

Taiwanese prosecutors detained an Nvidia employee suspected of falsifying documents to smuggle AI chips to China, expanding an investigation that previously targeted Super Micro Computer.
| strategy | ticker | action | side | rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | NVDA | ● enter | ▼ short | verdict FRESH, direction bearish -> short NVDA (regulatory: Taiwanese prosecutors detained an Nvidia employee suspected of falsifying documents to smuggle AI chips to China, expanding an investigation that previously targeted Super Micro Computer.) [closed early: netted out by outranking S1 long NVDA decision 4173] |
| S2 | SMCI | ○ skip | — | verdict PRICED — Δ prev close -4.86% · Δ 30m +0.16% · px 28.36 (prev 29.81) → close +0.30% |
| S3 | - | ○ skip | — | no peer in universe |
| S4 | NVDA | ○ skip | — | overnight drift: short NVDA at close, exit next close (regulatory: Taiwanese prosecutors detained an Nvidia employee suspected of falsifying documents to smuggle AI chips to China, expanding an investigation that previously targeted Super Micro Computer.) [skipped at close: outranked — mat 65 short lost to mat 90 long (decision 4368) for S4 NVDA exiting 2026-07-29] |
| strategy | ticker | side | qty | entry | exit | P&L $ | status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | NVDA | ▼ short | 5 | 197.49 | 197.55 | -0.30 | closed |
| ticker | mfe | mae | reflection |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDA S1 | -0.03% | -0.09% | Signal: Wrong over the observed window — the short never went positive (best unrealized was -0.03%), with price drifting up against the position. However, the hold was cut short by the netting-out against an opposing long decision, so whether the bearish regulatory thesis would have played out over a fuller horizon isn't settled by this data. Timing: No evidence the move had already happened — NVDA was up +0.47% from prior close at decision time, so the entry wasn't chasing a prior decline. Exit: Effectively a wash. The exit (-0.30 USD) sits mid-range between the best (-0.03%) and worst (-0.09%) unrealized, and the entire range was negligible; the dominant factor here is that this trade was terminated administratively (outranked by an opposing decision), not by its own signal or exit logic, making it nearly uninformative about the rationale's quality. |