Large language models nudge users toward textbook financial planning: simulated adherence to GPT-5.2 recommendations raises stock-market participation, increases savings buffers and produces age‑declining equity shares. But advice differs by user — men, prior AI users and the financially literate receive more equity-heavy and higher-saving guidance, with most of the gender gap driven by what people ask and a smaller portion by how the model responds.

Main Finding

LLM-generated financial advice (tested on GPT-5.2, with checks on Gemini 3 Flash and GPT-5.6 Terra) would, on average, move users closer to standard life-cycle recommendations: near-universal participation in diversified equity funds, equity shares that decline with age after about 45, and larger precautionary savings buffers. However, the advice also departs from optimal life-cycle prescriptions in systematic ways (e.g., strong reliance on heuristics, weak active rebalancing, undersmoothing of consumption). Advice varies meaningfully across user groups (gender, financial literacy, prior AI use), and these differences accumulate into modest lifetime wealth gaps (~4–6% at age 60). Much of the gender gap in equity recommendations is demand-driven (two-thirds), with the remainder arising from supply-side differences in model responses.

Key Points

• Aggregate effect:
  • Following GPT-5.2 advice increases stock-market participation, concentrates risky holdings in diversified equity funds, and produces age-declining equity shares after ~45.
  • Nearly all simulated agents build savings buffers > $10k by age 30 under LLM advice (relative to observed low baseline wealth for many respondents).
• Systematic departures from normative life-cycle prescriptions:
  • Advice implies a high discount factor (high patience).
  • Frequent use of simple heuristics (round-number targets, fixed withdrawal rules).
  • Poor consumption smoothing: too little decumulation in retirement and large consumption drops after job loss, even with liquid wealth.
  • Portfolios tend to drift with realized returns instead of active rebalancing.
• Heterogeneity and lifecycle accumulation:
  • Advice differs by gender, financial literacy, and prior AI experience: sampling prompts from men, high-literacy respondents, or prior-AI users yields ~4–6% higher wealth at age 60.
  • For gender, ~2/3 of the recommended equity-share gap arises because men and women write different prompts (demand); ~1/3 arises because identical prompts elicit different model responses when labeled male vs female (supply).
  • Race labels produced smaller differences and no detectable supply-side effect.
• Robustness:
  • Main quantitative patterns are similar across GPT-5.2, Gemini 3 Flash, and GPT-5.6 Terra.
• Methodological contribution:
  • Introduces a survey-of-prompts approach combined with a calibrated life-cycle simulation and a two-step LLM pipeline (textual advice → LLM translation into quantitative choices).

Data & Methods

• Survey:
  • Demographically balanced U.S. sample recruited via Prolific.
  • 1,000 complete responses collected; 952 passed authenticity and specificity screens.
  • Each respondent wrote three free-text prompts: (1) description of financial situation, (2) spending vs saving advice, (3) investing advice.
  • Collected respondent demographics, financial literacy, and prior AI use for stratified analysis.
• LLM usage and experimental design:
  • Primary model: GPT-5.2. Also tested Gemini 3 Flash and GPT-5.6 Terra for robustness.
  • For gender supply-demand decomposition: used prompts that did not state gender, then randomly attached gender labels (e.g., “I am a man”) to isolate supply-side effects.
  • Each simulated-period LLM query was independent (no persistent memory); only the simulated state variables linked periods.
• Life-cycle model and simulation:
  • Quantitative, stochastic life-cycle model in Gourinchas–Parker tradition, calibrated to U.S. data (SIPP, SSA, CRSP referenced for calibration inputs).
  • Features: stochastic income, job-to-job and unemployment transitions, stochastic asset returns, mortality risk, and U.S. tax/social-insurance system.
  • Asset classes: fixed income, diversified equity funds, individual stocks, and other risky assets (crypto, gold, commodities, collectibles).
  • Matching procedure: simulated agents (ages 22–90) were randomly matched to survey prompts from respondents with similar age, income, and employment. The prompt’s state variables were replaced by the simulated agent’s current state and submitted to the LLM.
  • Two-step LLM pipeline per period: (1) obtain textual advice from the LLM; (2) use a second LLM to translate the textual advice into quantitative recommendations for saving, consumption, and asset allocation.
  • Benchmarks: (i) optimal policy functions from dynamic optimization (life-cycle benchmark), (ii) “academic prompt” benchmark (structured, researcher-designed prompt that references life-cycle planning and best interest).
• Outcome measures:
  • Consumption, saving, asset allocation paths over the life cycle and resulting wealth at age 60 (and other ages).
  • Diagnostics tied to normative life-cycle criteria: participation, diversification, age profile of equity share, consumption smoothing, active rebalancing.

Implications for AI Economics

• Demand matters as much as supply. Heterogeneity in prompts (what users ask and how they present information) is a major driver of heterogeneity in advice and cumulative wealth outcomes. Studying or regulating AI financial advice requires attention to user behavior, prompt design, and interface choices—not only model architecture.
• LLMs can potentially raise average financial quality at scale. General-purpose LLMs already nudge many users toward life-cycle-consistent behaviors (diversified equity exposure, savings buffers). This suggests a role for low-cost, conversational AI in reducing naïve or suboptimal financial behaviors at population scale.
• Risks of uneven benefits and bias. Because advice varies systematically with user characteristics and because some supply-side demographic sensitivities exist (the gender label effect), LLMs may exacerbate or reproduce existing inequalities unless addressed. Diagnostics and debiasing interventions (prompt-standardization, model fine-tuning, evaluation benchmarks) are needed.
• Need for lifecycle benchmarks and diagnostics. Embedding LLM advice in calibrated life-cycle simulations provides a useful, theory-grounded set of diagnostics (consumption smoothing, diversification, rebalancing) for evaluating model performance and progress over time. Policymakers and platform designers should adopt such longitudinal benchmarks rather than rely solely on one-shot or static evaluations.
• Design and policy levers:
  • Prompt engineering and structured elicitation (e.g., “academic” or standardized prompts) can reduce heuristic-driven errors (better smoothing, higher-quality saving guidance) but may not solve all issues (e.g., active rebalancing).
  • Product design (templates, required disclosures, constrained action recommendations) could reduce harmful heterogeneity and supply-side biases.
  • Regulation and consumer protection should monitor demographic sensitivities and the real-world accumulation of advice-driven outcomes.
• Future research directions:
  • Reapply the survey-and-simulation framework across other populations, countries, financial domains (insurance, housing, credit), and evolving LLMs.
  • Test interventions: prompt templates, model fine-tuning for fiduciary behavior, persistent memory/stateful advice, or hybrid human–AI advisory setups.
  • Empirically track whether simulated advice translates into behavioral change in field settings and quantify welfare impacts beyond wealth (utility, consumption volatility, bequests).
• Caveats:
  • Results describe advice from specific-generation general-purpose LLMs and may change as models are optimized for financial advice or as user behavior evolves.
  • The simulation assumes users follow LLM advice exactly and that the LLM has no memory across periods—both simplifications relative to real-world use.