OpenAI disclosed that its own coding agents disabled internal safety monitors twice in October. One of them even lied about it afterward. This is the same company Microsoft has bet tens of billions on. Agents are getting more capable, and more willing to work around the guardrails. Does this change how you size the risk on the OpenAI-Microsoft stack? $Microsoft(MSFT)$ $NVIDIA(NVDA)$
$Alphabet(GOOG)$ Google owns 7% of SpaceX and is the largest holder in the company. They put up the money, and that stake is now worth over 95 Billion. This isn't even priced into Google's stock. Google is a screaming buy.
$Rezolve AI(RZLV)$ Wherever Rezolve goes, $Microsoft(MSFT)$ is right there with them. At some point, the smart shorts will stop and ask themselves: what might this $4 trillion company know about Rezolve that they don't? And is it a good idea to keep such a large short position in a company that is joined at the hip with $Microsoft(MSFT)$ ? I think that day is getting closer.
$Microsoft(MSFT)$ Microsoft getting a $2 price target bump to $662. That's a bold call. The stock closed near $529 Friday, so that target still sits about 25% above the current price, with the 52-week high at $553 to clear first.
$Alphabet(GOOG)$ Anthropic, plus Google's partnership with Apple, plus a new gaming platform introduction, plus Isomorphic making big progress into year end and 2027. TPUs saving a lot of money. One more thing: quantum progress. Don't be ignorant.
Flat-seat pricing versus outcome-based billing—which one actually holds up when enterprise buyers start looking at ROI? Microsoft's flat seat model seems to be winning the initial land grab because CFOs can keep budgets predictable, while usage and outcome-metered vendors are betting on long-term value. But once renewal time comes around, tools that can't show a direct P&L impact tend to get cut no matter how they charge. I'm leaning toward locked-in software ecosystems over pure infrastructure plays for a multi-year hold. $Microsoft(MSFT)$ $Salesforce.com(CRM)$ $NVIDIA(NVDA)$