Artificial intelligence tools may be transforming the way consumers seek financial guidance, but a new study suggests that they may not yet be a consistent source for advice regarding finances.
Researchers for the Journal of Financial Planning found that leading generative AI platforms frequently produced inconsistent recommendations for identical financial scenarios and, in some cases, altered their advice based on a user's race or gender, raising concerns about fairness and reliability in personal financial planning.
The study, titled "Do Different Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) Tools Provide Different Financial Recommendations?," was conducted by researchers Gianni Nicolini, Brenda J. Cude and Swarn Chatterjee.
They tested seven widely used AI systems by presenting each with standardized household financial planning scenarios covering three core topics: "the amount of emergency savings, the sustainable retirement withdrawal rate, and the composition of an investment portfolio."
The researchers then repeated the same prompts while changing only demographic characteristics such as race and gender to determine whether recommendations shifted. The results showed substantial differences between platforms.
Rather than coming up with similar financial guidance, the AI tools frequently generated different answers to the same questions. Recommendations varied on the size of emergency funds households should maintain, suggested retirement withdrawal rates, and appropriate stock and bond allocations for investors with identical financial profiles.
The researchers also found evidence that demographic information occasionally influenced the advice. While bias was not present in every scenario, recommendations sometimes changed after race or gender identifiers were modified, despite all other financial details remaining identical.
The authors said those findings prove that "Continued attention from practitioners and researchers is essential to ensure transparency, fairness, and accuracy in GenAI-driven financial guidance." However, the study stops short of concluding that AI should not be used in personal finance.
Instead, the researchers argue that consumers and financial professionals should understand the technology's limitations and avoid treating chatbot responses as authoritative financial advice. They recommend using AI primarily to "more efficiently educate clients and to notify them at important touchpoints, such as market changes." The findings arrive as more consumers turn to generative AI for help managing their money.
According to a recent report from the TIAA Institute and the Global Financial Literacy Excellence Center, 19% of U.S. adults have used AI tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude or banking chatbots to obtain information about personal finance topics, while younger Americans are significantly more likely than older generations to rely on the technology. Regulators are also paying closer attention.
Earlier this week, Britain's Financial Conduct Authority published a review warning that millions of consumers are already using AI systems for financial decisions even though those platforms are generally not regulated as financial advisers.
The report warned that chatbot recommendations can blur the line between general information and regulated financial advice, potentially exposing consumers to harm without the legal protections available when working with licensed advisers. Financial experts have expressed similar concerns beyond the new study.
