Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Multi-agent framework predicts corporate misconduct risks from MD&A sentiment, highlighting accuracy improvements.
The textual analysis of Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) reveals valuable insights into corporate operational performance and future risks. However, techniques for accurately extracting sentiment from unstructured Chinese MD&A texts still lack comprehensiveness. Existing studies related to sentiment analysis often use lexicon-based methods, which rely on predefined, context-agnostic word lists and accurate Chinese word segmentation and struggle with domain-specific terminology, leading to limited accuracy and interpretability. Although research has attempted to develop context-aware lexicons and language models, these methods still face limitations when applied to long and complex financial texts. To address the limitations, we propose MDARisk, a novel framework for corporate misconduct prediction. The core of MDARisk is a MultiSenti module, which leverages a multi-agent LLM approach to extract comprehensive and contextual sentiment from MD&A. Unlike lexicon methods, our LLM-based module interprets words based on their surrounding semantic context, allowing it to decipher nuanced expressions and specialized financial language. We first conduct an econometric validation using fixed-effects logit models to test whether the MultiSenti-derived MD&A sentiment is significantly associated with subsequent corporate misconduct. We then evaluate out-of-sample predictive utility by adding this sentiment feature to multiple classifiers and assessing its incremental gains over the baseline model. Empirical results demonstrate that our approach provides a more reliable sentiment-based indicator for misconduct risk, achieves higher predictive accuracy, and outperforms the traditional financial sentiment analysis approach. Our MDARisk framework provides a cost-efficient approach for automated disclosure screening, benefiting auditors, regulators, and investors in assessing potential misconduct risks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: