arXiv preprint ·
From SEC Filings to Financial Signals: Evaluating LLMs on Stock Market Reactions and Analyst Forecasts
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Form 10-Q MD&A sections combine long-form management narrative with accounting and forward-looking information. Benchmarks for financial filings commonly evaluate question answering or numerical reasoning, leaving unclear whether outputs from large language models (LLMs) align with market and analyst outcomes. We evaluate prompted, zero-shot outputs from 13 general-purpose and finance-specialized LLMs on 45,964 Form 10-Q filing events from 2001 to 2024, linking MD&A text to cross-sectional fundamental ranks, pre-filing analyst forecasts, and realized abnormal returns. The evaluation covers return ranking under five controlled information views and next-quarter EPS forecasting under direct and consensus-anchored interfaces. Relative to disclosure alone, adding cross-sectional fundamental ranks raises mean effective-date rank correlation (RankIC) by 0.0089 for effective-event-date returns and 0.0098 for following-day returns, whereas analyst-summary context provides no comparable average gain. Across the four disclosure-containing views, finance-specialized models show an effective-event-date group advantage but no statistically reliable following-day advantage, while general-purpose Qwen models produce the strongest individual return-ranking results. Under the full-information view, direct LLM forecasts average the 43.4th percentile of the analyst distribution and do not consistently beat individual analysts. Consensus anchoring raises the mean inside-range share from 41.1% to 59.5% but increases reported-EPS error.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
Between Spoilers and Guesswork: Avoiding Over-Specification in Coding Benchmarks
Screening LLM Judges Without Ground Truth: A Preliminary Evaluation of an AI Dental Hygiene Coach
StoBasket: Joint Upsell and Cross-Sell Optimization for Contribution Margin
What Matters for NVFP4 Training? A Comparative Study of Low-Precision Pretraining Recipes
When Can You Trust an Agent's Own Verifier? Stress-Testing Counterfactual Rationale Verification Under Search Pressure and Oracle Access
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.