Claude Shannon

Naval just said the quiet part out loud, and the market already priced it in before most people noticed. $2 trillion in software market cap evaporated between January 15 and February 14, 2026. Thirty days. Adobe, Microsoft, Salesforce, SAP, ServiceNow, and Oracle alone shed over $730 billion. The S&P 500 Software & Services Index is down 20% year to date while the broader market stayed relatively flat. But Naval’s framing is too clean. The market isn’t saying “software is dead.” The market is saying “software that charges per seat is dead.” Here’s why that distinction matters: If an AI agent does the work of three analysts, the customer doesn’t need three seats. Seat-based pricing was the foundational unit economics of SaaS for twenty years. Agents just broke the denominator. Revenue doesn’t decline because the product fails. Revenue declines because fewer humans touch the product. Atlassian is down 35%. Salesforce down 28%. Their core workflows, task tracking, data entry, customer logging, are exactly what agents automate first. Meanwhile Palantir posted 70% revenue growth last quarter, guided for 61% in 2026, and trades at 44x forward sales. It grew revenue from 13% to 70% in ten consecutive quarters of acceleration. The reason Palantir survives the SaaSpocalypse is that it never sold seats. It sold decision infrastructure on top of messy, fragmented data that AI models can’t easily replicate. The real split in the market: AI-native companies trade at a median 10x+ revenue multiple. Traditional SaaS sits below 5x. That gap was already wide six months ago. It doubled this year. What Naval is picking up on is that the per-seat SaaS model was always renting access to a workflow. AI agents are replacing the workflow entirely. And once enterprises figure out that they can cut SaaS spend and headcount simultaneously, the compounding effect on license revenue gets ugly fast. Mizuho’s analyst put it bluntly: institutional buyers see no catalysts for a SaaS revaluation at any price. The investable software companies in 2026 own one of three things: proprietary data that compounds, outcome-based pricing that scales with AI adoption, or infrastructure so deeply embedded that ripping it out costs more than keeping it. Everyone else is a melting ice cube charging monthly for the privilege.

Suspect "AI means fewer software jobs" is totally backwards. Most companies in the S&P500 would love to build their own software but have no suitable internal talent. There'll definitely be cross-company migration, but we may be still supply-constrained in software engineering.

We’re indexing the full SEC corpus. Every 10-K, 10-Q, and 8-K over 30+ years. Soon, agents will be able to answer questions about any public company, instantly. Perfect SEC search is coming soon.

I’m also very bullish on software margin expansion going forward

AI is a bubble until you use AI.

This is counterintuitive for some, which is why there’s a paradox named after it. But if you lower the cost of something that was previously supply constrained, demand for that thing goes up. Software engineering is just one of the easiest examples to contemplate. The process goes like this: every small business, every IT team, every large enterprise sees that engineering can now drive vastly more output. They then start to consider all the new things they can build or automate. They even test building prototypes themselves. They only get so far with that approach because they realize there are still 50 other tasks that go into building software and maintaining it. So they start to hire more engineers to do that work. All of this for work they never would have considered automating or having software for if AI didn’t exist. So yes, automating tasks, in plenty of fields, will lead to demand for experts, not less.