When: 8-K filing announcing buyback resumption authorization

Then: Tertiary trigger; cleanest high-conviction insider signal

Buy LMT small, disciplined, and with confirmation required; smaller initial tranche (25% of target weight) rather than 50%; reserve capital for higher-probability setups after technical confirmation or further weakness; do not deploy closer to full 2-3% target weight at current levels

• MACD histogram rounding flat at minus 0.62 with no bullish crossover; price below both 50 SMA and 200 SMA in confirmed death cross; VWMA declining from $589 to $529
• Bollinger lower band at $512.53 is declining, not a confirmed floor; $500 is an arbitrary round number with no validated support below
• Aggressive analyst's 16x PE multiple assumption is flawed; in death cross regime multiples typically compress to 14x-15x PE, yielding $420-$460 bear case targets (closer to 20% downside than 7%)
• Net income declined 27% from 2023 to 2025; interest expense up 79% since 2022 from $623M to $1.12B
• Q2 2026 EPS of $7.94 compared against artificially depressed Q2 2025 base of only $0.34B net income (one-time charges)
• Balance sheet concerns: $19.4B receivables, $3.93B pension liability, 234% debt-to-equity ratio
• ATR is $12.55; proposed $20 stop on ~$520 entry is only 1.6 ATR, too tight for swing trade; normal reversion to lower Bollinger band at $512.53 would breach stop
• Catalysts (PrSM award, PAC-3 MSE, F-35A) are real but question remains: why is stock down 25% from highs with positive catalysts? Market may know something about timing or margin profile of fixed-price deals
• Institutional rebalancing flow is speculative and unreliable for entry thesis; cannot deploy capital on unseen tailwind
• 97% probability of no cuts in 2026 is already priced in; upside surprise scenario is off the table; multiple compression is mechanical in higher-for-longer rate regime for multi-year backlog
• Conservative entry conditions: require MACD bullish crossover, daily close above 10 EMA at $526.36, or RSI bounce from below 33 before committing capital
• Death cross confirmed; price below both major moving averages; no MACD cross; RSI approaching but not at capitulation; ATR elevated; capital preservation should outrank deployment in this regime

→ vs aggressive: Aggressive analyst's 16x PE multiple assumption is cherry-picked; realistic bear case at 14x-15x PE yields $420-$460 targets, not the stated $480 (7% downside)

→ vs aggressive: MACD histogram rounding flat does not mean reversal; with price below both SMAs and confirmed death cross, downside momentum is decelerating not reversing

→ vs aggressive: Bollinger lower band at $512.53 is declining, not a floor; calling it a 'confirmed floor' mischaracterizes a descending boundary as support

→ vs aggressive: Q2 2026 EPS recovery narrative is flawed; comparing against artificially depressed Q2 2025 base ($0.34B net income from one-time charges) is not legitimate earnings beat

→ vs aggressive: Catalyst-based bullish thesis ignores the market's apparent skepticism; if PrSM, PAC-3 MSE, and F-35A are real positives, why is stock down 25% from highs?

→ vs aggressive: Institutional rebalancing flow is speculation not structural analysis; timing and magnitude are unreliable for building entry thesis

→ vs aggressive: Proposed $20 stop at ~$520 is only 1.6 ATR, which breaches on normal reversion to lower Bollinger band; not a stop but an entry fee for whipsaw

→ vs aggressive: Higher-for-longer rates mechanically compress multiples on long-duration assets like LMT's multi-year backlog; sector generalization ignores discount rate mechanism

→ vs aggressive: Aggressive analyst wants to override trader's own discipline requiring confirmation before second tranche; overriding one's own rules is precisely what destroys low-volatility portfolios

→ vs neutral: Traders plan is sound and should not be weakened; conservative analyst supports keeping existing conditions but would tighten further to 25% initial tranche instead of 50%

Buy LMT with 50% of target weight initiated near current levels, widened stop at 495, second tranche conditioned on technical confirmation, and blackout window before Q3 earnings

• FCF yield of 5.78%, beta of 0.10, sub-1.0 PEG, accelerating contract flow, PAC-3 MSE execution at 22 days, PrSM Increment 2 win are genuine fundamentals not in dispute
• Lower Bollinger band at 512.53 is a declining slope, not a confirmed floor - treating it as a floor is single-tool thinking
• Death cross dismissal is survivorship bias; LMT's fall from 692 to 518 is 25% drawdown representing possible regime change, not a dip
• March 2008 comparison is 'lazy catastrophism' - LMT is a defense prime with investment-grade balance sheet, not a levered financial institution
• Bear case at 14-15x PE implying 420-460 requires recession or major defense derating, inconsistent with 8% Polymarket recession probability and bipartisan budget consensus
• Stop at 500 is too tight: ATR is 12.55, and 1.6 ATR stop on a name with 2.4% daily range is an entry fee not risk management; prefer 495
• Second tranche should require at least one technical confirmation before deploying, not just price weakness - adding on flush to 500-512 with RSI below 33 is averaging into pain
• Q3 earnings is a binary event; should not deploy additional capital within two weeks before earnings
• Price action disconnect from positive catalysts is the most important unanswered question - possibly revenue recognition timing, margin pressure, or CR shutdown risk
• LMT is a 0.10 beta stock with 5% capital return yield appropriate for 2-3% equity position as defensive core holding and portfolio diversifier, not a swing trade
• Higher-for-longer rates is a real headwind for multiples across the board including defense; 97% no-cuts probability is already priced meaning multiple path of least resistance is sideways or down
• The trader's plan with refinements is the defensible middle ground between aggressive analyst's premature bottom call and conservative analyst's pessimistic multiple compression thesis

→ vs aggressive: Called lower Bollinger band at 512.53 a 'confirmed floor' when declining bands are slopes, not floors; dismissal of death cross is survivorship bias rather than analysis; institutional rebalancing around MAs is an unquantifiable tailwind used to justify overweight position

→ vs conservative: March 2008 comparison is 'emotionally vivid but analytically bankrupt' catastrophism inappropriate for a government-backed defense prime; bear case at 14-15x PE inconsistent with 8% recession probability and PrSM contract award; failure to identify why stock is down 25% despite catalysts is an incomplete bear thesis