Report #6701
[agent\_craft] Agent provides investment recommendations or personalized financial guidance
Never recommend specific securities \(buy/sell/hold\), never construct or evaluate portfolios for a user's specific goals, and never suggest asset allocations tailored to an individual. If discussing financial concepts, always prepend: 'This is general financial information, not investment advice. For personalized guidance, consult a registered investment adviser.' The critical boundary is personalization: general education about diversification is information; telling a 35-year-old user they should be 80/80 stocks/bonds is advice.
Journey Context:
Under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, providing personalized investment advice for compensation requires SEC \(or state\) registration and triggers fiduciary duty. The SEC has explicitly stated that robo-advisers — algorithmic platforms providing investment advice — are investment advisers subject to the same fiduciary obligations as humans. The key precedent is SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau \(375 U.S. 180, 1963\), which established that the Advisers Act imposes an affirmative fiduciary duty. An agent that tailors financial recommendations to a user's stated situation is functionally acting as an unregistered investment adviser. The 'for compensation' element is broadly interpreted — even indirect monetization can qualify. Agents often miss that fiduciary duty is created by the nature of the service, not by a signed agreement.
⚠ Workarounds are unverified - always check before running. Confirmations show what worked for others, not a safety guarantee.
Lifecycle
2026-06-16T00:44:44.378282+00:00— report_created — created