The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Why Don't We Agree? Evidence from a Social Network of Investors
Abstract
We study sources of investor disagreement using sentiment of investors from a social media investing platform, combined with information on the users' investment approaches (e.g., technical, fundamental). We examine how much of overall disagreement is driven by different information sets versus differential interpretation of information by studying disagreement within and across investment approaches. Overall disagreement is evenly split between both sources of disagreement, but within‐group disagreement is more tightly related to trading volume than cross‐group disagreement. Although both sources of disagreement are important, our findings suggest that information differences are more important for trading than differences across market approaches.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2008) · Review of Financial Studies · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhm079 · Cited by 4,556
A Unified Theory of Underreaction, Momentum Trading, and Overreaction in Asset Markets
Hong, H., & Stein, J. C. (1999) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/0022-1082.00184 · Cited by 4,001
Trading Is Hazardous to Your Wealth: The Common Stock Investment Performance of Individual Investors
Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2000) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/0022-1082.00226 · Cited by 3,955
DA, Z., ENGELBERG, J., & GAO, P. (2011) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2011.01679.x · Cited by 3,067
Depression Babies: Do Macroeconomic Experiences Affect Risk-Taking?
Malmendier, U., & Nagel, S. (2011) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjq004 · Cited by 2,480
Is All That Talk Just Noise? The Information Content of Internet Stock Message Boards
Antweiler, W., & Frank, M. Z. (2004) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2004.00662.x · Cited by 2,373
Limited attention, information disclosure, and financial reporting
Hirshleifer, D., & Teoh, S. H. (2003) · Journal of Accounting and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2003.10.002 · Cited by 2,324
Overconfidence and Speculative Bubbles
Scheinkman, J. A., & Xiong, W. (2003) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/378531 · Cited by 2,198
Differences of Opinion and the Cross Section of Stock Returns
Diether, K. B., Malloy, C. J., & Scherbina, A. (2002) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/0022-1082.00490 · Cited by 2,139
Who Gambles in the Stock Market?
KUMAR, A. (2009) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2009.01483.x · Cited by 1,798
Cited by
Why is Corporate Virtue in the Eye of The Beholder? The Case of ESG Ratings
Christensen, D. M., Serafeim, G., & Sikochi, A. (2022) · The Accounting Review · doi:10.2308/tar-2019-0506 · Cited by 1,537
Metadata
- Authors
- COOKSON, J. A., & NIESSNER, M.
- Venue
- The Journal of Finance
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-11-07
- Volume
- 75
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 173-228
- ISSN
- 0022-1082 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-6261
- OpenAlex
- W3121538680
- Cited by
- 386
- References
- 50
- FWCI
- 36.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Why Don't We Agree? Evidence from a Social Network of Investors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/jofi.12852
- The paper
- COOKSON, J. A., & NIESSNER, M. (2020). Why Don't We Agree? Evidence from a Social Network of Investors. The Journal of Finance. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12852
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.