

A U.S. District Judge approved a settlement requiring Meta to pay up to $17.1 billion to 29 states over allegations of harming children and teens on Facebook and Instagram.
| strategy | ticker | action | side | rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | META | ● enter | ▼ short | verdict REPRICING, direction bearish -> short META (regulatory: A U.S. District Judge approved a settlement requiring Meta to pay up to $17.1 billion to 29 states over allegations of harming children and teens on Facebook and Instagram.) |
| S2 | - | ○ skip | — | no counterparty in universe |
| S3 | GOOGL | ○ skip | — | direction unclear for GOOGL → close +0.51% |
| S4 | META | ● enter | ▼ short | overnight drift: short META at close, exit next close (regulatory: A U.S. District Judge approved a settlement requiring Meta to pay up to $17.1 billion to 29 states over allegations of harming children and teens on Facebook and Instagram.) |
| strategy | ticker | side | qty | entry | exit | P&L $ | status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | META | ▼ short | 1 | 571.10 | 571.83 | -0.73 | closed |
| S4 | META | ▼ short | 1 | 572.33 | 577.61 | -5.28 | closed |
| ticker | mfe | mae | reflection |
|---|---|---|---|
| META S1 | +0.09% | -0.81% | Signal: Wrong over the holding window — after entry META drifted up, with max favorable move only +0.09% vs. -0.81% adverse, so the bearish thesis didn't play out while the trade was open. Timing: The stock was already down -1.17% from prior close at decision time, so much of any settlement-driven repricing had likely occurred before entry; the data can't confirm how much further downside the news "should" have produced. Exit: The -0.13% loss sits between the +0.09% best and -0.81% worst — the exit was reasonable given almost nothing favorable was ever available to capture. Dominant factor: the signal simply didn't work post-entry — the market had largely absorbed the news before the fill, leaving no edge to harvest. |
| META S4 | +2.73% | -2.11% | Signal: Partially right — the short saw up to +2.73% unrealized, so downside did materialize after entry; but the close-to-close outcome was against it. Timing: The stock was already down 1.17% from prior close at decision time, so some of the news-driven move was consumed before entry — though the subsequent +2.73% drawdown shows meaningful downside remained. Exit: This is the dominant factor: the mechanical next-close exit gave back a +2.73% unrealized gain and locked in -0.92% (-$5.28), capturing roughly none of the available move. The data doesn't show intraday path timing, so whether the reversal was gradual or late-day is not settleable here. |