Accusing influencers of opening courses to harvest profits! Zhou Guannan: Short-term trading is a negative-sum game, and giant Jie directly retorted face-to-face.

Professor Chou Kuan-Nan from National Chengchi University and trader Giant Jie have sparked a debate over active versus passive investing. Chou criticized short-term trading as a negative-sum game and questioned online influencers charging for courses, leading to heated exchanges that drew widespread attention.

Professor Chou Kuan-Nan clashes with Giant Jie over 00981A controversy

Author of the financial book “Long-Term Buying” and professor of finance at NCCU, Chou Kuan-Nan, recently engaged in a fierce verbal battle on Facebook with well-known trader “Giant Jie.” The controversy was triggered by the launch of the actively managed ETF (00981A) by Uni-President Securities Investment Trust.

According to Chain News, the ETF, which holds large amounts of passive ETFs like 0050 and 0052, was criticized by Giant Jie as a “Russian nesting doll structure,” questioning why fund managers charge active management fees but only deliver passive performance—like hiring a Michelin-starred chef to serve McDonald’s, leaving investors with two layers of profit stripping.

Giant Jie’s criticism sparked widespread discussion. Vincent, co-founder of Manbo, and researcher Freddy, among other experts, pointed out that institutional investments are limited by regulations to a single holding of 10%, and that ETF allocations are aimed at tracking TSMC’s weight and improving liquidity.

Meanwhile, Chou Kuan-Nan, a proponent of index investing, also entered the debate, targeting online investment influencers and “gurus” promoting short-term trading, with the exchange quickly escalating into personal attacks.

Chou Kuan-Nan: Short-term trading is a negative-sum game; questioning course sales as “harvesting” retail investors

Chou Kuan-Nan pointed out that short-term trading in the stock market is essentially a “zero-sum game,” and when including broker commissions and transaction taxes, it becomes a “negative-sum game,” where winners’ profits come from losers’ losses.

Image source: Chou Kuan-Nan’s Facebook

He also questioned online influencers selling investment courses, viewing it as a form of “representativeness bias.” He emphasized that just like teaching someone to become an Olympic swimmer, survivor bias leads the public to mistakenly believe that short-term trading is an easy way to get rich.

He stated that if these professional traders truly knew the secrets to wealth, they would quietly make their fortune. The reason they promote retail investors to enter the market or charge for courses is because, without retail investors (“chives”), they cannot harvest profits.

Regarding the high tax bills of giants like Giant Jie, Chou Kuan-Nan responded that such money is ill-gotten gains, merely returning a portion of the “harvest” to the government.

Image source: Chou Kuan-Nan’s Facebook

Giant Jie mocks professor as a novice trader; NCCU colleagues come forward to clarify

In response to Chou Kuan-Nan’s accusations, Giant Jie directly commented below the post, mocking Chou Kuan-Nan as a “novice trader” and “loser,” claiming he has academic theory but no practical skills.

Giant Jie claimed that Chou Kuan-Nan is not even recognized within academia, as professors in his department are earning money through quantitative and AI trading, dismissing Chou’s statements. He further criticized Chou for being hypocritical—high-minded in public but earning royalties and speaking fees from books and seminars, even questioning whether his donations are less than his own.

Image source: Chou Kuan-Nan’s Facebook

In response to Giant Jie’s claim that “colleagues do not recognize Chou Kuan-Nan,” Professor Ching-Chih Lu of NCCU’s finance department personally commented.

He said he is a colleague on the same floor as Chou Kuan-Nan, and there is no situation as described by Giant Jie in the department. He emphasized that Chou Kuan-Nan’s arguments are academically sound, and urged Giant Jie: “Don’t pretend to be familiar with people here if you don’t know them.”

Chou Kuan-Nan then counterattacked, accusing Giant Jie’s comments of being full of speculation and personal attacks, with no factual basis—just like his uncopyable trading strategies.

Image source: Chou Kuan-Nan’s Facebook

Chou Kuan-Nan also clashes with Chen Chung-Ming, with their exchanges providing entertainment

Besides the debate with Giant Jie, Chou Kuan-Nan recently had a conflict with investment influencer “Unbeatable Guru” Chen Chung-Ming. The incident started when Chou Kuan-Nan left a humorous phonetic obscenity “lazy” on Chen’s Facebook page, which was met with a warning from the admin, followed by a threat to sue. The dispute then shifted to discussions about assets, with Chou publicly mocking Chen for losing followers.

Image source: Chou Kuan-Nan’s Facebook

Although it’s hard to say who won or lost the verbal battles among Chou Kuan-Nan, Chen Chung-Ming, and Giant Jie, they have probably provided plenty of entertainment for onlookers. It also offers an opportunity to learn about the rules of index products like 00981A and to understand the differences between active and passive investment influencers.