The iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF, or IBIT as it is known, has risen to prominence, amassing $52.6 billion in assets. It stands now, a vessel containing a fragment of this new, ethereal wealth. But how many of these shares, these paper promises, does one require to equal the heft of a single Bitcoin? The question, it seems, is not merely mathematical, but a contemplation of value itself.
IPO”>[stock_chart symbol="NYSEMKT:IPO" f_id="288718" language="en"]
TripAdvisor released its fourth-quarter and full-year 2025 results before the markets had fully woken up, which is probably just as well. The numbers, shall we say, weren’t exactly setting the financial cosmos ablaze. Revenue remained stubbornly flat at $411 million – a statistical anomaly, really, given the relentless march of time and the ever-increasing number of cat videos being uploaded to the internet. Net income, measured in the somewhat arbitrary units known as “GAAP” (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles – a system designed to prevent accountants from simply making things up, mostly), dipped by 12% to a mere $5 million, or $0.04 per share. A paltry sum, when you consider the potential cost of a single misplaced decimal point in the global economy. (It’s estimated that approximately 78% of all economic crises are caused by misplaced decimal points. The other 22% are due to rogue squirrels.)
Microsoft. A name synonymous with ubiquity, with the quiet, pervasive control that comes from being embedded in the very fabric of modern existence. They are not innovators, not truly. They are…consolidators. They absorb, adapt, and ultimately, dominate. Their current flirtation with generative AI is less a leap of faith, and more a calculated maneuver to secure their existing dominion. They will not be disrupted; they will simply…incorporate the disruptors into their ever-expanding empire. It is a chillingly efficient process, and one that should give pause to any romantic notions of technological revolution. Their Azure platform, this cloud-borne behemoth, is not a tool for liberation, but a mechanism for control. It offers access, yes, but at a price – the price of dependence. The reported 39% revenue growth in Q2 FY 2026 is not a sign of vitality, but of insatiable appetite. The 17% revenue growth and 23% net income growth, obscured by the complexities of OpenAI investment, are merely symptoms of a larger, more unsettling phenomenon – the relentless pursuit of profit, regardless of consequence.
IonQ, a name whispered among those who chase these fleeting possibilities, offers a variation on the theme. It’s a company attempting to build not just a quantum computer, but a viable one, something that might, someday, justify the capital poured into its creation. They claim two strengths, and in the barren landscape of quantum computing, even a small advantage feels like a harvest.
Mr. McCreight, they say, is returning to the board. A safe harbor, perhaps, after navigating a bit of a squall. But bringing in a hotel man to run a car lot? It’s like hiring a blacksmith to bake a pie – perfectly capable, no doubt, but a touch… unexpected. They’re touting Mr. Barr as a fella who understands customers and can build a brand. Laudable qualities, to be sure. But can he tell a good engine from a bad one? That’s the question that lingers in my mind.
It is a common delusion amongst investors, a vanity akin to believing one’s own household immune to the ravages of time, to seek refuge in the familiar. They gaze upon the charts, noting the resilience of these companies during the last great trial, and assume that such resilience is a permanent quality, a birthright. They fail to account for the shifting tides of circumstance, the subtle but relentless forces that shape the destinies of even the mightiest enterprises. The world, after all, is not a static tableau, but a ceaseless drama of change.
Both ETFs get you into the precious metals game, but they approach it… differently. GLD is basically buying the gold itself. Like, physical gold. It’s the ‘I want a bar of gold in a vault somewhere’ option, without the actual hassle of finding a vault. SIL, on the other hand, is investing in the companies that dig up the silver. So, you’re betting on their efficiency, their management… and, let’s be real, their ability to avoid collapsing mines. Which, statistically, isn’t always great. I’m just saying.
Last quarter, back in October, Vulcan announced figures that, while not quite miraculous, were…robust. Revenue up 14.4%, earnings per share leaping a frankly alarming 80%. The market, naturally, did what markets do: it got briefly excited. The stock wobbled upwards, like a newly awakened earth elemental. It opened at $285.50 and closed at $290. A five percent bump. Which, in the grand scheme of things, is less a mountain and more a rather enthusiastic pebble. As of February 11th, it’s around $311. They claimed improved margins, and a mysterious quantity called ‘cash gross profit per ton’ – $11.51, if you’re keeping score. They’ve been improving this metric for eleven consecutive quarters. Eleven! That’s a lot of quarters. One begins to suspect a very dedicated accounting department, possibly powered by gnomes.1
Being cheerful about Peloton is…difficult. Like trying to teach a badger to waltz. One wonders where this peculiar contraption will be in five years. A truly sticky question.