From humans to algorithms: How financial advice differs across professionals, peers, and LLMs

Matthias Rumpf, Michaēl Chaliasos, Tetyana Kosyakova and Thomas Otter

No 243, IMFS Working Paper Series from Goethe University Frankfurt, Institute for Monetary and Financial Stability (IMFS)

Abstract: This study compares belief-driven financial advice from professionals, peers, and LLM with vignettes, eliminating matching problems and enabling belief elicitation without incentive confounds. Repeated identical LLM prompts yield varied risky portfolio recommendations from shifting implicit rules. A Bayesian hierarchical Tobit model captures observed and unobserved heterogeneity. Professionals and peers respond to vignettes consistently with theory but reflect their risk preferences and characteristics. Professional advice differs in responding to client characteristics. The LLM shows smaller variance and great sensitivity to declared risk tolerance. Peers discourage stock participation among younger, lower-income investors with limited professional-advice access; AI can mitigate or reverse this.

Date: 2026
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-ain
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/343086/1/198177615X.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:zbw:imfswp:343086

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in IMFS Working Paper Series from Goethe University Frankfurt, Institute for Monetary and Financial Stability (IMFS) Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics ().