Our research showed that search volume on Google serves or GSV as an intuitive proxy for overall stock market recognition. We proposed a predictive parsimonious model TFARM (two factor auto-regressive methodology) on stock market liquidity measures (bid - ask spread, market efficiency coefficient, trading probability, turnover ratio (TR), and total volume (TV)) and employed public and free information such as GSV (Google search volume) on a dataset from NSE (National Stock Exchange) for period between 2004-2016 divided into pre, during, and post subprime crisis of 2007-2008. We found that an increase in Google search queries was linked to a rise in stock liquidity and trading activity. We characterized the improved liquidity to a decrease in asymmetric information costs and thus, concluded that GSV mainly measured attention from uninformed investors. Moreover, we found evidence that an increase in search volume was associated with temporarily higher future returns, which reinforced the previous findings. Impact of GSV on both TV and TR in terms of direction was similar in nature and consistent with the findings of Preis, Moat, and Stanley (2013).

1. Ang, A., and Bekaert, G. (2007). Stock return predictability: Is it there? Review of Financial Studies, 20(3), 651-707.
2. Bank, M., Larch, M., and Peter, G. (2011). Google search volume and its influence on liquidity and returns of German stocks. Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, 25(3), 239-264.
3. Bijl, L., Kringhaug, G., Molnár, P., and Sandvik, E. (2016). Google searches and stock returns. International Review of Financial Analysis, 45, 150-156.
4. Bollen, J., Mao, H., and Zeng, X. (2011). Twitter mood predicts the stock market. Journal of Computational Science, 2(1), 1-8.
5. Bouveret, A., Breuer, M. P., Chen, M. Y., Jones, D., and Sasaki, T. (2015). Fragilities in the U.S. Treasury Market: Lessons from the "Flash Rally" of October 15, 2014. Retrieved from <a href=https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2016/12/31/Fragilities-in-the-U-S-43338 target="_blank">https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2016/12/31/Fragilities-in-the-U-S-43338</a>
6. Campbell, J. Y., and Yogo, M. (2006). Efficient tests of stock return predictability. Journal of Financial Economics, 81(1), 27-60.
7. Challet, D., and Ayed, A. B. H. (2013). Predicting financial markets with Google Trends and not so random keywords. Retrieved from <a href=https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.4643 target="_blank">https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.4643</a>
8. Chordia, T., Roll, R., and Subrahmanyam, A. (2008). Liquidity and market efficiency. Journal of Financial Economics, 87(2), 249-268.
9. Duarte, F., and Eisenbach, T. M. (2018). Fire-sale spillovers and systemic risk. <a href=https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2340669 target="_blank">https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2340669</a>
10. Ghosh, J., and Chandrasekhar, C. P. (2009). The costs of 'coupling': The global crisis and the Indian economy. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33(4), 725-739.
11. Kirilenko, A., Kyle, A. S., Samadi, M., and Tuzun, T. (2017). The flash crash: High frequency trading in an electronic market. The Journal of Finance, 72(3), 967-998.
12. Narayan, P. K., and Zheng, X. (2011). The relationship between liquidity and returns on the Chinese stock market. Journal of Asian Economics, 22(3), 259-266.
13. Preis, T., Moat, H. S., and Stanley, H. E. (2013). Quantifying trading behavior in financial markets using Google Trends. Scientific Reports, 3, Article Number: 1684.
14. Preis, T., Reith, D., and Stanley, H. E. (2010). Complex dynamics of our economic life on different scales: Insights from search engine query data. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 368(1933), 5707-5719.
15. Rakshit, M. (2009). India amidst the global crisis. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(13), 94-106.
16. Tetlock, P. C. (2007). Giving content to investor sentiment: The role of media in the stock market. The Journal of Finance, 62(3), 1139-1168.