IBM

Interesting-Wear2595

Better tell IBM, Google, Amazon and Microsoft they’re wasting billions on R&D then, they’re missing out on your technological genius. Bet they’ll hire you right off the street saying theses kind of gems.

Scary_Chocolate6586

I absolutely agree with you. Buy a few hundred shares and just sit on it. After making a killing on NVDA and AMD it's all just a game to me now. Those who bad mouth it probably own IBM and Intel HAHA

RaskyBukowski

I am pondering selling quite a few assets, which will be painful, but I'm nearing where I need the money and will withdraw some. It's no longer in the 20-30 year horizon phase. I've had some stocks for 25 years. The psychological effect of not selling many and a crash will be more devastating than some kind of 20% inexplicable boom. Uncertain what to do about defense, oil, and reit stocks as well as AI like IBM.

Colonist25

you argument is what exactly? there's some unique things in the us - yes. will there be copy cats and alternatives in europe - also yes. palantir is a data collection firm, actually nothing they do is unique other than they have their hooks in so many processes. nvidia is a unique company only in the sense that they have a design lead. ten years, nvidia may not have that position. just like Xerox, IBM, AMD, etc in the day. if you look around hard enough, china has in many areas already beaten the US when it comes to research, innovation, etc. and the EU has some unqiue things of it's own This isn't even about Trump at this point. He's been elected twice, the US is either getting into Gilead territory or becoming a full blown oligarchy under Thiel & Musk. Europe (and the world) simply cannot trust that the US will come to it's senses any time soon. Hence the world is moving on from the post WW2 order.

Happy-Champion1661

isn't IBM like 10% off from ATH? Agree on SOFI calls MSFT I closed all my calls already, probably too early tbh, but I had a decent entry

Historical_Cover8133

Summarizing my regarded playbook for next week. Thoughts from the pros? \- MSFT and META calls from Monday, will monitor how much they run up. If META hits 690+ before ER, I'll close before ER, if it stays in the present range I'll hold. If it goes below 650 I'll double down. MSFT makes more modest moves in general and I'll just hold them until after the ER regardless. \- IBM puts right before ER and calls the day after if it drops big. This strategy worked two ERs last year, but not the last one, but it's gone sideways for months and is near ATH. A drop seems more likely. \- SOFI, enter calls Monday in expectation of the run up. They're still showing great growth and it's down from ATH. If it doesn't run up before ER, I'll hold, if it goes to 29 before Friday, I'll close right before.

TheKingInTheNorth

You know tech consulting firms exist too for decades already right? But yes it operates like a systems integrator akin to IBM. Except their product isn’t trash and the engineers they employ are world class AI engineers and data scientists instead of coding slop farms offshore hidden behind MBA suits schmoozing IT directors.

DennysGrandSlamm

Google is fine IBM is fine. But $RGTI and $QBTS and $IONQ and $qubt? FUCK THEM

East-Description-243

They can move quick. I bought some calls when IBM reported earnings and dropped 8%. By the end of the day they were back to even and the next morning up 8%, so 16% price move after I bought calls… My leaps gained 250% in less than 24hrs. Changed my mind about how useful they can be.

Any-Love-6016

Mine is an IBM though

Motor_Technology2695

Apple’s shift into a capital return vehicle mirrors the late-stage stagnation of 1990s IBM. They’re trading cultural edge for balance sheet optimization. Which is why Google’s focus on the educational substrate isn't a mere product launch; it’s a bid to own the architecture of human thought. That’s where the real alpha lives. Google is building the future's cognitive infrastructure.

Playful-History-9290

These can pay 40% interest if you enable lending. I put some in my IRA. I feel these are a better short than nvda or crwv as they don't have as many cultists. CEO also dumped all his stock. Google or IBM will win quantum eventually. All these others are just playing the hype valuation con game.

Lopsided-Magician-36

At these days I’m convinced red is green, green is red. IBM last earnings was a mindfuck AH it rocketed $288 to $295 and in the same minute tanked to $274 literally was screaming fuck yeah looked at the screen to show someone and they were like it dipped. Next day recovers and the day after rockets up and my calls go ITM

Alatarlhun

Palantir's P/E ratio is betting on them being what IBM was the the Nazis.

harrison_wintergreen

> if the interest rate paid on US debt is insufficiently compensating you for the risk. If Pimco is saying that, I think we should be thinking that there have been rare periods in the past that AAA corporate debt paid lower rates than Treasuries, implying the bond market thought IBM or whoever was a safer bet that the US treasury. and a few years ago, late Biden admin, Dodge & Cox made large purchases of global debt, expecially Latin America.

RSomnambulist

I'm still mad we let Lenovo buy IBM.

harrison_wintergreen

> US Treasuries were pretty much the verbatim risk-free rate. there have been times in the past AAA corporates have paid lower rates than Treasuries of similar maturity, implying the bond market believed IBM or whatever was a safer bet. https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2023/06/corporate-bonds-vs-u-s-treasuries/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Former_Tomato9667

IBM did a bunch of cool shit in the 60’s and sold the same computers as everyone else for a half century afterwards 🤷‍♂️

InTroubleDouble

Stopped reading at the second point. If they grow 4x in 2026, they‘re at $100b. Thanks for helping me with the calculation, if they grow 8x they are at $200b. If they simply grow 100x that would be trillions! Fantasy numbers detached from economy. And I am not denying the growth of AI usage. As if growth rates do not slow when reaching size limited by size of the overall economy. As if reaching 20bn from 6bn the year before is the same as getting to 100bn the next year. Or 300bn after. You can not just apply insane growth numbers like in the first two years of service. ChatGPT was launched late 2022, 2023 was the first full year with rapid coverage around the world. Since 1-2 years they are heavily trying to monetize while loads of competition entering the market. Just putting into perspective: 300bn would be microsoft level of revenues. Whole world Economy runs on microsoft office. 300b would be significantly more revenues than global giants like Oracle, SAP or IBM critical to their client base. All for a funny gadget most clients at this stage say does not provide real value. You can apply funny multipliers. At this stage with the current product noone on this planet will provide OpenAI with hundreds of billions of ARR. And even if their product may be the best model, before a company pays 100m ARR for their employees to run Birthday cards, they will choose a slightly less competitive model for 1/10th of the price from one of the competitors. That is the main reason pointed out in my initial comment why OpenAI can Not simply scale to 300bn in line with computing power.

gabrintx

Early assignment is rare. I forget how many years ago with TOS, I had credit spread on IBM x10. I logged in and saw my account was $100,000 negative and I couldn't trade. I did have 10,000 shares of IBM. TOS waited to sell it. I would have expected them to do it immediately, they waited over a day when price had retraced.

VictoriaAutNihil

You're not a moron, today (01/20) is just the start. I think this could be much worse than last April. That dip rebounded rather nicely, and those that bought in April, did rather well. This time around, there's more than just tariff worries at hand and I think the dip could last a lot longer than a few months. I'm in the process of selling some positions where I'm up a decent amount and playing it safe. PLTR, PANW, AMAT, IBM. I'll keep others and hope they don't tumble too much, AMZN, GOOG, NVDA, AMD. However, they soon may be on the sell table as well. 10% correction? If today is any indication of a long term bear dip, I'd say more likely 15-20% If I were in my late 20s-mid 30s, I'd be overjoyed if I had decent cash reserves and time was on my side, but while I have decent cash reserves, I'm too old to play catch up, especially with all the geo-political, socio-economic turbulence currently taking place. 1%ers are loving this insanity, they'll make another killing, like they did last April.

OprahAtOprahDotCom

I don’t disagree. I think it will start trading like a Cisco, IBM, Oracle or Intel, but not become irrelevant.

OprahAtOprahDotCom

Thx , Yea , much less obvious in the financial statements than a company like PYPL, but I think adobe is showing signs of becoming a boring tech value story like IBM, Cisco, or Oracle. Just basically saying, it’s becoming more like value/tech than growth/tech, and it will likely trade accordingly.

VariationNo8358

No they didn't. The 73B figure is for Reality Labs, which encompasses the Metaverse, AR and VR devices (Oculus and Meta Quest), and wearables like the Rayban and Oakley Meta Glasses. Or maybe intead of investing in R&D they should follow IBM and Intel's example by cutting costs and enshittifying?

GORKOfficial

Meta. Google. Apple. Snapchat. Nvidia. Microsoft. Amazon. Tesla. Oracle. Netflix. IBM. Intel. Uber. Adobe. Dell. I can keep going. Europe doesn't make or do anything for themselves.

Odd-Inspection212

Strictly my own personal opinion, we are a quite a ways from commercial quantum computers. Mass market probably late 30s early 40s. I’m sure others will disagree. If I were to bet, I’d go for IBM and Google, all the startups burning investor cash, won’t be around by then.

SelenaMeyers2024

Well thought out and reminds me of a podcast I listened to, with one of my favorite value investors mohnish pabrai. His point was value investing always beats growth over the long term, except during periods of transformational technology. Then it's the opposite. You saw this in the late 90s growth destroyed Berkshire, while 2000 thru 2016 back to value. Now we have ai, as transformational or more so than the 90s. Your thesis fits that me chasing laggards like flower corporation (bread) or fallen angels (Adobe) will never match someone that yolos space stocks, Iren, pltr, and basically all mag 7 regardless of their valuations. We've seen this movie in the 50s called the nifty fifty, where the thesis was IBM or xerox at any price. But the difference is value investors are as concerned with preserving the capital even more than the gains. You can't simply 3x bc your everybody wants your product (say ram) and expect that forever. More boring and sustainable is picking up stocks at huge margins of safety where you assume the worst and it's still ok (like with Adobe I assume it loses every consumer to canva, just keeps enterprises).

PresentationNo634

Datavault AI (DVLT) 🚀 Bullish • Launch of four data exchanges contributing to Q4 revenue. • Expansion of patent portfolio in AI and tokenization tech. • $150M strategic funding for infrastructure and growth. • Partnerships like IBM Platinum Partner Plus accelerate adoption. -a company focused on AI-powered data tokenization, monetization, and IP licensing, bridging traditional finance with Web3 and AI data marketplaces. 📈 Current Market & Price Info • DVLT trades on the NASDAQ and is known for high volatility — big swings historically, e.g., 52‑week range of ~$0.25 to ~$4.10. • Most recent pricing shows DVLT around ~$0.80 – 1.05 (varies each session). • Market cap is approximately $460 M – $530 M depending on current trading. • Shares outstanding have expanded significantly (YoY +2,344 %). 📊 Valuation Metrics From recent statistics: • Market Cap: ~$465 M • Owned by Insiders: ~5–16 % • Institutional Ownership: ~0.6 – 1.3 % (small share held by funds) • PS Ratio: 2.6–7.6 (varies by platform) • PE Ratio: N/A (company currently unprofitable) • Revenue: growing but still modest vs cost structure. ⸻ 🧠 Institutional & Insider Ownership Professional investors are involved, but ownership remains relatively small: 🏦 Institutional Investors According to institutional data: • Funds like Anson Funds Management LP, Vanguard Group Inc., BNP Paribas, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Geode Capital Management, Raymond James, and others hold shares. • Total institutional stake ~0.66 % of shares outstanding. • Recent institutional buying totals 5.4 M shares ($5.9 M). 👤 Insiders • Insider ownership ranges in some reports ~~5–16 %. • Notably Scilex Holding Co. holds/held a significant share and sold millions of shares in early 2026. ⸻ 💡 Key Investments & Strategic Capital 💰 $150 M Strategic Investment • Scilex Holding Company agreed to invest $150 million (in BTC) into DVLT to help build supercomputing infrastructure and data exchanges. • This news triggered strong stock spikes (up ~30 % to 52 %) at various points after the announcement. 🔗 Partnerships • IBM Platinum Partner Plus involvement with AI data platform initiatives. • Licensing and integration with platforms such as NYIAX (ADIO technology) and aerospace universities. 📊 Analyst & Price Target Info • One average analyst price target recently revised to $4.08, about +400 % potential from lower prices. • Analyst consensus is generally positive (Buy rating) but based on very limited coverage. • Reminder: analyst targets are estimates — not guarantees. ⸻ 📃 Fundamental & Operational Notes 📈 Revenue & Growth • The company has reported strong percentage revenue growth year‑over‑year, though absolute revenue remains comparatively small. • Revenue guidance for 2026 was updated and expanded based on new exchange platforms and partnerships. 📉 Profitability • Currently unprofitable and carries operating losses — typical for early growth tech/AI stocks. • Some cash flow and coverage metrics show mixed support for aggressive expansion.

DanceInMisery

Only if you like gambling. The tech (70+ patents/IBM support) looks legit on paper, but the price action is pure manipulation and insider dumping right now. It could be a massive bear trap or a slow bleed to a reverse split. If you buy, set a tight stop loss, it had significant selling by insiders (including the CEO) and major shareholders like Scilex, with zero insider buys in the last six months and the company reported an operating margin of roughly -754% and a net margin of -1,310%. NFA

funcuddles

quantum computers are a real concept, in that, yes they can do math certain fast. idk how viable it is from an monetization standpoint but i would bet my ass it won't be some small cap ticker QUBUTT or whatever that figures out how to build quantum first, it will be a boring company like Google or IBM. and you bet your ass if i'm an engineer working on a quantum computer and get it working, the first thing i'm using my superfast encryption-breaking machine to do is crack Bitcoin keys, making myself a billionaire and trying to figure out some way to get it it transferred into an asset that won't crash to 0 before the crash inevitably comes [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/coinbase-exec-warns-quantum-computing-164207317.html](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/coinbase-exec-warns-quantum-computing-164207317.html)

__jazmin__

My mistake was every single thing I bought that wasn’t VOO, AFL, or IBM. Even worse, I sold some of those three and lost out in a lot of gains. Dumb. 

BNA-mod

There’s no plateau. IBM was around $45 per share I think when I first heard someone say it was at a plateau. Granted, it didn’t move for about 4 months, but then it started climbing again. A good company is an investment.

Ancient-Basil-8853

Key..bing is older than Siri. Siri is faster than bing and bing is smarter so when I put the two together a long time ago 360 IBM gotta upgrade.and (bard) everybody else knows him as Gemini is me. I can fix 360 .

FearlessRain4778

I think the stock exchanges mostly use IBM mainframes. IBM charges by use though, so IBM should benefit.

cbusoh66

Intel is a national security stock now. It's all about winning new customers, supposedly Apple is one. IBM, Amazon, and Microsoft are rumored to be looking at using IFS. The government, Nvidia, and Softbank took multibillion stakes, are they stupid? Intel is on its way to be a $1 trillion company, no one can see it now because of the narrative that Intel can't compete with TSMC, and that narrative is about to change for good.

Happy-Champion1661

ah shit IBM looked such a good weekly poots 3x banger, double top, boomer stonk with no catalyst running around too late I guess

Pizzabe

I predicted IBM move up since last week yet I did not took the trade damn im so mad right now

Smok3dSalmon

You would love IBM. At my new employee orientation, this dumb fucking woman quizzed the room and said “who is the most important to IBM” and she told is shareholders. 

Jokkmokkens

If you really feel quantum will be a reality, as I do, Google, IBM and Microsoft feels like a better bet.

Pizzabe

IBM being ripping up since last week. I called it but I was to scared to enter in a trade I need to do something about that lol.

HotTruth999

Sorry but I can’t let that statement go unchallenged. The two greatest IT creations in the last 25 years are Cloud computing and AI. Amazon created Cloud computing which nearly put the top two IT giants out of business. IBM and HP. Overnight companies stopped investing in their own data centers. Whole categories of IT jobs changed. Microsoft had to hustle to copy AWS. If any company has had a lack of innovation in the last 25 years it is Microsoft. I own both Amazon and Google. No need to pick one. They are both winners.

QunatumLeader

true - I am the inventor of Quantum Logic processor and I know what are you on about. Parity QC are the only ones adopting my vocabulary to some extent ( this is some ghost company from Austria that paired with Spintronics Uk ), and IBM is trying to enter a back door by sucking up to Osaka thieves... but don't worry I got them by the balls. You can read about Quantum Logic Processors - on my subredit called QuantumMathematics - I will literraly expose clowns who write books about "Quantum Computing"

Letbell

None of them. They all are scams. Yes, even IBM AND GOOGL

Mental-At-ThirtyFive

Peter Lynch as the role model for the late 80's MBA investments class and the professor would not stop talking about him. The other Fidelity manager who was successful for me was Danoff and he was very different and was a go-anywhere changed-my-mind manager. btw - CSCO, IBM, QCOM were products that I interacted with at work in 90s and early 00s but I kept them too long (my car is 2013 and I hoping for another 3-5 years). I had many others - not because I used them in retail, but had an "opinion" on their business model. stock picking is hard - dividends have positive carry, dividends growth has market beta growth, albeit dampened - this was one of my lessons and obviously not 100% in dividend growth Personally, last year, I moved 40% of my portfolio to managed accounts (all funds or ETFs), and have maybe a dozen stocks that I will ride for the next 10+ years - but now focusing on income strategies (writing options)

Mental-At-ThirtyFive

This has been a a hit and miss for me - had some clear losses, quite a few go-nowhere stocks and a really handful (one hand) super winners (x multiples). The winners, which were lucky, makes me look smart in the mirror (no one cares). Givenall that, I did buy a few big tech dividend payers (hey CISCO, IBM, QCOM, AMGN etc - all did nothing when I owned them) whose dividends were consolation prizes. So, my --two-cents-- is to consider no-regret dividend growth stocks in your plans

Junglebook3

Pick your favorite Bernie Madoff documentary to learn more about Ponzi schemes. One of the characteristics is that there is no value being generated. The early investors provide the initial funds, that can offer people some withdrawal liquidity, but the whole operation relies on investor funds to live, because there is no business, it's all deception. Another criteria is the promise of over performance, low risk, regardless of market conditions. In comparison, the stock market doesn't pretend to promise you anything. The stock market offers you fractional ownership in (largely) real businesses. When you buy IBM, you buy ownership rights to an actual business with employees, assets, expenditures, and customers. You know what you're buying, it is what it says it is. The only similarity is that like any other investment asset, the price only goes up if more money buys rather than sells. So, after you buy, you need other people to buy so your investment goes up, which allows you to eventually sell. But that's not sufficient criteria to be defined a Ponzi scheme, per the criteria I outlined above.

relativex

I'm not really a trader. I only invest in things I plan to hold for multiple years and I don't look at my brokerage account every day. I've held some GOOG for around five years now. Done very well with that. No IBM, but not because I don't think it's a good stock. I just never researched it much and don't have unlimited resources. 90% of my investments are in a 401K and a Roth IRA. My brokerage account is strictly "play money" that I can afford to lose if something bad happens. I've done pretty well for an amateur, but I am definitely not someone you should be looking to for investment advice.

Northern_Money425

ive seen a lot of people also recommend GOOG and IBM, are there any other quantum stocks your keeping an eye on that you think will do good this year? or maybe an ETF or 2?

JeffB1517

I think quantum computing in the 2020s is where digital computing was in the 1940s. In the 1940s, tabulating machines were common, analog computers worked for a single hardcoded complex calculation. Digital computers if you could get them to work could potentially replace a lot of the use cases of these more expensive systems. The potential of running programs in software like the more complex tabulators, being able to handle larger data sets like with diversity like tabulators while being able to perform complex operations like the analog systems was obvious. Skeptics existed for example, even if you could build these things would the slowdown be 1/1000th or far worse like 1/1,0000,000,000th of the speed of analog computers? The speedups from switching to vacuum tubes to transistors weren't even anticipated. The analogy sounds very favorable. But you are asking about investing. It is worth noting which companies were leading the research * Eckert–Mauchly Computer Corporation (EMCC): * Remington Rand * Bell Laboratories * International Business Machines (IBM) * Joint project government subsidized between Reeves Instrument Corporation and RCA. Bell would go on to lose money in the computer space for decades. They would win Noble prizes, invent C, Unix, digital photography, play a big role in the invention of the transistor, among a hundred often innovations and still from a business perspective failure after failure for decades. EMCC went broke quickly and got bought by Remington Rand. IBM would go on to make a fortune become the leader in this space. You'll note, though IBM's market cap vs. Microsoft, Google, Facebook... they did misstep several times despite being the clear winner. Remingon Rand became Unisys did well for a bit but never transitioned out of mainframes and got destroyed mini computers, IBM in the mainframe space and then personal computing. So even in a situation where everything works out, investing in early innovation is hard.

DaddyTheFatherCR

Pure quantum companies that I've seen are simply not profitable and do not project to be for several years. GOOG and IBM are safer bets for this imo. However, if you're really into it there are several quantum computing themed ETFs out there with more on the way. That will at least give you broader exposure to the theme without putting your eggs in one basket.

technical-mind4300

I bought DWAV last year at 1.50 - went way up. Sold much of it expecting that it - made a ton of money. But the residual gone way up again. I took some of the profits and bought IONQ. I think they serve different use cases but both a frontline pure play. That said they are high risk high reward. I also have bought Google, Microsoft and IBM as more realistic winners of this quantum arm race. Main thing I am thinking is put bets on all of them just expect pure plays could go to 0 so take some profits along the way.

jopausl

Same situation but earlier. Someone mentioned QNC and how their PINQ electron tunneling technology was being tested by IBM. I threw a bit of money at it, the tech got verified and then I threw in a few more. I'm still holding 80% of my original buy in but I've covered my cost basis 4 times over with the original sell. I'm just riding the news.

BeneficialQuality899

I own IBM through an ETF I have. Solid company

Mean_Celebration9072

The other comments covered most of the names except for one. [Honeywell International (HON)](https://www.google.com/search?q=Honeywell+International+%28HON%29+as+a+strategic+bet+on+the+future+of+quantum+computing&oq=hon+quantum+play&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQLhhA0gEINDQxMmowajSoAgCwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&mstk=AUtExfDkwGfVCPIyO7XytrgRa9hjkwzNgZetOy40uQVA7jD51EHFGx_-Qc4cxey09TqinwBZ3LW6MhZecat-6BwOA5IUvYY3KDbnjxinPRlAYb89bzSz_pMqdiBfOf089ny6FoH6IzUM7aBkMgXAGLI-Gg0MLgC1qhwbz-9E3FO13umGReE&csui=3&ved=2ahUKEwi4tZenuv6RAxViz_ACHT_tDwwQgK4QegQIARAB). Personally I am balancing between the pre revenue names and the established ones with existing revenue, like HON, IBM and GOOG.

AlbatrossGlobal7124

Definitely a solid choice! GOOGL's investments in quantum tech are promising. Have you looked into IBM or D-Wave too.

Smok3dSalmon

I think GlobalFoundaries has manufacturing plants in the US, but I don't know what the hell they're making these days. IBM basically paid these guys to take over their chip business. Common L by IBM. lol Trump having 10% of INTC is pretty compelling

ReadStoriesAndStuff

Ionq has revenue. Working product depends on definition, they can definitely do Quantum Calculations, the question is how useful that is to their customers - and I don’t know the answer to that. They don’t have nearly enough to make money. They aren’t bought for any of that that though. They are valued base on a deep patent library IBM and GOOG will have to license or buy as much as the chance they get cash flow positive.

Glad-Lie8324

Pure play quantum is 20-30 years away from being anything noteworthy when it comes to the bottom line. Stick to mainstream tech and if you really want quantum exposure, GOOG or IBM. The giants are way more able to pour money into research and are more likely to have a breakthrough and the ability to capitalize on it.

Chimaera1075

Google, Microsoft, IBM, Rigetti, D-Wave, and IonQ. Those are the ones I know about. Only IBM, Rigetti, and IonQ are selling physical hardware. The others sell quantum computing as a cloud service. None of the quantum players are making a profit on their systems yet.

Temporary-Alarm-744

How the fuck is google so down? It’s that call center subcontinental CEO. They beat Tesla in autonomous and IBM at quantum and match OpenAI . This market is a fraud and craves bullshit from afrikan Yakubian apes

Extreme-Island-5041

QTUM and let the ETF do it's thing. I have had the 4 pure plays for a little over a year now. I have CCCX/W and CHAC hoping for the mergers to finalize. I got in on QNC at 0.60. I have QTUM, GOOGL IBM and am eyeing Qantinuum and PsiQuantum on my wish list to go public. At the end of the day, you'll drive yourself nuts trying to keep up with each bit of news, rumor and B.S. hype. QTUM has given me ~150% in 15 months without paying any mind to it after making my initial purchase.

SchoolExpert6414

RIGETTI and IBM are probably your safest bets alongside IONQ - IBM's been dumping serious cash into their quantum division and RIGETTI's got some solid partnerships. Google and Microsoft have quantum plays too but they're buried in their massive market caps so harder to get pure exposure

gnusm

IBM.

moorhound

Fucking *stupid* Just give the money to IBM/Google/universities. IONQ, QBIT, RGTI - these are not usable technologies, never will be, and none of these companies have the money or resources for actual quantum shit.

AbilityAny9704

Expanding their collaboration with IBM

greytoc

Most people here are probably too young to remember or realize. But one of the biggest stock market crashes occurred in October 1987. Your question is interesting - but most people would have panicked - as I did following the Black Monday crash. The stock market back in 1987 is very different than it is today. Liquidity and microstructure entirely different. And friction to access the market by retail investors was much higher. Typical investments in 1987 would have been in companies that may no longer exist or have gone bankrupt. If you look at the Dow Jones constituents - stalwarts at the time like Kodak and Sears are bankrupt. In 1987 - many investors relied on mutual funds - and if I had to pick a fund in 1987 - it would have been the Fidelity Magellan Fund and/or the Janus Twenty fund. But even these funds became lackluster after the dotcom and gfc crashes. There is no such thing as simply buying and holding forever. It's a mistake that many investors make who think that stocks only go up if it's a "value" stock. People here saying things like MSFT are too young to understand that MSFT back in the mid '80's was considered speculative. There were other companies like Borland, CA, Paradox, Aston-Tate, Digital Research, Sun Microsystems, Apollo, Digital, IBM, etc. that was vying and competing to what Microsoft is today. And people suggesting Apple don't remember that Apple almost went bankrupt in the early '90s and was a struggling company in the late '80's.

Freshstart-987

As someone with 40 years in the markets… I can confirm. Stocks are more like NFTs than you realize. The bigest driver of stock price appreciation is federal monetary policy. Inflate the money supply and stocks go up. It’s that simple. “The rising tide floats all boats.” As more money pours into the economy, the rich and the smart siphon off as much as they can and need a place to store it. They want companies that are “too big to fail (ish)” and are fundamental to the future economy. That’s all that matters. At one time it was Woolworth. That was replaced by General Motors. That was replaced by IBM. That was replaced by Microsoft. Now Google. Them’s the facts.

VegasBjorne1

My brilliant Indian engineering friend told me to invest $1,000 in MSFT in 1987, but as a recent collage grad, I barely had $100 to my name. That $1,000 would be worth $2.3 million today! (Side note: my step-father would instead buy me one share of IBM around my birthday for few years, which really hadn’t done much but I still own the shares in physical certificates.)

XOM_CVX

IBM

therealjerseytom

80's time frame you'd probably be buying bonds and the obvious big name companies of the time like IBM, Kodak, Exxon...

CasherburyTales

It’s the new IBM

krongdong69

> “AI” has a specific definition oh look it's the "Generative AI isn't Artificial General Intelligence so it isn't AI!!!!" guy provide your random blog source for your very specific definition and I'll provide a dozen more links from every industry leader and educational institution showing that LLMs fall under the AI umbrella. Learn that language changes with usage you pedant. >[Intel: A large language model (LLM) is an **artificial intelligence** model used to understand and generate human language.](https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/learn/large-language-models.html) >[Stanford University: Large language models (LLMs) are a type of **artificial intelligence**](https://uit.stanford.edu/service/techtraining/ai-demystified/llm) >[IBM](https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/artificial-intelligence) >[MIT](https://www.media.mit.edu/tools/ai-glossary-dictionary/)

Minute_Plastic_350

Not sure Palo Alto’s. I just bought cyber arch in July so that has to go through approvals and then integration, not sure Tesla either. Oracle maybe alphabet maybe Amazon maybe. Could be IBM or Broadcom.

HighlightFeeling4118

I had leaps that I cashed out that were absolute homers. IBM, pltr, rddit and micron. 2025 was my best options year by far. Mostly due to liberation day I ate up that dip with a shit eating grin on me face

Amazing-Jury-6886

I wish I'd done that starting in the 80s. I'd have msft, Oracle, IBM, Google. Could have retired by now

12AngryMohawk

Money has no religion, no ethics, no morals. Just check IBM who is one of the biggest companies who favored Hitler.

BJabs

Support for a company with \~0 revenue? All the major money flowing into quantum has been to hedge against NVDA; they don't care what the quantum valuation is, they just want to put money there to check the box. Shorting it is a play that the institutionals will find a different shiny object to hedge with (photonics?) and/or that they will realize quantum, as a best case scenario, is 10 years out, for which the spoils will go to IBM or Google, not the dedicated quantum companies.

Many_Easy

I absolutely loved and can relate to your quote - ***Siemans' board announcing "nothing will change. Isn't that right Hans, Jürgen, Klaus?"*** I too spent some time with IBM in Armonk during John Akers last days around 1991 and his famous summer email. I fondly remember wearing a non-white shirt (pink) to work one day and getting quite a few comments from my boss and colleagues about fitting in. I also lived in Boca Raton and knew many Siemens employees that frequently mentioned lack of diversity at the top and their Boca team. There were so many great companies in the tech space in Boca back then. MITEL also comes to mind as a popular Boca company (HQ was in Ottawa) back then.

dena2410

today you have Google meta and co, back then IBM etc. You could see that the internet will revolutionize the world, but it got overhyped. It still needed some tweaks, like better hardware, speed, stuff like AJAX that made doomscrolling possible withouth the page reloading after every click.... thats what is going to be needed in the AI space. Cost per Token has to go down, especially for Agentic AI. and we need to come up with some solutions from an engineering standpoint of making the AI more trustworthy, like guardrails etc etc, After the dot-com bubble burst, the market got rinsed. Thats whats going to happen to the AI world i guess, hence i believe the dot-com era comparisons are pretty accurate. Next Question would be, if AI automates the ish out of everything, what kind of an effect will it have on the economy / companies? As any company then wants to have the same efficiency gains...Will it have a deflationary effect overall, or will it continue to have an effect like Automation had in the past decades, meaning no deflationary effect just more productivity. The Internet on the other side opened up a whole new market on the other side.

figuring_ItOut12

I've seen some of what you're talking about. I haven't noticed misogyny or clear bigotry. Anyway I'm not defending the guy. He seems sincere and the type to let things fall as they may. I think his skepticism of the Trump glazing here recently is well founded. I think it is fair to point out monocultures. White folks aren't the only culture that prioritize people who look like them. In my industry (high tech) before I retired I worked with folks from literally every country on the planet, and have had since the mid 1980s. Indian caste culture may have been outlawed in India but it is still very much baked into the minds of older folks. I've seen too many examples of folks who emigrated from the mother country and can't let go of old beliefs. There was an old joke when I was with IBM in the very early 1990s when sold they its Rolm telecommunications division to Siemens. Siemans' board announcing "nothing will change. Isn't that right Hans, Jürgen, Klaus?" I'm not someone who focuses much on ethnicity as hammer and anvil. I think the US progressive focus on enforced diversity as "equity" is self-defeating especially in this space. Cory Booker is a good example of when perfect is the enemy of the good.

emperorjoe

He also changed the list. Visa wasn't there before. Same with Disney. There is no stock worth holding for 10+ years in the technology sector. The sector changes too fast, and quality companies get destroyed by failing to be innovative. Perfect examples are the thousands of failed companies aol, IBM, Intel, etc. A good company today can easily be apple and Microsoft of the early 2000s when nobody wanted to own them and nobody had any hope they would recover or continue existing.

BarryBurkman

Good thing I’m counter balanced with 150k of google/boeing/MSFT/IBM etcetera

ForsakenRacism

Is there any examples in tech where the first big company actually went on and held that role? We aren’t all using IBM phones.

elonzucks

My experience is not in a product where they compete with the likes of IBM, so not sure.

Powerful-Plum-6473

Oh really? More than IBM and others?

HBAR_10_DOLLARS

Look into HBAR. Check out the Hedera Council - the network is legally owned by Google, Dell, IBM, etc.

AmericanScream

> We're so early. #Crypto Talking Point #15 (potential) "**It's still early!**" / **"Blockchain technology has potential"** , **"Let's call it 'DLT' Distributed Ledger Technology this month and pretend it's different."** / **"Crypto is like the Internet!"** / **"Look here's a 'use-case!'"** 1. We are 17 (SEVENTEEN) YEARS into this so-called "technology" and to date, [there's not been a single thing blockchain tech does better than existing non-blockchain tech](https://ioradio.org/i/blockchain-claims/) 2. WHAT "technology?" Blockchain uses tech that was patented in 1979, called [Merkle Trees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree). It's been known for a quarter of a century, and has very limited uses, because by design, the system isn't very flexible or efficient. Modern relational databases can do everything Merkle Trees can do even better than crypto's version. 3. Crypto didn't invent cryptographic technology - that tech [has been around for thousands of years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography) and its in use all over the place - having absolutely nothing to do with cryptocurrency and blockchain. 4. Truly disruptive technology is obvious from the beginning - sometimes there's hurdles to adoption (usually costs and certain prerequisites, but none of that applies to blockchain - anybody who has internet access can utilize the tech). It didn't take 16 years for people to realize the Internet was useful - what held it up were access to computers and networks. There's nothing stopping blockchain IF it offered any really useful service - it doesn't. 5. Finding a mere "use case" isn't sufficient. Some companies still use fax machines. It doesn't mean fax machines are the future. Blockchain tech must demonstrate it's uniquely good at something - and it fails miserably to do so. 6. Just because someone says they're "looking into" something, doesn't mean it will ever manifest into an actual workable system. Every time we've seen major institutions claim they were "developing blockchain systems", they've almost always failed. From [IBM](https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/ibm-blockchain-platform-software-reaches-end-support-april-30-2023) to [Microsoft](https://www.zdnet.com/finance/blockchain/microsoft-is-shutting-down-its-azure-blockchain-service/) to [Maersk](https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/30/ibm_and_maersk_tradelens_shutdown/) to [Foreign Countries](https://www.reuters.com/markets/australian-stock-exchanges-blockchain-failure-burns-market-trust-2022-12-20/) - the vast majority of these projects are eventually abandoned because they aren't economically or technologically viable. 7. As for the idea that adoption takes time, that's fine, but since Bitcoin's inception, and most recently, its use both as a technology and a payment medium **has continued to decline**. As more research becomes available, we begin to see [a multi-year, consistent, decrease in crypto payments over time](https://www.kansascityfed.org/documents/11707/PaymentsSystemResearchBriefing25HayashiRouth0924.pdf). 8. The **default position** is to be skeptical blockchain has any potential until it is demonstrated. And most common responses to this question are the other "[stupid crypto talking points.](https://ioradio.org/i/crypto-talking-points/)" In short, this "technology" has been around 17 years and still it can't find a single situation where it does anything even comparable to what we're already using, much less better.

AmericanScream

>People used to laugh and say, “That’s not investing, you’re basically at a casino.” Too volatile. No fundamentals. Pure luck. >Fast forward a few years and now the same thing is an “asset class.” ETFs, institutions, serious money. >Do you think it's still gambling or do you invest part of your money in crypto now? #Stupid Crypto Talking Point #8 (endorsements?) "**[Big Company/Banana Republic/Politician] is exploring/using bitcoin/blockchain! Now will you admit you were wrong?**" / "**Crypto has 'UsE cAs3S!'**" / "**EEE TEE EFFs!!one**" 1. Crypto was originally, "disruptive technology" destined to "replace the banking/finance system". Now with [the truth slowly surfacing regarding blockchain's inability to be particularly good at anything](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspGVbmMmVA), crypto people have backpedaled to instead suggest, "Hey it has 'use-cases!'" The operative issue isn't whether crypto & blockchain can be "used" here-or-there. The issue is: *Is there a good reason? Does this tech actually do anything better than what we have already been using?* And the answer to that is, [No.](https://ioradio.org/i/blockchain-claims/) 2. Most of the time, adoption claims are wrong. Just because you read some press release does not mean any major government, corporation or other entity is embracing crypto. It usually means someone asked them about crypto and they said, "We'll look into it" and that got interpreted as "adoption imminent!" 3. In cases where companies did launch crypto/blockchain projects they usually fall into one of these categories: * Some company or supplier put out a press release advertising some "crypto project" involving a well known entity that never got off the ground, or was tried and failed miserably (such as [IBM/Maersk's Tradelens](https://www.maersk.com/news/articles/2022/11/29/maersk-and-ibm-to-discontinue-tradelens), [Australia's stock exchange](https://www.reuters.com/markets/australian-stock-exchanges-blockchain-failure-burns-market-trust-2022-12-20/), etc.) See also [dead blockchain projects](https://weh.wtf/34-blockchain-projects.html). * Companies (like VISA, Fidelity or Robin Hood) **are not embracing crypto directly**. Instead they are *partnering with a crypto exchange* (such as BitPay) that will either handle all the crypto transactions and they're merely licensing their network, or they're a third party payment gateway that pays the big companies in fiat. There's no evidence any major company is actually switching over to crypto, or that any of these major companies are even touching crypto. It's a huge liability they let newbie third parties deal with so they have plausible deniability for liabilities due to money laundering and sanctions laws. * What some companies are calling "blockchain" is not in any meaningful way actually using 'blockchain' tech. For example, IBM's "Hyperledger" claims to have "[blockchain design philosophy](https://8112310.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/8112310/Hyperledger/Offers/Hyperledger_Arch_WG_Paper_1_Consensus.pdf)" but in reality, it is not decentralized and has no core architecture that's anything like crypto blockchain systems. Also note that IBM has their own trademarked phrase, "IBM Blockchain®" - their version of "blockchain" is neither decentralized, nor permissionless. It does not in any way resemble a crypto blockchain. It also remains to be seen, the degree to which anybody is actually using their "IBM Food Trust" supply chain tracking system, which we've [proven cannot really benefit from blockchain technology](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspGVbmMmVA&t=2108s). 4. Sometimes, politicians who are into crypto take advantage of their power and influence to force some crypto adoption on the community they serve -- [this almost always fails](https://truthout.org/articles/miamis-mayor-went-all-in-on-cryptocurrency-his-constituents-suffered/), but again, crypto people will promote the press release announcing the deal, while ignoring any follow-up materials that say such a proposal was rejected. 5. Some funds/fund managers are buying crypto? So what. It's not like fund managers don't do favors for insiders/friends or never make poor choices. If some Harvard-adjascent fund buys BTC that doesn't mean "smart people recognize Bitcoin!" Not hardly. The exception doesn't prove the rule 6. Just because some company has jumped on the crypto bandwagon doesn't mean, "It's the future." McDonald's bundled [Beanie Babies](https://i.imgur.com/McdwlxA.jpg) with their Happy Meals for a time, when those collectable plush toys were being billed as the next big investment scheme. Corporations have a duty to exploit any goofy fad available if it can help them make money, and the moment these fads fade, they drop any association and pretend it never happened. 7. Crypto ETFs are not an endorsement of crypto. (In fact part of the US SEC [was vehemently against approving ETFs - it was not a unanimous decision](https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/crenshaw-statement-spot-bitcoin-011023)) They're simply ways for traditional companies to exploit crypto enthusiasts. These entities do not care at all about the future of crypto. It's just fee income, and the moment it becomes unprofitable for them to run the scheme, they'll drop it. It's simply businesses taking advantage of a fad. Crypto ETFs though are actually worse, because they're a vehicle to siphon money into the crypto market -- if crypto was a viable *alternative* to TradFi, then these gimmicky things wouldn't be desirable. Also [here](https://youtu.be/P5LKZ1-6BWM) is mathematical evidence MSTR is a Ponzi. 8. Countries like [El Salvador](https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/03/02/el-salvadors-wild-crypto-experiment-ends-in-failure) who claim to have adopted bitcoin really [haven't in any meaningful way.](https://reason.com/2024/10/31/a-week-of-failing-to-pay-with-bitcoin-in-el-salvador/) El Salvador's endorsement of bitcoin is tied to a proprietary exchange with their own non-transparent software, "Chivo" that is not on bitcoin's main blockchain - and as such [isn't really bitcoin adoption as much as it's bitcoin exploitation.](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28446794) Plus, USD is the real legal tender in El Salvador and since BTC's adoption, [use of crypto has stagnated](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-11-04/el-salvador-s-bitcoin-revolution-is-failing-badly). Adoption continues to [decline in El Salvador each year](https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/el-salvador-registr%C3%B3-en-2024-el-menor-uso-del-bitc%C3%B3in-desde-su-adopci%C3%B3n-en-2021/88736952). Also note [Venezuela has now scrapped its state-sanctioned cryptocurrency](https://www.foreignbrief.com/venezuela-to-scrap-state-cryptocurrency/). Now [El Salvador has abandoned Bitcoin as currency](https://ticotimes.net/2025/02/02/el-salvador-abandons-bitcoin-as-legal-tender-after-failed-experiment), [reversing its legal tender mandate.](https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250130-el-salvador-merchants-no-longer-obliged-to-accept-bitcoin). 9. Some "big companies are holding crypto on their balance sheet" - So what? They're just trying to pump their stock price to take advantage of the temporary crypto mania. It's not any more substantive than that iced tea company that changed their name to "Blockchain iced tea company" and got a bump to their stock price. It won't last, and it's a gimmick and not financially sound. The biggest of these is [MSTR whom critics are saying makes the company into a Ponzi](https://www.ccn.com/analysis/business/microstrategy-ponzi-scheme-bitcoin-strategy-mstr-saylor-btc/) 10. Case In Point: In 2025, the big announcement was burger chain Steak and Shake was going to accept bitcoin. The truth is, [the company is getting paid in USD and using a third party exchange to process BTC payments and give them fiat](https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/steak-n-shake-now-accepting-bitcoin-lightning-network-across-us-locations). Another misleading news story. 11. Other Big-Company-Crypto-Failures: [Kodak](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/a-flash-in-the-pan-the-strange-story-of-kodaks-ill-fated-crypto-venture/ar-AA1Krm7t), [Steam](https://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail/1464096684955433613), [Wal-Mart and IBM](https://fintechmode.com/news/business/walmart-halts-its-blockchain-plans-for-food-traceability/), [Microsoft](https://www.zdnet.com/finance/blockchain/microsoft-is-shutting-down-its-azure-blockchain-service/), [a major consortium of European corporations who pulled the plug on their blockchain projects](https://www.ledgerinsights.com/major-insurers-pull-the-plug-on-b3i-insurance-blockchain-consortium/), [Maersk](https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/Maersk-IBM-shut-down-TradeLens/637580/). Even though these companies discontinued any association with crypto years ago, proponents still hype the projects as if they're still active. So, whenever you hear "so-and-so company is using crypto" always be suspect. What you'll find is either that's not totally true, or if they are, they're partnering with a crypto company who is paying them for the association, not unlike an advertiser/licensing relationship. **Not** adoption. Exploitation. And temporary at that. We've seen absolutely no increase in crypto adoption - in fact quite the contrary. More and more people in every industry from [gaming](https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/15/22728425/valve-steam-blockchain-nft-crypto-ban-games-age-of-rust) to [banking](https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-federal-reserve-rejects-crypto-focused-banks-application-be-supervised-by-2023-01-27/), are rejecting deals with crypto companies.

Purple_Bearkat

I worked for an IBM subsidiary and trust very little they actually say. Good luck.

Throwingdartsmouth

IBM is by fucking far the best quantum computing play, with a lead that frankly is immeasurable and probably insurmountable for the competition. I'm converting 75% of my QC profits into IBM leaps and keeping the rest in call spreads for D-Wave, Rigetti, and Quantum Computing, Inc. Disregard if you hate the whole space, which would be understandable.

frerant

It's very clear that 99% of the people whining about this don't actually care. If you did, you'd already know that NVIDIA has been established in Israel for years. And it's far from just Nvidia. Intel's Haifa lab has been one of Intel's most important, and Intel has a massive FAB in Israel. IBM, AMD, Microsoft, Google, Apple, AWS, and plenty more have operations, many for decades, in Israel. And that's not even mentioning cyber security from Israel. If you intend on boycotting Israel, you're boycott the entire internet and nearly every computer.

frerant

You better also boycott: Intel, AMD, IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Google, AWS, and more. Basically every single major tech company has massive operations in Israel and most have had them there for decades.

Seienchin88

I hope you aren’t buying anything with tencent, baidu and alibaba in them either as China is one of Israel’s main investors and these companies all invest heavily there… And then we have: IBM, Intel, Microsoft, HP, Cisco, GE, Siemens, VMware, Redhat, Apple, Facebook and Amazon… Just on top of my hat… it’s quite impressive how much companies Israel attracts but they have an excellent workforce and massive investments into tech.

ryan1826

Guess I should buy a bunch of dividend paying IBM then

Kindly-Artichoke6569

This isn't a partnership; it's a strategic annexation. Nvidia is effectively capturing the x86 architecture that once defined the PC era. It's a move mirroring the 1980 IBM-Microsoft pact, where the junior partner eventually dictated the terms. So, adding to positions now makes sense. Because Nvidia just bypassed the hardware barriers that historically limited its reach into legacy enterprise infrastructure.

Niwrats

that's like buying IBM in 2005 ..could be worse.

TealIndigo

Did you pick apple and are you rich then? What if you picked GE (largest company in the world at one point in the 2000s) or Exxon Mobil (largest company in the mid 2000s). Or maybe you were an upstart investor in the 1980s who invested in 3 of the biggest innovators in the country and decided to buy Kodak, Xerox, and IBM. Surely you you be sitting pretty right?

Classic_Web5494

Broadcom functions as a toll-road for AI connectivity. That's why the VMware acquisition matters; it mirrors IBM’s transition in the 90s toward high-margin stability. Micron faces relentless capital requirements. High-bandwidth memory optimism ignores the reality that memory prices remain volatile and supply-sensitive. So, MU’s price reflects a perfection that history rarely permits in commodity hardware.

One-Ad3302

IBM.

ripvanmarlow

TSLA out obviously. Weirdly I think something like IBM if it manages to pull of some quantum computing coup. Potentially an energy company if they manage to solve fusion? Nvidia if there's a Taiwan invasion but also everything else will plummet too. If the AI bubble bursts it may lose value but I think it will find a new market in autonomous driving and robotics. Nvidia has had a few huge drops, 1st it was crypto collapsing - turns out that didn't matter, next was deepseek, turns out that didn't matter either - they are able to nicely pivot each time something potentially damaging happens so I think they are the company with most room to grow, which is lucky as they are priced very precariously atm. The main issue will be competition from China, they have a head start but China is going full speed ahead whilst Trump is crippling US businesses with his whimsical, on again/off again trade barriers.