The buying question in this sector is literally whether you are a scam.
No other category starts from there. When somebody asks an assistant about a broker, a lender or a fund, the engine reaches for complaint threads, warning lists and regulator notices, because that is where the discussion lives. A closed matter, a license that has since changed, or a name shared with a genuinely fraudulent operation all surface as current fact.
Check what AI says about us-
The question they ask
- Is [broker] a scam? Answered privately, to somebody who was about to move money.
-
What engines reach for
- Regulator notices, warning lists and complaint forums, well above your own site. Exactly the corner of the web you do not control.
-
The license problem
- Entity changes, jurisdiction moves and closed matters read as current unless the correction is as findable as the original.
-
Our proof
- FBS, NSFX and Arincen are published finance and forex engagements, including AI visibility measurement.
The question that decides it
Why the forex reputation playbook does not transfer
Everything a compliance-aware marketing team learned about search still applies to Google. Almost none of it applies here.
This is why we store every answer with its date from the first month. It is the only evidence base that will exist.
How we work in finance and forex
-
Baseline
Weeks 1 to 2
- Prompt set built around the trust question, not the brand question
- Run in every language and market where you take clients
- Regulator, warning list and complaint sources identified per market
- Every answer stored with prompt, engine, date and search state
-
Diagnosis
Weeks 2 to 4
- Each negative claim traced to the specific page or thread producing it
- Closed matters separated from live ones, with dates
- Shared-name and merged-entity risk assessed against similar operations
- Retrieval against training memory established for each claim
-
Source work
Weeks 4 to 12
- Current license and entity facts stated unambiguously and dated on your own pages
- Register and directory records corrected through the proper channels
- Resolutions published as findably as the original allegations
- Review platform profiles completed, since they carry weight here
-
Reporting
Monthly
- The trust prompt set re-run monthly, per engine and per market
- Before and after answer text shown side by side
- Anything still wrong reported as still wrong, with the reason
- In the portal, retained as an evidence trail
How we report it
Two clients, two completely different engine shapes
Forex and healthcare buyers ask different questions and the engines answer from different source pools. These are the counts for two published engagements.
Delta Medical Labs
5,570 pages cited across AI assistants, July 2026
Eduverse
171 pages cited across AI assistants, August 2026
- 89.1%of the sites ChatGPT cites, Perplexity never touches for the same questionWellows, 804,058 answers, Sept 2025 to May 2026
- 79.6%of sources appear on one engine only22.7M citations across 1,146,483 questions, 2026
- 46xgap in brand citation rate between ChatGPT at 0.59% and Perplexity at 13.05%Study of 34,234 AI responses, 2026
Delta’s AI Overview count is 27 times its ChatGPT count. Eduverse’s top and bottom engines sit 18 pages apart. Same agency, same method, opposite shapes. Any single score we quoted you would have described neither.
Check what AI says about usClient reviews
All reviewsThe finance prompt set
What we ask on a broker or lender engagement
This sector starts at the trust question rather than reaching it later. The set reflects that.
Is [broker] a scam
The first question, not the last. Engines reach for complaint threads and warning lists to answer it.
Is [broker] regulated, and where
Entity restructures and jurisdiction moves leave a trail of stale register entries.
Has [broker] had regulatory action
Closed matters read as current when the resolution was covered less than the action.
Best broker for [instrument]
The unnamed question, answered from roundups and forums rather than your site.
[Broker] vs [competitor]
Where a shared or similar name produces the most damaging confusion.
Can I withdraw from [broker]
The complaint-driven query. Where the source pool is almost entirely third-party.
FBS is a forex engagement we ran for more than six years, with the numbers published in full.
Related
Where finance work connects
Questions from finance and forex clients
No, and nobody can. There is no takedown form. What moves the answer is correcting and superseding the sources the engine reads, and making the current, accurate position easy to find and clearly dated.
Because the action was covered far more widely than the resolution was. The fix is to make the resolution as findable as the accusation, stated factually with its date, on pages engines can reach.
It is an entity resolution problem and it is solvable, though slowly. Structured data, registers and a single canonical identity across every listing are what separate you. Content alone will not do it.
No. We will decline the engagement and say why. In this sector that work creates a bigger problem than the one it is hiding.
FBS, NSFX and Arincen are published, and the FBS work includes AI visibility measurement against named competitors.
Yes. Any category where the buyer is deciding whether to trust you with money behaves the same way, including lenders, payment providers and investment platforms.
