HScreen · RTX

RTX · RTX Corporation 18d old

conviction2

coverage tierT2-PARTIAL

horizon12 months

Return distribution probability-weighted scenarios, never collapsed to a point

-20%20%

+8%50%

+24%30%

EV +7.20%

why these probabilities: BASE (+8%, p=50): consensus DELIVERED — FY2026 revenue +10.5% / EPS +16.7% to ~7.25, FY2027 +7.4% / +9.1% to ~7.82 (FMP analyst-estimates, 2026-08-22, 16-17 revenue and 15 EPS contributors, revenue dispersion 1.4%/2.1% — tight, so the point estimate is well-held). Twelve months out the market prices ~7.82 at the multiple it pays today (29.7x on the then-current year) → ~$232, +7.8%. This is descriptive: it is what is already in the price. Weighted 50% because low dispersion and a just-raised guide make the consensus path the modal outcome. BULL (+24%, p=30): revenue ~14% vs consensus 10.5%, driven by the missile framework agreements the note states are NOT yet in the $86bn backlog, plus LTAMDS and the $4.1bn classified award ramping; Raytheon margin reaches the 13% the note is moving toward as fixed-price mature programmes go 62%→higher. FY2027 EPS ~8.6 vs 7.82 consensus (+10%) and a 31x multiple on defence-earnings scarcity → ~$267. BEAR (-20%, p=20): NOT a collapse and not a revenue decline — the $86bn backlog makes that implausible on a 12-month view. Mechanism: organic growth decelerates to ~5% as commercial-aero aftermarket demand cools and appropriations timing slips deliveries; fixed-price mix stops helping and Raytheon margin stalls near 11.5%; FY2027 EPS ~7.2 not 7.82, and a 24x multiple on a disappointed premium name → ~$173. The de-rating does most of the work, which

not built — options-implied distribution on the same axis, with the KL number and where the disagreement sits
needs: desk-options implied bands (v1.4 Part 4a) — activates at 60% coverage; currently 33%

Visibility how far ahead this name can be seen

not built — visibility score
needs: visibility_score.py

Trust how much weight this name's own record can carry (credibility Z)

not built — credibility
needs: credibility.py

Technology supply chain graph-backed context · read-only

not built — supply-chain attributes
needs: ticker not mapped in supply_chain.yaml

Sizing survival-first size (half-Kelly) vs the enforced ladder

kelly not computable — no data

Falsifiers what would prove this wrong

Raytheon segment adjusted operating margin progresses toward 13% as fixed-price mature-programme mix rises
FY2026 adjusted sales guidance of ~$95.0-96.0B holds or is raised again
Raytheon backlog grows from $86bn as the new missile framework agreements enter it
Fixed-price share of Raytheon revenue stays above the 62% reached in Q2 2026
The premium multiple is supported by delivery, not sentiment

Conflicts surfaced, never netted out (T4)

Our probability-weighted expected return is 7.2% price-only against a street implied +10.8% (consensus target 238.5, 26 analysts, 17 buy / 9 hold / 0 sell). We agree with consensus on growth and disagree on the shape: we	high
The estimates block returns n_up 0 / n_down 0 with breadth 0.0 and median_move_pct null on both EPS and revenue despite 231 estimate rows being present, and the outliers list is empty. The revision tape is therefore UNAV	medium
RTX was routed to analyst-aisemi, whose coverage is the AI / semiconductor / data-centre value chain. RTX is aerospace and defence. The consequence is visible in the pack: 22 of 29 chunks are semis/macro material with no	high
The USABLE DEPTH block reports on-ticker=7 while its off-ticker id list simultaneously names deea6e99f9:23, :13, :3 and :73 — the RTX-tagged Bernstein chunks — as off-ticker. Both cannot be true. I treated the seven deea	medium
Every return in this dossier is computed from a 2026-08-03 close, 19 days before as_of, because the pack contains no state file and no current quote. If RTX has moved materially since, all three legs are shifted by that	high

The case against independent adversary, different model family (P6) weakened

Version history from the research record

archived versions1

archived	hash	bytes
2026-08-22T16:19:49	9146aea24138	24,805

One version only — the archive was created today. The diff view fills in on the next re-run.

Rendered from canonical artifacts only (T1) — no terminal database exists. Every figure is read from the system's own files at render time; where an artifact is missing the panel names the dependency rather than showing an empty box. No execution path exists anywhere in this interface (T5), not even a link.