AI investment advice meaningfully shifts investor risk exposure but only partially: in a randomized experiment with 400 Korean pension holders, aggressive versus conservative GPT recommendations transmit roughly 37% of their difference into final portfolios, increasing expected returns and volatility while producing no detectable gain in risk-adjusted performance.

Main Finding

A single, nonbinding AI portfolio recommendation causally shifts individuals’ pension allocations substantially but incompletely. Random assignment to an aggressive versus a conservative GPT-generated recommendation produces a 37% pass-through of the experimentally induced difference into final portfolios: participants move meaningfully toward the recommended portfolios (changes in expected return, volatility, risk-grade allocations, and number of products held) but retain substantial weight on their initial choices. A short verbal rationale accompanying the numeric recommendation does not detectably change pass-through.

Key Points

• Design and sample

  • n = 400 employed adults in South Korea, ages 35–55, all covered by workplace defined-contribution (DC) pension plans.
  • Between-subjects 2×2: recommendation content (GPT-4 Turbo = relatively aggressive vs GPT-4o = relatively conservative) × presence/absence of a short rationale. Participants were told the recommendation came from AI but not which model.
  • Quotas ensured 100 participants per treatment cell; only desktop/laptop respondents were eligible.

• Main quantitative results

  • Aggregate causal pass-through: ≈ 37% of the difference between the aggressive and conservative recommendations appears in participants’ final portfolios (robust across specifications; rejects both 0% and 100% pass-through).
  • 81% of participants revised their portfolio after seeing the recommendation.
  • Among revisers: 95% moved in the direction of the assigned recommendation and implemented roughly half (~50%) of the suggested adjustment (intensive margin).
  • Incomplete pass-through also reflects an extensive margin: ~19% did not revise at all.
  • Pass-through affected expected return and portfolio risk (volatility), reduced allocations to principal-protected/low-risk products, increased allocations to high/very-high-risk products, and reduced number of products held (concentration), with roughly 28–40% of recommendation differences passing through across these dimensions.
  • No detectable pass-through in measures of risk-adjusted performance (Sharpe ratios) or in concentration measures intended to capture improvements in risk-adjusted outcomes.
  • The short verbal rationale did not produce a detectable shift in average portfolio position nor change the pass-through magnitude.

• Behavioral heterogeneity (descriptive)

  • Participants who believed their baseline dominated the recommendation revised as often as others but directed less of their revision toward the AI.
  • Participants whose baseline was less efficient than the recommendation revised more, but did not end up significantly closer to the recommendation.
  • These relationships are correlational (beliefs elicited post-decision), not causal.

Data & Methods

• Task

  • Two-stage incentivized hypothetical pension allocation: participants first choose an initial allocation over 11 pension products (table of multi-horizon gross returns, discrete risk grade, product-level standard deviation, etc.), then see an AI recommendation and may revise. Choices were payoff-relevant via a performance-based bonus linking expected return and risk to payoffs.
  • Eleven-product menu matched Ha et al. (2019) to create a realistic, controlled DC choice environment for Korean subjects.

• Treatment generation

  • Both recommendations were produced from identical product information via prompts (in Korean) to two GPT versions used in spring 2024: GPT-4 Turbo and GPT-4o.
  • Each model was queried 100 times at temperature 0.5; the modal allocation across draws was used as the recommendation.
    • GPT-4 Turbo modal allocation (32/100 draws): (10, 10, 5, 15, 0, 0, 10, 20, 0, 0, 30) — relatively aggressive, concentrated into higher-return/risk products (esp. products 8 and 11).
    • GPT-4o modal allocation (16/100 draws): (20, 20, 10, 10, 10, 10, 5, 5, 0, 5, 5) — relatively conservative and diversified.
  • In the rationale conditions, a short model-specific explanatory paragraph (drawn from generations that produced the modal allocation) accompanied the numeric recommendation.

• Measurement of pass-through

  • Each recommendation was normalized along the line connecting the conservative recommendation (= 0) and the aggressive recommendation (= 1). Participants’ final portfolios were projected onto this line; the randomized difference in average final positions between the two recommendation assignments equals the share of the experimentally induced difference that passed through.
  • Primary robustness: change-score, baseline-adjusted, and covariate-adjusted specifications all produced similar pass-through estimates.

• Outcomes analyzed

  • Portfolio position on the conservative → aggressive line (primary pass-through metric).
  • Expected portfolio return and volatility.
  • Allocations by discrete risk grade (principal-protected, low, medium, high, very high).
  • Number of products held (breadth/concentration).
  • Sharpe ratios and concentration measures (risk-adjusted performance).

• Pre-analysis

  • Analysis plans preregistered (AsPredicted). The design isolates causal effect of recommendation content (two specific GPT-produced portfolios), not a general causal statement about the GPT models themselves.

Implications for AI Economics

• Recommendation content matters: Different general-purpose LLMs exposed to identical product information can produce materially different financial recommendations, and a substantial fraction of those differences can transmit into users’ economic decisions. Thus model choice and prompt/output design can affect population-level risk exposures even without ongoing delegated management.
• Partial and selective transmission: AI does not simply replace human judgment; it shifts it. Most users move toward AI recommendations but only partially, and many make additional orthogonal adjustments. Predicting behavioral impacts of AI advisory systems therefore requires modeling both content generation and users’ advice-integration process (extensive and intensive margins).
• Risk exposure vs. risk-adjusted performance: The observed pass-through changes levels and composition of risk assumed by individuals but does not detectably improve risk-adjusted outcomes (Sharpe ratio). Deploying AI advice can therefore alter aggregate risk-taking without clear welfare improvement unless model recommendations are explicitly calibrated to improve risk-adjusted performance.
• Explanations may not help: Short verbal rationales did not measurably increase pass-through in this setting, suggesting that simple textual explanations may be insufficient to change how users integrate AI advice in multidimensional allocation tasks.
• Policy and product design relevance: Regulators and firms should note that accessible, general-purpose AI advisors can change users’ portfolio risk exposures in economically meaningful ways even when users do not fully accept recommendations. Transparency about model behavior, testing for systematic differences across models/prompts, and attention to how advice is presented (beyond short rationales) matter for consumer protection and product design.
• External validity and limits: Results are specific to a controlled pension-allocation exercise with Korean DC participants and to two GPT variants circa 2024; findings speak to likely patterns (partial compliance, directional adjustments) rather than universal magnitudes. Future work should test other populations, continuous/delegated advisory products, repeated interactions, and welfare consequences of different recommendation-generation strategies.