
North Carolina and 21 other states, alongside the FTC, have sued Amazon alleging a secret advertising scheme that artificially inflated prices for over $20 billion.
| strategy | ticker | action | side | rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | AMZN | ○ skip | — | primary short move already absorbed: AMZN -1.88% since prev close → close -0.05% |
| S2 | - | ○ skip | — | no counterparty in universe |
| S3 | - | ○ skip | — | no peer in universe |
| S4 | AMZN | ● enter | ▼ short | overnight drift: short AMZN at close, exit next close (regulatory: North Carolina and 21 other states, alongside the FTC, have sued Amazon alleging a secret advertising scheme that artificially inflated prices for over $20 billion.) |
| strategy | ticker | side | qty | entry | exit | P&L $ | status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S4 | AMZN | ▼ short | 3 | 254.69 | 254.85 | -0.48 | closed |
| ticker | mfe | mae | reflection |
|---|---|---|---|
| AMZN S4 | +4.40% | -0.73% | Signal: Right — the short-side thesis played out, with the stock falling as much as 4.40% below entry while the position was open. Timing: Partially late — AMZN had already dropped 1.88% from the prior close before entry, though the data shows most of the favorable move (up to +4.40% unrealized) still occurred after the fill, so timing wasn't the main issue. Exit: This is the dominant failure — the fixed next-close exit gave back the entire +4.40% unrealized gain and closed slightly underwater (-$0.48 vs. a max drawdown of only -0.73%), meaning the strategy captured essentially none of what was available. Blunt diagnosis: correct signal, acceptable timing, exit rule surrendered a large winning move and turned it into a small loss. |