announcement. The dependent

variable in Figure 2 is a firm’s cumulative SUE beginning 10 quarters prior to the

earnings announcement when the news was released. Our cumulative SUE computation

does not discount earnings in different time periods. Using a positive discount rate would

make the effect of negative words on earnings appear larger and more permanent.

To compute SUE values after the news stories in Figure 2, we use only

benchmarks for unexpected earnings that are known at the time of the news—i.e., those

based on earnings information prior to quarter zero. We use the matching seasonal

earnings figure from before quarter zero to compute unexpected earnings after quarter

zero—e.g., we subtract E-3 from E1, E5, and E9 to obtain UE1, UE5 and UE9. To obtain

17
SUE measures, we standardize these unexpected earnings values using the mean and

volatility of unexpected earnings as measured in quarter zero.15 We define positive

(negative) news as news in which the variable Neg-30,-3 is in the bottom (top) quartile of

the previous year’s distribution of Neg-30,-3.16

[Insert Figure 2 around here.]

Figure 2 shows that firms with negative news stories before an earnings

announcement experience large negative shocks to their earnings that endure for at least

four quarters after the news. Although there are noticeable differences between firms

with positive stories and those with many negative stories that appear before the news is

released (0.772 cumulative SUE), the greatest discrepancy between the cumulative

earnings of the two types of firms (1.816 cumulative SUE) appears in the sixth fiscal

quarter after the news. It appears as though most of the impact of negative words on

cumulative earnings is permanent—1.764 cumulative SUE after 10 quarters, which is

0.992 cumulative SUE more than prior to the news. However, it is difficult to judge the

magnitude and duration of the effect based on just 10 independent ten-quarter periods.

From the analysis above, we conclude that negative words in firm-specific stories

leading up to earnings announcements significantly contribute to a useful measure of

firms’ fundamentals. One view is that this result is surprising because numerous stock

analysts and investors closely monitor the actions of S&P 500 firms. Yet even after

controlling for recent stock returns, analyst forecasts and revisions, and other measures of

investors’ knowledge, we find that a rudimentary linguistic measure of negative news

15
We correct for the longer time intervals (T years) between the benchmark and unexpected earnings using
the seasonal random walk assumption that the mean of unexpected earnings scales linearly (µT) and the
volatility increases with the square root of the time interval (σT1/2). To mitigate any benchmarking biases,
we also rescale SUE in each quarter so that its unconditional mean is zero, which affects the level of the
lines in Figure 2, but has no impact on the difference between them.
16
As one would expect, the fractions of positive and negative words in news stories are negatively
correlated (-0.18, p-value < 0.001). For this reason, defining positive stories as those with relatively few
negative words also produces stories with relatively more positive words.

18
still forecasts earnings. Furthermore, we will demonstrate in Section IV that it is possible

to improve substantially upon this basic negative word count measure.

An alternative view is that negative words are informative measures of firms’

fundamentals because they do not suffer from the same shortcomings as the quantitative

variables that one can use to forecast earnings. For example, it is well-known that stock

analysts’ earnings forecasts exhibit significant biases that limit their forecasting power. In

addition, stock market returns reflect revisions in investors’ expectations of the present

value of all future earnings as opposed to just next quarter’s earnings, which is the

dependent measure in our regressions. Even if investors and stock analysts are fully

aware of the information embedded in negative words, negative words may have

significant incremental explanatory power for future earnings because readily available

quantitative variables are not accurate representations of investors’ expectations.

IV. Using Negative Words to Predict Stock Returns

We subject the two competing views described above to empirical scrutiny in our

return predictability tests. Having established that negative words in news stories can

predict firms’ fundamentals, we now examine whether they provide novel information

not already represented in stock market prices. Unfortunately, we cannot test this

conjecture by looking at contemporaneous market returns. Although there is a significant

negative relationship between negative words and concurrent market returns, it is

impossible to know which variable causes the other. Instead, we hypothesize that

investors do not immediately fully respond to the news embedded in negative words. To

test this theory, we explore whether negative words in firm-specific news stories predict

firms’ future stock returns.

19
B. Predicting Returns in Story Event Time

In this subsection, we focus on OLS regression estimates of the effect of negative

words on future stock returns in event time relative to the release of the news story. We

use daily returns and news stories because these are the highest frequencies for which

both data are reliably available—that is, all our firms have daily returns data for the entire

sample, and the WSJ is a daily publication. Other benefits of this choice are that the news

and return data frequency match each other and match the data frequency in Tetlock

(2007). Our main test assesses whether standardized fractions of negative words in firm-

specific news stories on day zero predict firms’ close-to-close stock returns on day one.

For all DJNS stories, we obtain precise time stamp data to exclude stories that occur after

3:30pm on day zero—i.e., 30 minutes prior to market closing. To be conservative, we use

the last time stamp for each story, which indicates when the story was most recently

updated. Thus, in many cases, the negative words in DJNS stories became known to

investors much earlier, often by one hour, than we assume. This ensures that traders have

at least 30 minutes, and usually much longer, to digest and trade on information

embedded in these stories. For all WSJ stories, we assume that stories printed in the

morning’s WSJ are available to traders well before the market close on the same day.

In each regression, we include several standard control variables to assess whether

negative words predict returns above and beyond already known sources of predictability,

including both firms’ characteristics (Daniel, Grinblatt, Titman and Wermers (1997)) and

firms’ covariances with priced risk factors (Fama and French (1993)). We include all of

the characteristic controls in the earnings predictability regressions, except the two

20
analyst earnings forecast variables.17 That is, we include the firm’s most recent earnings

announcement (SUE) and close-to-close abnormal returns on the day of the news story

(FFCAR0,0), each of the previous two trading days (FFCAR-1,-1 and FFCAR-2,-2), the

previous month (FFCAR-30,-3) and the previous year (FFAlpha-252,-31). These controls are

designed to capture return predictability from past earnings (e.g., Ball and Brown (1968))

and past returns (e.g., Jegadeesh and Titman (1993)), which may be distinct phenomena

(e.g., Chan, Jegadeesh and Lakonishok (1996)). In addition, we control for firm size and

book-to-market ratios using each firm’s log of market capitalization and log of book-to-

market equity measured at the end of the most recent end of June. These controls mimic

the variables that Fama and French (1992) use to predict returns. In addition, we control

for trading volume, again using the log of share turnover.

We run two sets of regressions to ensure that firms’ return covariances with

priced risk factors do not drive our results. In the first set of regressions, we use each

firm’s next-day abnormal return as the dependent variable, where the Fama-French three-

factor model is the benchmark for expected returns.18 To ensure that our results are not

driven by the benchmarking process, we run a second set of regressions in which we use

each firm’s next-day raw return as the dependent variable.

Table II reports the results from six OLS regressions, two different dependent

variables (raw and abnormal next-day returns) regressed on each of three different

negative words measures (DJNS, WSJ, and “All Stories”). The table shows the

coefficients on negative words in firm-specific news stories and their associated t-

statistics. We compute clustered standard errors (Froot (1989)) to account for the

17
When we include the two analyst forecast variables, we find that both revisions and dispersion are
statistically and economically insignificant predictors of returns in our sample. The coefficients on the key
variables do not change materially. Thus, we omit the analyst variables to include any S&P 500 firms
without analyst coverage and the first four years of our sample in the regression results.
18
We also find that including time dummies for each trading day—i.e., demeaning returns by trading day—
does not change our results, suggesting an omitted common news factor is not driving our results.

21
correlations between firms’ stock returns within trading days. The table reports the

number of clusters—i.e., trading days—and the adjusted R-squared for each regression.

[Insert Table II around here.]

The main result in Table II is that negative words in firm-specific news stories

robustly predict slightly lower returns on the following trading day. The coefficients on

negative words (neg) are consistently significant in all four of the regressions where news

stories from DJNS are included. The magnitude of the DJNS regression coefficient on

neg, which is already standardized, implies that next-day abnormal returns (FFCAR+1,+1)

are 3.20 basis points lower after each one-standard-deviation increase in negative words.

Interestingly, the coefficients on negative words are two to three times smaller

and usually statistically insignificant in the two regressions where only WSJ stories are

included. One interpretation of this evidence is that DJNS releases intra-day stories with

extremely recent information before the information is fully priced. By contrast, a

number of the morning WSJ stories are recapitulations of the previous day’s events—

some of which appeared in the DJNS—that may already be incorporated in market prices.

We now analyze the Return+1,+1 and FFCAR+1,+1 regressions that include stories

from the DJNS (in Columns Two and Five of Table II) in greater detail. As one would

expect in an efficient market, very few control variables predict next-day returns, which

is why the R-squared statistics in Table II are so low. Aside from the daily news and

returns variables, only firms’ earnings (SUE) have predictive power at the 1% level.

One pattern in these regressions is somewhat analogous to the main result in Chan

(2003). He shows that stocks in the news experience annual return continuations, whereas

those without news experience annual return reversals. Although Table II examines daily

horizons, the interpretation of the day 0 (day-of-news), and day -1 and -2 (usually not

news days) returns coefficients is quite similar. The positive coefficient on FFCAR0,0

22
shows that news-day returns continue on the next day, whereas the negative coefficients

on FFCAR-1,-1 and FFCAR-2,-2 show that non-news-day returns reverse themselves.

We now examine the market’s apparently sluggish reaction to negative words in

firm-specific news stories in the four weeks surrounding the story’s release to the public.

Figure 3 graphs a firm’s abnormal event returns from 10 trading days preceding a story’s

release to 10 trading days following its release. Again, we use the Fama-French three-

factor model to estimate abnormal returns. We label all news stories with a fraction of

negative words (Neg) in the previous year’s top (bottom) quartile as negative (positive)

stories. We separately examine the market’s response to positive and negative DJNS and

WSJ stories. We also compute the difference between the reaction to positive and

negative news stories for each source.

[Insert Figure 3 around here.]

Although Figure 3 shows that the market reacts quite efficiently to positive and

negative news, there is some delayed reaction, particularly for the DJNS news stories.

From the top line in Figure 3, one can see that the 12-day market reaction, from day -2 to

day 10, to WSJ stories is virtually complete after the first two trading days—7.5 basis

points (bps) of underreaction after day one and only 2.4 bps after day two. By contrast,

the second line in Figure 3 shows that more of the 12-day market reaction to DJNS stories

persists beyond the first two days—16.8 bps after day one and 6.2 bps after day two.

The positive and negative DJNS lines show that the day one delayed reaction to

positive DJNS news stories (6.6 bps) is somewhat larger than the delayed reaction to

negative stories (4.0 bps).19 Although the total day one delayed reaction to DJNS news

stories is 10.6 bps (see the difference line), this magnitude is relatively small (17.2%) as a

percentage of the total 12-day reaction of roughly 61.6 bps. The market appears even

19
The contemporaneous reactions to positive news stories are also larger. We observe the opposite
asymmetry for the positive and negative news stories about fundamentals that we examine in Section IV.

23
more efficient in its reaction to WSJ stories, where the one-day delayed reaction (5.2 bps)

is only 7.1% of the 12-day reaction (73.3 bps). However, it is possible that there is

additional underreaction to WSJ stories within the close-to-close trading day that

encompasses the morning release of the newspaper.

B. Predicting Returns in Calendar Time

The lingering difference between the abnormal returns of firms with positive and

negative DJNS news stories suggests that a simple trading strategy could earn positive

risk-adjusted profits. In this section, we explore this possibility, focusing on the apparent

short-run underreaction to negative words in the DJNS.

Specifically, at the close of each trading day, we form two equal-weighted

portfolios based on the content of each firm’s DJNS news stories during the prior trading

day.20 We use the same definitions for positive and negative stories, based on the

distribution of words in the prior year, as we did in the previous section. We include all

firms with positive DJNS news stories from 12:00am to 3:30pm on the preceding trading

day in the long portfolio, and put all firms with negative stories in the short portfolio. We

hold both the long and short portfolios for one full trading day and rebalance at the end of

the next trading day. To keep the strategy simple, we exclude the rare days in which

either the long or the short portfolio contains no qualifying firms. Ignoring trading costs,

the cumulative raw returns of the long-short strategy would be 21.1% per year.

Table III shows the risk-adjusted daily returns from this daily news-based trading

strategy for three different time periods (1980 to 1994, 1995 to 2004 and 1980 to 2004).

20
Forming two story-weighted or value-weighted portfolios produces very similar results. The traditional
motivation for value weights is less compelling in this application because the S&P 500 firms usually have
sufficiently liquid stocks to enable investors to execute large trades cost-effectively.

24
We use the Fama-French three-factor (1993) and Carhart four-factor (1997) models to

adjust the trading strategy returns for the returns of contemporaneous market, size, book-

to-market, and momentum factors. Table III reports the alpha and loadings from the time

series regression of the long-short news-based portfolio returns on the four factors. The

first three columns report the results with the Fama-French benchmark, whereas the last

three columns report the results with the Carhart benchmark. We compute all coefficient

standard errors using the White (1980) heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix.

[Insert Table III around here.]

Consistent with the results in Table II, Table III shows that the daily news-based

trading strategy would earn substantial risk-adjusted returns in a frictionless world with

no trading costs or price impact. Specifically, the average excess return (Fama-French

alpha) from news-based trading would be 9.2 bps per day from 1980 to 1994 and 11.8

bps per day from 1995 to 2004. Regardless of the benchmark model for returns, the alpha

from the trading strategy is highly significant in all three time periods. Interestingly, the

returns from news-based trading are not strongly related to any of the three Fama-French

factors or the momentum factor. The strategy’s negative loading on HML is a minor

exception, which may be attributable to the large number positive media stories about

growth firms during the late 1990s. Still, the extremely low R-squared statistics reveal

that the vast majority of the trading strategy risk is firm-specific.

For the 25 years between 1980 and 2004, Figure 4 depicts the distribution of the

average daily abnormal returns for the news-based trading strategy. In the median year,

the strategy’s abnormal return is 9.4 bps per day. In 21 out of 25 years, the news-based

strategy earns positive abnormal returns. Thus, we can reject the null hypothesis that

yearly news-based strategy returns follow the binomial distribution with an equal

likelihood of positive and negative returns (p-value < 0.0005). There is only one year

25
(1980) out of 25 in which the strategy lost more than 2 bps per day (-4.2 bps). By

contrast, in six out of 25 years, the strategy gained more than 20 bps per day. This

analysis suggests that the news-based trading strategy is not susceptible to catastrophic

risks that second moments of returns may fail to capture.

[Insert Figure 4 around here.]

Finally, we estimate the impact of reasonable transaction costs on the trading

strategy’s profitability. To judge the sensitivity of profits to trading costs, we recalculate

the trading strategy returns under the assumption that a trader must incur a round-trip

transaction cost of between 0 and 10 bps. Table IV displays the abnormal and raw

annualized cumulative news-based strategy returns under these cost assumptions.

[Insert Table IV around here.]

From the evidence in Table IV, we see that the simple news-based trading

strategy explored here is no longer profitable after accounting for reasonable levels of

transaction costs—e.g., 10 bps. Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that more

sophisticated trading rules that exploit the time series and cross-sectional properties of

news stories and economize on trading costs would be profitable. For example, the next

subsection investigates a refined measure of negative words that predicts greater market

underreactions to particular negative words.

IV. Interpreting the Earnings and Return Predictability

The key stylized facts documented thus far are: 1) news stories about firms are

concentrated around their earnings announcements; 2) negative words in firm-specific

stories predict low firm earnings in the next quarter; and 3) negative words about firms

predict low firm stock returns on the next trading day. In this section, we explore further

26
whether the ability of negative words to predict returns comes from underreaction to

news about firms’ fundamentals that is embedded in language.

Our specific hypothesis is that negative words in news stories that mention the

word stem “earn” contain more information about firms’ fundamentals than other stories.

If this is the case, then we should observe three effects. First, the ability of negative

words to predict earnings should be greater for stories that include the word stem “earn.”

Second, the contemporaneous relationship between firm-specific negative words and

firms’ returns should be stronger for stories that contain the word stem “earn.” Third,

because these stories probably better capture news about hard-to-quantify fundamentals,

the magnitude of the market’s underreaction to negative words should be greater for

stories that contain the word stem “earn.”

Before testing these three predictions, we establish an intuitive property of this

measure of fundamentals: the news stories near earnings announcements (see the spike in

Figure 1) are far more likely to mention the word stem “earn”—e.g., the word “earnings”

or any form of the verb “earn.” We construct a dummy variable (Fund) that indicates

whether a news story contains any words beginning with “earn.” We find that only 18.9%

of the stories that are more than one day away from an earnings announcement contain

the word stem “earn,” whereas 72.5% of the stories within a day of the announcement

mention earnings-related words.

We test whether negative words in stories containing the word stem “earn” predict

earnings better than negative words in other stories. We add two new independent

variables to the regressions for SUE and SAFE shown earlier in Columns Four and Six of

Table I. The first new variable (Fund-30,-3) is the total number of words in news stories

between day -30 and day -3 that contain the word stem “earn” divided by the total

number of words in all news stories between day -30 and day -3. It is designed to capture

27
the fraction of words between day -30 and day -3 that are likely to provide relevant

information about firms’ fundamentals. The second new variable (neg-30,-3*Fund-30,-3) is

the interaction between Fund-30,-3 and the negative words measure (neg-30,-3). The

coefficient on the interaction term measures the extent to which negative words “about”

fundamentals are more useful predictors of firms’ earnings than other negative words.

[Insert Table V around here.]

Table V shows that the coefficients for both of the new independent variables in

the SUE and SAFE regressions are negative and statistically significant at any

conventional level. The coefficient on the interaction term (neg-30,-3*Fund-30,-3) in the

SUE regression shows that negative words that are “about” fundamentals are much better

predictors of firms’ earnings. Because the Fund-30,-3 variable is a fraction that ranges from

0 to 1, the regression coefficients have meaningful economic interpretations. The sum of

the coefficient on the interaction (neg-30,-3*Fund-30,-3) and the coefficient on negative

words alone (neg-30,-3) estimates the dependence of firm earnings on negative words for

announcements in which all (Fund-30,-3 = 1) of the news stories between day -30 and day

-3 contain the stem “earn.” The coefficient on negative words (neg-30,-3) now estimates

the dependence of firm earnings on negative words when none (Fund-30,-3 = 0) of the

news stories between day -30 and day -3 contain the stem “earn.” Also, one can recover

the direct effect of negative words in a typical set of news stories, where 26.3% of the

words are about earnings (Fund-30,-3 = 0.263), by computing (coefficient on neg-30,-3) +

0.263 * (coefficient on neg-30,-3*Fund-30,-3). This last quantity is comparable to the simple

coefficients on neg-30,-3 that appear in Table I.

The point estimate of the sum of the interaction term and the neg-30,-3 coefficient

(-0.3359 SUE) is over ten times greater than the neg-30,-3 coefficient (-0.0167 SUE),

suggesting that negative words derive almost all of their predictive power for SUE from

28
earnings-related stories. Negative words in stories unrelated to earnings (see coefficients

on neg-30,-3) only weakly predict lower earnings, and are much less important in economic

terms. Yet the direct effect of negative words on earnings in a “typical” set of stories with

26.3% earnings-related words remains strongly statistically and economically significant

at -0.0167 + 0.263 * -0.3192 = -0.1006 SUE. Similarly, negative words in earnings-

related stories can predict analyst forecast errors (SAFE) better by an order of magnitude.

We now test the other two predictions of our hypothesis: contemporaneous

market reactions and subsequent market underreactions should be larger for stories that

mention the word stem “earn” than for other stories. As in the previous section and Table

II, we use pooled OLS regressions with clustered standard errors to estimate the

relationship between negative words and returns. We also use the same set of firm

characteristic and stock return control variables discussed earlier. To conserve space, we

report only the results where we use firms’ abnormal returns as the dependent variable

and negative words in firm-specific stories from DJNS as the key independent variable.

Again, we use the DJNS stories that occur more than 30 minutes before the market closes

to explore the underreaction hypothesis because Table II reveals that there is only

minimal underreaction to WSJ stories.

Column One in Table VI reports the contemporaneous (same-day) relationship

between abnormal returns (FFCAR+0,+0) and negative words (neg). There are two new

independent variables in these regressions: the dummy variable that is equal to one if a

story mentions the word stem “earn” (Fund) and the interaction (neg*Fund) between this

dummy variable and standardized negative words (neg).

[Insert Table VI around here.]

Column One in Table VI reveals that not only is there is a strong relationship

between negative words (neg) and contemporaneous returns (FFCAR+0,+0), but also this

29
relationship is much stronger in stories that contain the “earn” word stem dummy. The

sum of the coefficient on neg by itself (-8.57 bps) and the coefficient on the neg*Fund

term (-31.27 bps) provides an estimate of the contemporaneous market response to

negative words in news stories that mention earnings (-39.84 bps). In economic terms, the

coefficient magnitudes mean that the market response to negative words is five times as

large when these negative words appear in news stories about firms’ earnings. This large

market reaction to negative words in earnings-related stories (neg*Fund) is another piece

of evidence supporting the idea that negative words convey otherwise hard-to-quantify

information about firms’ fundamentals. As an aside, we note that the negative market

responses to the presence of earnings-related words (Fund) could be driven by earnings

warnings sometimes issued by firm management prior to earnings announcements.

In Column Two of Table VI, we repeat the previous regression, except we use

firms’ next-day abnormal returns (FFCAR+1,+1) as the dependent variable. The main

result is that the same variables that elicit the greatest contemporaneous market responses

also predict the greatest subsequent market underreaction. For example, the coefficient on

the interaction term (neg*Fund) is highly negative (Column Two in Table VI), showing

that negative words in earnings-related stories predict greater market underreactions than

negative words in other stories (neg). In fact, the market’s underreaction to negative

words in stories not mentioning earnings is only one-seventh as large as its underreaction

to negative words in stories about earnings (-1.61 bps vs. -11.97 bps = -1.61 – 10.36).

The estimate of underreaction to negative words in “typical” stories that mention earnings

with probability 28.0% lies between the two previous values at -4.33 bps = -1.61 + 0.280

* -10.36, and remains highly statistically significant.

We can gauge the degree of underreaction by comparing the sizes of the one-day

and two-day reactions to negative words. Table VI allows us to make this comparison for

30
negative words in earnings-related stories and for other stories. The coefficients on neg in

the first column (-8.57 bps) and second column (-1.61 bps) measure the day-zero and

day-one reactions for negative words unrelated to earnings. The sums of the coefficients

on neg and neg*Fund in the first column (-39.84 bps) and second column (-11.97 bps)

measure the day-zero and day-one reactions for earnings-related words. Based on these

coefficients, we infer that the market’s initial one-day reaction to negative words

composes the vast majority of its two-day reaction for stories unrelated (84.2%) and

related (76.9%) to earnings. One interpretation of this evidence is that investors remain

almost equally attuned to the importance of linguistic information about fundamentals

even during earnings announcements, when there is compelling quantitative information.

All three tests in this section suggest that negative words in stories about firms’

fundamentals are driving the earnings and return predictability results. Although news

stories that do not mention earnings have some relevance for forecasting earnings and are

associated with contemporaneous market returns, these stories have very little ability to

forecast future market returns. Negative words in earnings-related stories evoke much

greater contemporaneous market responses, as they should, because these stories are

better predictors of firms’ subsequent earnings. However, the initial market responses to

negative words in earnings-related stories are insufficiently large to prevent return

continuations on the next trading day. Investors seem to recognize that there is a

difference between earnings-related stories and the rest, but they do not fully account for

the importance of linguistic information about fundamentals.

31
V. Conclusion

Our first main result is that negative words in the financial press forecast low firm

earnings. That is, the words contained in news stories are not merely redundant

information, but instead capture otherwise hard-to-quantify aspects of firms’

fundamentals. Our second result is that stock market prices gradually incorporate the

information embedded in negative words over the next trading day. We demonstrate large

potential profits from using a simple trading strategy based on the words in a timely news

source (DJNS), but find that these profits could easily vanish after accounting for

reasonable levels of transaction costs. Finally, we show that negative words in stories

about fundamentals are particularly useful predictors of both earnings and returns.

Our overall impression is that the stock market is relatively efficient with respect

to firms’ hard-to-quantify fundamentals. The market’s underreaction to negative words

after day zero is typically small as compared to the market’s initial reaction to negative

words on day zero. Even if economists have neglected the possibility of quantifying

language to measure firms’ fundamentals, stock market investors have not.

Nevertheless, we do find that market prices consistently underreact to negative

words in firm-specific news stories, especially those that relate to fundamentals.

Although frictionless asset pricing models may not be able to explain these findings,

models in which equilibrium prices induce traders to acquire costly information—e.g.,

Grossman and Stiglitz (1980)—are broadly consistent with our results. Without some

slight underreaction in market prices, traders would have no motivation to monitor and

read the daily newswires. Future research that quantifies the information embedded in

written and spoken language has the potential to improve our understanding of the

mechanism in which information is incorporated in asset prices.

32
 Appendix

To match firms’ names in CRSP with their common names used in the media, we employ

a combination of four methods. Our first method works well for firms that are currently

members of the S&P 500 index. We download common names for these firms from the

“S&P constituents” spreadsheet posted on Standard and Poor’s Web site,

http://www.standardpoor.com/. We match these common names to CRSP name strings,

which we use in our Factiva news queries for the 473 firms in the S&P at the end of our

data period (12/31/04) that remained in the index on the date that we downloaded the

spreadsheet. We identify the common names of the other 27 S&P 500 firms at the end of

2004 using the methods described below.

The other three methods entail matching the CRSP name strings with common

firm names from one of three Web-based data sources: Mergent Online, the Securities

and Exchange Commission (SEC) or Factiva. For all companies that exist after 1993, we

use the Mergent Online company search function to identify firms’ common names (336

firms). For the few post-1993 companies without Mergent data, we use the SEC company

name search function (20 firms). Finally, we identify the common names of firms prior to

1993 using the Factiva company name search function (285 firms).

In many cases, we manually tweak the CRSP names to improve the quality of the

company search. For example, if we do a company search for the CRSP name string

“PAN AMERN WORLD AWYS INC,” Factiva returns no results. Logically, we look for

“Pan American,” which seems to retrieve the appropriate company name: “Pan American

World Airways Inc.” Although this matching process introduces the possibility of minor

judgment errors, our searches uniquely identify matching firms in all cases, suggesting

our methods are reasonable.

33
 We construct search queries for news stories using the common names that we

match to the CRSP name string. We spot-check all stories that mention S&P 500 firms in

the DJNS and WSJ to ensure that our search criteria do not exclude too many stories that

are relevant for firm valuation. For all firms with fewer than 10 news stories retrieved by

our automatically constructed search queries, we manually search for common names

using the Internet and other resources.

Ultimately, our search methods retrieve at least one news story for 1063 of 1110

(95.8%) of the firms in the S&P 500 from 1980 to 2004. In addition, we lose another 80

of the 1063 firms with news stories (7.5%) because these firms did not make the news

during the time in which they were in the S&P 500 between 1980 and 2004, which may

be quite brief if a firm exits the S&P index shortly after 1980. Also, Factiva’s coverage of

news stories from 1980 to 1984 appears somewhat incomplete, possibly leading to

missing news stories. Finally, after deleting all stories with fewer than three unique

positive and negative words or fewer than five total positive and negative words, we lose

another three firms, leaving us with 980 qualifying firms. The median firm has 156 news

stories, and 929 of 980 firms have at least 10 news stories.

It is possible that we retrieve no news stories for the missing 47 of the initial set

of 1110 S&P 500 firms because of errors in our matching algorithm. Fortunately,

although the exact magnitude of our results depends on the matching methodology

employed, the sign and significance of all key coefficients does not change for the firms

that have been matched using each of the four different processes. Thus, we infer that it is

unlikely that matching errors introduce sufficient systematic errors in our tests that would

significantly change the results. Moreover, our key results depend on cross-sectional and

time series variation in earnings and returns but not the levels of these variables, which

could be affected by survivorship bias.

34
 References

Abarbanell, Jeffrey S., and Victor L. Bernard, 1992, Tests of Analysts’

Overreaction/Underreaction to Earnings Information as an Explanation for
Anomalous Stock Price Behavior, Journal of Finance 47, 1181-1207.

Antweiler, Werner, and Murray Z. Frank, 2004, Is All That Talk Just Noise? The
Information Content of Internet Stock Message Boards, Journal of Finance 59,
1259-1294.

Antweiler, Werner, and Murray Z. Frank, 2006, Do U.S. Stock Markets Typically
Overreact to Corporate News Stories? University of British Columbia Working
Paper.

Ball, Ray, and Philip Brown, 1968, An Empirical Examination of Accounting Numbers,
Journal of Accounting Research 6, 159-178.

Bernard, Victor L. and Jacob K. Thomas, 1989, Post-Earnings-Announcement Drift:

Delayed Price Response or Risk Premium, Journal of Accounting Research 27,
1-36.

Busse, Jeffrey A., and T. Clifton Green, 2002, Market Efficiency in Real-Time, Journal
of Financial Economics 65, 415-437.

Campbell, John Y., and Robert J. Shiller, 1987, Cointegration and Tests of Present Value
Models, Journal of Political Economy 95, 1062–1088.

Carhart, Mark M., 1997, On the Persistence of Mutual Fund Performance, Journal of
Finance 52, 57-82.

Chan, Louis K.C., Narasimhan Jegadeesh, and Josef Lakonishok, 1996, Momentum
Strategies, Journal of Finance 51, 1681-1713.

Chan, Wesley S., 2003, “Stock Price Reaction to News and No-News: Drift and Reversal
after Headlines,” Journal of Financial Economics 70, pp 223-260.

Corwin, Shane A., and Jay F. Coughenour, 2006, Limited Attention and the Allocation of
Effort in Securities Trading, University of Notre Dame Working Paper.

Cutler, David M., James M. Poterba, and Lawrence H. Summers, 1989, What Moves
Stock Prices? Journal of Portfolio Management 15, 4-12.

Daniel, Kent D., Mark Grinblatt, Sheridan Titman, and Russ Wermers, 1997, Measuring
Mutual Fund Performance with Characteristic-Based Benchmarks, Journal of
Finance 52, 1035-1058.

35
Das, Sanjiv, and Mike Chen, 2006, Yahoo! for Amazon: Sentiment Extraction from
Small Talk on the Web, Santa Clara University Working Paper.

Davis, Angela K., Jeremy M. Piger, and Lisa M. Sedor, 2006, Beyond the Numbers: An
Analysis of Optimistic and Pessimistic Language in Earnings Press Releases,
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Working Paper.

De Bondt, Werner F.M., and Richard H. Thaler, 1990, Do Security Analysts Overreact?
American Economic Review 80, 52-57.

Easterwood, John C., and Stacey R. Nutt, 1999, Inefficiency in Analysts’ Earnings
Forecasts: Systematic Misreaction or Systematic Optimism? Journal of Finance
54, 1777-1797.

Fama, Eugene F., and Kenneth R. French, 1992, The Cross-Section of Expected Stock
Returns, Journal of Finance 47, 427-465.

Fama, Eugene F., and Kenneth R. French, 1993, Common Risk Factors in the Returns of
Stocks and Bonds, Journal of Financial Economics 33, 3-56.

Fama, Eugene F., and James MacBeth, 1973, Risk and Return: Some Empirical Tests,
Journal of Political Economy 81, 607-636.

Froot, Kenneth A., 1989, Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimation with Cross-Sectional
Dependence and Heteroskedasticity in Financial Data, Journal of Financial and
Quantitative Analysis 24, 333-355.

Grossman, Sanford J., and Joseph E. Stiglitz, 1980, On the Impossibility of

Informationally Efficient Markets, American Economic Review 70, 393-408.

Jegadeesh, Narasimhan, and Sheridan Titman, 1993, Returns to Buying Winners and
Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency, Journal of Finance 48,
65-91.

Li, Feng, 2006, Do Stock Market Investors Understand the Risk Sentiment of Corporate
Annual Reports? University of Michigan Working Paper.

Newey, Whitney K., and Kenneth D. West, 1987, A Simple Positive Semi-Definite,
Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator,
Econometrica 55, 703-708.

Nickell, Stephen J., 1981, Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed Effects, Econometrica
49, 1417-1426.

36
Riffe, Daniel, Stephen Lacy, and Frederick G. Fico, 1998, Analyzing Media Messages:
Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates:
Mahwah, New Jersey.

Roll, Richard W., 1988, R-Squared, Journal of Finance 43, 541-566.

Shiller, Robert J., 1981, Do Stock Prices Move Too Much to Be Justified by Subsequent
Changes in Dividends? American Economic Review 71, 421-436.

Shleifer, Andrei, 1986, Do Demand Curves for Stocks Slope Down? Journal of Finance
41, 579-590.

Tetlock, Paul C., 2007, Giving Content to Investor Sentiment: The Role of Media in the
Stock Market, Journal of Finance, forthcoming.

White, Halbert, 1980, A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix and a Direct

Test for Heteroskedasticity, Econometrica 48, 817-838.

37
Table I: Predicting Earnings Using Negative Words

This table shows estimates of the ability of negative words (neg-30,-3) to predict quarterly
earnings (SUE or SAFE) using ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions. We display the
regression coefficients and summary statistics from six regressions below: two different
dependent variables (SUE and SAFE) regressed on negative words computed based on
three different news stories (Dow Jones News Service (DJNS), The Wall Street Journal
(WSJ), and “Before Forecasts” and “All Stories”). SUE is a firm’s standardized
unexpected quarterly earnings; and SAFE is the standardized analysts’ forecast error for
the firm’s quarterly earnings. The negative words variable (neg-30,-3) is the standardized
number of negative words in the news stories from 30 to three trading days prior to an
earnings announcement divided by the total number of words in these news stories. The
DJNS and WSJ regressions use only stories from these sources to compute neg-30,-3. The
two “Before Forecast” regressions compute neg-30,-3 using only stories that occur one
trading day before the most recent consensus analyst forecast. All regressions include
control variables for lagged firm earnings, firm size, book-to-market, trading volume,
recent and distant past stock returns, and analysts’ quarterly forecast revisions and
dispersion (see text for details). To allow for correlations among announced firm earnings
within the same calendar quarter, we compute clustered standard errors (Froot (1989)).
SUE SAFE
Stories Included DJNS WSJ Before All Before All
Forecasts Stories Forecasts Stories
neg-30,-3 -0.0584 -0.1083 -0.0640 -0.0637 -0.0192 -0.0197
(-4.42) (-5.28) (-3.95) (-4.69) (-3.79) (-4.44)
Lag(Dependent Var) 0.2089 0.2082 0.2042 0.2101 0.2399 0.2523
(11.82) (11.83) (11.90) (11.98) (7.82) (8.74)
Forecast Dispersion -0.9567 -1.0299 -0.9634 -0.9373 -0.2984 -0.3076
(-9.84) (-9.59) (-9.21) (-10.20) (-5.34) (-6.34)
Forecast Revisions 20.2385 18.0394 20.4855 19.5198 0.5111 0.7580
(8.89) (7.91) (8.51) (8.94) (0.68) (1.19)
Log(Market Equity) -0.0071 0.0003 -0.0043 -0.0037 0.0258 0.0289
(-0.40) (0.01) (-0.24) (-0.21) (4.79) (5.32)
Log(Book / Market) 0.0173 0.0182 0.0221 0.0204 -0.0162 -0.0110
(0.62) (0.56) (0.77) (0.75) (-1.97) (-1.41)
Log(Share Turnover) -0.1241 -0.1348 -0.1095 -0.1261 0.0274 0.0254
(-3.09) (-2.90) (-2.75) (-3.20) (2.69) (2.61)
FFAlpha-252,-31 1.9784 1.9711 1.9770 2.0015 0.2199 0.2382
(9.14) (9.90) (10.01) (9.50) (4.17) (4.36)
FFCAR-30,-3 0.0119 0.0129 0.0117 0.0116 0.0062 0.0071
(6.76) (6.33) (6.28) (6.64) (10.17) (11.38)
FFCAR-2,-2 0.0104 0.0103 0.0177 0.0118 0.0053 0.0037
(1.65) (1.37) (2.40) (1.91) (2.30) (1.89)
Observations 16755 11192 13722 17769 12907 16658
Clusters 80 79 78 80 78 79
Adjusted R-squared 0.1177 0.1204 0.1158 0.1187 0.1163 0.1244
Robust t-statistics in parentheses.

38
Table II: Predicting Returns Using Negative Words

This table shows the relationship between standardized fractions of negative words (neg)
in firm-specific news stories and firms’ stock returns on the following day (Return+1,+1 or
FFCAR+1,+1). The coefficients on neg-30,-3 and summary statistics from six regressions are
displayed below: two different dependent variables (Return+1,+1 and FFCAR+1,+1)
regressed on negative words from each of three different news sources (Dow Jones News
Service, The Wall Street Journal, and both). We DJNS exclude stories that occur after
3:30pm (30 minutes prior to market closing). We assume that WSJ stories printed in the
morning’s WSJ are available to traders before the market close on the same day. The two
dependent variables are the firm’s raw close-to-close return (Return+1,+1) and the firm’s
abnormal return (FFCAR+1,+1). We use the Fama-French three-factor model with a [-
252,-31] trading day estimation period relative to the release of the news story as the
benchmark for expected returns. The key independent variable is neg, the fraction of
negative words in each news story standardized using the prior year’s distribution. Each
regression also includes control variables for the firm’s most recent earnings
announcement (SUE), market equity, book-to-market equity, trading volume, and close-
to-close returns on the day of the news story, each of the previous two trading days, and
the previous calendar year. To allow for correlations among firms’ stock returns within
the same trading day, we compute clustered standard errors (Froot (1989)).
Return+1,+1 FFCAR+1,+1
Stories Included DJNS WSJ All DJNS WSJ All
neg -0.0277 -0.0105 -0.0221 -0.0320 -0.0102 -0.0253
(-3.67) (-1.24) (-3.72) (-4.83) (-1.37) (-4.88)
FFCAR0,0 0.0285 0.0229 0.0246 0.0259 0.0224 0.0226
(5.28) (2.92) (5.43) (5.00) (2.94) (5.19)
FFCAR-1,-1 -0.0272 -0.0154 -0.0222 -0.0254 -0.0106 -0.0190
(-3.63) (-2.17) (-4.21) (-3.86) (-1.68) (-4.13)
FFCAR-2,-2 -0.0215 -0.0094 -0.0179 -0.0207 -0.0104 -0.0183
(-3.16) (-1.10) (-3.39) (-3.10) (-1.22) (-3.60)
FFCAR-30,-3 -0.0005 0.0016 -0.0002 0.0004 0.0018 0.0005
(-0.30) (0.73) (-0.13) (0.28) (0.85) (0.38)
FFAlpha-252,-31 0.0559 0.1470 0.1046 0.1201 0.1686 0.1465
(0.57) (1.29) (1.27) (1.36) (1.67) (2.02)
Earnings (SUE) 0.0160 0.0082 0.0125 0.0152 0.0055 0.0115
(2.84) (1.33) (2.68) (3.46) (1.09) (3.25)
Log(Market Equity) -0.0152 -0.0159 -0.0154 -0.0120 -0.0121 -0.0109
(-2.02) (-1.99) (-2.39) (-2.19) (-1.97) (-2.51)
Log(Book / Market) -0.0027 0.0087 -0.0010 -0.0246 -0.0061 -0.0201
(-0.18) (0.60) (-0.08) (-2.12) (-0.52) (-2.22)
Log(Share Turnover) -0.0324 -0.0278 -0.0300 -0.0189 -0.0167 -0.0145
(-1.66) (-1.43) (-1.76) (-1.35) (-1.16) (-1.27)
Observations 141541 84019 208898 141541 84019 208898
Clusters (Days) 6260 6229 6272 6260 6229 6272
Adjusted R-squared 0.0024 0.0014 0.0018 0.0026 0.0014 0.0019
Robust t-statistics in parentheses.

39
Table III: Risk-Adjusted News-Based Trading Strategy Returns

This table shows the daily risk-adjusted returns (Alpha) from a news-based trading
strategy for three different time periods (1980 to 1994, 1995 to 2004 and 1980 to 2004).
The first three regressions use the Fama-French (1993) three-factor model to adjust the
trading strategy returns for the impact of contemporaneous market (Market), size (SMB),
and book-to-market (HML) factors. The last three regressions use the Carhart (1997)
four-factor model to account for incremental impact of the momentum factor (UMD).
Table III reports the alpha and loadings from the time series regression of the long-short
news-based portfolio returns on each of the four factors. We compute all coefficient
standard errors using the White (1980) heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix.
We assemble the portfolio for the trading strategy at the close of each trading day. We
form two equal-weighted portfolios based on the content of each firm’s Dow Jones News
Service stories during the prior trading day. We label all news stories with a fraction of
negative words in the previous year’s top (bottom) quartile as negative (positive) stories.
We include all firms with positive news stories in the long portfolio and all firms with
negative news stories in the short portfolio. We hold both the long and short portfolios for
one full trading day and rebalance at the end of the next trading day. We exclude the rare
days in which there are no qualifying firms in either the long or the short portfolio.

1980- 1995- 1980- 1980- 1995- 1980-

1994 2004 2004 1994 2004 2004
Alpha 0.0919 0.1175 0.1031 0.0952 0.1131 0.1013
(2.83) (3.93) (4.55) (2.81) (3.78) (4.38)
Market -0.0994 -0.1087 -0.0983 -0.0831 -0.1001 -0.0999
(-0.93) (-1.99) (-1.86) (-0.75) (-1.87) (-1.87)
SMB -0.0767 0.0475 -0.0081 -0.0647 0.0341 -0.0128
(-0.35) (0.70) (-0.08) (-0.29) (0.49) (-0.12)
HML -0.1869 -0.2590 -0.2372 -0.1819 -0.2500 -0.2365
(-1.24) (-2.81) (-2.94) (-1.20) (-2.75) (-2.93)
UMD -0.0911 0.0930 0.0444
(-0.74) (2.01) (0.90)
Trading Days 3398 2497 5895 3398 2497 5895
Adjusted R-squared 0.0003 0.0081 0.0026 0.0004 0.0106 0.0027
Robust t-statistics in parentheses.

40
Table IV: Sensitivity of News-Based Trading Returns to Trading Cost Assumptions

This table shows estimates of the impact of transaction costs on the news-based trading
strategy’s profitability (see the text or Table III for strategy details). We recalculate the
trading strategy returns for 11 alternative assumptions about a trader’s round-trip
transaction costs: 0, 1, 2, 3 … or 10 basis points (bps) per round-trip trade. The abnormal
and raw annualized cumulative news-based strategy returns for each assumption appear
below. The risk-adjustment is based on the full-sample Fama-French 3-factor loadings of
the news-based portfolio shown in Table III.

Trading Costs Abnormal Annualized Raw Annualized

(bps) Returns (%) Returns (%)
0 23.17 21.07
1 20.30 18.25
2 17.50 15.49
3 14.76 12.80
4 12.09 10.17
5 9.47 7.60
6 6.92 5.09
7 4.43 2.64
8 1.99 0.25
9 -0.39 -2.09
10 -2.71 -4.37

41
Table V: Predicting Earnings Using Negative Words about Fundamentals

This table reports the results from two OLS regressions with different dependent
variables (SUE and SAFE) regressed on negative words (neg-30,-3), fundamental words
(Fund-30,-3), and the interaction between these words (neg-30,-3*Fund-30,-3). SUE is a firm’s
standardized unexpected quarterly earnings; and SAFE is the standardized analysts’
forecast error for the firm’s quarterly earnings. Both regressions include all news stories
from both news sources (Dow Jones News Service and The Wall Street Journal) over the
time period from 1984 through 2004. The measure of negative words (neg-30,-3) is the
standardized fraction of words that are negative in the news stories from 30 trading days
prior up to three trading days prior to an earnings announcement. Fundamental words
(Fund-30,-3) is the fraction of words that are contained in news stories that mention the
word stem “earn” from 30 trading days prior up to three trading days prior to an earnings
announcement. All regressions include control variables for lagged firm earnings and
numerous firm characteristics (see text for details). To allow for correlations among
announced firm earnings within the same calendar quarter, we compute clustered
standard errors (Froot (1989)).
SUE SAFE
neg-30,-3 -0.0167 -0.0072
(-1.19) (-1.65)
neg-30,-3*Fund-30,-3 -0.3192 -0.0824
(-8.00) (-5.48)
Fund-30,-3 -0.4676 -0.1033
(-7.27) (-5.59)
Lag(Dependent Var) 0.2080 0.2517
(12.22) (8.69)
Forecast Dispersion -0.9280 -0.3049
(-10.32) (-6.35)
Forecast Revisions 19.1856 0.7068
(9.06) (1.11)
Log(Market Equity) -0.0062 0.0285
(-0.36) (5.31)
Log(Book / Market) 0.0126 -0.0127
(0.48) (-1.60)
Log(Share Turnover) -0.1086 0.0299
(-2.89) (3.08)
FFAlpha-252,-31 1.9760 0.2317
(9.59) (4.30)
FFCAR-30,-3 0.0102 0.0067
(5.74) (11.20)
FFCAR-2,-2 0.0110 0.0036
(1.81) (1.87)
Observations 17769 16658
Clusters 80 79
Adjusted R-squared 0.1282 0.1285
Robust t-statistics in parentheses.

42
Table VI: Firms’ Returns and Negative Words about Fundamentals

This table shows the relationship between negative words in firm-specific news stories
(neg) and firms’ close-to-close abnormal stock returns on the same day (FFCAR+0,+0) and
the following day (FFCAR+1,+1). The stories include all Dow Jones News Service articles
from 1980 through 2004, but exclude stories that occur after 3:30pm (30 minutes prior to
market closing). The coefficients and summary statistics from two OLS regressions using
two different dependent variables (FFCAR+0,+0 and FFCAR+1,+1) appear below. The key
independent variable is negative words (neg), which is the fraction of negative words in
each news story standardized using the prior year’s distribution. The independent variable
Fund is a dummy indicating whether a story mentions the word stem “earn”; and
neg*Fund is the interaction between negative words (neg) and this dummy. All
regressions include numerous control variables for lagged firm returns and other firm
characteristics (see text for details). To allow for correlations among firms returns within
the same trading day, we compute clustered standard errors (Froot (1989)).

FFCAR+0,+0 FFCAR+1,+1
neg -0.0857 -0.0161
(-11.16) (-2.35)
neg*Fund -0.3127 -0.1036
(-10.75) (-4.52)
Fund -0.3250 -0.0342
(-12.84) (-1.96)
FFCAR+0,+0 0.0255
(4.91)
FFCAR-1,-1 0.0181 -0.0256
(2.23) (-3.89)
FFCAR-2,-2 -0.0220 -0.0209
(-2.72) (-3.13)
FFCAR-30,-3 0.0020 0.0004
(1.17) (0.23)
FFAlpha-252,-31 -0.1425 0.1136
(-1.36) (1.29)
Earnings (SUE) 0.0234 0.0146
(4.16) (3.33)
Observations 141633 141541
Clusters 6260 6260
Adjusted R-squared 0.0045 0.0028
Robust t-statistics in parentheses.

43
 40000

30000
Number of News Stories

20000

10000

0
-90 -75 -60 -45 -30 -15 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Time Relative to Earnings Announcement (Trading Days)

Figure 1. Media Coverage around Earnings Announcements. This figure depicts the
relationship between the number of firm-specific news stories and the number of days
away from a firm’s earnings announcement. All stories included in the figure are about
S&P 500 firms, appear in either Dow Jones News Service or The Wall Street Journal
from 1980 through 2004, and meet basic minimum word requirements (see text for
details). For each news story, we calculate the number of days until the firm’s next
earnings announcement and the number of days that have passed since the firm’s last
earnings announcement. We plot a histogram of both variables back-to-back in Figure 1.
Thus, each story is counted twice in Figure 1, once before and once after the nearest
announcement, except the stories occurring on the earnings announcement day.

44
 1
Positive News
0.8
Cumulative Standardized Unexpected Earnings

Negative News
0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1

-1.2
Fiscal Quarter Relative to News Release

Figure 2. Firms’ Fundamentals around Positive and Negative News Stories. In this
figure, we graph firms’ cumulative standardized unexpected earnings (SUE) from 10
fiscal quarters preceding media coverage of an earnings announcement to 10 quarters
after the media coverage. We define media coverage of the announcement as positive
(negative) when it contains a fraction of negative words (Neg-30,-3) in the previous year’s
top (bottom) quartile. The measure of negative words (Neg-30,-3) is the fraction of words
that are negative in the news stories from 30 trading days prior up to three trading days
prior to an earnings announcement. We separately analyze the firms with positive and
negative media coverage prior to their earnings announcements. We compute the
cumulative SUE for both sets of firms, beginning 10 quarters prior to the news and
ending 10 quarters after the news. To compute SUE values after the news stories, we use
only unexpected earnings benchmarks known at the time of the news—i.e., those based
on earnings prior to quarter zero (see text for details).

45
 150
Difference WSJ
Difference DJNS
Cumulative Abnormal Returns (in Basis Points)

Positive WSJ
100
Positive DJNS
Negative WSJ
Negative DJNS
50

0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10

-50

-100
Trading Day Relative to Story Release

Figure 3. Firms’ Valuations around Positive and Negative News Stories. In this
figure, we graph a firm’s abnormal event returns from 10 trading days preceding a news
story’s release to 10 trading days following its release. All news stories focus on S&P
500 firms and come from either Dow Jones News Service or The Wall Street Journal
between 1980 and 2004 inclusive. For all DJNS stories, we exclude stories that occur
after 3:30pm (30 minutes prior to market closing). For all WSJ stories, we assume that
stories printed in the morning’s WSJ are available to traders well before the market close
on the same day. We use the Fama-French three-factor model with a [-252,-31] trading
day estimation period relative to the release of the news story as the benchmark for
expected returns. We label all news stories with a fraction of negative words (Neg) in the
previous year’s top (bottom) quartile as negative (positive) stories. We separately
examine the market’s response to positive and negative DJNS and WSJ stories. We also
compute the difference between the reaction to positive and negative news stories for
each source.

46
 8

6
Frequency (in Years)

0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Average Daily Abnormal Returns
(in Basis Points)

Figure 4. Distribution of Daily Abnormal Returns for the News-Based Trading

Strategy. For the 25 years from 1980 to 2004, the figure depicts the distribution of the
average daily abnormal returns for the news-based trading strategy described below. Each
frequency bin encompasses a 5% range of abnormal returns described by the two
numbers adjacent to the bin—e.g., the frequency of the leftmost return bin (four years) is
the number of years in which the trading strategy’s average daily return is between -5
basis points and 0 basis points. We assemble the portfolio for the news-based trading
strategy at the close of each trading day. We form two equal-weighted portfolios based
on the content of each firm’s Dow Jones News Service stories during the prior trading
day. We label all news stories with a fraction of negative words in the previous year’s top
(bottom) quartile as negative (positive) stories. We include all firms with positive news
stories in the long portfolio and all firms with negative news stories in the short portfolio.
We hold both the long and short portfolios for one full trading day and rebalance at the
end of the next trading day. We exclude the rare days in which either the long or the short
portfolio contains no qualifying firms. To adjust the returns for risk, we use the full-
sample estimates of the Fama-French 3-factor loadings of the news-based portfolio
displayed in Table III.

47