When: Breakout above $770 with golden cross OR post-Q3 earnings with capex moderation

Then: Add final 50%

HOLD with 15% modest trim if position exceeds risk limits; stop disciplined at 10 EMA (~715.53)

• RSI cooling from 80 to 71 is textbook momentum reset, not distribution; MACD histogram widening to +11.73 vs 31.20 signal line with accelerating momentum
• FCF compression from $14.8B to $1.7B quarter-over-quarter driven entirely by capex increase ($16.5B to $30.1B year-over-year) for AI infrastructure, not business deterioration; operating cash flow robust at $31-36B per quarter
• Q2 2026 revenue growth of 28% year-over-year; TTM operating margin 34.8%; net margin 29.8%; ROE 29.8%; forward EPS growth 32%; PEG ratio 1.03
• Price sits 5% above 10 EMA (715.53), 22% above 50 SMA (615.32), 20% above 200 SMA; stock consolidating at new highs after 43% move
• Stop at 779.50 (4.2% above entry) is reckless given ATR at 27.21—volatility-adjusted stop should be ~711 (1.5-2 ATR below price)
• Reloading thesis at 660-700 zone not technically justified; 10 EMA at 715.53, 50 SMA at 615.32, Bollinger middle band at 660.49
• Mega-cap tech outperforming in bond rout regime; Aggressive Analyst citing contrary evidence; S&P up 1.2% week led by Tech and Comm Services
• Market cap of $1.9 trillion means documentary and Cambridge Analytica legal risks are material but already partially priced in

→ vs aggressive: Selling into strength on a single red candle after a 43% move is not risk management—it risks being wrong about the trend and forced to chase back at higher prices

→ vs aggressive: A 33-50% trim with stop above entry is structurally incoherent; either thesis is intact (ride with wider stop) or broken (trim more aggressively)—this is the worst of both worlds

→ vs aggressive: Pre-committing to reload at 660-700 is operationally dangerous with no technical or fundamental justification; if thesis intact at 660, same factors true today

→ vs aggressive: Aggressive stop at 779.50 will be triggered on single up-day noise given ATR of 27.21—generates transaction costs and tax events with no capital protection benefit

→ vs aggressive: FCF compression reflects strategic AI capex investment, not business deterioration—confusing capital intensity with business deterioration is the core analytical error

→ vs aggressive: Macro case for selling Meta contradicted by own data showing mega-cap tech outperforming in bond rout; Meta is textbook quality rotation name

Trim 20 to 25 percent at 748 with no stop on trimmed portion; hold residual core with stop at 10 EMA around 711; re-engage on technical confirmation at 715 or 660

• Trim 20 to 25 percent into the 748 zone to capture partial parabolic gains and reduce binary catalyst exposure
• Stop at 779.50 is indefensible given ATR at 27.21 and 31 dollar buffer that one-day move can wipe out
• Volatility-adjusted stop at 1.5 ATR below current price (approximately 711, right at the 10 EMA) for residual core position
• Re-engagement triggers based on technical structure: add back half at 10 EMA (715) holding for 2-3 sessions with declining volume and RSI resetting toward 55 to 60; add back remainder at Bollinger middle band (660) with reversal structure
• FCF compression is 100 percent on capex line building infrastructure already producing commercial returns through Muse, not a fundamental deterioration
• Do not pre-position around Connect keynote; trim already hedges against binary event risk
• Macro constraints (long-end yields at 2004 highs, 28 P/E) cap multiple expansion runway even if mega-cap tech outperforms in bond rout
• A 15 percent trim is too small to matter; 20 to 25 percent provides meaningful risk relief while preserving bulk of Muse thesis exposure
• 10 EMA is at 715, Bollinger middle band is at 660, 50 SMA is at 615

→ vs aggressive: Stop at 779.50 is indefensible and guarantees either getting stopped out on noise or position working against you indefinitely

→ vs aggressive: Reload zone at 660 to 700 assumes predetermined levels the stock owes you; if Muse prints a monetization number and rips to 850, you chase 820 instead of buying 660

→ vs aggressive: FCF argument is technically true but functionally wrong; underlying business generates 31 to 36 billion in operating cash flow every quarter and compression is strategic capex building revenue-generating infrastructure

→ vs conservative: Treating a 43 percent parabolic move in 27 sessions as normal uptrend is complacent; parabolic moves almost always consolidate for weeks before next leg

→ vs conservative: Macro point is weaker than presented; outperforming sector is not same as not being affected; long-end yields ripping caps runway for multiple expansion

→ vs conservative: 15 percent trim is too small to actually do anything; either trim enough to matter or don't trim at all