When: Close <$252

Then: Exit position

Trim modestly to rebalance to target weight; hold core position; define one clean invalidator ($268 weekly close or 200-SMA reclaim failure) and respect it; do not multi-tranche distribution into strength

• Aggressive distribution plan treats bounce failure as certainty rather than probability, which contradicts conservative risk management
• FY27 EPS consensus at $27.08 (65% growth assumption) may not get revised down if Q3 FY27 delivers a clean tax season
• Q4 FY26 delivered 13.7% revenue growth and 126% operating income growth; company is not in structural decline
• FCF yield of 10.8% is real cash being returned to shareholders ($5.4B in buybacks plus $1.35B in dividends = $6.75B total capital return on $79.4B market cap)
• Technical setup is more nuanced than n=1 pattern matching suggests: MACD crossed bullish, histogram positive for first time since breakdown, RSI recovered from oversold through 50, VWMA reclaimed on rising volume of 3.5 million shares
• Macro headwinds affect all high-multiple software equally; selling INTU doesn't solve the problem and locks in losses without a better alternative home
• AI disintermediation is a long-dated (3-5 year), speculative thesis with regulatory and customer behavior uncertainty; Q4 FY26 data shows no current material impact
• Mailchimp was acquired for around $12 billion but represents a fraction of INTU's $21.45 billion revenue base; absolute impact is bounded
• Aggressive distribution plan risks selling into a major re-rating if 50-SMA at $322 gets reclaimed on volume
• 23.6% ROE and buyback support provide ongoing structural tailwind for the position

→ vs aggressive: Aggressive distribution plan is not conservative risk management but rather a high-conviction bet that the bounce fails, which is speculation disguised as caution

→ vs aggressive: Pattern matching based on n=1 (prior 47% collapse) is confirmation bias, not rigorous analysis; every failed bounce looks similar until one doesn't

→ vs aggressive: 11x Forward P/E mirage argument ignores that $6.75 billion in annual capital return and 10.8% FCF yield are actual current numbers, not hypotheticals

→ vs aggressive: Macro argument doesn't provide an actionable better home for capital; 'next aligned opportunity' is not a destination

→ vs aggressive: Mailchimp narrative is overweighted relative to its actual proportion of INTU's $21.45 billion revenue base

→ vs aggressive: AI disintermediation is a multi-year speculative thesis, not a catalyst that justifies aggressive distribution in October 2026

TRIM 20-30% OF CURRENT EXPOSURE, SCALE INTO $300-310 ZONE, KEEP MEANINGFUL CORE POSITION, USE $254 LOWER BOLLINGER BREAK AS RESIDUAL TRIM TRIGGER AND $268 WEEKLY CLOSE AS HARD INVALIDATOR

• Q4 FY26 delivered 13.7% revenue growth and 126% operating income growth; company not melting down
• Consensus EPS estimate of $27.08 faces real downward revision risk but treating this as a 30% EPS cut as base case is a bear case, not base case
• Aggressive analyst's plan describes a more aggressive posture than what's actually in the plan (half normal allocation, not a full exit)
• Aggressive analyst's 'next opportunity' argument is empty given same macro headwinds apply elsewhere
• Pattern-matching argument using one historical analog is n=1 confirmation bias
• 10-year Treasury at 2002-era highs is structural repricing, not noise
• $268 weekly close invalidator means giving back another 10% before acting - not conservatism, accepting larger losses
• 10.8% FCF yield, buybacks, and ROE are real but capital return is not share price insurance; INTU bought back $5.4B and stock still dropped 53% from high
• Mailchimp risks could impact equity multiple even if absolute revenue contribution is small - multiple problem, not just revenue problem
• Recommend measured trim of 20-30% of current exposure scaling into $300-310 zone
• Use $254 lower Bollinger break as trigger for residual trim, $268 weekly close as hard invalidator
• Don't manufacture multiple price-dependent tranches when macro can shift on single Fed speaker or jobs print
• Act on macro being real, fundamentals having real support, and technicals being genuinely ambiguous simultaneously

→ vs aggressive: The 30% EPS revision assumption is a bear case, not a base case, and the plan described is more aggressive than what the trader actually proposed (half allocation with stub held, not full exit)

→ vs aggressive: The 'next opportunity' argument is empty - where's the better setup when 10-year yields are at 2002 highs and 96% of no-cuts is priced, with the same discount rate headwind applying everywhere

→ vs aggressive: Pattern-matching with one historical analog (47% prior collapse) is n=1 confirmation bias, not high conviction - every prior bounce looks identical until the one that didn't

→ vs conservative: Waiting for $268 weekly close invalidator means accepting another 10% loss before acting - that's not conservatism, that's accepting larger losses in the name of waiting for confirmation

→ vs conservative: FCF yield, buybacks, and ROE are real but conflating capital return with share price insurance - INTU bought back $5.4B last fiscal year and stock still dropped 53% from high; buybacks reduce share count but don't prevent multiple compression

→ vs conservative: Mailchimp analysis is too dismissive - even if absolute revenue impact is bounded, if growth multiple re-rates downward because cross-sell thesis is broken, that hits equity multiple regardless of revenue contribution