Nous sommes au bord du plus gros Krach de l’Histoire ! (FFP103)

This is unprecedented, in fact, and we are unable to know if it is good, not good. Is it a bubble, is it not a bubble, is it sustainable, is it not sustainable? Nobody knows. As long as there are profits that justify all this, it's not a bubble, it's as simple as that. Hello everyone. You are listening to Focus Fondamental, the meeting point for French-speaking investors every Monday morning at 8 a.m. to talk about stocks, finance, and business. This podcast is powered by Bagger, the first French application that allows you to access over 30 years of stock market data and over 50,000 listed stocks from around the world. You can test the tool for free and without commitment for 14 days via the link in the description. Alongside me for this new episode, we have Mathieu, co-founder of Bagger, whom you will also find on his channels Mathieu JV and Snowball Club. And myself, Hugo, CEO and co-founder of Bagger and also creator of the IQ Invest channel. How are you, Mathieu? I'm doing very well, and you know that I am indeed co-founder of Bagger, but that doesn't stop me from sometimes sending you little WhatsApp messages to ask you how such and such a thing works. That's how it is. We didn't contribute in the same way. But this story is taking a nice turn. So today, I don't know if I'll be able to clear as much ground as I can with this software. So I'm very happy about it. Do you remember the guy who hammered us on Twitter saying it was useless, that he could get everything for free and at Bagger's expense? Yes. And I had prepared a response that I didn't send. So indeed, you have a lot of things that we offer on Bagger that are public and free data. But in fact, the mega company called Standard and Poor's Global also compiles public and free data, and they spend a crazy amount of time on it. If you had to recompile 40 years of Microsoft's history into an Excel file and program all your charts, and you have to do that for all companies, in my opinion, you'd spend a year's salary. That's why when you're interested in the prices of Bloomberg terminals or standard licenses for tens of thousands of euros per year. So, we save a lot of time. That's the main point. I feel it a lot. I see that I'm able to cover a lot of ground. Which has given me quite a few ideas lately. The problem is that most of the time they are too expensive. Exactly. No, but it's clear in itself, yes, you can have all the data that is freely available. You go to the SEC website in the United States, you go to Microsoft's file and you download Microsoft's last 40 10-Ks and then you reprocess them in Excel or whatever to make your income statements and so on, neat. And you have Microsoft's entire file. Well, if you do that for 50,000 companies, it will indeed take a little while. Or you don't have the screener. It's true that we had an incredible challenge because in the functioning of all these things, creating a screener involves a certain database logic that many sites offering company files do not offer this screener because there's a data issue with APIs and so on. And it's another challenge to have this kind of tool. The portfolio, let's not even talk about it. So again, in itself, if you really want to spend €0, you can absolutely create an Excel file, a huge Excel file where you list all your transactions and calculate your TWR by hand. But well, again, it's still a huge time saver. Yes. Yes. After, I don't know if people feel like we're doing some kind of advertisement or a big push, but the reality is that we started like that. That is to say, you remember very well the time when an Excel file was enough in a YouTube video where you did a cash flow calculation and you had 30 emails from people saying "Can I have it? Can you send it to me?" So that's how we built these businesses. When I set up Snowball on the principle of sharing investment tests, it's because it didn't exist anywhere. Whereas for me, it's the key to investing, it's being able to tell this story that overlays the financial figures you see and explains what the advantages and business strategies are that companies choose to follow to ultimately generate these accounting figures which are otherwise all the same for all companies. And in the end, it's combining all these ideas where every time we implemented them, people asked us for an accessible mechanism to be able to replicate these methods, and that's how we created Bagger. Exactly. Exactly. Now, this is not an advertisement. It's not an advertisement. Excuse me. We actually have a real podcast planned behind this because we've been talking for 5 minutes. We haven't even started the podcast yet. No, but I want us to continue for 2 more minutes on this because there is truly a question of mindset, Hugo. There is a real question of business mindset that you and I have done this for very specific reasons. That is to say, when you question the mode of businesses, the principle of the mode is that it is an insurmountable barrier. And when my brother started entrepreneurship, he currently has a luxury artisanal product store. He took a very specific niche. There were a lot, if you like, of peasant product stores, you know. We see all these stories of local peasant products, and in fact, the producers don't know how to transform them. So they often undervalue their products very poorly. And my brother, he made foie gras, and precisely the added value in foie gras is the transformation. And the production part is super annoying, you see. Except that he had to have the production part to be listed in these local producer stores. Otherwise, you're not listed if you're not a local producer. And yet he realized that all the added value for people who want to buy something good, in general, requires an artisan who is capable of transforming the product in a certain way. And we all know that there are butcher shops that are completely disgusting and there are butchers who make incredible sausages. And so in the end, because we are talking about Bagger and entrepreneurship, even if I'm talking about sausages, the subject is to identify a dysfunction. The reality is that we built Bagger like that. That is to say, every time we identified an inefficiency or we see something that is offered to us in a certain way and where we believe it would be better in another way, that's how we develop, that's how we create a company. And so normally, when you identify an inefficiency, it's a highway to create something that doesn't exist or to improve something on which you have identified a defect. And it turns out that when you do that on many subjects, you encounter barriers which are the famous moats, and you must have this thought experiment about moats, namely what will block you if you have identified an inefficiency and you say "I could correct it." Ultimately, you will quickly hit an obstacle. For example, in our case, if someone thinks they can make better software than us, I think they will say "Ah yes, but no one will hear about it." And so we have a moat in this podcast in the fact that we had well-known YouTube channels for 3 or 4 years, and that is not replicable. And from there, you can conclude whether or not a company has a moat with this thought experiment of putting yourself in the shoes of the entrepreneur who would make the product more efficient or more effective. So, for all those who think that things should be done differently, go for it. Exactly. Well, good introduction that has nothing to do with today's topic, since today we are going to talk about, well, a bit about the news, because it's been quite some time since we've come back to it. The last podcasts we did were a bit disconnected from all that since we did the PEA. Then we saw Julien, we talked a bit about AI. Even if it's part of the news, it's not really. And then we had Charles Elias, which was a podcast we recorded a few weeks, a few months ago, so it was really completely disconnected from current events. So it won't hurt to come back to it because things are moving a lot right now, and there are still many things happening with D3 of Ormous, with all these Iran stories. In addition to that, we are at historical highs in the markets. I don't know about you, but my portfolio is crazy. In the last two weeks, I must have gained, I must have gained the equivalent of €10,000, maybe a little less in capital gains. It's just crazy. So, we'll come back to all that as well. We'll take a lot of questions from the last podcasts, in particular. It's been a long time since we've done some Q&A, and there are some pretty good ones that have come up. So, Mathieu, please, if you want to start by giving your opinion on all this. Well, the subject of markets breaking records is always pleasant because when it goes up, everyone is beautiful, everyone is smart. We're achieving portfolio performance scores worthy of the greatest investors of all time, on whom I've trained myself a lot. So obviously the question arises of being able to distinguish between what is due to luck and circumstances and what is due to competence. And obviously, when everything is soaring, you feel like you've understood something. So, at the end, when you find yourself in these circumstances, you obviously have people who tell you "Are you selling? Are you taking profits?" And then others say "The market is too expensive." Generally, it's those who haven't gotten into it. That's obvious. And there is obviously an eye that I keep on the super investors. You know that we cover their portfolios. For me, there are two interests and two things to remember. The first is that it's very difficult to get ideas. You know very well that you and I have this filter of 50,000 companies in Bagger. If you want to look at 50,000 companies, spending 1 hour per company, that's 50,000 hours in a year, you can work 2,000 hours, so you need 25 years, right? to see them once if I'm not mistaken. So it's not feasible. It's absolutely not feasible to look at all that at once. And so, there's a question of finding ideas, hence the test baggers, hence the monitoring of super investors, hence the fact that people like us are always on social media looking for ideas. And super investors have a combined portfolio when you take the top 10, so you combine the portfolios of the 80 managers who manage more than 100 million in the United States. They have positions, and in proportion to their positions, it makes an aggregated portfolio of super investors. If you take the top 10 and invest in it for 20 years, so really something that defies luck, the performance of following these people for 20 years on the 10 positions of their aggregated portfolio, rebalancing once a year, you get twice the performance of the S&P 500. So, we've often talked about beating the market and all that. This is a very simple way to beat the market, it's to do that. So there are very good ideas in what these people do to copy them. The problem is that among the people in this pool, well obviously, at the moment, a part of them say "I don't understand what's happening anymore, I'm getting out of the game." The most famous one who didn't cry bubble is Warren Buffett, who went full cash. Yes. And then you have Michael Burry, who is more of a super investor in the vein of Buffett. You made a video recently that I haven't seen about the Buffett Indicator, if you want to touch on it. Yes, indeed. So, the subject, and I don't want to take too much time, if you want to elaborate on certain subjects, but historically, Warren Buffett has a concept of comparing the progression of companies' market caps to the progression of the famous US GDP. So the idea in the Buffett Indicator, which you can find on the internet, is to look at the market cap of 5,000 companies. So why 5,000? First of all, because if you look at the S&P 500, you have the 500 companies that contribute about 80% of US GDP. So, and when you have 5,000, you have about 100% roughly. Even if it's a bit less, we don't care. But so if you take the revenues of these companies, obviously you have the aggregated revenue of these 5,000 companies which is the main component of the GDP calculation in the United States. And so you are supposed to have something coherent between the two. However, we know that GDP grows by something between 1 and 3%, and 3% per year. Especially since it includes inflation, so there isn't necessarily real wealth creation beyond 1% in real terms. And so, if you follow US GDP, you know that over about 15 years, I don't remember if I measured it over 10, 15, or 20 years in the video, I think it was over, let's say 15 years, US GDP has doubled. Except that in the same time, the market caps of the famous 5,000 American companies have multiplied by 7. So, if you want, the price that people are willing to pay to buy all the companies that produce GDP has increased four times faster than real GDP. And today, you are in what is called a ratio of 200% beyond the two sigmas of deviation, so two standard deviations of deviation from what the market value should be compared to what has actually happened in GDP. So, obviously, what this means is that it is overvalued, not overvalued, nobody knows. There are several criticisms that can be made. The first is that obviously GDP includes inflation. Now, inflation is returning. And company profits are meant to absorb inflation because they are like vacuum cleaners, and so if there is more money supply, it will be reflected in profits, and profits are growing by 10% per year at the moment. So that removes part of the overvaluation. We are just saying, and we had an absolutely record first quarter for US company profits. It's unprecedented, what happened here. I think there was a 27% increase in all S&P 500 companies combined in profits in the first quarter compared to Q1 of last year. Which is monumental, and the second record is that there have never been so many companies in the history of the US stock market that have revised their forecasts upwards for the end of 2026. So the majority of companies have revised their forecasts upwards, and in fact, this is unprecedented. So it's simple, we are navigating in uncharted territory, or rather in unknown waters, because on the one hand, you have this kind of dissonance between what Americans call Main Street and Wall Street. So Main Street with, well, the local baker, the local body shop, and generally the everyday American who lives in Kansas, struggles economically, suffers from inflation, and has 40,000 credit cards, three loans, etc. And on the other hand, you have Wall Street that is booming, having the best quarter in its history, and revising all its forecasts upwards. So you really have this K-shaped economy, as Americans call it. So a K-shaped economy where the top of the pyramid is exploding and the bottom of the pyramid is collapsing. So for that, you have to visualize the two bars of the K, in fact, quite simply, two curves that go in opposite directions. So you have, indeed, the famous Consumer Sentiment Index in the United States which is collapsing and is at its lowest historically. It's at its lowest since World War II. So that means that American consumers are extremely pessimistic about the state of the American economy, and on the other hand, Wall Street is soaring and all American companies are breaking all records. So this is unprecedented, in fact, and we are unable to know if it is good or not good. Is it a bubble? Is it not a bubble? Is it sustainable? Is it not sustainable? I don't know. So, I want to say that as long as there are profits that justify all this, it's not a bubble, it's as simple as that. And I think that's the big, big difference because we often hear "bubble, bubble" everywhere, it's going to collapse, etc. But in fact, what you really need to see, and the big, big difference compared to the dot-com bubble of the 2000s, and what for me makes it incomparable, is that in the 2000s, there were no profits. Take Pets.com, Pets.com, they soared on the stock market because they put "dot com" and said they were going to sell dog food on the internet, but there were zero profits. They weren't making money, they had no revenue, no profit. They just had a promise, and the dot-com bubble burst on that promise. That is to say, at some point, stock prices cannot soar indefinitely if there are no profits to follow. However, the difference today is that stock prices are soaring, P/E ratios are admittedly high, but the profits are there. And the thing is, the profits are so there that we have a record quarter. This is unprecedented for the entire American stock market. So I'm not sure we can call it a bubble. And in addition to that, yes, indeed, you probably have a lot of hype and marketing around AI that overstates AI's capabilities, but you still have the facts, and when you look at the facts, you have companies that are laying off people left and right at the moment and increasing their margins quarter after quarter. So, we are truly navigating in uncharted territory, as they say. Exactly. If you take Coca-Cola's profits, I think it's over 18% year-on-year in the last publication for Coca-Cola, which is a mature company and which has not increased its sales volume. What Coca-Cola has increased is its selling price. So for me, there is a form of soaring of all this that can be quite terrifying, in the sense that it's not a question of calling it a bubble. Yet, that's what Michael Burry did, we can come back to what he thinks. Or Warren Buffett, who went out with 50% cash. But for me, there is a mechanism at the moment of absorbing monetary mass, that is to say, there has been a lot of monetary printing since the 2008 crisis to settle all systemic risk with money that didn't exist. And since then, the market has been soaring because in fact it is absorbing the monetary mass that was created at the time, and I see it particularly in Coca-Cola. There is no other reason for Coca-Cola to have made 18% more if not that prices have soared. So that's where we are. And if you have 10 more inflation spikes like we've just had, you are actually in valuation ratios and market valuations, even if we consider it a record, that are perfectly normal given what could happen in terms of monetary valuation. Exactly. Not to mention the fact that indeed, since the first quarter, there has been, even since December, the official return of QE, quantitative easing, in the United States. Now, they don't officially call it QE because they can't do it anymore. Everyone knows what QE is. But roughly, since 2022, we had entered a phase of QT, quantitative tightening, so reduction of monetary mass. And in fact, it started again in December. So you potentially have this double effect of not only increased profits, potentially partly thanks to AI, because we must not forget that today, the top 7 of the Mac 7 represents I don't know how many percent of the S&P 500, and that tech is at its highest in its weighting ratio in the S&P 500 since the 2000s. So the weight of tech in American companies is becoming increasingly enormous. So you have this AI profit part that potentially increases and contributes to these record profits. Plus, coupled with the fact that you have the return of monetary printing since December, indeed, you have a double effect that combines, and you have Coca-Cola reporting 18% profit growth. And that's why we always say that the stock market is one of the best levers to protect yourself from inflation. Because what better way to protect yourself from inflation than to have companies that increase their prices, quite simply. It's these companies themselves that are technically at the origin of inflation. Well, they are not at the origin of monetary printing, but let's say they are the ones who directly pass on its effects by increasing their prices. So, of course, if you buy Coca-Cola, well, you're going to have the increase that comes with it. Yes, exactly. And in fact, just to finish on the critique of the Buffett Indicator, because obviously it's something that has been discussed at length on social media. You have American companies that have grown seven times GDP, right? So people are willing to pay seven times more for American companies compared to 20 years ago and compared to what US GDP was 20 years ago and has only doubled since. You have the problem of internationalization, meaning that US GDP is calculated, normally if I'm not mistaken, one would have to check, on the revenue generated in the United States. For example, in France, I don't know if we include Total's total profits in French GDP or if we only take the part that Total generates in France and that profits abroad are not accounted for. That's a big question. Even that it's calculated, I might be saying something huge here, but it seems to me it's even calculated based on tax revenues, GDP. So in theory, if Total, if Total makes profits abroad, these profits are not taxed in France. So if you take the portion of Total's profits that are taxable in France and therefore taken into account in GDP, technically Total's profits outside of France are not taken into account in the GDP calculation. In any case, that seems logical to me. Yes, yes, that seems logical to me too. But anyway. Ultimately, you still have a lot of American companies that are multinationals and that generate a large part of their revenue internationally. And so, somewhere, if this part of the business of American companies in which we invest comes from abroad, then it's perfectly normal that it grows faster than US GDP. So I'm a bit skeptical about this story. But despite all that we've said, despite the fact that apparently real and tangible profits at the moment justify what's happening, well, I want to say that you still have to be able to argue the thesis that you choose, because there are always two theses, and for me, you always have to know the thesis you choose as well as the thesis that is against the one you choose. And the thesis that is against the one you choose, so on which Buffett is exiting the market with 50% of his money, or Burry tells you "this has soared parabolically, you should sell," I think that's his article, and he was mentioned, I saw it pass by, yes, that Burry apparently calls for a crisis again for the 48th time in the last three crises. Yes, yes. Now, I have published an article, because we have to play devil's advocate a bit here, because frankly, if something catastrophic happens. Just before you move on to that, I can't find the publication I made anymore, but I had to mention it. It was one of my battles, my battles, my battles, I don't know. When I started my IQ Invest channel, it was to say that the MSCI World is useless because if you buy the S&P 500, you are already largely diversified. And in fact, I had found the statistic at the time and put it on Instagram, I can't find it anymore. It was at least 3 years ago, and in fact, if you take the profits, or rather the revenues of all the companies in the S&P 500 and calculate their US share, their foreign share, you get about 50% of profits made in the US and 45% abroad. So in fact, when you take the share of the S&P 500, you end up with 55% US and the rest abroad. So in fact, you already have a global distribution. If you buy the S&P 500, you don't need to buy MSCI World in addition. So, I'll let you continue on Burry. Yes, I agree. But we can say a bit more about it. It's just that when you have the MSCI World, these ETFs work by market cap. So when you have the S&P 500, you are supposed to have the top 500 in terms of market cap with precisely a distribution of the funds you invest in the S&P 500 allocated according to this market cap allocation key. Which means that at the moment, when you put €100 in the S&P 500, you have about €5 in Nvidia and €2.50 in Google. I think that's roughly the ratio at the moment. So even the biggest ones in the S&P 500, you don't exceed 5%. So the question is, when Hermes, if you have a market cap, I don't know where it is, we'll probably take LVMH instead. But when you have companies like that in France, in the S&P 500 index, according to the market cap allocation key, well, they deserve to be ranked 250th. So the question is, do you want them or not? You are quite internationally exposed, but you still have champions in other countries that would deserve their place in the S&P 500 by their market cap, and when you see their names, you want to have them. So it makes sense to go for the MSCI World, but it doesn't make sense in terms of performance. Over the last five years, you've gained more with the S&P 500 than with the MSCI World. Then there are exchange rate issues. Then there are all sorts of things that make me say that you can still sleep very soundly with an MSCI World. These are expert debates, everyone chooses what they want. The goal is to sleep well. But by the way, I think they released an S&P 500 top 10 ETF or even a top 20 ETF. And in fact, each time you realize that the more you concentrate on the top, the more the performance increases. So, in fact, what we should have is an MSCI World top 50. You eliminate everything else, you keep only the 50 largest. I don't know if that exists. Maybe it does. Let us know in the comments if that's the case and give us the ticker and the ISIN so we can check it out. But by the way, a small parenthesis, I also discovered thanks to Antoine and the portfolio video we made with Antoine. Go watch it if you haven't seen it. A new format we're doing on the Bagger channel for portfolio analysis. And by the way, if you're interested in us analyzing your portfolio, write to us. It will be with pleasure. And Antoine particularly mentioned the JEPQ ETF, which interests me. Clarify something, Antoine, but go ahead. Enormously. But I don't know if you know this ETF. Yes, I know it very well, and I didn't react to the podcast, and I had exchanged with Antoine on X about it because he wasn't there when I was interested in it. You couldn't buy it on an account. Now you can, or at the time you had to go through options to get exposure to it. In short, there were all sorts of complications that made me not get into it. And you talked about it more than I can say. Yes, yes, it's listed in Ireland, Jepq, you can buy it on Titre. Okay. And you have to look carefully at how they are made because I think, as he explained very well, you have a profit protection through an option sale. Which means that you have already committed to selling what the ETF owns at a certain price above. So if it doesn't happen, you collect the insurance premium. And if it does happen, you have an opportunity cost because it goes up more than the option cost will pay you. So you have to consider when you do that, the notion of whether they are not giving you your own money back. You see what I mean? That is to say, because there are ETFs called, it's not yield, I don't know what it is, it's like JEPQ, and with this option mechanism, in the yield that is returned to you, there is a part of your capital because there is a sale of what you have, and in the long term it will decrease. I don't know if that's the case for this one, but you have to watch out for certain things like that. Indeed, for those who don't know JEPQ, it's an ETF on the Nasdaq with an option strategy that manages to generate between 9 and 11% annual return.

Which is just colossal, right. Uh, honestly, I haven't looked into it yet, so I don't know what it's worth. A lot of people love this ETF, and I understand why. Because, first off, I'm in. If you can get 9 to 11% return per year without a problem. And the cherry on top is that this ETF, well, it obviously performs worse than the NASDAQ on its own, right. That's where the option strategy comes in. Uh, but it performs just as well as the S&P 500, actually. So you sacrifice the outperformance of the Nasdaq, but you still get an interesting performance because you're roughly on par with the S&P 500, and on top of that, you get 9 to 11% in distributions. So, on paper, it seems like the perfect ETF, the one everyone would dream of. The question I'm asking myself is, isn't there a catch somewhere? Isn't it too good to be true? Well, yeah, I don't really agree with that whole thing for reasons we'll get to in this discussion. So, I'll give you the example of Michael Burry, who, go ahead, published a post to defend himself against this whole "boy who cried wolf" thing, but he got fired the last time he tried that and shorted Nvidia, he got fired. So, Michael Burry shared on his platform that he had become the one crying wolf, and that this was a narrative that had been put on him, that accused him. So, with the famous joke, Michael Burry predicted three of the last 14 crises. [laughter] And so he explains that, after all, in the story of the boy who cried wolf, the moral of the story is that in the end, there really is a wolf. It's not that you shouldn't listen to him because there's no wolf. It's just that when the wolf arrives, you no longer listen to the one who cried wolf too much. But in the end, there is a wolf. Mathematically, if you say every year that there's going to be a crisis, eventually you'll be right. As they say, even a broken clock shows the right time twice a day, I think. So, and you know that you and I are on social media, and you know very well that when someone criticizes us for something, because obviously you can't please everyone, there's a hurtful aspect because we're not exactly showbiz stars, you know, who have to deal with, say, a million or two million people who know them and who, therefore, get used to overlooking the inevitable percentage of people who don't like you, because we all have that. But we're much smaller, and we feel like if someone makes a remark, we have to defend ourselves or argue, or if we think something hasn't been understood, we have to push back. And Michael Burry is in that mood. He's very defensive when you accuse him of that. So, he made his post to explain that, and he recounts that, despite everything that can be said about him, he hasn't actually cried wolf that much. It's people who systematically looked at those famous Quarterly Publications of Super Investors. I forget what it's called, the 13f, the 13f filing, which is the official publication that people managing over 100 million in the US have to publish every quarter with a 45-day delay for their US positions only. And a large part of what was attributed to him as Michael Burry announcing a crisis was actually from TV debates or from people on YouTube channels. I did it myself, I did it on my main channel. I followed Michael Burry's 13fs, trying to interpret how he was playing the market. [grunts] And Michael Burry does a lot of shorting. He shorted Tesla, he shorted. But when he did those things, and there was a lot of debate about how, in quotes, he was saying there's a bubble here, this and that, it wasn't him saying it. And he reminds us that the times he publicly took a position saying, "Here, we've hit something I really don't like, I'm announcing that this doesn't look good, this doesn't look good." He says he wasn't wrong. So, he summarizes that, in his opinion, he was right about the dot-com bubble, where he publicly took a position saying we're too high. He was obviously right about 2007, where he made his hundreds of millions. He was right in 2019. He was right to point out the return of inflation. He was right on meme stocks, and he was right about the banking sector in 2023. And that, in fact, outside of those cases where he really put himself out there, explaining, "Guys, given what's happening, inflation is returning," or "Guys, given what's happening, this isn't going well for this or that," he says he was very cautious in his wolf alerts. And he concludes his article by saying, and now I'm announcing it to you, this time I'm telling you, we're there. So, he did take a position saying, "This is going too far." So, what we need to see from this is that there is inflation. I think the main subject right now is the oil shock and inflation. It's not so much AI, it's not so much corporate profits. So, I'm going to give you the inflation figures that have come out. I'll announce them to you. So, there was a publication in the United States in April. So, these are figures you can find on public sites. The site in question where you see the Consumer Price Index is the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. And American figures are often attributed greater reliability than other sources of figures. Well, I think in Europe, we have the same level. Many people criticize China's statistical publications, for example, saying they're not reliable. In American figures, you have good reliability, but you still have to discuss it a bit with artificial intelligence because I can't give you the exact mechanics of what's happening there. And for GDP, for example, I believe they can give you a figure at the end of the quarter. And in fact, they clearly explain that the figure that comes out at the end of the quarter for GDP, I don't know if it's the same for inflation, but I think it's potentially the same because, in fact, it's not possible to release a quarterly figure at the end of the quarter because you have to pump all the data, aggregate it, reprocess it. And in the case of GDP, they say they allow themselves two revisions, one at 3 months and one at 6 months. And so often in the announcements of American GDP where they say we're on track for 3%, in fact, 3 months later they say we were off by 1%, and 3 months later they say we were off by 2%, and in fact, it was 1%. So, you have to be a bit cautious with the reliability of American figures, which are out of sync with this public stance that the first figure is a figure they invent off the cuff, and the real one comes out in 6 months. So, I'll give you the figures. In April 2026, inflation returned to 3.8% year-on-year. So, we're approaching 4%, which is colossal because if you have a million euros, then in the next 4 years, in the next 3 years, you lose 100,000. So, it's colossal. That is to say, if you have a million euros, there are very few scenarios where you can compensate for the fact that inflation will eat away at your capital in the next 3 years through your savings. So, you're on a treadmill where even if you work, your capital is eaten away, and you stay at zero if your money isn't invested. That's the first point on this 3.8%. Obviously, what's driving the return of inflation, the biggest figure reported year-on-year, is gasoline, of course, gasoline, which is up 54% in the United States. Exactly. And by the way, Brent is currently around 107 dollars. So, we're not at the peak. The peaks were in April around 120 dollars, but we've started to rise again quite a bit since it's up 25% in 2 weeks, and it could potentially worsen because, not only do you have the short-term oil price we talked about, but you also have all these issues of decreased global production that can lead to cascading supply chain disruptions. Maybe we'll talk about that a bit more later. Exactly. We need to get into that because that's obviously the subject. So, the biggest component of inflation is all products derived from energy and oil, where you have three figures that are 29%, 28%, and 54%. For a global energy increase index of 20%, all inclusive, including the electricity part which is still in there, we're at +6%, you see. Yes. Because obviously there are interconnected bases, if you have less access to a certain type of energy, then you have more demand for alternative types of energy, and with the law of supply and demand, prices obviously rise everywhere. What's interesting is that obviously when it affects energy, since energy is a component of all other products, then all other products rise too. It's not something isolated. Everyone knows that. We're not going to go through the whole story. And if I look at all the figures, you have none, you have very few that are below 3%. So, what's below 3%? Food at home is 2.9%. The, what is it? Commodities less food and energy. So, what's crashing in the United States? It's cars, new cars and used cars. That's it. Prices are falling. So, people are sacrificing cyclical and discretionary consumption, meaning that when you have a car and there's inflation, you're not replacing your car this year, whether it's new or used. These are postponed purchases. And what else is negative? Medical care commodities. Well, who cares. So, basically, almost everything is above 3% inflation. Knowing that the central bank's target is two, that's why it's interesting to note. Except for used cars. And there's a little trick with used cars, on sites about reimbursements and defaults on car loans, which are considered the most advanced indicator of the health of the US economy. When things start to go south on new or used cars and credit default rates in general, 6 months later, it follows with real estate and other types of credit, and then in some cases, not all, obviously, it leads to what is called a recession, a GDP contraction. So, you have inflation figures that are terrifying compared to their value and compared to this car component that is going in the wrong direction based on its historical signal. So, the outcome of all this, well, you have a problem because a central bank's objective is to maintain price stability, which should normally lead to an inflation target of 0%. Who knows why they set it at two, we could debate philosophy. Why did they set it at two? The reason is simple: historically, all global currency was indexed to gold from around the mid-19th century, and 2% is the historical inflation rate of gold. So, they took the target that was the historical inflation rate of gold. Why? Because it's roughly the new supply that arrives on the market every year. It's the famous stock-to-flow ratio. So, basically, it's how much gold stock you have in the world versus how much flow, meaning how much new gold arrives. Gold is the metal with the best stock-to-flow ratio in the world. That's why it was used as currency, knowing that it's not scarcity that necessarily creates the stock-to-flow ratio because there are metals that are rarer than gold. But you need two components because you need not only scarcity to have a low flow, but you also need a high stock. That is to say, if you use gold in many industrial applications, for example, you don't have stock because, in fact, what creates the stock-to-flow ratio is this stock component. So, in fact, you need a lot of unused and immobilized stock that serves only for the money supply. Which is much less the case for silver, for example, and that's why silver was completely replaced as currency historically because silver has many more industrial applications than gold. It's the same for copper, and it's the same for, I don't know, platinum or other metals that would be rarer than gold but are used much more in industrial processes. And that's it, in fact, this 2% per year target is simply modeled on gold, which historically had this 2% annual inflation and which was historically even canceled out, or at least balanced, or even negative compared to productivity gains. That is to say, if you have a 2% increase in gold but a 4% increase in productivity gains, you have a 2% decrease in prices because, of course, it will create technological deflation. And that's what happened at the end of the 19th century in the United States when they established the gold standard after the Civil War. Throughout the period between the end of the Civil War and World War I, you have a whole price index in the United States because they are very rigorous with economic statistics. That's why American statistics are often cited, it's just that you don't find them anywhere else because other countries are less rigorous. And when you look at the prices of goods and services in the United States during that period, they collapsed. So, maybe in 1870, you could buy a house for $5,000. In 1914, you could buy the same house for $3,000. So, in fact, this is how the entire economy gets richer, how the middle class emerges, and so on. Except that today, it's a bit the opposite. That is to say, we have such high inflation that even productivity gains can't catch up with inflation. Or at least, it depends on the products, because you have products like technological products where you'll really have deflation because the smartphone you buy today for $1,000 is much better than the one you could buy for $1,000 five years ago. But for your steak, well, you don't have a cow factory that has transformed beef production over the last 20 years. So, a steak, it takes what? Maybe 5 or 6 years to produce a cow, I don't know. So, obviously, there's inflation on it because you don't have productivity gains in steak production. So, well, a little digression. Well, yes, but that's the key because, if you want, inflation is potentially the component that best explains the performance of corporate profits and revenues that are soaring. For me, it's actually a fascinating episode we did with Jean at the time, I don't remember the number, but it must be around 60 or 70, which was the lie of the S&P 500, of the S&P 500's growth, because when you measure the S&P 500 in gold and not in dollars, you realize there's been zero growth since 1971. We're flat. Well, that seems very likely to me, but you'd have to, there are many things that go into these calculations, and I think you could write a doctoral thesis on the subject, and not only would you spend 1000 hours, but you'd also have 200 experts who wouldn't agree. So, there's no final answer on all these things. I thought there was a slightly more perverse aspect to it, which relates to people's intellectual mechanism of doing something and undertaking and working. If inflation is nibbling away at you, you have a motivation to do it. And if you have either deflation or no inflation, then whoever has stored anything has no more interest in doing anything other than waiting. AR, but that's the big lie of Keynesian economics, which was massively introduced starting in the 1920s precisely to justify all the inflation that had occurred during World War I and which ruined absolutely all the currencies of the belligerents, whether it was England, which ruined its pound during World War I by printing four times more bills than it had in gold reserves, or the French franc, which was completely devalued, or even the US dollar. So, to justify this inflation, obviously, there was the whole narrative of Keynesian economics and the necessity of inflation. But that's a lie, because when you look at history factually and you look at periods like the period 1870-1914, where there was no inflation, there was deflation, well, in fact, it was one of the most economically productive periods in human history. And where there was the most innovation, the most invention, the most companies that emerged. If you look at the majority of companies we still have in France today, they emerged during that era, whether it's banks, car manufacturers, luxury companies. So, no, inflation is not necessary for the proper functioning of an economy. But that's the whole opposition between the Austrian economics thesis and the Keynesian economics thesis. It's that Keynesian economics is actually based on nonsense and lies to justify monetary printing and this inflation. Yes, that's why I said there was a more perverse objective behind it [laughter] because, obviously, people are supposed to be able to recover the famous productivity gains in their lives. When you explain to the economy that you want to maintain your prices, or even set an inflation target of 2%, you're essentially telling everyone that if we're more productive and produce more, we'll print more money because there's no question of people having twice the purchasing power. That's a delusional mindset. Exactly. And by the way, there's a graph, I wouldn't be able to find it, but I think we shared it too. We did a whole series of podcasts at the time with Jean on Bitcoin, on the gold standard, on the comparison of the S&P 500 and gold, and also on the effects of inflation. And in fact, you realize that, so 1971 is the date when President Nixon at the time officially canceled the gold standard for the dollar, and when you had the whole period of hyperinflation that followed in the United States during the 70s. And in fact, when you look at any economic graph, there's a before and an after 1971. And notably, before 1971, there's the graph that superimposes the growth of productivity in the United States and the growth of wages. And this graph is almost identical, one to one, meaning it follows perfectly. And from 1971 onwards, you see this productivity gain curve continuing its linear path, and the wage curve has been flat since then. So, in fact, you've had a x3 or x4 increase in productivity gains, but wages are the same as in 1971. There has been no enrichment of the worker, no enrichment of the middle class since then. And yes, that is to say, when you were given 2000 bucks a month at a certain time and you could buy 2000 kg of sugar, if you were still given a real 2000 bucks, well, today you could buy four times more kilos of sugar. However, you're given a salary that still allows you to buy just 2 kg of sugar, or even less. Or even less. So, if I rephrase that, it means that wages have decreased. That is to say, you have divided the price of sugar by 5. Which means that, with a constant salary, regardless of its value, you should have four times more purchasing power for sugar since the 70s. However, as the price falls and there's an inflation target, the price of sugar rises through money printing, and in the end, you still have a salary that allows you to buy the same quantity of sugar as in the 70s in proportion to your salary. Exactly. The problem is that it means you're earning four times less than before. Absolutely. But the worst of the worst is real estate, because when you look at the stats, in the 1960s, the average American needed 3 years of salary to buy a house. So, if you earned, in today's figures, that means if you earn $50,000, which is the median American salary, the median house should be $150,000. However, that's not the case at all. And in fact, today, in comparison, it takes 7 years, even more than 7 years of salary, to afford the same house that people could afford before '71. And it's a tragedy because a house today doesn't necessarily cost more to build than in the 1970s. On the contrary, all the industrial progress we've made should mean that a house today should cost less than in the 1960s. However, that's not the case. And moreover, houses today are much worse than in the 1960s. But that's another debate. And in fact, that's what you observe when you look at history and when you look at that period 1870-1914, where you had a real period of monetary stability and a global gold standard, and where you had price deflation and the greatest enrichment humanity has ever known since. And yes, that seems totally delusional to me, and therefore a large part of what we try to do in the stock market, which is called performance, is actually just maintaining a standard of living. [laughter] It's scary, but that's why when you look at the S&P 500, if you take it in gold, it doesn't outperform. But obviously, that's not the case for all companies, because in the S&P 500, if you take Coca-Cola in gold, you've potentially even lost value. But if you take Apple or Google over the last 20 years, well, obviously you've done better, and in real terms, you've compensated for inflation, but you've also become richer because those companies have created more value than there has been inflation. In the end, you still have a central bank that, throughout its history, and you've summarized a large part of it from 1950, knowing that it might not have existed at the time, but whatever. So, the Fed in the United States, it was created in 1914, I believe, just before World War I. Yes. So, you've at least mentioned the part from 1914 to 1970 and the end of the gold standard. So, today, an organization like the Fed will have to manage this. So, it has to manage the return of inflation. When inflation rises, when you have news about inflation going back to 3.8%, and you're a seasoned investor, you know that from now on, you're watching the Fed because the Fed has to do something. But moreover, you have two perverse effects with this return of inflation: not only do you have inflation induced by the supply and demand report, meaning that if you have less supply, particularly in the oil market, prices skyrocket, you have the oil market, but you also have RAM which is playing a part potentially in inflation because all the prices of all technological goods are increasing today due to this shortage of RAM everywhere. So, you have this market inflation and you have monetary inflation. And the double effect is that, moreover, today countries, and particularly the United States, are so indebted. In fact, the United States has surpassed the debt-to-GDP ratio they had at their peak during World War II. So, today, the United States is at its most indebted level in its history. And there are three ways to pay off this debt, to repay it. Either you default, but that means you bring down all the pension funds, all the retirement funds, all the hedge funds, in short, all the people who own US bonds, which is not possible because, consequently, you ruin all retirees and you ruin the entire economy, so you cannot default. Either you repay it, which is completely impossible because they don't have the money, and that would mean cutting spending, it would mean cutting social security, people's pensions, and so on, which would be politically unthinkable. Either you print money to repay your own debt. And that's exactly what will happen. Well, that's the whole question because you have this mission of managing inflation, and we can talk about supply and demand because that's the oil and oil shock part. But we must first mention that not all central banks are the same, that not all central banks manage exactly the same situations. Japan's works differently from Europe's and differently from the United States'. But the United States' has several missions. That is to say, in Europe, the central bank is recognized with the mission of managing inflation as its sole and primary mission, and the safeguarding of the euro, which Mario Draghi introduced. I'm willing to manage inflation, but there must first be a euro. So, I believe the central bank's mission is also to save the euro. So, I have the right to do quantitative easing even if it kills my mission on inflation. That was Draghi's policy, and the legal part, because there was a legal issue regarding the management of the quantitative easing policy in Europe because the central bank didn't have the mandate to do it. So, then you have all the issues. Are the Germans okay with it? Are they not okay with it? Because obviously, when you create inflation, you empty the pockets of German retirees to pay for Spanish and Italian retirees, and so on. So, then you have all these issues in Europe where you balance, in quotes, these two issues, inflation management and the mandate for the fragility of the European construction. In the United States, that's not the case at all. You have several missions that fall to the central bank, which include both inflation management and the labor market. The problem we have today is that I don't understand what the central bank can do when you have a supply problem with oil. That is to say, you have inflation due to scarcity. You have inflation due to scarcity. That is to say, I gave the figures earlier, I gave figures that are driven by scarcity in energy. But by the way, we need to make a small point on the figures. It's that today, there are 20 million barrels per day missing in global oil production, which represents 20% of global consumption. So, it's getting worse and worse every time this crisis in Iran continues. There are effects, notably Saudi Arabia trying to circumvent the issue with pipelines and so on. That's not enough. Today, there's a 20% gap in global oil production. 20% is huge. It's huge. It's delusional. That means that potentially one in five companies that use oil can no longer function. It's not a price issue, it's a shortage issue. So, the problem is that from the moment you have this problem of inflation that isn't there, in quotes, due to an increase in the money supply, as we've qualified inflation for several decades now, with what the central bank has started to do by printing money to compensate for productivity gains. Here, you have inflation that is inflation due to a supply shock. So, you cannot remedy it by changing your monetary policy. The problem is that, consequently, what takes precedence is classical economics, real economics from the Austrian school, the one you mentioned earlier. And here, we don't care about the [sigh] [breath cut off] of the central bank's policy because, in quotes, if you have a supply shock, what is supposed to happen is a mechanism of rising prices due to lack of supply, and therefore the price increases. That's what happens, for example, when you have a hurricane, and that's why you shouldn't control prices. That is to say, when a hurricane sweeps away 2000 houses somewhere in the southern United States, all the people who need to rebuild will buy wood to rebuild their houses because their houses are destroyed by hurricanes every 10 years, but they say they have to rebuild with wood. [laughter] And so, here again, you have more of a demand shock. You have enormous demand for wood. So, prices rise, and obviously, people will denounce, well, a certain part of people who are a bit dumb [laughter] will say, "Ah, there are speculators getting rich, they're selling wood at a higher price." The problem is that when you have a demand shock like this, because you have a lot of people who need to rebuild and prices rise, and it costs them

More expensive, it's that if you say, uh, prices aren't rising, well, in fact, it's people who don't need wood because they're not in a hurry who will continue to buy it, and thus you have a shortage. So, in fact, the mechanism of rising prices, well, it costs more to the one who is in a hurry, but at the same time, it signals to the one who is not in a hurry that it's not the time for him to buy wood. And when you are in the problem of the supply shock currently on the on the lack of oil, uh, it's the corollary because, in fact, it's not a demand shock but a supply shock, but you will have the same mechanism, namely the price which is supposed to increase to signify to people who don't need it that they should stop consuming it to favor those who need it most. The problem is that there won't be enough and that everyone needs oil. That is to say, the one who will have to give up his need, it remains a vital need. So you necessarily have the politician who will get in the middle, and since it remains a vital and primary need for the economy, uh, you will have, in fact, forced demand destruction, but which will correspond to unemployment. And so, central bank policies, particularly in the United States, will find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place, namely, what do I do? I am supposed to act in one direction because there is too much inflation, and I am supposed to act in the other direction, namely, lower interest rates to boost employment, because that's what's completely idiotic. When you have unemployment, in fact, you loosen monetary policy a bit, companies can finance less profitable projects because rates are lower. So projects that were not considered profitable at high rates become profitable, and thus people hire and undertake projects that are profitable at the current interest rate because it costs them less, and you restart employment. But if you do that while prices are soaring, prices soar even more. So you have an unsolvable contradiction on this oil shock. It is perhaps solvable, and it is a theory that is emerging among quite a few American geopolitical thinkers, if we can call them that, which is that the United States is betting everything on tech and AI, trying to gamble on the fact that the productivity gains provided by AI will compensate for this massive inflation that will occur in the coming years. It's a bit of a gamble, and it's a bit of the theory behind why and how the United States, in addition to all the political, military, and strategic interests behind owning AI technology, is that AI would allow for productivity gains that would offset, perhaps not entirely, but at least partially, this inflation, and that if you have an improvement in efficiency across almost the entire economy that produces goods and services, you have a decrease in prices, and this decrease in prices can, at least partially, compensate for inflation. So, in fact, you won't have a decrease in prices, but you will be able to have a price that remains stable since inflation will be offset by productivity gains. That's the theory. Is it possible? Is it true? And above all, will AI really allow for these productivity gains? We know absolutely nothing about that. And especially, there is an even more aggravating factor: when we talk about oil shortages, it's not just oil that is affected, it's all the derivative products that go with it, because there is also a potential food crisis that could arise, since at the origin of fertilizers, you have oil, and notably in the Strait of Hormuz, 50% of urea, 30% of ammonia, and 20% of global phosphate transit. So that means you have a direct potential global fertilizer shortage that will follow energy, since you also have LNG, Qatar, which is the world's leading LNG exporter, finds itself blocked again with these Strait of Hormuz issues [grumbling], and also luxury tourism, since all discretionary spending is obviously collapsing right now. If you have Hermes, LVMH, even Pernod Ricard, you know it. Uh, partly the problem is that, well, Dubai and all these Gulf cities, you have a lot of buyers who contribute to this global luxury economy, whether by traveling everywhere, doing tourism, or just by having luxury boutiques. Uh, and well, that's finished. In fact, Dubai today is at a standstill, nothing is happening anymore, you close the curtain. So you have many side effects that can further aggravate this inflation. I am partly terrified without being so, because when you invest, you are naturally optimistic. It's obvious that when any act of investment corresponds to transforming a sum of the moment into a bet on a financial flow, a flow of future profits, a free cash flow that can be returned by a company which either reinvests it in your name, or returns it through buybacks or dividends. And obviously, when you invest, you have this notion of "I believe that in the future, this range of future scenarios will allow me to recover more than I bet." So it's an act of optimism. Obviously, there are people who cry wolf, like Michael Burry, who cries wolf, but he concluded in his text that for the past 25 years, he had been long on investments 90% of the time, meaning buying. So even the biggest, the biggest "cry wolf" figures like Michael Burry and Co. are people who have an optimistic nature towards the markets because they are buyers, and throughout history, throughout time, if you take history as it has unfolded closely over 100 years, well, the stock market has existed in Holland since 1600 something, 1605, but we don't need to go back that far. There has always been an end-of-the-world atmosphere alongside the atmosphere of "the world is developing." So, I mean, when you have the rural exodus revolution and everyone coming to the cities, in France, whether it's between, let's say, very broadly, the beginning of the 20th century and the end of the 1970s, you have very strong mechanization of the fields, the arrival of the mechanical tractor, the end of hedgerow farming, the construction of these mega-companies that with very few operators will take care of all the food for everyone. And you have the collapse of the farmer profession, where you go from millions of people who had that as their activity in France, producing food, to an extremely low percentage. I don't know what agriculture is today, what is it? 500,000 people, 3%? Yes. Well, it's extremely low. So you have this revolution in agriculture which is intellectually very close to the artificial intelligence revolution, namely, at some point, the mechanization and automation of an activity which means that a lot of people who practiced it have to find something else to do. And optimism is obviously concluding that no matter what AI gains in productivity, which will lead to the destruction of a lot of jobs, agriculture has shown that people have had the incredible luck to be able to stop being farmers and put on a shirt and tie and become sales representatives for Conforama. [laughter] I don't know if we gained from it, but new jobs were created, and this, when you look closely at what happened, particularly with the arrival of this new tertiary economy in the 1970s, was in parallel with the Cold War. And the Cold War, it was the end of the world around the corner. We must realize what the atmosphere was like at the time, with the feeling, the feeling that nuclear war was around the corner. So people were very close to what World War II had been, which ended with, well, Hiroshima and the use of the nuclear weapon, which did not exist 30 years before. That there are people who were born without nuclear weapons and who saw nuclear weapons arrive in global geopolitics, and there was an end-of-the-world atmosphere in the Russia vs. America Cold War, where you really had to be extremely pessimistic in the 70s and 80s, or for those who don't know this series, I encourage you to watch Mad Men, which is an exceptional series, and where you see very well in the first seasons this anxiety of the French war. When you have season 2. Ah, and you have a spoiler, actually. [laughter] And you also have, in the 60s and 70s, this whole myth, or at least this great fear, about world overpopulation and the potential food shortages that would occur in the 80s and 90s, which in fact never happened, simply because we had such productivity gains in food production that we never had shortages of anything, and today the problem is no longer overpopulation but depopulation. The problem is reversed, fertility rates are collapsing. In short, all the problems, well, everyone is aware of them. And in fact, for this, I always recommend, you absolutely must read Morgan Housel's book "The Psychology of Money," where he has a whole last chapter on pessimism and on the fact that when you take any period of history, there is always an end-of-the-world narrative, no matter what. And in fact, you realize that no matter what happens, things turn out much better than expected, and in the end, well, if you don't watch TV, it doesn't change much for your daily life, except maybe your gas price doubling in the next six months and maybe your plane ticket being canceled this summer. But otherwise, it won't change the existence of Mr. Everyone. And in fact, that's it, it's exactly also, I listened this morning to the podcast of, well, this noon, the podcast of Jack Maller, the last podcast, he's a guy I love, he's an American, he said, "You can be the most pessimistic person in the world and believe in the end of the world, at some point you'll have to cry, cry for 5 minutes, and then you get back to work and we move on." Pessimism doesn't advance anything, and humanity and what it is, we will always find solutions. There will always be technological innovations that will make it so, and yes, there can be crises, they can be temporary, but if you are invested in the stock market, potentially, in the next 10 years, you will be in the positive. It's statistically like that. I would also add that these end-of-the-world scenarios that are always present. So, for example, on overpopulation, which was a political and expert projection. There was also in 2003. Yes, that struck me. I was in first grade, we had 3 months, I think, of bashing on the ozone layer. It was terrible. Exactly. Uh, by the way, the IPCC just announced, you didn't see the news? Ah yes, he has this story too. Damn, the IPCC just announced the withdrawal of its most pessimistic scenarios. Now, I think they had, they had a lot. Yes. If they removed some, they removed like 10%. Now that people realize that oil will have to be burned to run AI, ecology is less of a priority. It's less of a priority. They withdrew the most pessimistic scenarios of the increase in temperature. Yes. And that's the same when it came out, everyone was there shouting about the end of the world, the IPCC report, the IPCC report, it made all the headlines. Well, you realize that 5 years later, in fact, everyone doesn't give a damn. So there you go. So now, the official IPCC report would be that we are supposed to be on a trajectory, an extreme scenario removed. I'm saying this from memory, correct me in the comments if you find better information than what I recall. From a maximum of 3.6 degrees starting from 1860 and the beginning of measurements. And since we have already gained a certain amount of degrees, it means that now, at worst, the IPCC predicts a temperature increase of 1 degree by 2100 from now on in its worst-case scenario. Well, all of this can change. But that, I want to tell you, Hugo, these are long-term scenarios and projections where you can have expert debates where these fear scenarios of the end of the world are projections. Nevertheless, when it was the Cold War crisis with the risk of nuclear weapons, there were moments and there were days. Yes. where people had their finger on the button. That is to say, there are moments in these crises that are much more direct, where the probability of it happening and that it's not just a projection that one day it will happen. There are moments when you get much closer than others to a real imminent catastrophe. That's a fact, and that was the case for the Cold War. Which doesn't prevent that, if you get close to a catastrophe, you'll have things to do anyway if it happens. So, it's better to invest your money because if it doesn't happen, you'll win. Exactly. If you're afraid to invest in the stock market because you think there will be a nuclear war, I want to tell you, if there really is a nuclear war, we don't care if you're invested in the stock market or not, it won't change anything. But here, we have a big problem, and we've already talked about it, but I'll add a layer that we haven't discussed, which is that when I warned about what was happening in the Middle East and about the oil crisis, which was heavily covered due to the logistical blockage of ships, and many people bet that solving this problem would solve the problem. I mentioned, sorry to those who will listen to us, repeat ourselves, but for those who are new, it's important that we mention it once, I mentioned that the underlying problem was the destruction of capacities. And there is a direct destruction of capacities, and there still is, there still is right now, I don't know which country has struck Iran again, because now they are fighting among themselves. So when you destroy refining capacities, you structurally destroy the capacity to convert oil into finished products. And that, regardless of whether the 20 million barrels you mentioned are unblocked or not, structurally we lose between 5% and 30% for 5 years, the time it takes to rebuild the production capacities of the oil in the region. So rare earths, we mentioned it, rare earths that were produced in Qatar, there you have lost 30% until we restart the refinery, even if oil can circulate in Hormuz. So that's structural, we've already taken it in the face. We know that for 5 years, we'll have to manage something crazy. Now, there's one we haven't addressed, and that I can detail with my personal engineering background, which is that we can have indirect capacity destruction, and that can be imminent in the next few months. And that one is even worse than the rest. It's that when you run an installation, any installation, in fact, you can't afford to stop it. Because if you want 100% of what you've calculated in your installation, in your piping system, in the way all this will behave, you've taken into account operational values of the fluids that will pass through it under certain pressures, under certain temperatures, and it's not possible to stop an installation and empty it. And one of the big problems happening right now is that we are approaching, I noted it, by September, we are approaching a floor, which is the floor of capacity destruction linked to the lack of oil to put into refineries and into the production tools for oil derivatives. And these refineries, which have not been affected by destruction, and which already correspond to a minimum of 5% shortage of diesel until they are rebuilt in 3 months. And that's where I tell you, there are indeed moments when the ultimate catastrophe scenario is more probable than others, because this is a matter of a ticking clock. In 3 months, the refineries' capacity to remain operational will begin to disappear, because those that are no longer supplied will potentially begin to rust, you will have small defects that will mean that even if the oil returns, you will have repairs to do on something that was not hit by a missile. And that is terrifying because it's a kind of, it's like for pipelines. Pipelines, you can't afford to have them empty. A pipeline that is underwater, under the sea, it must be under pressure, you see, just to balance the pressures. So you have many concepts like that which mean that infrastructures, if they no longer have oil, will suffer from this lack of oil beyond the loss of capacity. Which gives you a runaway problem scenario beyond the Strait of Hormuz that is catastrophic by September. And I won't hide from you that personally, when you realize what oil means in the economy, and we just talked about the nuclear risk, but if we are heading towards the end of the year without a resolution to these problems, I think we are at a level of catastrophe to face that is on par with a nuclear impact. It's completely insane to think that you are missing 20% of oil and that if it continues until September, you will start to damage your refineries and thus you might perpetuate, even after these ships circulate again, this decrease in oil availability in the world of this 20% for a very, very long time. It's insane. I am appalled by this prospect, but I really don't know how to approach it. In any case, for me, it's in 3 months. So we will potentially have, and this is where I pass the floor back to you, but if you have a reaction, I can give it to you now because after that I'm good for another 5 minutes. [laughter] Uh, no, but yes, we have to hope it gets resolved before September, I want to tell you. Yes, there's someone with their finger on the nuclear button, so to speak. That's how I feel. In any case, indeed, I think that sooner or later the United States and Iran will have to sit down at the negotiating table because the economy won't follow. And the United States, as indebted as they are, cannot afford to have an economy that is faltering. So sooner or later, they will have to make concessions, and I think, I hope we will reach a resolution before September. Well, I don't have a meeting scheduled with XY there soon. He's there this week. Yes. Well, theoretically, if he starts banging his fist on the table and says, "Stop your nonsense or you'll have no more rare earths," that should bring the United States down a bit. We can manage everything except shortages. Shortages are a cap. Uh, so what strikes me about this subject is that everyone feels like everyone doesn't give a damn. I was going to say a bad word. [laughter] Uh, nobody gives a damn, especially the markets. Nobody gives a damn. I find it completely insane. Uh, except Michael Burry, except Michael Burry, or Warren Buffett. So Warren Buffett, that's my interpretation of what he's doing. Warren Buffett is playing the 70s card. It's clear and simple. It's clear and simple. He's lived through this. He's playing the 70s card. The 70s or the 2000s, because he behaved the same way during the 2000s. He's playing both. He's playing both. And moreover, to come back to the famous Buffett Indicator, on which certain parts have been criticized, in both cases, the Buffett Indicator was at the same level, and he's playing that card. So Buffett is betting that it's too expensive, regardless of what has been said about inflation and the fact that these businesses would absorb inflation and that profits would follow this inflation surge, that at some point there will be such a crazy problem with what is happening that a central bank reaction that raises rates to 8-10% will cause the markets to collapse, even if profits increase. You see? Because if the central bank rates rise to 8%, people will demand 20% returns on stock market investments. That is to say, you do a calculation of discounting your cash flows with an index of 20% raised to the power of the number of years, and you divide all the values by three. It's completely insane. So Buffet is playing that card. Now, on the fact that nothing is happening, I think we have a critical mass problem. What does that mean? I'll explain it as quickly as possible. You need critical mass on certain subjects. And right now, people, the critical mass of investors, have their brains focused on AI, and you have the surge in semiconductors because you specified that tech accounts for 40% or 40% of the S&P 500, but semiconductors themselves account for 23% of the index now. It's completely insane, the valuation of semiconductor companies. I know something about it, as I am the happy owner of Micron with a x14. [laughter] There you go. So I don't know where it's coming from, but it's happening. It accounts for 23% of the index. So it's undeniable. It's undeniable that right now people have their brains focused on AI. Yes. Uh, so what does that mean? It means that, for example, you see, 3 years ago, everyone was talking about Bitcoin. Have you heard anyone talk about Bitcoin in the last 6 months? Bitcoin is over. Now, I'm not saying it's over in terms of value and all that, but Bitcoin was the number one investment topic for 3 years. For 3 years, it was Bitcoin here, Bitcoin there. And it was a topic where the critical mass of people and investors put this subject at the top of the hierarchy of current trends. And I think that today, with this AI story, if there wasn't the AI revolution as it is, if we had simply continued with basic computing as it has always been, today the critical mass of people would put the oil problem at the top of the hierarchy, and perhaps reactions would occur that are not happening right now because the critical mass is not there. Uh, so I am very doubtful about the speed of a turnaround in opinion because I think that one, two, three, four concrete pieces of news, I'm not talking about projections or anything, well, the return of inflation, resolutions that don't happen, and all that, and you can have an extremely rapid shift of the critical mass of people who are interested in all this, who suddenly put AI in the background and put the oil problem in the foreground, and then things can move very, very quickly. Uh, so I think that's the explanation behind it. I don't see any other. In any case, I don't know what to do. I'm playing part of the game like Buffett. For me, there's also the explanation that today the oil crisis in Iran is not manifesting at all in company results for the moment, because in the first quarter, we had record profit increases, never seen before, plus increases in consensus for 2026 of forward guidance that have never been revised upwards so much. So, in fact, for the moment, I have the impression that this crisis in Iran is certain and risks having enormous repercussions on the economy, but that in fact, we are not seeing its effects at all, and therefore, for the moment, the market, being extremely short-term as always, reacts to what it sees. And here, what it sees for the moment is +27% on S&P 500 profits in Q1. And it sees all the AI companies setting records upon records upon records. So, yes, but potentially, indeed, you have a potential crash to come. And I want to say, I want to say, well, good if it happens, we'll be able to stay in the sale. Crash or inflation surge. I'm not concluding on the form it will take, but I don't understand how you don't hit a wall. Now, "crash" is a word that we are not here to play Cassandras. It's Michael Burry's nickname, not ours. [laughter] No, the subject is that I don't understand how you can circumvent the problem. It's not possible to circumvent the problem. Do you understand what I mean? Yes. You cannot circumvent the problem. You have the inflation that we see before our eyes, the publication of April 2026 which explains that petroleum products are at +20% on average and that you are at +50% for fuel in the United States. Just as the progression of calculations, this will not stop. So the problem is unavoidable. It's a supply shock problem. The central bank can do nothing about it. There is a problem in the context of a supply shock of matching supply and demand. You cannot play with that because if you play with it, demand must be destroyed. And to my great misfortune, the problem with demand is that it's us. But demand must be destroyed. It must be destroyed to adapt to supply. And it's price that does that. And if you, if you mess around, if you mess around with that, so in fact, that's where you can project a crash. That's where you can say, "Well, you destroy demand, so in fact, you put people on the street, and then you enter a recession." It's normal, it would be a logical conclusion. Yes, because it means that if prices increase, people don't go on vacation this summer. It means people drive less. It means they don't buy cars. It means that in all of this, entire sectors of the economy will be in recession, starting with all discretionary consumption and tourism. And it's already somewhat the case, by the way, discretionary consumption is not booming right now. The problem is that if you try to circumvent the problem [throat clearing] by doing monetary printing, QE returning, support for this, support for that, or political decisions on X, Y, Z, you cannot circumvent the shortage problem. So you will accentuate the shortage problem by helping people to continue to stay in the game when nature would have perhaps made them fall by the wayside. But then the politician can intervene by saying, "Yes, but they are my voters, so I'll save them. So they will be saved with subsidies or whatever you want. Thus, they will be able to buy oil, except that they were supposed to fall because they are less profitable than others, and the others who were by nature economically capable of absorbing the rise in oil prices should have bought it, and the others not have it. If you give money to everyone, the thing will skyrocket. You won't be able to circumvent the problem. Either you destroy demand and you have a problem heading towards recession, or you maintain demand and you make political decisions to support this or that, and you move towards a crazy inflationary crisis. Which means that you don't have a crash, which means that the stock markets rise, but it will be a smokescreen. It will just be "I'm not losing the monetary value that is being destroyed by economic support that could be organized around it." So, I cannot understand how it will tip over to one or the other. And I don't know if there is another scenario that someone could describe to us in the comments among these two alternatives. I just think that I don't understand how you finish the year 2026 without an incredible slap in the face on a subject, whether it's a reversal of opinion on market value or a surge in this inflation that has just peaked at 3.8% and could go back to 5, 6, 7, 8%, and tomorrow in all the stores, prices will go up by 30%. Anyway, I think the moral of the story in all of this is that we know absolutely nothing, and that it is impossible to predict what the markets will do in the coming months, which no one would ever have anticipated. When it started to fall in March, I thought we were heading for a good bear market, you know. Maybe not like 2008, but at least like 2022, potentially for the rest of the year. Well, finally, since March, we've gained 30%. We've gained 30% like that, in a straight line, like an arrow, it was impossible to predict. And the moral of the story is that you have to be invested, and I think you also have to continue buying no matter what, because you can't anticipate what the markets will do, but you potentially, if you're not invested, you have an opportunity cost. You have an opportunity cost. If you're not invested, you have an opportunity cost. You have a huge opportunity cost, and potentially, if there's someone who said at the beginning of the Iran crisis, for example, "I'm getting out of the markets, I'm not invested because it stinks," the opportunity cost is just huge. It's 30%, it's colossal. Yes, it's colossal, it's colossal. And the only thing to do is to be invested, to continue buying, and potentially to have a war chest. That is to say, if there's a crash of minus 30% on the S&P 500, you'll be ready to pull out your credit card and buy the sales. That's the only thing to do. Ah, so you want to keep cash, we agree. Ah, but obviously you have to keep cash, that's obvious. I think Buffett himself, if there's a minus 50%, he'll have a feast. Tonon Buffet with his 300 billion in cash. Yes, that's for sure. And I also think you have to be able to bring back, at least for me, it's

It's a bit like how I see things. That is to say, I invest every month, you see. I buy companies every month no matter what because I'm not capable of timing the market. Uh, I tried to do it a little bit last year telling myself, uh, uh, I don't want to buy because it's too much in the second half of the year, and in the end, I regret it because there are a lot of companies I would have liked to buy more strongly. So I tell myself I'm not capable of timing the market. So I buy every month, uh, the company that seems to me to be the most obvious to buy. But besides that, since I have cash, I'm not immune to telling myself tomorrow if there's a -30%. Uh, I'll withdraw 10 to 20, 30,000, uh, from the treasury and I'll put it all in at once. And then too bad, I'll reimburse myself on my next DCA. You see, in fact, it's just deferred DCA. You bring your DCA closer in time, uh, and you just won't invest for the next 6 months to reimburse yourself, uh, to reimburse yourself for what you should have invested over the 6 months. You invest, well, you see what I mean. But, I see what you mean. You have to be ready. I think you have to play on both sides. That is to say, you have to tell yourself, "I invest every month no matter what because it's impossible to time the market and if necessary, uh, we'll go up another 30% until September, we know absolutely nothing." But you also have to be able to play the crisis and tell yourself if it drops -30% or even -50%, you have to be able to draw your weapon and have cash to buy strongly at that moment because otherwise you'll kick yourself. People who didn't seize the opportunity last April are still kicking themselves today. I, I, well, I agree, but I can tell you what I did in addition to that, which is a change in my behavior. I've been a squirrel all my life, but I also knew my grandmother well, who was my Warren Buffett, who had no diploma and all that, but who had this exceptional merchant side and who knew all these stories and who also had the common sense of the old days, going back to 1920, those who lived through the war and inflation, and she often told me, "No, but cash has to be invested or spent." Uh, and but there's the part about spending it. And I think that's important because we've talked non-stop about investing or cash, and we're not allowed to give investment advice, but I'm allowed to give you advice to spend your cash. [laughter] Uh, what do I mean by that? It's something I've done, uh, that is, I've postponed certain renovations. Uh, I, I had projects, lots of personal projects that, well, I didn't feel like dealing with. I've restarted everything. If you have to change the washing machine, it's now. Because all the cash you can put into physical and real things, there, you're sure you're beating inflation no matter what, and you don't have too many opportunity costs on the stock market if the stock market doesn't do more than inflation because inflation is spiraling. And that seems a bit obvious to me. Now, not everyone also has, uh, I mean, it's obvious what I'm saying here. Uh, if you have a wealth problem of a million in stocks and you have, uh, 20,000 in projects, uh, to do at home, that doesn't solve the problem at all. Uh, now, if you have less cash in volume and you don't know where to put it and you have real-life projects that you've put off, I think you should, I think you should do them. I'll tell you an anecdote that, that disturbed me. Uh, we went to my mother's in the south, in the Var region, uh, two weekends ago, and we parked my wife's car in a small village in the upper Var, you see. We met up there, we carpooled from there, after work, we left the car in the village square, towed by the tow truck. On Sunday, there was a tow-away zone, we hadn't seen the sign. And when we picked up the car on Sunday evening, uh, it was in a Renault garage, and the guy had, on his lot, in his field, about 200 cars, you see, that didn't look in bad condition. They weren't wrecks. And I said to him, "Ah, by any chance, are you selling used cars? That sort of thing?" He said to me, "Ah no, these are all cars for technical inspection and everything." You know what he told me? He told me, "No, there are no more used cars." He told me, "You have to call us in advance. Uh, and if, well, if you want a sought-after small car, like Twingos and all that, you have to tell us, we'll reserve it for you, and, and I'm sorry, but we won't be able to guarantee the price because the price is going up." The guy explained to me that there were no more used cars and that the price of the Twingo was going up. So, on cars, you have, you have a problem of habit that has changed. A lot of people have switched to leasing. You've had a complete draining of the used car market because you've had all the buybacks of used cars with conversion bonuses to buy electric cars and so on. So you've emptied the used car market. You have that problem, which is part of what I'm telling you. But nevertheless, you also have the inflationary problem, right? So what I'm saying here is that [ __ ] if you can't afford a car anymore, well, it's not going to get better, right? So if you have to change your car, for me, it's now. If you have a trip to take, I took everyone to Disney the last time we saw each other, somewhere deep down, I already knew that they would announce that there might be no flights or vacations possible this summer, you see. Now, that wouldn't have stopped me from going to Disney this summer, but I had deep down the feeling, uh, the feeling, no, but take a little trip now because this summer, uh, it's not the same thing, right? Uh, and there you go, and I've restarted my renovations, I've done my appliance purchases, kitchen, all that. I've barely finished jackhammering the old kitchen, which was from 1960. So there was really tile to remove with a jackhammer, which I've already done the plans for at IKEA and I've ordered everything, because I'm thinking, and I'm ordering the windows. I've discussed with people about my window tiles and all that. In fact, I want to spend it all and buy everything in the next two months. Yes, in the next two months. I, it's, it's part of my thinking about everything we've said here. I'm doing that. After that, I have a problem, which is that I'm doing it out of stress. Uh, but the reality is that it's not at all on the scale of my wealth and my exposure to the problems we've mentioned, right? I mean, if it goes wrong, I'm going to get wiped out. [laughter] It's going to be, it's going to be a nightmare, right? You'll pick me up with a spoon, we'll see what happens. [laughter] But for now, I'm Peter Lynch, no problem. [gasp] But [ __ ] so, well. Well, you have to be ready, uh, you have to be ready to absorb, to absorb a potential crash this year, that's clear. You have to have strong nerves if we have a -30% or -50% because I think it will hit everyone. And then, especially what will make the difference is those who will have the ability to buy when it's at its lowest. Uh, because that's where you then make, uh, absolutely incredible performance. It's like Dev Cantessaria, I don't know if you know this Super Investor, uh, he made his fortune on S&P Global and Fico because he bought them at the lowest in 2008 when nobody wanted them. He bought, uh, billions of S&P, well, maybe not billions, millions perhaps of S&P Global at $9 a share in 2008 when everyone said the stock was finished, that rating agencies were done for, at the bottom, $9 a share. Today, it's at 400 and something. So I'll let you imagine, you had to have, you had to have the guts to buy rating agencies in 2008, huh, because they could have been nationalized. Exactly. And that's what made the guy achieve absolutely incredible performance and beat the S&P 500 for 10 years without doing anything, and he barely even moved his positions since then. It's just integrated into SML, I think, and that's it. So, uh, yes, it's at those moments that you make the biggest performances. Uh, even me, you see, on my scale, my small investor scale for 4 years, my biggest performance today is Google. Why? Because I bought it last April when it was, uh, the tariff crisis and the markets had dropped -20%, and I bought it at that time. And the x2 is thanks to that. If I hadn't bought it at the lowest, I wouldn't have performed so much. So, uh, I agree, people are capable of buying when everyone is selling, that's where the real performances will be made, right? This last part, that's what strikes me the most, Hugo, is that I understand you can't predict the crash. But basically, uh, there's something deep down that tells me that the problem is that if the market doesn't go down, it's a real problem, it's that you and I are Warren Buffett, right? [ __ ] have you seen the performances we've had? No, but it's, it's a problem. That is to say, either we are killers because we're performing between 25 and 30% per year, publicly proven, demonstrated for 5 or 6 years, in fact. Or, in fact, we are in a lucky moment because we're not at that level either. You see what I mean? So there's something that, there's something that tells me deep down that the story is too good to be true. I still have the impression, indeed, that there's been a huge rise, well, the people who have performed the best today, and all my performance, uh, I owe it to semiconductors, mainly to semiconductors and Google. They are the companies that have moved my portfolio the most. But I have the impression that, uh, you have people who got on the semiconductor train, and you have the others, and that the performance between the two is still quite, uh, you have a big gap in performance between the two. But I also don't have the impression that it's that obvious and easy. Let me explain. When, uh, I bought ASML, for example, last summer, I made my fastest gain ever on ASML. Uh, in 6 months, it went up x2. At the time I bought it, nobody wanted it. Nobody wanted it. And the narrative was that ASML's model would be destroyed because China was developing the same technologies as ASML, that they would copy them, and that ASML would lose its monopoly. When, personally, I bought Google, uh, last April, everyone was saying that Google was finished too. When, similarly, Upline Materials, it was the same narrative, uh, on semiconductors, and you have this pattern a bit every time, and I don't have the impression that it's that easy either. I'll give you the example of SK Hynix. You wish us. SK Hynix is an incredible company. Personally, I'm kicking myself. I should have bought it as soon as the first winning thesis was written on SK Hynix. Uh, I talked about it again at the beginning of March, but you see, it seems obvious today that I should have bought it, but nevertheless, I made the mistake of not doing it. And I personally estimate that it's potentially one of the biggest mistakes I've made in the last three months, much more than having bought Adobe and sold it at -10%. That, I want to tell you, doesn't matter, it was 1% of my portfolio, I lost 100 bucks, it doesn't impact my performance at all. But not having bought SK Hynix has a huge impact on my performance. But I bought it today. I bought it today, and I think the narrative, uh, on SK Hynix is still good, and you can still have an x2, x3, x4 without a problem on the stock for many reasons because the supply problems for RAM are not over at all, because demand is still much greater than supply for HBM for many reasons, and because SK Hynix is not listed in the US. You have an ADR that will arrive on NASDAQ by this summer. When the ADR arrives, you can be sure that the PE, in my opinion, will catch up to Micron's. It will go up x2 in the next 3 months. That's my thesis, and it's also the thesis of my friend, uh, my friend Antoine V, who won. So I give myself a lot of credit, but in fact, it's not, it's not mine [laughter] and, and, but it's not that obvious because again, today or even 2 months ago, buying SK Hynix might seem obvious, but in 6 months, a year, everyone will say it was easy, but nevertheless, when you look at it today, everyone says it's too late, it's FOMO, you should have bought 3 years ago, don't buy, blah blah blah blah blah blah. But the truth is that 3 years ago, nobody was talking about this damn stock. And to see 3 years ago that you should have bought Micron or SK Hynix, well, you had to be someone who buys weird companies. Present. [laughter] Present. [gasp] Yeah. No, but you see what I mean, is that with hindsight it seems easy, but at the moment, when you put yourself back, uh, in the context of the time when you bought the companies, well, it wasn't that obvious. People at the time weren't necessarily in agreement on all these companies. So, so yes, in 6 months, maybe it will be the same. People will say, "Yes, it was easy, SK Hynix, blah blah x2, x3, whatever you want." But nevertheless, today when you buy it, well, it's extremely hard to buy something that has already gone up a lot, and potentially, well, it was the same story with Nvidia. You see, I had bought Nvidia at 170, everyone said it was too expensive, it was useless, you shouldn't have bought it. Well, today Nvidia, I'm at, it's at 220, you see. So I haven't done the math, but I must be up 20 or 30% on it. So, believe it or not, it wasn't that bad. So, uh, No, absolutely. I, I'm just saying that I'm not sure it's that easy, you see. It seems easy to us because we discuss every week for 2.5 hours, uh, and we're immersed in it every day. But nevertheless, you look around you. Uh, not many people are doing it either. I agree. I agree. But I, I have a side of me that says, no, I'm not in the right place, you see, it's not normal. If Micron, SK Hynix, go up x2, x3 again, I'll have a 45-bagger, right? [grunt] I don't know if you realize what that means, right? [laughter] It's, it's insane, right? Yes, but you look at it step by step. The narrative today on RAM is just unprecedented, almost in human history. Uh, you have, uh, companies that have gone from being cyclical oligopolies that nobody wanted, at a PE of 10, to being the next TSMC, because RAM has gone from a commodity market of interchangeable RAM sticks to HBM, which is integrated into, uh, chips, into GPUs, into CPUs, and which is becoming as critical in the manufacturing of C+ as logic chips themselves. So you have a total repricing, you have a kind of super cycle coming into play because, in addition, it requires four times more production capacity than classic RAM sticks. Uh, and you have, you have an offer that is just insignificant compared to the demand. No, I don't know if you've seen, it's reached a point where SK Hynix's customers have offered to finance its production capacity. Hmm hmm. You have Nvidia, Google, all the gang who told them, "Well, you're cute with your shortages, here's a check, build us factories and do it." [sigh] I'm aware of it, I know, I'm on board, well, on the Micron side, but I, well, broadly speaking, and then I'll just conclude with that, conclude because then we'll move on. You also have this story about AI where it's extremely difficult, I find, to position yourself between "it's crap, it's just marketing and it's useless" and "it's the greatest revolution humanity has ever had," and you have a kind of cursor that oscillates between the two, and I have the impression that every week I'm bipolar, you see, and my brain oscillates between the two. One moment, I think it's crap when I use Mini, it hallucinates and it gives me stuff that, it gives me completely stupid stuff. One moment, I manage to run AI agents and automate things, and I say, "Damn, but in fact, I'm the king of oil, and this thing is great. This is, this is going to change humanity, you see." So, uh, Yes, you know, farmers had the same problem with the tractor. That is to say, suddenly they managed to plow all their fields and feel like they needed to work 10 times less than before. And then suddenly, after 3 months, they had to spend a week repairing the tractor, right? [laughter] Uh, so it's, I think it's the same feeling. It's when you were repairing the tractor, so you're repairing your prompt or decoding the crappy code you made in the tropics. In fact, you're repairing the tractor, right? But nevertheless, you plowed the field for, for 6 months, and, and okay, suddenly you're a bit bored doing mechanics to change that, but it's still more profitable than continuing to plow with a horse, even if with a horse you don't have, you don't have oil filter maintenance, right? That's clear. But yes, for me, it's, it's the same principle. But listen, I wish it for us. I wish it for everyone. There are a lot of people listening to us. Uh, I always, I don't have, there's a side to performance. People are looking for performance. That's not my issue. I'm happy to be there. But be careful, your microphone is crackling. I don't know why. You don't at all. Ah, I don't know, I didn't do anything. It's still crackling. Yes, yes. Well, listen, if the end of the podcast is messed up, I don't know what I can do [laughter] there. And is it better now? Well, maybe the PC is about to give up, I don't think so. Well, listen, that means it's the end. A final word. Listen, [laughter] we've talked for 2 hours. Finally, we haven't asked any questions, got any answers. You see, I thought we wouldn't have anything to say during this podcast, and finally, uh, and finally we talked for another 2 hours. [grunt] And there you go. So, uh, there you go, I have a robot voice. That's it. It's a replacement for me. It's crackling, it's quite strange. You must have a bad connection in your cable or I don't know. You'll have to. Well, listen, that means it's the end of the providence. We've decided. [laughter] Thank you all. Go subscribe to the Bagger channel, of course. Go test Bagger. 14-day free trial in the description, and then see you next time, and then go test Bagger so you don't miss, well, the next portfolio gains, because you too, obviously, this is not investment advice. Uh, there you go.