Member Info for Svend

Retirment,

Your slogan is neat, but it skips the part that markets the price.

“Targets met = SP up” only holds if those targets exceed what’s already embedded in expectations. Markets don’t reward companies for meeting forecasts — they reward them for beating the forward assumptions implied in the current valuation. If consensus already prices in target delivery, simply hitting them can result in no move at all, or even a drop if guidance, margins, cash flow quality, or forward visibility disappoint.

Price isn’t a scoreboard of past targets; it’s a discounting mechanism for future cash flows and risk. Results day doesn’t just ask if they meet targets? — It asks if they changed the trajectory?

So yes, slogans are catchy. Markets, however, run on deltas, not headlines.

Jds15,

There’s some logic in that view, but it helps to frame it more precisely.

AI isn’t really “assaulting” share prices — it’s repricing sectors based on expected changes to future cash flows. Businesses whose earnings models look vulnerable to automation risk tend to see valuation pressure, while companies positioned to use AI as a productivity or capability multiplier often attract capital rotation. That’s not sentiment; it’s discounted expectations.

In Rolls-Royce’s case, the investment thesis isn’t that AI can’t affect it — it’s that AI is more likely to be an enabler than a disruptor. Its core segments (civil aerospace, defence, power systems) are capital-intensive, engineering-driven industries with high regulatory and technical barriers. These are areas where AI tends to enhance design optimisation, predictive maintenance, fuel efficiency modelling, and systems diagnostics rather than replace the underlying business.

So if capital rotates out of sectors perceived as structurally threatened by AI and into sectors that can harness it without margin erosion, companies like Rolls-Royce can benefit — not because they’re immune to AI, but because they’re positioned on the right side of its adoption curve.

The key distinction is this: AI is a tool, not a sector. Markets reward firms that integrate it into their operating leverage and penalise those whose revenue streams it commoditises. Rolls-Royce currently screens closer to the former than the latter, which is why it’s being viewed as a relative beneficiary rather than a casualty.

Arsenal17,

I said if February confirms the forward trajectory, the market can re-rate fast — that’s a scenario, not a timestamp carved into oak.

But I understand it’s more entertaining to pretend it was a countdown clock rather than a valuation discussion.

Let’s do this properly:

If the numbers validate the 2028 glidepath, the multiple holds and price trends upward.

If they don’t, it reprices.

That’s how markets work — not by forum memory tests.

The Captain navigates probabilities, not pub quotes. 🧭

Full Squeeze Territory above 722.4 🚀🤢🚀

Listen to the update from the site:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/helium-one/posts/?feedView=all

Fordm,

Ahoy now — steady the wheel. ⚓

When the Captain speaks of 2028, he’s not peering two winters ahead with a crystal ball. He’s reading the voyage chart that the company itself laid upon the Captain’s table. Those numbers out yonder on the horizon? That’s where the treasure is marked.

But mark this well — we sail one tide at a time.

Each results day is a lighthouse flash:

Are we still on course?

Is the wind holding?

Is the hull sound?

If aye, the voyage continues and the crew grow confident.

If nay, the market throws cargo overboard and resets the compass.

So 2028 ain’t tomorrow’s weather forecast.

It’s the destination plotted on the map.

Short seas: execution.

Mid seas: confirmation.

Long seas: valuation treasure.

No need to fret over distant storms, mate. We trim the sails as we go. 🏴‍☠️

Stargate: The weekly chart indicates the early stages of a potential breakout. A decisive move and sustained close above 722.4 would confirm clearance of overhead resistance, opening a technically clear path toward a move into the low-teens price range. If that level is successfully breached with volume support, upside momentum could accelerate.

Retirment,

Listen close.

I never nailed a date to the mast and shouted, “£15 by decree.”

I said if the winds hold and the charts confirm, then £15 be fair waters ahead.

That's navigation, not fortune-telling.

Now to this tale that the Rolls-Royce Holdings ship sails alone and cares not if the great American tide rises to 7,000 on the S&P 500…

That’s sea-blind thinking.

When the great ocean swells, all strong hulls rise with it.

When liquidity floods the decks, high-quality vessels catch the wind faster.

To say it makes “no odds” is like saying the tide doesn’t move the harbour.

Now — the 26th of February.

Aye, it is an important port of call.

But results day does not create treasure.

It merely opens the chest and shows whether the gold is already inside.

If:

Cash flow is flowing,

Engines are humming,

Margins are widening,

And 2028 remains charted true…

Then the crew cheers and the ship sails north.

If the maps are wrong?

Then the market fires a warning cannon.

But don’t mistake the cannon for the storm.

The voyage was charted long before the harbour bell rang.

That's the difference between a sailor…

and a man staring at one wave, thinking it's the whole ocean. ⚓

*Retirment

Retirmet,

As a follow-up, let me know why you know which way the market will react to the SP at 7K? Since you know it all!

Retirment,

You keep reducing a conditional market process to a slogan.

“Targets met = SP up” sounds neat, but it’s not a law of physics — it’s a simplification. Plenty of companies meet targets and still drop because of expectations, positioning, guidance range, cash flow timing, or forward risk change. That’s not theory; it’s history.

Yes, results day matters. I’ve said that repeatedly. It matters because it confirms or invalidates the forward path — not because price mechanically ticks up on a green tick-box.

And yes, analysts update targets after the fact. Again — agreed. That’s not a gotcha; that’s exactly how information propagates through the market. Capital reallocates on confirmation, not slogans.

You can say it in four words if you want.

I’m explaining why those four words sometimes fail — and why they sometimes work.

That isn’t a waffle.

That’s understanding the machinery instead of chanting at it.

Results land.

Price reacts.

Then we deal in facts — not catchphrases.

Retirment,

You’re confusing analysis with prediction games.

Markets don’t move because someone says “up” or “down” with conviction — they move because liquidity, positioning, expectations, and fundamentals collide. Terms like air pocket, mean reversion, and momentum aren’t decoration; they’re descriptions of how price actually behaves between events like results day.

Results day itself isn’t magic. If the numbers confirm what’s already priced, the move can be muted. If they surprise — either way — price adjusts. That’s not hedging, that’s how markets work.

As for the “target game” — I’m not playing darts blindfolded. I’m mapping scenarios and probabilities—big difference.

If you’re holding RR because you think it can be £16 by year-end, that’s a perfectly rational investment view — and not a million miles from the broader long-term thesis. But pretending that the path there is a straight line, or that discussing risk structure is “AI dross,” is simply ignoring reality.

Results will land. Price will react. Then we deal with facts — not bravado.

Farnorth4,

The coiling spring in action:

The Breakout Scenario: If the S&P 500 breaks above 7,020, it could quickly move toward a 7,100-7,200 range driven by short-covering and renewed momentum.

The Correction Scenario: The market faces a risk of an "air pocket" or "mean-reversion," with a potential pullback toward 6,700-6,800 to form a more stable foundation.

Take your pick!🤷‍♂️

Rolls-Royce Holdings plc | Feb interim buyback

Programme: £200m (ends no later than 24 Feb)

Completed so far: ~13.0m shares

Estimated spend: ~£160–165m

Still outstanding: ~£35–40m (≈ ~3m shares at current prices)

Net: buyback is ~80–85% complete; only the final tranche remains.

Retirment,

You’re still arguing with a straw man. I’ve never claimed analysts have a predictive edge or that they lead price discovery. They don’t — and that’s well understood.

What you’re missing is that markets don’t reprice on prediction; they reprice on confirmation. Results day matters precisely because it validates (or invalidates) the forward path to 2028. That’s when capital reallocates, models are updated, and risk premiums change.

Analysts being “late — not wrong” is exactly the point. Their revisions reflect validated data, not foresight. That doesn’t make them useless; it makes them part of the transmission mechanism after facts are established.

This has nothing to do with “backing analyst targets” or using AI. It’s about understanding how earnings, guidance, and execution translate into valuation over time.

Disagreeing is fine. Dismissing basic market mechanics as “cr4p” isn’t an argument — it’s just noise.

Retirment,

You’re arguing against a point I’m not making. I’ve never said analysts drive the share price or that they’re consistently right. What they do is react to verified data — and that reaction matters because it influences capital flows after the fact.

Results day isn’t “pivotal” because it magically creates value; it’s pivotal because it confirms or disproves whether the trajectory toward 2028 is intact. If the numbers validate that path, the market reprices — sometimes immediately, sometimes with a lag. If they don’t, it corrects.

Analysts raising targets after confirmation doesn’t invalidate the process — it confirms it. Price follows earnings, guidance, and execution over time, not forum noise or single-day moves.

Dismissing discussion as “bull****” doesn’t strengthen your argument. Data, outcomes, and forward visibility do.

TJBH, The SP has moved through the cloud on the 4-hour chart, the 50/150/20 ema is now below, and volume is rising; it seems the interim target, the unlucky 13 in name, is on the target horizon!. (following a double, triple bounce of the 150 ema and expelling the 0.236 retracement at 1261) Interested to hear what you are seeing in this current environment?

Lokomo

£1275 is 100% is correct, take no notice of retirment, he is obviously disillusional or short selling, maybe getting hammered, meanwhile those who follow Rycey will note the current price is rising now $17.73

Retirment,

Dismiss the numbers all you like, but attacking who publishes them doesn’t change what they represent.

Those targets aren’t “picked, added up and divided by three by kids” — they’re the aggregate output of analysts who model cash flow, margins, backlog, buybacks, and guidance. You don’t have to like them, but the market prices expectations, not insults.

Saying “I can say £13.50 without a date” isn’t analysis — it’s just a number with no framework. Targets with ranges at least show the distribution of outcomes, which is why the market reacts around them.

And for clarity:

Average target: 1,244

High: 1,550

Low: 1,080

That spread literally tells you where disagreement sits and what the market is weighing. Ignore it if you want — but pretending it’s meaningless noise doesn’t make it so.

Debate the assumptions, debate the cash flows, debate the forward earnings — but shouting “lol analysts” isn’t an argument. It’s just opting out of the discussion.

The price target is 1332.81 based on the combined estimates of analysts covering the company.