Every figure on this page links to the organization that produced it, and each was re-checked against that source before publishing. How personal-finance and investing creators publish on YouTube, in our own read of 58 large finance channels on November 1, 2026; how many people take money information from social media and finfluencers, from the FINRA Investor Education Foundation, the CFA Institute, the CFP Board, Pew Research Center and regulators in the UK, France, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and Cyprus; what research finds about the quality of finfluencer content; how the SEC, FTC, NASAA, FINRA and the CFTC police paid promotion, and how the FCA, ASIC, IOSCO and other regulators act abroad; what YouTube, Google, TikTok, Meta and X allow; and where the popular finfluencer numbers came from. Nothing here is investment advice.
63.9% of the 14,034 videos that 58 large finance YouTube channels published in the 12 months to October 31, 2026 were Shorts, and Shorts drew 78.2% of their views, in our own read. (Our read)See details
Yet the median long-form finance video had 53,310 views against 21,316 for the median Short, and ran 926 seconds, about 15 minutes. (Our read)See details
19.5% of the channels' long-form videos and 0.8% of their Shorts carried YouTube's paid-promotion label, while 41.9% of long-form descriptions carried affiliate, referral or promo-code language. (Our read)See details
41% of U.S. investors used social media for investment decisions in 2024, and 61% of investors aged 18 to 34 base decisions on finfluencer recommendations at least sometimes. (FINRA Investor Education Foundation)See details
Among U.S. investors targeted by fraud, 68% to 69% of social media users and finfluencer followers lost money, against 26% to 29% of others, in the FINRA Foundation's 2024 survey. (FINRA Investor Education Foundation)See details
In an Ontario Securities Commission experiment, nearly 24% of people shown finance posts promoting an asset bought it, against about 7% who were not. (Ontario Securities Commission)See details
Only 25% of 110 pieces of finfluencer content the CFA Institute reviewed carried a disclosure, and a study of StockTwits finfluencers classed 56% as having negative skill. (CFA Institute; Kakhbod et al.)See details
The viral '52% of Gen Z get financial advice from TikTok' covers only Gen Z who seek advice online (Credit Karma, 2021); in Bankrate's 2023 survey, 49% of Gen Z advice-seekers named social media. (Credit Karma; Bankrate)See details
How do personal-finance creators publish on YouTube?
Mostly in Shorts, while their long videos run long. On November 1, 2026 we read 58 personal-finance and investing creator channels through the YouTube Data API: the channels with 100,000 or more subscribers behind the most-viewed results for eight finance searches in U.S. YouTube (personal finance, investing, stock market, budgeting and four more), after removing brokerages, an insurer, a news network and four off-topic channels by hand. In the 12 months to October 31, 2026 they published 14,034 public videos, and 63.9% of them were Shorts.
Shorts carried the views too: 78.2% of the 4,586,741,802 views those uploads had collected by November 1. Yet the typical long video did better than the typical Short. The median long-form video had 53,310 views and the median Short 21,316, about 2.5 times fewer. Shorts win on total views because there are so many of them.
The long videos are long. The median long-form finance video ran 926 seconds, a little over 15 minutes; 84.7% ran past 10 minutes and 32.5% past 20. The median Short ran 58 seconds.
Uploads, Nov 1, 2025 to Oct 31, 2026 (58 channels)
Description carried a disclaimer ("not financial advice" and similar)
28.9%
59.7%
Most channels do both. 81.0% of the 58 published at least one Short in the 12 months, and 27 published more Shorts than long videos. The median channel published 149 videos in the year and had 449,500 subscribers. 23 list the United States as their country, 15 India and 5 the United Kingdom; the rest list another country or none.
How often do finance creators label paid promotion?
On long videos, about one time in five; on Shorts, almost never. 19.5% of the long-form videos in our read carried YouTube's "includes paid promotion" label, which a creator switches on when a video contains a paid placement, against 0.8% of Shorts and 7.5% of all uploads. 34 of the 58 channels used the label at least once in the 12 months. The label is the creator's own declaration: it shows how often creators say a video is paid, not how often one is.
Affiliate and referral offers are more common than labels. 41.9% of long-form video descriptions, and 28.6% of all descriptions, carried affiliate, referral or promo-code language (sign-up bonuses, free-stock offers, "use my code"), and 42 of the 58 channels used such language at least once. An affiliate link is not a paid placement under YouTube's definition, so the two counts measure different things.
Disclaimers are routine on long videos. 59.7% of long-form descriptions carried a line such as "not financial advice" or "for educational purposes"; 44 of the 58 channels used one at least once and 22 in most of their uploads. Pooled shares lean toward the busiest channels, because a channel that posts daily contributes more videos.
Few channels state a credential. Reading every match by hand, 7 of the 58 name a current or former professional credential in their channel name or About text (such as CFP, CFA, CPA, attorney, or a former adviser's securities licenses), and 6 say the creator is not a registered or licensed adviser. The rest say neither, which does not mean they hold no license. Only 1.9% of the year's uploads carried captions the creator uploaded, so viewers depend on YouTube's automatic captions. The full channel and video tables are public: channels.csv, videos.csv.
How many people get money information from social media and finance creators?
About four in ten U.S. investors, and far more of the young ones. In the FINRA Investor Education Foundation's 2024 investor survey, 41% of U.S. investors used at least one social media channel for investment decisions, up from 39% in 2021 (FINRA Foundation). Age is the dividing line: 61% of investors aged 18 to 34 said they make investment decisions based on finfluencer recommendations frequently or sometimes (FINRA Foundation), against 31% of those 35 to 54 and 6% of those 55 and older. Among investors with less than two years' experience the figure was 57%, against 10% of those with ten years or more (FINRA Foundation).
After YouTube, the social channels U.S. investors used most for investing information in 2024 were Reddit at 15%, Facebook, LinkedIn and Instagram (FINRA Foundation). Among investors under 35, 36% used Reddit and more than three in five used YouTube (FINRA Foundation). Smaller portfolios lean on social media more: 48% of investors with under $50,000 invested used it for investment decisions, against 20% of those with $500,000 or more (FINRA Foundation).
Older, higher-income adults use it too. In a CFP Board survey of Americans aged 25 to 64 with household incomes above $50,000 in April 2025, 40% said they had sought financial information or advice from social media (CFP Board); among them, 35% used TikTok (CFP Board). The CFP Board certifies financial planners. Pew Research Center found that 21% of U.S. adults regularly got news from news influencers in summer 2024, 37% of those under 30 (Pew Research Center), and that 59% of the 500 news influencers it studied made money from their audience (Pew Research Center); Pew's study covers news in general, not finance.
Outside the U.S. the shares are lower and the questions differ, so the table below keeps each survey's wording.
Two trends stand out. In Australia, TikTok use for money information among 18-to-28-year-olds fell to 17% in late 2025 from 23% in 2023 (ASIC). In France, 11% of adults used AI tools before investing in 2025, the first year the AMF asked, more than used social networks or influencers (AMF). Advertising reaches many more people than creators do: 46% of Canadians with savings or investments had seen an investment opportunity advertised on social media in March 2024, 71% of those aged 18 to 24 (Canadian Securities Administrators), and 72% of Australians aged 18 to 28 had seen social media ads urging them to buy crypto in the past year (ASIC).
Do people who follow finance creators know more, or lose more?
In U.S. survey data they score lower on knowledge and report losing money to fraud more often. In the FINRA Foundation's 2024 investor survey, investors who use social media for investment decisions answered 42% of an investment-knowledge quiz correctly, against 47% for those who do not (FINRA Foundation). The Foundation's 2026 brief on the same survey adds that although these investors averaged 42%, 63% rated their own investment knowledge as high (FINRA Foundation). Among investors who had been targeted by investment fraud, 68% to 69% of social media users and finfluencer followers said they lost money, against 26% to 29% of non-users and non-followers (FINRA Foundation). Social media investors also cited entertainment as a reason to invest far more often, 59% against 18% (FINRA Foundation), and consulted more sources, an average of 7.6 against 4.0 (FINRA Foundation). These are associations in one survey, not proof that following creators causes losses.
An experiment points to a direct effect on buying. In a 2024 experiment published in April 2025, the Ontario Securities Commission showed Canadian social media users simulated finance posts promoting an asset: nearly 24% of those who saw the posts bought it, against about 7% of those who did not (Ontario Securities Commission). The final sample was 1,465 people after attention checks (Ontario Securities Commission). In the OSC's survey fielded in August 2023, about 40% of Canadian retail investors called the finfluencers they follow trustworthy (Ontario Securities Commission), and 83% believed finfluencers want to grow their brand and profit (Ontario Securities Commission).
Trust splits by age. Only 25% of Australians aged 29 and over would trust finfluencers for information about managing money, against 52% of those aged 18 to 28, in ASIC's late-2025 survey (ASIC). In India, the CFA Institute found that 14% of finfluencer followers over 40 who acted on the advice said they had been duped, 8% across all ages, in March 2024 (CFA Institute). In Australia, 29% of crypto holders aged 18 to 28 said they trade short term on social media or influencer tips (ASIC).
Fraud reports point the same way. Consumers told the FTC they lost $2.1 billion to scams that started on social media in 2025, more than through any other contact method (Federal Trade Commission), and investment scams were the largest part: $1.1 billion (Federal Trade Commission). Across all contact methods, reported investment-scam losses reached $7.9 billion in 2025 (Federal Trade Commission), with a median loss above $10,000 (Federal Trade Commission). Complaints to the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center put 2025 investment-fraud losses at $8,648,617,756 (FBI IC3), from 72,984 complaints (FBI IC3). These are reported losses, and only some began with a creator or a post.
What does research say about the quality of finfluencer content?
The largest study found more creators whose calls lose money than make it. Kakhbod, Kazempour, Livdan and Schürhoff scored over 29,000 finfluencers on StockTwits, using tweets from 2013 to 2017, against later returns (Kakhbod et al.). They classed 28% as skilled, with advice earning 2.6% monthly abnormal returns (Kakhbod et al.), and 56% as "antiskilled": following them lost 2.3% a month (Kakhbod et al.). The December 2024 revision puts the antiskilled share at 55% (Kakhbod et al., 2024 revision). Trading against the antiskilled earned 1.2% a month out of sample (Kakhbod et al.). The data are StockTwits posts, not videos.
Crypto influencers show a short pop and a longer fall. A Review of Accounting Studies paper examined about 36,000 tweets by 180 crypto influencers in the two years to December 2022 (Review of Accounting Studies). Prices rose 1.83% on average the day after a tweet, but the average cumulative return 30 days later was -6.53% (Review of Accounting Studies), and the authors report -18.90% at 90 days (Oxford Business Law Blog). About 58% of the tweets came from influencers who call themselves experts (Review of Accounting Studies).
On YouTube specifically, Bradshaw, Koo and Zhao hand-collected 7,417 videos from 79 financial YouTube channels posted from 2014 to 2021 (Bradshaw, Koo and Zhao); 73% of the channels posted disclaimers, and stock reactions were smaller to videos that carried one (Bradshaw, Koo and Zhao). The paper is a conference draft. On a Nordic social-trading platform, following a finfluencer raised a follower's portfolio overlap with that creator by 3.8 percentage points (Hull and Qi), in data on 5,735,004 trades (Hull and Qi). On Reddit, a 2021 working paper found WallStreetBets "buy" posts were followed by a 1.1% two-day return, and its 2024 published version found that predictive power gone after the GameStop squeeze (Bradley et al.).
Content reviews keep finding missing disclosures. The CFA Institute reviewed 110 pieces of finfluencer investing content from the U.S., U.K. and France in early 2023 (CFA Institute): only 25% carried a disclosure such as a marketing or conflict-of-interest statement (CFA Institute), 27% carried affiliate links, mostly to trading apps (CFA Institute), and of the 35 that made investment recommendations, 20% disclosed anything (CFA Institute). On YouTube, 76% of the reviewed content contained investment promotions, against 24% on Instagram and 14% on TikTok (CFA Institute). The sample is small and not random, and the CFA Institute sells credentials.
A 2026 study of 13,215 TikTok videos by 71 U.K. finfluencers, posted April to September 2024, found only 215 with disclaimer language (Newcastle University and co-authors), and only two creators with a bio saying the content was not financial advice (Newcastle University and co-authors). Side-hustle and entrepreneurship content made up 6,447 of the videos, ahead of trading (Newcastle University and co-authors). It is a preprint (arXiv).
Earlier work found the same gap across all products. A Princeton study of 515,999 YouTube videos collected in 2018 found about 10% of those with affiliate links disclosed them (Mathur, Narayanan and Chetty); it covers every product category, not only finance. The Dutch AFM's 2021 review of about 150 Dutch investing finfluencers, with 1,162,000 followers between them, found 120 gave investment tips (AFM) and 50 sold or offered courses (AFM). The European Commission's 2023 sweep of 576 influencers in every sector found 20% consistently disclosed commercial posts as advertising (European Commission) and 38% did not use platform labels (European Commission); 62% were flagged for further checks (European Commission).
How do U.S. regulators police paid promotion by finance creators?
Mainly through the SEC's anti-touting rule and the FTC's endorsement rules. Section 17(b) of the Securities Act requires anyone paid to promote a security to disclose the payment, and the SEC's best-known cases are against celebrities who promoted crypto tokens on social media. The largest, against Kim Kardashian in October 2022, totaled $1.26 million in penalties, disgorgement and interest (SEC); she had been paid $250,000 for one Instagram post (SEC).
SEC touting case (settled)
Date
Undisclosed payment found
Agreed to pay
Floyd Mayweather Jr. and DJ Khaled, coin offerings (SEC)
Six celebrities promoting Justin Sun's tokens (SEC)
March 2023
Not disclosed
More than $400,000 combined
The March 2023 case charged eight celebrities, including Lindsay Lohan, Jake Paul and Akon (SEC). Self-styled traders have been charged too. In December 2022 the SEC alleged that eight people used Twitter and Discord to pump stocks they held, making about $100 million (SEC); seven of them had marketed themselves as successful traders to hundreds of thousands of followers (SEC). These are allegations. For scale, the SEC filed 784 enforcement actions of every kind in fiscal 2023 (SEC) and 583 in fiscal 2024 (SEC).
The FTC's Endorsement Guides apply to every paid post. The FTC finalized its revised guides on June 29, 2023, the first revision since 2009 (Federal Trade Commission), and added 40 questions to its guidance FAQ, including how influencers should disclose across platforms (Federal Trade Commission). For video, the FTC says the disclosure belongs in the video itself, not only in the description (Federal Trade Commission). On YouTube that is a stricter standard than the description-only offers our read counted above.
State and futures regulators are active as well. NASAA warned investors about finfluencers on August 9, 2022 (NASAA). State securities regulators opened 175 investigations involving social media fraud in 2024 (NASAA). In NASAA's March 2025 survey, regulators put long-form video platforms such as YouTube and Vimeo at 14.1% of the platforms scammers commonly use to reach victims, and short-form video such as TikTok and Reels at 19.0% (NASAA). FINRA's 2021 sweep of broker-dealers' influencer programs asked about paid influencer communications from January 1, 2020 onward (FINRA). The CFTC's largest-ever penalty order, $1,733,838,372 in restitution plus an equal penalty against Mirror Trading International's founder in April 2023, followed a scheme that recruited at least 23,000 people partly through Facebook, Instagram and YouTube (CFTC) (CFTC).
How do regulators outside the U.S. police finfluencers?
With criminal cases, coordinated sweeps and takedown requests. The UK is the clearest case. In February 2026, seven influencers were sentenced at Southwark Crown Court after pleading guilty to promoting an unauthorised trading scheme on Instagram (Financial Conduct Authority); they had a combined following of 4.5 million (Financial Conduct Authority), and the largest fine was £3,750 plus costs (Financial Conduct Authority). The offence carries up to 2 years in prison (Financial Conduct Authority).
Regulators now act together. The first international week of action against unlawful finfluencers, led by the FCA in June 2025, involved nine regulators (Financial Conduct Authority); the second, in April 2026, involved 17 (ASIC). In IOSCO's survey of securities regulators for its May 2025 finfluencer report, 30 out of 34 agreed finfluencers can raise risks for investors (IOSCO), and only four had seen no fraudulent finfluencer activity (IOSCO).
Combined subscriptions of the finfluencers it contacted in June 2025
More than one million
The French counts cover influencers in every sector, not only finance. Spain's CNMV also found one case of a finfluencer promoting a "boiler room" firm it had already warned about (CNMV). The Dutch AFM's 2021 review, above, is one of the few with a full census of a country's investing finfluencers.
What do YouTube, TikTok and Meta allow finance creators and advertisers to do?
Paid finance promotion is allowed on YouTube with restrictions, limited by country on TikTok, and screened hardest in ads. Google, which owns YouTube, blocked or removed 327.8M ads under its Financial Services policy in 2025 (Google), up from 193.7M in 2024 (Google), and restricted another 273.4M (Google). In 2023 it had blocked or removed 273.4M (Google). Across all policies it suspended 24.9M advertiser accounts in 2025 (Google).
Financial advertisers on Google must prove they are licensed, country by country. Enforcement began in the United Kingdom on September 6, 2021 (Google), Australia on August 30, 2022 (Google), France and several other markets on January 24, 2023 (Google) and New Zealand on November 7, 2024 (Google); 2026 waves added the Netherlands on July 23, 2026 (Google) and Poland on September 15, 2026 (Google). In the U.S., Google bans ads for personal loans with an APR of 36% or more (Google).
Policies in this section are as read on November 1, 2026. For creators, YouTube's Partner Program opens ad revenue at 1,000 subscribers plus 4,000 watch hours in a year or 10 million Shorts views (YouTube), and fan funding and Shopping at 500 subscribers (YouTube). YouTube's branded-content policy lists Financial Services among restricted categories for paid promotions (YouTube). Alphabet reported YouTube ad revenue of $40,367 million in 2025 (Alphabet), without a finance breakdown.
TikTok is stricter with creators. Its branded-content policy limits creators' paid financial-services content to viewers aged 18 years and older in markets including the U.S. and U.K. (TikTok), lists it as not allowed at all in a second set of markets including the Netherlands (TikTok), and bans some products everywhere, including pyramid schemes and payday loans (TikTok). In TikTok ads in the U.S. and Canada, single securities cannot be advertised at all (TikTok).
Meta removed over 159 million scam ads in 2025, 92% before anyone reported them (Meta), and took down 10.9 million Facebook and Instagram accounts tied to criminal scam centers (Meta), up from over two million in 2024 (Meta). Meta bars ads for loans of 90 days or less (Meta). X prohibits ads for high-risk products including binary options and penny stocks (X).
What the popular finfluencer numbers really say
A handful of finfluencer statistics circulate through bank blogs, fintech marketing and news stories. We traced each to the organization that produced it.
"52% of Gen Z get financial advice from TikTok"
True only of a narrower group. Kiplinger wrote that 52% of Gen Zers get financial advice from TikTok (Kiplinger). The source is a June 2021 Qualtrics survey for Credit Karma of 1,042 U.S. adults aged 18 to 40 (Credit Karma), in which 52% of the Gen Z respondents who seek personal-finance advice online or on social media said they go to TikTok for it (Credit Karma). The often-paired "56%" is the share of Gen Z and millennials together, aged 18 to 40, who seek advice online at all: 56% (Credit Karma). Credit Karma sells financial products. Use instead: the FINRA Foundation's 2024 figure that 61% of U.S. investors aged 18 to 34 base investment decisions on finfluencer recommendations at least sometimes, with its survey named.
"76% of Gen Z seek financial advice on social media"
The 76% is advice from any source. The Philadelphia Fed wrote in March 2025 that a 2023 Bankrate survey showed 76% of Gen Z "seeking financial advice through social media" (Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia), and The Financial Brand said reliance on social media "jumps to 76%" among Gen Z (The Financial Brand). In Bankrate's YouGov survey of 2,391 U.S. adults in November 2023 (Bankrate), 76% of Gen Z adults (ages 18 to 26) sought financial advice from any source in 2023 (Bankrate). Of those who sought advice, 49% of Gen Z named social media as a source (Bankrate). Use instead:49% of Gen Z advice-seekers used social media (Bankrate, 2023), and say it is a vendor survey.
"Two thirds of finfluencer videos are misleading"
From a stock-research company that counted a missing disclaimer as misleading. YPulse reported in January 2024 that nearly two out of three stock-related TikTok videos give inaccurate or false information (YPulse), quoting 63%. The study is WallStreetZen's: it rated 63% of 1,089 TikTok videos from stock hashtags as misleading under its own criteria, one of which was having no disclaimer (WallStreetZen). WallStreetZen sells stock-research subscriptions. A September 2026 study by Legalaes, a compliance consultancy, put the share at 29% of 1,764 short finance videos on four platforms (Legalaes), a figure ITWeb repeated as 29% (ITWeb). Use instead: name the study, its definition of "misleading" and its sample; for disclosure, the CFA Institute's 25% of 110 pieces of content (above).
"70% of finfluencers have no qualifications"
The studies measured what creators state, not what they hold. Euronews reported in August 2026 that more than 70% of the creators of 150 popular TikTok finance videos showed no clear qualifications (Euronews), and a blog turned that into "70% of TikTok financial gurus lack qualifications" (drmattlynch.com). The source, BrokerListings.com, a broker-comparison site, found that 74% of the 150 videos did not clearly state professional qualifications (BrokerListings.com), and that 61% mixed advice with broker mentions, product plugs, affiliate links or course sales (BrokerListings.com). Other vendor studies put stated qualifications at 2.2% of 1,266 creators (Legalaes) and 0.8% of 493 (WallStreetZen). None checked a license register. In our own read, 7 of 58 large YouTube finance channels state a credential.
"Reddit sent GameStop up 2,000%"
The size depends on the dates, and the SEC did not measure Reddit's share. CBS News reported in January 2021 that the trading sent GameStop up "nearly 2,000%" at one point (CBS News). SEC staff measured about 2,700% from the January 8 intraday low to the January 28 intraday high (SEC), and more than 1,600% from close to close, January 11 to January 27 (SEC). Average daily volume from January 13 to 29 was up over 1,400% on 2020 (SEC), and on January 22 alone the price rose 71% in about three hours (SEC). The number of accounts trading the stock jumped from 9,220 to 60,515 in one day (SEC). Short interest reached 122.97% of float, but staff found short sellers' buying to cover was a small fraction of buy volume (SEC). Use instead: the SEC's 1,600% close-to-close figure with its dates, and say the report describes heavy online discussion without measuring its effect.
"One Elon Musk tweet moved Dogecoin 17%"
For one hour. Decrypt reported in February 2021 that Musk's tweets produced abnormal returns of up to 17.31% for Dogecoin (Decrypt). In Blockchain Research Lab's event study, the "One word: Doge" tweet produced cumulative abnormal returns of 8.17% over five minutes, peaking at 17.31% over one hour (Blockchain Research Lab). The peer-reviewed version, on 47 Musk events, found single tweets moved Bitcoin by up to 16.9% (Technological Forecasting and Social Change). Use instead: say "up to 17.31% within an hour of one tweet, in a 2021 working paper".
"#FinTok has 1.4 billion views"
That count was for a different hashtag. The Philadelphia Fed wrote that #fintok content passed 1.4 billion views (Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia), citing The Guardian of July 10, 2021, which gave 1.4 billion for #stocktok and 4.4bn for #personalfinance (The Guardian). Later pages give 5.1 billion for #personalfinance with no date or source (Pioneer Federal Credit Union) and YPulse, in January 2024, 3.5b for #stocktok (YPulse). Hashtag view counts are platform snapshots. Use instead: a dated count with its hashtag, or none.
"Gen Z trusts TikTok influencers more than financial advisers"
The survey asked about "better advice", and providers came out ahead. In a September 2022 survey of 1,000 U.K. 18-to-24-year-olds for Pay.UK's Current Account Switch Service (Pay.UK), 40% said TikTok influencers give better advice than traditional media, and 26% better than their financial provider (Pay.UK). 58% followed TikTok influencers who talk about money (Pay.UK). Use instead:26% of young U.K. adults rated TikTok influencers' advice above their financial provider's (2022).
"The finfluencer market is worth $104 billion"
No sizing study behind it. YPulse wrote in August 2022 that TikTok and YouTube finfluencers hold an estimated market size of $104 billion (YPulse), attributing it to a World Economic Forum opinion piece by a fintech executive. We found no study that sizes a finfluencer market. Use instead: nothing; no measured figure exists.
One more correction concerns age bands, not origins. ASIC's often-quoted figure that a third of young Australians follow a finfluencer applies to 18-to-21-year-olds: 33% in its 2021 Young People and Money survey (ASIC), not to all young people.
We started from the questions people search for about finance creator video statistics and looked for the organization that actually produced each answer. Every figure on this page sits in an evidence ledger with its source, the exact table or paragraph it came from, the measurement period, the population measured, and the date we checked it. This edition holds 223 figures from 57 publishers.
On November 1, 2026, each of the sourced figures on this page was re-fetched with the fetch cache cleared and matched against the recorded wording: FINRA Investor Education Foundation reports, CFA Institute and CFP Board surveys, Pew Research Center, SEC press releases and staff reports, FTC data spotlights and releases, FBI IC3 annual reports, NASAA, FINRA and CFTC releases, the FCA, ASIC, AMF (France and Québec), AFM, CNMV, CySEC, CSA, OSC, IOSCO, SEBI's parliamentary answer and the Hong Kong SFC, Google's Ads Safety Reports and policy pages, YouTube, TikTok, Meta and X policy pages, Alphabet's 10-K, the academic papers, and the original pages behind each popular claim. ftc.gov, finra.org, DGCCRF, Bankrate, Credit Karma, Meta's Transparency Center and X's help center refuse scripts, so those rows were read through Internet Archive captures; YPulse answered the final pass with a bot wall, so its two rows were re-read in a headless browser the same day. Our own figures come from the YouTube Data API on the same day. We left out Bankrate's and Credit Karma's current pages (blocked), TikTok's enforcement figures (loaded only by script), a World Economic Forum opinion piece (blocked) and SEBI takedown counts that appear only in press quotes.
We only cite the producer: government agencies, regulators, company filings and official posts, and the survey owner's own report. We do not cite statistics roundups, Statista-style aggregators, or salary sites without a public method. We did not bypass paywalls or sign-up forms; where a full report was gated, we used only the figures its publisher states publicly.
Figures marked "our calculation" are arithmetic on the cited numbers, and anyone can reproduce them:
This edition contains no Mark Studios customer data.
Limitations
Our channel sample is not all finance creators. It is the 58 channels with 100,000+ subscribers behind the most-viewed results for eight finance searches in U.S. YouTube, after a title screen and hand exclusions; 15 are based in India and 23 in the U.S.
The paid-promotion label is self-declared. It counts videos creators marked as paid, not every paid deal; affiliate and disclaimer counts come from word matching on descriptions, and busy channels weigh more in pooled shares.
Surveys ask different questions. 'Used social media for investing information', 'follow a finfluencer' and 'made a decision because of one' are not the same measure, and age bands and countries differ, so the shares are not comparable across rows.
Several survey owners sell into the market. The CFA Institute and CFP Board certify professionals; Credit Karma, Bankrate, WallStreetZen, Legalaes and BrokerListings sell financial or compliance products.
Some research is unpublished. The Kakhbod et al., Bradshaw et al., Hull and Qi, and U.K. TikTok studies are working papers or preprints, and the largest skill study uses StockTwits posts from 2013 to 2017, not videos.
Fraud figures are reported losses. FTC and IC3 counts come from complaints, and only some began with a creator or a post.
How to cite this page
For a single figure, cite the original publisher named next to it, and link here if the verification trail is useful to your readers. Each figure has its own anchor, so you can link straight to it, for example https://www.markstudios.com/research/finance-creator-video-statistics#DRV-003. To cite the page as a whole:
Mark Studios. "Finance Creator Video Statistics." Last verified Nov 1, 2026. https://www.markstudios.com/research/finance-creator-video-statistics
APA
Mark Studios. (2026, November 1). Finance creator video statistics. https://www.markstudios.com/research/finance-creator-video-statistics
MLA
“Finance Creator Video Statistics.” Mark Studios, 1 Nov. 2026, www.markstudios.com/research/finance-creator-video-statistics.
Chicago
Mark Studios. “Finance Creator Video Statistics.” Last modified November 1, 2026. https://www.markstudios.com/research/finance-creator-video-statistics.
BibTeX
@misc{markstudios_finance_creator_video_statistics_2026,
author = {{Mark Studios}},
title = {{Finance Creator Video Statistics}},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
url = {https://www.markstudios.com/research/finance-creator-video-statistics},
note = {Last verified 2026-11-01}
}
Our calculations and the evidence table are free to reuse with attribution and a link to this page. Each underlying figure remains the claim of its original publisher, and some publishers ask for a link when their figures are reused.
European Commission and national Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) authorities, Sweeps (2023 – sweep on influencers) (2024-02-14). Accessed 2026-11-01.
We re-verify every figure quarterly and when a major source publishes a new edition. The next scheduled review is February 2027. Corrections go to contact@markstudios.com.
Nov 1, 2026: First published with 223 figures from 57 publishers, each checked against its original source.
Frequently asked questions
How do finance creators use YouTube?
Mostly with Shorts, plus long explainers. In our read of 58 large finance channels, 63.9% of the videos published in the 12 months to October 31, 2026 were Shorts, and the median long-form video ran 926 seconds.
How many people get financial advice from finfluencers?
In the U.S., 41% of investors used social media for investment decisions in 2024, according to the FINRA Investor Education Foundation, and 61% of investors aged 18 to 34 said they base decisions on finfluencer recommendations at least sometimes.
Do finance YouTubers disclose sponsorships?
Some do, mostly on long videos. In our read, 19.5% of long-form videos and 0.8% of Shorts from 58 large finance channels carried YouTube's paid-promotion label. The FTC says a video's disclosure should be in the video itself, not only the description.
Is it true that 52% of Gen Z get financial advice from TikTok?
Only among Gen Z who already seek advice online. In Credit Karma's June 2021 survey, 52% of those Gen Z respondents said they use TikTok for it.
Can finfluencers be fined for undisclosed promotions?
Yes. The SEC's anti-touting rule requires paid promoters of securities to disclose payment; Kim Kardashian agreed to pay $1.26 million in 2022 over an undisclosed paid Instagram post about a crypto token.
Are finfluencers' stock picks any good?
On average, many are not. A study of over 29,000 StockTwits finfluencers classed 28% as skilled and 56% as having negative skill, meaning following them lost money.
Which regulators are cracking down on finfluencers?
Many. The second international week of action against unlawful finfluencers in April 2026 involved 17 regulators, and in February 2026 seven UK influencers were sentenced for promoting an unauthorised trading scheme.
