TSM TSMC

Signal: right. The bearish call played out — TSM dropped ~1.9% after entry. Timing: fine. Price was essentially flat at decision time (+0.04% vs. prior close), so the move had not already occurred; the trade caught the decline rather than chasing it. Exit: near-optimal. The +16.32 P&L (~+1.91%) captured almost all of the +2.04% best unrealized, with only -0.66% adverse excursion.

Dominant factor: a correct directional signal, executed and exited cleanly — this trade worked as intended on all three dimensions. Note that the data here can't confirm the tariff news was the actual cause of the decline, only that direction and magnitude aligned with the thesis.

Signal: correct — the earnings-driven bullish call played out, with the position gaining +2.37% (417.08 → 426.96). Timing: the move had not already happened; price was only +0.21% off the prior close at decision time and entry was essentially at the prior close, with worst unrealized of just -0.02% confirming near-zero adverse drift. Exit: solid but not perfect — the trade captured +2.37% of a +3.00% peak, giving back roughly 0.6 points to the mechanical next-close exit; the dominant factor here is simply a correct signal with clean timing, and the exit left only a modest amount on the table.

Signal: Wrong, at least over the holding window — the bullish thesis never materialized; the stock drifted down and the best the position ever showed was +0.01%. Timing: The data doesn't show a pre-entry run-up (only +0.21% since prev close at decision time), so this wasn't a case of chasing a completed move — though whether the news was already priced in from an earlier session can't be settled from what's here. Exit: The -0.31% loss matches the worst unrealized exactly, meaning the exit hit the bottom tick of the trade's range, but with a max upside of +0.01% there was essentially nothing available to capture. Dominant factor: signal failure — the predicted bullish move simply never occurred.

Signal: Directionally right, but barely — price closed higher than entry, so the drift call wasn't wrong.

Timing: The move had largely already happened. TSM was +1.25% over prior close at decision time, and the fill at 416.68 was ~1.6% above the prior close of 410.13 — the earnings pop was mostly consumed before entry, leaving only ~0.09% of drift to capture.

Exit: The close-to-close exit captured +0.09% versus a best unrealized of +0.95% (~$7.90 on 2 shares vs. $0.76 realized), so most of the available intraday gain was left behind — though a mechanical next-close exit doesn't attempt to capture that peak by design.

Dominant factor: timing. Entering after the earnings move was already priced left almost nothing for the overnight-drift thesis to earn; the exit just confirmed how little was left.

Signal: Right — direction was bullish and price drifted up after entry (best +0.50%, worst only −0.16%). Timing: The move was largely already in by entry — the stock was +1.25% over prior close at decision time and the fill (415.29) was well above prev close (410.13), so the strategy paid for most of the earnings repricing and captured only the residual drift. Exit: Reasonable — the +0.32% realized (+$2.62) captured roughly two-thirds of the +0.50% peak available, so little was left on the table within the holding window.

Dominant factor: late timing. The signal was correct but stale — the bulk of the earnings move happened before entry, leaving only a small residual to capture, which the exit did adequately. (Note: data doesn't show how large the pre-entry move was beyond +1.25% same-day, so whether an earlier session captured more is unknowable here.)

Signal: wrong. The bullish call on the TSMC/Arm news didn't materialize — the stock never gained more than +0.16% while the trade was open and drifted lower, so the predicted direction simply failed over the holding period. Timing: the data doesn't show a prior run-up (price was slightly down at decision time, and the fill at 410.75 was well below the 418.90 prev close), so this wasn't a case of chasing a move that already happened — if anything the gap between decision-time price and fill suggests slippage/deterioration before entry, though the data here can't fully settle that. Exit: acceptable. The realized loss of -0.31% sits between the best (+0.16%) and worst (-1.33%) unrealized, so the exit gave up little of what was available — the dominant factor is a bad directional signal, not exit execution.

Signal: Wrong. The rationale predicted upward drift on bullish capex/dividend news, but TSM fell ~2.2% from entry to exit — the direction call failed outright.

Timing: The stock was only +0.47% above prev close at decision time and entry was ~0.6% above prev close, so the anticipated move had not already happened; there's no evidence of chasing a spent move here.

Exit: The mechanical next-close exit at -2.2% gave back nothing meaningful — max favorable was only +0.45%, so at best a small gain was available, and the exit landed near (though above) the -3.18% worst. The dominant factor is bluntly a bad signal: the news-based long thesis was simply wrong for this holding window, not a timing or exit-execution problem.

Signal: Directionally right — price drifted up after entry, and the worst drawdown was only -0.15%, so the bullish call wasn't wrong. Timing: The stock was up just +0.47% from prev close with essentially no momentum in the last 30 minutes, so entry wasn't chasing a spent move; however, whether the news itself was already priced in earlier can't be determined from this data. Exit: This is the dominant factor — the trade banked +0.09% (+$0.74) against a best unrealized of +0.44%, capturing only about a fifth of what was available; a correct but modest signal was mostly given back by the exit.

Signal: Right — the long thesis (advanced-node pricing strength) played out; the stock never went meaningfully against the position (worst unrealized only +0.07%).

Timing: Partly late — the stock had already moved +0.73% above the prior close by fill (entry 415.1 vs. 412.09), so some of the drift the strategy targets was consumed before entry.

Exit: This is the dominant factor. The trade peaked at +2.29% unrealized but the scheduled next-close exit captured only +0.79% (+$6.52), leaving roughly two-thirds of the available move on the table. Whether the peak was capturable under the mechanical exit rule isn't something this data settles — but the gap between realized and best unrealized is the standout fact.

Signal: Right, but weakly — the bullish call on TSM (Samsung foundry price hikes implying pricing power across advanced nodes) produced only a +0.41% max favorable move, so the thesis was directionally correct but not potent.

Timing: Partially eroded — the stock was already +0.58% on the day at decision time, and entry filled at 414.6 vs. a 412.09 prior close, meaning much of the day's move preceded the fill; whether the news itself was already priced in earlier can't be settled from this data.

Exit: The exit at +0.19% captured roughly half the +0.41% best available, with minimal adverse risk (-0.10%). The dominant factor is a weak signal: even perfect exit execution would have yielded only ~$3.40 on this position, so the trade's small payoff reflects a marginal edge more than any timing or exit failure.