The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measuring Qualitative Information in Capital Markets Research: Comparison of Alternative Methodologies to Measure Disclosure Tone
Abstract
This study evaluates alternative measures of the tone of financial narrative. We present evidence that word-frequency tone measures based on domain-specific wordlists—compared to general wordlists—better predict the market reaction to earnings announcements, have greater statistical power in short-window event studies, and exhibit more economically consistent post-announcement drift. Further, inverse document frequency weighting, advocated in Loughran and McDonald (2011), provides little improvement to the alternative approach of equal weighting. We also provide evidence that word-frequency tone measures are as powerful as the Naïve Bayesian machine-learning tone measure from Li (2010) in a regression of future earnings on MD&A tone. Overall, although more complex techniques are potentially advantageous in certain contexts, equal-weighted, domain-specific, word-frequency tone measures are generally just as powerful in the context of financial disclosure and capital markets. Such measures are also more intuitive, easier to implement, and, importantly, far more amenable to replication.
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
Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds
Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1993) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/0304-405x(93)90023-5 · Cited by 25,754
Foundations of statistical natural language processing
Manning, C. D., & Schütze, H. (1999) · Cited by 9,816
The Content Analysis Guidebook
Neuendorf, K. A. (2017) · doi:10.4135/9781071802878 · Cited by 9,286
When Is a Liability Not a Liability? Textual Analysis, Dictionaries, and 10‐Ks
LOUGHRAN, T., & MCDONALD, B. (2011) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2010.01625.x · Cited by 6,015
Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-Nested Hypotheses
Vuong, Q. H. (1989) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912557 · Cited by 5,929
Giving content to investor sentiment: The role of media in the stock market
TETLOCK, P. C. (2007) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2007.01232.x · Cited by 4,827
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
The information content of losses
Hayn, C. (1995) · Journal of Accounting and Economics · doi:10.1016/0165-4101(95)00397-2 · Cited by 2,313
More Than Words: Quantifying Language to Measure Firms' Fundamentals
TETLOCK, P. C., SAAR‐TSECHANSKY, M., & MACSKASSY, S. (2008) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2008.01362.x · Cited by 2,304
Yahoo! for Amazon: Sentiment Extraction from Small Talk on the Web
Das, S. R., & Chen, M. Y. (2007) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1070.0704 · Cited by 1,396
Cited by
Disclosure processing costs, investors’ information choice, and equity market outcomes: A review
Blankespoor, E., deHaan, E., & Marinovic, I. (2020) · Journal of Accounting and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2020.101344 · Cited by 1,076
A plain English measure of financial reporting readability
Bonsall, S. B., Leone, A. J., Miller, B. P., & Rennekamp, K. (2017) · Journal of Accounting and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2017.03.002 · Cited by 624
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Henry, E., & Leone, A. J.
- Venue
- The Accounting Review
- Publisher
- American Accounting Association
- Published
- 2015-05-01
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 153-178
- ISSN
- 0001-4826 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-7967
- OpenAlex
- W1873429512
- Cited by
- 381
- References
- 37
- FWCI
- 69.26
- 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: Measuring Qualitative Information in Capital Markets Research: Comparison of Alternative Methodologies to Measure Disclosure Tone. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2308/accr-51161
- The paper
- Henry, E., & Leone, A. J. (2016). Measuring Qualitative Information in Capital Markets Research: Comparison of Alternative Methodologies to Measure Disclosure Tone. The Accounting Review. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51161
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.