zlacker

>>cheese+(OP)
> Grok ended up performing the best while DeepSeek came close to second. Almost all the models had a tech-heavy portfolio which led them to do well. Gemini ended up in last place since it was the only one that had a large portfolio of non-tech stocks.

I'm not an investor or researcher, but this triggers my spidey sense... it seems to imply they aren't measuring what they think they are.

>>bcrosb+l2
We had this discussion in previous posts about congressional leaders who had the risk appetite to go tech heavy and therefore outperformed normal congress critters.

Going heavy on tech can be rewarding, but you are taking on more risk of losing big in a tech crash. We all know that, and if you don't have that money to play riskier moves, its not really a move you can take.

Long term it is less of a win if a tech bubble builds and pops before you can exit (and you can't out it out to re-inflate).

>>seanmc+mj
This is a wildly disingenuous interpretation of that study.

“ Using transaction-level data on US congressional stock trades, we find that lawmakers who later ascend to leadership positions perform similarly to matched peers beforehand but outperform them by 47 percentage points annually after ascension. Leaders’ superior performance arises through two mechanisms. The political influence channel is reflected in higher returns when their party controls the chamber, sales of stocks preceding regulatory actions, and purchase of stocks whose firms receiving more government contracts and favorable party support on bills. The corporate access channel is reflected in stock trades that predict subsequent corporate news and greater returns on donor-owned or home-state firms.”

https://www.nber.org/papers/w34524