立即打开
什么是游戏化交易,对股市有何影响?

什么是游戏化交易,对股市有何影响?

Erik Gordon 2021年08月03日
年轻一代自己找到了这样一款能够吸引他们的“股市游戏”,不仅融合了传统交易方式的特点,还加入了当今的应用科技。

图片来源:Jakub Porzycki—NurPhoto via Getty Images

作为一家号称以“金融民主化”为己任的企业,罗宾汉(Robinhood)已于美东时间7月29日正式在纳斯达克上市。该公司的客户多为初入股市的年轻交易者,传统交易者对后者“游戏股市”的行事风格常常嗤之以鼻。

虽然有些人对“千禧一代”和“Z世代”交易习惯的批评不无道理,但我必须承认,这些年轻人“游戏股市”的做法无论对他们自己还是对股市整体而言都是一件好事。

之所以说游戏化交易风格利好市场,是因为它能吸引新一代交易者参与到市场中来。如果没有新鲜血液的不断补充,那么高净值个人投资者终有一天将从市场上消失。不用多想,就是字面意思。

但想要吸引千禧一代和Z世代进入股市并不是件容易的事。他们的想法太多,又太容易分心。甚至广告商和学校里的教授都在为如何才能打动他们而烦心不已。为了达到吸引他们的目的,我们尝试了实战模拟、基于行动的学习和翻转课堂等多种方法,有些人甚至祭出了“游戏化”的方法。

而游戏化也确实是少数有效的方法之一。想让年轻人对投资组合理论、估值模型或阅读年报产生兴趣无疑极为困难,但如果你能开发出一款像第一人称射击游戏、赛车游戏或愤怒的小鸟那样有趣的游戏,那么你就有机会了。

幸运的是,年轻一代自己找到了这样一款能够吸引他们的“股市游戏”,不仅融合了传统交易方式的特点,还加入了当今的应用科技,并且不收手续费,让他们能够跳上炒股的大潮,追逐热门股票,跟随大势,乘势而为。

就像他们的祖父辈观看路易斯•卢吉塞尔(Louis Rukeyser)主持的华尔街周报(Wall Street Week)时购买被嘉宾炒作的股票、或者父辈在吉姆•克莱默(Jim Cramer)点击按键,高喊“买!买!买!”时所做的那样,交易应用只是让这场游戏变得更快捷、更有趣了而已。而零佣金又大大降低了交易成本。

有些人难免要鸡蛋里挑骨头,指责游戏型交易者对市场造成了负面影响,还煞有介事的提出了许多所谓“需要解决的问题”。第一个问题是,游戏型交易者并非真正的投资者。说的没错。但日内交易者和高频交易者同样算不上真正的投资者。他们还指出,游戏型交易者在购买股票时对公司的经济状况漠不关心。同样没错。但那些跟着图表模式变化进行买卖操作的技术交易者又何尝不是如此?

有人说,游戏型交易者扭曲了股价的真实价值。假设所谓“真实价值”确实存在,那么他们说的也没错。但那些买入特斯拉、规避深度价值股票的机构投资者与之有何差别?还有人批评游戏型交易者操纵了股票的价格。对部分游戏型交易者来说,确实如此。但那些在CNBC、彭博(Bloomberg)电视节目上大谈投资观点的CEO和基金经理也是如此。

要说这些年轻人真对市场造成了什么“负面影响”,那就是业余的年轻交易者赚了大钱,而享受高薪的所谓专业人士却承受了相当损失。这种批评倒也不无道理,但话说回来,如果自己这么轻易就被新手甩在了后面,那么这些专业人士或许应该反思的是自己出了什么问题。

游戏化交易不仅有利于市场,也有利于这些交易者本身,他们可以通过“游戏股市”的方式来不断学习。他们会发现,有时很容易就能赚到钱,有时则不然。他们会感受到赚钱的兴奋和损失真金白银的痛苦。仅仅研究风险或查看模拟交易亏损并不能让你切实体验到这种亏损的痛苦。

游戏型交易者最终会发现自己并不像自我感觉的那样出类拔萃。他们会发现,自己还有很多东西需要学习。这是一种很好的结果。

许多人会发现自己并不适合“游戏股市”,转而通过基金或顾问进行投资。这也是很理想的结果。

只有无法让下一代对股市产生兴趣才是糟糕的结果。如果想获得年轻人的参与,就必须用能令其接受的方式来吸引他们。而对于千禧一代和Z世代来说,这种方式就是游戏。如果游戏化交易能够促使他们进入市场,那么我对此完全支持。(财富中文网)

埃里克•戈登,密歇根大学罗斯商学院(University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business)教授,主要研究金融市场、并购、公司治理和企业家精神。

译者:梁宇

审校:夏林

作为一家号称以“金融民主化”为己任的企业,罗宾汉(Robinhood)已于美东时间7月29日正式在纳斯达克上市。该公司的客户多为初入股市的年轻交易者,传统交易者对后者“游戏股市”的行事风格常常嗤之以鼻。

虽然有些人对“千禧一代”和“Z世代”交易习惯的批评不无道理,但我必须承认,这些年轻人“游戏股市”的做法无论对他们自己还是对股市整体而言都是一件好事。

之所以说游戏化交易风格利好市场,是因为它能吸引新一代交易者参与到市场中来。如果没有新鲜血液的不断补充,那么高净值个人投资者终有一天将从市场上消失。不用多想,就是字面意思。

但想要吸引千禧一代和Z世代进入股市并不是件容易的事。他们的想法太多,又太容易分心。甚至广告商和学校里的教授都在为如何才能打动他们而烦心不已。为了达到吸引他们的目的,我们尝试了实战模拟、基于行动的学习和翻转课堂等多种方法,有些人甚至祭出了“游戏化”的方法。

而游戏化也确实是少数有效的方法之一。想让年轻人对投资组合理论、估值模型或阅读年报产生兴趣无疑极为困难,但如果你能开发出一款像第一人称射击游戏、赛车游戏或愤怒的小鸟那样有趣的游戏,那么你就有机会了。

幸运的是,年轻一代自己找到了这样一款能够吸引他们的“股市游戏”,不仅融合了传统交易方式的特点,还加入了当今的应用科技,并且不收手续费,让他们能够跳上炒股的大潮,追逐热门股票,跟随大势,乘势而为。

就像他们的祖父辈观看路易斯•卢吉塞尔(Louis Rukeyser)主持的华尔街周报(Wall Street Week)时购买被嘉宾炒作的股票、或者父辈在吉姆•克莱默(Jim Cramer)点击按键,高喊“买!买!买!”时所做的那样,交易应用只是让这场游戏变得更快捷、更有趣了而已。而零佣金又大大降低了交易成本。

有些人难免要鸡蛋里挑骨头,指责游戏型交易者对市场造成了负面影响,还煞有介事的提出了许多所谓“需要解决的问题”。第一个问题是,游戏型交易者并非真正的投资者。说的没错。但日内交易者和高频交易者同样算不上真正的投资者。他们还指出,游戏型交易者在购买股票时对公司的经济状况漠不关心。同样没错。但那些跟着图表模式变化进行买卖操作的技术交易者又何尝不是如此?

有人说,游戏型交易者扭曲了股价的真实价值。假设所谓“真实价值”确实存在,那么他们说的也没错。但那些买入特斯拉、规避深度价值股票的机构投资者与之有何差别?还有人批评游戏型交易者操纵了股票的价格。对部分游戏型交易者来说,确实如此。但那些在CNBC、彭博(Bloomberg)电视节目上大谈投资观点的CEO和基金经理也是如此。

要说这些年轻人真对市场造成了什么“负面影响”,那就是业余的年轻交易者赚了大钱,而享受高薪的所谓专业人士却承受了相当损失。这种批评倒也不无道理,但话说回来,如果自己这么轻易就被新手甩在了后面,那么这些专业人士或许应该反思的是自己出了什么问题。

游戏化交易不仅有利于市场,也有利于这些交易者本身,他们可以通过“游戏股市”的方式来不断学习。他们会发现,有时很容易就能赚到钱,有时则不然。他们会感受到赚钱的兴奋和损失真金白银的痛苦。仅仅研究风险或查看模拟交易亏损并不能让你切实体验到这种亏损的痛苦。

游戏型交易者最终会发现自己并不像自我感觉的那样出类拔萃。他们会发现,自己还有很多东西需要学习。这是一种很好的结果。

许多人会发现自己并不适合“游戏股市”,转而通过基金或顾问进行投资。这也是很理想的结果。

只有无法让下一代对股市产生兴趣才是糟糕的结果。如果想获得年轻人的参与,就必须用能令其接受的方式来吸引他们。而对于千禧一代和Z世代来说,这种方式就是游戏。如果游戏化交易能够促使他们进入市场,那么我对此完全支持。(财富中文网)

埃里克•戈登,密歇根大学罗斯商学院(University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business)教授,主要研究金融市场、并购、公司治理和企业家精神。

译者:梁宇

审校:夏林

Robinhood, the company whose stated mission is to democratize finance, is expected to launch its IPO on Thursday. Its customer base is skewed toward young, first-time stock traders who are often derided for applying their gamer style to the market.

While there are valid criticisms of the habits of millennials and Gen Z, I have to admit that their gamification approach to the stock market is a good thing—both for them and for the market as a whole.

Gamification is good for the market because it gets the new generations engaged. If these generations aren’t interested in the market, the highly valued individual investor base will die out. Literally.

It is hard to get millennials and Gen Z engaged. They have lots of distractions and a lot on their minds. Advertisers agonize over how to reach them. So do professors. We try simulations, action-based learning, and flipped classrooms. A desperate few of us even try gamification.

Gamification is one of the few things that works. It’s hard to get young people interested in portfolio theory, valuation models, or reading 10-Ks, but if you come up with a game that is almost as engaging as a first-person shooter, car racing, or slinging birds at pigs, you have a chance.

Fortunately, the younger generations themselves came up with a stock market game that engages them. It’s a combination of some old games, played with today’s app technology and zero commissions. Their game is to jump on hyped, fad stocks and ride the momentum.

It’s just like their grandparents did when they watched Louis Rukeyser on the old and bought stock hyped by a guest. Or like their parents do when Jim Cramer hits his button that shouts “Buy! Buy! Buy!” Trading apps just make the game quicker and more fun. Zero commissions make it cheaper.

Folks who bellyache about the negative effect gamers have on the market raise some points that should be addressed. For one, the gamers are not investors. True. But neither are day and high-frequency traders. Critics also point out that gamers care little about the economics of the companies whose shares they buy. True. But neither do technical traders who buy and sell based on chart patterns.

Some say gamers distort share prices from their true value. True, to the extent that true value has any real definition. But so do institutional investors who buy Tesla and shun deep-value stocks. Another critique is that gamers manipulate the price of stocks. True, with respect to some gamers. But also true with respect to some CEOs and fund managers who talk their book on CNBC and Bloomberg.

The most accurate effect-on-the-market objection might be that there has to be something wrong with amateur youngsters making real money and inflicting losses on highly paid market professionals. Maybe. But then again, maybe there’s something wrong with the market pros if they’re so susceptible to being overtaken by newbies.

Gamification is good not only for the market, but also for the gamers. Gamers learn by playing. They learn that sometimes it is easy to make money, but not all of the time. They learn how to handle the rush of making money and the pain of losing real money. You can’t understand that pain by studying risk or looking at losses from paper trades.

The gamers will eventually see that they aren’t as good as they thought they were. They will see that they have a lot to learn. That is a good result.

Many of them will learn that they aren’t suited for playing the market. They will move on to invest via funds or an advisor. That, too, is a good result.

What isn’t a good result is to raise a generation that has no interest in the market. If you want young people to be engaged, you have to engage them on their terms. Millennials and Gen Z engage via games. If gamification motivates them to get started in the markets, I’m all for it.

Erik Gordon is a professor at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business, and follows financial markets, M&A, corporate governance, and entrepreneurship.

最新:
  • 热读文章
  • 热门视频
活动
扫码打开财富Plus App