Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Business

AI vs COBOL: IBM shares fall 13% and what it means for financial resilience

Anthropic trained Claude Code to update legacy COBOL code — the market reacted with IBM’s stock falling, but the consequences carry more weight than a market index: from ATM security to Ukraine’s digital resilience strategy.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

February 24, 2026 · 2 min read

AI vs COBOL: IBM shares fall 13% and what it means for financial resilience
Фото: EPA / ANNA SZILAGYI

Brief — fact and consequence

On February 23, IBM shares fell by 13% after Anthropic reported that its tool Claude Code can automate updates to programs written in COBOL, CNBC reports. The market interpreted this as a signal: a technology that was previously the prerogative of mainframes and large vendors is now available from an AI-based alternative.

What COBOL is and why it still matters

COBOL is a programming language from the late 1950s, designed for business data processing. According to Anthropic, about 95% of ATMs in the United States still run on systems that depend on COBOL. This explains why even small improvements in code automation can have a large practical effect on financial operations.

"Hundreds of billions of lines of COBOL run every day in real production environments, supporting critical systems in finance, aviation and the public sector. At the same time, the number of people who understand this language decreases every year. Artificial intelligence is ideal for optimizing tasks that made COBOL updates prohibitively expensive before."

— Anthropic (company blog)

Market reaction and risks

The drop in IBM shares is a symptom of a broader reshuffling of expectations: if AI can cheaply maintain or modernize legacy systems, the business model of companies that sold expensive mainframes and modernization services comes under pressure. At the same time, Anthropic released a feature called Claude Code Security, which scans code for vulnerabilities — this is a challenge for the cybersecurity sector, and several companies in that field have already seen share price corrections after the release.

"Modernization of legacy code stalled for years because understanding it cost more than rewriting it. Artificial intelligence changes that balance."

— Anthropic (company blog)

What this means for Ukraine

This story is not only about stock charts in the United States. For Ukraine, the key lessons are these: first, AI tools can accelerate the recovery and modernization of critical systems (banking interfaces, logistics, state registries) without the need for mass hiring of narrowly specialized experts. Second, automation increases speed but also requires new approaches to cyber protection and regulation — especially during wartime, when digital resilience has a direct connection to security.

Conclusion: balance between efficiency and risk

The market is now re-evaluating how quickly AI will change legacy infrastructure. For Ukrainian business and government, this is a signal to invest simultaneously in automation and in cyber resilience, as well as in training personnel who can work with new tools. Whether we will manage to ride this wave of innovation so that it strengthens our economic and national security — that question remains open.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026