Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 81 references

AI financial planning can fix or worsen market failures, depending on five design principles

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 18:28 UTC pith:3MIZ2QRZ

load-bearing objection A useful, honest synthesis of existing ideas into a five-principle framework for AI financial planning, but the roadmap's evaluative claim is weaker than it looks because its metrics are defined as sub-components of the principles. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.09922 v1 pith:3MIZ2QRZ submitted 2025-09-12 econ.GN q-fin.EC

Robo-Advisors Beyond Automation: Principles and Roadmap for AI-Driven Financial Planning

Runhuan Feng , Hong Li , Ming Liu This is my paper
classification econ.GN q-fin.EC
keywords robo-advisorsartificial intelligencefinancial planningfiduciary dutyinformation asymmetrymoral hazardresponsible AIfinancial intermediation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper argues that AI-driven financial planning will either reduce or reproduce the core inefficiencies of traditional financial advice—information asymmetry, adverse selection, and moral hazard—depending on how the systems are designed. It proposes five foundational principles that responsible AI intermediaries must satisfy: fiduciary duty, adaptive personalization, technical robustness, ethical fairness, and auditability. It then offers a five-level roadmap, from simple calculators to aspirational 'super-intelligent' planners, where each level is judged not just by technical sophistication but by whether it actually mitigates those economic inefficiencies. The authors intend the framework as a practical tool for regulators and developers to evaluate and steer AI advisory systems toward trustworthy intermediation.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the promise of robo-advisors and AI financial planning cannot be assessed by automation or cost alone; the relevant question is whether the technology reduces the information asymmetries, incentive misalignments (moral hazard), and adverse selection that have long plagued human financial advice. Through case studies of Robinhood and eToro, the authors show how digital platforms can amplify these vulnerabilities through gamified engagement, opaque rankings, and revenue models tied to trading volume. They then argue that AI systems can avoid these pitfalls only if they are built on five interdependent principles—fiduciary duty, adaptive personalization, techni

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the five-level maturity roadmap whose evaluation metrics are explicitly defined as operational sub-components of the five principles (Appendix A). Each level combines technical/interactive sophistication with an assessment of whether the system reduces information asymmetry, adverse selection, or moral hazard. The paper introduces the Level 5 concept of an 'alignment case'—a documented safety-case-style demonstration that objective functions, data pipelines, and escalation paths systematically privilege client welfare over platform revenue, analogous to safety cases in autonomous driving standards.

Load-bearing premise

The roadmap's ability to evaluate progress depends on the Appendix A metrics being measurable independently of the principles they are supposed to operationalize; the paper itself states they are sub-components of the principles, so if the metrics are just re-descriptions, the roadmap cannot independently verify that higher maturity reduces inefficiencies.

What would settle it

A concrete test would be to apply the Appendix A metrics to a set of real robo-advisors and check whether platforms that score higher on 'incentive compatibility' and 'risk communication' actually produce portfolios with lower fee drag and better risk-adjusted outcomes for clients, controlling for client attributes. If no such positive correlation emerges, the roadmap's evaluative power is unsupported.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the framework is adopted, regulators would condition approval of advanced AI advisors on evidence of incentive compatibility, stress-testing, fairness audits, and traceable audit logs rather than on technical features alone.
  • Platforms at lower maturity levels (calculators, chatbots) would be held to lighter duties, while any move toward Level 5 would require a documented alignment case similar to a safety case.
  • The framework implies that current robo-advisors, which rely on static risk questionnaires and opaque models, sit at Level 3 and remain vulnerable to rigidity, bias, and fragility under stress.
  • The distinction between generative and analytical AI matters: the former improves communication and trust but introduces hallucination risks, while the latter provides quantitative backbone; both must be governed by the same five principles.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's roadmap could be operationalized into a scoring instrument for consumer-facing comparison of robo-advisors, where each metric in Appendix A becomes a testable checklist item.
  • A testable extension is to run the Appendix A metrics on a sample of real platforms (e.g., Betterment, Wealthfront, Ellevest) to see whether market leaders actually exhibit higher maturity on fiduciary alignment and fairness, or whether technical sophistication outpaces governance.
  • The 'alignment case' concept could motivate a new class of third-party audits for AI financial planners, analogous to financial statement audits, which would create a professional niche at the intersection of finance and AI safety.
  • The framework suggests a broader principle for AI governance beyond finance: any high-stakes AI system that mediates between an institution and an individual should have its objective functions demonstrably insulated from revenue metrics and its decisions auditable by independent parties.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that AI-driven financial planning can either amplify or mitigate core inefficiencies of financial intermediation—information asymmetry, adverse selection, and moral hazard—depending on adherence to five foundational principles: fiduciary duty, adaptive personalization, technical robustness, ethical fairness, and auditability. It motivates these principles through case studies of Robinhood, eToro, and contemporary AI applications, then proposes a five-level maturity roadmap (Level 1 Calculator to Level 5 Super Intelligence) in which each level is characterized by its technical sophistication and its effectiveness in reducing those inefficiencies. The paper explicitly positions itself as an integrative framework rather than an empirical test, and it includes a detailed operational taxonomy in Appendix A.

Significance. If the framework holds, it offers a useful synthesis of financial economics and AI governance, providing regulators and practitioners with a structured vocabulary for evaluating robo-advisors and AI advisors. The paper is commendably explicit about the aspirational nature of Level 5 and draws instructive analogies to safety cases in autonomous driving and to change-control regimes in medical AI. The five principles are clearly defined and the Appendix A taxonomy is concretely operationalized. However, the roadmap's central evaluative claim—that higher maturity levels mitigate economic inefficiencies—is not empirically validated; it is built into the definitions of the maturity levels themselves. The paper's contribution is therefore best understood as a normative classification framework, not as a demonstrated causal or empirical link between design choices and market outcomes.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.1 and Appendix A] The roadmap's evaluative claim is partly tautological. Section 5.1 states that the Appendix A metrics 'should not be read as independent dimensions. Rather, they represent the operational sub-components of the five foundational principles.' Since each maturity level is scored using these principle-derived metrics, the statement that a higher level 'could shrink information asymmetry, alleviate adverse selection, and curb moral hazard' (§5.3.5) restates the framework rather than testing it. The paper never calibrates these metrics against external outcomes such as realized portfolio suitability, fee drag, client retention under stress, or regulatory enforcement actions. To make the central claim load-bearing, the authors should either add an external validation exercise or explicitly reframe the roadmap as a classification/operationalization tool, not an empirical evaluation of inefficien
  2. [§4.3] The claim that 'During the 2018 downturn, many such investors suffered losses exceeding 30%' is unsourced and numerically questionable for diversified robo-advisor portfolios, most of which saw drawdowns well below that level. This is a concrete factual assertion used to motivate the adaptive personalization principle. Either provide a reliable citation with a defined portfolio and time window, or temper the claim to avoid overstating the evidence.
  3. [§4.6] The passage stating that 'in 2021 German regulators shut down an investment platform after discovering that its AI-driven tax optimization engine provided unsuitable advice without proper disclosures or licensing' is presented as fact but has no citation. No named regulator, platform, or official proceeding is given. The same paragraph mentions 'the return of millions of euros in assets.' Since this is an illustrative case used to support the auditability principle, the absence of a verifiable source is a material gap.
  4. [§2.2] The sentence 'advised portfolios carry average annual expenses of about 2.5%, roughly 1.5 percentage points higher than comparable lifecycle funds' is unsourced. The preceding paragraph cites Foerster et al. (2017), but that paper does not report this specific expense gap. Either provide the actual source for this number or remove it, because it is used as evidence of the costs of traditional advisory models.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.1] The claim that FINRA found Robinhood 'allowed many inexperienced users access to leveraged products' is slightly stronger than the cited FINRA order, which focused on failure to exercise reasonable due diligence before approving options trading. Consider aligning the wording with the source.
  2. [References] Several references are bibliographically irregular: 'Meckling and Jensen (1976)' and 'Jensen and Meckling (2019)' appear to refer to the same classic paper; 'Morgan (1994)' is a duplicate of Hunt and Morgan (1994); and some non-archival sources (e.g., Master's theses, SSRN preprints) are cited for claims that would benefit from peer-reviewed support.
  3. [§5.3.2] The text says that Level 2 chatbots 'partially embody accessibility and, in limited form, fairness (by broadening access)' but the connection between chatbot availability and fairness is asserted rather than argued. A sentence explaining the mechanism would improve readability.
  4. [Figure 2] The pyramid figure is described as showing 'core features' on the left and 'primary limitations' on the right, but the text does not reference specific levels within the figure. Adding explicit level labels or arrows in the figure would help readers map the discussion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper is a conceptual/normative framework whose roadmap metrics are explicitly tied to its own principles, but it does not present the roadmap as an independent empirical test of inefficiency reduction.

full rationale

This paper does not contain a derivation chain with fitted parameters, equations, or predictions that reduce to inputs. The five principles are presented as a synthesis of existing literature on financial advice and AI ethics, with explicit acknowledgment that they are not claimed as novel empirical findings. The Appendix A metrics are admittedly operational sub-components of the five principles: Section 5.1 states that 'the classification metrics presented in Appendix A should not be read as independent dimensions. Rather, they represent the operational sub-components of the five foundational principles articulated in Section 4.' This makes the roadmap internally coherent, but the paper does not use the roadmap to independently validate the principles. The Level 5 label is 'conditional on demonstrated performance against these metrics in Appendix A—not on automation alone,' which is a definitional condition, not a disguised empirical prediction. The claim that Level 5 systems 'could shrink information asymmetry... alleviate adverse selection... and curb moral hazard' is a stated conceptual possibility, not a result derived from the metrics. The paper also transparently flags the limitation that the metrics are not independent dimensions. There is no self-citation chain, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no renaming of a known result as a derivation. The only structural concern is that the roadmap is not an external test of inefficiency reduction, but that is a limitation of scope, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities are introduced. The central claim rests on standard economic assumptions about market imperfections plus the paper's own normative postulate that the five principles are sufficient for responsible AI planning. The roadmap's validity additionally depends on the assumption that its metrics faithfully operationalize those principles.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Information asymmetry, adverse selection and moral hazard are the relevant benchmarks for evaluating financial intermediation.
    Invoked from the introduction onward (Akerlof 1978, Coase 1993) as the standards against which AI advice is judged.
  • ad hoc to paper The five principles (fiduciary duty, adaptive personalization, technical robustness, ethical fairness, auditability) are jointly sufficient for responsible AI financial planning.
    Normative postulate advanced in Section 4 without proof or external validation; the paper's central framework depends on this sufficiency claim.
  • domain assumption The case studies of Robinhood and eToro accurately characterize the risks of AI-mediated digital advisory platforms, despite the paper conceding they are not robo-advisors.
    Section 3 uses these adjacent platforms to draw general conclusions about digital advisory design; the representativeness of the cases is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper The Appendix A metrics operationalize the five principles without loss, so Level 5 implies inefficiency mitigation.
    Section 5.1 states the metrics are sub-components of the principles, making the roadmap's assessment self-referential and untested.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23614 in / 12498 out tokens · 133904 ms · 2026-08-04T18:28:17.375022+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming financial planning by expanding access, lowering costs, and enabling dynamic, data-driven advice. Yet without clear safeguards, digital platforms risk reproducing longstanding market inefficiencies such as information asymmetry, misaligned incentives, and systemic fragility. This paper develops a framework for responsible AI in financial planning, anchored in five principles: fiduciary duty, adaptive personalization, technical robustness, ethical and fairness constraints, and auditability. We illustrate these risks and opportunities through case studies, and extend the framework into a five-level roadmap of AI financial intermediaries. By linking technological design to economic theory, we show how AI can either amplify vulnerabilities or create more resilient, trustworthy forms of financial intermediation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09922 by Hong Li, Ming Liu, Runhuan Feng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Conceptual framework of five foundational principles for AI-driven financial planning, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Pyramid roadmap of AI-driven financial planning: from foundational capabilities at Level 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Adam, M., Toutaoui, J., Pfeuffer, N., and Hinz, O. (2019). Investment decisions with robo-advisors: the role of anthropomorphism and personalized anchors in recommendations

    2019

  2. [2]

    Akerlof, G. A. (1978). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. In Uncertainty in economics , pages 235--251. Elsevier

    1978

  3. [3]

    Arenas-Parra, M., Rico-P \'e rez, H., and Quiroga-Garcia, R. (2024). The emerging field of robo advisor: A relational analysis. Heliyon , 10(16)

    2024

  4. [4]

    B., D \' az-Rodr \' guez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., Garc \' a, S., Gil-L \'o pez, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., et al

    Arrieta, A. B., D \' az-Rodr \' guez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., Garc \' a, S., Gil-L \'o pez, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., et al. (2020). Explainable artificial intelligence (xai): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible ai. Information fusion , 58:82--115

    2020

  5. [5]

    Arrow, K. J. (1978). Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. In Uncertainty in economics , pages 345--375. Elsevier

    1978

  6. [6]

    A., and Rahman, A

    Ashrafuzzaman, M., Parveen, R., Sumiya, M. A., and Rahman, A. (2025). Ai-powered personalization in digital banking: A review of customer behavior analytics and engagement. American Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies , 6(1):40--71

    2025

  7. [7]

    Balaji, K. (2024). Harnessing ai for financial innovations: Pioneering the future of financial services. In Modern Management Science Practices in the Age of AI , pages 91--122. IGI Global

    2024

  8. [8]

    M., Huang, X., Odean, T., and Schwarz, C

    Barber, B. M., Huang, X., Odean, T., and Schwarz, C. (2022). Attention-induced trading and returns: Evidence from robinhood users. Journal of Finance , 77(6):3141--3190

    2022

  9. [9]

    Bartlett, R., Morse, A., Stanton, R., and Wallace, N. (2022). Consumer-lending discrimination in the fintech era. Journal of Financial Economics , 143(1):30--56

    2022

  10. [10]

    V., and Flavi \'a n, C

    Belanche, D., Casal \'o , L. V., and Flavi \'a n, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in fintech: understanding robo-advisors adoption among customers. Industrial Management & Data Systems , 119(7):1411--1430

    2019

  11. [11]

    V., Flavi \'a n, C., and Schepers, J

    Belanche, D., Casal \'o , L. V., Flavi \'a n, C., and Schepers, J. (2020). Service robot implementation: a theoretical framework and research agenda. The Service Industries Journal , 40(3-4):203--225

    2020

  12. [12]

    Benavent, J. P. (2021). Vanguard’s digital advisor and the european robo-advisory market. Master's thesis, ISCTE-Instituto Universitario de Lisboa (Portugal)

    2021

  13. [13]

    Benston, G. J. and Smith, C. W. (1976). A transactions cost approach to the theory of financial intermediation. The Journal of finance , 31(2):215--231

    1976

  14. [14]

    and Bri \`e re, M

    Bianchi, M. and Bri \`e re, M. (2023). Robo-advising: Less ai and more xai? augmenting algorithms with humans-in-the-loop. Machine learning and data sciences for financial markets: A guide to contemporary practices , page 33

    2023

  15. [15]

    and Litterman, R

    Black, F. and Litterman, R. (1990). Asset allocation: combining investor views with market equilibrium. Goldman Sachs Fixed Income Research , 115(1):7--18

    1990

  16. [16]

    and Litterman, R

    Black, F. and Litterman, R. (1992). Global portfolio optimization. Financial analysts journal , 48(5):28--43

    1992

  17. [17]

    Burke, J., Hung, A., Clift, J., Garber, S., and Yoong, J. (2015). Impacts of conflicts of interest in the financial services industry

    2015

  18. [18]

    Challoumis, C. (2024). the future of business-integrating ai into the financial cycle. In XIV International Scientific Conference , pages 44--78

    2024

  19. [19]

    and Rakes, G

    Chieffe, N. and Rakes, G. K. (1999). An integrated model for financial planning. Financial Services Review , 8(4):261--268

    1999

  20. [20]

    Clark, R. C. (1976). The soundness of financial intermediaries. Yale LJ , 86:1

    1976

  21. [21]

    Coase, R. H. (1993). The nature of the firm (1937). Economica , 4:396--405

    1993

  22. [22]

    Cui, Y. (2022). Sophia sophia tell me more, which is the most risk-free plan of all? ai anthropomorphism and risk aversion in financial decision-making. International Journal of Bank Marketing , 40(6):1133--1158

    2022

  23. [23]

    Dallas, L. L. (2011). Short-termism, the financial crisis, and corporate governance. J. Corp. l. , 37:265

    2011

  24. [24]

    Day, M.-Y., Cheng, T.-K., and Li, J.-G. (2018). Ai robo-advisor with big data analytics for financial services. In 2018 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM) , pages 1027--1031. IEEE

    2018

  25. [25]

    L., Lim, C

    DeFond, M. L., Lim, C. Y., and Zang, Y. (2016). Client conservatism and auditor-client contracting. The Accounting Review , 91(1):69--98

    2016

  26. [26]

    A., Rodrigo, A., Belkacem, T., Soroa, A., Agirre, E., and Cieliebak, M

    Deriu, J., Tuggener, D., Von D \"a niken, P., Campos, J. A., Rodrigo, A., Belkacem, T., Soroa, A., Agirre, E., and Cieliebak, M. (2020). Spot the bot: A robust and efficient framework for the evaluation of conversational dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02140

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    Diamond, D. W. and Dybvig, P. H. (1986). Banking theory, deposit insurance, and bank regulation. The journal of business , 59(1):55--68

    1986

  28. [28]

    D’Acunto, F., Prabhala, N., and Rossi, A. G. (2019). The promises and pitfalls of robo-advising. The Review of Financial Studies , 32(5):1983--2020

    2019

  29. [29]

    and Rossi, A

    D’Acunto, F. and Rossi, A. G. (2021). Robo-advising. In The Palgrave handbook of technological finance , pages 725--749. Springer

    2021

  30. [30]

    Edesess, M. (2007). The Big Investment Lie: What Your Financial Advisor Doesn't Want You to Know . Berrett-Koehler Publishers

    2007

  31. [31]

    Edwards, B. P. (2017). Conflicts & capital allocation. Ohio St. LJ , 78:181

    2017

  32. [32]

    Elton, E. J. and Gruber, M. J. (1997). Modern portfolio theory, 1950 to date. Journal of banking & finance , 21(11-12):1743--1759

    1997

  33. [33]

    M., Abdelguerfi, M., Ioup, E., Niles, K

    Ferdaus, M. M., Abdelguerfi, M., Ioup, E., Niles, K. N., Pathak, K., and Sloan, S. (2024). Towards trustworthy ai: A review of ethical and robust large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.13934

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Finra orders record financial penalties against robinhood financial llc

    FINRA (2021). Finra orders record financial penalties against robinhood financial llc

    2021

  35. [35]

    Fisch, J. E. and Wilkinson-Ryan, T. (2014). Why do retail investors make costly mistakes? an experiment on mutual fund choice. University of Pennsylvania Law Review , 162(3):605--647

    2014

  36. [36]

    T., Melzer, B

    Foerster, S., Linnainmaa, J. T., Melzer, B. T., and Previtero, A. (2017). Retail financial advice: does one size fit all? The Journal of Finance , 72(4):1441--1482

    2017

  37. [37]

    Fuster, A., Goldsmith-Pinkham, P., Ramadorai, T., and Walther, A. (2022). Predictably unequal? the effects of machine learning on credit markets. The Journal of Finance , 77(1):5--47

    2022

  38. [38]

    Golec, J. H. (1992). Empirical tests of a principal-agent model of the investor-investment advisor relationship. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , 27(1):81--95

    1992

  39. [39]

    and rmen, J

    Gregersen, A. and rmen, J. (2024). The platform behind the curtain: Obfuscated brokerage on retail trading platforms. Internet Policy Review , 13(2):1--25

    2024

  40. [40]

    Guo, L. (2020). Regulating investment robo-advisors in china: problems and prospects. European Business Organization Law Review , 21(1):69--99

    2020

  41. [41]

    K., Garber, P

    Hermalin, B., Rose, A. K., Garber, P. M., Crockett, A., and Mullins Jr, D. W. (1999). Risks to lenders and borrowers in international capital markets. In International capital flows , pages 363--420. University of Chicago Press

    1999

  42. [42]

    Howcroft, B., Hewer, P., and Durkin, M. (2003). Banker-customer interactions in financial services. Journal of Marketing Management , 19(9-10):1001--1020

    2003

  43. [43]

    Huang, L., Yu, W., Ma, W., Zhong, W., Feng, Z., Wang, H., Chen, Q., Peng, W., Feng, X., Qin, B., et al. (2025). A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions. ACM Transactions on Information Systems , 43(2):1--55

    2025

  44. [44]

    Hunt, K. H. M., Brimble, M., and Freudenberg, B. (2011). Determinants of client-professional relationship quality in the financial planning setting. Australasian Accounting Business and Finance Journal , 5(2):69--100

    2011

  45. [45]

    Hunt, S. D. and Morgan, R. M. (1994). Relationship marketing in the era of network competition. Marketing management , 3(1):18

    1994

  46. [46]

    Inavolu, S. M. (2024). Exploring ai-driven customer service: Evolution, architectures, opportunities, challenges and future directions. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology , 13(3):156--163

    2024

  47. [47]

    Irving, K. (2012). The financial life well-lived: Psychological benefits of financial planning. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal , 6(4)

    2012

  48. [48]

    Jensen, M. C. and Meckling, W. H. (2019). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. In Corporate governance , pages 77--132. Gower

    2019

  49. [49]

    Jung, D., Dorner, V., Glaser, F., and Morana, S. (2018). Robo-advisory: digitalization and automation of financial advisory. Business & Information Systems Engineering , 60:81--86

    2018

  50. [50]

    Kofman, P. (2025). Scoring the ethics of ai robo-advice: Why we need gateways and ratings. Journal of Business Ethics , 198(1):21--33

    2025

  51. [51]

    Kogan, S., Makarov, I., Niessner, M., and Schoar, A. (2024). Are cryptos different? evidence from retail trading. Journal of Financial Economics , 159:103897

    2024

  52. [52]

    Kothandapani, H. P. (2025). Ai-driven regulatory compliance: Transforming financial oversight through large language models and automation. Emerging Science Research , 12(1):12--24

    2025

  53. [53]

    Kumar, P. (1999). The impact of long-term client relationships on the performance of business service firms. Journal of Service Research , 2(1):4--18

    1999

  54. [54]

    Kyrylenko, Y. (2024). Chatbots and virtual assistants vs. human agents in it customer support

    2024

  55. [55]

    Langlois, R. N. (1998). Transaction costs, production costs, and the passage of time. In Coasean Economics Law and Economics and the New Institutional Economics , pages 1--21. Springer

    1998

  56. [56]

    Liu, C.-W., Yang, M., and Wen, M.-H. (2023). Judge me on my losers: Do robo-advisors outperform human investors during the covid-19 financial market crash? Production and Operations Management , 32(10):3174--3192

    2023

  57. [57]

    J., Dellaert, B

    Louren c o, C. J., Dellaert, B. G., and Donkers, B. (2020). Whose algorithm says so: The relationships between type of firm, perceptions of trust and expertise, and the acceptance of financial robo-advice. Journal of Interactive Marketing , 49(1):107--124

    2020

  58. [58]

    Markowitz, H. (1952). Modern portfolio theory. Journal of Finance , 7(11):77--91

    1952

  59. [59]

    Amended administrative complaint, robinhood financial llc, dkt

    Massachusetts Securities Division (2020). Amended administrative complaint, robinhood financial llc, dkt. no. e-2020-0047

    2020

  60. [60]

    Meckling, W. H. and Jensen, M. C. (1976). Theory of the firm. Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure , 3(4):305--360

    1976

  61. [61]

    Monti, M., Pelligra, V., Martignon, L., and Berg, N. (2014). Retail investors and financial advisors: New evidence on trust and advice taking heuristics. Journal of Business Research , 67(8):1749--1757

    2014

  62. [62]

    Morana, S., Gnewuch, U., Jung, D., and Granig, C. (2020). The effect of anthropomorphism on investment decision-making with robo-advisor chatbots. In ECIS

    2020

  63. [63]

    Morgan, R. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing

    1994

  64. [64]

    Oelschlager, R. (2024). Evaluating the impact of hallucinations on user trust and satisfaction in llm-based systems

    2024

  65. [65]

    G., Kliger, D., Reichman, A., and Rabinovitz, S

    Packin, N. G., Kliger, D., Reichman, A., and Rabinovitz, S. (2024). Hooked and hustled: The predatory allure of gamblified finance. Available at SSRN 5090194

    2024

  66. [66]

    Prince, A. E. (2017). Insurance risk classification in an era of genomics: is a rational discrimination policy rational? Nebraska law review , 96(3):624

    2017

  67. [67]

    Reurink, A. (2019). Financial fraud: A literature review. Contemporary topics in finance: A collection of literature surveys , pages 79--115

    2019

  68. [68]

    Robinhood Markets, Inc. (2021). Form s-1 registration statement, robinhood markets, inc

    2021

  69. [69]

    Sahi, S. K. (2017). Psychological biases of individual investors and financial satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Behaviour , 16(6):511--535

    2017

  70. [70]

    Schrettenbrunner, M. B. (2023). Artificial-intelligence-driven management: Autonomous real-time trading and testing of portfolio or inventory strategies. IEEE Engineering Management Review , 51(3):65--76

    2023

  71. [71]

    S \"o derberg, I.-L. (2013). Relationships between advisor characteristics and consumer perceptions. International Journal of Bank Marketing , 31(3):147--166

    2013

  72. [72]

    Thaler, R. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing science , 4(3):199--214

    1985

  73. [73]

    Tierney, J. F. (2022). Investment games. Duke LJ , 72:353

    2022

  74. [74]

    Securities and Exchange Commission (2020)

    U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (2020). Robinhood financial llc — order instituting administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings, release no. 33-10906

    2020

  75. [75]

    Securities and Exchange Commission, Staff (2021)

    U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Staff (2021). Staff report on equity and options market structure conditions in early 2021. Technical report, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

    2021

  76. [76]

    Vargo, S. L. and Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of marketing , 68(1):1--17

    2004

  77. [77]

    Vidler, A. (2024). Recommender systems in financial trading: Using machine-based conviction analysis in an explainable ai investment framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11080

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  78. [78]

    Wendt, J. (2022). Regulation fix? recommendations for the sec regarding digital engagement practices & pda. Rev. Banking & Fin. L. , 42:1009

    2022

  79. [79]

    Wexler, M. N. and Oberlander, J. (2021). Robo-advisors (ras): the programmed self-service market for professional advice. Journal of Service Theory and Practice , 31(3):351--365

    2021

  80. [80]

    Zatevakhina, A., Dedyukhina, N., and Klioutchnikov, O. (2019). Recommender systems-the foundation of an intelligent financial platform: Prospects of development. In 2019 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence: Applications and Innovations (IC-AIAI) , pages 104--1046. IEEE

    2019

Showing first 80 references.