Transcription
And hello everyone and welcome to IQ Invest for this new video in which we will talk about three companies. We will notably talk about Mastercard, Pernod Ricard, and Hermès, and also a little bit about LVMH because we have quite a few things to say about these companies today. But before that, before getting to the heart of the matter, I wanted to go back to two questions, or rather two comments that were made in my last video on Adobe and Constellation Software, which was released last Sunday. So the first comment is from Tenia 3245 who tells us: "Personally, I don't see the risk with Adobe. Ultra-pessimistic scenario, you gain nothing in 10 years. Neutral scenario minus, you double your stake. Neutral scenario plus, you bought a quality at a gift price. And optimistic scenario, it's Warren who buys Apple." For my part, I disagree with this comparison of Warren Buffett buying Apple, quite simply because Warren Buffett bought Apple in 2016, a year during which Apple had no problems since it had launched the iPhone a few years prior. They had the iPad, the Apple Watch. It was truly the period of absolute growth for Apple and everything was going well. In fact, they had no internal problems and above all, they had no threat of external disruption to the point where Adobe is today. And at the time, Warren Buffett bought Apple at something like a 10-11 P/E, which was absolutely ridiculous and which is still cheaper than what Adobe is trading at today since Adobe today, from memory, is around a 14 P/E. If we look at TTM P/E 13.99, so 14, that's right. So Adobe is today more expensive than what Warren Buffett paid for Apple in 2016, and on top of that, it has structural problems, internal problems, and external problems, which was not the case for Apple in 2016. So for me, the situation has absolutely nothing in common. And yes, in Warren Buffett's case in 2016, the question of Apple being a good investment didn't even arise, obviously. For Adobe, I am not at all as certain and I am not at all as categorical since for me, you have almost a 50/50 chance that in 5 years, the company no longer exists. So yes, the valuation is attractive, yes, it can be interesting to take a position, but be careful because it is not at all a safe investment. And I've seen quite a few past comments on Adobe saying that it's the best investment of all time and that it's ultra-safe and that at this valuation, you can't go wrong. Personally, I disagree. I think that at this valuation, you can absolutely go wrong and it can absolutely turn out to be a completely rotten investment if it turns out that the company has no interest in 5 years and that it is completely replaced by AI. In short, that was my point of view on Adobe, but that doesn't stop me from having a small position given that I have, let me tell you right away. You know what? Let's go back to Bagger in a new tab. Bagger, you have the link in the description if you want to try the app for 14 days. There is no commitment. You have a free trial. You don't even need to enter your bank card. You open an account and you test it for 14 days. And so I was telling you about Adobe, if we look at stocks, it's 1.86% of my portfolio. So it's a negligible position, but I still decided to take a position for all the reasons I've stated. So in this video, which I encourage you to watch. The second comment was from Max François 1342 who says: "This also applies to Topicus. By the way, look at the free cash flow, it's not relevant. You have to look at the free cash flow available to shareholders that management provides in its report, which is about 30% lower." Well, listen Max François 1342, that's Constellation Software. Again, if you don't know it, go watch the video I made last week, and even go watch the analyses I've done on the channel about Constellation Software. I didn't know this metric of free cash flow available to shareholders. So well, I'll go check it out, I'll go inform myself because I don't know what it is. And so indeed, to close this parenthesis on Adobe and Constellation Software, I was telling you that for me, it's not at all comparable to Apple in 2016, and it's even less comparable to Meta. It's at best more comparable to a Google. Why? Because Meta in 2022, Meta was falling due to internal factors. That is to say, it was the management's decision to invest in the metaverse and send millions, even billions, in capex into the metaverse, which turned out to be a total flop. And that's what caused Meta's valuation to collapse, and that's what created the opportunity on Meta. So these were internal factors that have nothing to do with Adobe today, since Adobe is facing external factors with AI, but also and above all with competition, because we must not forget that we have competition from Canva, and Canva is not just Canva, it's also now Affinity, which is free, so that's staggering competition. And we also have competition from Apple, which has launched its Creator Studio. We also have competition from Figma plus AI plus the reputation problems internally with Adobe's reputation and the CEO's departure. In short, we have quite a few factors for Adobe that mean that for me, it's not at all comparable to the opportunity that was Meta in 2022, and it's at best more comparable to a Google, where with Google, we had this threat of AI that was threatening Google Search's business model, and we also had external factors with the DoJ lawsuit and the risk of Google Chrome being dismantled. And we didn't, we didn't necessarily have internal factors for Google. So it was mainly that, even though I think that with Google, we didn't have all the competition problems, and we didn't really have the competitive advantage issues that Adobe has today. So for me, it's not quite comparable either, in the sense that Google had a much better competitive advantage than Adobe, and the disruption by AI for Google was less severe, in the sense that we knew more or less that Google would also try to respond with its own AI models. In short, whatever, parenthesis closed. Before moving on, I remind you that you have my website IQ-invest.fr. You have the link in the description, and on this site, you have the partner page where I put links for my partners. So Interactive Brokers, my main partner. If you want to open a stock account or an ISA with them, Louv Invest, you can earn €25 if you want to invest in SCPIs. It's the best SCPI broker on the market in my opinion. Fortunéo, my main online bank. Spico for earning interest on cash, especially if you have a company, it's very practical, Revolut, and Bitstack. In short, go take a look if you want to open accounts, earn bonuses, and support the channel in the process. And you also have the library page where you will find my book and also quite a few books that I make available via Amazon affiliate links that I recommend. And then you also have the website focusfundamental.fr. You have the next event on April 18, 2026, in Paris, which will be from 6 PM, so Saturday evening at 6 PM in Châtelet, and we are already over 44, I think we are 46 even at the time I'm making this video. So we managed to find a room that can accommodate up to 60 people. So if you want to come join us for a drink in Paris, so a nice little evening in Paris on Saturday evening from 6 PM, then sign up via the Google Form which is here, and you have another Google Form here which allows you to vote for the next cities. For the moment, Aix-en-Provence and Lyon are at the top of the lists for the next events of the Focus Fondamental podcast, which I recommend you subscribe to on YouTube and other podcast platforms if you haven't already done so. That being said, we will try to be efficient, and for that, we will talk about Mastercard. We will start with Mastercard. I don't think it needs any introduction. Apparently, you all know Mastercard's business model. If you have questions about Visa, assume that everything I'm going to say about Mastercard today also applies to Visa. Honestly, the two companies are almost identical. It's really a matter of preference. Personally, I have a preference for Mastercard. If you prefer Visa, everything I'm going to say applies in exactly the same way. So Mastercard, the business model. If you don't know what it does, go look on my YouTube channel. I've already done analyses on it. That will give you an idea of the company. But globally, we're talking about Mastercard because it's falling. It's falling notably since August 2025, where it has lost about 25% from its highs. And yes, for Mastercard, that's a lot because it's a company that is always expensive, and you can see that it's one of the biggest drops in recent years, if we exclude Covid. So, believe it or not, we have non-negligible buying opportunities on Mastercard today, and it is therefore on my watchlist with a 15% annual return. If you want to see my valuation here, I took the free cash flow per share, 14% annual growth, 28 final multiple, I have a fair price of $593 for Mastercard. So we have a 15% margin of safety today, which is, I must say, very, very good. So Mastercard, we have several things that are causing the stock to fall. First, we have the national cap on credit card interest rates at 10% per year in the United States. So, what is this? It's a new whim of Trump's. It hasn't officially passed yet, I believe. It's just been announced. And Mastercard is a network. So Mastercard doesn't lend money itself, unlike banks. But this measure of a 10% cap on interest rates, particularly on credit cards, threatens the entire ecosystem because banks like JPMorgan, Citi, etc., which issue credit cards, go through the Mastercard payment network, become less profitable. If they become less profitable on credit, they might reduce card benefits and renegotiate the fees they pay to the network. And the market hates the regulatory uncertainty this creates, and there's a study that estimated that this cap would cause US banks to lose $100 billion in interest revenue per year. And so this explains the panic in the entire credit card ecosystem because less money for banks potentially means less fees paid to Visa and Mastercard for card usage. Then, we also have regulatory pressure. So this is an important point, especially in Europe, since we had a big blow in the UK, where the High Court recently confirmed the regulator's power, the PSR, to cap cross-border interchange fees, and they also rejected the appeal of Visa and Mastercard in mid-January 2026. So globally, we potentially have fee caps that will be voted on for Visa and Mastercard, which will directly threaten their margins and their competitive advantage. So if we start to have regulations, particularly in the UK and Europe, on capping these fees, then of course it slows down Mastercard's growth, it slows down its margins, and it causes the stock price to fall. Then Mastercard had to provision over $500 million at the end of the year to cover legal disputes with merchants, who consider network fees too high. And these "hidden" fees are in the crosshairs of governments worldwide to combat inflation. So indeed, even if Mastercard and Visa take something like 0.5% in fees on transactions, for businesses with 3% margins, it's still a significant amount of fees, especially on very, very large volumes. So it's this type of fee that is being challenged by governments and regulators everywhere. Especially since Visa and Mastercard are duopolies, which attracts even more regulation. But I want to say, is all this just hot air? I don't know, but I want to say these are problems that Visa and Mastercard have always had, and I think they will always have, as long as you have a duopoly with such solid businesses, you will always attract regulators. But for me, the real big threat and potentially what casts the most doubt on the stock price of Visa and Mastercard is account-to-account. So, what is this? It's all alternative payments that don't go through credit cards. Personally, I don't know what to think about it because, in fact, I'll admit to you quite simply that I've never tried this type of solution, but apparently it's very popular, especially in Latin America and Asia. So, in fact, these are payment systems where instead of using a credit card, you use QR codes. So you scan a QR code with your phone, and it pays directly, what is called account-to-account, so from account to account, without an intermediary, and therefore without the fees on cards. So here, I have 2 to 3% fees on a credit card. So apparently, it would be higher than the 0.5% fees I told you about, but 2 to 3% fees still seems high to me. And account-to-account via open banking. So apparently, it would go down to 0.3 to 0.5% fees. So for a supermarket or an airline ticket seller, the savings amount to hundreds of millions of dollars each time, of course. Then, in Europe, since October 2025, the European regulation on instant payments obliges all banks in the Eurozone to offer instant transfers at the same price as a classic transfer, which is often free. So, the technical infrastructure is finally there for paying by bank, sorry, to be as fast as contactless. And we also have the success of foreign models like Pix and UPI in Brazil and India, where account-to-account has literally crushed card networks in a few years. And so it's proof by example that if the UX and the solution are fluid, then we no longer use our credit card. And it's true, upon reflection, that I tell myself that we are increasingly accustomed to Apple Pay, Google Pay. Personally, I always pay with my phone. I never take my credit cards with me. So, in fact, if tomorrow, instead of using Apple Pay with a credit card, you scan a QR code with Apple Pay, I'd say it would be a relatively similar user experience, and potentially the adoption friction would be low. So personally, I don't really know what to think about this account-to-account for now. I don't think it's a huge problem for Visa and Mastercard in the short term. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it will completely disrupt these two companies. For now, I prefer to wait and see. And by the way, there's a thesis that was written by Antoine Clarifin Finance, which you'll also find on X under the same name, "Account-to-Account Payments: Threat or Catalyst in the Long Term" on Mastercard, which was written on March 12, 2026, which I encourage you to read if the subject interests you and you want to delve a little deeper into the account-to-account topic. Then, it should be noted that Visa and Mastercard have not been idle, since Visa Account-to-Account was officially launched in early 2026 and allows banks to offer instant transfers managed by Visa. They add a layer of buyer protection, similar to chargebacks, to reassure the customer. There's also the acquisition of infrastructure, since they've acquired companies like Finicity or Plaid, and they control the open banking pipelines, I believe Plaid, if I'm not mistaken, is owned by Visa. So globally, the threat is not necessarily the disappearance of Visa and Mastercard in the short term, but potentially margin compression, because if they go from 2% fees on credit cards to a world where they only have 0.2% fees, then of course it will reduce their volume and reduce their margins. In short, all this to say and to conclude on Mastercard, for me it remains a very solid bet. For now, I wouldn't know what to tell you if I plan to increase my stake in Mastercard or not. It's already a large position in my portfolio, potentially. Listen, in any case, what's certain is that I think it's an opportunity today. Obviously, this is not investment advice. Do your research, do what you want, you are responsible for your money, but I think it's potentially a good opportunity today on Visa and Mastercard. Same for Visa, we're at 13% return. I have a fair price of $309, but still worth watching closely, because this account-to-account story could be a medium to long-term threat. Then, we'll talk about Pernod Ricard. Pernod Ricard is on my dividend watchlist, and Pernod Ricard has a yield of 7% today. I bought Pernod Ricard in January and February as part of my dividend strategy, since it pays a 7% dividend, of course. By the way, if you want to see my watchlists, I'll put a link in the description. You have public watchlist sharing now on the Bagger app, and it allows you to view all my watchlists and my fair prices. Even if you don't have an account, even if you don't have a subscription, it doesn't matter, you can access my watchlists for free like this. So, well, go check them out if you're interested. But Pernod Ricard, for me, the narrative is always the same. It hasn't changed. Why is it falling? Because the results are a bit poor, quite simply, for the second half of 2025, since Pernod Ricard declares its profits semi-annually. We had €975 million in revenue, a decrease of 18% compared to the previous year. So indeed, compared to the €1.20 billion that was made in the second half of 2024, an 18% drop. So indeed, rather bad results, bad results mainly due to China. I think you know the saying. China is falling. China represents 42%, at least Asia and the rest of the world represent 42% of sales, but we don't have the exact breakdown for China, but we have -27% sales in China for the second quarter of 2025. We have weak consumption in China, you know. We also have the inventory problem in the United States. I have the impression that it's an eternal problem that doesn't want to be resolved. I have the impression of seeing the same narrative as with Evolution AB, where each time we had increasingly poor results, and the management would tell us, "Yes, but it's always due to the same problems." And we want to say, "Yes, but after 3 years, shouldn't it be resolved?" Chinese taxes also, which are part of the geopolitical game we have today, with threats here and there of taxes, particularly on European alcohols and cognac. American taxes also, with Trump's tariffs, his latest whim of wanting to impose 15% tariffs worldwide. I don't even know where that stands. I don't know if it's in effect or not. I don't know. You'll tell me in the comments if you know. But since it changes all the time, it's practically impossible to know. Net profit drop, as I told you, a 18% decline. The exchange rate effect also, since the euro has strengthened against the dollar and certain currencies, particularly the Indian rupee, which also reduces profits. And we have two fundamental problems. We have two fundamental problems for Pernod Ricard, in my opinion, that are more important than these two problems, with charts that I will put on the screen. It's the decline in alcohol consumption. This problem, this narrative, I think it's also weighing on Pernod Ricard's stock price and accentuating the decline because people think that people are consuming less alcohol, and therefore Pernod Ricard's results will be impacted in the long term. What I have to say about this is that if we look at the chart I'm going to put on the screen, we actually see that alcohol consumption globally is decreasing, but not important consumption. That is to say, consumption, for example, of everyday drinks has decreased, but quality drinks have increased. Beer has remained at roughly the same consumption level since the 1960s. Spirits have barely moved, champagne has increased, and cider has collapsed. So, in fact, what we see in black and white on this chart is not just a simple, stupid drop in alcohol consumption across all segments of alcohol consumption, but potentially a drop in everyday alcohol consumption, that is to say, the alcohol you drink with meals, the red wine on the table, that has indeed potentially disappeared, and that's why we see everyday wines and cider collapsing, because people are no longer drinking at every meal as was the case in the 1960s. On the other hand, recreational alcohol, so all that is spirits, champagne, beer, which is more social alcohol, after-work, parties, celebrations, family meals, well, we see that it remains the same, or even increases. Quality wines are increasing, champagne is increasing, spirits are staying the same, beer is staying the same. So, in short, the drop in alcohol consumption, be careful, it needs to be nuanced. It's not all black or all white. I still think that Pernod Ricard doesn't have too much to worry about in the coming years in this regard, given that they are predominantly in spirits, and we see that spirit consumption has hardly been impacted. Again, I'll put another chart on the screen. From 1961, you can see the decline in alcohol consumption. In fact, you can see that it's mainly wine that has collapsed in terms of alcohol consumption. And similarly, on the third chart that I'll put on the screen. You can see that spirits and beer are stable, while wine has collapsed. So this is the first narrative, the drop in alcohol consumption, and I think it's weighing on the stock price, even if, as I told you and I repeat, I don't think it's a structural problem for Pernod Ricard, given that it doesn't concern spirits. And the second point is also the inflation of recent years and the risks of recession and inflation in the coming years, which can also weigh on Pernod Ricard and its margins, since they have pushed for premiumization in recent years. They have increased their prices, they have increasingly premium alcohol brands. And indeed, the question arises in a world where people have less and less money, will you prefer to buy the €9 bottle of Pernod Ricard at the supermarket or the competing pastis at perhaps €6 or €7, a little cheaper, even if it doesn't taste quite the same? Is it not ultimately just as good? That's the question, and I'd say that can reduce Pernod Ricard's margins, but margins that are for now stable. We see that margins remain stable, we see that returns on capital remain stable. Potentially, we are dealing with a drop in revenue that is for now temporary, and we see that it occurs after a strong increase in 2023, but potentially we see that they are still higher than in 2022. So for now, I'd say there's perhaps nothing alarming, except that we need to monitor the dividend. Why? Because it's at 7%, we have debt that is starting to be high, even if it's not at its historical highs. We have a net debt to EBITDA ratio of three. So it's starting to be high, but it's not catastrophic either. And if we zoom out, since everyone is worried about Pernod Ricard's debt, if we zoom out, for me there's nothing alarming. You see that Pernod Ricard has been around 3 or 3.8 in 2013 for net debt to EBITDA for about, well, for about 10-15 years. So I don't see where the alarm signal really is for Pernod Ricard's debt. For me, it's at perfectly acceptable levels. And if tomorrow, indeed, we see the debt to EBITDA ratio go to 4, 5, 6, then I'd say yes, it's starting to be catastrophic. But for me, there is absolutely no risk here. However, indeed, we need to monitor the dividend. Why? Because the payout ratio is starting to be rather high, since we see that as of June 30, 2025, we were at 74% earnings payout ratio and 107% free cash flow payout ratio. So what does that mean? It means that Pernod Ricard is paying out more in dividends than its free cash flow. So potentially, be careful, because here we have a rather negative signal that tells us that Pernod Ricard will potentially have to lower its dividend if its profits and free cash flow continue to fall. So, to be monitored closely. But I'd say in any case, at 7% dividend, even if it were to be halved, you would still end up with a 3.5% dividend. So, for me, there's nothing alarming for now. It's a transition period, and I'd say we'll see what happens in the coming years. Personally, I might potentially increase my stake in Pernod Ricard if it continues to fall. Maybe I'll do it in April, I haven't decided yet. I'll keep you updated in the portfolio video that will be released this Sunday anyway. And then Hermès, and you know what? We'll also open LVMH in a new tab. I think there are also things to say about LVMH. But so Hermès, that's also falling. Hermès is also falling. I'm even in a loss on my position. By the way, if we look at the stock portfolio, Hermès, it's here, 2.95%, so it's a very small position, and we've lost from the highs, which were at €2800, so we've lost 30-40%, 40% from the highs, so clearly it's not negligible. It's falling, and I'd say, in fact, Hermès is falling for reasons that are not really justified, in the sense that its revenues are still good, its profits are still good, it's doing much better than LVMH in this regard. When we look at it, it's striking. Look at LVMH's profits, they have collapsed over the last two years. We had -17% and -13%, whereas for Hermès over the last two years, we had +6% and -1%. So clearly, the company is much more resilient. LVMH's revenues have also decreased, since we had -1% and -4%, whereas at Hermès, revenues have continued to increase with +12% and +5%. Clearly, we see that it is much more resilient. We have stable margins. We have stable returns on capital, despite a slight decrease. We don't have a lot of debt. We have a lot of cash. We have a lot of free cash flow. LVMH is not the same story, since we have a decrease in revenues, a decrease in profits, a decrease in margins, a decrease in returns on capital as well, and an increase in debt with a net debt to EBITDA ratio of 1.78. So clearly, for me, it's not comparable. That is to say, well, it's comparable since both companies are in the same sector, but Hermès is doing much better. So the question to ask is, why is Hermès falling so much? LVMH, at best, its decline is justified. By the way, if we look at the highs, which were around here in 2023, we've lost about 45% from the highs. So indeed, we're starting to have an interesting valuation. By the way, I have a fair price of €468. So potentially, we have an interesting valuation for LVMH, and we also have an interesting valuation with a fair price of €1900 for Hermès. So why is it falling? First, we have the geopolitical and energy shock. You know, the conflict in Iran is making everyone a bit nervous. Energy prices are rising. We also have risk aversion, because of course, discretionary spending, especially luxury goods, in a climate of war, inflation, and rising energy costs, might not be people's priority. We also have the return of trade wars with the US administration's imposition of 10% tariffs on imports from the European Union. So these tariffs have been effective since early 2026, which penalizes the sector, but Hermès has immense pricing power. We also have the normalization of China. You know, it's the same discourse for pretty much everyone, whether it's Hermès, LVMH, or Pernod Ricard. Consumption in China is poor, because what drove luxury for the entire decade from 2010 to 2021-2022 was Chinese consumption. Except that today, Chinese consumption is slowing down. We've had a real estate crisis that continues to weigh on Chinese household wealth. We've had a decrease in foot traffic, particularly in stores, even though Hermès is resisting much better, as I told you, than LVMH or even Kering, facing this decrease in foot traffic. And many banks, including HSBC, have predicted that the first quarter of 2026 could be disappointing compared to market expectations in the luxury market. So all these factors mean that it's actually the luxury sector as a whole that is taking a hit, and Hermès is getting caught up in it. Even though Hermès is probably the company that is doing the best. But be careful, because with Hermès, the factor to also consider is its price, because it is extremely expensive, and well, when you've had a valuation of over 40-50 times earnings, well, even a high of 92 times earnings in 2021, a drop doesn't hurt. You see that the 10-year median is 48, which is enormous, and the 20-year median is 40. So we really have enormous valuation levels on Hermès, and you see that the lowest of the lowest in 2008 was 21.9. So it's really a company that has always been expensive, and potentially it's also correcting because of that, because it's very expensive, and people don't see themselves paying 40-50 times earnings for Hermès given the current climate. So today, it's at a P/E of 42, which is still expensive. Personally, I think it can continue to fall. I think it can continue to fall, and I don't think I'll increase my stake at these levels. Honestly, I think there are better opportunities than Hermès. In particular, personally, I prefer to buy Amazon or even potentially Mastercard. Maybe you won't agree with me, which I can perfectly understand. If for you Hermès is an excellent opportunity right now, then I'd say, buy it. Again, I'm not giving investment advice, but Hermès personally doesn't really interest me, and I'd say maybe I'll increase my stake if it ever reaches €1400-€1200, and for now, it's not my priority at all. So, similarly, similarly, I'd say you have to wait, you have to see how it evolves. But Hermès for me is the one that's doing the best, and it's getting caught up in this whirlwind of panic in the luxury sector. Where it's more complicated [clears throat] and a company that for me has significant further downside potential.
It's LVMH. LVMH why? Because LVMH made many bad strategic decisions and is paying the price today. That is to say, we have a damaged reputation on the LVMH side from the low-end. We have had several scandals that have proven that LVMH manufactures its products in Chinese factories, that Louis Vuitton products are of poor quality compared to the price they are sold at. A problem that we do not have with Hermes. Hermes is expensive but it is always craftsmanship. It is handmade, it is made in France. So the price, even if it is expensive, is justified by exceptional quality, which is not the case at LVMH and even at Kering where we have products that are sold at exorbitant prices for completely mediocre quality. And we notably had the scandal of summer 2025 in Italy where the Milanese justice was singled out, well, singled out subcontractors of major brands, notably Europiana which is one of LVMH's gems, for working conditions that amount to exploitation. So that put enormous pressure on the myth of craftsmanship of the LVMH group since in fact, well, that plus the manufacturing scandals in China, etc., where we saw outright, well, are they fakes? Are they not fakes? We don't know, but the fact is that it came out and it is now ingrained in people's minds, is that we had videos showing Chinese people showing that in fact Louis Vuitton sneakers were made on the same assembly lines as Nike sneakers, that it was completely rotten quality. So that's the first point, and we also have wokeness which has strongly impacted the brand image of LVMH with strong political positioning of the brand, notably on the Wix factions which have been ultra-politicized, and naturally, well, that created a lot of media bad buzz, a lot of bad buzz on social networks which further damaged the brand image of LVMH, and notably the brand image of Louis Vuitton which, in addition to that, suffers from a reputation as a somewhat ostentatious brand, a bit bling-bling, and a bit of a thug brand, a brand for the nouveau riche, and we must not forget that Louis Vuitton alone accounts for more than 50% of LVMH's revenue. I don't know if we have the stats here. Fashion and leather goods, it's mainly, yes, 46% in fashion and leather goods. We notably have Louis Vuitton and apparently it would also be the overwhelming majority of profits since even if it represents 50% of sales, in fact, this Fashion and Leather Goods segment would represent more than 70% of profits. And in this segment, obviously the flagship brand is Louis Vuitton. So if Louis Vuitton has problems with reputation, perceived quality, media bad buzz, well, it will be very, very difficult to get out of it. And for me, we have another problem that is added to all of this, which is the succession of Bernard Arnaud, who is no longer very young and who still does not have an official successor. So we don't know what will happen once Bernard Arnaud leaves. There are many problems. There are many problems and I want to tell you, I sold LVMH. I sold it in November 2024. I am happy to have sold it and I do not honestly think of taking a position in LVMH again, and if I have to possibly reopen a position one day, it will be below €400. So, there you go, I think we've covered pretty much everything. If I have to recap, Mastercard, for me, is a very good opportunity and I could potentially increase it. But for the moment, I prefer Amazon, which is a smaller position in my portfolio and which is a position that I want to build as long as Amazon remains at relatively interesting price levels. So I want to increase my Amazon position as a priority, even if there are other opportunities like Mastercard. Pernod Ricard, I'm not in a hurry either. In March, I made the equivalent of 2 DCA investments in private debt on an Australian private debt fund. So potentially, I will not buy Pernod Ricard in April. In any case, I will not buy dividend stocks either in March-April, and I will buy a dividend stock again in May to complete this income part of my portfolio, and Hermes, Hermes, I'm not in a hurry, it's not necessarily my top priority to increase this position, and LVMH, for me, still has a lot of room to fall, and if it ever goes below €400 or even below €300, well, I want to tell you, if its dividend yield starts to approach 4-5%, it could even integrate my dividend portfolio. So we'll see how all this evolves. But you know, in any case, my preference is for Amazon for the month of April, and I think it's all the more intelligent because Amazon is a marketplace and it's one of the companies that will be, for me, the most resilient to all the geopolitical context we have today. Because if we have the return of inflation, in fact, Amazon will not be impacted, or at least much less so, in the sense that since it's a marketplace, well, people won't stop buying on Amazon overnight. And in fact, the price increase will not impact Amazon's revenue. If its shipping costs increase with the cost of energy, but inflation causes all the prices of all goods and services sold on Amazon to increase, well, it balances out. In fact, Amazon's margins remain more or less the same. The only risk would be that we have a structural decrease in demand on Amazon and that people order less and less. But that, personally, I'm not yet convinced that it's going to happen because people really like buying on Amazon and we have a lot of inexpensive products on Amazon. So, in addition, that justifies buying on it. So, I think we've covered everything. Go check out the Bagger app if it interests you. Go check out IQ Invest on the partner page if you want to open accounts. And with that, I'll say goodbye until the next video. Ciao.