

A U.S. lawmaker has urged the Commerce Department to strictly enforce export controls preventing TSMC from supplying chips to sanctioned Chinese firms like Huawei.
| strategy | ticker | action | side | rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | TSM | ○ skip | — | verdict FRESH, direction bearish -> short TSM (regulatory: A U.S. lawmaker has urged the Commerce Department to strictly enforce export controls preventing TSMC from supplying chips to sanctioned Chinese firms like Huawei.) [skipped: signal conflict — wanted short, conflict-hold — mat 65 ties incumbent S1 long TSM, incumbent held (strictly higher materiality required to flip)] → close -0.31% |
| S2 | - | ○ skip | — | no counterparty in universe |
| S3 | NVDA | ○ skip | — | direction unclear for NVDA → close -0.41% |
| S4 | TSM | ● enter | ▼ short | overnight drift: short TSM at close, exit next close (regulatory: A U.S. lawmaker has urged the Commerce Department to strictly enforce export controls preventing TSMC from supplying chips to sanctioned Chinese firms like Huawei.) |
| strategy | ticker | side | qty | entry | exit | P&L $ | status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S4 | TSM | ▼ short | 2 | 420.14 | 422.63 | -4.98 | closed |
| ticker | mfe | mae | reflection |
|---|---|---|---|
| TSM S4 | +0.39% | -1.07% | Signal: Wrong. The short thesis (regulatory pressure driving TSM down overnight) didn't materialize — the stock rose ~0.6% from entry to exit. Timing: The data doesn't show a pre-entry down-move being missed; price was actually up +0.35% on the day at decision time, so there's no evidence the predicted move had already happened — it simply never occurred. Exit: The mechanical next-close exit at -0.59% landed between the best (+0.39%) and worst (-1.07%) unrealized marks, so the exit neither missed a meaningful profit window nor caught the worst of it. Dominant factor: bad signal — the direction call was simply wrong. |