That’s an interesting angle, Oliver! However, if you take a really close look at the history, there’s actually a rather curious fact hidden behind your phrase “there were in the Empire”:
Strictly speaking, only two companies on your list were actually founded during the Empire: Furukawa and Sumitomo. Prysmian was founded in Milan in 1879—but Lombardy had already seceded from the Austrian Empire 20 years earlier and had long since become part of the Kingdom of Italy (and the U.S. and Canadian companies were founded in republics and the British Empire, respectively). The paradox here is that the only true empire on your list (Japan) is, formally speaking, the only one still in existence anywhere in the world today! 😉
But setting historical geography aside: When it comes purely to the combination of over 100 years of tradition and the fundamental foundation for cutting-edge technologies of the future, there’s actually one very specific giant missing from your portfolio:
IBM $IBM (founded in 1911).
The company that’s building the invisible backbone for global enterprise AI today—and, above all, the actual hardware for tomorrow’s quantum computing—would fit perfectly into this lineup.
How do you view IBM compared to the other infrastructure stocks you mentioned?
Strictly speaking, only two companies on your list were actually founded during the Empire: Furukawa and Sumitomo. Prysmian was founded in Milan in 1879—but Lombardy had already seceded from the Austrian Empire 20 years earlier and had long since become part of the Kingdom of Italy (and the U.S. and Canadian companies were founded in republics and the British Empire, respectively). The paradox here is that the only true empire on your list (Japan) is, formally speaking, the only one still in existence anywhere in the world today! 😉
But setting historical geography aside: When it comes purely to the combination of over 100 years of tradition and the fundamental foundation for cutting-edge technologies of the future, there’s actually one very specific giant missing from your portfolio:
IBM $IBM (founded in 1911).
The company that’s building the invisible backbone for global enterprise AI today—and, above all, the actual hardware for tomorrow’s quantum computing—would fit perfectly into this lineup.
How do you view IBM compared to the other infrastructure stocks you mentioned?
•
11
•
@TomInvest That’s right—I deliberately didn’t write that the companies were founded during the German Empire, but rather that they already existed at the time of the German Empire. 😊
I’m more cautious when it comes to IBM. It’s undoubtedly an impressive company with enormous technological significance. In my DIBS approach, however, I specifically look for companies that are situated at—or directly benefit from—a concrete infrastructure bottleneck.
I see IBM more as a diversified technology provider. With companies like Prysmian, Hammond, Comfort Systems, or Sumitomo, I can establish a much more direct link to a specific bottleneck.
But it’s precisely these kinds of discussions that make the approach so exciting.
I’m more cautious when it comes to IBM. It’s undoubtedly an impressive company with enormous technological significance. In my DIBS approach, however, I specifically look for companies that are situated at—or directly benefit from—a concrete infrastructure bottleneck.
I see IBM more as a diversified technology provider. With companies like Prysmian, Hammond, Comfort Systems, or Sumitomo, I can establish a much more direct link to a specific bottleneck.
But it’s precisely these kinds of discussions that make the approach so exciting.
••
@ScaleLimits
Touché, Oliver! You’ve certainly nailed the time frame “during the German Empire.” 😉
As for your DIBS approach and the specific infrastructure bottlenecks: that’s exactly where my argument for IBM comes in. I completely understand why, at first glance, you see them as a broad, almost sluggish technology provider. But if you look under the hood, IBM sits at one of the most critical and irreplaceable bottlenecks of all—and that across two generations:
1. Today’s physical bottleneck (mainframes):
In the core banking systems of traditional global banks, there is still simply no equivalent alternative in practice for high-volume, critical transactions when it comes to extreme stability, speed, and massive throughput. A complete replacement of these legacy systems is akin to a risky “open-heart surgery.” The mainframe is to global payment transactions exactly what Prysmian’s high-voltage cables are to the power grid: a physical bottleneck without which the lights would go out immediately in the global system.
2. Tomorrow’s physical bottleneck (quantum computing):
IBM isn’t just playing around with software here; it’s building the physical hardware infrastructure for the next era of computing. While competitors like Google often focus on purely scientific laboratory milestones, IBM is driving industrialization forward—with its own quantum foundries (factories), a transparent hardware roadmap, and the seamless integration of these quantum chips with classical supercomputers.
IBM is thus providing the indispensable “building blocks” for the computing power of the next 50 years.
Doesn’t this dual hardware infrastructure approach (mainframe + quantum foundry) make the company extremely interesting again for your strategy?
Touché, Oliver! You’ve certainly nailed the time frame “during the German Empire.” 😉
As for your DIBS approach and the specific infrastructure bottlenecks: that’s exactly where my argument for IBM comes in. I completely understand why, at first glance, you see them as a broad, almost sluggish technology provider. But if you look under the hood, IBM sits at one of the most critical and irreplaceable bottlenecks of all—and that across two generations:
1. Today’s physical bottleneck (mainframes):
In the core banking systems of traditional global banks, there is still simply no equivalent alternative in practice for high-volume, critical transactions when it comes to extreme stability, speed, and massive throughput. A complete replacement of these legacy systems is akin to a risky “open-heart surgery.” The mainframe is to global payment transactions exactly what Prysmian’s high-voltage cables are to the power grid: a physical bottleneck without which the lights would go out immediately in the global system.
2. Tomorrow’s physical bottleneck (quantum computing):
IBM isn’t just playing around with software here; it’s building the physical hardware infrastructure for the next era of computing. While competitors like Google often focus on purely scientific laboratory milestones, IBM is driving industrialization forward—with its own quantum foundries (factories), a transparent hardware roadmap, and the seamless integration of these quantum chips with classical supercomputers.
IBM is thus providing the indispensable “building blocks” for the computing power of the next 50 years.
Doesn’t this dual hardware infrastructure approach (mainframe + quantum foundry) make the company extremely interesting again for your strategy?
•
11
•@TomInvest Interessanter Punkt. Beim Mainframe-Geschäft würde ich dir sogar eine sehr starke Marktstellung zugestehen.
Für DIBS reicht eine starke Marktstellung allein allerdings nicht aus. Ich suche möglichst direkte Engpass-Exponierung und bevorzuge daher oft Pure-Player oder Unternehmen, bei denen ein Engpass einen wesentlichen Teil der Investmentstory ausmacht.
Rolls-Royce ist für mich ein gutes Beispiel. Das Thema SMR finde ich extrem spannend. Trotzdem ist Rolls-Royce kein typischer DIBS-Titel, weil das Unternehmen insgesamt deutlich breiter aufgestellt ist und SMR nur einen Teil der Story ausmacht.
Ähnlich sehe ich IBM. Quantum Computing beobachte ich durchaus. Für mich ist Quantum aktuell aber noch keine Technologie, die bereits an einem akuten Infrastrukturengpass scheitert. Das könnte sich in einigen Jahren ändern, ähnlich wie bei SMR.
Wenn Quantum irgendwann von einer wissenschaftlichen Disziplin zu einer realen Skalierungsherausforderung wird, würde ich eher nach den konkreten Engpässen suchen und dann überlegen, welche Unternehmen dort am direktesten exponiert sind.
Für DIBS reicht eine starke Marktstellung allein allerdings nicht aus. Ich suche möglichst direkte Engpass-Exponierung und bevorzuge daher oft Pure-Player oder Unternehmen, bei denen ein Engpass einen wesentlichen Teil der Investmentstory ausmacht.
Rolls-Royce ist für mich ein gutes Beispiel. Das Thema SMR finde ich extrem spannend. Trotzdem ist Rolls-Royce kein typischer DIBS-Titel, weil das Unternehmen insgesamt deutlich breiter aufgestellt ist und SMR nur einen Teil der Story ausmacht.
Ähnlich sehe ich IBM. Quantum Computing beobachte ich durchaus. Für mich ist Quantum aktuell aber noch keine Technologie, die bereits an einem akuten Infrastrukturengpass scheitert. Das könnte sich in einigen Jahren ändern, ähnlich wie bei SMR.
Wenn Quantum irgendwann von einer wissenschaftlichen Disziplin zu einer realen Skalierungsherausforderung wird, würde ich eher nach den konkreten Engpässen suchen und dann überlegen, welche Unternehmen dort am direktesten exponiert sind.
•
11
•