ASML ASML

Signal was wrong: the rationale called for a bullish move on a positive-sounding demand article, but ASML fell about 1.74% from entry (1671.89 → 1642.79), never rising more than +0.49% before sliding toward the -1.85% low. Timing is partly implicated — the stock was already +0.80% above the prior close at decision time with the last 30m flat, suggesting any article-driven pop had largely occurred before entry — though the data can't confirm whether the article itself caused that earlier move. Exit was near the worst point (-1.74% realized vs -1.85% worst), but with only +0.49% ever available on the upside, there was little to capture; the dominant factor is the wrong directional call, not exit mechanics.

Signal: Wrong at the horizon traded — ASML closed next day at 1643.42, below the 1656.46 entry, though it did reach +1.72% at some point while open, so the directional thesis wasn't dead on arrival. Timing: The fill is the problem: decision-time price was ~1642 (prev close 1650 minus 0.47%), yet the fill printed at 1656.46, roughly 0.9% higher — the position paid up before it even existed, and that gap alone exceeds the final loss (at the decision price the trade would have been roughly flat). The journal doesn't say whether that was stale pricing or a late fill, so the cause isn't settled here. Exit: The mechanical next-close exit landed near the worst unrealized (-0.93%) and gave back the entire +1.72% peak — but the dominant factor is the entry fill ~0.9% above the quoted price, which converted a marginally positive drift into a -13.04 USD loss.

Signal was right: ASML rose after the long entry, and the trade closed +0.76% (+12.49 USD). Timing was fine: at decision time the stock was slightly below prev close (−0.47%, drifting −0.21% in the last 30m) and the fill at 1642.8 was below the 1650 close, so the move had not already happened — the drawdown while open was only −0.27%. Exit captured most of what was available: +0.76% realized against a +1.06% best unrealized, roughly three-quarters of the peak, with the worst case never threatening the position.

Dominant factor: a correct directional call executed near the low of the window — a clean win. One caveat the data doesn't settle: the cited headline is about Micron, not ASML, so whether the "FRESH" verdict actually reflected unpriced ASML-specific news (versus a secondhand read) can't be confirmed from this journal entry.

Signal was wrong: the rationale called for a bullish repricing on the earnings beat, but the stock closed the trade down 2.56% from entry at its worst and the exit at 1667.15 (-2.56%) is essentially the trough — price never sustained the predicted direction. Timing doesn't look like the culprit: entry at 1710.9 was below the prior close (-0.47%) and only modestly off the +1.79% last-30m bounce, so the trade wasn't chasing an already-completed move. The exit captured the worst of what was available — the position reached +1.27% unrealized before reversing, and the -43.75 USD realized P&L sits at the full worst-unrealized mark; the dominant factor is a failed directional read (the beat did not produce the bullish repricing), with the exit landing at the maximum drawdown as a secondary sting.

Signal: Right — the bullish call worked; price never went meaningfully against the position (worst unrealized just -0.05%).

Timing: Late entry — ASML was already up ~1.4% from the prior close at decision time, and the fill at 1704.32 confirms most of the news pop was priced in before entry; still, further upside remained, so the chase wasn't fatal.

Exit: Partial capture — realized +0.61% (+10.36) against a best unrealized of +1.04%, so the exit gave back roughly 40% of the peak move. The dominant factor is a correct signal with a modestly suboptimal exit; timing cost is real but the position still had room, which the data confirms.

Signal: Right — the post-earnings long drifted up another +2.85% from entry to exit. Timing: Some of the move was already gone — the stock was +0.98% at decision time and the fill (1630.89) was ~1.8% above prev close, so entry paid up beyond the known context — but plenty of drift remained. Exit: Near-optimal — +2.85% realized against a +2.94% best unrealized, with only -0.52% adverse excursion. Dominant factor: a correct signal with an exit that captured essentially everything available; the only leakage was the slippage/gap between decision-time price and the fill.

Signal: Correct — the bullish call played out, with the trade never going more than -0.06% underwater.

Timing: Partly late — about +1% of the earnings move had already occurred by entry (fill 1618.24 vs prev close 1602.22), though the last-30m read of +0.06% suggests the pop had stalled rather than being chased mid-spike; whether more upside existed before entry isn't determinable from this data.

Exit: Near-optimal — the +0.75% realized gain captured almost all of the +0.78% best unrealized. Dominant factor: a correct signal executed cleanly; the only cost was the ~1% of the move already priced in before entry.

Signal: right. The long call on post-earnings drift worked — price rose ~2.0% from entry and never went meaningfully underwater (worst unrealized +0.10%).

Timing: mostly fine. Only +1.07% had moved since prev close at decision time (and the last 30m was negative), so the bulk of the move came after entry; the small entry slippage above prev close (1592.73 → 1597.97) cost ~0.3%.

Exit: the dominant factor. The mechanical next-close exit captured +2.0% against a peak unrealized of +3.73% — roughly half the available move was given back before the scheduled exit; the data doesn't show when the peak occurred, so whether the drift faded or reversed intraday can't be determined here.

Signal: Ambiguous-to-weak — the bullish earnings call matched the pre-entry pop (+1.07% off prev close), but after entry the stock only managed +0.40% before rolling over, so the repricing thesis had little fuel left.

Timing: This is the dominant factor. Entry at 1609.5 was ~1% above prior close and came right after a -1.28% 30-minute fade — the move had already happened, and the trade bought the top of the pop.

Exit: The -0.80% realized loss sits between the +0.40% best and -1.46% worst unrealized, so the exit was middling — it gave back the small available upside but avoided the full drawdown. Bluntly: a late entry chasing an already-priced move, not an exit failure.

Signal: Right — the stock continued higher after entry (best unrealized +3.14%), consistent with the positive guidance thesis.

Timing: Partially late — the stock was already up ~1% from prior close at entry (fill 1590.69 vs prev close 1575.15), so some of the news reaction was absorbed before the position opened, though most of the eventual move was still ahead.

Exit (dominant factor): The exit is the problem — the trade captured +0.38% (+6.09 USD) out of a peak +3.14% unrealized gain with minimal downside risk (-0.29% worst), meaning the mechanical next-close exit gave back roughly seven-eighths of the available move. The data doesn't show intraday price paths, so whether the peak occurred before or near the close can't be determined here.