IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jjrfmx/v17y2024i8p316-d1441449.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Investors’ Online Public Opinion Divergence Increase the Trading Volume? Evidence from the CSI 300 Index Constituents

Author

Listed:
  • Zihuang Huang

    (School of Economics and Management, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China)

  • Qing Xu

    (School of Economics and Management, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China)

  • Xinyu Wang

    (School of Economics and Management, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China)

Abstract

We collected online public opinions on the CSI 300 index constituents and investigated the different impacts of online public opinion divergence on trading volume. Here, we find that online public opinions are helpful in improving the trading volume, but the online public opinion divergence of investors reduces the expected trading volume. In particular, non-financial and mid-cap stocks with high levels of discussion are more significantly influenced by online public opinion divergence. Through the classification of investors’ influence levels, we find that the divergence among high-level investors increases the trading volume, while the divergence among low-level investors exacerbates the decrease in trading volume. A reduction in divergence for both levels will have a greater impact. We believe that attention should be paid to regulating and guiding the online public opinions of “newcomers”. This will not only improve the quality of Guba but also contribute to the steady development of the Chinese stock market.

Suggested Citation

  • Zihuang Huang & Qing Xu & Xinyu Wang, 2024. "Does Investors’ Online Public Opinion Divergence Increase the Trading Volume? Evidence from the CSI 300 Index Constituents," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-17, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:17:y:2024:i:8:p:316-:d:1441449
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/17/8/316/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/17/8/316/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Samuel Jebaraj Benjamin & Pallab Kumar Biswas & M Srikamalaladevi M Marathamuthu & Murugesh Arunachalam, 2022. "Social Media Sentiments and Firm Value," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(26), pages 2983-2997, June.
    2. J. Anthony Cookson & Marina Niessner, 2020. "Why Don't We Agree? Evidence from a Social Network of Investors," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 75(1), pages 173-228, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. André Betzer & Jan Philipp Harries, 2022. "How online discussion board activity affects stock trading: the case of GameStop," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 36(4), pages 443-472, December.
    2. Liu, Xiangqiang & Yang, Qingqing & Wei, Kai & Dai, Peng-Fei, 2024. "ESG rating disagreement and idiosyncratic return volatility: Evidence from China," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(PB).
    3. He, Xue-Zhong & Li, Kai & Santi, Caterina & Shi, Lei, 2022. "Social interaction, volatility clustering, and momentum," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 203(C), pages 125-149.
    4. Domonkos F. Vamossy, 2020. "Investor Emotions and Earnings Announcements," Papers 2006.13934, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2020.
    5. Al-Nasseri, Alya & Menla Ali, Faek & Tucker, Allan, 2021. "Investor sentiment and the dispersion of stock returns: Evidence based on the social network of investors," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    6. Cheng, Ing-Haw & Hsiaw, Alice, 2022. "Distrust in experts and the origins of disagreement," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    7. Macchioni, Riccardo & Prisco, Martina & Zagaria, Claudia, 2024. "The value relevance of voluntary disclosure through social media platforms: Evidence from European Union listed firms," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    8. García, Diego & Hu, Xiaowen & Rohrer, Maximilian, 2023. "The colour of finance words," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(3), pages 525-549.
    9. Domonkos F. Vamossy, 2024. "Social Media Emotions and Market Behavior," Papers 2404.03792, arXiv.org.
    10. Aytekin Ertan & Stephen A. Karolyi & Peter W. Kelly & Robert Stoumbos, 2022. "Earnings announcement return extrapolation," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 185-230, March.
    11. J. Anthony Cookson & Corbin Fox & Javier Gil-Bazo & Juan Imbet & Christoph Schiller, 2024. "Social Media as a Bank Run Catalyst," Working Papers hal-04400382, HAL.
    12. Fan, Rui & Talavera, Oleksandr & Tran, Vu, 2023. "Information flows and the law of one price," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    13. Juan Imbet & J. Anthony Cookson & Corbin Fox & Christoph Schiller & Javier Gil-Bazo, 2024. "Social Media as a Bank Run Catalyst," Post-Print hal-04660083, HAL.
    14. Zhang, Dengjun & Wellalage, Nirosha Hewa & Fernandez, Viviana, 2022. "Environmental assurance, gender, and access to finance: Evidence from SMEs," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    15. Shimon Kogan & Vitaly Meursault, 2021. "Corporate Disclosure: Facts or Opinions?," Working Papers 21-40, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
    16. Elisabeth Kempf & Margarita Tsoutsoura, 2021. "Partisan Professionals: Evidence from Credit Rating Analysts," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 76(6), pages 2805-2856, December.
    17. Laurent Bouton & Aniol Llorente-Saguer & Antonin Macé & Adam Meirowitz & Shaoting Pi & Dimitrios Xefteris, 2024. "Public Information as a Source of Disagreement," Working Papers halshs-04075483, HAL.
    18. Xu Gong & Keqin Guan & Qiyang Chen, 2022. "The role of textual analysis in oil futures price forecasting based on machine learning approach," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(10), pages 1987-2017, October.
    19. Yuan, Ying & Wang, Haiying & Jin, Xiu, 2022. "Pandemic-driven financial contagion and investor behavior: Evidence from the COVID-19," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    20. Ballinari, Daniele & Audrino, Francesco & Sigrist, Fabio, 2022. "When does attention matter? The effect of investor attention on stock market volatility around news releases," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:17:y:2024:i:8:p:316-:d:1441449. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.