Dan Ives Names 5 Tech Picks for 2027 on a $4 Trillion Spending Call
Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives named five potential tech winners for 2027 on Oct. 7, 2026. He argued investors are underestimating coming technology spending. Benzinga
Ives put that spending at $4 trillion over the next few years. That figure frames the call. The horizon is calendar 2027. The list holds five names.
Ives is an analyst at Wedbush Securities. MarketWatch The Oct. 7 note is the authoritative statement of his 2027 view. Earlier material gives context for how he has talked about AI exposure.
That context includes the IVES ETF, a fund focused on AI stocks. MarketWatch The vehicle holds 30 AI-focused tech stocks. MarketWatch A May 10, 2025 screen of 30 AI stocks linked to the bullish tech analyst included Nvidia and Apple. MarketWatch On Feb. 7, 2026, Ives named Palantir as one of his top tech names to own. MarketWatch
The order of those calls is worth keeping straight. The 30-stock construction is a broad thematic basket. The five-name list for 2027 is a narrow selection. The Palantir designation came eight months before the October call. None of the earlier items supersede the Oct. 7 selection.
The broader context here is what changes when you move from 30 names to five. A 30-stock ETF gives broad exposure to a theme, with risk spread across parts of tech. Think of it like buying the whole fruit basket. A five-name list piles more risk onto each company, including company-specific trouble and larger swings away from the market. That affects how much to hold in each name and how results are explained. A basket smooths out winners and losers. A short list rises or falls on the gap between them.
Looking at what this means for underwriting the $4 trillion figure, timing does most of the work. A wave over several years means spending spread across future company and infrastructure budgets, not a single yearly total. Sales rarely follow announcements right away. Orders come in, backlogs turn into delivered work, booked sales get counted later, and building costs get recorded on their own schedule. That delay opens a gap between spending talk and reported revenue. It also widens the range for future profits.
In my view, the call is more useful as a read on sentiment and positioning than as a number to model literally. Four trillion dollars over "the next few years" is too coarse to turn into company revenue without guesses about which tech layer gets what, which customers spend, and what is new spending versus replacement. The five-name structure bakes in those guesses. Readers should watch concentration, how closely the five move together, and what happens if the spending pace slips.
