Can LLM-based Financial Investing Strategies Outperform the Market in Long Run?

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in financial contexts, raising critical concerns about reliability, alignment, and susceptibility to adversarial manipulation. While prior finance-related benchmarks assess LLMs' capabilities in stock trading, they are often restricted to small sample and fail to demonstrate LLM susceptibility to context with potential human bias. We introduce Fin-Bias (financial herding under long and uncertain financial context), a benchmark for evaluating LLM investment decision-making when faced with uncertainty and possible human-biased opinions. Fin-Bias includes 8868 long firm-specific analyst reports, including firm aspects summarized and analyzed by sophisticated analysts with investment ratings (Bullish/Neutral/Bearish) spanning from various industries. We present large language models with firm analyst reports with/without analyst investment ratings and even with 'fake' rating, to get investment ratings generated by LLMs. Our results reveal that LLMs tend to herd the explicit bias in context. We also develop a method to detect potential human opinions, which can encourage LLMs to think independently, some models even exceed human performance in predicting future stock return.

Evaluating whether large language model (LLM) agents can profit in capital markets is increasingly framed as end-to-end trading: place an agent in a historical market, let it trade, and measure portfolio returns. This setup is vulnerable to two evaluation failures. First, long backtests often overlap with the knowledge cutoffs of frontier LLMs, allowing memorized tickers, dates, prices, and market narratives to substitute for investment reasoning. Second, raw returns are a noisy proxy for stock-selection ability, since positive performance may come from market beta, style exposure, or favorable regimes rather than genuine alpha. We introduce KTD-Fin (Knowing-To-Doing Financial Benchmark), an end-to-end stock-market trading benchmark that addresses both issues. KTD-Fin uses a data-side masking protocol to anonymize key identifiers and calendar information consistently across prompts and tools, separating historical market memory from investment decision-making. It also incorporates a Barra-style performance attribution framework that decomposes portfolio returns into market, style, and stock-selection alpha components. Across ten frontier LLM agents evaluated on the Chinese CSI300 over a 2024--2026 window, masking substantially changes agent rationales, pushing them towards anonymized factor-based reasoning. Attribution analysis further shows that LLM agents' cumulative returns under leakage-controlled evaluation are largely explained by passive market and style exposure, with limited evidence of persistent stock-selection alpha. These findings suggest that financial LLM benchmarks should evaluate not only whether an agent makes money, but also whether the source of returns reflects transferable investment skill. We release KTD-Fin as a reproducible template for leakage-controlled and attribution-aware evaluation of LLM trading agents.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong performance across diverse financial tasks, yet portfolio management (PM) remains poorly benchmarked. Existing benchmarks exhibit two gaps: they are often equity-only and ignore cross-asset correlations; they fail to evaluate the complete PM decision pipeline. We introduce PortBench, a benchmark spanning six heterogeneous asset classes from 2015 to 2025. PortBench comprises a static QA dataset of 6,269 questions across seven task templates and a dynamic five-stage allocation pipeline. To evaluate these layers, we introduce two metrics: a dual-layer correlation score for inter-class hedging and intra-class concentration, and CEPS, which quantifies how reasoning errors compound across pipeline stages. We further evaluate under three stress windows and three risk profiles, and support real-time evaluation to mitigate pretraining contamination on historical markets. Across ten frontier LLMs, strong financial QA performance fails to translate into superior portfolio performance: only 32.5% of 120 evaluations beat equal weighting on Sharpe across four market periods. Our source code is available at \href{https://github.com/AgenticFinLab/portbench}{this https URL}.