Can ChatGPT Forecast Stock Price Movements? Return Predictability and Large Language Models
Abstract
We document the capability of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT to predict stock market reactions from news headlines without direct financial training. Using post-knowledge-cutoff headlines, GPT-4 captures initial market responses, achieving approximately 90% portfolio-day hit rates for the non-tradable initial reaction. GPT-4 scores also significantly predict the subsequent drift, especially for small stocks and negative news. Forecasting ability generally increases with model size, suggesting that financial reasoning is an emerging capacity of complex LLMs. Strategy returns decline as LLM adoption rises, consistent with improved price efficiency. To rationalize these findings, we develop a theoretical model that incorporates LLM technology, information-processing capacity constraints, underreaction, and limits to arbitrage.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The predictability might be a result of information processing constraints and limits to arbitrage.
“Third, the predictability might be a result of information processing constraints and limits to arbitrage (Lopez-Lira and Tang, 2023).”
From ChatGPT and Deepseek: Can They Predict the Stock Market and Macroeconomy? (2025) · cites this paper as Lopez-Lira and Tang, 2023
There is a lack of studies on predicting the aggregated stock market using ChatGPT.
“However, there is a lack of studies on predicting the aggregated stock market, or equiavalently the market risk premium.”
From ChatGPT and Deepseek: Can They Predict the Stock Market and Macroeconomy? (2025) · cites this paper as Lopez-Lira and Tang (2023)
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
- Authors
- Lopez-Lira, A., & Tang, Y.
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review