<p>作者：Michael Sincere</p>
<p>《Quit》的作者谈论市场泡沫、代价高昂的投资错误以及为什么投资者在最糟糕的时刻会陷入僵局</p>
<p>安妮·杜克（Annie Duke）表示，在不确定性下做出良好决策，并在新信息到来时迅速改变主意。</p>
<p>安妮·杜克曾是世界上最成功的扑克选手之一，赢得了世界扑克锦标赛冠军赛和 NBC 全国对抗扑克锦标赛。现在，她是一位备受追捧的决策策略师，与投资者、高管和风险投资公司合作，帮助他们在面临不确定性时做出更好的决策。她是多本书籍的作者，包括《Thinking in Bets》和《Quit: The Power of Knowing When to Walk Away》。</p>
<p>在这次最近的采访中，经过编辑以便于长度和清晰度，杜克分享了她用来评估看似泡沫市场的三步框架，谈论了为什么最常见的投资建议在某种程度上是正确又错误的，并指出了悄然摧毁那些将幸运结果与良好决策混淆的投资者的陷阱。</p>
<p>这次真的有什么不同吗？</p>
<p>MarketWatch：投资者再次面临选择，要么追逐股市反弹，要么保持观望。判断一个泡沫市场的最佳方法是什么？</p>
<p>安妮·杜克：起点是我所称的基准率。在类似情况下，历史上发生过什么？如果你在看市场的高度、上涨的持续时间以及相对于历史的定价，这可以告诉你事情是否看起来正常，或者你是否处于之前曾出现过修正的领域。这并不意味着修正即将到来。它只是帮助你理解你所处的位置。</p>
<p>接下来，你要问：这次真的有什么不同，使得当前的估值变得粘性？一个经典的例子是 1999 年的亚马逊（AMZN）。它的市盈率远高于传统零售商。但一个理性的人可以争辩说，它的确有足够的不同——没有实体店、科技成分和更广泛的潜在上行空间。这个比较并不完全正确。</p>
<p>第三步是将自己投射到未来，想象你是错的。如果这次的情况和其他周期一样，你可能忽视了哪些早期信号？提前将这些写下来可以给你一个退出的通道。你不会被锁定在一个无法退出的赌注中。</p>
<p>MarketWatch：扑克教会你什么投资知识是金融教科书无法提供的？</p>
<p>杜克：扑克迫使你真正接受你知道的很少，以及系统中有多少运气，然后仍然尽力做出最佳赌注。关键技能不是确定性，而是在不确定性下做出良好决策，并在新信息到来时迅速改变主意。那些在扑克中坚持初始信念的人会陷入严重麻烦。</p>
<p>金融教科书教你确认偏差和期望值。但当你在扑克中快速迭代——一手接一手，决策接决策——这会深入你的骨髓，而阅读它并不能做到这一点。你会培养出一种对概率的感觉，这是通过做方程式无法获得的。</p>
<p>安妮·杜克：&#34;投资低成本的 ETF 或指数基金，并在所有周期中保持在市场中。&#34;</p>
<p>MarketWatch：大多数金融建议说在熊市中绝不要卖出。这是好建议吗？</p>
<p>杜克：大体上是的。但理解原因有助于你正确应用它。单独来看，止损在技术上是不理性的。任何买入或卖出的决定都应该完全基于资产的基本价值。但我们知道，一旦人们拥有某样东西，他们在客观评估它时会变得很糟糕。损失厌恶、沉没成本谬误和从众行为——所有这些在下跌期间都会出现。止损是一种不理性的工具，用于防止更不理性的事情发生。</p>
<p>这就像把不健康的食物扔出你的家。逻辑上，你应该选择不吃它。但你还是把它扔掉，因为你知道未来的你，在漫长一天结束时疲惫和压力下，会做出更糟糕的决定。因此，你提前保护那个未来的自己。&#34;在熊市中绝不要卖出&#34;是同样的想法。它阻止你在恐慌中跟风抛售。对于普通散户投资者来说，这是个好建议。</p>
<p>人们追逐他人的收益，而不问这些收益是来自技能还是运气。</p>
<p>MarketWatch：人们给出的投资建议中，哪些会导致他人误入歧途？</p>
<p>杜克：两件事不断发生。首先，人们追逐他人的收益，而不问这些收益是来自技能还是运气。孤立的大收益实际上应该让你产生怀疑。它通常意味着高波动性，这意味着结果中的很多部分是运气。其次，人们将自己的表现与错误的基准进行比较。如果你的顾问在一个 18% 的市场中让你获得了 11% 的收益，那并不好。如果他们在一个 5% 的市场中让你获得了 11% 的收益，那就值得关注。但人们完全跳过了比较。</p>
<p>更深层次的问题是均值回归。我们看去年的顶尖表现者，并假设他们会重复。基金经理们经常这样对待配置者。他们在修剪表现不佳的优秀投资者，而保留那些运气好的平庸者。我们并没有天生就能思考均值回归。</p>
<p>仅仅因为你在短期内表现良好，并不意味着你做出了良好的决策。而仅仅因为你表现不佳，并不意味着你做出了糟糕的决策。</p>
<p>MarketWatch：你使用了一个叫做&#34;结果化&#34;的术语。它是什么，为什么重要？</p>
<p>杜克：结果化是指你将结果的质量与产生该结果的决策的质量等同起来。赢得一手扑克并不意味着你打得好。输掉并不意味着你打得差。短期内有运气的成分，而一个好的决策可能产生一个糟糕的结果，而一个糟糕的决策可能产生一个好的结果。</p>
<p>这种投资版本无处不在。有人在 2019 年投资了 Zoom（ZM），在疫情爆发时赚了一大笔钱。他们可能对视频会议的未来有一个合理的论点。但他们并没有预测到全球疫情。将这一结果完全归功于自己是有问题的。这并不在他们的决策中——这是一种运气的结果。</p>
<p>解决办法是在投资之前写下你的推理。你认为结果的分布是什么样的？你实际上在押注什么？然后，当你获得结果时，你可以将其与自己的预测进行比较，而不仅仅是账户中的数字。</p>
<p>人们变得如此不确定，以至于完全停止做决定，而没有意识到无所作为本身就是一种决定。</p>
<p>MarketWatch：你对投资者现在的最佳建议是什么？</p>
<p>Duke：对于散户投资者来说，历史上答案一直是：投资于低成本的交易所交易基金或指数基金，并在所有周期中保持在市场中。个股选择如此危险的原因在于，如果你相信市场在长期内是相对有效的，你必须问自己，你知道的是什么是专家不知道的。因为你喜欢超市里的一个品牌并不是答案。</p>
<p>我看到的更大错误是瘫痪。人们变得如此不确定，以至于完全停止做决定，而没有意识到无所作为本身就是一种决定。你在隐含地说，无论你目前持有的是什么，在这种环境下都是最佳配置。优秀的投资者会迎接不确定性。他们认识到你总是在预测，总是在投资于一个未知的未来。问题是你是否在用一个清晰的框架进行投资，还是仅仅在希望。</p>
<p>Michael Sincere 是多本书籍的作者，包括《理解股票》、《理解期权》和《帮助你的孩子积累财富》。</p>
<p>更多：你父母的致富规则不再有效，Dow Jones 女士说——但这个有效。</p>
<p>另请阅读：这 10 只 “HALO” 股票保护你的投资组合免受 AI 泡沫的影响。</p>
<p>-Michael Sincere</p>
<p>此内容由 MarketWatch 创建，MarketWatch 由道琼斯公司运营。MarketWatch 与道琼斯新闻通讯和《华尔街日报》独立出版。</p>
<p>（结束）道琼斯新闻通讯</p>
<p>05-12-26 1729ET</p>

<p>安妮·杜克（Annie Duke），一位从扑克冠军转型为投资教练的人，强调在不确定性下做出明智决策的重要性。在最近的一次采访中，她讨论了使用三步框架评估市场泡沫、运气在投资中的作用以及投资者常见的陷阱。杜克建议投资者在追逐收益时要理解其来源，并指出虽然在熊市中永远不要卖出这一建议通常是合理的，但应结合人类心理进行应用。她的见解旨在帮助投资者更有效地应对市场的复杂性</p>

<p>By Michael Sincere</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>作者：Michael Sincere</p>
</div><p>The author of 'Quit' talks about market bubbles, costly investing mistakes and why investors freeze at the worst time</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>《Quit》的作者谈论市场泡沫、代价高昂的投资错误以及为什么投资者在最糟糕的时刻会陷入僵局</p>
</div><p>Make good decisions under uncertainty - and change your mind quickly when new information arrives, says Annie Duke.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>安妮·杜克（Annie Duke）表示，在不确定性下做出良好决策，并在新信息到来时迅速改变主意。</p>
</div><p>Annie Duke was at one time among the world's most successful poker players, winning the World Series of Poker Tournament of Champions and the NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championship. She is now a sought-after decision strategist, working with investors, executives and venture firms on how to make better decisions when faced with uncertainty. She is the author of several books, including &#34;Thinking in Bets&#34; and &#34;Quit: The Power of Knowing When to Walk Away.&#34;</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>安妮·杜克曾是世界上最成功的扑克选手之一，赢得了世界扑克锦标赛冠军赛和 NBC 全国对抗扑克锦标赛。现在，她是一位备受追捧的决策策略师，与投资者、高管和风险投资公司合作，帮助他们在面临不确定性时做出更好的决策。她是多本书籍的作者，包括《Thinking in Bets》和《Quit: The Power of Knowing When to Walk Away》。</p>
</div><p>In this recent interview, which has been edited for length and clarity, Duke shares the three-step framework she uses to evaluate markets that look like bubbles, talks about why the most common investment advice is both right and wrong at the same time, and identifies the trap that quietly destroys investors who confuse lucky outcomes with good decisions.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在这次最近的采访中，经过编辑以便于长度和清晰度，杜克分享了她用来评估看似泡沫市场的三步框架，谈论了为什么最常见的投资建议在某种程度上是正确又错误的，并指出了悄然摧毁那些将幸运结果与良好决策混淆的投资者的陷阱。</p>
</div><p>Is something genuinely different this time?</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这次真的有什么不同吗？</p>
</div><p>MarketWatch: Investors once again are faced with a decision to either chase the stock-market rally or hold back. What's the best way to judge a frothy market?</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>MarketWatch：投资者再次面临选择，要么追逐股市反弹，要么保持观望。判断一个泡沫市场的最佳方法是什么？</p>
</div><p>Annie Duke: The starting point is what I call the base rate. What has historically happened in situations like this one? If you're looking at how high the market is, how long it has been rising and how it's priced relative to history, that tells you whether things look normal or whether you're in territory that has preceded corrections before. It doesn't mean a correction is coming. It just helps you understand where you are.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>安妮·杜克：起点是我所称的基准率。在类似情况下，历史上发生过什么？如果你在看市场的高度、上涨的持续时间以及相对于历史的定价，这可以告诉你事情是否看起来正常，或者你是否处于之前曾出现过修正的领域。这并不意味着修正即将到来。它只是帮助你理解你所处的位置。</p>
</div><p>From there, you ask: Is something genuinely different this time that would make the current valuation sticky? A classic example is Amazon (AMZN) in 1999. It was getting a far higher multiple than traditional retailers. But a reasonable person could argue it was different enough - no physical locations, a tech component and a much broader potential upside. The comparison wasn't quite right.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>接下来，你要问：这次真的有什么不同，使得当前的估值变得粘性？一个经典的例子是 1999 年的亚马逊（AMZN）。它的市盈率远高于传统零售商。但一个理性的人可以争辩说，它的确有足够的不同——没有实体店、科技成分和更广泛的潜在上行空间。这个比较并不完全正确。</p>
</div><p>The third step is to cast yourself into the future and imagine you were wrong. If it turns out this was just like every other cycle, what were the early signals you probably ignored? Writing those down in advance gives you an exit ramp. You're not locked in to a bet you can't get out of.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>第三步是将自己投射到未来，想象你是错的。如果这次的情况和其他周期一样，你可能忽视了哪些早期信号？提前将这些写下来可以给你一个退出的通道。你不会被锁定在一个无法退出的赌注中。</p>
</div><p>MarketWatch: What did poker teach you about investing that a finance textbook can't?</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>MarketWatch：扑克教会你什么投资知识是金融教科书无法提供的？</p>
</div><p>Duke: Poker forces you to really accept how little you know and how much luck is in the system, and then to still make your best bet anyway. The key skill isn't certainty. It's making good decisions under uncertainty and then changing your mind quickly when new information arrives. People who cling to their initial belief in poker get into serious trouble.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>杜克：扑克迫使你真正接受你知道的很少，以及系统中有多少运气，然后仍然尽力做出最佳赌注。关键技能不是确定性，而是在不确定性下做出良好决策，并在新信息到来时迅速改变主意。那些在扑克中坚持初始信念的人会陷入严重麻烦。</p>
</div><p>Finance textbooks teach you about confirmation bias and expected value. But when you're iterating so quickly in poker - hand after hand, decision after decision - it gets into your bones in a way that reading about it doesn't. You develop a feel for probability that you can't get from doing equations.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>金融教科书教你确认偏差和期望值。但当你在扑克中快速迭代——一手接一手，决策接决策——这会深入你的骨髓，而阅读它并不能做到这一点。你会培养出一种对概率的感觉，这是通过做方程式无法获得的。</p>
</div><p>Annie Duke: &#34;Get into low-cost ETFs or index funds and stay in the market across all cycles.&#34;</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>安妮·杜克：&#34;投资低成本的 ETF 或指数基金，并在所有周期中保持在市场中。&#34;</p>
</div><p>MarketWatch: Most financial advice says to never sell in a bear market. Is that good advice?</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>MarketWatch：大多数金融建议说在熊市中绝不要卖出。这是好建议吗？</p>
</div><p>Duke: Mostly, yes. But understanding why helps you apply it correctly. On its own, a stop loss is technically irrational. Any decision to buy or sell should be based purely on the underlying value of the asset. But we know that once people own something, they become terrible at evaluating it objectively. Loss aversion, sunk-cost fallacy and herd behavior - all of it kicks in during a drawdown. A stop loss is an irrational tool deployed to prevent something even more irrational.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>杜克：大体上是的。但理解原因有助于你正确应用它。单独来看，止损在技术上是不理性的。任何买入或卖出的决定都应该完全基于资产的基本价值。但我们知道，一旦人们拥有某样东西，他们在客观评估它时会变得很糟糕。损失厌恶、沉没成本谬误和从众行为——所有这些在下跌期间都会出现。止损是一种不理性的工具，用于防止更不理性的事情发生。</p>
</div><p>It's like throwing unhealthy food out of your house. Logically, you should just choose not to eat it. But you throw it away anyway because you know that a future version of you, tired and stressed at the end of a long day, is going to make a worse decision. So you protect that future self in advance. &#34;Never sell in a bear market&#34; is the same idea. It's stopping you from panic-selling into a herd. For the average retail investor, it's good advice.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这就像把不健康的食物扔出你的家。逻辑上，你应该选择不吃它。但你还是把它扔掉，因为你知道未来的你，在漫长一天结束时疲惫和压力下，会做出更糟糕的决定。因此，你提前保护那个未来的自己。&#34;在熊市中绝不要卖出&#34;是同样的想法。它阻止你在恐慌中跟风抛售。对于普通散户投资者来说，这是个好建议。</p>
</div><p>People chase other people's returns without asking whether those returns came from skill or luck.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>人们追逐他人的收益，而不问这些收益是来自技能还是运气。</p>
</div><p>MarketWatch: What investment advice do people give that leads others astray?</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>MarketWatch：人们给出的投资建议中，哪些会导致他人误入歧途？</p>
</div><p>Duke: Two things happen constantly. First, people chase other people's returns without asking whether those returns came from skill or luck. A large return in isolation should actually make you suspicious. It usually means high volatility, which means a lot of the result was luck. Second, people compare their performance to the wrong benchmark. If your adviser made you 11% in an 18% market, that's not good. If they made you 11% in a 5% market, that's worth paying attention to. But people skip the comparison entirely.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>杜克：两件事不断发生。首先，人们追逐他人的收益，而不问这些收益是来自技能还是运气。孤立的大收益实际上应该让你产生怀疑。它通常意味着高波动性，这意味着结果中的很多部分是运气。其次，人们将自己的表现与错误的基准进行比较。如果你的顾问在一个 18% 的市场中让你获得了 11% 的收益，那并不好。如果他们在一个 5% 的市场中让你获得了 11% 的收益，那就值得关注。但人们完全跳过了比较。</p>
</div><p>The deeper issue is regression to the mean. We look at last year's top performers and assume they'll repeat. Fund managers do this with allocators all the time. They're pruning good investors who had a down year and keeping mediocre ones who got lucky. We're just not wired to think about mean reversion.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>更深层次的问题是均值回归。我们看去年的顶尖表现者，并假设他们会重复。基金经理们经常这样对待配置者。他们在修剪表现不佳的优秀投资者，而保留那些运气好的平庸者。我们并没有天生就能思考均值回归。</p>
</div><p>Just because you do well in the short run doesn't mean you made good decisions. And just because you do poorly doesn't mean you made poor ones.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>仅仅因为你在短期内表现良好，并不意味着你做出了良好的决策。而仅仅因为你表现不佳，并不意味着你做出了糟糕的决策。</p>
</div><p>MarketWatch: You use a term called &#34;resulting.&#34; What is it, and why does it matter?</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>MarketWatch：你使用了一个叫做&#34;结果化&#34;的术语。它是什么，为什么重要？</p>
</div><p>Duke: Resulting is when you equate the quality of an outcome with the quality of the decision that produced it. Winning a poker hand doesn't mean you played it well. Losing doesn't mean you played it poorly. There's luck in the short run, and a good decision can produce a bad outcome, while a bad decision produces a good one.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>杜克：结果化是指你将结果的质量与产生该结果的决策的质量等同起来。赢得一手扑克并不意味着你打得好。输掉并不意味着你打得差。短期内有运气的成分，而一个好的决策可能产生一个糟糕的结果，而一个糟糕的决策可能产生一个好的结果。</p>
</div><p>The investing version of this is everywhere. Someone invested in Zoom (ZM) in 2019 and made a fortune when the pandemic hit. They may have had a legitimate thesis about video conferencing's future. But they did not forecast a global pandemic. Taking full credit for that outcome is resulting. It wasn't in their decision - it was an act of luck.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这种投资版本无处不在。有人在 2019 年投资了 Zoom（ZM），在疫情爆发时赚了一大笔钱。他们可能对视频会议的未来有一个合理的论点。但他们并没有预测到全球疫情。将这一结果完全归功于自己是有问题的。这并不在他们的决策中——这是一种运气的结果。</p>
</div><p>The fix is to write your reasoning down before you invest. What do you think the distribution of outcomes looks like? What are you actually betting on? Then, when you get results, you can compare them against your forecast, not just the number in your account.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>解决办法是在投资之前写下你的推理。你认为结果的分布是什么样的？你实际上在押注什么？然后，当你获得结果时，你可以将其与自己的预测进行比较，而不仅仅是账户中的数字。</p>
</div><p>People get so uncertain that they stop making decisions entirely, not realizing that doing nothing is itself a decision.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>人们变得如此不确定，以至于完全停止做决定，而没有意识到无所作为本身就是一种决定。</p>
</div><p>MarketWatch: What's your best advice for investors right now?</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>MarketWatch：你对投资者现在的最佳建议是什么？</p>
</div><p>Duke: For retail investors, historically speaking, the answer is what it's always been: get into low-cost exchange-traded funds or index funds and stay in the market across all cycles. The reason individual stock-picking is so dangerous is that if you believe markets are even somewhat efficient over the long run, you have to ask yourself what you know that the experts don't. Because you like a brand at the grocery store isn't an answer.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>Duke：对于散户投资者来说，历史上答案一直是：投资于低成本的交易所交易基金或指数基金，并在所有周期中保持在市场中。个股选择如此危险的原因在于，如果你相信市场在长期内是相对有效的，你必须问自己，你知道的是什么是专家不知道的。因为你喜欢超市里的一个品牌并不是答案。</p>
</div><p>The bigger mistake I see is paralysis. People get so uncertain that they stop making decisions entirely, not realizing that doing nothing is itself a decision. You're implicitly saying that whatever you currently hold is the best allocation in this environment. Great investors lean into uncertainty. They recognize that you're always forecasting, always investing into an unknown future. The question is whether you're doing it with a clear framework or just hoping.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>我看到的更大错误是瘫痪。人们变得如此不确定，以至于完全停止做决定，而没有意识到无所作为本身就是一种决定。你在隐含地说，无论你目前持有的是什么，在这种环境下都是最佳配置。优秀的投资者会迎接不确定性。他们认识到你总是在预测，总是在投资于一个未知的未来。问题是你是否在用一个清晰的框架进行投资，还是仅仅在希望。</p>
</div><p>Michael Sincere is the author of several books including &#34;Understanding Stocks,&#34; &#34;Understanding Options&#34; and &#34;Help Your Child Build Wealth.&#34;</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>Michael Sincere 是多本书籍的作者，包括《理解股票》、《理解期权》和《帮助你的孩子积累财富》。</p>
</div><p>More: Your parents' rules for getting rich don't work anymore, Mrs. Dow Jones says - but this does</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>更多：你父母的致富规则不再有效，Dow Jones 女士说——但这个有效。</p>
</div><p>Also read: These 10 'HALO' stocks protect your portfolio from the AI bubble</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>另请阅读：这 10 只 “HALO” 股票保护你的投资组合免受 AI 泡沫的影响。</p>
</div><p>-Michael Sincere</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>-Michael Sincere</p>
</div><p>This content was created by MarketWatch, which is operated by Dow Jones &amp; Co. MarketWatch is published independently from Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>此内容由 MarketWatch 创建，MarketWatch 由道琼斯公司运营。MarketWatch 与道琼斯新闻通讯和《华尔街日报》独立出版。</p>
</div><p>(END) Dow Jones Newswires</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>（结束）道琼斯新闻通讯</p>
</div><p>05-12-26 1729ET</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>05-12-26 1729ET</p>
</div>

前扑克冠军转型为投资教练的 Annie Duke 表示，大多数人对风险的理解存在误区