Waltham is an extraordinary journey, a part of American history¹ that it can be proud of as Howard Hughes's legacy. A legacy that is still touched by aviation, like the duty of Pratt & Whitney during the Vietnam War. Like from MIT for the founders¹ of Waltham. The question that confronts shareholders for the future is whether the path that Waltham is the one of dividends? Do the State forecasts remain sufficient to ensure nominal growth of the group ? For the Navy, you have to set course by the stars, not by the lights of every passing ship. Since 2020, it is necessary to be attentive to physician and the judge to understand what sets to Waltham and then, of it shares.

First, the judge’s decisions are binding on Waltham, including those that could affect the value of his shares. Such would be the case of an exclusion from public tenders, for example, by a foreign court. The forecast deficit would be such as to reduce the value of the security. Conversely, a judicial exclusion of a competitor would increase in securities. As who wants to predict the future must look at the past, the antecedents of the group are information to be observed in the light of the updates of law. American jurisdictions trace dozens of disputes around the activities of the engineering group partners¹ of Thales. On April 16, 2021¹², a question of intellectual property law was raised before the US Supreme Court judges in the General Electric vs Raytheon case. For an objectivist, one might think that the absence of a patent deprives new generation turbines of a quality essential to reach a tender. This is an example in which the judge intervenes in the valuation of a publicly traded company. For the subjectivist, the same essential quality can be achieved through different technological means. This is the counter-example that tempers the impact of the judge in the speculative case. In the present case, the judge recalls the difference between the state of the art and material proof of prior existence. In a decision of December 2, 2003¹, Waltham advanced the societal comprehension of the American employee. Thus,the Supreme Court held the distinction between claims of discrimination based on disparate treatment and claims of discrimination based on disparate impact. This judgment - and other¹² - refers to the assumption that the quality of engineering is based on employees but has a negative impact on the expected results. Nevertheless, the exception is health discrimination, as we shall discuss hereinafter. On March 15, 2007², the Waltham management board entered into a 1.5 million administrative transaction for Improper Disclosure and Accounting Practices. The judge from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, was unable to address the merits of the case that an overestimation of 10% to 53% would have led to a violation of the securities act of 1933. A judicial sanction is likely to remove the eligibility of a company to compete in the state’s call for tenders. It is therefore reasonable to think that Waltham cannot be heard again for the same imputations. On October 8,2020², the US SEC assigned new charges against Waltham. SEC information available to the public² in 2021 indicates a possible improper payment in the Middle East in 2014. The legal literature shows that this type of procedure does not weigh on the results of corporations authorised to Defense secrecy. This is a result of the previous fact that Waltham has a high confidence index. The public health component should be now estimate.

Second, public health policy is imposed on corporations not only in their commercial performance but also in their production performance. With nearly 180,000 employees (excluding departures from Otis), the issue of sanitary measures is at the heart of Waltham’s interests. The March 2020 outbreak common to the entire Western world provides a reliable benchmark. Thus, the Waltham title was 25% in 24hr followed by a plateau of progressive ascent. In comparison, Lockheed-Martin, Textron and Honeywell, suffered the same loss but has a faster revaluation. It should be noted that Airbus has a less good history than the designer² of Iveco oxygen truck. In addition, in an April 2021 interview for CNBC, Waltham speculates a return to completely normal in 2024. We can deduce from the preceding 2 things: - whether domestic public health measures reduce its production capacity as suggest by the first quarter report¹. - Either that the balance sheet of sales is strongly down compared to the health crisis. However, according to the official 2020 overview¹, only 29% of sales volumes came from international sources. Plus, there is no mention of the proportion of total turnover in this third. So the expected dividends of $3.77 per share seem to be charged to foreign activities. As the internal activity is guaranteed by the state to maintain the remaining 71%, the valuation is of a stable nature. But growth is weakened by the nationalization movement of the Defense markets produced by epidemics without armed conflict. This shows that the public health prospective seems not to the benefit to Waltham despite a consolidated legal aspect.

For these reasons,

Waltham deserves a middle high confidence.