When: Organic TurboTax volume +5% YoY AND ARPU stabilizing

Then: Upgrade from Underweight to Hold

When: Close > $370 on volume >6M shares

Then: Scale to 75% of benchmark

When: All three re-entry triggers confirm simultaneously OR price reclaims $400 with rising volume AND 200 SMA flattens

Then: Upgrade to Overweight/Buy

When: Forward EPS estimate revision upward by ≥5% over a 4-week window

Then: Upgrade to Overweight/Buy

UNDERWEIGHT

• Underweight call supported by hostile macro setup: ten-year at 4.80%, Polymarket pricing 90% probability of hitting 4.80 by year-end (up 24 percentage points in one week), 89% probability of zero Fed cuts in 2026
• Long-duration SaaS multiple repricing risk of 15-25% from rate move alone before any fundamental changes
• Stock down 50% from August 2025 high; bear-case price target of 250-280 represents another 15-25% downside from current 344.93
• Technical deterioration: lower-high formation at 372 vs prior swing high at 430, ten EMA at 351.55 rolled over, MACD histogram negative 2.04, VWMA at 351.43 above price, weakest conviction buying at 4.6M shares on bounce followed by heaviest distribution at 11.4M shares on August 26
• AI threat: consumer trialing AI tools represents silent attrition; impact will not appear in quarterly prints until 6-12 months of damage already done
• Insider signal: executive selling 36% of direct holdings near 52-week lows combined with -48% one-year return; BofA downgrade to Neutral and class action over AI/Mailchimp disclosure create three independent bearish signals
• Position sizing discipline: trim to 60% of benchmark in first tranche, cap INTU-specific risk at 1% of NAV, use technical triggers (close below 309 on high volume = cut half, close below 280 = cut to zero) rather than hard 295 stop that will get run in this volatility regime
• 16 ATR reading means 295 stop is only ~3 ATRs; 22M share capitulation candle on May 21 and 11.4M share distribution day on August 26 show tail days are multiples of average

→ vs neutral: Every confirmation trigger the neutral is waiting for (315 retest hold, clean break above 376, yield stabilization, Q1 FY27 print) requires price action the current technical structure is actively arguing against; 315 retest is far more probable than 376 breakout; neutral's wait strategy is slow-motion value destruction as stock draws down, gets averaged down, stops out, and misses the eventual recovery

→ vs aggressive: 295 stop will get run and mean-revert; in yield-shock event this stock can move 30 dollars intraday; correct response is position-size constraint where flush to 256 (25% drawdown) doesn't impair portfolio rather than hard stop that gets executed at wrong level

→ vs aggressive: Two-to-one payoff calculation ignores path; if wrong and stock goes to 400, firm captures almost none of the upside due to underweight; 50-70% underweight in a 4-5% benchmark weight creates meaningful tracking error; trim should be executed with discipline as first tranche to 60% rather than aggressive all-in reduction

→ vs aggressive: Meta 2022 precedent: massive buyback did not stop stock from falling from 380 to 90; buyback merely reduced share count while price did what price wanted; if buybacks are not floors then capital preservation requires owning less of the name, period

Trim to 70% of benchmark weight over 5 trading days; cap INTU-specific risk at 1.5% of NAV; replace hard stop with two-stage technical triggers at $315 (cut to 50% of benchmark if close below on volume) and $280 (cut to 25% of benchmark if close below on volume); add back to 85% of benchmark on $376 closing breakout with rising volume; express macro underweight view at sector level rather than concentrating in single name

• Bear case probability estimated at 55-60%, not 60-70% as aggressive suggests, with 45% being sideways chop rather than clean bull case
• ATR is $16, making a $50 stop (~3 ATR) too wide and likely to get gapped through in current high-vol regime
• Conservative's 1% NAV cap is too defensive for a quality compounder averaging mid-teens revenue growth and 23% ROE over four years
• The $280 cut-to-zero trigger coincides with June low where marginal buyers historically step in
• Bear case could take 6-9 months to materialize, creating tracking error grind in sideways scenario
• AI threat may compress low-end DIY pricing while expanding high-end Live product opportunity—net margin effect uncertain
• One insider sale is a data point, not a thesis; pre-scheduled 10b5-1 plans common near 52-week lows
• Macro view on yields and long-duration repricing should be expressed across sector, not concentrated in single name
• If inflation peaks and Fed pivots in early 2027, long-duration assets including INTU could re-rate significantly
• The conservative's framework pretends the bull scenario doesn't exist; that's risk avoidance not risk management

→ vs aggressive: Bear case probability is 55-60%, not 60-70%. Remaining 45% is not clean bull but sideways chop that costs tracking error while aggressive is small.

→ vs aggressive: $295 hard stop equals 3 ATR ($16 actual ATR with $30 single-session intraday range observed). This guarantees getting stopped out then watching reversal in current vol regime. Fight ATR with size, not stops.

→ vs aggressive: AI existential threat framing misses regulated, trust-mediated, complexity-laden moats that preserved travel agents, financial advisors, and real estate agents.

→ vs aggressive: Operating leverage could materialize from R&D cuts and workforce restructuring before revenue reflects the pressure.

→ vs conservative: 1% NAV cap on top of already-meaningful underweight (50-60% of benchmark) is excessive for a quality compounder; not conservative, risk-parity obsessive.

→ vs conservative: Cut-to-zero trigger at $280 (June low) sits where supply concentrates from long-term holder capitulation—will get run through.

→ vs conservative: Hasn't addressed regime call risk: if soft landing holds and Fed pivots in early 2027, long-duration re-rating leaves zero-position portfolio behind.

→ vs conservative: Single-name concentration of macro underweight view misses diversification benefit; should express yield/long-duration view sector-wide.