关于私募“魔女”李蓓教小白做投资引发的争议，谈几点看法

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding Li Bei's offline investment course priced at 12,888 yuan reflects broader industry skepticism about fund managers crossing into educational roles, with some accusing her of exploiting the knowledge payment sector for profit [1][5]. Group 1: Course Motivation and Design - Li Bei claims her course is not intended for profit, stating that knowledge payment typically generates a maximum of 10 million yuan annually, which she does not need [3][4]. - The course is designed to address common concerns of novice investors, focusing on long-term investment methodologies and avoiding short-term market speculation [4][8]. - The course aims to provide practical guidance on identifying scams and understanding financial tools, which resonates with the needs of inexperienced investors [4][8]. Group 2: Industry Skepticism and Challenges - There are three main areas of skepticism regarding Li Bei's course: the profitability of selling courses compared to investment, the alignment of her professional qualifications with teaching, and the balance between personal branding and professional credibility [5][6][7]. - Critics question whether Li Bei's past investment performance, which includes underperforming funds, undermines her ability to teach novice investors effectively [6][9]. - The rise of knowledge payment in finance indicates a growing demand for reliable investment education among novice investors, yet the market lacks quality offerings [8][9]. Group 3: Implications for the Industry - Li Bei's initiative highlights a common challenge in the asset management industry regarding the boundaries of fund managers' roles in education [7][8]. - The industry must navigate the tension between generating returns for investors and engaging in educational endeavors, with knowledge payment being a secondary focus [8][9]. - Effective education for novice investors should emphasize independent thinking and critical analysis, rather than blind adherence to the instructor's past judgments [8][9].