| Account | Shares | Price | Value | % of acct | Cost/sh | Gain $ | Gain % | Target |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 401K | 3 | $532.50 | $1,598 | 0.07% | $425.06 | $322 | +25.3% | — |
In short: Q2 revenue +11% Y/Y to $20.1B ($730M beat) and GAAP EPS $7.94 ($0.74 beat); shares jumped 11% after falling roughly 22% since fighting began in Iran, on fears defense budgets peak once a Democratic House arrives after the midterms. The order book was the real headline: $65B of new orders for a 3.2:1 book-to-bill, lifting backlog to a record $230B from $186B just one quarter ago, driven mostly by the multi-year THAAD interceptor award tied to a preliminary $35B Pentagon commitment. All four segments grew, led by Missiles and Fire Control +19% on THAAD, PAC-3 and Precision Strike. Free cash flow swung to $2.9B from −$150M a year ago, erasing Q1's burn — but the increase came from lower CapEx, not operations: cash from operations guidance held at $9.2–9.4B while CapEx guidance dropped ~$450M, precisely the amount FCF went up. That CapEx cut sits oddly beside the story of building ahead of orders (new munitions plants in Troy and Courtland, Alabama meant to hold surge capacity before contracts land). FY26 guidance rose across every line: sales $79.75–81.75B (vs $79.1B), EPS $29.95–30.65 (vs ~$29.90), segment operating profit $8.5–8.7B, FCF $7.0–7.2B. Also agreed to buy Ultra Maritime (undersea sensing) and signed an MOU with Rheinmetall to produce ATACMS in Europe. With orders running better than three times deliveries, demand stopped being the constraint — watch whether back-half revenue actually accelerates or the backlog just keeps swelling. (Recap, not a stance call.)
Lockheed makes fighter jets and, increasingly, missiles and missile-defence systems. The quarter's headline isn't sales, it's orders: $65 billion of new contracts against about $20 billion of work delivered — orders arriving more than three times faster than the factories can ship. That pushed its order backlog to a record $230 billion, up from $186 billion just three months earlier, driven mainly by a huge multi-year award for THAAD interceptors tied to a preliminary $35 billion Pentagon commitment. The stock jumped 11%, having sold off about 22% since the Iran fighting started on fears that defence budgets peak after the midterms.
One thing to read carefully. Free cash flow swung from negative to $2.9 billion, and the full-year forecast went up — but the increase came entirely from spending less on new plant and equipment, not from the business generating more cash. Management cut its capital-spending plan by about $450 million, which is precisely the amount the cash forecast rose. That's a slightly awkward fit with the story it tells about building munitions plants ahead of demand. With demand no longer the constraint, the thing to watch is whether revenue actually accelerates or the backlog simply keeps growing because the factories can't keep up. A recap, not a call.
In short: "Reported great numbers" — "very strong 2Q 26 results" with sales +11%, EPS 794 vs $1.46 last year and 720 expected, a revenue beat, and a record $230B backlog, "up 24% in 3 months." "Clearly, the geopolitical situation is benefiting defense companies."
Lockheed builds fighter jets, missiles and missile-defense systems for the US and allied governments. When wars escalate, orders follow — and this quarter showed it: sales up 11%, earnings well ahead of expectations, and an order book at a record $230 billion, up 24% in just three months.
That backlog is the point. It is revenue already contracted for future years, so a war-driven spike shows up in the backlog long before it shows up in profits. "Clearly, the geopolitical situation is benefiting defense companies."
7:19Why? The cost growth on the company's missile programs seem open-ended and that is hurting current margins. Lockheed Martin also reported and reported great numbers. Lockheed posted very strong 2Q 26 results with sales up 11% and earnings per share of 794 versus a dollar 46 last year and versus 720 expected. Revenue beat as well.
In short: Q&A on defense (LMT / ITA): "I actually like the big defense companies more than JOBY" — prefers the established primes to the speculative eVTOL/drone momentum names.
On the same defense question, Singh says he "likes the big defense companies" — Lockheed among them — over speculative names like Joby. Established, profitable defense primes over story stocks; a general preference rather than a detailed pitch.
Full passage: premium transcript (PDF).
In short: Bullish accumulation call — "at an undemanding 17 times earnings, we are bullish on this name"; another run-up "possibly to a new all-time high north of $700… strikes us as highly likely." Defense bears' "shooting war is in the rear-view mirror" attitude (the same mispricing Haymaker fought on oil) has LMT flat-lined four years at one of its lowest P/S & P/E of the decade (17× vs the S&P's 21×), with earnings not inflated by extraordinary items. Engine: the Patriot MIM-104 global shortage (Ukraine's inventories nearly exhausted; even the US short) makes production "nearly certain to be strong for years to come," atop surging worldwide defense spending non-US (non-China) producers can't serve at scale. Pivoting to next-gen armaments: just acquired Ultra Maritime (naval defense/offense tech); Ukrainian drone-maker deals wouldn't surprise. Long record of accumulating weakness / trimming strength (clearest trim Oct-2024 ~$600). Risk kill-switch: a decisive break above 4.6% on the 10Y / 5% on the 30Y. An accumulation/position call, not a quick flip.
Lockheed Martin is America's flagship defense contractor — the maker of fighter jets, missiles and, importantly here, the Patriot air-defense system that shoots down incoming missiles. Hay's argument is that investors have written off defense stocks the same way they wrote off oil: "the wars are winding down, so why own them?" That attitude has left Lockheed's stock going nowhere for four years and priced at just 17 times earnings while the average big US stock costs 21 times — and Lockheed's earnings are "clean" (real operating profit), whereas some index giants like Google are padding theirs with one-off paper gains on private-company stakes. Meanwhile the actual business outlook points the other way: the Ukraine and Iran conflicts have burned through Patriot missile inventories worldwide — even the US is short — which all but guarantees years of strong production of one of Lockheed's most important programs, on top of surging defense budgets globally that few non-US companies (outside China, whom most buyers won't touch) can supply at scale. And the company is adapting to drone-era warfare, having just bought Ultra Maritime, a fast-growing naval-drone/tech firm.
This is framed as building a position in a long-term holding, not a quick flip — Haymaker's own history with the stock is buying weakness and trimming strength (it recommended taking profits near $600 in late 2024, and the stock later touched ~$700). The target: a run to a new all-time high above $700. The one clearly-defined danger sign to watch: if the 10-year Treasury yield decisively breaks above 4.6% (and the 30-year above 5%), that would suggest America is hitting the limits of borrowing to fund everything — defense included — and would undermine the thesis.
In short: "I've owned it, I do own it, and I own the defense sector ETFs." Long 10–20-yr backlogs survive a 60-day peace, and defense spending is going up — "but at what price." The easy money got made; rotational/fast money is leaving (same setup as CNQ), so he's cautious and would tap a specialist defense manager rather than just buy an ETF.
Lockheed is the defense giant, and Larson owns it plus defense-sector ETFs. His logic: defense spending is structurally rising, and the huge 10–20-year order backlogs don't disappear just because there's a 60-day peace framework. The hesitation is all about price — "at what price" he keeps repeating. After the war, the easy money was made, and "fast money leaves quick," so rotational capital is draining out of defense (the same pattern as CNQ). Because so few stocks are outperforming, he'd rather hire a specialist defense manager and tilt toward cheaper "value" names than just buy the whole sector here.
31:04Everyone's like okay this is happening. Trump went around and said we're no longer going to be the world police. Everyone has to do their own thing. And look at the NATO, but remember a lot of these things are long long long lead time and just because there's maybe a peace today for two seconds doesn't mean these 10 15 20 year backlogs don't get pushed through but at what price, that's one that I've had to be cautious on, I can talk to Lockheed, I've owned it, I do own it and I own the defense sector ETFs as well
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.