AI의 다음 희생자: 시간당 과금 방식

THE DAILY H.E.A.T. Torching Wall Street’s Obsolete Playbook. Delivered straight to your inbox 5 days a week. Subscribe Home Posts AI’s Next Victim: The Billable Hour AI’s Next Victim: The Billable Hour Mar 6, 2026 I’ve been a trader and investor for 44 years. I left Wall Street long ago—-once I understood that their obsolete advice is designed to profit them, not you. Today, my firm manages around $4 billion in ETFs, and I don’t answer to anybody. I tell the truth because trying to fool investors doesn’t help them, or me. In Daily H.E.A.T. , I show you how to Hedge against disaster, find your Edge, exploit Asymmetric opportunities, and ride major Themes before Wall Street catches on. Table of Contents H.E.A.T. AI isn’t “killing services”… it’s killing the way … The scoreboard: who wins, who loses What separates the winners A practical “basket” framework Winners (benefit from the mix-shift to IP + outcom … Losers (at risk of “AI = pricing pressure” in labo … The punchline trade News vs. Noise: What’s Moving Markets Today A Stock I’m Watching In Case You Missed It Talking with Josh Brown about European Digital Sov … H.E.A.T. AI isn’t “killing services”… it’s killing the way services get paid Wall Street keeps trying to frame GenAI like a meteor: “Consultants and outsourcers are toast.” That’s the lazy take — and it’s why this corner of the market keeps trading like a doomsday headline generator. The reality is messier… and that’s exactly the point. The future isn’t “buy a model, fire the vendors.” The future is a fragmented agent stack where enterprises still need someone to stitch the whole thing together: proprietary data, governance, systems of record, security, evaluation, monitoring, workflow orchestration, compliance, and “who gets blamed when it breaks?” AI can write code, draft policies, and summarize tickets… but it still can’t magically integrate 12 systems, reconcile conflicting data definitions, satisfy legal/compliance, and refactor a decade of duct-taped workflows into something reliable. In other words: services don’t disappear — they migrate up the stack toward high-value integration, domain-specific implementation, and “agent factories” that actually work in production. Here’s the twist (and it’s the real trade): buyers don’t think the wallet is infinite. Near-term, budgets look resilient because adoption itself is work. But longer-term, the goal is absolutely cost takeout — especially in labor-heavy, repetitive outsourcing. In a survey of senior IT decision-makers, 47% expect to spend more on IT services in the next 1–3 years (44% neutral), but that confidence fades with time: by 5+ years out, the “spend less” camp grows meaningfully. Translation: there’s a window where services benefit from the chaos… and then the bill comes due. And that’s why the tide won’t rise evenly. The winners won’t be the biggest headcount shops — they’ll be the firms that can sell IP-led, outcome-based work (and defend pricing) while everyone else gets squeezed by “Why are we paying per FTE when the workflow runs on tokens?” The scoreboard: who wins, who loses The best way to think about this isn’t “AI winner vs AI loser.” It’s: who can convert AI from labor substitution into a higher-margin product — and who gets trapped selling shrinking units of human time. What separates the winners The firms best positioned tend to show up with the same advantages: Repeatable IP (not just resumes): proprietary workflows, accelerators, vertical playbooks, automation libraries, data/process assets. Partner gravity: real distribution through hyperscalers / model ecosystems (and credibility with enterprise buyers). Domain depth: regulated industries, complex ops, high switching costs — where implementation is harder than the demo. Commercial maturity for AI: comfort selling outcomes, subscriptions, gainshare, “run rate” managed services… not just T&M. Internal AI adoption: if they can’t retool their own delivery model, they won’t retool yours. A practical “basket” framework If you want to build a short, clean basket of AI services winners and losers, don’t overcomplicate it: Winners (benefit from the mix-shift to IP + outcomes) ACN (Accenture) — The “enterprise plumbing” superpower: partnerships + scale + the ability to industrialize transformation. If services spending holds up near-term, ACN is a primary beneficiary; if it shifts to outcomes, ACN is one of the few with the bench + relationships to price it. EXLS (EXLService) — The market tends to lump it into “services,” but the edge is process + analytics + domain (where AI actually gets operationalized). This is the kind of profile that can move fastest into IP-led delivery. EPAM (EPAM Systems) — Strong technical execution and delivery capabilities matter more as enterprises go from pilots to production agents. EPAM is positioned for higher-complexity build/modernize work rather than pure staff augmentation. G (Genpact) — Closer to the “process core” in many enterprises. If AI is taking cost out of BPM, the survivors are the ones who can turn process knowledge into platforms and run outcomes at scale. CTSH (Cognizant) — Not always loved by the market, but it screens better when you focus on partnerships and the ability to reposition toward higher-value programs (rather than low-value bodies). GLOB (Globant) — More digital-native orientation and AI-forward messaging helps in a world where transformation is less “ERP marathon” and more “rapid agent deployment + integration.” If you want to keep it tight: ACN / EXLS / EPAM as the “quality core,” with G / CTSH / GLOB as the higher-beta add-ons. Losers (at risk of “AI = pricing pressure” in labor-heavy delivery) DXC (DXC Technology) — When buyers start asking “why are we paying for manual work,” legacy-heavy delivery models are the first place the knife goes. This is the classic risk profile in an outcome-based shift. DAVA (Endava) — In a world where AI lowers the cost to produce “good enough software,” the mid-tier digital shops can get pinched from both sides: enterprises internalize more, and larger platforms bundle more. CINT (CI&T) and GDYN (Grid Dynamics) — These can absolutely execute, but in a shakeout they’re more exposed to client concentration, cyclicality, and pricing pressure unless they clearly graduate into repeatable IP + durable distribution. (Not “bad companies” — just the kind that can get whipped around when the market decides services are either the cure or the disease.) If you want a simple “hurt basket,” it’s: DXC + DAVA (and optionally CINT/GDYN as higher-volatility satellites). The punchline trade If you believe the market is overpricing “services get disintermediated tomorrow,” you don’t buy “services.” You buy the handful of firms that can sell AI outcomes and use AI internally to protect margins while the rest of the sector fights over shrinking labor hours. The biggest tell: buyers increasingly expect AI to reduce spend in legacy outsourcing over time — but not immediately. So the setup is asymmetric: Near-term: services demand can stay surprisingly firm (implementation + integration + governance is work). Medium-term: dispersion explodes as projects shift from “FTEs” to “assets.” Long-term: the sector’s multiple becomes a referendum on who owns IP vs who sells labor. AI won’t eliminate IT services — it will eliminate the companies that only sell human time. News vs. Noise: What’s Moving Markets Today Continue to watch oil. We did a podcast today and the guest referred to it as nature’s tax…. News came out last night that the Treasury was going to announce measures to reduce oil prices, perhaps using futures markets. Not quite sure how they will do that, but just announcing it may calm things down. Politico reported that the conflict could last another 100 days, or longer. Markets did close way off the lows yesterday, but a daily chart of the QQQ still shows a choppy market going nowhere. Would expect this continues until we get some resolution, and relief on oil prices….. Meanwhile, rates continue to rise. Remember, in a crisis investors are supposed to flock to US Treasury Bonds, therefore reducing rates, they are not…. Higher oil prices and rates are inflationary, hard to expect the Fed to aggressively cut rates in this environment. ETF News A Stock I’m Watching Been talking a lot about CRWD lately as we thought it was unfairly targeted in the software selloff. Undercut and rally at the 10 day MA and 20 day EMA. Next potential stop is the 50 and 200. It’s up a lot over a short period of time so a pause would be likely. CrowdStrike (CRWD) is one of the cleanest “AI-era winners” in security because AI doesn’t reduce the need for endpoint + identity + cloud protection—it scales the attack surface (automation, phishing, deepfakes, faster vuln exploitation), which increases the value of CRWD’s real-time telemetry and response loop. What I like most right now is the platform flywheel: management continues to show strong net-new ARR and a “beat/raise” cadence, and Falcon Flex keeps lowering procurement friction and accelerating multi-module adoption (customers buy the platform, then expand into more workloads). The next leg to watch is next-gen SIEM + identity—if those keep comping strong while cloud remains healthy, CRWD starts to look less like “endpoint security” and more like the system-of-record for enterprise threat + identity risk. The main near-term risk is seat compression (layoffs → fewer endpoints) and budget scrutiny, so the key tells are: net-new ARR quality, Flex expansion rates, module attach, and whether SIEM/identity growth offsets any seat-driven softness. In Case You Missed It Talking with Josh Brown about European Digital Sovereignty and European Defense…. I had the pleasure of speaking about UFOD on Stocks on Spaces Wednesday. Strangely we got cut off right as we were talking about potential Raytheon technology, so it’s in two parts….. The H.E.A.T. (Hedge, Edge, Asymmetry and Theme) Formula is designed to empower investors to spot opportunities, think independently, make smarter (often contrarian) moves, and build real wealth. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the Chief Executive Officer and Portfolio Manager for Tuttle Capital Management (TCM) and are subject to change without notice. The data and information provided is derived from sources deemed to be reliable but we cannot guarantee its accuracy. Investing in securities is subject to risk including the possible loss of principal. Trade notifications are for informational purposes only. TCM offers fully transparent ETFs and provides trade information for all actively managed ETFs. TCM's statements are not an endorsement of any company or a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security. Trade notification files are not provided until full trade execution at the end of a trading day. The time stamp of the email is the time of file upload and not necessarily the exact time of the trades. TCM is not a commodity trading advisor and content provided regarding commodity interests is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as a recommendation. Investment recommendations for any securities or product may be made only after a comprehensive suitability review of the investor’s financial situation.© 2026 Tuttle Capital Management, LLC (TCM). TCM is a SEC-Registered Investment Adviser. All rights reserved. Keep Reading Feb 23, 2026 • 13 min read Tariffs Are Dead. Long Live Tariffs. Feb 24, 2026 • 13 min read Stop Buying “AI”... Start Buying the Companies Using It Mar 2, 2026 • 11 min read SaaSpocalypse Is Clickbait. SaaSolidation Is Real. View more 2