Search Based Peer Firms: Aggregating Investor Perceptions through Internet Co-Searches

Applying a “co-search” algorithm to Internet traffic at the SEC׳s EDGAR website, we develop a novel method for identifying economically related peer firms and for measuring their relative importance. Our results show that firms appearing in chronologically adjacent searches by the same individual (Search-Based Peers or SBPs) are fundamentally similar on multiple dimensions. In direct tests, SBPs dominate GICS6 industry peers in explaining cross-sectional variations in base firms׳ out-of-sample: (a) stock returns, (b) valuation multiples, (c) growth rates, (d) R&D expenditures, (e) leverage, and (f) profitability ratios. We show that SBPs are not constrained by standard industry classification, and are more dynamic, pliable, and concentrated. We also show that co-search intensity captures the degree of similarity between firms. Our results highlight the potential of the collective wisdom of investors — extracted from co-search patterns — in addressing long-standing benchmarking problems in finance.

[1]  Kathleen M. Kahle,et al.  The Impact of Industry Classifications on Financial Research , 1996, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis.

[2]  Gerard Hoberg,et al.  Product Market Synergies and Competition in Mergers and Acquisitions: A Text-Based Analysis , 2008 .

[3]  Ole-Kristian Hope,et al.  Analysts’ choice of peer companies , 2013 .

[4]  Sanjeev Bhojraj,et al.  Who Is My Peer? A Valuation-Based Approach to the Selection of Comparable Firms , 2002 .

[5]  John Riedl,et al.  GroupLens: an open architecture for collaborative filtering of netnews , 1994, CSCW '94.

[6]  Derek Oler,et al.  What's My Line? A Comparison of Industry Classification Schemes for Capital Market Research , 2003 .

[7]  Amir Sufi,et al.  Explaining Corporate Capital Structure: Product Markets, Leases, and Asset Similarity , 2010 .

[8]  Rajeev Motwani,et al.  Dynamic itemset counting and implication rules for market basket data , 1997, SIGMOD '97.

[9]  E. Fama,et al.  Industry costs of equity , 1997 .

[10]  Christian Hofmann,et al.  Relative performance evaluation and peer-performance summarization errors , 2011 .

[11]  Sundaresh Ramnath,et al.  Investor and Analyst Reactions to Earnings Announcements of Related Firms: An Empirical Analysis , 2002 .

[12]  Josef Lakonishok,et al.  Industry Classifications and Return Comovement , 2007 .

[13]  Andrew J. Rosman,et al.  Differences between COMPUSTAT and CRSP SIC codes and related effects on research , 1994 .

[14]  Gerard Hoberg,et al.  Text-Based Network Industries and Endogenous Product Differentiation , 2010, Journal of Political Economy.

[15]  X. Gabaix,et al.  Rank − 1 / 2: A Simple Way to Improve the OLS Estimation of Tail Exponents , 2007 .

[16]  Laura L. Veldkamp,et al.  Information Acquisition and Under-Diversification , 2008 .

[17]  Tomasz Imielinski,et al.  Mining association rules between sets of items in large databases , 1993, SIGMOD Conference.

[18]  B. King Market and Industry Factors in Stock Price Behavior , 1966 .

[19]  Lauren Cohen,et al.  Complicated Firms , 2011 .

[20]  Chun Zhang,et al.  Storing and querying ordered XML using a relational database system , 2002, SIGMOD '02.

[21]  Joseph P. H. Fan,et al.  The Measurement of Relatedness: An Application to Corporate Diversification , 2000 .

[22]  Michael S. Drake,et al.  The Determinants and Consequences of Information Acquisition via EDGAR , 2014 .

[23]  Ana M. Albuquerque,et al.  Peer Firms in Relative Performance Evaluation , 2009 .