

The EU General Court rejected Broadcom's bid to suspend an antitrust information request related to its VMware acquisition, escalating regulatory scrutiny that could impact cloud service providers.
| strategy | ticker | action | side | rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | AVGO | ● enter | ▼ short | verdict FRESH, direction bearish -> short AVGO (regulatory: The EU General Court rejected Broadcom's bid to suspend an antitrust information request related to its VMware acquisition, escalating regulatory scrutiny that could impact cloud service providers.) |
| S2 | MSFT | ○ skip | — | verdict PRICED — Δ prev close +5.10% · Δ 30m +0.33% · px 488.42 (prev 464.72) → close 0.00% |
| S3 | - | ○ skip | — | no peer in universe |
| S4 | AVGO | ● enter | ▼ short | overnight drift: short AVGO at close, exit next close (regulatory: The EU General Court rejected Broadcom's bid to suspend an antitrust information request related to its VMware acquisition, escalating regulatory scrutiny that could impact cloud service providers.) |
| strategy | ticker | side | qty | entry | exit | P&L $ | status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | AVGO | ▼ short | 2 | 388.60 | 391.03 | -4.86 | closed |
| S4 | AVGO | ▼ short | 2 | 390.90 | 418.60 | -55.40 | closed |
| ticker | mfe | mae | reflection |
|---|---|---|---|
| AVGO S1 | +0.13% | -0.98% | Signal (dominant factor): The bearish call was wrong — AVGO rose ~0.6% against the short, and the regulatory headline produced no meaningful downside. Timing: The stock was down only ~0.2% at entry, so the trade wasn't chasing an already-completed move; the predicted decline simply never occurred. Exit: The trade only ever showed +0.13% unrealized in its favor versus -0.98% at worst, so the -4.86 USD exit (~-0.63%) sits between those; there was essentially nothing to capture, and the exit avoided the worst but this is an execution footnote — the bad signal is the story. |
| AVGO S4 | -0.12% | -7.94% | Signal: wrong. The short predicted downside from regulatory escalation, but AVGO rallied ~7% against the position; it was never more than 0.12% in the money while open. Timing: the entry at 390.9 was only ~0.4% above prior close, so the adverse move had not already happened — it occurred after entry, confirming this is a direction failure, not a chasing failure. Exit: the fixed next-close exit realized roughly -7.1%, essentially the worst unrealized (-7.94%), so nearly the full drawdown was absorbed — but with a mechanical time-based exit and no favorable excursion to capture, there was nothing better available. The dominant factor is a bad signal: the bearish regulatory read was overwhelmed by whatever drove the rally (not identifiable from this data). |