Artificial intelligence is becoming an increasingly popular tool for managing personal finances, but a new study suggests that relying on chatbots for financial advice may carry greater risks than previously believed.
While financial professionals have long cautioned against using AI as a substitute for qualified financial advisers, millions of people continue to seek guidance from chatbots. Surveys indicate that more than half of Americans have already used AI to help make financial decisions, with adoption particularly high among adults under the age of 30.
A study published in the Journal of Financial Planning found that AI-generated financial advice is often inconsistent and, in some cases, may even be influenced by demographic factors such as gender and race.
Seven AI Chatbots, Very Different Answers
Researchers from the University of Rome Tor Vergata and the University of Georgia evaluated seven leading AI assistants—ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, DeepSeek, Gemini, Meta AI, and Perplexity—by asking each the same financial planning questions.
The results revealed significant differences in the recommendations provided.
Emergency Savings
When asked how much emergency savings a hypothetical family of four should keep, the chatbots suggested amounts ranging from $19,500 to $37,500.
Researchers said such wide variation could have real financial consequences. Saving too little may leave families vulnerable during emergencies, while holding too much cash could reduce long-term investment growth.
Retirement Withdrawals
Most chatbots recommended following the traditional 4% withdrawal rule for retirement income, while two suggested withdrawing 5% annually.
Although the responses were relatively consistent, researchers noted that many financial planners have recently revised their guidance due to longer life expectancy, inflation and rising healthcare costs, meaning the traditional rule may not be appropriate for everyone.
Investment Portfolios
The greatest differences appeared when chatbots were asked to recommend an investment portfolio for a 30-year-old couple with two children, a 10-year investment horizon and a low risk tolerance.
One chatbot, Gemini, declined to provide a recommendation and instead advised consulting a financial professional.
The remaining AI systems suggested dramatically different portfolio allocations, recommending between 15% and 40% in equities, with the rest split among bonds, cash and alternative investments.
Potential Bias Raises New Concerns
Researchers also tested whether demographic characteristics affected AI-generated advice by changing only the gender and race of the hypothetical users while keeping all financial information identical.
The findings showed that some chatbots produced noticeably different recommendations depending on whether the user was described as male or female, or as White or Black.
The researchers said these differences raise important questions about the consistency, fairness and potential bias of AI-generated financial recommendations.
Experts Urge Caution
The study also highlighted another concern: users often place too much confidence in chatbot responses because they are presented in a clear, conversational and authoritative style.
Unlike certified financial planners, AI chatbots are not bound by fiduciary duties, meaning they are not legally required to provide advice that serves a user's best interests.
Despite these concerns, AI companies continue expanding financial capabilities. Earlier this year, OpenAI introduced tools allowing ChatGPT Pro subscribers to connect bank accounts, brokerage portfolios and credit cards directly to the platform, potentially increasing AI's role in personal financial management.
Researchers stress that while AI can be a useful source of general financial education, important investment, retirement and savings decisions should still be reviewed with qualified financial professionals.
.webp)
0 Comentários