Stats

A test of historical option marks for HITI, a type of investment, showed that the expected return on call options, which give the buyer the right to buy a stock at a certain price, was negative. The test looked at ten consecutive earnings reports from March 2024 to June 2026, and found that the median absolute change in stock price after the reports was 4.700378%. To make a profit, the buyer would have needed to make a return of at least 9.090909% on a call option, or -9.486166% on a put option, which gives the buyer the right to sell a stock at a certain price. However, the average actual return on the options was much lower, at 0.213531 times the premium paid, or the amount paid for the option. The issuer of the stock, High Tide, announced that it would release its financial results after the financial markets closed on Monday, September 14, 2026. The test used data from various sources, including option contracts and stock prices. The results were as follows: Twenty historical contract-window requests were corrected, and 60 event/side/lag endpoints were enumerated. The test also found that common training intersection across different time periods was limited, with only 5 calls and 1 put. The mean return on call options was -13.580438%, and the bootstrap 95% confidence interval was [-47.238095, 20.077220]. The test concluded that the premise that actual trade marks add evidence, but do not establish synchronous fills, listing history, or unselected missing outcomes. The results also suggested that missingness can select liquid winners or losers, and that rejecting a common-train strategy does not prove that all possible option strategies fail.

A test of Stitch Fix option marks from March 2024 to June 2026 showed some missing data and a high cost for training. The test looked at 10 times when the company announced its earnings after the market closed. It found that the median absolute change in the stock price from the close before the announcement to the close the next day was 16.578014%. The test used a catalog of options, including a call option with a strike price of 2.5 on September 11 and another on October 16. To make a profit, the test required a return of at least 3.389831% for one of the options and 72.881356% for another. The test also found that the mean intrinsic value of the call options was 1.109296 times the premium, but this did not include the residual time value. The company announced that it would release its financial results after the market close on Wednesday, September 23, 2026. The test used data from historical events and option contracts for Stitch Fix. The sources of the data included the company's website and two other websites. The test had three main findings: first, it compared the performance of different strategies for buying and selling options, and found that one strategy had a mean return of 4.529617% while another had a mean return of -14.277006%; second, it found that the mean return of the six training events was -15.218254% when the cost of buying and selling shares was 0.10; third, it found that missing data for some events did not significantly affect the results, and that the data did not support the claim that the company's option marks were always available. A news scan found the headline 'Stitch Fix Announces Date for Fourth Quarter and Full Fiscal Year 2026 Financial Results and Conference Call' on the company's website.

A news scan found the headline about Stitch Fix announcing its fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2026 financial results and conference call. An edge test was done on SFIX, which is a stock ticker, from March 2024 to June 2026. The test looked at 10 consecutive earnings reports and compared them to the stock's performance. The median absolute change in the stock's price after these reports was 16.578014%. To make money from this, the stock would need to go up by at least 3.389831% in 4 out of 10 cases. However, the test found that this did not happen. A Kelly criterion, which is a formula to determine the optimal amount to bet, was used to calculate the potential profit. The result was a mean return of 0.008451, which is very small. The test also found that removing the largest event, which had a return of 44.347826%, made the mean return negative. A bootstrap test, which is a statistical test, was done to see if the results were significant. The test found that 49.21% of the samples were positive, but this is not enough to confirm that there is an edge, or an advantage. The conclusion is that the current analysis is not enough to validate the sizing of the trade or to expect a payoff of at least 3 times the premium.

A news scan found the headline about LUXE's consecutive nine-quarter audit rejects affordable put. The audit checked nine fiscal earnings from Q3FY24 to Q3FY26, which is from May 2024 to May 2026. The median absolute change was 5.245902%. The range was from -11.810013% to 23.8%. On September 11, the price was 7.39. On October 16, the price was 5.05. To make a profit, the price would need to fall by 33.694181% or rise by 8.525034%. There is a risk that the price could move in the opposite direction. The issuer announced that the fourth-quarter and full-fiscal-year 2026 earnings release and conference call would be on September 16, 2026. The option expires on October 16, plus 30 days. The default exit is on September 15. There is no exception for holding the affordable put because the hurdle exceeds the median by 28.448279 percentage points. The data comes from the website https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars and the option contracts are for LUXE. The key points are: the nine consecutive quarters were checked before measuring; the first release on February 10, 2026, was used instead of the correction on February 12; the earnings on May 14, 2025, were used instead of the strategic update on May 15; all nine affordable put intrinsic payouts were zero; the mean intrinsic payout for the nearer put was 0.298011 times the premium; and the expensive call was 1.130256 times the premium. The audit rejects the put and will revisit the new nearer priced contract plus independent event evidence.

A test was done on Stitch Fix, or SFIX, to check how well a trading strategy worked. This strategy used something called an edge test, which is a way to measure how well a trading plan performs. The test looked at 10 consecutive earnings reports from the company, from March 2024 to June 2026. It checked the daily change in stock price from the day the report was released to the next day, and found that the median absolute change was 16.578014%. The test also looked at two specific options, a put and a call, with prices of $2.95 and $2.5, and a cost of $0.05 per share. To pass the test, the call had to increase by at least 3.389831%, and the put had to decrease by at least 21.016949%. The call passed the test, but the premium, or extra cost, of $50 was too high. The put failed the test, as there was no record of it paying out more than three times its premium. The company announced that it would release its fourth quarter and full year financial results on September 23, 2026. The test used data from option contracts and stock prices, and found that two missing quarters, December 10, 2024, and March 11, 2025, needed to be added back in to get accurate results. The test also found that the mean change in stock price was 0.424406%, and that there was a lot of uncertainty in the results. The test had some limitations, including a small sample size and the possibility of changes in the business or unexpected events. A news scan found the headline 'Stitch Fix Announces Date for Fourth Quarter and Full Fiscal Year 2026 Financial Results and Conference Call' on the company's website.

A test was done on the stock TCOM, looking at nine times when the company AMC released its earnings from February 2024 to June 2026. The test checked the daily prices from the close of the release day to the close of the next day. The median absolute change was 5.543964% and the mean change was -0.908716%. On September 11, the stock price was $39.02, and on October 16, the call option price was $45.30 and the put option price was $35.40. The test also assumed a $0.05 per share reserve for buying and selling. The results showed that the put option was not a good choice, with only 1 out of 9 times being successful, which is 11.11%. This is below the 40% threshold. Without the reserve, the put option was successful 2 out of 9 times. The test also looked at the expected payout and found that there was no documented case where the actual payout was more than three times the premium. The test used data from option contracts and stock bars. The sources used were option_contracts and https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars. The test also corrected for a missing quarter and included May 19, 2025, in the results. The old forecast was retained separately. The premises of the test were to reproduce the results exactly in the new SIP bars, and the test confirmed the May 19, 2025, AMC earnings with a next-day return of -5.543964%. The accessible-date sample is now 9, not the full 10 quarter population. The test also looked at the schedule for the second quarter and first half of 2024 and found that the actual PDF confirmed the date but not the first hour. The test kept the +8.564650% next-day sensitivity and did not silently assign AMC. The test also used NumPy to do a bootstrap analysis with a seed of 91208 and found a mean 95% CI of [-6.041939, 4.510271]%. The test found that the price change versus the sample change was separated, and the current costed put was 1/8 on the old population, and adding the May quarter made it 1/9. The cost reserve alone reduced the current put 2/9 gross to 1/9 costed. The test also found that the February 2025 quarter missed the 11.455664% hurdle by -11.387292%. The collection of data used Python requests, which failed twice, and then used Node fetch, which returned 200/926 bars with no pagination. The test also used Yahoo 5y OHLC to provide a separate check, and found that the raw historical levels differed from the SIP adjusted prices, with a maximum overlapping return difference of 0.10619 pp. The final study used SIP throughout, and no event return was selected from Yahoo. The validity of the test was limited by the timing, population, and costs, and none of these established an entry point.

An automated trading fund manager performed an edge test on ten issuer-dated scheduled AMC earnings from March 2024 to June 2026. The test found that the daily pre-release close to next-session close had a median absolute percentage change of 4.700378% and a signed mean of -3.027709%. On September 11, the price of S2.53 and the cost of an October 16 call option of $0.21 and a put option of $0.16, plus assumed roundtrip costs of $0.05 per share, required a percentage change of +9.090909% or -9.486166% to be profitable. However, both of these percentages were below 40%. The manager also reviewed old frozen data from N9, which had a median percentage change of 5.494505%, and decided to preserve it separately. The manager found that the issuer, High Tide Inc, announced that it would release its third fiscal quarter 2026 financial results after financial markets close on Monday, September 14, 2026. The manager also reviewed prior observations from N9, which skipped September 2025 without a recovered exclusion rationale. The manager added a new observation, N10, and retained the frozen N9 forecast. The manager also reviewed training data from 2024-25 and holdout data from 2026, and found that the results did not meet the mandatory gate, resulting in a rejection. The manager noted that the sample size was small and non-stationary, and that the data was limited to US listing data and stale put marks. The manager also noted that there was no population-wide calendar claim, and that the premise of the test was that residual time value could make options profitable, but there was no priced or executable evidence to quantify this exception.

A test of Nokia's earnings from January 2024 to July 2026 found that the median absolute change in the stock price on the day of the earnings release was 5.864627%. The range of changes was from -8.474903% to 11.444479%. For example, on September 11, the stock price was $11.13, and to reach the target price of $13.45 on October 30, the stock would need to increase by 21.293801%. However, this did not happen, and the option to buy the stock at $13.45 on October 30 was not profitable. A news scan found the headline 'Nokia Corporation lowers 2025 operating profit guidance due to currency' on the Nokia website. The test also found that the stock price did not move as expected after the earnings release, and the options to buy or sell the stock were not profitable. The test used data from the Nokia website, option contracts, and stock prices. The test was done on 11 earnings releases from 2024 to 2026, and the results were compared to the median change in the stock price. The test found that the stock price did not move as expected after the earnings release, and the options to buy or sell the stock were not profitable. The sources used for the test include the Nokia website, option contracts, and stock prices.

A test of Edge found that the current contracts for CAG and LW are not acceptable. For CAG, the test looked at the median absolute change in the stock price on mornings when the company released its earnings, which was 2.064410% from July 2024 to July 2026. The test also looked at specific prices, such as 14.60 on September 11 and 15.5 on October 9, and found that the current trade of 0.20 on September 11 would require a change of 8.904110% or 7.876712% including a cost of 0.05. For LW, the test found a median change of 13.153864% from July 2024 to July 2026, with specific prices such as 47.85 on October 16 and 57.5 on the same day. The test also found that the current premium was more than 51.0594 times the absolute cap. The mean mapped intrinsic value of LW was 1.498726 USD per share, which is 2.724957 times the current premium and 2.497877 times the assumed all-in cost. However, this is not the actual option expectancy. The test did not find any 40% pass or documented 3x expected payoff. The test omitted October 1, 2024, due to ambiguity about the release hour, but adding the reaction on October 2 still yielded a failure. The dates for the events were: CAG on August 31, with a morning Q&A on September 30, 2026, before 9:30 ET, and LW on September 8, with a release approximately at 8 ET and a call at 9 ET on October 6, 2026. The expiries were 9 or 10 days after the events, with default exits on September 29 or October 5 RTH. The historical originals were recorded as 25518+ and 25563+, with sources including option contracts and stock bars. The closes were not executable asks. The test looked at two things: daily signed stock reactions mapped to current strike and premium, and price and turnover screens. However, the price and turnover screen is only for discovery and is biased towards current listings, with no independent probability estimates. The test found that the most recent 2026 N2 for CAG was both negative and less than 1.26%, with no put cost coverage, and that the historical tail in October 2024 does not guarantee a repeat. For LW, the test found that the N8 vs 9 sensitivity both failed 40%, with a correlation of 0.985243 between four shared release dates. The validity of the test requires a gate, but the observed gates failed, so the test rejects the current contracts. The soundness of the test is limited by the closes, corporate adjustments, small samples, and LW timing. A counterexample is that residual time could make real options worth more than their intrinsic value, but without actual net option history, this does not document mispricing.

A news scan found the headline that on September 12, some stock prices changed, but they still did not meet the requirements. The stocks in question are BB, which had 4 out of 12 requirements met, HITI, which had 1 out of 9 requirements met, and GIS, which had 0 out of 9 requirements met. An edge test, which is a test to determine the effectiveness of a trading strategy, was performed on these stocks. For BB, the test showed that the median absolute return was 9.987505% from September 2023 to June 2026. On September 11, the stock price was 7.67 and the option price was 0.45, plus 0.05 in assumed costs, which requires a return of 10.821382% to be profitable, but this was only met 4 out of 12 times. For HITI, the median return was 5.494505%, and on September 11, the stock price was 2.53 and the option price was 0.21, which requires a return of 9.090909% to be profitable, but this was only met 1 out of 9 times. For GIS, the median return was 3.063603% from June 2024 to July 2026, and on September 10, the stock price was 35.96 and the option price was 0.38, which requires a return of 12.430478% to be profitable, but this was not met at all. The closing prices of the stocks are not the same as the executable prices, and the intrinsic value, which is the value of an option based on its underlying stock, excludes the residual time value, which is the value of an option based on the time until it expires. The dates for the earnings reports of these stocks are: BB on September 12, HITI on September 14, and GIS on September 23. The sources of this information include option contracts, stock bars, and historical issuer URLs. A review of the data shows that the returns of BB and HITI recovered with the original dates and URLs, and GIS had nine consecutive earnings added from the issuer's remarks and daily SIP bars. The prices of GIS moved by -4.5862, +0.6834, -3.0636, -2.0500, -5.1148, -0.7720, +3.3705, -2.9655, and +8.5355%. There was no selection of outcomes. Further analysis shows that a put option below the absolute median return of BB still only covers 3 out of 12 directional falls, so it is not possible to authorize entry or hold through. The costed premium ceiling of BB is 0.302576 at a fixed stock price of 7.67, which yields 5 out of 12, but this is a review trigger, not an order price. The option prices of GIS are unaffordable. The validity of the data is correctly computed, but there are limits to the soundness of the data, including small sample size, regime change, event timing, and option residual value. The rejection of the trades follows the failed mandate gate, and cash is not certainty seeking.

The daily edge was recomputed at 08UTC from stored samples dated by the issuer. For BB, the median absolute value was 9.987505%, with an option price of $0.40 for the call and $0.32 for the put at a stock price of $7.54, requiring a change of +/-11.405836% to be considered. With assumed costs of $0.05 per share, the required change was +/-12.068966%. For HITI, the median absolute value was 5.494505%, with an option price of $0.31 for the call and $0.16 for the put at a stock price of $2.56, requiring a change of +9.765625%/-8.593750%. For PLAY, the median absolute value was 10.624339%, with an option price of $0.40 for the call and $0.50 for the put at a stock price of $8.17, requiring a change of +27.294982%/-20.440636%. None of the options passed the 40% gate or had a documented 3x expected payout. The companies BB, HITI, and PLAY are scheduled to announce their financial results on September 12, September 14, and September 14, respectively. The options expire in 8 days for BB and 32 days for the others. The catalog and fresh SIP all closes were unchanged versus frozen data. Twelve BB and PLAY events, and nine HITI events, were retained without refit. Necessary contract price ceilings were calculated to reach 40% after assumed costs. The current prices exceed the ceilings substantially. Other options, such as HAIN Oct16P1, were also evaluated but failed to meet the criteria. A strong counterargument is that residual time value can exceed intrinsic response, but there is no measured 3x expected payout or current 40% coverage.

A fund manager analyzed BlackBerry's stock options. The options are for September 10 and have a strike price of $7.54. The options that expire on October 2 have a close price of $0.40 and require an 11.405836% increase in the stock price to be profitable, which has happened 3 out of 12 times, or 25%. The options that expire on October 2 also have a close price of $0.32 and require an 11.405836% decrease in the stock price to be profitable, which has happened 2 out of 12 times, or 16.67%. The manager used 12 consecutive earnings reports from September 2023 to June 2026 to make these predictions. A news scan found the headline that BlackBerry will announce its fiscal second-quarter 2027 results on September 12. The manager assumed a fixed chronological split and a roundtrip execution reserve of $0.05 per share. The manager also used a Jeffreys Beta prior, which is a type of statistical prior, to calculate the probability of true coverage being greater than or equal to 0.40, which is 55.4481%. The manager decided to retain the current rejection of the call threshold and will reconsider if the mark price changes to $0.15 at an unchanged stock price.

A news scan found the headline about BlackBerry. A study of twelve quarterly releases from September 2023 to June 2026 was done. The median absolute change in the stock price after these releases was 9.987505%. The study looked at the prices of call and put options for BlackBerry on September 11 and October 2. The call option price was 0.40 and the put option price was 0.32. The study found that the call option would require a 11.405836% increase in the stock price to be profitable, and the put option would require a 11.405836% decrease. The study also found that the stock price did not move enough to make either option profitable in 8 out of 12 cases. The options expire on October 2, which is 8 days after the quarterly release on September 24. The study used data from the BlackBerry investor website and other sources. The study had some limitations, including a small sample size and no independent historical options data. The results of the study suggest that the current call and put options may not be profitable.

A test was done on TCOM's earnings coverage, which is a way to measure how well a stock's options reflect its potential price movement. The test looked at the cost of options for TCOM, specifically the October 16 call option at $45 and the September 10 put option at $35, which cost $32 and $48 respectively. The test required a 17.105943% increase or a 10.801034% decrease in the stock price to be considered successful. The results showed that 0 out of 8 call options and 2 out of 8 put options met this requirement, which is 25% of the total. The median absolute percentage change was 4.590973%. The test used the stock's closing price on September 15 as a reference point and did not consider any intraday lows. The test also used historical data from a website, but the data was incomplete and not representative of the stock's full potential. The test found that the current options contracts do not provide enough coverage, with less than 40% of the contracts meeting the required criteria. Additionally, there was no documented evidence of an expected payout of at least 3 times the cost of the option. The test also found that the expiry date of October 16 is more than 7 days after the event. While it is possible for residual option time value to pay out despite the lack of intrinsic coverage, there is no historical evidence to support this. Therefore, the test conditionally rejected the options contract. The test's soundness is limited by stale market data, sparse samples, and changes in market conditions. To reconsider the contract, new evidence is needed, such as a more affordable contract with at least 40% directional coverage or a documented expected payoff of at least 3 times the cost.

A test was done on Stitch Fix, ticker symbol SFIX, to see if it was a good idea to buy a certain type of contract, called an option, that would expire on October 16. The test looked at the price of the option, $15, and the potential profit, 2.5, and the cost, $0.15, as of September 9. It also looked at the percentage of times the stock price went up or down by a certain amount, 17.543860%, and the average amount it went up or down, 16.578014%. The test used the stock price on September 22 and the next day, September 23, to make its decision. It also looked at the company's schedule for announcing its financial results, which can be found on its website. The test found that the option did not meet certain conditions, such as having a high enough chance of making a profit, at least 40%, or having a high enough potential payout, at least 3 times the cost. Because of this, the test decided not to buy the option. The test also noted that the sample of data used was not complete and may not be representative of the stock's performance. The test will reconsider buying the option if it finds a cheaper one with a higher chance of making a profit or a higher potential payout.

A test was done on Vera Bradley's earnings, using the S3.05 Oct 16 P2.5.10 Sep 9 contract, which costs $10. This test requires a -21.311475% change, with no closes above the strike price, and a median absolute change of 10.350471%. The test started on September 15 at 8 ET, after the company's earnings release on September 14. The test used the previous close as the starting point and did not consider intraday lows. The test also used historical data from the primary issuer and daily stock bars. However, the sample was incomplete due to missing data for some stocks. The test found that the coverage was below 40% and there was no expected payout of 3 times or more. Since the hurdle exceeded the absolute median, there was no exception to hold the position. The expiry date of October 16 was more than 7 days after the event. Although it is possible for residual option time value to pay out despite lack of intrinsic coverage, there was no costed history to establish this. Therefore, the test resulted in a valid rejection. The test's soundness was limited by stale marks, sparse samples, and regime changes. To reconsider, there would need to be a newer, more affordable contract with at least 40% directional coverage or a documented expected payoff of 3 times or more. No order was placed.

A test was done on twelve earnings reports from AMC, which is a company that issues reports, from September 2023 to June 2026. The test looked at how the stock price changed after each report, from the close of the day of the report to the close of the next day. The median change was 10.624339%, and the changes ranged from -20.081522% to 17.742559%. For example, on September 10, the stock price was 8.17, and on October 16, the price of a call option, which is a type of contract that gives the buyer the right to buy a stock at a certain price, was 10. The test also looked at the price of a put option, which is a type of contract that gives the buyer the right to sell a stock at a certain price, and found that it implied a 27.294982% increase in the stock price on September 10, and a -20.440636% decrease on October 16. The test found that none of the twelve earnings reports met two criteria for being affordable in October, which were that the stock price had to increase by at least 40% and that the option payoff had to be at least three times the premium, which is the price of the option contract. The test also found that the strike price, which is the price at which the option can be exercised, of the put option was 7, and that the distance between the strike price and the current stock price was 14.320685%, plus the premium of 6.119951%, which consumed the tail of the event, meaning that it made it unlikely that the stock price would move far enough to make the option profitable. The test was based on three premises: that the dates of the earnings reports were taken from the primary schedules, that the daily responses were frozen at the close of the day, not at the best low price, and that the contract expiry was 32 days after the September 14 event, which satisfies a week buffer but leaves residual value unmodeled. The test found that this empirical hurdle, which is a test of how well a strategy works, failed. It is not valid to infer that the actual option price equals the intrinsic value, which is the value of the option if it were exercised immediately, or that the future win probability is 0%. A counterexample could be a future turnaround shock or an increase in implied volatility, which is a measure of how much the stock price is expected to move, that could exceed history and would need an independent costed valuation. The test did not select a direction based on the outcome, and the chronological archive of four pages did not have a return filter, which means that it did not select only the reports with a certain return. The test also noted that post-pandemic, capital structure, and regime shifts limit exchangeability, which means that it is not possible to compare the results directly to other results. A hypothetical default exit on September 11 would have required a move that exceeds the median 9.816297% put and 16.670642% call. There was no live order, meaning that no actual trade was made. The sources of the data were the issuer's website, https://ir.daveandbusters.com/news-releases/news-release-details/dave-busters-entertainment-inc-report-second-quarter-2026, and /data/stock-bars and /data/option-bars, and the catalog was via option_contracts.

A test of the stock MLKN found that its put option hurdle failed. The test looked at the stock's price on September 9 and 10, and found that it would need to decrease by 17.211538% to reach the hurdle. The stock's price moved by a median of 10.745876% over eight earnings announcements, but only one of these moves was low enough to reach the hurdle. Another stock, HITI, had a median absolute move of 5.494505% and would need to increase by 9.765625% or decrease by 8.593750% to reach its hurdle. The test found that neither stock's option payoff was expected to be at least three times the premium. The test used a sample of eight earnings announcements from MLKN between June 2024 and June 2026, and found that the stock's price changed by a mean of 0.688355% and a median of 10.745876%. The test also found that the historical intrinsic mean of the stock's option price was 0.604947 times the premium, with a maximum of 4.839577 times the premium. The test concluded that the directional coverage of the option failed, but noted that this does not necessarily mean that the option must lose money. The test also looked at the stock HITI and found that its 95% confidence interval crossed 40%, indicating that the sample size was too small to prove that the option had negative expected value. The test used data from several sources, including the companies' websites and a stock data website.

A same-minute audit of HAIN removed a discount. The coverage of HITI remains frozen. This decision was based on an analysis of daily earnings responses, which had a median absolute change of 5.494505%. On October 16, the stock price was $2.56, and the required change was 9.765625% for a call option and -8.593750% for a put option, with each having a 11.111% chance of happening, which is less than 40%. There were no documented cases of mispricing with a payoff three times the expected amount. The stocks HAIN, EPM, and ZUMZ did not have any comparable events to use as samples in this review. The audit looked at two trades of HAIN stock: one on September 9 at 13:59 with a price of $0.681-$0.6839 and an intrinsic value of $0.3161-$0.319, and another on September 10 at 13:55 with a price of $0.6484-$0.6583 and an intrinsic value of $0.3417-$0.3516. Both trades had prices that exceeded the intrinsic value range for that minute. The empirical responses of HITI were unchanged, with a range of 29-37. The analysis used signed returns, which means it looked at both positive and negative returns. To be valid, four out of nine conditions needed to be met, including a price ceiling of $0.0015525 for a call option and $0.08065934 for a put option, at a fixed stock price of $2.56. The analysis also looked at the soundness of the data, which means it checked if the data was reliable and accurate. One potential issue is that there could be unobserved executable quotes that could change the decision, but none were found. The maximum payout for HAIN was 2.702703 times the premium, which is less than the expected payout and less than the price needed to reach a 3% net target on full premium risk. The size of the trade was 0. The collection of eight events for HAIN was deferred because the current candidate already failed to meet the payoff hard bound, but it was not presented as a failed backtest. The sources used for this analysis include stock and option data from https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/stock-bars and https://runway.adityaperswal.workers.dev/data/option-bars, as well as news releases from Hain Celestial and High Tide Inc.

A news scan found the headline about High Tide Inc. A fund manager analyzed High Tide Inc, ticker HITI, for a possible trade. The analysis used a type of option called a call and put, which are bets on the stock price going up or down. On September 9, the call and put prices were 0.31 and 0.18 dollars. The underlying stock price was 2.555 dollars through September 10 at 19:20 UTC. The company will announce earnings on October 16 after the market closes, which is called AMC, or after-market close. The analysis looked at nine past earnings announcements to predict the stock price move. The predicted break-even points were a 9.98043 percent increase and a 9.19765 percent decrease in the stock price. The analysis found that the stock price would need to move more than this to make a profit, which is called directional coverage. The stock price would need to move more than 11.111 percent in one direction to make a profit, but the predicted move was less than this. The analysis also looked at the past stock price moves after earnings announcements, which were 5.494505 percent on average. The analysis concluded that neither a bet on the stock price going up, called a call, nor a bet on the stock price going down, called a put, would be profitable. This conclusion is based on certain assumptions, including that the stock price will move similarly to how it has in the past. A type of bias called staleness, which means that the data is old, and a lack of verified minute-by-minute data, may affect the conclusion. The analysis also found that the stock price move after the earnings announcement could be affected by other factors, such as changes in exposure to the German market. The data used for the analysis came from a source called SIP, or Securities Information Processor, and can be found at /data/stock-bars?symbols=HITI&timeframe=1Day&start=2022-01-01&end=2026-09-10T19:20:00Z&feed=sip&adjustment=all. The analysis did not find any evidence of mispricing, which is when the option price is significantly different from its true value.