Volume 8, Issue 5, September 2020, Page: 244-251
Investor Attention and Growth Anomalies in NASDAQ Stocks-Evidence from Google Trend Volume
Ya Li, LSK School of Business and Administration, The Open University of Hong Kong, Ho Man Tin, Hong Kong
Raymond Chan, LSK School of Business and Administration, The Open University of Hong Kong, Ho Man Tin, Hong Kong
John Tsang, LSK School of Business and Administration, The Open University of Hong Kong, Ho Man Tin, Hong Kong
Received: Sep. 24, 2020;       Accepted: Oct. 15, 2020;       Published: Oct. 26, 2020
DOI: 10.11648/j.jfa.20200805.15      View  70      Downloads  69
Abstract
We study the effects of investor attention on the capital investment anomaly on NASDAQ stocks. Based on total asset growth, researchers find firms that substantially increase capital investments subsequently achieve negative benchmark-adjusted returns. On one hand, some scholars propose that investors incorrectly underreact to the empire building behavior of managers who aggressively increase investment expenditure. On the other hand, some scholars argue that investors appear to overreact to past firm growth rates. We aim to determine whether the growth anomaly is due to underreaction or overreaction in this research. We apply Google Search Volume Index as a new direct measure of investor attention to provide empirical evidence for under-reaction and over-reaction explanations of the total asset growth anomaly on NASDAQ stocks. We adopt double sorting and Fama-MacBeth regression and find the stock prices rise up when investors search actively of the underlying stock tickers. The anomaly is stronger when investors are extremely overreacting and underreacting. When investors are rational or calm down, this total asset growth effect disappears. Our empirical design disentangles the dilemma that whether the strand of growth anomalies is due to risk or mispricing. Within proponents of mispricing, our research innovatively tease out of the opposing explanations of under-reaction and over-reaction as the relevant driver of the growth anomalies.
Keywords
Attention, Google Search, Total Asset Growth
To cite this article
Ya Li, Raymond Chan, John Tsang, Investor Attention and Growth Anomalies in NASDAQ Stocks-Evidence from Google Trend Volume, Journal of Finance and Accounting. Vol. 8, No. 5, 2020, pp. 244-251. doi: 10.11648/j.jfa.20200805.15
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
Ball, R., Gerakos, J., Linnainmaa, J. T. and Nikolaev, V. V., 2015. Deflating profitability. Journal of Financial Economics, 117 (2), pp. 225-248.
[2]
Carhart, M. M., 1997. On persistence in mutual fund performance. Journal of Finance 52, 57–82.
[3]
Chuan Ang, T., Lam, F. E. C., Ma, T., Wang, S. and Wei, K. J., 2019. What is the real relationship between cash holdings and stock returns?. International Review of Economics & Finance, 64, pp. 513-528.
[4]
Cooper, M. J., Gulen, H., Schill, M. J., 2008. Asset growth and the cross-section of stock returns. Journal of Finance 63, 1609–1651.
[5]
Da, Z., Engelberg, J., Gao, P., 2010. In search of fundamentals. Working paper.
[6]
Da, Z., Engelberg, J., Gao, P., 2011. In search of attention. Journal of Finance 66, 1461–1499.
[7]
Daniel, K., Titman, S., 2006. Market reactions to tangible and intangible information, Journal of Finance 61, 1605–1643.
[8]
Duan, J., Liu, J. and Chen, Q., 2020. Research on the relationship between FinTech attention and its sector returns. International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences, 8 (1), p. 57.
[9]
Fama, E. F., French, K. R., 1992. The cross-section of expected stock returns. Journal of Finance 47, 427–465.
[10]
Fama, E. F., French, K. R., 1993. Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics 33, 3–56.
[11]
Fama, E. F., French, K. R., 2014. A five-factor asset pricing model. Journal of Financial Economics 116, 1–22.
[12]
Fama, E. F. and French, K. R., 2016. Dissecting anomalies with a five-factor model. The Review of Financial Studies, 29 (1), pp. 69-103.
[13]
Fama, E. F., MacBeth, J. D., 1973. Risk, return, and equilibrium: empirical tests. Journal of Political Economics 81, 607–636.
[14]
Gao, Z., Ren, H. and Zhang, B., 2018. Googling investor sentiment around the world. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Forthcoming.
[15]
Hirshleifer, D., Hou, K., Teoh, S. H., Zhang, Y., 2004. Do investors overvalue firms with bloated balance sheets? Journal of Accounting and Economics 38 297–331.
[16]
Hou, K., Xue, C., Zhang, L., 2015. Digesting anomalies: an investment approach. Review of Financial Studies 28, 650–705.
[17]
Lam, F. E. C., Li, Y., Prombutr, W. and Wei, K. J., 2020. Limits to arbitrage, investment frictions, and the investment effect: New evidence. European Financial Management, 26 (1), pp. 3-43.
[18]
Lam, F. Y. E. C., Wei, K. C. J., 2011, Limits-to-arbitrage, investment frictions, and the asset growth anomaly, Journal of Financial Economics 102, 127–149.
[19]
Li, D., Zhang, L., 2010. Does q-theory with investment frictions explain anomalies in the cross section of returns? Journal of Financial Economics 98, 297–314.
[20]
Lipson, M. L., Mortal, S., Schill, M. J. 2011. On the scope and drivers of the asset growth effect. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 46, 1651–1682.
[21]
Lyandres, E., Sun, L., Zhang L., 2008. The new issues puzzle: testing the investment-based explanation. Review of Financial Studies 21, 2826–2855.
[22]
Mashruwala, C., Rajgopal S., Shevlin, T., 2006. Why is the accrual anomaly not arbitraged away? The role of idiosyncratic risk and transaction costs. Journal of Accounting and Economics 42, 3–33.
[23]
Newey, W. K; West, K. D., 1987. A simple, positive semi-definite, heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix. Econometrica 55, 703–708.
[24]
Novy-Marx, R., 2013. The other side of value: the gross profitability premium. Journal of Financial Economics 108, 1–28.
[25]
Pontiff, J., Woodgate, A., 2008. Share issuance and cross-sectional returns. Journal of Finance 63, 921–954.
[26]
Sharpe, W. F., 1964. Capital asset prices: a theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. Journal of Finance 19, 425–442.
[27]
Shumway, T., 1997. The delisting bias in CRSP data. Journal of Finance 52, 327–340.
[28]
Shumway, Tyler, and Vincent A. Warther, 1999. The delisting bias in CRSP’s Nasdaq data and its implications for the size effect. Journal of Finance 54, 2361–2379.
[29]
Sloan, R. G., 1996. Do stock prices fully reflect information in accruals and cash flows about future earnings? Accounting Review 3, 289–315.
[30]
Titman, S., Wei, K. C. J., Xie, F., 2004. Capital investments and stock returns. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 39, 677–700.
[31]
Wang, H., Yu, J., 2013. Dissecting the Profitability Premium. Working paper.
[32]
Xing, Y., 2008. Interpreting the value effect through the q-theory: an empirical investigation. Review of Financial Studies 21 1767–1795.
Browse journals by subject