AMZN Amazon

Signal: Partly right — the anticipated downside did materialize while the trade was open (best unrealized +5.23%, price fell to ~$243), so the short thesis wasn't wrong on direction intraday.

Timing: The stock had already fallen 1.81% from prior close by entry, so some of the news-driven move was consumed before the fill — though the further 5% drop shows meaningful downside remained.

Exit: This is the dominant factor. The mechanical next-close exit surrendered the entire +5.23% favorable move and closed at 266.27, near the worst unrealized (-4.23%), locking in -3.83% (-$29.46). The signal delivered; the fixed-horizon exit rode the full reversal and captured close to the worst available outcome.

Signal: wrong. The predicted overnight upside never materialized — AMZN fell 1.5% from entry, and the brief +0.97% peak was the only favorable excursion versus a -2.02% trough, so the stock spent most of the hold moving against the thesis. Timing: the data doesn't show a pre-entry pop to fade — the stock was actually down 0.85% on the day at decision time — so this wasn't a case of buying after the move; the anticipated move simply didn't come. Exit: the mechanical next-close exit at -1.52% was in the middle of the range (better than the -2.02% worst, worse than the +0.97% best), so exit execution neither rescued nor worsened much — the dominant factor is a bad signal: the partnership news did not translate into overnight drift.

Signal (dominant factor): The bullish call didn't play out — AMZN went nowhere and drifted slightly negative, with the worst unrealized (-0.85%) roughly 3x the best (+0.26%). A broad, macro-scale AI capex headline is not the kind of stock-specific catalyst that produced a directional move here; the predicted direction simply didn't materialize during the holding period.

Timing: No evidence the move had already happened — price was only +0.26% since prior close and flat over the last 30 minutes at decision time, so the trade wasn't chasing a spike.

Exit: The near-flat exit (-0.30 USD, ~-0.04%) captured close to the best of a bad situation — it missed the small +0.26% peak but avoided most of the -0.85% drawdown. The loss is attributable to the signal producing no move, not to poor exit execution.

Signal: Right, at least intraday — the long thesis saw up to +5.99% unrealized, so the predicted upward direction did materialize while the trade was open.

Timing: Not stale at entry — price was down 0.71% from prior close going in, so the move hadn't already run; entry was fine.

Exit: This is the dominant factor. The mechanical next-close exit gave back the entire +5.99% peak (roughly +$47 available on 3 shares) and closed at -$2.40, near the -2.62% worst. The signal worked; the fixed exit timing captured essentially none of what was available.

Signal: the bullish call went essentially untested — AMZN barely moved while the trade was open (best +0.14%, worst −0.41%), so the direction wasn't confirmed so much as it simply didn't materialize; a 2026 capex narrative is a slow-burn thesis and this window shows no price response either way. Timing: the data doesn't indicate the move had already happened — price was slightly down on the day at entry, so there's no evidence of chasing. Exit: at −0.03%, the exit gave up nearly nothing relative to the +0.14% peak available; the dominant factor is a non-event signal — the catalyst produced no tradeable move in the holding period, and the small loss is noise, not an exit or timing failure.

The predicted upward drift didn't materialize: the stock never gained more than +0.66% while open and fell as much as -5.97%, so the signal was wrong over the holding period. Timing compounds this — the entry at 262.22 was already ~1.4% above the prior close, meaning much of the earnings pop was priced in before the fill. The mechanical next-close exit at -0.40% was actually near the best available outcome (far from the -5.97% trough, and only +0.66% was ever on offer), so exit execution isn't the problem — the dominant factor is a signal that failed after the move had largely happened.

Signal: Right. The bullish call played out — the trade never went underwater (worst unrealized +0.18%) and price climbed steadily after entry.

Timing: Fine. Only +0.49% had occurred since the prior close at decision time, and entry at 259.40 was just ~0.3% above prev close, so the move had not already been spent.

Exit: Captured most of what was available — exit at 262.17 (+1.07%) versus a best unrealized of +1.48%, leaving roughly a quarter of the peak on the table. Dominant factor: a correct signal cleanly executed; the only shortfall was a modestly early/sub-peak exit, which is within normal noise. Whether the Anthropic-IPO rationale actually drove the move can't be determined from this data.

Signal: directionally correct but barely — the short gained +0.37%, within a ±0.5% intraday wiggle that's closer to noise than confirmation of the broad "AI debt fatigue" thesis; this trade doesn't really validate the rationale. Timing: not stale — price was only -0.24% off the prior close at decision time, so the predicted move hadn't already occurred. Exit: solid — the +2.85 P&L (+0.37%) captured roughly 70% of the best unrealized (+0.52%) and avoided the -0.50% drawdown; the dominant factor is that the available move was simply tiny relative to the macro-scale rationale, and the data here can't settle whether the thesis itself has any edge.

Signal: right. The bullish call played out — price rose from 262.07 to 265.75 (+1.40%), consistent with the AWS earnings thesis.

Timing: partially degraded at the fill. At decision time the stock was only +0.17% vs. prev close (259.45), so the move hadn't run yet — but the fill at 262.07 was ~1% above prev close, meaning roughly a percent of the pop occurred between decision and entry. Whether that gap was slippage or delay isn't determinable from this data.

Exit: near-optimal. The +1.40% realized captured almost all of the +1.61% best unrealized, with modest -1.26% adverse excursion along the way. Dominant factor: a correct signal executed well — the only leakage was the entry fill above the decision-time price.

Signal: Wrong over the holding horizon — the short lost 2.4% (259.52 → 265.76), though the +3.17% best unrealized shows the predicted downside did occur intraperiod before reversing hard. Timing: Entry came after only a modest dip (-0.40% since prior close), so the move had not meaningfully happened pre-entry; timing isn't the issue here. Exit: This is the dominant factor — the position was up as much as +3.17% while open, but the mechanical next-close exit gave back the entire gain and then some, realizing near the worst unrealized (-2.60%). Bluntly: the trade captured roughly the worst available outcome despite a substantial favorable move being on the table.