When: Pullback to $133-134 (50 SMA / 10 EMA / VWMA cluster)

Then: Add 25%

When: Confirmed break and retest of $140.70 on expanding volume

Then: Add 25%

When: Post-FOMC confirmation that 200 SMA at $123.20 holds

Then: Add 25%

REDUCE TO 25% INITIAL SIZE, TRAILING STOP AT 126, SECOND ADD AT 130-131

• 9/14 candle shows distribution: closed at 136.18 below 10 EMA at 136.55, with intraday low of 132.65 only 2.04 above the 50 SMA, on volume of 15.4M shares—50% above the 6-12M norm—after a 29% run; aggressive analyst's 'launchpad' framing is unsupported
• Risk-reward superior at 130 than 136: from 130 to 148 is 13.8% upside with 4.4% downside to stop at 128.50 versus 8.8% upside from 136 with 5.5% downside; aggressive argument is 'mathematically indefensible' per conservative analyst
• PEG of 0.63 is misleading because EPS growth of 60.7% YoY reflects depressed Q4 2025 comparison base; forward EPS of 12.88 already prices in recovery and won't trigger multiple expansion
• FOMC meeting in two trading days with Polymarket pricing 70% odds of hike and 94% odds of zero cuts in 2026; entering ahead of binary event into distribution candle is 'reckless'
• Loan book up 9.6% YoY to 773 billion creates credit risk exposure at cycle top; higher-for-longer environment pressures loan demand, commercial real estate, and increases credit loss probability in 2027
• ATR of 3.27 means daily range is 2.4% of position; move from 136 to 128.50 stop is 5.5% or 2.3 ATRs; one overnight FOMC gap could trigger stop before second add at 133-134 is filled
• P/B of 1.19x with -39.5 billion in OCI losses is not comparable to JPMorgan at 2x book with clean reserves; cheap stocks get cheap for structural reasons
• Recession odds at 10% on Polymarket are up 3 percentage points week-over-week; doubling to 20% would spike provisions, compress buyback yield, and eliminate the 7% total shareholder yield

→ vs aggressive: 9/14 candle 'held 50 SMA' claim is false: candle closed below 10 EMA, printed intraday low only 2.04 above 50 SMA on 50% above-average volume, textbook distribution not launchpad

→ vs aggressive: Waiting for 130 is not 'mathematically indefensible': 130 entry offers 13.8% upside with 4.4% downside versus 8.8% upside with 5.5% downside from 136

→ vs aggressive: PEG of 0.63 reflects depressed Q4 2025 base; forward EPS of 12.88 already bakes in recovery so multiple won't expand further on in-line Q3 print

→ vs aggressive: Macro bull case cuts both ways: higher-for-longer means credit losses, CRE pressure, and tightening credit alongside NII expansion

→ vs aggressive: Silent Reddit doesn't confirm institutional conviction; could indicate no near-term catalyst rather than smart money positioning

→ vs aggressive: BoA contagion may spread to C's markets franchise given same macro exposure; buying ahead of uncertainty before FOMC is adverse selection

→ vs aggressive: Asymmetric plan requires monotonic path: if FOMC triggers gap to 131, aggressive analyst holds half position with stop below and unfilled second tranche at 133-134

→ vs aggressive: Recession at 10% is up 3 points week-over-week; doubling to 20% devastates credit portfolio at 773B in net loans with provisions spiking and buyback yield compressing

BUY at 40% initial size with tiered adds at 133-134 and 140.70, stop at 128.50, trim ladder at 148/154/165

• Reduce initial commitment from 50% to 40% of intended size; preserves upside participation while limiting realized loss to ~2.2% if stopped out at 128.50
• Keep tiered add structure at 133-134 (first tranche) and 140.70 or post-FOMC confirmation (final tranche)
• Maintain hard stop at 128.50, which is 70 cents below the 200 SMA at 123.20; rejects conservative analyst's proposed 126 stop as internally inconsistent
• Hold trim levels at 148, 154, and 165; aligned with technical resistance and fundamental valuation re-rating
• Position must reflect beta 1.10 within diversified bank allocation; do not let bank exposure exceed target allocation even at 40% size
• 9/14 distribution candle (15.4M share down day) is a valid data point arguing for smaller size, not thesis elimination
• Waiting for 130 requires structural break of multiple MAs, confirmed trend change, AND hawkish FOMC—three independent events
• PEG of 0.63 is genuinely cheap but compresses on in-line print; 60.7% EPS growth is base-effect distorted; 7% total shareholder yield compensates risk at 1.19x book
• Recession risk (~10% current pricing, 20% worst case) deserves position-sizing discount, not elimination; total shareholder yield compresses non-linearly in stress
• BoA contagion risk argues for waiting on Q3 print before committing full size; mild institutional bullish sentiment is moderate positive, not euphoric

→ vs aggressive: Dismissal of 9/14 distribution candle (15.4M shares) is confirmation bias; stock up 29% in six months makes this real distribution behavior, not noise

→ vs aggressive: Push for 50% size into known binary FOMC event is overplaying conviction; even with asymmetric fundamentals, disciplined sizing is required

→ vs conservative: Proposed stop at 126 is above the 200 SMA at 123.20; if 200 SMA breaks as thesis-killer, stop at 126 gets hit and you'd sell into the washout that creates the best buying opportunity—internally inconsistent

→ vs conservative: Pushing second tranche to 130-131 requires structural damage to materialize; if stock rips on FOMC hold and NIM repricing, it goes to 145 and trader holds quarter-size into 10% move

→ vs conservative: Wait-for-130 logic is contradictory: buying at maximum confirmation that thesis is broken is not disciplined entry

→ vs conservative: PEG argument that 'cheap stocks get cheap for reasons' is narrative, not analysis; OCI losses and restructuring are already marked at 1.19x book