你的数字邻居是一个可靠的投资顾问吗?

Daisuke Kawai, A. Cuevas, Bryan R. Routledge, K. Soska, Ariel Zetlin-Jones, Nicolas Christin
{"title":"你的数字邻居是一个可靠的投资顾问吗?","authors":"Daisuke Kawai, A. Cuevas, Bryan R. Routledge, K. Soska, Ariel Zetlin-Jones, Nicolas Christin","doi":"10.1145/3543507.3583502","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The web and social media platforms have drastically changed how investors produce and consume financial advice. Historically, individual investors were often relying on newsletters and related prospectus backed by the reputation and track record of their issuers. Nowadays, financial advice is frequently offered online, by anonymous or pseudonymous parties with little at stake. As such, a natural question is to investigate whether these modern financial “influencers” operate in good faith, or whether they might be misleading their followers intentionally. To start answering this question, we obtained data from a very large cryptocurrency derivatives exchange, from which we derived individual trading positions. Some of the investors on that platform elect to link to their Twitter profiles. We were thus able to compare the positions publicly espoused on Twitter with those actually taken in the market. We discovered that 1) staunchly “bullish” investors on Twitter often took much more moderate, if not outright opposite, positions in their own trades when the market was down, 2) their followers tended to align their positions with bullish Twitter outlooks, and 3) moderate voices on Twitter (and their own followers) were on the other hand far more consistent with their actual investment strategies. In other words, while social media advice may attempt to foster a sense of camaraderie among people of like-minded beliefs, the reality is that this is merely an illusion, which may result in financial losses for people blindly following advice.","PeriodicalId":296351,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is your digital neighbor a reliable investment advisor?\",\"authors\":\"Daisuke Kawai, A. Cuevas, Bryan R. Routledge, K. Soska, Ariel Zetlin-Jones, Nicolas Christin\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3543507.3583502\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The web and social media platforms have drastically changed how investors produce and consume financial advice. Historically, individual investors were often relying on newsletters and related prospectus backed by the reputation and track record of their issuers. Nowadays, financial advice is frequently offered online, by anonymous or pseudonymous parties with little at stake. As such, a natural question is to investigate whether these modern financial “influencers” operate in good faith, or whether they might be misleading their followers intentionally. To start answering this question, we obtained data from a very large cryptocurrency derivatives exchange, from which we derived individual trading positions. Some of the investors on that platform elect to link to their Twitter profiles. We were thus able to compare the positions publicly espoused on Twitter with those actually taken in the market. We discovered that 1) staunchly “bullish” investors on Twitter often took much more moderate, if not outright opposite, positions in their own trades when the market was down, 2) their followers tended to align their positions with bullish Twitter outlooks, and 3) moderate voices on Twitter (and their own followers) were on the other hand far more consistent with their actual investment strategies. In other words, while social media advice may attempt to foster a sense of camaraderie among people of like-minded beliefs, the reality is that this is merely an illusion, which may result in financial losses for people blindly following advice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":296351,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023\",\"volume\":\"54 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3543507.3583502\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3543507.3583502","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

网络和社交媒体平台极大地改变了投资者提供和消费理财建议的方式。从历史上看,个人投资者往往依赖于以发行人的声誉和业绩为基础的通讯和相关招股说明书。如今,金融建议经常由匿名或假名人士在网上提供,没有什么风险。因此,一个自然的问题是调查这些现代金融“影响者”是否真诚地运作,或者他们是否有意误导他们的追随者。为了回答这个问题,我们从一个非常大的加密货币衍生品交易所获得了数据,从中我们得出了个人交易头寸。该平台上的一些投资者选择链接到他们的Twitter个人资料。因此,我们能够比较Twitter上公开支持的立场与市场上实际采取的立场。我们发现,1)当市场下跌时,Twitter上坚定的“看涨”投资者往往在自己的交易中采取更温和的立场,如果不是完全相反的话;2)他们的追随者倾向于将他们的立场与看涨Twitter的前景保持一致;3)另一方面,Twitter上温和的声音(以及他们自己的追随者)与他们实际的投资策略更加一致。换句话说,虽然社交媒体的建议可能试图在志同道合的人之间培养一种同志感,但现实是,这只是一种错觉,这可能会导致盲目听从建议的人遭受经济损失。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Is your digital neighbor a reliable investment advisor?
The web and social media platforms have drastically changed how investors produce and consume financial advice. Historically, individual investors were often relying on newsletters and related prospectus backed by the reputation and track record of their issuers. Nowadays, financial advice is frequently offered online, by anonymous or pseudonymous parties with little at stake. As such, a natural question is to investigate whether these modern financial “influencers” operate in good faith, or whether they might be misleading their followers intentionally. To start answering this question, we obtained data from a very large cryptocurrency derivatives exchange, from which we derived individual trading positions. Some of the investors on that platform elect to link to their Twitter profiles. We were thus able to compare the positions publicly espoused on Twitter with those actually taken in the market. We discovered that 1) staunchly “bullish” investors on Twitter often took much more moderate, if not outright opposite, positions in their own trades when the market was down, 2) their followers tended to align their positions with bullish Twitter outlooks, and 3) moderate voices on Twitter (and their own followers) were on the other hand far more consistent with their actual investment strategies. In other words, while social media advice may attempt to foster a sense of camaraderie among people of like-minded beliefs, the reality is that this is merely an illusion, which may result in financial losses for people blindly following advice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
CurvDrop: A Ricci Curvature Based Approach to Prevent Graph Neural Networks from Over-Smoothing and Over-Squashing Learning to Simulate Crowd Trajectories with Graph Networks Word Sense Disambiguation by Refining Target Word Embedding Curriculum Graph Poisoning Optimizing Guided Traversal for Fast Learned Sparse Retrieval
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1