HScreen · IBM

IBM · International Business Machines Corporation 23d old

conviction3

coverage tierT1-FULL

horizon12 months

Return distribution probability-weighted scenarios, never collapsed to a point

-20%22%

+11%48%

+45%30%

EV +14.38%

why these probabilities: BASE (+11%, p=48%) is the market's expectation delivered, not a competing forecast: consensus FY2026 revenue +5.0% and EPS +8.4%, FY2027 revenue +3.9% and EPS +6.8% (fmp:/stable/analyst-estimates?symbol=IBM&period=annual, as_of 2026-08-17T16:00:54Z, grade EST, 17 revenue / 13 EPS contributors on FY2026). Off FY2025 reported EPS 11.36 that is ~12.31 FY2026 and ~13.15 FY2027; holding the current ~18.7x on FY2027 EPS gives ~246 plus ~6.76 of dividends, ~+11%. This lands within a point of the 255.92 street target by construction — that is the point of anchoring the base leg. BULL (+45%, p=30%) assumes revenue growth of ~8% in both FY2026 and FY2027 against consensus 5.0% / 3.9%, with EPS growth ~14% rather than 8.4%/6.8%, on named evidence: Z17 attainment at ~30% at the same point as the z16 curve with the 120%-plus MIPS growth guide held through 2026, hardware placement value up over USD 1bn carrying a disclosed 3-4x monetisation multiplier into TP software, storage attach and maintenance, >50% of Spyre inferencing already purchased, and software data growth at high-teens contributing ~4pts. FY2027 EPS ~14.8 at 22x — inside the range IBM traded at in the twelve months to the 332.46 high — is ~325, ~+45% including dividends. This leg returns the stock to its 52-week high; it does not require a new valuation regime. BEAR (-20%, p=22%) is a slower pace, not a collapse: revenue growth

not built — options-implied distribution on the same axis, with the KL number and where the disagreement sits
needs: desk-options implied bands (v1.4 Part 4a) — activates at 60% coverage; currently 33%

Visibility how far ahead this name can be seen

not built — visibility score
needs: visibility_score.py

Trust how much weight this name's own record can carry (credibility Z)

not built — credibility
needs: credibility.py

Technology supply chain graph-backed context · read-only

not built — supply-chain attributes
needs: ticker not mapped in supply_chain.yaml

Sizing survival-first size (half-Kelly) vs the enforced ladder

kelly not computable — no data

Payout durability does the distribution survive a downturn?

PASS

DPS trajectoryprogressive

interest cover now6.46x

interest cover at FORWARD rates3.9x

Falsifiers what would prove this wrong

Z17 mainframe cycle sustains the guided 120%-plus MIPS growth rate through 2026
The 2026Q2 ELA slippage was timing, not a structural shift in enterprise software purchasing
Free cash flow grows by at least USD 1bn with realisation consistent with the January guide
Spyre inferencing monetises at the 3-4x hardware placement multiplier management has disclosed
Dividend remains covered without recourse to debt (excluded tail leg)

Conflicts surfaced, never netted out (T4)

The street carries a Buy consensus with a 255.92 target (+11.0%) across 51 analysts, while the revision tape underneath it is uniformly negative: EPS breadth -1.00 (3 down, 0 up, median -3.80%) and revenue breadth -0.67	high
My p_bear of 22% sits 19.2pp above the node-pooled base rate of 2.8% at -20% and my p_bull of 30% sits 18.0pp above the interpolated pooled 12.0% at +45%. Both anchors are flagged noisy at effective_n=5 and the historica	high
The "Buy" label is thin on inspection: 24 buy-side ratings against 22 holds and 5 sells, with a target range of 175-350 — a 100% spread around a 255.92 mean nobody in particular holds. FY2027 and FY2028 revenue dispersio	medium
No cross-check exists. options_implied is null on every anchor row (no chain entry for IBM; desk_options.json holds ATM-only at one near-dated expiry), and the crowding, technical and factor desks are not built. A distri	high
Management reaffirmed FCF growth of at least USD 1bn with record margins and unchanged realisation in the same quarter that first-half FCF was flat and the revenue guide low end came down about a point on ELA slippage. T	medium

The case against independent adversary, different model family (P6) weakened

Version history from the research record

archived versions2

archived	hash	bytes
2026-08-17T10:34:17	8b861419bb57	28,617
2026-08-19T05:54:53	b0e714e702a3	28,524

What changed in the latest version

-	analyst: analyst-income
+	analyst: analyst-aisemi
-	value: 'International Business Machines: four segments — Software (hybrid cloud, Red Hat, automation,
-	data/AI, security), Consulting, Infrastructure (z-series mainframe, distributed, storage) and Financing.
-	264,300 employees, NYSE-listed, USD reporting, market cap ~$221bn at 234.32. FY25 metrics: ROE 32.4%,
-	ROIC 10.4%, EV/EBITDA 19.1x, EV/Sales 4.9x, current ratio 0.93. Mainframe (z-series) is the economic
-	core of Infrastructure and pulls software/maintenance/financing attach at a stated 3-4x multiplier
-	over the cycle; management guides FY26 revenue +4-5% and free cash flow growth of at least $1bn off
-	a ~$14bn FY25 base. Dividend is quarterly, currently 1.69/qtr, raised in eleven consecutive observed
-	years with no cut in the observed window.
-
-	'
-	source_id: fmp:/stable/profile?symbol=IBM + fmp:/stable/key-metrics?symbol=IBM + IBM/IBM_2026Q2.json
-	as_of_date: 2026-08-16
…	diff truncated

Rendered from canonical artifacts only (T1) — no terminal database exists. Every figure is read from the system's own files at render time; where an artifact is missing the panel names the dependency rather than showing an empty box. No execution path exists anywhere in this interface (T5), not even a link.