A big company called Lockheed Martin makes things that help keep people safe and protect them from bad guys. Some rich people think this company's value will go down, so they are betting money on it not doing well. Other people think the company will do good, so they are also betting money on it. The big bosses of the market are trying to guess how much Lockheed Martin is worth and where its price will be in the future. Read from source...

1. The article starts with a misleading statement that "whales" have taken a bearish stance on Lockheed Martin, implying that large investors are selling the stock or betting against it. However, this is not necessarily true, as whales could also buy protective put options to hedge their long positions, or sell call options to generate income.
2. The article uses vague terms like "bearish" and "bullish" without defining them or providing any evidence for the claims. These terms are subjective and depend on the time frame, risk appetite, and trading strategy of each investor. A bearish investor could be someone who expects the stock price to drop in the short term, while a bullish investor could be someone who believes the stock will rise or remain stable in the long run.
3. The article focuses on the number and value of trades, rather than the actual trading activity or market sentiment. For example, it does not mention how many contracts were opened, executed, or closed, nor how these trades affect the overall volume and open interest of the stock options. It also ignores other factors that could influence the stock price, such as earnings reports, dividends, news events, or technical indicators.
4. The article uses a narrow price band between $250.0 and $460.0 to summarize the market movers' expectations, without explaining why this range is relevant or how it was derived. This could be misleading or inaccurate, as different options traders may have different targets or scenarios for Lockheed Martin based on their analysis and risk tolerance.
5. The article does not provide any personal experience or expertise of the author, nor any credentials or sources to support the claims made. This raises doubts about the credibility and reliability of the information presented.