

New Mexico Wants Meta to Pay Up to $40 Billion. A Judge Rules This Month
| strategy | ticker | action | side | rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | META | ● enter | ▼ short | verdict FRESH, direction bearish -> short META (regulatory: New Mexico Wants Meta to Pay Up to $40 Billion. A Judge Rules This Month) [closed early: netted out by outranking S2 long META decision 26966] |
| S2 | - | ○ skip | — | no counterparty in universe |
| S3 | - | ○ skip | — | no peer in universe |
| S4 | META | ○ skip | — | overnight drift: short META at close, exit next close (regulatory: New Mexico Wants Meta to Pay Up to $40 Billion. A Judge Rules This Month) [skipped at close: outranked — mat 72 short lost to mat 75 short (decision 26608) for S4 META exiting 2026-10-07] |
| strategy | ticker | side | qty | entry | exit | P&L $ | status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | META | ▼ short | 1 | 745.21 | 743.10 | +2.11 | closed |
| ticker | mfe | mae | reflection |
|---|---|---|---|
| META S1 | +1.05% | +0.09% | Signal: correct — the short went into profit immediately and never traded underwater (worst unrealized was still +0.09%), so the bearish call on META was right over the holding window, though whether the pending New Mexico ruling actually drove the move isn't established by this data (the article describes a decision due "this month," not a realized event). Timing: fine — the stock was slightly up (+0.50% vs prev close) at decision time and filled near that level, so the downside move came after entry rather than before it. Exit (dominant factor): the trade was closed by netting against an outranking long decision, not by any price logic, and that mechanical exit banked +0.28% out of a +1.05% best unrealized — roughly a quarter of what was available. The P&L was positive but the exit, not the thesis, determined the size of it. |