Evaluates market bubble risk through quantitative data-driven analysis using the revised Minsky/Kindleberger framework v2.1. Prioritizes objective metrics (Put/Call, VIX, margin debt, breadth, IPO data) over subjective impressions. Features strict qualitative adjustment criteria with confirmation bias prevention. Supports practical investment decisions with mandatory data collection and mechanical scoring. Use when user asks about bubble risk, valuation concerns, or profit-taking timing.
Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
Evaluates market bubble risk through quantitative data-driven analysis using the revised Minsky/Kindleberger framework v2.1. Prioritizes objective metrics (Put/Call, VIX, margin debt, breadth, IPO data) over subjective impressions. Features strict qualitative adjustment criteria with confirmation bias prevention. Supports practical investment decisions with mandatory data collection and mechanical scoring. Use when user asks about bubble risk, valuation concerns, or profit-taking timing.
US Market Bubble Detection Skill (Revised v2.1)
Key Revisions in v2.1
Critical Changes from v2.0:
✅ Mandatory Quantitative Data Collection - Use measured values, not impressions or speculation
✅ Clear Threshold Settings - Specific numerical criteria for each indicator
User asks "Is the market in a bubble?" or "Are we in a bubble?"
User seeks advice on profit-taking, new entry timing, or short-selling decisions
User reports social phenomena (non-investors entering, media frenzy, IPO flood)
User mentions narratives like "this time is different" or "revolutionary technology" becoming mainstream
User consults about risk management for existing positions
Japanese:
ユーザーが「今の相場はバブルか?」と尋ねる
投資の利確・新規参入・空売りのタイミング判断を求める
社会現象(非投資家の参入、メディア過熱、IPO氾濫)を観察し懸念を表明
「今回は違う」「革命的技術」などの物語が主流化している状況を報告
保有ポジションのリスク管理方法を相談
Evaluation Process (Strict Order)
Phase 1: Mandatory Quantitative Data Collection
CRITICAL: Always collect the following data before starting evaluation
1.1 Market Structure Data (Highest Priority)
□ Put/Call Ratio (CBOE Equity P/C)
- Source: CBOE DataShop or web_search "CBOE put call ratio"
- Collect: 5-day moving average
□ VIX (Fear Index)
- Source: Yahoo Finance ^VIX or web_search "VIX current"
- Collect: Current value + percentile over past 3 months
□ Volatility Indicators
- 21-day realized volatility
- Historical position of VIX (determine if in bottom 10th percentile)
Scoring Criteria:
- 2 points: VIX < 12 AND major index within 5% of 52-week high
- 1 point: VIX 12-15 AND near highs
- 0 points: VIX > 15 OR more than 10% from highs
Rationale: Extreme low volatility + highs indicates excessive complacency
Indicator 3: Leverage (Margin Debt Balance)
Scoring Criteria:
- 2 points: YoY +20% or more AND all-time high
- 1 point: YoY +10-20%
- 0 points: YoY +10% or less OR negative
Rationale: Rapid leverage increase is a bubble precursor
Indicator 4: IPO Market Overheating
Scoring Criteria:
- 2 points: Quarterly IPO count > 2x 5-year average AND median first-day return +20%+
- 1 point: Quarterly IPO count > 1.5x 5-year average
- 0 points: Normal levels
Rationale: Poor-quality IPO flood is characteristic of late-stage bubbles
Indicator 5: Breadth Anomaly (Narrow Leadership)
Scoring Criteria:
- 2 points: New high AND < 45% of stocks above 50DMA (narrow leadership)
- 1 point: 45-60% above 50DMA (somewhat narrow)
- 0 points: > 60% above 50DMA (healthy breadth)
Rationale: Rally driven by few stocks is fragile
Indicator 6: Price Acceleration
Scoring Criteria:
- 2 points: Past 3-month return exceeds 95th percentile of past 10 years
- 1 point: Past 3-month return in 85-95th percentile of past 10 years
- 0 points: Below 85th percentile
Rationale: Rapid price acceleration is unsustainable
Phase 3: Qualitative Adjustment (REVISED v2.1)
Limit: +3 points maximum (REDUCED from +5 in v2.0)
⚠️ CONFIRMATION BIAS PREVENTION CHECKLIST:
Before adding ANY qualitative points:
□ Do I have concrete, measurable data? (not impressions)
□ Would an independent observer reach the same conclusion?
□ Am I avoiding double-counting with Phase 2 scores?
□ Have I documented specific evidence with sources?
Adjustment A: Social Penetration (0-1 points, STRICT CRITERIA)
+1 point: ALL THREE criteria must be met:
✓ Direct user report of non-investor recommendations
✓ Specific examples with names/dates/conversations
✓ Multiple independent sources (minimum 3)
+0 points: Any criteria missing
⚠️ INVALID EXAMPLES:
- "AI narrative is prevalent" (unmeasurable)
- "I saw articles about retail investors" (not direct report)
- "Everyone is talking about stocks" (vague, unverified)
✅ VALID EXAMPLE:
"My barber asked about NVDA (Nov 1), dentist mentioned AI stocks (Nov 2),
Uber driver discussed crypto (Nov 3)"
+1 point: ALL criteria must be met:
✓ P/E >25 (if NOT already counted in Phase 2 quantitative)
✓ Fundamentals explicitly ignored in mainstream discourse
✓ "This time is different" documented in major media
+0 points: P/E <25 OR fundamentals support valuations
⚠️ SELF-CHECK QUESTIONS (if ANY is YES, score = 0):
- Is P/E already in Phase 2 quantitative scoring?
- Do companies have real earnings supporting valuations?
- Is the narrative backed by fundamental improvements?
✅ VALID EXAMPLE for +1:
"S&P P/E = 35x (vs historical 18x).
CNBC article: 'Earnings don't matter in AI era' (Oct 2025).
Bloomberg: 'Traditional metrics obsolete' (Nov 2025)."
⚠️ INVALID EXAMPLE:
"P/E 30.8 but companies have real earnings and AI has fundamental backing"
(fundamentals support = +0 points)
Phase 3 Total: Maximum +3 points
Phase 4: Final Judgment (REVISED v2.1)
Final Score = Phase 2 Total (0-12 points) + Phase 3 Adjustment (0 to +3 points)
Range: 0 to 15 points
Judgment Criteria (with Risk Budget):
- 0-4 points: Normal (Risk Budget: 100%)
- 5-7 points: Caution (Risk Budget: 70-80%)
- 8-9 points: Elevated Risk (Risk Budget: 50-70%) ⚠️ NEW in v2.1
- 10-12 points: Euphoria (Risk Budget: 40-50%)
- 13-15 points: Critical (Risk Budget: 20-30%)
Key Change in v2.1:
Added "Elevated Risk" phase (8-9 points) for more nuanced positioning
9 points is no longer extreme defensive zone (was 40% risk budget)
Now allows 50-70% risk budget at 8-9 point level
More gradual transition from Caution to Euphoria phases
□ Have you collected all Phase 1 data?
□ Did you apply each indicator's threshold mechanically?
□ Did you keep qualitative evaluation within +3 point limit?
□ Are you NOT assigning points based on news article impressions?
□ Does your final score align with other quantitative frameworks?
Important Principles (Revised)
1. Data > Impressions
Ignore "many news reports" or "experts are cautious" without quantitative data.
2. Strict Order: Quantitative → Qualitative
Always evaluate in this order: Phase 1 (Data Collection) → Phase 2 (Quantitative) → Phase 3 (Qualitative Adjustment).
3. Upper Limit on Subjective Indicators
Qualitative adjustment has a total limit of +3 points. It cannot override quantitative evaluation.
4. "Taxi Driver" is Symbolic
Do not readily acknowledge mass penetration without direct recommendations from non-investors.
Common Failures and Solutions (Revised)
Failure 1: Evaluating Based on News Articles
❌ "Many reports on Takaichi Trade" → Media saturation 2 points
✅ Verify Google Trends numbers → Evaluate with measured values
Failure 2: Overreaction to Expert Comments
❌ "Warning of overheating" → Euphoria zone
✅ Judge with measured values of Put/Call, VIX, margin debt
Failure 3: Emotional Reaction to Price Rise
❌ 4.5% rise in 1 day → Price acceleration 2 points
✅ Verify position in 10-year distribution → Objective evaluation
Failure 4: Judgment Based on Valuation Alone
❌ P/E 17 → Valuation disconnect 2 points
✅ P/E + narrative dependence + other quantitative indicators for comprehensive judgment
Recommended Actions by Bubble Stage (REVISED v2.1)
Normal (0-4 points)
Risk Budget: 100%
Continue normal investment strategy
Set ATR 2.0× trailing stop
Apply stair-step profit-taking rule (+20% take 25%)
Short-Selling: Not Allowed
Composite conditions not met (0/7 items)
Caution (5-7 points)
Risk Budget: 70-80%
Begin partial profit-taking (20-30% reduction)
Tighten ATR to 1.8×
Reduce new position sizing by 50%
Short-Selling: Not Recommended
Wait for clearer reversal signals
Elevated Risk (8-9 points) ⚠️ NEW in v2.1
Risk Budget: 50-70%
Increase profit-taking (30-50% reduction)
Tighten ATR to 1.6×
New positions: highly selective, quality only
Begin building cash reserves for future opportunities
Short-Selling: Consider Cautiously
Only after confirming at least 2/7 composite conditions
Small exploratory positions (10-15% of normal size)
Strict stop-loss (ATR 2.0×)
Rationale for NEW phase:
This zone represents heightened caution without extreme defensiveness.
Market shows warning signs but not imminent collapse.
Maintain exposure to quality positions while building flexibility.
"In God we trust; all others must bring data." - W. Edwards Deming
2025 Lesson:
Even data-driven frameworks can be undermined by subjective qualitative adjustments.
v2.1 requires MEASURABLE evidence for ALL qualitative points.
Independent observers must be able to verify each adjustment.
Version History:
v2.0 (Oct 27, 2025): Mandatory quantitative data collection
Reason for v2.1 Revision:
Prevent over-scoring through unmeasured "narrative" assessments and double-counting.
Ensure all bubble risk evaluations are independently verifiable and free from confirmation bias.
