How does trading volume respond to investor sentiment?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1982-6486.rco.2019.163596Keywords:
Investor sentiment, Stock market, Behavioral financeAbstract
Behavioral economics has broadened the understanding of stock market trading. Investors with different expectations of optimism (or pessimism) and confidence tend to trade differently over the short and long term. Moreover, their behavioral biases tend to be one of the underlying causes of nonlinearity and stock market asymmetry, a factor that hinders an accurate analysis of this relationship. Using a nonlinear approach to asymmetric autoregressive distributed delays, we analyzed in detail the short and long-term non-linear and asymmetric connections between investor sentiment and trading volume in the US market from 2004 to 2017. The results, besides confirming whereas behavioral biases influence declining turnover, indicate that trading volume reacts rapidly to the presence of lower confidence investors and that this relationship is deeply asymmetrical in the long run. From this evidence it is presumed that in times of low liquidity investor confidence declines and their risk aversion increases, and therefore they reduce their trading to avoid negative results.
Downloads
References
Akaike, H. (1973). Maximum likelihood identification of gaussian autoregressive moving average models.
Biometrika, 60, p. 255-265.
Akerlof, G. A., & Shiller, J. S. (2009). Animal spirits: How human psychology drives the economy, and why it
matters for global capitalism. NJ: Princeton University Press.
Baker, M., & Wurgler, J. (2006). Investor sentiment and cross-section of stock return. The Journal of Finance,
61(4), p. 1645-1680. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2006.00885.x.
Baker, M., & Wurgler, J. (2007). Investor Sentiment in the Stock Market. Journal of Economic Perspectives,
21(2), p. 129-151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w13189.
Barberis, N., & Thaler, R. (2002). Survey of behavioral finance. National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER
Working Papers.
Barberis, N., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1998). A model of investor sentiment. Journal of Financial Economics,
49, p. 307-343.
Beyer, A., & Guttman, I. (2011). The effect of trading volume on analysts' forecast bias. The Accounting Review,
p. 451-481. DOI: https//doi.org/10.2308/accr.00000030.
Boynton, W., Oppenheimer, H., & Reid, S. (2009). Japanese day-of-the-week returns patterns: New results. Global
Finance Journal, p. 1-12.
Brailsford, T. (1996). The empirical relationship between trading volume, returns and volatility. Accounting &
Finance, 36(1), p. 89-111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-629X.1996.tb00300.x.
Brown, G., & Cliff, M. (2004). Investor sentiment and the near-term stock market. Journal of Empirical Finance,
11(1), p. 1-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jempfin.2002.12.001.
Brown, G., & Cliff, M. (2005). Investor Sentiment and Asset Valuation. The Journal of Business, 78(2), p. 405-
440. DOI:https//doi.org/10.1086/427633.
Daniel, K., Hirshleifer, D. A., & Subrahmanyam, A. (1998). Investor Psychology and Security Market Under- and
Overreactions. The Journal of Finance, 53(6), p. 1839-1885. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.00077.
Daniel, K., Hirshleifer, D., & Subrahmanyam, A. (2001). Overconfidence, arbitrage, and equilibrium asset pricing.
The Journal of Finance, 56, p. 921-965. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.00350.
De Bondt, W., & Thaler, R. (1985). Does the stock market overreact? The Journal of Finance, 40(3), 793-805.
DOI: https//doi.org/10.2307/2327804.
De Long, J., Shleifer, A., Summer, L., & Waldmann, R. (1990). Noise trader risk in financial markets. The Journal
of Political Economy, 98(4), p. 703-738.
Debata, B., Dash, S, R., Mahakud, J. (2018). Investor sentiment and emerging stock market liquidity. Finance
Research Letters, 26, p.15-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2017.11.006.
Dhaoui, A., & Bacha, S. (2017). Investor emotional biases and trading volume's asymmetric response: A non-
linear ARDL approach tested in S&P500 stock market. Cogent economics & finance, 1(5), p. 1-13. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2016.1274225.
Dhaoui, A., Bourouis, S., & Boyacioglu, M. (2013). The impact of investor psychology on stock markets: Evidence
from France. Journal of Academic Research in Economics, p. 35-59.
Dickey, D., & Fuller, W. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root.
Econometrica, 49(4), p. 1057-1072.
Ding, D., Charoenwong, K., & Seetoh, R. (2004). Prospect theory, analyst forecasts, and stock returns. Journal of
Multinational Financial Management, 14(4), p. 425-442. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mulfin.2004.03.005.
Fama, E. (1965). The behavior of stock-market prices. Journal of Business, 38(1), 34–105.
Fama, E., & French, K. (1988). Permanent and Temporary Components of Stock Prices. The Journal of Political
Economy, 96(2), p. 246-273.
Granger, C., & Yoon, G. (2002). Hidden cointegration. University of California, Working Paper 2002-02.
Grossman, S., & Miller, M. (1988). Liquidity and market structure. The Journal of Finance, p. 617-633.
Ibrahim, M. (2015). Oil and food prices in Malaysia: a nonlinear ARDL analysis. Agricultural and Food Economics,
3(2), 1-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-014-0020-3.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky , A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, p. 263-
291.
Kaniel, R., Saar, G., & Titman, S. (2008). Individual investor trading and stock returns. The Journal of Finance,
63, p. 273–310.
Kim, S.-H., & Kim, D. (2014). Investor sentiment from internet message posting and the predictability of stock
returns. Journal of Economic Behavior Organization, 107(B), p. 708-729. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jebo.2014.04.015.
Kumar, A., & Lee, C. (2006). Retail investor sentiment and return comovements. The Journal of Finance, 61, p.
2451–2486.
Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P., Schmidt, Y., & Shin, T. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the
alternative of a unit root. Journal of Econometrics, 54, p. 159-178.
Lee, B., & Rui, O. (2002). The dynamic relationship between stock returns and trading volume: Domestic and
cross-country evidence. Journal of Banking & Finance, 26(1), p. 51-78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-
4266(00)00173-4.
Lee, C., Shleifer, A., & Thaler, R. (1991). Investor Sentiment and the Closed-End Fund Puzzle. Journal of Finance,
46(1), p. 75-109.
Liu. S. (2015). Investor Sentiment and Stock Market Liquidity. Journal of Behavior Finance, 15(1), p. 51-67. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/15427560.2015.1000334.
Mestel, R., Gurgul, H., & Majdosz, P. (2003). The empirical relationship between stock returns, return volatility
and trading volume an the Australian stock market (Research Paper). University of Graz, Institute of Banking
and Finance, Graz.
Ni, Z., Wang, D., & Xue, W. (2015). Investor sentiment and its nonlinear effect on stock returns - New evidence
from the Chinese stock market based on panel quantile regression model. Economic Modelling, 50, p. 266–
274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2015.07.007.
Paraboni, A. L., Righi, M. B., Vieira, K. M., & Silveira, V. G. (2018). The Relationship between Sentiment and Risk
in Financial Markets. Brazilian Administration Review, 15(1), p. 1-15. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1807-
7692bar2018170055.
Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (1999). An autoregressive distributed lag modeling approach to cointegration analysis.
Em S. Strom, Econometrics and Economic Theory in the 20th Century: The Ragnar Frisch Centennial
Symposium. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships.
Journal of Applied Econometrics (16), p. 289–326.
Porteba, J., & Summers, L. (1988). Mean Reversion in Stock Returns: Evidence and Implications. Journal of
Financial Economics, 22(1), p. 27-59.
Romilly, P., Song, H., & Liu, X. (2001). Car ownership and use in Britain: a comparison of the empirical results of
alternative cointegration estimation methods and forecasts. Applied Economics, p. 1803-1818.
Schmeling, M. (2009). Investor sentiment and stock returns: some international evidence. Journal of Empirical
Finance, 16(3), p. 394-408. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jempfin.2009.01.002.
Shiller, R. (1981). Do Stock Prices Move Too Much to be Justified by Subsequent Changes in Dividends? The
American Economic Review, p. 421-436.
Shiller, R. J. (2003). From Efficient Markets Theory to Behavioral Finance. The Journal of Economic Perspectives,
17(1), p. 83-104.
Shin, Y., Yu, B., & Greenwood-Nimmo, M. (2014). Modelling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers
in a nonlinear ARDL framework. Econometric Methods and Applications, p. 281-314. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-1-4899-8008-3_9.
Shleifer, A., & Summers, L. (1990). The noise trader approach to finance. Journal of Economic Perspectives, p.
19–33.
Stambaugh, R., Yu, J., & Yuan, Y. (2012). The Short of It: Investor Sentiment and Anomalies. Journal of Financial
Economics, 104(2), p. 288-302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.12.001.
Ulussever, T., Yumusak, T., & Kar, M. (2011). The day-of-the-week effect in the Saudi stock exchange: a non-
linear garch analysis. Journal of Economics and Social Studies, p. 9-23.
Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theoru of games and economic behavior. New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
Yahoo Finance. (2017). Business Finance, Stock Market, Quotes, News. Recuperado de: https://finance.yahoo.
com/ (acesso em 10 de dezembro de 2017).
Yu, J. (2013). A sentiment-based explanation of the forward premium puzzle. Journal of Monetary Economics,
60(4), p. 474–491. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2013.04.001.
Yu, J., & Yuan, Y. (2011). Investor sentiment and the mean-variance relation. Journal of Financial Economics,
100(2), p. 367–381. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2010.10.011.
Zhang, W., & Semmler, W. (2009). Prospect theory for stock markets: Empirical evidence with time-series
data. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 72(3), p. 835–849. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jebo.2009.08.003.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The RCO adopts the Free Open Access policy, under the standard Creative Commons agreement (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). The agreement provides that:
- Submission of text authorizes its publication and implies commitment that the same material is not being submitted to another journal. The original is considered definitive.
- Authors retain the copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which allows the sharing of the work with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are authorized to take additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (e.g. publish in an institutional repository or as a book chapter), with necessary recognition of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their personal page) before or during the editorial process, as this can generate productive changes as well as increase the impact and citation of published work (See The Effect of Free Access).
- The journal does not pay copyright to the authors of the published texts.
- The journal's copyright holder, except those already agreed in the Free Open Access Agreement (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), is the Accounting Department of the Faculty of Economics, Administration and Accounting of Ribeirão Preto of the University of São Paulo.
No submission or publication fees are charged.
Up to 4 authors per article are accepted. Exceptionally duly justified cases may be reviewed by the Executive Committee of the RCO. Exceptional cases are considered as: multi-institutional projects; manuscripts resulting from the collaboration of research groups; or involving large teams for evidence collection, construction of primary data, and comparative experiments.
It is recommended that the authorship be ordered by contribution of each of the individuals listed as authors, especially in the design and planning of the research project, in obtaining or analyzing and interpreting data, and writing. Authors must declare the actual contributions of each author, filling the letter to the editor, at the beginning of the submission, taking responsibility for the information given.
Authors are allowed to change throughout the evaluation process and prior to the publication of the manuscript. The Authors should indicate the composition and final order of authorship in the document signed by all those involved when accepted for publication. If the composition and authoring order is different than previously reported in the system, all previously listed authors should be in agreement.
In the case of identification of authorship without merit or contribution (ghost, guest or gift authorship), the RCO follows the procedure recommended by COPE.