Social Media Investing Tips: Vetting Finfluencers
Most investors under 35 use social media for financial information, so the key task is checking credentials and conflicts before acting on a tip.
Social media has changed how many people find financial information and connect with other investors, and the practical question is no longer whether to ignore it but how to filter it. The clearest starting point: a majority of investors under 35 (60 percent) cite social media as an information source, and 61 percent of that age group follows financial influencers, or “finfluencers,” who create and share financial content and sometimes receive compensation for doing so. Both figures come from the FINRA Foundation's 2025 National Financial Capability Study Investor Report.
For a reader who already holds crypto, gold and US equities, this matters less as a warning about one product than as a screening habit. The same channels that surface a meme stock can surface a token, a gold proxy or a leveraged ETF. The verification steps are similar across asset types.
What the numbers actually say
The survey findings are specific to an age group and a self-reported behavior. Among investors under 35 surveyed by the FINRA Foundation, 29 percent report purchasing meme stocks or other viral investments. Meme stocks are described as investments that gain popularity primarily based on social media sentiment.
Two limits are worth stating plainly. First, these are survey responses, not portfolio records. Second, reliance on social media is not confined to younger investors: investors of all ages report using it as an information source, even though younger investors rely on it to a greater degree.
Read together, the figures describe a broad information channel with uneven quality control. A 60 percent information-source share says nothing about accuracy. A 29 percent purchase share says nothing about outcomes, holding periods or position sizes.
The verification task, step by step
If you use social media for investment information, the source lays out a sequence worth applying before any trade, whether the subject is a stock, a token or a commodity fund.
- Assess the person's qualifications. If you are taking tips from a celebrity or social media personality, consider that person's qualifications. Are they a registered financial professional? Do they have a verifiable financial degree or employment experience in the financial services field?
- Check claimed registrations. Verify those who tout registration or financial qualifications by using FINRA BrokerCheck or the SEC's Investment Adviser Public Disclosure database, and contact your state regulator. FINRA's Professional Designations Database can help research credentials promoters claim to hold.
- Ask about conflicts. Individuals who aren't registered financial professionals often aren't required to disclose conflicts of interest. Ask what they might gain by promoting a particular product or service, including potential compensation for the post itself or your engagement with it.
- Separate credentials from fit. Even those with legitimate credentials might not provide investment advice that fits your personal circumstances.
- Do not rely on one channel. Don't rely solely on social media for your investment advice.
Why conflicts matter more than credentials alone
Credentials answer a narrow question: is this person who they say they are? They do not answer whether the recommendation was shaped by something the poster did not disclose. The source notes that unregistered promoters often face no disclosure requirement, and that compensation may come from the post itself or from engagement with it.
That distinction is useful for a multi-asset holder because the incentive structure differs by product. A viral post about a small-cap stock, a new token or a niche fund can generate engagement regardless of whether the underlying asset suits the reader's existing exposure. The screening question is therefore not only “is this person qualified?” but “what does this post earn them, and does that change how I read it?”
A short worked habit
Consider a Hypothetical example. An investor sees a post promoting an unfamiliar asset and is considering moving 5 percent of a portfolio into it. Before acting, the investor checks the promoter's registration status, searches any claimed designation, and asks what compensation the promoter might receive. If the answers are unclear, the post stays in the “unverified” category rather than becoming an input to allocation.
The 5 percent figure is Hypothetical and is used only to show that position sizing is a separate decision from source credibility. A credible source does not automatically justify a large allocation, and an uncredited post does not become reliable because the asset is popular.
What the source does not say
- It does not provide performance data for meme stocks, viral investments or finfluencer recommendations.
- It does not quantify how many posts are compensated or how often conflicts go undisclosed.
- It does not give a survey sample size, margin of error or fielding dates beyond the 2025 report year.
- It does not compare social media influence across asset classes such as crypto, gold or equities.
- It does not state whether the 60 percent and 61 percent figures overlap or describe the same respondents.
Those gaps matter for interpretation. The source establishes that social media is a widely used information channel and that many young investors act on viral ideas. It does not establish that social media coverage improves or harms returns. Treat the findings as a reason to build a verification step into your process, not as evidence about any specific investment.
Sources
Informational only. Not financial, legal or investment advice. Check the primary sources listed above before you act on anything here.