When News Gets Old: Portfolio Allocation with Reinforcement Learning and Large Language Models

Large language models can extract richer signals from financial news than fixed sentiment lexicons, and recent work has explored feeding such signals into portfolio construction. We study an uncertainty-aware construction that feeds model-predicted risk -- decomposed into aleatoric and epistemic components -- directly into the covariance matrix of portfolio allocators, rather than treating portfolio risk as fixed or adjusting only expected returns. We evaluate the pipeline on Russell 2000 equities under three stock-selection regimes: a pure-alpha trigger that isolates abnormal stock moves not explained by macro indicators, a pure-beta trigger that captures macro-indicator moves before the stock itself fires, and a beta trigger in which both channels agree. Across the full holding-period grid, the separated pure-alpha and pure-beta legs usually dominate the beta intersection on Sharpe and return. Two horizons are especially informative. At one day, pure beta can work under low and moderate transaction costs because it captures immediate lead-lag spillovers from liquid macro and sector indicators into exposed small-cap stocks, but this advantage disappears at 100 bps when turnover and microstructure noise dominate. At 40 days, pure beta works for a different reason: slower macro repricing overtakes the firm-specific pure-alpha channel. The strongest conservative row is pure beta with GPT-4o mini sentiment, a Student-t target, a 40-day holding period, and risk parity allocation, reaching Sharpe 2.33 at 100 bps. The results suggest that stock-selection regime and allocator choice matter at least as much as the sentiment model, and that separating firm-specific and macro-exposure triggers is more informative than requiring both to fire simultaneously.

Language models that read financial news are usually trained on text from the same years used to test them, so a backtest can reward hindsight. We build news topics from NoLBERT, an encoder pretrained only on text published between 1976 and 1995, adapted into a sentence encoder by contrastive fine-tuning on passages of the same article, with no labels or returns. We compare it with LDA, MiniLM and FinBERT readers on 1.26 million articles from 2012 to 2024, convert each reader's topics into attention shocks and stock exposures, and forecast the returns of the 1,000 largest US stocks with eight models at three rebalancing frequencies. Models are fitted on 2013-2019, choices are made on 2020-2021, and 2022-2024 is held out. The experiment with the best validation score loses money at every frequency. Measuring attention shocks against the past 63 trading days instead of 5 raises the test rank IC of every reader. NoLBERT gives the most stable topics and forecasts about as well as LDA. An equal-weight combination of all readers and models earns a monthly net Sharpe ratio of 1.12, significant against zero before adjusting for the search but not against a price-only benchmark.

While inference-time reasoning in large language models (LLMs) promises better decision making, its higher computational cost may not yield better economic outcomes. Yet reasoning controls are rarely evaluated as economic interventions, where changes in model outputs must translate into better portfolios after trading costs. We conduct a controlled study of representative LLMs from the DeepSeek, GPT, and Gemini families. We vary reasoning effort while holding information available at each formation date, prompts, output formats, and portfolio construction fixed. Our evaluation covers a full year of U.S. equities under three input conditions: numerical, identifiable news, and masked news. It includes more than 800,000 asset predictions and repeated model generations. Across all three model families, additional reasoning does not produce a reliable improvement in net portfolio returns. For DeepSeek, where we examine the full progression from no reasoning to maximum reasoning, performance is nonmonotonic. Repeated generations also produce unstable treatment effects and portfolio selections, even when overall scores remain similar. These findings show that additional reasoning can change financial decisions without reliably improving their economic value, motivating validation for each task before deployment.