Seven AI models tried to predict 80 investors' next trades. None reliably beat "they'll do what they did yesterday"

The clone and the lazy rule

The pitch for an AI investor simulator is seductive. Feed a language model your client's history, and it becomes the client: a stand-in you can test a robo-advisor on, or a new product, or a nudge, without waiting for the real person to react. A paper posted to arXiv on October 19 put that idea in front of the cheapest opponent imaginable.¹

The opponent is a rule you could write on a napkin: if the investor traded today, predict a trade tomorrow; otherwise, predict nothing. Across 1,239 next-day predictions for 80 people, that rule scored 79.82% accuracy and 71.45% macro-F1. It topped the point estimates of all seven LLM configurations the authors tested, from GPT-4o-mini to GPT-5.6-Sol, Gemini, DeepSeek and Qwen.² The authors' bootstrap comparisons "do not establish a reliable LLM improvement over this baseline."² The clone did not beat the habit.

How the test worked

The five authors, three of them at Hithink Research, recruited 80 volunteers to paper-trade with non-redeemable virtual funds under live market conditions, over a three-month collection period, logging more than 230,000 interactions: news browsing, stock and ETF views, chatbot exchanges, trades.³ Each evening at the close, a model saw only what was known by then (a profile built from the investor's history, the last seven trading days, the portfolio, the market) and had to say whether the person would trade the next day, buy or sell or both, which tickers, and why.³ That point-in-time discipline is the paper's best feature. Plenty of finance-AI results die of look-ahead; this design at least closes that door.

Why the accuracy numbers flatter everyone

Most days, most people do nothing. Non-trading made up 75.22% of scored participant-days, so a model that always says "no trade" is right three times in four.² That is how GPT-5.6-Sol posts the best LLM accuracy, 79.18%, while catching only 34.85% of the days people actually traded. Gemini-3-Flash catches 76.55% of trading days and scores lower accuracy, 68.60%, because it cries trade too often.² Pick the metric and you pick the winner.

Matching the average does not help either. GPT-5.6-Luna predicted trading on 26.6% of days, close to the real 24.8%, yet caught only 59.28% of actual trading days.² Right frequency, wrong days: a forecaster who promises 25 rainy days a year and picks the wrong 25.

The parts that matter for advice

Whether someone trades is the easy question. What they trade is the useful one, and here the twins struggle. On days with actual trades, the best model called the buy-sell structure correctly 42.02% of the time; always guessing "buy and sell" scored 41.37%. Sell-only days were caught 4.23% to 8.45% of the time, depending on the model.⁴ The best top-five ticker list contained at least one stock the person actually bought on 40.7% of buying days, and one they sold on 42.9% of selling days.⁴

The ablations explain why. With GPT-5.6-Sol, removing the last week's trades cut trade-timing accuracy by 23.49 points; removing anything else moved it by 1.40 points at most. Removing the long-term investor profile, the part that is supposed to make the twin a twin, changed only 6.7% of trade-timing predictions and cut accuracy by 0.23 points.⁴ The simulator's sense of when you trade is mostly your recent trades. The rest of you barely registers.

The investors noticed. Each rated one GPT-5.6-Sol explanation of their own predicted behavior. Asked whether it matched their recurring strategy, they gave a mean of 3.40 out of 5. Asked whether it matched their reason for that specific decision, 2.43, and not one of the 80 gave it a 5.⁵ The model can describe your style. It cannot tell you why you did what you did on Tuesday.

The serious objection

The strongest defense of the simulators is that the study is small and stacked against them: 80 volunteers, paper money, no stakes, one platform. The authors say so themselves, and they ran the explanation and ablation tests on a single model, citing a "funding limit" and a "high human label fee."⁶ Real investors with real money might be more consistent and therefore easier to model. And a simulator that captures a client's broad style, the 3.40 out of 5, may be good enough for stress-testing a product menu.

That is fair, and it cuts both ways. Paper traders with nothing at stake are, if anything, the easy case: no fear, no tax lots, no spouse. More to the point, the defense concedes the claim the industry actually makes. "Personalized" means the decision, not the style. A tool that tests advice on a clone whose reasons do not match the person's reasons is testing the advice on someone else. And this is a preprint under review, from a team largely based at a corporate research lab, reporting a negative result about their own field's favorite tool. That last part earns it some credit.

What it means for the people being simulated

The quiet risk is responsibility. If a firm approves a product because its simulated clients liked it, who answers when the real clients do not? The paper's ethics section is blunt: such simulators "should not be treated as reliable substitutes for real investors or used as the sole basis for consequential financial decisions."⁶ On this evidence, the honest name for today's investor twin is a habit tracker with a vocabulary.