Live data from Hacker News

AI financial advice is surprisingly good, especially if you ask right questions

mitsloan.mit.edu

321–330 of 443 posts

Re: AI financial advice is surprisingly good, especially if you ask right questions

#321
post #246

AI, atm, is a perfect distillation of financial platitudes from ~10 years ago. FWIW, bonds are no longer a hedge against equity unless they’re based against private equity and private equity is both more expensive and more performant than ever.

Yes, the preference for bonds seems deeply ingrained. Have you found a way to steer LLMs away from old school allocation (bonds, gold, cash)?

That's because you get (particularly initially) quite some reduction of risk with little loss of expected return. Diversification (incl. across asset classes) is the only free lunch in finance.

If you want to argue that bonds and stocks have become more correlated, sure, but we do not know what hits us next.

Re: AI financial advice is surprisingly good, especially if you ask right questions

#322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's illegal to be homeless.

It's not. Regardless i sincerely doubt people in that situation are taking up the least expensive option available.

In most places it is.

Re: AI financial advice is surprisingly good, especially if you ask right questions

#323
post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a universally agreed-upon approach, but is it actually correct? Usually, investing in the thing that people have invested in for the last 20 years is a good way to buy at the top.

IIRC, "Buy index funds. The end."

> Usually, investing in the thing that people have invested in for the last 20 years is a good way to buy at the top.

Re: AI financial advice is surprisingly good, especially if you ask right questions

#324

AI seems to struggle most when it has to make decisions with lots of trade-offs, especially where the context or implications of various decisions are nested, which is presumably why it struggles to write full software systems that are well-designed. By comparison, financial advice is pretty simple, and there is a universally agreed-upon approach that most people should follow to maximize long-term financial health.

There is a universally agreed-upon approach, but is it actually correct? Usually, investing in the thing that people have invested in for the last 20 years is a good way to buy at the top.

Yes it tends to be correct because the other option, invent a trading scheme, tends to work out worse for investors who attempt it.

Re: AI financial advice is surprisingly good, especially if you ask right questions

#325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not. Regardless i sincerely doubt people in that situation are taking up the least expensive option available.

In most places it is.

I can assure you, in most places you will not be fined or put in prison for not having a home. In most places the local council, or charities will help provide you shelter even if only on a temporary basis.

Your statement is not in line with reality.

Re: AI financial advice is surprisingly good, especially if you ask right questions

#326
post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You could replace the AI with a piece of paper […] This is actually the 'schtick' of a book that was written ten years ago: > Emails and comments on his blog asked for a real index card with financial advice, so Pollack jotted down nine rules in two minutes, took a picture of it, and posted it online.[1][4] The image went viral, and was covered on many internet news sites.[4][5][6] Pollack and Olen wrote The Index…

> Never buy or sell an individual security. This is controversial but very bad advice. No index funds, by their nature, will ever match the return of high-flying company stocks. If you have very little investment capital available, then yes, allocate it all to index funds because you can't afford to narrow it down yet. But as soon as you have some room to invest in individual stocks, do it. After about three decades…

> This is controversial but very bad advice. No index funds, by their nature, will ever match the return of high-flying company stocks.

Sticking with index funds is very good advice:

* https://ofdollarsanddata.com/why-you-shouldnt-pick-individua...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Random_Walk_Down_Wall_Street

> After about three decades investing, I can say that more than 95% of my returns are from just a small handful of individual stocks.

The fact that a handful of stocks are responsible for the majority of returns has been known for years/decades:

> We study long-run shareholder outcomes for over 64,000 global common stocks during the January 1990 to December 2020 period. We document that the majority, 55.2% of U.S. stocks and 57.4% of non-U.S. stocks, underperform one-month U.S. Treasury bills in terms of compound returns over the full sample. Focusing on aggregate shareholder outcomes, we find that the top-performing 2.4% of firms account for all of the $US 75.7 trillion in net global stock market wealth creation from 1990 to December 2020. Outside the US, 1.41% of firms account for the $US 30.7 trillion in net wealth creation.

* https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3710251

> Four out of every seven common stocks that have appeared in the CRSP database since 1926 have lifetime buy-and-hold returns less than one-month Treasuries. When stated in terms of lifetime dollar wealth creation, the best-performing four percent of listed companies explain the net gain for the entire U.S. stock market since 1926, as other stocks collectively matched Treasury bills. These results highlight the important role of positive skewness in the distribution of individual stock returns, attributable both to skewness in monthly returns and to the effects of compounding. The results help to explain why poorly-diversified active strategies most often underperform market averages.

* https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900447

Of course you have to know not just when to pick them, but to unpick them as well when they stop performing well:

> […] Since 1926, the median ten-year return on individual U.S. stocks relative to the broad equity market is –7.9%, underperforming by 0.82% per year. For stocks that have been among the top 20% performers over the previous five years, the median ten-year market-adjusted return falls to –17.8%, underperforming by 1.94% per year. Since the end of World War II, the median ten-year market-adjusted return of recent winners has been negative for 93% of the time. The case for diversifying concentrated positions in individual stocks, particularly in recent market winners, is even stronger than most investors realize.

* https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4541122

To recommend to the general public and random people that they try to pick the winners when >96% of stocks give below market index returns is the height of financial irresponsibility.

Re: AI financial advice is surprisingly good, especially if you ask right questions

#327
post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are suffering from the survivorship bias in its purest form. I really hope nobody follows your advice.

And experiences come from the bulliest of bull markets. Where most people who bet on large sector are winners. Past performance is most likely future performance if things go south...

> And experiences come from the bulliest of bull markets.

As someone who has hung out in Reddit's personal finance areas for many years now, the paniced posts of March 2020 and in 2022 were very real. Lots of climbing people down from the ledge during those time periods.

Many folks realized that they may be more risk adverse than they thought. (And those were relatively short bursts: if the things had headed down for months (or longer) there would be much more sleepless nights for many people.)

Re: AI financial advice is surprisingly good, especially if you ask right questions

#328
post #138
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3% is amazingly good. It’s not hard to beat that, but a savings account at a common bank can easily be below 0.05%. I looked up BoA. 0.04%.

3% is becoming more common as of the last few years, at least in the US. I know several banks off the top of my head that offer 3.5% or higher (and more if you are a new customer) for their savings accounts. I would persuade people who use banks that haven't moved on from near-zero APY to move on themselves.

Most annoying on Reddit are people who write about "high yield savings accounts", those might have been there in 80's or 90's but I see right away those people are just LARPINg.

3% is nothing there are no "high yield savings accounts".

Re: AI financial advice is surprisingly good, especially if you ask right questions

#329
post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You could replace the AI with a piece of paper […] This is actually the 'schtick' of a book that was written ten years ago: > Emails and comments on his blog asked for a real index card with financial advice, so Pollack jotted down nine rules in two minutes, took a picture of it, and posted it online.[1][4] The image went viral, and was covered on many internet news sites.[4][5][6] Pollack and Olen wrote The Index…

> 2. Buy inexpensive, well-diversified mutual funds such as Vanguard Target 20xx funds. I wouldn't recommend this after seeing how SpaceX was literally shoved down lots of people's throats.

> I wouldn't recommend this after seeing how SpaceX was literally shoved down lots of people's throats.

If you're going to buy a "total market" fund, then SpaceX is part of the market. There were strange financial things with GE, Enron, etc, and they were part of index(es): you have to take the good with the bad when it comes to human (economic) behaviour.

Most stocks suck:

* https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3710251

* https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900447

* https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4541122

but you don't know ahead of time which will go from not-sucking to sucking (LSE: RR is up 10x in the last five years), or vice versa. Predicting the future is hard:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Random_Walk_Down_Wall_Street

so it's not worth the effort for the vast majority of people.

Re: AI financial advice is surprisingly good, especially if you ask right questions

#330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most places it is.

I can assure you, in most places you will not be fined or put in prison for not having a home. In most places the local council, or charities will help provide you shelter even if only on a temporary basis. Your statement is not in line with reality.

Have you been homeless?
Post reply on HN