Here’s a number that explains almost everything wrong with money advice on the internet.
Researchers pulled 1,764 finance videos off YouTube, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook recently. They rated each one for accuracy and risk. Then they counted the views.
The clips flagged as misleading averaged about 555,000 views. The ones that weren’t averaged about 326,000.
Misleading money advice pulled roughly 70% more eyeballs than the sound stuff.
That’s not bad luck. That’s a machine doing exactly what it was built to do.
The honest answer is boring, and boring doesn’t travel
I’ve been writing about money since 1991. I’ve been a CPA since 1981. I spent the decade after that as an investment adviser on Wall Street, and have been offering advice about money on air and online for over 35 years.
In all that time, the correct answer to most money questions hasn’t changed much. Spend less than you make. Buy low-cost index funds. Leave them alone for 30 years. Don’t touch anything you can’t explain.
Try building a following on that.
Now compare it to what actually performs: a specific ticker, a specific deadline, a specific dollar figure. “Buy this before Friday.” “How I make $100,000 a month.” “The account your bank doesn’t want you to open.”
Specificity, urgency and certainty are the three things that make a thumb stop moving. They’re also the three things responsible advice typically can’t honestly offer.
So the feed isn’t broken. It’s sorting content by how long you watch it, which measures how exciting a claim is, not whether it’s true.
The numbers behind the numbers
The same study found only 2.2% of the 1,266 creators behind those videos had demonstrable, relevant financial qualifications.
Just 11.7% of the videos carried a disclaimer anywhere, including on the creator’s profile. And 16.6% were promoting a paid product or service.
Run that arithmetic. More of these videos are selling you something than are telling you they might be.
YouTube came out worst, with 41.8% of its sampled clips flagged as misleading. Trading tips and technical analysis was the riskiest category, at 40.6%.
Real talk — I’ve made plenty of money mistakes in my life, and I’ve spent decades helping people sidestep the ones they don’t have to make. Sign up for the free Money Talks Newsletter and let my scars save you a few of your own. Free, and worth more than that.
What the other 97.8% skipped
That 2.2% figure sounds abstract until you look at what a credential actually costs.
To put CFP (certified financial planner) after your name, the CFP Board requires a bachelor’s degree, board-registered coursework, a six-hour exam, and 6,000 hours of documented financial planning experience. That last piece alone is about three years of full-time work.
A CFA (chartered financial analyst) charter means three sequential exams. The CFA Institute puts the long-term pass rate on Level I alone near 40%, and most people who finish take years to get through all three.
My own CPA certification meant passing the four-part CPA exam and finishing one year of verified supervised-work experience. I sat for it in 1981, and I remember it clearly because it was miserable.
Over the years I also earned licenses in stocks, futures, options principal, life insurance, real estate and securities supervisor. None of them are current, since I stopped selling investments in 1991. But earning them meant passing exams written by people whose job was to fail me.
Of course, credentials don’t guarantee good advice. In fact, I’ve personally seen credentialed professionals give catastrophically bad guidance, and I’ve read smart, useful things from people with no letters after their name at all.
But a credential is a filter. It means somebody outside the person’s own marketing department checked the work.
Ninety seconds of confident eye contact is not a filter.
What I’d flag about the study itself
I’d be a hypocrite if I handed you a story about unreliable sourcing without vetting my own.
The research comes from Legalaes, a licensing advisory firm that works with crypto and fintech companies. A firm in that business has an obvious interest in a world where financial content gets regulated harder.
And the ratings weren’t done by humans reading each claim. The videos were scored by automated text analysis of titles, descriptions and transcripts, looking for rule triggers like guaranteed returns or a promoted product.
So “misleading” here means a video tripped a rule, not that a fact-checker sat down and disproved it. I’d hold the decimal points loosely.
The direction, though, I’d bet on. It lines up with what regulators keep finding. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia found nearly 1 in 5 Americans have gone looking for money advice on social media, and Gallup found about 10% of U.S. adults actively follow finance creators.
That’s tens of millions of people getting sorted by an algorithm that has no opinion on whether they retire.
Four things that actually help
Treat specificity as a warning. A number attached to a promise is a sales tactic, not a forecast. Nobody knows what a stock will do next week.
Look for the disclosure before you look for the tip. If you can’t find one in the video, the caption or the profile, assume there’s a reason.
Verify the letters. The CFP Board has a free “Verify a CFP Professional” search, and FINRA’s BrokerCheck shows licensing and disciplinary history. States maintain lists of active CPAs.
Ask who gets paid if you follow this. Affiliate links, brand deals and the creator’s own course all count.
The part that’s actually new
Bad money advice isn’t new. My father got plenty of it at the barbershop, and since 1981, I’ve watched brokers hand out worse for a commission.
What’s new is that the distribution system now has a mechanical preference for it. The louder the claim, the wider it spreads.
Nobody designed that on purpose, and nobody’s in a hurry to fix it, because the same behavior that hurts you is the behavior that sells the ads.
I’ve written before about the TikTok money tips most likely to wreck a retirement, and about how to vet financial news when newsrooms keep shrinking. The advice in both comes down to the same instinct.
If a money claim feels thrilling, that’s the tell. Real money advice is slow, dull and repetitive, and it works anyway.
That’s the whole edge. It’s not much of a video.
Add a Comment