can chat gpt predict stock market?

This article examines whether can chat gpt predict stock market by reviewing how LLMs work, common use cases (sentiment, filings, signals), key empirical studies (arXiv, IEEE, Springer, CNBC, Yahoo...

2025-12-27 16:00:00

By Cyber Fusion

Article rating

4.4

114 ratings

Bitget offers a variety of ways to buy or sell popular cryptocurrencies. Buy now!

A welcome pack worth 6200 USDT for new users! Sign up now!

Can ChatGPT Predict the Stock Market?

The question "can chat gpt predict stock market" asks whether ChatGPT and similar large language models (LLMs) can forecast price moves, returns, or directions for equities and crypto assets, and how these models can be applied in trading workflows. In this article we define LLM capabilities, summarize empirical evidence and practical implementations, show common methodologies, list limitations and risks, and provide stepwise guidance for testing LLM signals in a disciplined trading or research environment. By the end you will understand what LLMs can realistically do, what they cannot, and how to evaluate any predictive claims.

Note: This article is informational only. It does not provide investment advice.

Background

What is ChatGPT and how LLMs work

ChatGPT is an example of a transformer-based large language model (LLM) trained to predict and generate human-like text. LLMs learn statistical relationships from massive corpora of text during pretraining, and may be further fine-tuned on task-specific examples. Core capabilities include language understanding, summarization, classification, and pattern recognition in text. LLMs do not natively access live market prices or structured time series; any market prediction capability derives from how they process and interpret textual data (news, filings, social media, transcripts) and from how those textual inferences are converted into numeric signals that feed a forecasting pipeline.

Why investors are interested in LLMs

Investors and quantitative teams are interested in LLMs because they can:

Rapidly ingest large volumes of unstructured text (news, earnings calls, SEC filings, social media) to extract signals.
Provide nuanced sentiment, intent, and event interpretation beyond simple lexicon methods.
Summarize and prioritize information for analysts, accelerating research.
Augment quantitative strategies by producing alternative signals (headline sentiment indices, event flags, risk narratives).

These capabilities make LLMs attractive for short‑term headline response, earnings interpretation, and as an augmentation layer for systematic strategies. But usefulness depends on data freshness, model design, and rigorous evaluation.

Ways LLMs are used in market prediction

Sentiment analysis of news and social media

The most common application is converting headlines, articles, and social posts into sentiment scores or categorical signals (positive / neutral / negative). These outputs are aggregated into indices or event flags and tested for correlation with short-term returns (intraday, next‑day) or longer horizons. LLMs can capture context and sarcasm better than simple lexicons, and can provide graded confidence and rationale that help in signal calibration.

Financial statement and earnings forecasting

LLMs can parse long-form text such as 10-Ks, 10-Qs and earnings call transcripts to extract key items: revenue drivers, management tone, guidance changes, and risk disclosures. With prompt design and few-shot examples, LLMs can produce structured outputs (e.g., likely revenue beat/ miss, guidance revision) that become inputs to fundamental forecasting models.

Event and headline interpretation

Corporate events—M&A announcements, litigation, product launches, management change—are often followed by price moves. LLMs are used to interpret the likely impact of these events (magnitude, direction, affected business units) and to translate varied language into standardized event types for backtesting.

Signal augmentation for quantitative strategies

LLM outputs are frequently combined with traditional factors and technical indicators. Examples include using a news-sentiment score as an overlay on a momentum strategy, or weighting factor exposures based on recent textual signals. LLMs can thus act as an information‑augmentation layer that modifies trade sizing, entry timing, or sector tilts.

Idea generation, research assistance, and risk management

Beyond direct signals, LLMs assist analysts by summarizing vast document sets, generating hypotheses, scanning for unusual risk language, and producing structured notes that can accelerate due diligence—useful roles that improve workflow efficiency without claiming deterministic price forecasts.

Empirical evidence and notable studies

Researchers and practitioners have tested whether ChatGPT and related models produce predictive signals. The findings are mixed and nuanced: LLMs can extract useful information from text, but reliable price prediction requires careful implementation and robust evaluation.

Academics and working papers

As of 2024-06-01, according to arXiv reporting, several working papers examined LLMs for economic and market forecasting; these studies generally find that LLM‑derived textual signals can have predictive value in particular settings but that effects are fragile and dependent on evaluation choices. (As of 2024-06-01, source: arXiv working papers.)
As of 2024-06-01, authors on SSRN discussed market effects from widespread LLM adoption, highlighting potential liquidity, crowding, and efficiency effects if many participants use similar LLM signals. (As of 2024-06-01, source: SSRN.)

Peer‑reviewed journal articles

As of 2024-06-01, a Springer-published study examined the Brazilian stock market and reported that a ChatGPT‑based sentiment index did not consistently improve out‑of‑sample returns across all tested horizons; results depended on preprocessing and model usage. (As of 2024-06-01, source: Springer study on Brazilian market forecasting.)

Applied / systematic research

ArXiv/systematic-investing studies have shown that LLMs can augment momentum and news-aware strategies by providing event detection and sentiment overlays. These studies emphasize careful train/test splits and realistic transaction-cost assumptions to avoid overstating performance. (As of 2024-06-01, source: arXiv systematic investing papers.)

Media and practitioner experiments

As of 2024-06-01, Yahoo Finance published hands‑on media tests where ChatGPT was asked for market outlooks over short horizons and generated plausible narrative forecasts; these are illustrative but not rigorous backtests. (As of 2024-06-01, source: Yahoo Finance.)
As of 2024-06-01, CNBC summarized an academic experiment showing that sentiment extracted by ChatGPT from headlines produced above-random next‑day directional signals in certain samples; the report flagged the need for replication and attention to data leakage and timing. (As of 2024-06-01, source: CNBC.)

Collectively, these studies show that LLMs can extract useful signals from text, but results vary with methodology, sample, and implementation.

Methodologies used in studies and implementations

Prompt engineering and chain‑of‑thought

Careful prompt design—explicit instructions, few‑shot examples, and stepwise reasoning prompts—improves LLM outputs for classification and extraction. Chain‑of‑thought prompting can elicit more structured rationale from the model, which helps mapping textual insights to numeric signals.

Data inputs and preprocessing

Typical sources are news feeds, RSS, SEC filings, earnings call transcripts, social media posts, and proprietary corpora. Key preprocessing steps include deduplication, timestamp alignment (ensuring text is available before the price window used in the test), normalization of company mentions, and entity linking to map text to tickers. Avoiding data leakage (e.g., using documents that mention price movements that are only learnable after the fact) is essential.

Model outputs and aggregation

LLMs produce textual or categorical outputs which must be converted to numeric signals: sentiment scores, event flags, probability estimates, or calibrated risk levels. Aggregation across sources, weighting by source reliability, and smoothing across time are common practices to derive robust signals.

Backtest design and evaluation

Robust evaluation requires:

Strict temporal train/validation/test splits (no lookahead).
Walk‑forward or rolling-window evaluation to mimic live updating.
Out‑of-sample metrics: accuracy, ROC/AUC for classifiers; R^2, mean absolute error for regressions.
Economic metrics: Sharpe ratio, turnover, transaction costs, market impact assumptions.
Statistical significance testing and robustness checks (e.g., bootstrap, multiple hypothesis correction).

Without these elements, reported predictive edges can be overstated.

Limitations, risks and failure modes

Hallucinations and factual errors

LLMs can fabricate facts or misstate details—especially for numerical values, dates, or less common entities. In finance this risk is critical: an incorrect claim about guidance or a mischaracterized regulatory filing can produce false trading signals.

No built‑in real‑time market data / stale training cutoff

Offline LLMs typically do not have live price feeds or up‑to‑date event knowledge beyond their training cutoff. To use them for forecasting, teams must pipe live text into the model or fine‑tune regularly. Otherwise, the model’s internal world may be outdated.

Overfitting, data leakage and backtest pitfalls

Researchers have repeatedly shown that sloppy evaluation (using future data, poor timestamping, or over-parameterized prompt tuning) produces apparent predictive power that vanishes in live trading. Overfitting to training samples or tuning prompts on a test set must be avoided.

Market impact and crowding

Even if an LLM signal is real, widespread adoption can erode the edge or create crowding that amplifies volatility. Studies on market microstructure warn that similar automated signals used by many participants change the statistical properties of price moves.

Transaction costs, latency and execution risk

Small predictive advantages can be wiped out by commission, bid‑ask spreads, market impact, and latency—especially for high-frequency or intraday strategies. Execution architecture and cost modeling are key.

Regulatory, ethical and governance concerns

Use of opaque models raises questions about explainability, auditability, and compliance—especially for institutional capital. Firms must document model behavior and maintain human oversight for material decisions.

Practical implementation considerations

System architecture and data pipeline

A typical production pipeline includes:

Real‑time ingestion: news feeds, social streams, SEC/XBRL, earnings transcripts.
Preprocessing: dedupe, timezone normalization, entity resolution (ticker mapping).
LLM querying: batch or streaming prompts, rate control, caching of responses.
Signal generation: convert text outputs to numeric scores, calibrate probabilities.
Storage and monitoring: time-series DB for signals, logs for prompts and responses.
Trading integration: signal transforms, portfolio optimizer, execution algos.

For exchange integration, recommend using Bitget trading infrastructure for deployment and Bitget Wallet for custody and signing components in crypto workflows.

Prompt design and calibration

Best practices:

Use succinct, deterministic prompts with clear output formats (e.g., JSON-like labels).
Provide examples (few‑shot) that show expected classification outputs.
Calibrate outputs against labeled datasets and record prompt templates for reproducibility.
Use rollback / human review for low-confidence or high-stakes signals.

Evaluation, backtesting and live validation

Start with offline backtests that simulate real-time availability of text. Move to paper‑trading and a shadow live environment where signals generate simulated P&L under realistic costs. Use walk-forward testing and orthogonal validation sets. Only after sustained, robust out‑of-sample performance should any live capital be allocated.

Risk management and controls

Implement:

Position limits and exposure caps.
Kill-switches for model anomalies or unusual market conditions.
Latency and throughput monitoring.
Regular retraining/fine‑tuning cadences and drift detection.

Use cases and examples

Short‑term headline‑based signals (next‑day direction)

Several experiments evaluate whether headline sentiment maps to next‑day return direction. Some working papers report above‑random accuracy for specific headline sets; others find fragile or sample-specific effects. Any short‑horizon strategy must rigorously account for publication timestamping and market hours.

Earnings and fundamentals forecasting

LLMs can parse transcripts and statements to flag surprise indicators (tone shifts, guidance changes). In practice, model outputs need to be combined with quantitative forecasts and analyst coverage data to be actionable.

News‑aware momentum and portfolio construction

Combining LLM sentiment with momentum can improve timing: e.g., delaying entries after negative news or reducing size when sentiment indicates higher downside risk. Empirical work shows potential uplift when textual signals are used as overlay controls, provided transaction costs and crowding are managed.

Crypto applications

The same LLM approaches can be used in crypto markets, with some differences:

Crypto markets operate 24/7 and are dominated by retail social media signals; LLMs that monitor forums, tweets, and on‑chain announcement text can pick up early narrative shifts.
On‑chain activity (transaction counts, wallet growth) complements text-based signals; LLM interpretations can be combined with these structured indicators.
Use Bitget Wallet for secure custody when integrating wallet signatures or transaction automation in trading or bots.

Future directions and research needs

Finance‑specialized LLMs and fine‑tuning

Domain-specific models fine‑tuned on financial filings, transcripts and annotated event datasets may improve signal quality and reduce hallucinations compared to general-purpose LLMs.

Multimodal and real‑time models

Combining audio (earnings calls), structured data (prices, order flow), and text in real time will produce richer features for forecasting. Real‑time pipelines and low-latency evaluation frameworks will be necessary for intraday use.

Hybrid approaches (LLM + quantitative models)

The most promising setups appear to be hybrids: LLMs generate features and narrative context which are consumed by quantitative models (time series, factor models, risk engines), rather than LLMs making raw execution decisions.

Robustness, explainability and regulation

Standardized evaluation protocols, explainability tools, and governance frameworks will be essential. Regulators and auditors may require reproducible logs of prompts and responses for material trading decisions.

Balanced closing summary and next steps

LLMs like ChatGPT can extract actionable information from text and, in controlled settings, provide signals that correlate with short‑term price movements or help improve systematic strategies. However, they are not a magic predictor of markets. Success depends on data freshness, correct timestamping, careful prompt engineering, robust out‑of-sample evaluation, realistic cost modeling, and prudent risk controls. Groups that want to experiment should begin with a strong data pipeline, clear evaluation protocols, and staged deployment (offline → paper → live) while maintaining human oversight.

If you want to explore LLM-driven market research or deploy trading logic, consider starting with a sandbox deployment and the Bitget platform to manage execution and custody needs. Bitget supports programmatic trading workflows and secure custody with Bitget Wallet for crypto workflows.

References and further reading

As of 2024-06-01, arXiv working papers on ChatGPT and economic forecasting provided empirical tests and methodology notes (arXiv working paper series).
As of 2024-06-01, SSRN authors discussed market impact and adoption dynamics for LLM-driven trading signals (SSRN working papers).
As of 2024-06-01, CNBC reported on an academic experiment showing ChatGPT-derived sentiment could produce above-random next-day direction predictions in specific samples (CNBC report).
As of 2024-06-01, Yahoo Finance published a practical test asking ChatGPT for market outlooks 100 days out as an illustrative media exercise (Yahoo Finance report).
As of 2024-06-01, Springer published a study applying ChatGPT-based sentiment to the Brazilian stock market with mixed out‑of‑sample results (Springer journal).
Practitioner tutorials and blog posts (various dates before 2024-06-01) show sample implementations for trading bots and prompt design; these are useful for engineering but must be evaluated critically.

Appendix A — Example prompts and label formats

Below are simplified example prompts used in experiments. Use deterministic output formats (e.g., JSON) for parsing.

Headline classification (binary):

Prompt: "Given the headline below about a public US-listed company, classify the immediate market sentiment for the stock into POSITIVE, NEUTRAL, or NEGATIVE. Output only one of: POSITIVE / NEUTRAL / NEGATIVE. Headline: '

Earnings surprise flag (structured):

Prompt: "Read the following earnings excerpt and answer in JSON: { 'revenue_trend': 'UP / FLAT / DOWN / UNKNOWN', 'guidance_change': 'UP / DOWN / NONE / UNKNOWN', 'tone': 'POSITIVE / NEUTRAL / NEGATIVE' }. Excerpt: '<TRANSCRIPT_EXCERPT>'"

Event impact assessment:

Prompt: "Classify the following corporate event into: 'MAJOR_POSITIVE', 'MINOR_POSITIVE', 'NEUTRAL', 'MINOR_NEGATIVE', 'MAJOR_NEGATIVE'. Provide a one-sentence rationale. Event: '<EVENT_TEXT>'"

Calibration: After getting outputs, map labels to numeric scores (e.g., POSITIVE=+1, NEUTRAL=0, NEGATIVE=-1) and aggregate.