Following momentum and avoiding the “Minsky Moment” evidence from investors on the Financial Instability Hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to find out how institutional investors use momentum in making investment decisions, and whether their actions are consistent with the Financial Instability Hypothesis of Hyman Minsky. Design/methodology/approach The study discusses the findings of interviews with 25 professional investors from the Hong Kong offices of five global financial institutions. All of the participants have several years of practical experience in global and regional markets. Findings Nearly all the managers interviewed said they use momentum in making investment decisions, and they do this in ways that are consistent with the Financial Instability Hypothesis, in which markets alternate between stable and unstable states. The participants are aware they may contribute to this, but they cannot avoid doing it because of short-term constraints in the present financial system. Originality/value This study adds to our knowledge of how professional investors use momentum in their investment strategies. It complements findings of quantitative studies that show momentum strategies have been profitable in many market settings. It also adds evidence that supports the Financial Instability Hypothesis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".