When Is Fresh AI Stock Analysis Worth It? Allocating a Limited Research Budget Across Price Updates, Deep Forecast Refreshes, and Editorial Reviews of Top Stock Picks
Computer Science > Multiagent Systems [Submitted on 3 Nov 2026 (v1), last revised 4 Nov 2026 (this version, v2)] T
📌 核心要点
- [Submitted on 3 Nov 2026 (v1), last revised 4 Nov 2026 (this version, v2)]
- From: Russlan Ramdowar [view email][v1] Tue, 3 Nov 2026 05:30:18 UTC (153 KB)
- [v2] Wed, 4 Nov 2026 09:08:37 UTC (159 KB)
Computer Science > Multiagent Systems
[Submitted on 3 Nov 2026 (v1), last revised 4 Nov 2026 (this version, v2)]
Title:When Is Fresh AI Stock Analysis Worth It? Allocating a Limited Research Budget Across Price Updates, Deep Forecast Refreshes, and Editorial Reviews of Top Stock Picks
View PDF HTML (experimental)Abstract:When is another AI research run worth more than keeping that money invested? Using 8,120 iPulse AI reports that consumed nearly 100 million output and reasoning tokens on the same 203 stocks across four production batches, we compare repricing old targets (with and without shock safeguards), mechanical growth-path resets and fresh multi-agent reports. Ten matched configurations represent seven investment frameworks.
The primary economic test selects equal-weight Top 10 USD portfolios from one-year forecasts, net of 10 bps trading costs and a USD 3,000 all-in charge for fresh research on a USD 300,000 account. In two unchanged-model short windows, guarded reuse averages 2.25%, versus 1.66% for SPY and 4.24% for fresh reports. Guarded reuse beats SPY in all three short windows. Extending the first holding window to 176 days reverses the comparison: guarded reuse returns -11.26%, fresh reports +8.55%, and SPY +3.46%, motivating the thesis half-life question.
Supporting quarter-forecast diagnostics show that mechanically resetting old growth paths closes 98% of the MAE gap to fresh reports, yet Fresh and Reset share only 1-4 Top 10 stocks. Top 30 reverses the unchanged-model comparison in favor of guarded reuse (4.17% versus 1.37%). Concentration tests expose dependence on exceptional winners. Nine editorial editions show substantial between-edition turnover, but each final screen retains its own incoming list.
Recurring budget scenarios retain initial holdings: monthly costs approach realized short-window refresh value, while weekly budgets require larger additional gains. A matched ranking-continuity extension extracts further value from retained forecasts without eliminating thesis ageing. The architecture separates continuous price monitoring, episodic thesis rebuilding and evidence-based editorial checks.
Submission history
From: Russlan Ramdowar [view email][v1] Tue, 3 Nov 2026 05:30:18 UTC (153 KB)
[v2] Wed, 4 Nov 2026 09:08:37 UTC (159 KB)
Additional Features
References & Citations
Loading...
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.