Fund2Persona: A Framework for Building and Refining Financial Advisor Personas from Fund Disclosure Data

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied in finance, yet most existing work emphasizes trading signals or financial NLP tasks centered on prediction. Institutional fundamental research, by contrast, requires human analysts or AI agents to gather evidence, identify business drivers, compare competing viewpoints, and generate investment memos. Its broader goal is not merely to predict outcomes, but to produce investment plans that are transparent, reusable, and verifiable, while contributing to the cumulative development of investment knowledge. We present FundaPod, a multi-persona agent pod architecture for AI-assisted fundamental investment research. We argue that fundamental research is a human-centric decision-support task that is qualitatively distinct from trading-signal generation, and is therefore better served by an independence-preserving architecture. In FundaPod, AI agents with different personas, such as value investors or macro strategists, conduct research independently under a shared provenance contract. Their disagreements are then surfaced post hoc for adjudication by the human portfolio manager (PM) through a knowledge-graph memory system. This paper contributes five design principles for human-AI hybrid systems supporting fundamental research, grounded in design-science practice and theories of cognitive isolation and human-machine coordination. It also describes four architectural mechanisms: a persona distillation pipeline that turns public investor materials into deployable agents; a declarative skill registry that lets the planner derive typed task graphs; a grounded evidence model that links memo claims to verifiable sources; and a knowledge-graph "second brain" that connects tickers, memos, analysts, and themes. We demonstrate the architecture through a complete case study and a persona-based memo comparison.

Conversational investment advisors influence not only what users know, but also how they make subsequent decisions as market conditions evolve. Existing evaluations primarily assess response quality or observed outcomes, leaving the long-horizon pathway from advisor language to investor behavior difficult to audit. We introduce ShiJianBench, an offline framework for evaluating conversational investment advisors through matched investor trajectories under fixed historical market feedback. At its core is a multi-agent investor simulator with explicit evolving state variables, motive-driven deliberation, long-term memory, and dialogue-grounded updates. The simulator is calibrated against aggregate behavioral patterns from 7,199 real users, and advisor policies are evaluated using separate investor-side, service-side, and content-side metrics under a hard compliance gate. Experiments on Chinese fund-market traces from 2021 to 2026 identify a stable leading group of LLM advisors that combines substantially stronger personalized content with competitive investor-side trajectory outcomes. These results reveal a systematic distinction between producing a high-quality response and delivering an effective long-horizon intervention, motivating trajectory-aware evaluation of conversational advisors.

Investment competence is inherently personalized: the same market evidence can justify different actions for investors with different goals, horizons, portfolios, and risk boundaries. Yet financial LLMs are evaluated either by static question answering or by terminal profit and loss. The former omits agency; the latter cannot reveal whether a profitable action was grounded, profile-consistent, or merely lucky. We ask whether the community is using the wrong ruler for consequential agents. We introduce \textsc{InvestLogicBench}, a process-native benchmark containing 201,247 documented decisions from 151 real-world investors. Each episode instantiates a \textbf{P$\rightarrow$E$\rightarrow$R$\rightarrow$D$\rightarrow$O} trace: investor \textit{Profile}, observable market \textit{Events}, investment \textit{Reasoning}, executable \textit{Decision}, and delayed \textit{Outcome}. The release includes profile construction, point-in-time event binding, structured logic, horizons, outcomes, and post-mortems, and supports comprehension, profile-conditioned generation, and end-to-end replay. Across four leading LLMs, logical plausibility remains near 4/5 while event grounding is only 0.8--2.8/5; return and process quality also disagree. These results expose polished but weakly grounded reasoning that outcome-only evaluation hides. We further argue that P$\rightarrow$E$\rightarrow$R$\rightarrow$D$\rightarrow$O should be a data-system interface, requiring versioned profiles, temporal provenance, inspectable retrieval, decision ledgers, and replayable outcomes. Finance is our stress test for a broader class of personalized, consequential agents.