High marks guarantee with these C9050-042 PDF Dumps

killexams.com is doing continuous struggle to provide valid and up-to-date C9050-042 exam questions and answers, PDF Dumps and practice test. These C9050-042 Questions and Answers are exact copy of C9050-042 actual exam questions and answers that you will face in exam screen.

Exam Code: C9050-042 Practice exam 2022 by Killexams.com team
Developing with IBM Enterprise PL/I
IBM Developing information search
Killexams : IBM Developing information search - BingNews https://killexams.com/pass4sure/exam-detail/C9050-042 Search results Killexams : IBM Developing information search - BingNews https://killexams.com/pass4sure/exam-detail/C9050-042 https://killexams.com/exam_list/IBM Killexams : IBM Aims to Capture Growing Market Opportunity for Data Observability with Databand.ai Acquisition

Acquisition helps enterprises catch "bad data" at the source

Extends IBM's leadership in observability to the full stack of capabilities for IT -- across infrastructure, applications, data and machine learning

ARMONK, N.Y., July 6, 2022  /PRNewswire/ -- IBM (NYSE: IBM) today announced it has acquired Databand.ai, a leading provider of data observability software that helps organizations fix issues with their data, including errors, pipeline failures and poor quality — before it impacts their bottom-line. Today's news further strengthens IBM's software portfolio across data, AI and automation to address the full spectrum of observability and helps businesses ensure that trustworthy data is being put into the right hands of the right users at the right time.

IBM has acquired Databand.ai, a leading provider of data observability software that helps organizations fix issues with their data, including errors, pipeline failures and poor quality.

Databand.ai is IBM's fifth acquisition in 2022 as the company continues to bolster its hybrid cloud and AI skills and capabilities. IBM has acquired more than 25 companies since Arvind Krishna became CEO in April 2020.

As the volume of data continues to grow at an unprecedented pace, organizations are struggling to manage the health and quality of their data sets, which is necessary to make better business decisions and gain a competitive advantage. A rapidly growing market opportunity, data observability is quickly emerging as a key solution for helping data teams and engineers better understand the health of data in their system and automatically identify, troubleshoot and resolve issues, like anomalies, breaking data changes or pipeline failures, in near real-time. According to Gartner, every year poor data quality costs organizations an average $12.9 million. To help mitigate this challenge, the data observability market is poised for strong growth.1

Data observability takes traditional data operations to the next level by using historical trends to compute statistics about data workloads and data pipelines directly at the source, determining if they are working, and pinpointing where any problems may exist. When combined with a full stack observability strategy, it can help IT teams quickly surface and resolve issues from infrastructure and applications to data and machine learning systems.

Databand.ai's open and extendable approach allows data engineering teams to easily integrate and gain observability into their data infrastructure. This acquisition will unlock more resources for Databand.ai to expand its observability capabilities for broader integrations across more of the open source and commercial solutions that power the modern data stack. Enterprises will also have full flexibility in how to run Databand.ai, whether as-a-Service (SaaS) or a self-hosted software subscription.

The acquisition of Databand.ai builds on IBM's research and development investments as well as strategic acquisitions in AI and automation. By using Databand.ai with IBM Observability by Instana APM and IBM Watson Studio, IBM is well-positioned to address the full spectrum of observability across IT operations.

For example, Databand.ai capabilities can alert data teams and engineers when the data they are using to fuel an analytics system is incomplete or missing. In common cases where data originates from an enterprise application, Instana can then help users quickly explain exactly where the missing data originated from and why an application service is failing. Together, Databand.ai and IBM Instana provide a more complete and explainable view of the entire application infrastructure and data platform system, which can help organizations prevent lost revenue and reputation.

"Our clients are data-driven enterprises who rely on high-quality, trustworthy data to power their mission-critical processes. When they don't have access to the data they need in any given moment, their business can grind to a halt," said Daniel Hernandez, General Manager for Data and AI, IBM. "With the addition of Databand.ai, IBM offers the most comprehensive set of observability capabilities for IT across applications, data and machine learning, and is continuing to provide our clients and partners with the technology they need to deliver trustworthy data and AI at scale."

Data observability solutions are also a key part of an organization's broader data strategy and architecture. The acquisition of Databand.ai further extends IBM's existing data fabric solution  by helping ensure that the most accurate and trustworthy data is being put into the right hands at the right time – no matter where it resides.

"You can't protect what you can't see, and when the data platform is ineffective, everyone is impacted –including customers," said Josh Benamram, Co-Founder and CEO, Databand.ai. "That's why global brands such as FanDuel, Agoda and Trax Retail already rely on Databand.ai to remove bad data surprises by detecting and resolving them before they create costly business impacts. Joining IBM will help us scale our software and significantly accelerate our ability to meet the evolving needs of enterprise clients."

Headquartered in Tel Aviv, Israel, Databand.ai employees will join IBM Data and AI, further building on IBM's growing portfolio of Data and AI products, including its IBM Watson capabilities and IBM Cloud Pak for Data. Financial details of the deal were not disclosed. The acquisition closed on June 27, 2022.

To learn more about Databand.ai and how this acquisition enhances IBM's data fabric solution and builds on its full stack of observability software, you can read our blog about the news or visit here: https://www.ibm.com/analytics/data-fabric.

About Databand.ai

Databand.ai is a product-driven technology company that provides a proactive data observability platform, which empowers data engineering teams to deliver reliable and trustworthy data. Databand.ai removes bad data surprises such as data incompleteness, anomalies, and breaking data changes by detecting and resolving issues before they create costly business impacts. Databand.ai's proactive approach ties into all stages of your data pipelines, beginning with your source data, through ingestion, transformation, and data access. Databand.ai serves organizations throughout the globe, including some of the world's largest companies in entertainment, technology, and communications. Our focus is on enabling customers to extract the maximum value from their strategic data investments. Databand.ai is backed by leading VCs Accel, Blumberg Capital, Lerer Hippeau, Differential Ventures, Ubiquity Ventures, Bessemer Venture Partners, Hyperwise, and F2. To learn more, visit www.databand.ai.

About IBM

IBM is a leading global hybrid cloud and AI, and business services provider, helping clients in more than 175 countries capitalize on insights from their data, streamline business processes, reduce costs and gain the competitive edge in their industries. Nearly 3,800 government and corporate entities in critical infrastructure areas such as financial services, telecommunications and healthcare rely on IBM's hybrid cloud platform and Red Hat OpenShift to affect their digital transformations quickly, efficiently, and securely. IBM's breakthrough innovations in AI, quantum computing, industry-specific cloud solutions and business services deliver open and flexible options to our clients. All of this is backed by IBM's legendary commitment to trust, transparency, responsibility, inclusivity, and service. For more information, visit www.ibm.com.

Media Contact:
Sarah Murphy
IBM Communications
Srmurphy@us.ibm.com

1 [1] Source: Smarter with Gartner, "How to Improve Your Data Quality," Manasi Sakpal, [July 14, 2021]

GARTNER is a registered trademark and service mark of Gartner, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the U.S. and internationally and is used herein with permission. All rights reserved.

 

IBM Corporation logo. (PRNewsfoto/IBM)

Cision View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ibm-aims-to-capture-growing-market-opportunity-for-data-observability-with-databandai-acquisition-301581088.html

SOURCE IBM

Wed, 06 Jul 2022 02:00:00 -0500 en text/html https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/ibm-aims-to-capture-growing-market-opportunity-for-data-observability-with-databand-ai-acquisition-1031570027
Killexams : Cognitive Search Tools Market Size 2022, Share, Growth, Company Profiles, Competitive Landscape and Key Regions Analysis 2029

The MarketWatch News Department was not involved in the creation of this content.

Jul 12, 2022 (The Expresswire) -- “With tables and figures helping analyze worldwide Global Cognitive Search Tools market trends, this research provides key statistics on the state of the industry and is a valuable source of guidance and direction for companies and individuals interested in the market. Report is spread across 114 pages.”

Global “Cognitive Search Tools Market” (2022-2029) development status, competitive landscape and development models in different regions of the world, this Cognitive Search Tools Market report is dedicated to providing niche markets, potential risks and comprehensive competitive strategy analysis in different fields. From the competitive advantages of different types of products and services, the development opportunities and consumption characteristics and structure analysis of the downstream application fields are all analyzed in detail. To boost growth during epidemic era, this keyword market report analyzer in details for the potential risks and opportunities which can be focused on.

The Cognitive Search Tools Market research report has witnessed growth from USD million to USD million from 2017 to 2022. With the CAGR in percent, this market is estimated to reach USD million in 2029.

Get a demo PDF of the Report at- https://www.researchreportsworld.com/enquiry/request-sample/21068770

Key players in the global Cognitive Search Tools market covered in Chapter 2 and Chapter 6:

● Micro Focus
● Grazitti Interactive
● Elastic
● Coveo
● Squirro
● IBM Cognitive
● Attivo
● Microsoft
● Sinequa
● Lucidworks
● GoldFire
● Mindbreeze

Global Cognitive Search Tools Market Segmentation:

Global Cognitive Search Tools Market is segmented in various types and applications according to product type and category. In terms of Value and Volume the growth of market calculated by providing CAGR for forecast period for year 2022 to 2029.

In Chapter 8 and Chapter 10.3, based on types, the Cognitive Search Tools market from 2017 to 2029 is primarily split into:

● Natural Language Processing ● Image Processing

In Chapter 9 and Chapter 10.4, based on applications, the Cognitive Search Tools market from 2017 to 2029 covers:

● IT ● Law ● Marketing ● Customer Service ● Airports and Ports ● Bank ● Telecom ● Other

Impact of COVID-19 on Cognitive Search Tools Market:

Cognitive Search Tools Market report analyses the impact of Coronavirus (COVID-19) on the Cognitive Search Tools industry. Cognitive Search Tools Market report explained the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the industry was fully assessed. Fully risk assessment and industry recommendations were made for Cognitive Search Tools in a special period. This report also compares the market of Pre COVID-19 and Post COVID-19. Also report covers the analysis of the impact of COVID-19 from the perspective of the industry chain.

The biggest highlight of the report is to provide companies in the industry with a strategic analysis of the impact of COVID-19. At the same time, this report analyzed the market of leading 20 countries and introduce the market potential of these countries.

To Understand How COVID-19 Impact is covered in This Report. Get demo copy of the report at- https://www.researchreportsworld.com/enquiry/request-covid19/21068770

Market Overview -

The Cognitive Search Tools market report provides a detailed analysis of global market size, regional and country-level market size, segmentation market growth, market share, competitive Landscape, sales analysis, impact of domestic and global market players, value chain optimization, trade regulations, latest developments, opportunities analysis, strategic market growth analysis, product launches, area marketplace expanding, and technological innovations during forecast period (2022-2029).

Market Insights:

What was the Cognitive Search Tools market share (%) distribution and how it will look like in 2029?

What will be the Cognitive Search Tools total market size as well as market size by devices across the during the forecast period (2022-2029)?

What are the key findings pertaining to the market and which country will have the largest Cognitive Search Tools market size during the forecast period?

At what CAGR, the Cognitive Search Tools market is expected to grow in the top regions during the forecast period?

What will be the Cognitive Search Tools market outlook during the forecast period?

What will be the Cognitive Search Tools market growth till 2029 and what will be the resultant market size in the year 2029?

How will the market drivers, barriers and future opportunities affect the market dynamics and a subsequent analysis of the associated trends?

Get a demo Copy of the Cognitive Search Tools Market Report 2022-2029

Key Points Chapter wise Covered in this Cognitive Search Tools Market research report:

Chapter 1 provides an overview of Cognitive Search Tools market, containing global revenue and CAGR. The forecast and analysis of Cognitive Search Tools market by type, application, and region are also presented in this chapter.

Chapter 2 is about the market landscape and major players. It provides competitive situation and market concentration status along with the basic information of these players.

Chapter 3 introduces the industrial chain of Cognitive Search Tools. Industrial chain analysis, raw material (suppliers, price, supply and demand, market concentration rate) and downstream buyers are analyzed in this chapter.

Chapter 4 concentrates on manufacturing analysis, including cost structure analysis and process analysis, making up a comprehensive analysis of manufacturing cost.

Chapter 5 provides clear insights into market dynamics, the influence of COVID-19 in Cognitive Search Tools industry, consumer behavior analysis.

Chapter 6 provides a full-scale analysis of major players in Cognitive Search Tools industry. The basic information, as well as the profiles, applications and specifications of products market performance along with Business Overview are offered.

Chapter 7 pays attention to the sales, revenue, price and gross margin of Cognitive Search Tools in markets of different regions. The analysis on sales, revenue, price and gross margin of the global market is covered in this part.

Chapter 8 gives a worldwide view of Cognitive Search Tools market. It includes sales, revenue, price, market share and the growth rate by type.

Chapter 9 focuses on the application of Cognitive Search Tools, by analyzing the consumption and its growth rate of each application.

Chapter 10 prospects the whole Cognitive Search Tools market, including the global sales and revenue forecast, regional forecast. It also foresees the Cognitive Search Tools market by type and application.

The report Global Cognitive Search Tools Market (2022-2029) provides an in-depth analysis of the global Cognitive Search Tools market including detailed description of market sizing and growth. The report provides analysis of the global Cognitive Search Tools market by value and the global Cognitive Search Tools market by region. The report also provides regional analysis of the Cognitive Search Tools market for various other regions such as the US, Europe, Japan, China and India.

Furthermore, the report also assesses the key opportunities in the market and outlines the factors that are and will be driving the growth of the industry. Growth of the overall global Cognitive Search Tools market has also been forecasted for the period 2022-2029, taking into consideration the previous growth patterns, the growth drivers and the current and future trends.

Enquire before purchasing this report - https://www.researchreportsworld.com/enquiry/pre-order-enquiry/21068770

Regions and Countries Level Analysis

Regional analysis is another highly comprehensive part of the research and analysis study of the global Cognitive Search Tools market presented in the report. This section sheds light on the sales growth of different regional and country-level Cognitive Search Tools markets. Research report provides detailed and accurate country-wise volume analysis and region-wise market size analysis of the global Cognitive Search Tools market.

Geographically, the report includes the research on production, consumption, revenue, market share and growth rate, and forecast (2017-2029) of the following regions:

● United States ● Europe (Germany, UK, France, Italy, Spain, Russia, Poland) ● China ● Japan ● India ● Southeast Asia (Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam) ● Latin America (Brazil, Mexico, Colombia) ● Middle East and Africa (Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Egypt, South Africa, Nigeria) ● Other Regions

Reasons to buy

● Achieve an up-to-date understanding of the landscape of the overall Cognitive Search Tools Market, on both a broad and granular level; this also provides a highly accessible reference which is useful in any strategic decision making process. ● Benchmark key therapy areas and indications in terms of the number of Cognitive Search Tools products and level of innovation and assess one’s own strategic positioning against this backdrop. ● Understand the contemporary role and importance of radical and incremental innovation within the various areas and indications. ● Make key decisions about the role of innovation within one’s own Cognitive Search Tools portfolio.

Purchase this report (Price 3450 USD for single user license)- https://www.researchreportsworld.com/purchase/21068770

Table of Content:

1 Cognitive Search Tools Market Overview
1.1 Product Overview and Scope of Cognitive Search Tools Market
1.2 Cognitive Search Tools Market Segment by Type
1.2.1 Global Cognitive Search Tools Market Sales and CAGR (%) Comparison by Type (2017-2029)
1.3 Global Cognitive Search Tools Market Segment by Application
1.3.1 Cognitive Search Tools Market Consumption (Sales) Comparison by Application (2017-2029)
1.4 Global Cognitive Search Tools Market, Region Wise (2017-2029)
1.4.1 Global Cognitive Search Tools Market Size (Revenue) and CAGR (%) Comparison by Region (2017-2029)
1.4.2 United States Cognitive Search Tools Market Status and Prospect (2017-2029)
1.4.3 Europe Cognitive Search Tools Market Status and Prospect (2017-2029)
1.4.4 China Cognitive Search Tools Market Status and Prospect (2017-2029)
1.4.5 Japan Cognitive Search Tools Market Status and Prospect (2017-2029)
1.4.6 India Cognitive Search Tools Market Status and Prospect (2017-2029)
1.4.7 Southeast Asia Cognitive Search Tools Market Status and Prospect (2017-2029)
1.4.8 Latin America Cognitive Search Tools Market Status and Prospect (2017-2029)
1.4.9 Middle East and Africa Cognitive Search Tools Market Status and Prospect (2017-2029)
1.5 Global Market Size (Revenue) of Cognitive Search Tools (2017-2029)
1.5.1 Global Cognitive Search Tools Market Revenue Status and Outlook (2017-2029)
1.5.2 Global Cognitive Search Tools Market Sales Status and Outlook (2017-2029)
1.6 Influence of Regional Conflicts on the Cognitive Search Tools Industry
1.7 Impact of Carbon Neutrality on the Cognitive Search Tools Industry

2 Cognitive Search Tools Market Upstream and Downstream Analysis
2.1 Cognitive Search Tools Industrial Chain Analysis
2.2 Key Raw Materials Suppliers and Price Analysis
2.3 Key Raw Materials Supply and Demand Analysis
2.4 Market Concentration Rate of Raw Materials
2.5 Manufacturing Process Analysis
2.6 Manufacturing Cost Structure Analysis
2.6.1 Labor Cost Analysis
2.6.2 Energy Costs Analysis
2.6.3 RandD Costs Analysis
2.7 Major Downstream Buyers of Cognitive Search Tools Analysis
2.8 Impact of COVID-19 on the Industry Upstream and Downstream

3 Players Profiles
3.1 Micro Focus
3.1.1 Micro Focus Basic Information, Manufacturing Base, Sales Area and Competitors
3.1.2 Product Profiles, Application and Specification
3.1.3 Cognitive Search Tools Market Performance (2017-2022)
3.1.4 Business Overview
3.2 Grazitti Interactive
3.2.1 Grazitti Interactive Basic Information, Manufacturing Base, Sales Area and Competitors
3.2.2 Product Profiles, Application and Specification
3.2.3 Cognitive Search Tools Market Performance (2017-2022)
3.2.4 Business Overview
3.3 Elastic
3.3.1 Elastic Basic Information, Manufacturing Base, Sales Area and Competitors
3.3.2 Product Profiles, Application and Specification
3.3.3 Cognitive Search Tools Market Performance (2017-2022)
3.3.4 Business Overview
3.4 Coveo
3.4.1 Coveo Basic Information, Manufacturing Base, Sales Area and Competitors
3.4.2 Product Profiles, Application and Specification
3.4.3 Cognitive Search Tools Market Performance (2017-2022)
3.4.4 Business Overview
3.5 Squirro
3.5.1 Squirro Basic Information, Manufacturing Base, Sales Area and Competitors
3.5.2 Product Profiles, Application and Specification
3.5.3 Cognitive Search Tools Market Performance (2017-2022)
3.5.4 Business Overview
3.6 IBM Cognitive
3.6.1 IBM Cognitive Basic Information, Manufacturing Base, Sales Area and Competitors
3.6.2 Product Profiles, Application and Specification
3.6.3 Cognitive Search Tools Market Performance (2017-2022)
3.6.4 Business Overview
3.7 Attivo
3.7.1 Attivo Basic Information, Manufacturing Base, Sales Area and Competitors
3.7.2 Product Profiles, Application and Specification
3.7.3 Cognitive Search Tools Market Performance (2017-2022)
3.7.4 Business Overview
3.8 Microsoft
3.8.1 Microsoft Basic Information, Manufacturing Base, Sales Area and Competitors
3.8.2 Product Profiles, Application and Specification
3.8.3 Cognitive Search Tools Market Performance (2017-2022)
3.8.4 Business Overview
3.9 Sinequa
3.9.1 Sinequa Basic Information, Manufacturing Base, Sales Area and Competitors
3.9.2 Product Profiles, Application and Specification
3.9.3 Cognitive Search Tools Market Performance (2017-2022)
3.9.4 Business Overview
3.10 Lucidworks
3.10.1 Lucidworks Basic Information, Manufacturing Base, Sales Area and Competitors
3.10.2 Product Profiles, Application and Specification
3.10.3 Cognitive Search Tools Market Performance (2017-2022)
3.10.4 Business Overview
3.11 GoldFire
3.11.1 GoldFire Basic Information, Manufacturing Base, Sales Area and Competitors
3.11.2 Product Profiles, Application and Specification
3.11.3 Cognitive Search Tools Market Performance (2017-2022)
3.11.4 Business Overview
3.12 Mindbreeze
3.12.1 Mindbreeze Basic Information, Manufacturing Base, Sales Area and Competitors
3.12.2 Product Profiles, Application and Specification
3.12.3 Cognitive Search Tools Market Performance (2017-2022)
3.12.4 Business Overview

4 Global Cognitive Search Tools Market Landscape by Player
4.1 Global Cognitive Search Tools Sales and Share by Player (2017-2022)
4.2 Global Cognitive Search Tools Revenue and Market Share by Player (2017-2022)
4.3 Global Cognitive Search Tools Average Price by Player (2017-2022)
4.4 Global Cognitive Search Tools Gross Margin by Player (2017-2022)
4.5 Cognitive Search Tools Market Competitive Situation and Trends
4.5.1 Cognitive Search Tools Market Concentration Rate
4.5.2 Cognitive Search Tools Market Share of Top 3 and Top 6 Players
4.5.3 Mergers and Acquisitions, Expansion

5 Global Cognitive Search Tools Sales, Revenue, Price Trend by Type
5.1 Global Cognitive Search Tools Sales and Market Share by Type (2017-2022)
5.2 Global Cognitive Search Tools Revenue and Market Share by Type (2017-2022)
5.3 Global Cognitive Search Tools Price by Type (2017-2022)
5.4 Global Cognitive Search Tools Sales, Revenue and Growth Rate by Type (2017-2022)
5.4.1 Global Cognitive Search Tools Sales, Revenue and Growth Rate of Natural Language Processing (2017-2022)
5.4.2 Global Cognitive Search Tools Sales, Revenue and Growth Rate of Image Processing (2017-2022)

6 Global Cognitive Search Tools Market Analysis by Application
6.1 Global Cognitive Search Tools Consumption and Market Share by Application (2017-2022)
6.2 Global Cognitive Search Tools Consumption Revenue and Market Share by Application (2017-2022)
6.3 Global Cognitive Search Tools Consumption and Growth Rate by Application (2017-2022)
6.3.1 Global Cognitive Search Tools Consumption and Growth Rate of IT (2017-2022)
6.3.2 Global Cognitive Search Tools Consumption and Growth Rate of Law (2017-2022)
6.3.3 Global Cognitive Search Tools Consumption and Growth Rate of Marketing (2017-2022)
6.3.4 Global Cognitive Search Tools Consumption and Growth Rate of Customer Service (2017-2022)
6.3.5 Global Cognitive Search Tools Consumption and Growth Rate of Airports and Ports (2017-2022)
6.3.6 Global Cognitive Search Tools Consumption and Growth Rate of Bank (2017-2022)
6.3.7 Global Cognitive Search Tools Consumption and Growth Rate of Telecom (2017-2022)
6.3.8 Global Cognitive Search Tools Consumption and Growth Rate of Other (2017-2022)

Continued. . .

Browse complete table of contents at - https://www.researchreportsworld.com/TOC/21068770#TOC

About Us:

Research Reports Worldis the credible source for gaining the market reports that will provide you with the lead your business needs. At Research Reports World, our objective is providing a platform for many top-notch market research firms worldwide to publish their research reports, as well as helping the decision makers in finding most suitable market research solutions under one roof. Our aim is to provide the best solution that matches the exact customer requirements. This drives us to provide you with custom or syndicated research reports.

Contact Us:

Research Reports World

Phone:

US(+1) 424 253 0807

UK(+44) 203 239 8187

Email:sales@researchreportsworld.com

Website: https://www.researchreportsworld.com

Our Other Reports:

Global Dehydrated Potato Market Size 2022 | Share Movements by Growth Status, Trend Analysis, Revenue Expectation to 2028 | Top Countries Data

Global Fluoride Varnish Market Size Insight [2022-2028] | COVID-19 Impact Covered | Estimated to Reach USD 198.9 Million (Growing at a CAGR of 3.6%)

Global Cabin Air Filter Market Size (2022-2028) | Expected to Reach USD 12720 Million | Growing at CAGR of 4.6%

Global Walkie Talkie Market Size in 2022 | Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) is 8.4% | Forecast Period 2022-2028

Global Smart Locks Market Insight 2022-2028 | COVID-19 Impact on Industry | Estimated to Reach USD 40300 Million (Growth rate of 29.2%)

Global DVT Pumps Market Size [2022-2028] Growing at CAGR 4.5% | Expected to Reach USD 500.2 Million

Press Release Distributed by The Express Wire

To view the original version on The Express Wire visit Cognitive Search Tools Market Size 2022, Share, Growth, Company Profiles, Competitive Landscape and Key Regions Analysis 2029

COMTEX_410012575/2598/2022-07-12T02:40:50

Is there a problem with this press release? Contact the source provider Comtex at editorial@comtex.com. You can also contact MarketWatch Customer Service via our Customer Center.

The MarketWatch News Department was not involved in the creation of this content.

Mon, 11 Jul 2022 18:40:00 -0500 en-US text/html https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/cognitive-search-tools-market-size-2022-share-growth-company-profiles-competitive-landscape-and-key-regions-analysis-2029-2022-07-12
Killexams : Microsoft Vs. IBM: Long/Short Strategy On The Old And New IT Giants
Global connection

piranka/E+ via Getty Images

logo

Microsoft, IBM

Both International Business Machines Corporation (NYSE:IBM) and Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) are among the top IT companies. IBM was the largest IT company by revenue ($7.2 bln) from the 1970s until 2007 and was not even in the top 10 in 2021. In contrast, Microsoft, which was founded in 1975, continued to grow to become the second-largest IT company in 2021 by revenue ($168 bln) only behind Apple ($365 bln).

We analyzed Microsoft and IBM’s businesses and contrasted their strategies based on product innovation, diversification, acquisition, integration, and cloud strategies to determine which company has better executed their strategies and ranked the companies against each other.

Moreover, we compared the companies in terms of their financials. In terms of diversification, we broke down its segments and analyzed its revenue growth. Also, we compared their margins in terms of gross, net and FCF margins. Additionally, we looked at both companies based on efficiency and credit analysis.

Finally, we looked at their valuation ratios and compared them against each other and their 5-year averages, as well as our in-house DCF analysis and compared it against analyst consensus. Considering their historical investment returns and dividend yields, we formulated a long/short strategy for the two stocks.

Strategies

microsoft vs ibm revenue

IBM, Microsoft, Khaveen Investments

Product Innovation Strategy

IBM was founded in 1911 but rose to the top of the tech sector in 1962 as the largest computer company with a 62% market share, as it created the first portable computer (IBM 5100). However, with the rise of IBM clones created by Compaq, competition for the company increased while its market share eroded to 32% in 1980. According to All About Circuits, IBM had tried to make clone computers redundant by developing the new Micro Channel Architecture computer architecture but, it was not even compatible with its software. Overall, the company was unable to develop a competitive advantage in software and hardware to remain competitive in the computer market due to increased competition from competitors’ compatible and cheaper products as prices of mainframe computers fell by 90% along with product innovations such as PCs and workstations from Compaq and Sun Microsystems. It held its market leadership in the PC market until 1994 before falling behind Compaq, Apple (AAPL) and Packard Bell.

In comparison, since Microsoft’s launch in 1975 and securing the contract to provide OS to IBM’s computers, Microsoft had dominated the OS market since the late 1980s with a market share of over 80%. In 2021, Microsoft continues to be the market leader with a market share of 74% in OS but is seeing increasing competition from Apple’s macOS with the strong sales of its PCs. Microsoft focused on OS with continuous innovation with subsequent product development and launches of new OS products including 15 Windows product launches (including Windows 11) while IBM only had 8 main PC product series. Also, it made deals with PC makers to supply OS to be preinstalled at discounted prices. Although it tried to run crack down on clone software and free alternatives such as Linux which continue to exist, it instead tolerated piracy of Windows OS as explained by the following quote of the potential opportunities to monetize it.

As long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade. - Bill Gates, Founder & Former CEO of Microsoft

Overall, we believe Microsoft edges out IBM in terms of its product innovation strategy as it maintained its market share in the OS market with its continuous product development and more product launches than IBM, which lost its market share leadership to stronger competitors. Microsoft also established various partnerships with PC makers, which IBM failed to do.

Diversification Strategy

In 1980, IBM’s revenue from its largest (Hardware) segment was 84%. In 1993, the company decided to focus on higher-margin software businesses such as middleware and consulting, targeting enterprises along with its mainframe business. This was successful for the company as its revenues grew again from 1983. However, with the rise and shift towards public clouds, the company’s growth started to decline in 2013 as IBM began losing server hardware market share rapidly to ODM competitors for public cloud customers. Though, its Hardware segment still represented 25% of its revenue in 2021, its third-largest segment behind IT consulting (31%) and Software (27%).

On the other hand, Microsoft diversified away from its largest segment, system software (53% of revenue in 1986) into application software such as productivity and HR software. In 2021, Windows only accounted for 13% of the company’s revenues and had a 5-year average growth of 5.8% below its total average of 13.1%.

  • Diversified within the software industry with productivity software in 1983 with Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel in 1985
  • Diversified into the Media Industry with its advertising segment with Internet Explorer web browsers launched in 1995
  • Expanded within the software industry with HR software Microsoft Dynamics in 2006
  • Diversified into the entertainment industry with its Xbox business in 2001

Company

Microsoft (1986 – Non-System Software)

IBM (1980 – Non-Hardware)

Revenue Breakdown (Past)

47%

16%

Revenue Breakdown (2021)

87%

75%

Revenue (Past) ($ mln)

93

4,192

Revenue (2021) ($ mln)

146,237

43,013

Annualized Growth %

23.4%

5.8%

Source: Microsoft, IBM. Khaveen Investments

Based on the table above, we calculated the annualized growth rate of the revenue contribution of the revenue streams of Microsoft’s non-System Software revenue in 1986 and IBM’s non-Hardware revenue from 1980 to 2021. Thus, we believe that Microsoft has a superior diversification strategy with its higher annualized growth of 23.4% compared to 5.8% for IBM.

Acquisition Strategy

IBM Acquisitions

Acquisition Cost ($ mln)

Revenue ($ mln)

Microsoft Acquisitions

Acquisition Cost ($ mln)

Revenue ($ mln)

Red Hat

34,000

3,400

Activision Blizzard

68,700

8,800

Cognos

5,000

1,000

LinkedIn

26,200

2,970

PwC Consulting Business

3,500

4,900

Nuance Communications

19,700

1,931

Lotus Development Corporation

3,500

1,150 (excluded)

Skype Technologies

8,500

622

Truven Health Analytics

2,600

544

ZeniMax Media

8,100

1750

Rational Software Corp

2,100

592

GitHub

7,500

200

SoftLayer Technologies

2,000

280

Nokia (Mobile Phones unit)

7,200

1990

Netezza

1,700

190.6

aQuantive

6,333

700

FileNet Corp

1,600

422

Mojang

2,500

412

Sterling Commerce

1,400

479

Visio Corp

1,375

166

Total

57,400

11,808

Total

156,108

19,541

Revenue Contribution

20.6%

Revenue Contribution

11.6%

Source: Company Data, Khaveen Investments

The table above shows the top 10 acquisitions by IBM and Microsoft in terms of their acquisition costs and revenue. IBM made a series of acquisitions such as Lotus Development Corp for middleware software which was later divested off to HCL in 2018 for just $1.8 bln, translating to a loss of $1.7 bln. Also, it acquired PwC’s management consulting arm in 2002. Besides that, it also acquired software companies such as Cognos, Truven Health Analytics, Rational Software, SoftLayer, Netezza, FileNet and Sterling Commerce as well as hybrid cloud company Red Hat which was its largest acquisition ever at $34 bln.

On the other hand, Microsoft’s largest deal is the planned acquisition of Activision Blizzard (ATVI) for $68.7 bln to expand its footprint in the gaming market, followed by LinkedIn, Nuance Communications, Skype, ZeniMax Media, GitHub, Nokia (Mobile phones), aQuantive, Mojang, and Visio Corp.

The total revenue contribution of Microsoft’s top 10 acquisitions ($19.5 bln) is higher than IBM at $11.8 bln (excludes Lotus) but its revenue contribution is lower at 11.6% compared to 20.6%. However, Microsoft ($156.1 bln) spent more than IBM ($57.4 bln). This translates to a revenue per cost of $0.21 for IBM which is higher compared to Microsoft at only $0.13.

Therefore, while IBM divested Lotus, its revenue contribution from its largest acquisitions is still higher than Microsoft. Additionally, with a higher revenue per acquisition cost, we believe that IBM has a superior acquisition strategy to Microsoft.

Integration Strategy

IBM provides mainframe software such as containerized software, DevOps and operations management which are integrated with its server systems. Despite its expansion into software, consulting, and cloud, we believe this is its only product integration and it has not built up an ecosystem of integrated products and services. Moreover, its other segments such as software had stagnant growth of 1% and hardware’s revenue declined which we believe indicates its inability to successfully synergize the segments.

As covered in our previous analysis, Microsoft had established solid market leadership in office productivity with over 80% market share based on Gartner and we expect it to continue defending its lead with its comprehensive features and integrations with its other Microsoft products and competitive cost against competitors. Besides that, other examples of Microsoft’s integrations are:

  • Integration between Windows and Microsoft through Office Hub for easier access to documents
  • It developed the cloud-based Dynamics 365 in 2016 which is integrated with Power Platforms, Teams and SharePoint.
  • In Gaming, Microsoft focused on its gaming segment with its gaming subscription in 2017 integrated with Windows.
  • It also acquired companies such as LinkedIn in 2016 and integrated them with its Dynamics 365 and the Office suite.

Thus, we believe Microsoft, with its ecosystem with integrated productivity & HR software, gaming and LinkedIn is stronger compared to IBM (only hardware and software) and we believe it supports its growth outlook. In our previous analysis, we saw that Microsoft was the only company out of the top 3 software companies (IBM and Oracle) which had above industry 7-year average revenue growth (7.9%).

Cloud Strategy

Microsoft entered the cloud market with the launch of Azure in 2010, followed by IBM in 2011. Although both entered roughly similar periods, we compared both companies’ cloud strategies based on a comparison of their market share & revenue growth, number of availability zones, features and number of users.

cloud market share

Synergy Research, Company Data, Khaveen Investments

Cloud Service Providers

Average 5-year Revenue Growth

IBM Cloud

3.1%

AWS (AMZN)

37.5%

Azure

57.2%

Google Cloud (GOOG)

47.5%

Alibaba Cloud (BABA)

51.9%

Source: Synergy Research, Company Data, Khaveen Investments

Based on the chart and table above, Microsoft had strengthened its cloud market share with the highest average revenue growth (57.2%) in the past 5 years to catch up with market leader AWS which had a lower growth (37.5%). In comparison, IBM had the lowest growth among its competitors at only 3.1%. As highlighted in our previous analysis, IBM had divested its public cloud business (Kyndryl) and focused on its hybrid cloud business following its RedHat acquisition in 2019. That said, based on the data, we believe Microsoft had strengthened its positioning in the cloud market and could provide it with an advantage over IBM.

Company

Microsoft

IBM

Cloud Users

550 mln

0.0038 mln

Growth % YoY

10%

35%

Type of Users

Companies, Individuals

Companies

Source: IBM, Microsoft

To understand the rise of Microsoft’s cloud business vs IBM, we looked into the user bases of each company. Compared to Microsoft, IBM specifically targets companies while Microsoft targets both companies and individuals with its cloud. Microsoft had 500 mln active monthly users, on Azure Directory compared to 3,800 clients for IBM. However, IBM had a higher growth rate of 30% YoY than Microsoft at 10%.

Company

Availability Zones

Number of Features

Pricing

IBM

19

43

$71.27

AWS

84

60

$154.50

Microsoft

66

70

$152.60

Google

88

90

$116.10

Source: Source: IBM, AWS, Microsoft, Google, GetApp, Khaveen Investments

To compare the reach of their cloud services globally, we examined the number of availability zones by each company in the table above from our previous analysis of Oracle (ORCL). As seen in the table, Microsoft is third with 66 availability zones behind AWS and Google. However, Microsoft was still more than 3 times higher than IBM Cloud. Microsoft had announced its planned data center expansions across the US in Georgia and Texas and across the globe in Israel and Malaysia.

To determine the competitiveness of their cloud services, we examined the features and compared them with each company. Based on the table, IBM has the least number of features (43) according to GetApp while Microsoft Azure has 70 features, the second-highest behind Google Cloud Platform with the most features (90).

Furthermore, we also compared their cloud pricing to determine the competitiveness of their cloud services. As seen in the table, Azure has the second most expensive pricing behind AWS based on its online website cost estimator (2 virtual CPUs and 8GB of RAM running on Windows OS). In comparison, IBM’s pricing ($71.29) is the lowest among competitors and has pricing below the average of $123.62 which we believe indicates its pricing advantage.

To sum it up, we believe Microsoft’s cloud strategy had been superior to IBM's due to its superior market share, growth, availability zones and a wider user base despite IBM’s higher user growth and competitive pricing.

Overall

We believe Microsoft edges out IBM in the Strategy factor by being the superior company in Product Innovation, Diversification, Integration and Cloud strategies. However, we believe IBM is better in terms of the Acquisition strategy.

Strategy

Advantage

Product Innovation

Microsoft

Diversification

Microsoft

Acquisition

IBM

Integration

Microsoft

Cloud

Microsoft

Overall

Microsoft

Source: Khaveen Investments

Financials

To compare the differences between Microsoft and IBM based on their financials, we looked at their diversification, revenue growth, profitability, efficiency and credit position.

Diversification

Industries

(Growth Rate)

Microsoft

Average Revenue Growth

Revenue Breakdown %

IBM

Average Revenue Growth

Revenue Breakdown %

IT Services (12.4% CAGR)

Server products

22.6%

31.3%

Internet Services

& Infrastructure

26.0%**

15.2%

Enterprise Services

4.2%

4.1%

IT Consulting &

Other Services

1.4%

31.1%

Software (5.78% CAGR)

Office products

10.8%

23.7%

Software

-0.1%

26.9%

Windows

5.8%

13.8%

Dynamics

14.8%

2.3%

Entertainment (8.3% CAGR)

Gaming

11.4%

9.1%

Interactive Media & Services (8.4% CAGR)

LinkedIn

25.1%*

6.1%

Media (15% CAGR)

Search advertising

9.6%

5.1%

Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals (8.76% CAGR)

Devices

-0.9%

4.0%

Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals

-2.3%**

24.7%

Others

Other

8.7%

0.4%

Others

-0.9%

2.1%

Total

13.1%

100.0%

-5.7%

100.0%

*3-year average

**1-year average

Source: Microsoft, IBM, The Business Research Company, Statista, Khaveen Investments

Firstly, we compiled and compared their revenue streams based on GICs classification. Based on the table, Microsoft’s revenues are split across 6 industries namely IT Services, software, entertainment, interactive media & services, media, technology hardware, storage & peripherals. Whereas IBM’s revenue streams are more concentrated as it is only split across 3 industries (IT Services, software, technology hardware, storage & peripherals). Moreover, Microsoft has more segments (9) compared to IBM (4).

The largest segment for Microsoft is Server products (31.3% of revenue) followed by Office products (23.7%) and Windows (13.8%). In comparison, IBM’s largest segment revenue contribution is similar to IT consulting (31% of revenue) and followed by software (27%). In terms of revenue growth, IBM’s Internet Services & Infrastructure segment was its fastest-growing segment (26%) and was higher than Microsoft’s Server products (22.6%). Though, IBM’s Internet Services & Infrastructure segment only accounted for 15% of the company’s revenue compared to Microsoft’s Server products segment (31% of revenue).

Also, 3 of Microsoft’s segments (Server products, LinkedIn, Dynamics) totaling 40% of revenue have above-average revenue growth (13.1%) compared to IBM which only has 2 segments (Internet Services & Infrastructure and IT Consulting) totaling 46% of revenue which grew above its total company average (-5.7%).

Thus, we believe that Microsoft has better diversification compared to IBM with a wider revenue exposure across more GICS industries than IBM and more segments. Microsoft’s fastest-growing segment’s revenue contribution is also twice that of IBM’s.

microsoft revenue

Microsoft, Khaveen Investments

ibm revenue breakdown

IBM, Khaveen Investments

Revenue Growth

growth

SeekingAlpha

Furthermore, as seen in the tables above, Microsoft’s YoY revenue growth (20.37%) is higher than IBM's (14.9%). Both companies’ revenue growth had been higher than their 5-year averages, but Microsoft’s 5-year CAGR (16.02%) had been superior to that of IBM (-5.97%). Based on our previous analyses, we forecasted Microsoft to have a higher 5-year forward average revenue growth of 21.5% compared to just 5% for IBM. Also, the company has higher current and 3-year average EBITDA growth than IBM. Therefore, we believe all the factors above point to Microsoft’s superior growth compared to IBM.

Profitability Analysis

For the profitability comparison, we compared the companies in terms of their TTM gross, operating, EBITDA, net and FCF margins.

profitability

Seeking Alpha

Based on the table, IBM has remained profitable with positive average margins despite its revenue decline. Notwithstanding, Microsoft has superior profit margins than IBM with higher gross, operating, EBITDA, net margins and FCF margins based on both current and a 5-year average.

More importantly, Microsoft’s margins have been improving with higher current margins than its 5-year averages for its gross, operating, EBITDA, net margins and FCF margins. Whereas for IBM, except for its gross margins, the rest of its margins have declined compared to its 5-year average. Therefore, we believe Microsoft clearly beats IBM with superior profitability.

Efficiency Analysis

efficiency analysis

SeekingAlpha

In terms of its efficiency, Microsoft has superior ROE, ROTC, and ROA to IBM. Though, Microsoft had higher capex/sales compared to IBM in both current and a 5-year average. Compared to IBM, Microsoft's ROE, ROTC and ROA ratios have improved in the past 5 years while IBM had deteriorated due to the decline of its profitability margins. Additionally, Microsoft had a higher asset turnover ratio as well as cash from operations which highlights its superior efficiency.

Thus, we believe Microsoft has an advantage over IBM based on efficiency analysis with superior ratios to IBM and improving ratios compared to its 5-year average.

Credit Analysis

For credit analysis of both companies, we compared their net debt, interest coverage ratios, EBITDA/Net debt and Debt to Equity ratios.

Credit Ratios

Microsoft

IBM

Net Debt ($ mln)

46,372

101,800

Net Debt as % of Market Cap

2.3%

79.7%

Debt/Equity (5-year Average)

1.64x

5.94x

EBITDA interest coverage (5-year Average)

406.1x

16.5x

FCF interest coverage (5-year Average)

246.8x

7.8x

EBITDA/Net Debt (5-year Average)

1.60x

0.14x

Source: Company Data, Khaveen Investments

From the table, Microsoft has a lower net debt than IBM and lower net debt as a % of the market cap (2.3%) compared to IBM (79.7%). Also, Microsoft has a much lower debt/equity ratio of 1.64x than IBM (5.94x). In the charts below of their cash to debt ratios, both companies saw their ratios declining over the past 10 years. Notwithstanding, Microsoft continues to maintain a higher cash-to-debt ratio than IBM.

Moreover, Microsoft has superior coverage ratios compared to IBM which indicates its superior ability to service its debt obligations.

msft net debt

Microsoft, Khaveen Investments

ibm net debt

IBM, Khaveen Investments

Source: IBM, Khaveen Investments

In the charts above of their cash to debt ratios, both companies saw their ratios declining over the past 10 years. Notwithstanding, Microsoft continues to maintain a higher cash-to-debt ratio than IBM. Therefore, we believe Microsoft has an advantage over IBM based on credit analysis, beating IBM on all 7 metrics we looked at.

Overall

We believe Microsoft has the overall advantage over IBM based on its financials as we determined it to have better diversification, revenue growth, profitability, efficiency and credit than IBM.

Financials

Advantage

Diversification

Microsoft

Revenue Growth

Microsoft

Profitability analysis

Microsoft

Efficiency analysis

Microsoft

Credit analysis

Microsoft

Overall

Microsoft

Source: Khaveen Investments

Valuation

Multiples

Ratios

Microsoft Current

Microsoft 5-year Average

Upside

IBM Current

IBM 5-year Average

Upside

P/E

26.5x

34.4x

16.0%

25.14x

18.48x

-22.0%

P/S

9.9x

9.4x

-15.8%

2.12x

1.64x

-41.0%

P/FCF

30.7x

29.5x

25.6%

13.09x

7.91x

-54.6%

Average

9.5%

-39.2%

Source: Seeking Alpha, Company Data, Khaveen Investments

Based on the table above of the valuation multiples, all of Microsoft’s ratios (current) including P/E, P/S and P/FCF are higher than IBM. Moreover, based on a 5-year average, all of Microsoft’s valuation ratios are also higher than IBM indicating IBM’s better value compared to Microsoft.

However, when comparing each company’s current and 5-year average ratio, Microsoft’s PE (26.5x) ratio is below its 5-year average (34.4x) while the other ratios are higher than its 5-year average. Whereas all of IBM’s ratios are above its 5-year average. Based on their ratios, we obtained an upside of 9.5% for Microsoft and -39.2% for IBM.

Therefore, we believe that despite IBM’s better value compared to Microsoft with its lower current and 5-year average ratios, Microsoft edges out IBM with its higher upside than IBM as its P/E and P/FCF ratios (current) are lower than its 5-year averages while IBM’s ratios are above its 5-year average

Ratings

Ratings

Microsoft

IBM

DCF Rating

Strong Buy

Sell

DCF Upside

114.4%

-13.3%

DCF Price Target

$550.55

$122.37

Analyst Consensus Rating

Strong Buy

Hold

Analyst Consensus Upside

39.3%

1.6%

Analyst Consensus Price Target

$357.85

$143.50

Source: Seeking Alpha, Company Data, Khaveen Investments

Based on the table above, we derived a DCF upside of 114% for Microsoft and rated it as a Strong Buy whereas for IBM we obtained a 13.3% downside and rated it as a Sell. With reference to analyst consensus estimates, Microsoft was rated as a Strong Buy with a 39.3% upside compared to IBM at only a Hold with a 1.6% upside. Thus, we believe Microsoft is clearly superior to IBM with a higher rating from DCF and analyst consensus.

microsoft valuation

Khaveen Investments

ibm valuation

Khaveen Investments

Investment Returns

Company

5-year Stock Return

Annualized Return

Dividend Yield

Total Annual Return

Microsoft

275.54%

30.2%

0.96%

31.16%

IBM

-5.78%

-0.89%

4.77%

3.88%

Source: Seeking Alpha, Company Data, Khaveen Investments

Finally, we compared the investment returns based on the past 5 years between Microsoft and IBM and computed its annualized return and calculated the total return with its dividend yield. Overall, Microsoft (31.16%) has a higher annualized total return than IBM (3.88%) which highlights its advantage

Overall

To sum it up, based on the multiples, ratings and investment returns, we believe Microsoft edges out IBM with its Strong Buy ratings based on DCF and analyst consensus and higher investment return compared to IBM.

Valuation

Advantage

Multiples

Microsoft

Ratings

Microsoft

Investment Returns

Microsoft

Overall

Microsoft

Source: Khaveen Investments

Risk: Dividend Growth

IBM

ibm dividend

SeekingAlpha

We believe the risk for the long/short strategy between Microsoft and IBM is its high dividend yield. IBM had a dividend yield of 4.77%, which is one of the considerations for shorting the stock. IBM’s dividend growth was 0.77% as seen above. However, IBM’s dividend growth had continuously slowed in the past 10 years from a 10-year CAGR of 8.17% to 3.6% (5-year) and 2.42% (3-year), which reduces the probability of much higher dividend payments going forward.

Verdict

Factor

Advantage

Product Innovation

Microsoft

Diversification

Microsoft

Acquisition

IBM

Integration

Microsoft

Cloud

Microsoft

Strategy Factor

Microsoft

Diversification

Microsoft

Revenue Growth

Microsoft

Profitability analysis

Microsoft

Efficiency analysis

Microsoft

Credit analysis

Microsoft

Financials Factor

Microsoft

Multiples

Microsoft

Ratings

Microsoft

Investment Returns

Microsoft

Valuation Factor

Microsoft

Overall

Microsoft

Source: Khaveen Investments

To summarize, we determined that Microsoft is superior to IBM for the Strategy factor based on their strategies as we believe its product innovation, diversification, integration and cloud strategy to be superior to IBM. Moreover, we also determined its superior financials based on diversification, revenue growth, profitability, efficiency and credit. Finally, we determined Microsoft comes up on top for the Valuation factor considering its upside based on multiples, DCF and higher investment returns. We determined our long/short strategy by taking into account its dividend yield, borrow fee (between 0.3% to 3%) and short sale proceeds interest of 0%.

Case

Stock

Upside

Div Yield

Gross Return

Avg Borrow Fee

Int

Net Return

Weight

Net Return

Our Case

MSFT

114.4%

1.0%

115.3%

115.3%

81.3%

94.99%

IBM

-13.3%

4.8%

-8.6%

1.7%

0%

6.9%

18.8%

Base Case

MSFT

16.10%

0.96%

17.06%

17.06%

81.25%

34.25%

IBM

-16.42%

4.77%

-11.65%

1.65%

0%

10.00%

18.75%

Bear Case

MSFT

16.10%

0.96%

17.06%

17.06%

81.25%

15.74%

IBM

-16.42%

4.77%

-11.65%

1.65%

0%

10.00%

18.75%

Bull Case

MSFT

60.0%

1.0%

61.0%

61.0%

81.3%

54.1%

IBM

17.6%

4.8%

22.3%

1.7%

0%

24.0%

18.8%

Source: SA, IBKR, Khaveen Investments

To determine the appropriate weights for the trade, we computed a sensitivity analysis based on the different scenarios and long-short weights. As seen in the chart below, long Microsoft (81% weight) and short IBM (19% weight) would generate the highest net return in all scenarios.

sensitivity analysis

Khaveen Investments

Overall, we believe both Microsoft and IBM have contrasting fundamentals which provides a clear opportunity for a Long-Short trade. While IBM was the old leader of the IT sector, Microsoft has emerged as the new dominant player with a clear-cut advantage owing to its superior product innovation, diversification, integration, cloud strategies as well as solid financials and attractive valuation. Thus, we believe a long/short strategy can be implemented on this pair of stocks, and carry a Strong Buy rating on Microsoft and a Sell rating on IBM.

Sun, 03 Jul 2022 20:27:00 -0500 en text/html https://seekingalpha.com/article/4521603-microsoft-vs-ibm-long-short-strategy
Killexams : Ex-IBM math sciences leader joins ColdQuanta

Boulder-based quantum-technology company ColdQuanta Inc. has hired Bob Sutor, who previously worked for IBM Research, as vice president of corporate development.

Sutor was the IBM Corp. (NYSE: IBM) division’s vice president of mathematical sciences.

“Bob has earned an international reputation as a thought leader in emerging technologies by translating highly technical Topics so they can be easily understood and used by businesses, influencers, governments and more,” CQ CEO Scott Faris said in a statement. “Bob has a demonstrated ability to transform companies and industries on the cutting edge of technology and will serve as a visionary leader for ColdQuanta as we enter the company’s next stage of growth.”

Sutor is the author of the quantum-computing book “Dancing with Qubits” and the coding book “Dancing with Python.”

This article was first published by BizWest, an independent news organization, and is published under a license agreement. © 2022 BizWest Media LLC.

Mon, 20 Jun 2022 19:13:00 -0500 BizWest staff en-US text/html https://www.dailycamera.com/2022/06/20/ex-ibm-math-sciences-leader-joins-coldquanta/
Killexams : IBM set to launch cloud testbed for z/OS mainframe apps
Audio player loading…

IBM has confirmed the launch date for its new mainframe-as-a-service offering, several months after the project was first announced.

In a press release, Big Blue confirmed that mainframes running its proprietary z/OS will be available via the cloud from June 30, 2022.