Large language models pick sector stocks that outperform in calm markets but stumble in volatility; integrating LLM stock selection with classical portfolio optimization yields more reliable returns.

Main Finding

LLMs from multiple providers can meaningfully enhance sector-level stock selection and — when combined with classical optimization — produce portfolios that outperform sector benchmarks in stable market conditions. However, their performance is temporally dependent: many LLM-driven portfolios underperform during high-volatility regime shifts. Hybrid approaches that use LLMs for selection and quantitative optimization for weighting produce the most consistent and robust results.

Key Points

• Multi-model, cross-provider evaluation: 12 LLMs from OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, DeepSeek, and xAI were tested on the same sector-selection task.
• Sector focus: The study operates at the S&P 500 sector level (11 sectors) instead of market-wide stock selection.
• Prompting protocol: Each model was prompted to select and (initially) weight at least 20 tickers per sector intended to outperform the respective sector index.
• Portfolio types compared (per model × sector): LLM-weighted, equally weighted, minimum-variance, maximum-expected-return, and maximum-Sharpe portfolios built from the LLM-selected universe.
• Out-of-sample evaluation: Two distinct OOS windows — a stable market (Jan–Mar 2025) and a volatile market (Apr–Jun 2025) — to test regime sensitivity.
• Performance metrics: Cumulative return and risk-adjusted performance (Sharpe ratio); statistical analysis linked sector outcomes mainly to volatility rather than diversification.
• Results summary:
  • Stable period: Many LLM-weighted portfolios outperformed their sector indices in returns and Sharpe.
  • Volatile period: Many LLM portfolios underperformed, suggesting limited adaptability to sudden regime changes or underrepresented volatility in training data.
  • Hybridization: Applying classical mean–variance optimization to the LLM-selected universes improved both performance and consistency across regimes.
• Sector heterogeneity: Energy, Financials, and Information Technology sectors tended to yield better LLM-driven results; Consumer Staples tended to lag.

Data & Methods

• Stock universe construction:
  • Reconstructed the 11 S&P 500 sector constituent lists using GICS classification and public sources (S&P methodology, S&P Global counts, full S&P 500 lists from Wikipedia, TradingView checks).
  • Adjusted invalid LLM outputs to ensure full allocations matched legitimate sector constituents.
• Market data:
  • Adjusted closing prices from Yahoo Finance for individual stocks and sector indices (note: Energy listed as GSPE on Yahoo).
• Models evaluated (examples and versions reported):
  • OpenAI: GPT-4o, GPT-4.1 (gpt-4.1-2025-04-14), o4-mini, GPT-5 (knowledge cutoff Sept 30, 2024).
  • Google: Gemini 2.5 Pro (cutoff Jan 2025).
  • Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 3.7, Claude Sonnet 4, Claude Opus 4.
  • xAI: Grok 3, Grok 3 Mini.
  • DeepSeek: DeepSeek-V3 (deepseek-chat), DeepSeek-R1 (deepseek-reasoner).
• Prompting and selection:
  • Standardized, sector-specific prompts requesting at least 20 tickers and weights aimed to outperform the sector index.
  • Repeated prompting and verification to mitigate variance/hallucination; most-frequent picks concept noted in prior related work.
• Optimization:
  • Mean–variance optimization used to compute minimum-variance, max-return, and max-Sharpe portfolios using the LLM-selected universes.
• Evaluation:
  • In-sample: 5 years prior to Jan 2025 for model inputs/selection context.
  • Out-of-sample: Jan–Mar 2025 (stable) and Apr–Jun 2025 (volatile).
  • Performance comparisons versus each sector index and across portfolio construction methods.
• Limitations noted in methods:
  • Some model training windows overlap with early 2025 data (e.g., Claude 4), potentially giving limited exposure to OOS conditions.
  • No detailed discussion in the excerpt about transaction costs, turnover, liquidity constraints, or execution slippage.

Implications for AI Economics

• Practical asset management:
  • LLMs can be useful idea generators for stock selection and for producing human-interpretable rationale, helping research teams expand coverage at low marginal cost.
  • Best practice appears to be hybridization: use generative models for candidate generation and qualitative reasoning, then apply quantitative optimization, risk controls, and execution-aware adjustments.
• Model risk & regime sensitivity:
  • Temporal dependence implies model risk is substantial: LLMs trained on historical or pre-2025 data may underperform when market structure or volatility regimes shift.
  • Firms should stress-test LLM outputs across regimes, incorporate monitoring for regime shifts, and avoid overreliance on LLM recommendations without quantitative overlays.
• Need for domain specialization and updating:
  • Domain-specific LLMs (e.g., BloombergGPT) or models regularly fine-tuned on up-to-date market data are likely to be more robust, especially for high-volatility regimes.
  • Real-time data access and continual fine-tuning or ensembling can reduce lag between model knowledge and market reality.
• Explainability and governance:
  • The black-box nature and inconsistency of LLMs raise governance, compliance, and auditability concerns — important for regulated financial institutions.
  • Hybrid designs increase interpretability by coupling LLM rationale with transparent optimization math, improving acceptability to stakeholders and regulators.
• Product and market design:
  • Potential for new AI-enhanced sector products (research services, ETF selection aids, bespoke sector baskets) but deployment must consider operational costs, transaction frictions, and reputational risk.
• Research directions:
  • Future work should quantify turnover, transaction costs, and implementation shortfall, test robustness across more regimes and time-horizons, compare domain-specific vs general LLMs, and explore ensembles/consensus approaches.
  • Investigate mechanisms to reduce hallucination (structured outputs, retrieval-augmented generation, fact-checking layers) and formalize model-confidence signals for portfolio automation decisions.

Overall, this paper provides evidence that LLMs have practical value in sector-level portfolio construction but are best used within hybrid frameworks that mitigate temporal and model risks.