Transcription
We are only talking about chips now, we're crashing. So completely illogical. Wow, now I'm 200 300% in the plus. I'm going to cash out. That means we are currently seeing a psychological game, the absolutely surest way to lose money. Period. It's a historical trap. So it can also go quickly then. So, zap. No, no, no, not can. It will go quickly. It's damn hot outside, people. But it's even hotter in the AI sector right now, some stocks have been really torn apart. 30, 40, 50% a crash. And now it's important, as Mumier Linker will explain to you shortly, to keep a cool head. That's the first thing. Stay calm and cool, but above all, have a plan and don't just buy wildly. And our free guide SOS, the courses are falling, will help you with that. How professionals buy strategically. You'll learn everything there, and the best part is, it's completely free for you, this assistance. Download it for free now, link below in the video description or in the shownotes. And now, have fun with the interview. Hello people, and welcome to a brand new video on my channel. My name is Mario Lochner, and today I'm back with the guest you've all been asking for in recent days. Things are rumbling on the stock market, AI crash, AI sell-off. You can call it what you want. And here's the man from Switzerland, from Zurich, connected. His name is Moumier Linker. He's a stock market expert, asset manager from Switzerland from AKF International. Welcome. Yes, thank you very much. Hello Lochner, and a good afternoon to all your followers. And before I hand the word back to you, I have a quick question for you at the beginning. How is your offspring doing? Everything's great. He's doing super. He doesn't have a children's depot yet, so he's not in the red yet. So, everything's good. Thanks for asking. No, everything's going great. That's very kind, and you can also be very kind and do me a huge favor, and that is to subscribe to my channel if you don't want to miss out on such top guests anymore. Mr. Linker, things are really rumbling on the stock market right now. If you look at the indices, you thankfully don't really notice it, but with the AI topic, things have really crashed in recent days. We want to talk about that. Six quick questions. Are you ready? Of course. First question: Is the AI rally dead? No. Is the AI crash already over? It's unserious to answer that. I don't know, but we'll have to talk about it shortly. Are there already historical opportunities in AI after these crashes? Of course, of course. Yes. Fourth question: How long do you want to keep talking up the Iran war? As long as it lasts. [laughter] That's a very cheeky answer, we'll talk about it shortly, but a unfortunately good one, I must admit. Fifth, when will the Fed raise interest rates? Not at all, not at all. I'm curious about that. The market sees it a bit differently right now. I'm looking forward to your explanations. And the last question, which stocks have you bought recently? Oh, which stocks have I bought recently? You won't believe it. I've prepared a list for you because I suspected this question. Wow, that's professional. You see. I'm learning. Let's start with the Swiss stocks. Zurich, Swiss Life, Swiss Sika, LEM, Burkat Compression, Alcon, Galderma, Kühne & Nagel. A bit more international: Palo Alto, Teradyne, Microsoft, Spotify. For the German ones: Munich Re and Hannover Re, and King. Ah, flagship, flagship Gucci. Uh, I have to always, wait a moment. Yes, let me uh, always at the beginning, these are always stocks that fit into the portfolios. Asset management is an ongoing process. I can't just go and buy and sell as you would like, but I buy into portfolios where it fits. We buy, it's a procedure. Many, many customers and investors also ask me how it works with us. We have a briefing every day, uh, a longer briefing every Friday, and committee meetings monthly, and there the investment strategy is determined, and based on that, these stocks are added or reduced, or whatever. It's a process. You asked me which stock I've added to all portfolios. That was a non-selective selection for dynamic, defensive, balanced. It's important for me to say that, very important to emphasize. Yes, it's important, uh, of course, to be careful when you're talking about such names. It has to be well-founded. Yes, your, uh, it's, uh, recently rose almost double-digit for the first time this year. Congratulations. [laughter] We can talk about that in more detail later. Put your cynicism aside. Uh, it was also noticed very strongly on X by my followers. No, jokes aside, you are growing. The picture in Asia is improving, as I said in all the last interviews, you want to increase profitability by reducing debt, of course. That has certainly been achieved. Especially the organic growth from within, I find that very good. We are sticking to our goals of 220, 230. There's nothing more to say. It also took some patience for me, and for those who have continued to buy my recommendations, as I said, it's great for them, and I mean, we are already about 30% higher from the lows. Now we come to the elephant in the room, which of course concerns many, the AI implosion. And that has torn away quite a bit from the top stocks, sometimes even 50% or more. A very simple question, what's going on there? Yes, what's going on there? A lot. Okay, next question. Next question. Very good. No, this is now a question where I've received very, very, very many questions and where I've also promised very, very, very many followers to address it really concentrated and calmly today. And we will work this out together, you and I. Let's start by saying that in an investment philosophy, the topic, I'm repeating myself, what I've said countless times, but this time it has unfortunately come true, is that we really have to concentrate on it. The investment philosophy must never be determined by this topic. What do I mean by that? The success of a portfolio must never be determined by AI, we're not talking about AI, we're talking about chips. Let's stick to semiconductors. Semiconductors are certainly a market with a gigantic future. We don't need to discuss that at all. And what has the stock market proven? Markets are not logical, markets are psychological. What does that mean? When hope drove the markets, so we're talking about AI, when hope drove the markets, prices rose, rose, rose, rose, rose. Okay, then came facts. These facts fueled this rally, and now came the icing on the cake. Numbers that were so brutal, no matter which one you take now, for example, today Inficon in Switzerland by 25% above analyst estimates. So, all numbers were brilliant, and what happens? There are brutal profit-taking, and the markets and the segment, we're only talking about chips now, are crashing. So completely illogical. Markets are not logical, they are psychological. Okay. So, many people have taken profits, and now the FOMO effect comes into play. There's a circulation into where you haven't missed anything yet. Keyword software. We're seeing a crash in chips in recent days, and we're seeing a rally in software. For example, yesterday after hours, Microsoft had more than solid numbers, I think before hours almost 10% up, a completely healthy rotation. But we were at a level where volatility is so high, because we discussed it last time too, that this fear and greed, fear and greed, drifts so far apart that it moves these prices and led to this volatility or caused these dramatic fluctuations. I'll go back again, why is this development so dynamic? Because when a stock suddenly rises, rises, rises, rises, the investor suddenly looks at this huge profit, and profits bring more joy than losses pain. A realized profit brings more joy than an unrealized profit. Conversely, a realized loss hurts more than an unrealized loss. That means we are subject to the disposition effect, and this mass of investors, which is not meant negatively at all, wow, now I'm 200, 300% in the plus, I'm going to cash out. They don't even look at the fact that the P/E ratios have massively decreased. That means we are currently seeing a psychological game, we are currently seeing a susceptibility to the disposition effect, then of course there's the information bias, because everyone is shouting AI is over and so on and so on. We know that, we know all your headlines, Mr. Lochner. And that's why we have to be very clear about one thing right now. My headlines say I'm naively always bullish, even on AI. So I am, so I haven't called off the AI half. Please remind me that when I've answered this question, I'll say something about your personal matter today that's very important to me. So, I'm curious. Conclusion, conclusion, conclusion. Uh, I just want to briefly mention the facts. It's not, it's not self-financed, it's not, uh, IPO financed, it's cross-financed, it's emerged from the profits of the old tech stocks, the P/E ratios are collapsing, and the future is unforeseeable. But there will be a cleansing, and I want to give you a clear example for that now. You were [clears throat] very, very young then. You can only remember the company Yahoo. Of course. And AOL, I can also remember. That was a star at what? At what? At AOL. I'm already in on AOL. Boris Becker, I can also remember. Yes, I'm already in on Boris Becker. We can all remember that, at least of course. So, but I want to stick with Yahoo now, because it's significant for much of my opinion on this. Yahoo was founded in '94. Yahoo had a brutal IPO two years later, a phenomenal IPO, and bought up one small provider after another. So in 2000, Yahoo was at its absolute peak and was worth 125 to 150 billion. That was absolutely, absolutely insane back then. So, then came the stumbling and uh, then there were massive, massive shocks that ultimately brought the company to where it is. In 2002, Yahoo rejected a takeover by Google for 3 billion. Four years later, four years later, in 2006, Yahoo wanted to buy Facebook for a billion. For a billion, and it failed. And in 2008, Microsoft offered 45 billion for Yahoo. And that was, of course, the absolute, that was in 2008, that was the absolute shock. Yahoo rejected it, and then came the total crash into insignificance. Ultimately, they were bought by Verizon in 2016, and today they are a beautiful email platform. What do I want to say with this? Companies like Facebook back then, or Meta, then we have Google today, Alphabet, and then we have Microsoft. Absolute blockbusters and massive wrong decisions. What do I want to say with this example? I want to say that if my portfolio had been set up broadly back then, and I had, and now I come to the cross-comparison to the DCF, if we had had 10, 20, 30 stocks back then, or 40 stocks, and 35, 36 of them had disappeared into insignificance, and there had been an Apple, a Microsoft, a Google back then, and a Facebook back then, Amazon can also be mentioned. I don't have to. Yes, Amazon, of course, I said that. So, then I'm a multi-millionaire, and I don't have to discuss all this at all, depending on how much I invested, of course. What do I want to say? AI is at the beginning, just like the internet was at the beginning. The comparison is only psychological and in terms of development, wrong decisions. The peppered moth, which turned gray and was no longer eaten because the birch trees also turned gray due to industrialization. Exactly, that's what happened. That was a wrong mutation. With Alphabet and the others, it was exactly the opposite, of course. That is to say, AI is in its infancy, areas of application are unpredictable. Valuation, valuation compared to then, an absolute joke. Psychology, in contrast to then, absolutely identical, and this stage of development, like Yahoo and Google and Amazon, the entire AI industry still has ahead of it. That is to say, what I want to say is, we are at the beginning of this movement. Conclusion: No, the rally is not over. Uh, whether we've seen the bottom, we both don't know. That would be completely unserious fortune-telling. Thirdly, the valuations are a completely different story. The company profits are a completely different story, a totally different story. And these stocks, such stocks have no place in a defensive income portfolio. In a balanced portfolio, they may be mixed in at most, and even in a dynamic portfolio, these stocks must be included, but they must be included selectively. They must be diversified across sectors, and within this sector, of course, Teradyne, Palo Alto, Micro Technology, and Nvidia are completely different shoes. And we see from this, for example, that Nvidia has lost far less than, for example, Marvel or smaller ones. We've also talked about that, that we see a selection within these sectors. And all of this is in its infancy. Personally, I say no, the story is not over. Discipline, and this crash must not ruin a person's future and investment strategy. If I am only in these stocks now, my portfolio has lost 20, 30%. And that is of course strenuous. Yes, that is strenuous for the psyche. Yes. Yes, now let. I think my, I think the conclusion has become clear to every, every, every viewer. In any case, understood. Yes, it is of course fortune-telling to say, is this the bottom, but it's about perhaps getting a feel for it. If you look at it, JP Morgan has investigated that in South Korea, where things were going crazy, that this deal leveraging is supposedly already 90% complete. We are now seeing, of course, 40, 50% price drops in some cases. Now it can of course fall further. Yes, granted, that's clear. Nevertheless, the question is, um, do you still have to buy now? So, is this, I asked you before, a historical buying opportunity? Of course, with the risk that it goes sideways or that it falls further. Nevertheless, do you actually have to buy these stocks now? You never miss the absolute peak, and you never hit the absolute peak, and you never hit the absolute bottom. If someone tells me, yes, if we had sold three weeks ago and now we could buy in again, that is the absolutely surest way to lose money. Period. And I'm not willing to discuss that at all, because in 38 years I've learned one thing. I've learned that I can never hit the peak or the bottom, because it's not possible. And I've answered that for the viewers a thousand times, and I'll answer it a thousand more times. If the market looks great, a report comes from China, then that thing will be oversubscribed four times in China. So, and then suddenly it's said, okay, all the others are collapsing now, because China will now take over AI and chips, and then the whole thing collapses 10, 20%. Do you believe that in such movements, then it happens, and you say the next day: "Yes, wait, but if it goes up again, then I'll take profits." Then it doesn't go up, it goes down again, and it goes down again, and down again, and then you sell it because you lose your nerve, and ultimately you buy it back much higher. That's the reality. I'm not answering this question. For the long-term oriented, you can start picking now. For the long-term oriented, you can start accumulating now, but maintain the original allocation. If I had these stocks in my portfolio weighted at 5% and am now at 3%, I'll go back to five. If I had them weighted at 10%, then I'm now at six and I'll go back to 10%. If I'm weighted over 10%, then there's no helping me either. Now, the question is still, is this a trap for the bulls or for the bears? So, oh, compliment, that's a very good question. It's not a trap. Yes, it's not a trap. It's a bear trap because everyone thinks, yes, we can very, very clearly with a, I sometimes tend to give slightly longer answers. This time I can summarize it. Yes, one could theoretically, not theoretically, one could certainly call it a bear trap. AI is over, I told you so, I feel confirmed. Three, four more wrong behaviors together, and that's it. And when we are 20, 30, 40% higher and we come back again, and I am convinced of that, that this, that this game is far from over, then we will know in retrospect. You only know the answer later. Then it would be a, even if it might take a while, then it would be a historical bear trap if the whole thing recovers somewhat. It is a historical bear trap. After the DCF, it is. It wasn't a bear trap, but look, it's always like this, beforehand, smart people like you come. and say, this is a bear trap, or it could be one. And indeed, three, four weeks, months later, we will know. We don't know today. We will know in the future. [sniffle] How important is the momentum despite Yes, please don't forget the momentum. I want to, I want to fundamentally, no, let's do the momentum, and then I'll come, I just mustn't forget it. So, let's come to momentum. So, momentum should be at rock bottom now. Severely battered, severely beaten, because this was a momentum crash that was also historical. There are different numbers. Some say as bad as since 2021, others say as bad as not in 20 years. So, we can agree on that. Momentum has historically definitely plummeted. Uh, how does that manifest itself now? And the question is also, how do you deal with such momentum? That's always the problem. Upwards, it's better not to go against it, otherwise you'll get eaten. But downwards, the question is also, how powerful is it, or how much is needed until it's sustainably braked or even reversed, until it's reversed again. That's also a Herculean task if the first ones say, we've fallen too far, we're too cheap, and press the button, that's it, it'll go fast then. No, no, no, not can. It will go fast. It can't go fast. It will go fast, and it will go brutally fast, because as quickly as liquidity flowed out, it flows back in. Because we have an immense, we have an extreme investment pressure. That's one thing. How big is the momentum at the moment? Always look at the quarterly results, they were outstanding. Banks, this time across the board, banking, consumer, softs, hearts, uh, chips, the quarterly figures were absolutely outstanding across all sectors. You agree with me on that, right? You tweeted it yourself. Yes, you tweeted it yourself. We are far above. So, sometimes you tweet very well, sometimes you tweet very sensible things. Uh, and I have to admit that, and I have to admit that sometimes. Uh, no, the point is, the numbers were excellent, and then the correction came afterwards. That means we have massive, massive, massive outflows, and the capital is there, and capital. But doesn't that mean that all of this was already priced in, that the good numbers were basically all priced in, and that the markets now need something new, or what do we read from this? How can it be priced in if the companies exceed growth by 30, 40%? How can it be priced in? No, now I'll ask you. Yes, now, now I'll ask you seriously, how can it be priced in? You asked me, is the Iran war priced in? No, the end of the Iran war is not priced in. Ukraine is not priced in at all. Uh, you see how sensitive investors are this time, and that's also the reason why it's not really crashing downwards, because investors have learned a lot. They look at the numbers so critically, they interpret the numbers twice, three times before they buy, and they also see how huge the volatilities are. In this quarter, Microsoft 10% after hours, boom. Others that disappoint, yesterday Meta 10% down. It's absolutely, people are so awake, so awake, and so attentive that, just like with positive triggers, of course, relaxation, an interest rate front, uh, war, Iran, and so on, there are so many factors that can reignite things relatively quickly. Although we're talking about, we're talking about, that bothers me a bit now, because we're talking about sentiment. Sure, I understand that it affects many people. It affects our clients less, because we are not overweight or dominantly weighted in this segment. How have your portfolios performed in the last two or three weeks? Yes, before we get to the portfolios, I'll get to the thing that's important to me. After our last interview, I received a lot of feedback. Yes, Mr. Linker, you are a bit aggressive, and you sometimes go after Mr. Lochner too hard, and he doesn't deserve that, and so on and so on. I want to say, these are reasonable emails, man. I'm not having an easy time here. Yes, you also have to read your comments sometimes. There are, I communicate with your followers. I communicate with your followers in three ways. First, they write to me, I reply. Second, the comments. And third, via X, via Twitter. Yes, we are both active there. So, it's not about Lochner. I conduct the interviews with Mr. Lochner for a very clear reason. It makes investors more informed and creates added value. That's why I do it. If I didn't respect and appreciate your work, I wouldn't conduct these interviews with you. Where I have a problem is that in the course of my career, I've experienced so much, so much, and seen so much blood flow, that I simply don't want that. That is to say, for example, 10 years ago, I prevented a person from buying their entire life's work, a real estate purchase in the USA, and it was some shell company in Delaware, and then so many, Mr. Linker, I received an email from somewhere, or I read a comment, or saw something, and I know how much money we actually saved. Saved by shielding these clients and protecting them. And if someone goes on camera, like our dear crash prophets, or whoever, and if a person sees that and makes a wrong decision, it can ruin people's livelihoods, and I have a big problem with that. And when it comes to clients or investors or viewers being unsettled, then I sometimes get carried away. But that's not because I have anything against Mr. Lochner, but because I fundamentally, if I feel that I personally, if I were a layman and heard this, and it would lead me to any rash decisions or short-sighted actions, to massive mistakes, then I'm completely, completely done. And that's why I'm sometimes a bit more impulsive. And I want to say to the viewers out there, please ask yourselves two questions. And with these two questions, 99% of all problems can be solved. [clears throat] Am I working with an institution that has a license, and a state license, not some Delaware or I don't know what. No, a state license from an EU or Switzerland or whatever. That's the first point. And the second point is, will the investment ever leave my depot? Are stocks that I can buy on the stock market, they will be booked into my depot, and the one who does it for me has a license. If I ask myself these two questions and can answer both positively, then nothing can happen to me. If one of these two things is not given, stay away. That, again, is a personal statement. So, now I come to, now I come to the portfolios. Is the question rhetorical now, or do you know exactly what my portfolios look like? The defensive portfolios consist of 90% Zurich, Swiss Life, Swiss Re, and so on, and they have had a rally. So, now the second-tier stocks like you, like Lonza, all these stocks have also had a small rally. Our portfolios are close to all-time highs. The dynamic portfolios have declined somewhat if they have mixed in the AI stocks, i.e., the chip stocks. Now we also have, for example, VAT, but of course VAT has dropped about 15-20% from its peak. Komet also, uh, today Inficon also dropped about 15%, but they delivered such brutal numbers today that it's really just a matter of VAT, by the way, also with historical top numbers, they haven't dropped that much, but they have of course dropped a bit. So, we are slightly below all-time highs. All other portfolios are at all-time high levels because Switzerland, Switzerland is at an all-time high. The stocks, especially the defensive stocks, the dividend-strong stocks, are doing very, very well. A lot of money has also flowed in, right? Because I wanted to ask before, where is all that money going to go? Of course, there are alternatives, we've seen software, of course, we have value. Switzerland is attractive, and even a Coca-Cola has done quite well now. Sure, there are alternatives, but so many alternatives now, when you look at these AI companies, you said the valuations are not for all, but for many, cheap now. Profits are booming, and yes, the whole thing is running. So, one wonders, all the money that has flowed out, where is it all going? It doesn't fit into the rest everywhere, does it? You have to ask yourself that too. Oh, there's enough space. There's enough space. But okay, but you also believe that something will flow back into AI. So, it's not going to be, the stocks won't be completely ignored for 5 years. So, I would say. No, of course not. And I have, and I have also said exactly how we set up the portfolios. I mean, you have to fundamentally imagine. It's somehow about buying outside. No, I'm talking, when I talk to a client or my team, and we set up a profile. I want to know how old they are, what they do, and so on and so on. It's a process that takes time, it's an ongoing process. So, we know our clients, we want to offer our clients optimal protection. The point is, yes, I have to ask the client, what do you want, what do you need? The portfolio will accompany them until the end of their lives. The portfolio must provide them with services. They must connect with their portfolio. And when I know that, and then I know, for example, that I'm buying Müller, no, that I, let me finish, that I'm buying Müller, a Zurich, Swiss Life, and so on, because performance doesn't matter to them. They want to have so and so much, and then it's the highest of all feelings to mix in a Microsoft, an Amazon, or an Alphabet. So, highest of all feelings, and then there are portfolios where, of course, where the old tech stocks are weighted a bit more, and then there are also portfolios where the chips are included. It's all very, very individual. We've understood that. Linker, thank you again for your explanations. Now let's look at the Federal Reserve, the American central bank, because that was a clear statement from Kevin Wash again. He said he wants to achieve the 2% target. He's very straight about that. Now, of course, talk is cheap. The markets then thought, well, if he absolutely wants to achieve that, why doesn't he raise interest rates? And then the markets took matters into their own hands a bit. The bond markets, interest rates are rising, so there's pressure. Now the question is, do we even need further interest rate hikes if the markets are already driving interest rates up themselves? Um, yes, how do you assess that? There's already pressure, isn't there? What do you think why he raised the Sony yesterday? Why did I say before, he wants to, why would he open a whole new can of worms now, because he would have opened a whole new can of worms again now and made the markets even more nervous. Um, no, no. Or because there's no need at all, because the last inflation figures were good. You should have learned to see the trees through the forest by now, since you've been conducting interviews with me. For me, there's a very, very simple explanation. I'm not afraid of inflation. No, I'm not. Well, I am very afraid of inflation. I am very afraid now all of a sudden, I am very afraid of inflation. I've always had it and I will always have it. I've always said, how big, how likely, how it turns out, that I'm afraid. You would have to end the interview immediately, and I would have to hang up my job immediately if I weren't afraid of inflation. He didn't do it yesterday for one single reason. He's giving Trump time. Period. That's the only reason. We can't speculate on how much the ten-year, twenty-year, thirty-year bonds have done. He's giving Trump time. He's giving Trump time, uh, uh, to finally end this thing down there, to end it somewhat cleanly, and to let the oil price collapse, and thus bring inflation down. That's the only thing that has happened. He didn't want to unsettle the markets. The markets have taken matters into their own hands, the Dow Jones fell 1000 points yesterday. The Nasdaq not so much, because of course some good numbers supported it. Today, I know before the market opens, before we started, we were also green in the Nasdaq. For me, for example, for me, on days like these, it's brilliant that I in
America's bloodbath, I see, and the clients' portfolios are rising. Why? Because they are primarily in Switzerland. Safely in a defensive haven. So, but that's on the periphery. He gave Trump time. We don't need to speculate about the future at all right now. I was wrong. Quite clearly. I said the war would be over faster. Twice, three times, four times it had already been the case. That's true, but this, how critical will it get now? Because it dragged on, you know, it really dragged on. Yes, but then we had the feeling it was over, or rather. So, yes, it was actually through that issue. The markets hardly cared about it either. One must also say now that the markets are not panicking generally, not much is happening there. The oil price, yes, 100, now it has crashed back down to 80, then it goes up again. So when will it really get critical? The day before yesterday it was at 81. When will it get critical now? Because Trump, one thinks, now we've talked ourselves into it for a long time, in the sense of, yes, he can't possibly need the war, and then the elections are coming. Now the elections are not so far away. But somehow one has the feeling that things are not really moving forward anymore, and Taco and here and there, Iran has called, that's not working so well anymore either. Many also say, of course, it will work, of course it will work, if he goes to the press this afternoon and says it's quiet. What happens then? Is the oil price back at 75 and the stock markets shoot up 1000 points? Not at all. But then there will be bombing again on the weekend. That's the, that's the, that's a different, that's a different story. That's what I mean by the game. And the Leftist can't have a crystal ball. When Trump really has to fart, I don't know. I was wrong. I thought it would end much faster. Period. I didn't have this back-and-forth on my agenda, and discussing this back-and-forth would be unprofessional. We have to sit it out. We have to sit it out until it's over. And that, and that to your quick question. Will he end it, will he end it in the next 4, 5, 6 weeks and have enough time until the midterms? Believe me, Mr. Wash will not raise interest rates next month either. Because these are always these quick questions. No, even these quick questions, sometimes I don't know, if you ask me which stocks to buy or what I had for breakfast. Okay, but or who will be world champion, those are questions, short questions. Yes, but you're asking me, how long will it take? As long as it takes, what should I answer? I asked how long you're going to keep talking it up, not how long it will take. That was a different question. Yes, the quick questions, they are. I have to get a little bit into gear. I've never talked it up. I've never talked it up. No. Yes, that was a bit provocative. I was wrong with my forecast. I was wrong with my forecast. How long it takes, I haven't talked it up. There are things I'm wrong about. There are things I'm right about. At the end of the day, it depends on where I'm wrong or right, what performance is in the portfolios. That, I think, is more important than whether I'm off by two weeks, because every wrong assumption of mine or where I'm not right, one must always question the consequences. But you just said it, yes, the consequence of mine, the consequence, the consequence of that, in sum, the consequence of where I'm right and where I'm wrong, that's what's crucial, I think. Also a consequence, which I find very interesting. The crash prophets have been telling us for years. Oh wow, AI and the market, and if it sinks, well, one can't sugarcoat it now either, it has sunk. What did the market do? Actually almost nothing, right? So, how confused was that forecast? The forecasts have been confused for 100 years. [Laughter] Although the real crash stars, they only came after the dot-com bubble, where they were right once, and Lehman, they were right twice. That was it. And this crash prophecy at all? No, this crash prophecy, I have to say one more thing. When did it, yes, that's really, I find it excellent now, Lochner. When was the last time it really rumbled? Tell me, really rumbled? You mean the broad market or what? You know my, you know my, not my theories, but the three times we've had a scare. The three times we were genuinely worried. You know that. You know that. I would say even today. Was already, yes, but was already, and of course Corona. Clearly 2020. Liberation Day is two years ago. Yes, that was already not even, not even or once April. When was it? April 25th, it must have been, right? Yes. Yes. And it rumbled quite a bit then, but really, really, but really, really. Exactly. 20th. But it really, really crashed was Corona. Do you know how long ago that was? That's six and a half years, not quite 2020. Historically, that's nothing. Nothing. That's a blink of an eye. That means we had a bloodbath 6 years before. Where are the markets now? And now you ask these crash prophets, and they were right, and at Lehman Brothers they were right. And how long did they remain right? 3 months, 4 months, 5 months, 6 months, and then you want to tell me that based on this timing, someone plays this game without ruining themselves? With Corona, it was more like two weeks, if at all, it went up again very quickly. Yes, well, that's not normal, of course, but it wasn't two weeks. No, it wasn't two weeks. And then people always say I'm getting upset. No, it was a quarter. It really crashed in January, February, and three, four months. No, I mean from the low, from the low mid-March, it went up relatively quickly again. That's also dangerous to believe that it always goes so quickly. Yes, that, that, that signaled the trend reversal. Everything is right, of course, to be taken with caution. It doesn't go that fast. But what do I, but what do I, but what do I want to say with that? What is the message for the viewers? What is the message for our viewers? The message for our viewers is that humans tend to think myopically. Myopically. That means, I'm interested in what's tomorrow, what's the day after tomorrow, and what's maybe next week. What's in 10, 20, 30 years or in 5, 6, 7 months, I don't give a damn about. But our brain is programmed so that I orient myself short-term. Not short-term, short-term is correct, short-sighted is wrong. And because of that, I sometimes let myself be blinded, and that's of course, that one has to say, I can't become a millionaire on the stock market overnight. No, that doesn't work. But if I behave disciplined my whole life and invest sensibly, and don't listen to the crash prophets, and I save from my own mouth and build up my money, then I will be wealthy or a millionaire, and the whole thing is only possible through stocks, because the stock itself is the foundation, for the thousandth time. The stock is the basis and the foundation of a social market economy. A social market economy. That means that without the stock market, the state would never be able to build up so much capital, gross domestic product, and so on and so on. Unfortunately, the opposite of what is happening in Germany at the moment. So, the stock is the basis for the whole system to have fuel, and that is money. Money, and many things would not be possible today without the greedy shareholder financing this company. What does the shareholder want? He just wants his dividend. The shareholder wants his dividend. He doesn't want anything else. In the event of insolvency, he's at the very back of the line, very far back, and says, I just want my dividend, and the company is bankrupt. He gets nothing. Is that greed? No, that's not greed. Of course, without this, without this, this system wouldn't work, and the system doesn't work by stealing money from millionaires and giving it to those who don't work, but the system works by taxing and burdening incomes sensibly and making this capital available to people who are also in need. And that, for me, is a social market economy. You just mentioned it, for that, I'm happy to pay taxes. You just mentioned it. Germany, the dissatisfaction. Yes, Mr. Merz is very far ahead in terms of dissatisfaction. There are always new polls. I don't have the exact number in mind, but there are many, when young people are asked who want to emigrate in the coming years, then we are at 20, sometimes 30%. That's concerning. And Switzerland is also a place of longing, of course. Is that becoming more and more noticeable? So it's been like this for years, has it broken through, is it even more so, because our economy is currently in a very weak state, to put it diplomatically. Yes, I mean, I also shared that with my followers on Twitter. I mean, the BMW story, as a Munich resident, it should actually bring tears to your eyes, that something like that, let's say, it's not just BMW, it's also, yes, no, it's now, no, but it's an example, an example from current events, you can cry about that, or the Left has overtaken the SPD. You have to imagine that. A left-wing party, a successor party to undemocratic parties, overtakes the people's party SPD. Isn't that, isn't that alarming? That shows that we have a new, a new feeling for life in Germany, namely, let the state pay. I find it shocking, dreadful. Yes, certainly. Clear. But it's also a pathetic performance by the SPD. One must also say that. It's no wonder they're not elected anymore. So, yes, but is the Left performing better? No, of course not. That's what I wanted to say, in terms of populism, in terms of populism, it performs quite well. Yes, one has to acknowledge that now. Yes, we talked about my favorite politician, Ms. Reichine, in our last conversation, and that reflects my view, I think, and yes, the center must return, the center must become strong, it can't be otherwise. And it must, it must be a jolt through Germany. And I'm still of the opinion, he will, I'm not someone who says Germany is dead. No, Germany has always managed it. We will be first again in football too. But it's about, your football competence, there, there, and well, you're a Werder Bremen fan, what can one expect, but spare us that today. Ah, but your final, your final was also fantastic. France. But I said before the World Cup, Spain. I was only swayed by France and England. You only, you only confused the final with the third-place match, but that can happen. So, with so much emotion, it can happen. The fiery Argentinians also clouded my mind a bit, I have to admit. Who, who, the fiery Argentinians? I was very impressed by how they turned the game around against England. That, yes, in the end, that confused me a bit, but okay. Um, Spain, I said before the World Cup, that was also the most logical. If you, if you make the effort to come to Zurich again, we can discuss it. But no, I'll put that aside. Um, the digital euro, that's the best way to "Big Brother is watching you" and the best way to expropriate people. I've received many questions, and I promised to explain what I mean when I say expropriation through the digital euro. I'll give just one small, I'll give just one small example. I want to buy a house. I get an offer and have to buy a house. Now it will be processed through the digital euro. I will have to pay a sum of maybe 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 800,000 euros for this house. Then I will have to submit an application, and until it is approved and until the whole, until the whole procedure is completed. This is a, this is a, a, an effort. The bureaucracy involved is unimaginable. And by the time it's all done and processed, the house will have been sold two more times. That means I miss an opportunity. I can continue, I could give countless examples, but then they'll say the Leftist is a fantasist. No, this is something I see as a very serious threat. A very serious threat. This is an attack. This is an attack on democracy and freedom. And it's not for nothing that people in Switzerland fought to have cash enshrined in the constitution. Period. And that's exactly it. Why do you think the reason the franc keeps rising, or certainly also a, yes, at the moment, at the moment we are indeed seeing a pause. In the big picture, we have tested all-time highs. No, that's also important. We have tested all-time highs and are now 2% above, about one and a half, 2% above, and the National Bank has to twist its arms. The Swiss National Bank is doing an outstanding job. Truly an excellent job. No discussion. It is so. And of course, this standstill is also very, very good for industry. Of course, the franc is still too strong, and it will continue to rise, no question, but it's simply a standstill for companies' planning, to assimilate, to recover, to breathe. This is also, incidentally, like the oil price and the situation in the US. One doesn't like to plan with an oil price that's going up and down like a roller coaster, and there needs to be calm, and then inflation will come down. Sometimes the interconnections are such that I sometimes, when something comes to mind later, yes, I have to, I have to do that before. I didn't want to drag it out with inflation either, so I have the utmost respect for it, and I'm also very glad when this oil price finally comes down significantly. I just meant I'm not afraid of it, the last inflation figures were good, they were significantly better than expected. Of course, the oil price, despite the war, despite the roller coaster. Yes, exactly. Of course, after that, the next inflation figures could be a bit worse again. Perhaps not a catastrophe, but perhaps a bit worse. Nevertheless, recently all figures have been good. The US economy is good, consumption is booming. The last inflation figures were significantly better, not slightly, but significantly better than expected. So market breadth is coming in. Um, so actually, if we take out AI and the Iran war, I actually have to say, report good. Actually, everything is running perfectly, right? If I approach it naively now, but maybe it's running almost too well. That's why the volatility is too high, because it's running very well. Markets are not logical. Markets are not logical, markets are psychological. And you don't get rich overnight on the stock market. Those are stupid sayings. But it's actually true. Sometimes it's pain, and sometimes it requires patience, and sometimes it's like this, it's stumbling very hard at the moment, no question about it, but as I said, it's stumbling for portfolios that are poorly positioned. If a portfolio consists entirely of AI, then it's clear, it's the same as if a portfolio consists of crypto and you're somewhere at 100, 110 for Bitcoin, then you're down 60%. Well, although I refrain from any forecasts there. Precious metals are the same in green. Regarding gold, has your opinion changed? Probably not. Gold and silver. No, no, there I would, no, there I would actually repeat the statement from our last interview. Gold is looking for its investment identity. I would say that. And then you can remember my statement. Silver will return to its normal range. Silver is nonsense. Silver is going to 200. Silver is coming back to the normal range, and those are also things where I'd rather be out too early than too late. That's very clear. Although, as I said, silver is a different story than gold. They are two different things. We've already discussed it. Gold is mentioned in the Bible. Even the wise men brought gold, not silver or palladium. And that's why, that's why gold, I didn't want to interrupt you. Before we get to the wise men, I'd like to briefly talk about Nestlé. You were right about that. You always said you didn't like it. They've disappointed again. We haven't, can't we finish the precious metals first? Gladly. Oh, I thought that was it with the wise men. Gladly. Then finish the wise men. So, the wise men brought gold and not silver, palladium, and frankincense. And there it stands, and frankincense. Yes, well, frankincense isn't traded on the stock market. Shame, but so, this omnipresence of gold, people physically, a bar of chocolate, nice, about 1 kg of gold, so, and that brings security, brings, whether that's rational or not rational, let's leave that aside. Professor Henz says what he said last time, I don't know where he said it, with you. Yes, exactly. There was an unbelievable, an unbelievably large amount of feedback. 90% stocks, 10% gold or that's just, yes, only, as I said, I know Professor Henz, my dear Thorsten, a very, very close friend of mine for decades, but we don't always agree 100%. He should have emphasized that he means, yes, when stocks are down, then I buy more, and then I go back to. But he already explained that you use the opportunity, but yes, wait, but then you should have asked him, where is down and where is up? That he, that is of course Thorsten, and then Thorsten will say, we'll discuss that with the Leftist. That's right, because that's exactly this active process that I so extraordinarily appreciate, although Professor Henz is technically, the Leftist can pack up. But conclusion: Gold is looking for an investment, for an investment philosophy. The chocolate bar in the safe provides security for people. They like to have that. Whether it's irrational, let's leave that aside. It does people good. And why is the volatility in gold also not so incredibly high? Yes, whether I press the button, or I have to open my safe, take out the chocolate bar, drive to the dealer with inflated conditions, sell it, get my money back. That's a procedure that can't be decided overnight. Therefore, the volatility in gold is also a very logical, simple explanation, at least mine. So, and now we come to Nestlé. Now you just said, discuss, where is down. So, you said before, reading tea leaves, now to say it's definitely down or the low, but let's hold on, historical bear trap, if we look at it from a medium to long-term perspective. So one can definitely, or should start buying. So, I think we can hold on to that, right? As a supplement, technology belongs as a supplement. Technology belongs in every at least balanced portfolio, old economy, and one or two picks. In dynamic portfolios, the picks belong. Not overweight, but mixed into every. Not in income, balanced, upward, and then weighted accordingly. Of course, I weight Amazon. Of course, I weight Amazon, Alphabet differently than a Terad or a Palo Alto. That's logical. Then let's get to Nestlé. You're not a fan, you were right. It's been torn apart again. It was already sold off considerably. Yes, maybe a brief assessment again, so many questions about it. So, you were confirmed in your cautious stance. Yes, also a few, a few comments on X, so on Twitter, a few comments of misunderstanding. I don't like the stock. Well, but [snort] that also belongs, that stock, Danone. Months ago I said, better Danone than Nestlé. If I want to invest in that segment, then rather Danone than Nestlé. Well, Danone has, Danone has brought top figures. Nestlé nothing. Children, the children's food scandal, still this story. I have, for example, very, very many clients, clients who forbid me to buy Nestlé because they don't like the water policy, because they don't like the food policy. Yes, exactly. Yes. And if even one in ten clients tells me, or one in fifteen clients says, Linker, please no Nestlé, and they note that in their investment guidelines with us, that they don't want to buy Nestlé, then imagine how people are worldwide. So I could talk for hours about why not, but the numbers are not good. Nestlé missed the opportunity to acquire abroad with the strong franc. A strong franc is bad for exports, but of course brutally good when a Swiss company wants to acquire abroad, then it's a blessing, and they missed the opportunity to do so, which, for example, Novartis does excellently, which many others do excellently. That was just an example, and that's something that burdens the entire company structure. Structurally, I don't like it. The stock has too much. Of course, a turnaround is possible, and the 3, 4% dividend, that's simply, there are really, really, really, I mean, I can think of 20, 30 stocks at once that have a higher dividend and that I'd rather have in my portfolio. Mr. Linker, then perhaps your perfect closing words. I think it fits better than ever. What would you like to convey to investors? I would like to sincerely thank investors and our viewers for their attention, for the respect of the exchange. As always, both in the comments and on Twitter. I want to tell clients, investors, stay calm. Nothing has happened. These are normal processes that are unfolding. Markets are not logical, they are psychological, and the biggest mistake is and remains not investing. And I wish everyone a wonderful remaining hot summer. Thank you very much. Yes, it's very warm here, but it's still bearable. So, I hope you're nicely cooled down at home. Thanks to Zurich and thank you for watching. We are very happy about your comments. Please subscribe to the channel so you don't miss such interviews and highlights anymore, and please give us a thumbs up if you liked it. Feel free to write in the comments. Thank you, thank you. We're out. Until next time. Bye. [Music] [Music] [Music]