JOHN L from NJ posted over 1 year ago:

AI might help level the playing field but it won't give you an edge as everyone has access to this analysis.

Wayne T from IL posted over 1 year ago:

@John That’s a great point that gets to the heart of a common misconception about AI in investing. Yes, AI tools are becoming widely available; in that sense, they help level the playing field. But having access to AI isn’t the same as using it well. The edge doesn’t come from the tool itself. It comes from how you apply it. Just like having access to a Bloomberg terminal didn’t automatically make someone a great investor, using an AI LLM won’t either. What makes the difference is: • How well you craft your prompts (think of it like asking the right question to the right analyst), • How you verify and interpret the insights, and • How you combine AI analysis with your own experience, context, and strategy. As I mentioned in the article, “Prompting is everything.” AI can summarize risk factors or highlight red flags, but it’s still up to the investor to know what to ask, when to dig deeper, and how to act on the insights. So while AI might not automatically give you an edge, using it intelligently and creatively can. Thanks for reading and for starting this important conversation. Wayne

ELISABETH H from MI posted over 1 year ago:

I thought LLM ‘s were notoriously bad at math.

Wayne T from IL posted over 1 year ago:

@Elisabeth It’s a common misconception, but modern LLMs, especially those integrated with code interpreters or financial analysis plugins, are highly capable of math. While early models struggled with precise calculations, today’s tools can analyze financial statements, perform ratio analysis, and evaluate complex data accurately. As outlined in the article, LLMs' strength is their ability to rapidly process large volumes of financial data, such as SEC filings or earnings reports, and distill actionable insights. When paired with proper prompts and structured inputs, they handle the math and also enhance the entire investment research process. The key is using them strategically and validating outputs just as you would with any research assistant.

BARRY J from TX posted over 1 year ago:

Wayne, you get the fun assignments, like trying to find the spotted ponies in the growing pile of AI “news.” #1 This topic is overdue. It is also pre-mature. I can already hear a Doppler Effect from the “half-life” of the sound of the decaying information this article bundles up for us. Markets move on similarly. That is what makes them so unpredictable. To paraphrase Heraclitus, “You cannot step into the same market twice.” Likewise, markets resolve price differences, and, having done is, move on. #2 I have read several articles from my brokerages (SCHW, FID, VGD) and educational sources (MORN, Value Line, etc.) that targeted the “CFA”-“RIA” audience. The wish lists and comments from these “professional” segments to the AI articles focused on how to REDUCE THEIR CUSTOMER CONTACT TIME. They see AI as a “magic” printing the press that can take (1) a rudimentary 7-point RISK profile scale ”guess” and (2) back-of -the envelope income projections and (3) enter these “fuzzy” inputs into a ChatBot “trained” on standardized text-based databases and (4) expect them to spit out “individualize” advice. Then they slap their letterhead on an email, and viola, instant “personalized advice” similar to “instant grits.” Let me say that again. THEY WANT TO REDUCE CUSTOMER FACE TIME. Why? So, they can spend MORE TIME INCREASING THEIR BUSINESS VOLUME. Does the phrase “Ponzi Scheme” come to mind? “Please revalidate you contact data and step forward.” Reminds me of the famous 1981 AAPL Super Bowl commercial. #3 In contrast, II is inherently DYI. For AI offerings to be successful with the II segments along the famous “efficient frontier” (100% equity to 100% FI) AI must create better offerings than Chatbots and LLMs which regurgitate homogenized “summaries.” #4 Wayne inserted MULTIPLE clues of the value “DIYers” bring to managing their portfolios. This “brave new world” “robo-world” is great news for “DYII”ers. #5 The word “independent” IS THE MESSAGE. Being a self-directed outlier in a homogenized market populated by lotus-eaters who eat Huxley’s "wholesome" foods like "pan-glandular biscuits," "carotene sandwiches," or "pasteurized external secretions" has huge advantages. #6 Just follow the AAII model embedded in the PRISM process and use your God-given intelligence to “customize” whatever GIGO ChatBots provide. #7 3rd-grade math and freshman accounting skills beat Monte Carlo simulation "guesses" and back-testing all day long. GIGO.

Wayne T from IL posted over 1 year ago:

@Barry Your comment is a masterclass in operatic skepticism, with a side of dystopian culinary critique. One can almost hear the Gregorian chant of disillusioned CFAs echoing through the hallowed halls of Value Line. Yes, I do get the fun assignments. Like sorting through the digital landfill of AI “news” for signs of life, possibly even intelligent life. Somewhere in that pile, amid the half-baked hot takes and recycled analyst notes, are a few gems not yet fingerprinted by your brokerage's compliance departments or ChatGPT’s predictive text crystal ball. Lucky me. You raise a fair point. The finance industry’s love affair with AI does seem less about investor empowerment and more about automating away the remaining shreds of human interaction. Because who needs context, nuance, or actual client conversation when a chatbot can regurgitate a “customized” 60/40 portfolio in under five seconds? But I have to challenge the idea that every application of AI is merely fast food for the investing soul. Yes, the robo-world is full of "instant grits" investment advice—high on speed, low on substance—but that’s exactly why I wrote the piece: to distinguish between gourmet and gruel. DIY investors who read risk factors and interpret cash flow statements without asking Siri have a shot at using these tools more like Leathermans than vending machines. It’s not about letting the algorithm take the wheel. It’s about asking smarter questions, sharpening your prompts, and knowing that a chatbot’s hallucination is just another form of Wall Street storytelling. And I agree. If all else fails, the PRISM model and 3rd-grade math still beat a Monte Carlo simulation designed by interns who think volatility is a flavor of kombucha. Keep the comments coming. Some of us are still out here looking for those spotted ponies.

BARRY J from TX posted about 1 year ago:

Wayne, As Wayne and Garth -- two other Chicago lads -- said, "I am not worthy." I agree and bow to your more informed perspective. NOTE: I posted the rest of this comment elsewhere, -- @How to Get Started with AI and Chatbots -- but it fits here too. #1 Paragraph 1 explains why most AAIIers ignore recommendations to "read the annual reports and financial statements." #2 AAII Premium Dividend Investing (DI), Growth Investing (GI), VQM (Value, Quality, and Momentum Factors) Investing, and Superstars Investing programs provide weekly/monthly updates. Each program manager provides summary analyses of the performance of their program holdings. #3 Why not demonstrate the power of AI Chatbots by having each Premium program manager use one of the Chatbots to prepare their reports and then evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each Chatbot as an analysis tool in their next report? They would be more qualified and capable of implementing the recommendations in this article than most AAIIers. Goose, gander? Deal, no deal?

Wayne T from IL posted about 1 year ago:

@Barry Thanks for the comment. On your first point: Yes, many AAII members understandably tune out the “read the filings” advice because it’s unrealistic. That’s exactly the gap AI can help close by processing the flood of information and surfacing what matters most, without requiring hours of effort. As for Premium services like DI, Growth Investing, VQM, and SSR: you're right, they already provide regular updates and summary analysis. The article wasn’t meant to suggest analysts aren’t doing the work, but rather to equip members with tools to process information for themselves more efficiently, especially in areas where AAII doesn’t publish formal coverage. Regarding your AI challenge: I already use both ChatGPT and Claude.ai extensively for my own analysis. So yes, I practice what I preach. I can’t speak for the other product managers—each analyst operates independently—but I’d support any effort to evaluate chatbot performance across our research teams. Whether that’s a formal experiment or a future feature is a bigger conversation. --Wayne