The cause, predictably, is someone pointing out the obvious. Michael Burry, the man who correctly predicted the 2008 housing crisis, has taken a dislike to Palantir. It’s a bit like being scolded by your history teacher. You knew the test was coming, you just hoped they wouldn’t call on you.
They’re the biggest by sales now, which is a statistic, really. A number floating in the ether. They should be getting parades. Instead, the stock price dips, and everyone pretends to be surprised. Down 8% in a year. A mere blip in the grand, meaningless scheme of things.
The question, of course, is not whether Meta can split its stock, but whether it will. The markets, you see, are driven by irrationality as much as by reason. And the human psyche, well, that’s a labyrinth best left unexplored after a strong cup of tea. A stock split, in its essence, is a theatrical gesture. A magician’s trick. It doesn’t alter the underlying value of the company, merely slices the pie into smaller, more digestible portions for the masses. A psychological palliative, if you will. Though one must admit, the proliferation of fractional shares has somewhat dulled the appeal of such maneuvers. Still, some investors cling to the illusion of affordability.
The fourth quarter of 2025 revealed total sales of $2.97 billion – a respectable figure, one supposes, though respectability rarely fills the coffers. Net income, however, presented a more peculiar tableau. Stripped of the usual accounting artifice (the “generally accepted principles,” as if principles were ever truly accepted), it slumped by a disheartening 24% to $225 million ($0.44 per share). A most curious discrepancy.
Last August, in a fit of optimistic categorization, I proposed the “Ten Titans” as an expansion of the “Magnificent Seven.” (The Magnificent Seven, one notes, sounds suspiciously like a 1960s Western, which raises the question of whether stock market analysts secretly yearn for a life of dusty saloons and dramatic showdowns. Probably.) This broadening was intended to encompass companies like Broadcom, Netflix, and, of course, Oracle. The idea, in essence, was to acknowledge that the universe contains more than seven reasonably successful entities. A rather radical notion, really.
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.