[mtriassi]

Research like this does make me wonder about what percentage of anti skilled finfluencers are actually the malicious case rather than misguided. That is to say, the case where they peddle some position they know will do poorly and secure a short / contrary position themselves. That way they are effectively doubling how they can monetize their audience, once as ad-revenue, and a second by profiting from audience losses. It's probably impossible to control for something like that, but it's interesting to think about.

[dvt]

> It's probably impossible to control for something like that, but it's interesting to think about.

Not impossible at all, SEC has already started charging crypto influencers for peddling pump-and-dump schemes. Most shitcoins you'd see on TikTok/YouTube/Instagram (I'd wager 90%+) were purely P&D schemes, where influencers/founders would seed LPs, drive up liquidity, and then pull the rug.

[HFguy]

It would likely only work if the instrument being invested in was small and illiquid (i.e., that pumping it up would actually move the price). Otherwise it would be a waste of time.

I've really only heard of this in penny stocks which are illiquid.

This would not work in liquid markets like rates, fx or equity indexes.

[themagician]

Malice is, in many ways, a key ingredient to success in many spaces. While people will rarely admit it to others, many who are successful often operate knowing that wealth is something you take not something you make. The more you understand the desires and motivations of those who you are taking from the easier it is to take from them—be it from consumers or labor.

When I see people who have a hard time "breaking through" and are always struggling, it's often because they lack the perspective necessary.