Abstract
In finance, Large Language Models (LLMs) face frequent knowledge conflictsdue to discrepancies between pre-trained parametric knowledge and real-timemarket data. These conflicts become particularly problematic when LLMs aredeployed in real-world investment services, where misalignment between amodel's embedded preferences and those of the financial institution can lead tounreliable recommendations. Yet little research has examined what investmentviews LLMs actually hold. We propose an experimental framework to investigatesuch conflicts, offering the first quantitative analysis of confirmation biasin LLM-based investment analysis. Using hypothetical scenarios with balancedand imbalanced arguments, we extract models' latent preferences and measuretheir persistence. Focusing on sector, size, and momentum, our analysis revealsdistinct, model-specific tendencies. In particular, we observe a consistentpreference for large-cap stocks and contrarian strategies across most models.These preferences often harden into confirmation bias, with models clinging toinitial judgments despite counter-evidence.