How Much of a 10-K Matters? Aggregation-Dependent Value of Full-Text versus Risk-Factor Sentiment
arXiv:2607.14174
The paper develops a supervised lexicon‑learning method to extract sentiment from 10‑K filings and their Item 1A risk‑factor sections, training on return and volatility outcomes at sector, portfolio, and firm levels, and finds that full‑filing text works better for aggregate predictions while the risk‑factor section is superior for individual firms.
Abstract
Financial sentiment extraction has largely relied on news text and supervised extraction against return labels alone, leaving 10-K filings -- and volatility, the target risk disclosure is arguably best suited to informing -- comparatively unexplored. We extend a supervised lexicon-learning approach to 10-K filings and their Item 1A risk-factor sections, training sentiment scores against both return and volatility labels at three levels of aggregation: sector, portfolio, and individual firm. Across 1,383 filings from 94 Nasdaq-100 technology constituents (2006--2023), we evaluate the resulting twelve sentiment metrics on classification accuracy, correlation with realised market outcomes, and qualitative lexical content. Full-filing text produces more accurate sentiment at the sector and portfolio level for both targets, but this reverses at the individual-firm level, where the narrower Item 1A section performs better -- an effect we attribute to the interaction between document volume and the amount of independent training signal available at each level of aggregation. A Loughran-McDonald dictionary baseline is consistently, strongly negatively correlated with price at every level tested, underscoring the value of a supervised approach for regulatory disclosure text. These findings, and the design choices they motivate, establish the sentiment-generation methodology underlying a subsequent, larger-scale, multi-source system.