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 bi

US Market Bubble Detection Skill (Revised v2.1) Key Revisions in v2.1 Critical Changes from v2.0: 1. ✅ Mandatory Quantitative Data Collection Use measured values, not impressions or speculation 2. ✅ Clear Threshold Settings Specific numerical criteria for each indicator 3. ✅ Two Phase Evaluation Process Quantitative evaluation → Qualitative adjustment (strict order) 4. ✅ Stricter Qualitative Criteria Max +3 points (reduced from +5), requires measurable evidence 5. ✅ Confirmation Bias Prevention Explicit checklist to avoid over scoring 6. ✅ Granular Risk Phases Added "Elevated Risk" phase (8 9 points) for nuanced risk management When to Use This Skill Use this skill when: English: 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) 1.2 Leverage & Positioning Data 1.3 IPO & New Issuance Data ⚠️ CRITICAL: Do NOT proceed with evaluation without Phase 1 data collection Phase 2: Quantitative Evaluation (Quantitative Scoring) Score mechanically based on collected data using the following criteria: Indicator 1: Put/Call Ratio (Market Sentiment) Indicator 2: Volatility Suppression + New Highs Indicator 3: Leverage (Margin Debt Balance) Indicator 4: IPO Market Overheating Indicator 5: Breadth Anomaly (Narrow Leadership) Indicator 6: Price Acceleration Phase 3: Qualitative Adjustment (REVISED v2.1) Limit: +3 points maximum (REDUCED from +5 in v2.0) ⚠️ CONFIRMATION BIAS PREVENTION CHECKLIST: Adjustment A: Social Penetration (0 1 points, STRICT CRITERIA) Adjustment B: Media/Search Trends (0 1 points, REQUIRES MEASUREMENT) Adjustment C: Valuation Disconnect (0 1 points, AVOID DOUBLE COUNTING) Phase 3 Total: Maximum +3 points Phase 4: Final Judgment (REVISED v2.1) 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 Data Sources (Required) US Market Put/Call : https://www.cboe.com/tradable products/vix/ VIX : Yahoo Finance (^VIX) or https://www.cboe.com/ Margin Debt : https://www.finra.org/investors/learn to invest/advanced investing/margin statistics Breadth : https://www.barchart.com/stocks/indices/sp/sp500?viewName=advanced IPO : https://www.renaissancecapital.com/IPO Center/Stats Japanese Market Nikkei Futures P/C : https://www.barchart.com/futures/quotes/NO 0/options JNIVE : https://www.investing.com/indices/nikkei volatility historical data Margin Debt : JSF (Japan Securities Finance) Monthly Report Breadth : https://en.macromicro.me/series/31841/japan topix index 200ma breadth IPO : https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/audit/insights/global ipo watch.html Implementation Checklist Verify the following when using: 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. Euphoria (10 12 points) Risk Budget: 40 50% Accelerate stair step profit taking (50 60% reduction) Tighten ATR to 1.5× No new long positions except on major pullbacks Short Selling: Active Consideration After confirming at least 3/7 composite conditions Small positions (20 25% of normal size) Defined risk only (options, tight stops) Critical (13 15 points) Risk Budget: 20 30% Major profit taking or full hedge implementation ATR 1.2× or fixed stop loss Cash preservation mode prepare for major dislocation Short Selling: Recommended After confirming at least 5/7 composite conditions Scale in with small positions, pyramid on confirmation Tight stop loss (ATR 1.5× or higher) Consider put options for defined risk Composite Conditions for Short Selling (7 Items) Only consider shorts after confirming at least 3 of the following: Output Format Evaluation Report Structure (v2.1) Reference Documents references/implementation guide.md (English) RECOMMENDED FOR FIRST USE Step by step evaluation process with mandatory data collection NG examples vs OK examples Self check quality criteria (4 levels) Red flags during review Best practices for objective evaluation references/bubble framework.md (Japanese) Detailed theoretical framework Explanation of Minsky/Kindleberger model Behavioral psychology elements references/historical cases.md (Japanese) Analysis of past bubble cases Dotcom, Crypto, Pandemic bubbles Common pattern extraction references/quick reference.md (Japanese) references/quick reference en.md (English) Daily checklist Emergency 3 question assessment Quick scoring guide Key data sources When to Load References First use or need detailed guidance: Load implementation guide.md Need theoretical background: Load bubble framework.md Need historical context: Load historical cases.md Daily operations: Load quick reference.md (Japanese) or quick reference en.md (English) Summary: Essence of v2.1 Revision v2.0 Problem (Identified Nov 2025): Qualitative adjustment too loose (+5 max) "AI narrative elevated" → +1 point (no data) "P/E 30.8" → +1 point (double counting with quantitative) Result: 11/16 points overly bearish without evidence v2.1 Solution: Qualitative adjustment stricter (+3 max) "AI narrative elevated" → 0 points (unmeasured) "P/E 30.8 but AI has fundamental backing" → 0 points (fundamentals support) Result: 9/15 points balanced, data driven assessment Key Improvements: 1. Confirmation Bias Prevention : Explicit checklist before adding qualitative points 2. Measurable Evidence Required : No points without concrete data (Google Trends, media coverage) 3. Double Counting Prevention : Valuation must not duplicate Phase 2 quantitative 4. Granular Risk Phases : Added "Elevated Risk" (8 9 points) for nuanced positioning 5. Balanced Risk Budgets : 9 points = 50 70% (not 40% extreme defensive) Core Principle: "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 v2.1 (Nov 3, 2025): Stricter qualitative criteria, confirmation bias prevention, granular risk phases 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.

us-market-bubble-detector