This morning, I traded $MDT after earnings.
On the surface, it looked like a potential momentum opportunity. The stock reacted by dropping roughly 6.8% and broke hourly support.
In many cases, that kind of move paired with a technical breakdown can signal continuation.
But this wasn’t one of those cases.
And this trade ended up being the biggest loss of my day — not because the market was irrational, but because I ignored my own rules.
Let’s break this failed trade down properly.
The Earnings Reaction
$MDT reported earnings this morning. Here were the highlights:
- EPS came in roughly in-line with expectations
- Revenue beat and showed growth
- Guidance was not particularly strong or weak — essentially in-line
There was no disaster here.
No guidance cut.
No margin collapse.
No structural business concern.
And yet, the stock moved lower on the news by about 6.8%, breaking hourly support.
Now normally, when I see:
- A 6–10% post-earnings move
- An hourly breakdown
- Immediate continuation pressure
I start paying attention.
Momentum trades after earnings can be powerful. I outline this clearly in my Post-Earnings Momentum Strategy, where I explain that I only trade when the hourly candle closes at ±10% from the previous day’s close.
This setup did not meet that threshold. And I still traded it anyway, which is just one of the many mistakes I made today.
Why This Looked Like a Trade at First
Technically speaking:
- Price dropped almost 7%
- Hourly support broke
- Early weakness looked directional
In isolation, that can look like a continuation setup.
In fact, in my recent write-up on the Intraday Percentage Breakout Strategy, I talk about how strong percentage moves combined with structure breaks can create momentum trades:
But there are qualifiers.
This wasn’t a clean momentum expansion.
It was a weak push lower that looked tradable but lacked the fuel.
The Three Major Problems With This Setup
A) The Fundamentals Weren’t Bearish
This is the first red flag.
The earnings were NOT bad.
If anything, they were neutral to slightly positive:
- EPS in-line
- Revenue beat
- Growth intact
- No major negative guidance
When earnings aren’t materially disappointing, downside continuation is less likely unless macro conditions are extremely weak.
This wasn’t a structural breakdown in the business.
It was a price reaction.
There’s a difference.
Momentum works best when technicals and fundamentals align. This didn’t have that alignment.
B) There Was No Volume Confirmation
This was the biggest technical issue.
The move lower had almost no meaningful volume behind it.
And I literally just wrote about this in my recent blog post on Volume Confirmation Trading. A breakdown (or breakout) without volume confirmation is often just noise.
And when it came to the $MDT setup today, there was:
- No major volume spike
- No clear institutional footprint
- No evidence of aggressive distribution
It looked weak.
And in hindsight, it was weak.
Price moved… but participation didn’t expand.
That’s usually a warning.
C) The Move Wasn’t Close to My 10% Rule
This one hurts the most.
Because this is black and white.
My rule is simple:
Only trade post-earnings momentum when the hourly candle closes at ±10% from the previous day’s close.
This move was -6.8%.
That’s not 10%.
It’s not even close.
This is where discipline comes in.
Nearly 7% feels significant.
But my system is built around extreme moves, not moderate ones.
And I violated that rule.
The Real Mistake: Position Size
Here’s the worst part of the entire day.
When I spotted the move, I didn’t take a $1,000 position like my rules dictate.
I took a $9,000 position.
I shorted 100 shares.
That is nine times the risk I’m supposed to be taking.
This wasn’t a minor sizing error.
This was gambling.
There’s no other word for it.
If the stock had squeezed aggressively, this could have:
- Wiped out my week
- Destroyed my confidence
- Set me back significantly
This wasn’t just a bad setup.
It was catastrophic risk management.
And risk management is the foundation of everything I write about on my site — especially in my Trading Math pillar page. Position sizing is not optional.
It’s not a suggestion.
It’s survival.
What I Did Right
I don’t want to say this was 100% failure. Yes, it was really bad pattern recognition AND really poor execution on my part.
But there was one thing I did well.
I recognized quickly that the trade wasn’t working.
The price action wasn’t expanding lower.
There was no acceleration.
No follow-through.
My intuition kicked in.
I got out before this turned into a catastrophic loss.
That matters.
Self-awareness mid-trade is a skill. As you see below, that initial intuition and exit doesn’t mean that I maintained my composure or followed-through.
But I am happy with the way I felt that this trade wasn’t working, price just wasn’t moving, and that should have been enough for me to get out and stay out… Even though I didn’t.
What I Did Very Wrong
After exiting… I flipped long. Then short again. Then long again. And then I increased size.
This is where things really spiraled.
Instead of accepting that:
- The setup was weak
- The trade didn’t meet criteria
- The market wasn’t offering edge
I tried to force opportunity.
That dug the hole.
Revenge trading doesn’t always look like emotional screaming.
Sometimes it looks like:
- “Let me just flip it.”
- “Maybe this side works.”
- “One more shot.”
And that’s exactly what I did.
That behavior destroyed my P/L far more than the original short did.
Why This Trade Failed
In hindsight, it’s obvious.
This was:
- A weak fundamental setup
- A weak technical breakdown
- No volume confirmation
- No extreme percentage move
- Oversized position
That’s five strikes.
This wasn’t bad luck.
This was rule violation.
The Emotional Side
These are the trades that sting.
Not because they’re huge losses.
But because they were avoidable.
It’s frustrating to look back and realize:
- The signs were there
- The rules were clear
- The system was defined
And I ignored them.
That’s the hardest part.
The Lesson
There are several takeaways here.
1. If It’s Not 10%, It’s Not a Trade
My strategy is built around extreme moves.
Nearly 7% is not extreme.
Rules exist for a reason.
2. No Volume = No Conviction
A breakdown without volume is weak.
Volume confirmation is not optional.
3. Size Is Everything (even if she says it isn’t)
Even a mediocre setup can be survivable at small size.
An oversized position turns mediocrity into danger.
4. Stop Flipping
If a trade isn’t working, step away.
Flipping sides repeatedly is a sign of:
- Emotional attachment
- Lack of conviction
- Loss of discipline
How This Could Have Been Worse
It could have been much worse.
I could have:
- Held stubbornly
- Added more size
- Ignored the lack of momentum
Instead, I got out before catastrophe.
That’s growth.
Now the real growth move?
Closing my charts after writing this.
Not trying to make it back.
Not forcing another trade.
Just accepting the lesson.
Final Thoughts
This was a bad setup.
It was even worse execution.
But it was also a reminder of why I document these trades publicly.
Because the goal isn’t perfection.
It’s improvement.
Today, $MDT exposed:
- My discipline weakness
- My sizing mistake
- My tendency to overreact
But it also reinforced:
- The importance of volume confirmation
- The power of strict percentage rules
- The necessity of position sizing
This was an ugly trade.
But it’s one I’ll remember.
And the next time I see a 6–7% move with no volume, no fundamental catalyst, and no alignment with my 10% rule…
I’ll pass.
Because that’s what a disciplined trader does.
Leave a Reply