Transcription
We are chaining a 5th week of decline for the S&P 500 with three big names here: Meta - 12%, Google - 10%, Microsoft - 7%, Micron - 19%, Sales Force - 7%. So we have companies that have taken quite a hit, Service Now - 10%. So in this video, we're going to talk about Meta, which suffered a big blow in the last two days. It lost almost 11% in the space of two sessions. We'll find out why. We'll see if it can represent an opportunity, and we'll also rank the companies that have fallen significantly since the beginning of the year and which could potentially represent, finally, an opportunity. We have some PEA stocks like LVMH, Ferrari, or even Hermes, but we also have stocks for the CTO. We also have Mercado Libre making its appearance in these watchlists. I don't think I've ever talked about it before. So we're going to talk about all these companies and rank them, which ones are the best opportunities to outperform in the long term and which ones are not. Just before diving into the heart of the video, if you want to go further, for me to help you build a portfolio that outperforms the indices with a clear methodology, I invite you to click on the link in the description to discover my investment strategy, the methodology I use, as well as book a call directly with me so we can talk about it on the phone and create an action plan for your portfolio. The call is non-binding, it's free, and at the end, you'll leave with a concrete action plan to implement directly. Let's get straight into the video. Now, we're going to talk about Meta. Why is it falling so much? Well, if we look at the stock price evolution since the beginning of the year, we're at -19%. Over the last 5 days, -13%, and it's especially since Wednesday where we had a first drop of -7% to -8% approximately, and a second drop of -3% to -4% on Friday. So why? The first reason is that we had major legal battles. There was a judgment given in Los Angeles in a case where a young woman had sued them, and they were found 70% liable in a $6 million verdict for negligence. In fact, they are considered to be too addictive. They designed algorithms that were far too addictive, and so some people are starting to sue them. YouTube and Google are in the same boat here, and we see that they also took a hit this week. Now, is it serious? Yes or no? Not really. It doesn't fundamentally change the business model. Now, this is the kind of news that bothers the market a lot. The problem here is that this is one case where it happened like this. The problem is that there are apparently more than 2 or 3,000 similar cases potentially pending. So if we multiply $6 million by 2,300, that's a hefty sum of money. Obviously, not all of them will be for the same amount. So we'll see what happens in the coming weeks. Same thing, it's the justice system. So maybe they were found 70% liable, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll pay 70% of $6 million. Maybe other settlements have been reached, maybe it will go nowhere. They will undoubtedly appeal the decision, but it's there, and investors don't like that very much. Another thing, we have another unfavorable case here in New Mexico with significant damages, up to $375 million in a case related to child predators on Facebook, Instagram. So this one seems a bit more serious to me. The amount too, we'll see how far it goes, what happens. But these are things that investors, especially in the short term, don't like. In the long term, it doesn't really have consequences, but in the short term, people don't like it and tend to exaggerate what's really happening. The second thing is this: since the beginning of the year, since the announcement of the latest results, it's the colossal spending in CapEx that has largely increased, forecasting between 162 and 169 billion in spending. And they have announced that their avocado model is postponed to May. Okay? Because it wasn't good enough compared to the competition, even though they've already invested a lot. They are postponing the release of this model. There are also plans for an initial investment in Texas for $1.5 billion. They have planned to invest $10 billion in the end, so almost 10 times more. So it's a whole bunch of news that doesn't necessarily please the market. We can already expect a year with free cash flow at zero or even negative for Meta with all the investments they are making. They are starting to go into debt, and on top of that, well, they probably won't do buybacks, forget about that. They are starting to go into debt and not really have free cash flow, likely a decrease in margins for the year despite revenue growth that should explode, so not great at all. And if we look at the numbers, we'll look at the debt that has evolved. We'll go into the balance sheet, go down to liabilities, and we can see that the debt has evolved quite a bit for Meta. So total debt, you see that it's exploding between 2024 and 2025, it's almost double the debt. If we look at it quarterly, it was free in Q4 2025. All the debt that arrived, that's where it exploded, $30 billion in debt arrived to finance all of this. We'll look here in the cash flow statement, cash, capex, we see we're at $70 billion and it's projected to double that to $130-140 billion for 2026, so even more than that. So naturally, investors don't like that very much. Especially since, well, it means that margins will potentially decrease. If we look at operating margins at the moment, we have margins of 41%, we risk seeing them drop to maybe 30-35%. We'll see how far it goes. Despite this, does it remain an interesting and undervalued company? I consider that yes, it remains an interesting company. They are in a phase of acceleration, of transition. So it's normal that there's a lot of CapEx. The concern here is whether the CapEx will pay off. Apparently, for Meta, yes, they have such a huge competitive advantage, they have such a powerful platform that yes. Now, the problem is whether they will have to constantly spend on CapEx or if it will just be for once or for 4-5 years and then it's settled. That's the big concern because if they have to continue spending on CapEx non-stop, then it will become a bit more complicated. So we'll value that. To value it, we'll do it on operating cash flow. That way, we'll take the effect of CapEx into account a little less. By the way, we'll assume that it's temporary, that it won't last forever, that it will be like this for just the next three or four years. So we'll take the price to operating cash flow for that. We can see that we're at 11 currently. The 10-year median is 16, the 20-year median is 20, and the median a bit more since 2008 approximately is also 20. Now we'll remove, we'll start from 2000. We were around 32 here. So rather 16. 16 as a median, we're currently at 11. If we take the operating cash flow, we can see that there's good growth. We have 115 billion currently. There. 115 billion 800. So we'll put it here. 115 billion 800. We guide a price to operating cash flow of 14 and a growth of operating cash flows of 15% per year. I forecast for next year a 30% revenue growth. So the operating cash flow should potentially follow, not necessarily at 30%, but I think 15% for the next 5 years is largely achievable. By achieving 15% growth in operating cash flow, we would find 19% per year by buying at these prices. This gives us a fair value around $700. If now we decide to be a bit more conservative and put 11 here, so we don't move. The valuation multiple doesn't move, even with 15% growth, we get 14% per year. Here, what the market estimates would be 13% annual growth for no real movement in the valuation multiple and 13% annual growth. That's what the market seems to estimate for the company. Which means that in my opinion, around $520, it's a very, very good opportunity. Okay? Is it the opportunity of the century? Not necessarily, but it remains a very, very good opportunity. It's not as good as what we had in 2022, but I also find that it's less risky than in 2022, because in 2022, we had a bigger drop. We had stagnant revenue in 2022. We shouldn't forget, it wasn't easy to live through the stagnation of revenue. If we go back here, let's put it in 2022, you can see that in 2022, revenue slightly decreased. Here, we expect revenue growth, so it's a bit more encouraging. Now, I'm going to put it in S. I think it's among the top opportunities to outperform the market over the next 5 to 10 years. Now, for the year, I don't know. I don't have a crystal ball. Now, with these fundamentals and with a CEO who is as much "in the game" as Mark Zuckerberg, who is still a very good CEO. You can say what you want about how he spends money. At the end of the day, it's one of the most profitable companies in the world. It's one of the most profitable and resilient business models in the world. So, yes, he tests things, he tries things to continue growing the company, but because he can afford to test so many things, and every time things start to go wrong, when shareholders have doubts, he corrects things, he improves margins, he restarts, he brings back growth. So, presumably, things should go well. Let's move on to LVMH now. LVMH has also taken a hit since the beginning of the year. Since the beginning of the year, we're at about -28% for a company that is generally still quite good. Now, the reason why we have such a low score here is because the growth metrics are not great. They don't allow for a high score, but over the last 5 years, growth has slowed down so much that it doesn't earn any points. So it doesn't increase the company's score. Debt is generally good, margins are good, even if they are down compared to 5 years ago. That's not great. Profitability is good, it's increasing compared to 5 years ago. And if we compare it in terms of free cash flow, profitability is also generally quite good, almost 15%. Not exceptional, but it's still not bad for a company that generally has little CapEx, a rather low dividend, well, a dividend that is now a bit higher at 2.8%, still 60% of EPS, but it remains a solid company. It's not perfect, okay? It's not the kind of company that, when bought at fair value, will generate 15-20% per year. However, by buying them undervalued and drastically undervalued with large safety margins, they are the kind of companies that can bring good performance over 2, 3, 4 years and can also protect a portfolio. Now, you really have to buy them at a fair value, well, undervalued, not at fair value, really undervalued. And today, if we look at the valuation, well, if we do it based on free cash flow, where will we find it? Here, free cash flow, we have a free cash flow at the moment of 15 billion. Well, the market, with a free cash flow of 15 billion, expects us to have a growth of about 9% per year. The market expects a growth in free cash flow per share of 9% per year for a price to free cash flow of 17 in 5 years to achieve 13% per year. Okay. Is that possible? Honestly, I think so. I think they are capable of achieving that. If we look at the historical price to free cash flow for LVMH, we'll be looking more at 10 years, the median is 25. Over 20 years, the median is 24. Over 30 years, the median is 23. We'll remove 2001. So from 2002, the median is 24. Okay. Today, we're at 15. It's rarely been this cheap in terms of price to free cash flow. Okay, so this is rare that it's this low. So that would mean it's starting to be good. It leaves decent safety margins, that's possible, but for me to be really comfortable, I would put 7% growth here, but rather 15% there. Which is more consistent with 7% growth. This would give us a fair value around €400. Okay. €455 is still a bit expensive for me. I would really put it at €400. I think at a price of €400, it becomes interesting to enter. For someone who has no choice with their PEA, it can be interesting here. For someone who is not looking to outperform the indices, it can be interesting here. And I am looking to outperform the indices, and for that, I need more safety margin. I find that today, LVMH has more safety margin at these price levels. So I'm going to put it in B. I'm going to put it in B. It could be between B and A. It could be a B+ but it will be a B. Let's move on to EssilorLuxottica. So here, we have a margin score that's not great. Okay, especially hit by efficiency and capital allocation. Why? Because, well, stock-based compensation, we don't have any. So that reduces the score, but it would have increased it. So normally, we should be around 50-51. What could be here? It's mainly profitability that is too low. An ROE of 6.5% is too low. An ROIC of 6% is too low. An ROCE of 4.5% is too low. I aim for a minimum of 15% here. So from this point, from this point, it's the return on invested capital for me. It's the most important metric for a business, people. So at 4.5%, it's trash automatically. I don't even bother digging deeper. I don't even bother trying to understand. It's trash. Especially since it's clearly not just exceptional for this year. It's always been like this. So now you can reassure yourselves however you want about EssilorLuxottica. Imagine the future you want, but it remains a poorly managed company with profitability that has already decreased significantly since 2000, since 2001. Okay, it has been divided by almost 3, and moreover, it has rarely been above 15%. Every time they were above 15%, it wasn't great. Okay, it didn't last long, it was very quick. Furthermore, I believe it's a company that dilutes its shareholders in the long term. Yes, they diluted them in 2019, and since 2019, they have continued the dilution. So not great. I don't like that very much. If we look at the valuation, we're at a price to free cash flow of 23 currently. So we're paying a lot for a company with such a low ROIC, with such low margins. Frankly, 60% gross operating margin for 12% to 11% operating margin, I find it a bit excessive. Okay, I find there are too many losses. This means the competitive advantage is not great. The debt level is acceptable, growth is also acceptable. Not great for EPS over 10 years, but overall it remains acceptable. The thing is that it doesn't leave enough safety margin. So here we would have a price to free cash flow of 24. Honestly, I don't think it's normal that today Essilor is trading at a higher multiple than LVMH. If you put things in context and if Essilor is trading at a higher multiple than LVMH, I much prefer to be invested in LVMH than in Essilor. So the fundamentals are much better at LVMH. So here, 24, the historical median is 24. So we are more or less at fair value in terms of price to free cash flow. We are at the median level. And so we'll look at the free cash flow, how much it amounts to. We have a free cash flow that is 3.7 billion. If we aim for the targets, what growth would we need to justify this price? The current price implies that we expect 12% annual growth and to return to the median in terms of P/FCF, meaning the P/FCF multiple doesn't move, and we have 12% growth. If you think that 12% growth is possible for free cash flow per share for the company, then it could potentially be an opportunity. Personally, I think it doesn't leave enough safety margin. I think it's a company that is likely to grow around 10% and especially that deserves a P/FCF around 20. So that would mean we would have a fair value around €150 and not €200. So again, too little safety margin. This one, I'm putting it in D because anyway, the quality of the business is not good enough. Fortinet, excellent margin score. Here, we can see that since the beginning of the year, the stock is more or less flat. We're at -4%, it goes up, it goes down, it's a bit of a yo-yo. Here, we have very good margins in growth, profitability is also very good. So this is what we like. Now, what is it worth in terms of valuation? Well, if we look, we're at a price to free cash flow of 26 currently. So we're paying a bit of a premium for the company. We have a free cash flow of 2.2 billion. Okay, so with the 2.2 billion, taking an estimate of price to free cash flow at 25 and an estimate of free cash flow growth of 15% per year, that would give us 14% per year. A few weeks ago, management reconfirmed its guidance that growth should accelerate in the coming years. They see a lot of demand in their sector. So we can potentially expect a reacceleration of growth. We'll see now what happens. But 15% seems largely achievable for this company, which would give us a fair value around $80. Now, if we want to be a bit more conservative and take 13% growth in free cash flow per share, that would give us a fair value around $75. So we're slightly below here. So for Fortinet, I'm going to put it in generally B+ to A, meaning it's not bad. The price is really starting to be very interesting. Now, it's not at the level of, it's not at the level of Meta. Ferrari. Now Ferrari, which is down 13% since the beginning of the year, had a small rally following warnings, only to fall back completely. We have a score that's not too bad. We have margins that are increasing, which is good. We have profitability that is generally increasing. The ROIC is very good. The ROCE too. Now, if we look at the valuation, that's where it's going to be a bit of a problem. It's a P/E of 30, P/E of 32, 30 for a company that, well, there must be a historical premium. I'm willing to pay, it's trading at 35 times. Now, for the growth we can estimate, an estimate of 10%, not even 10% earnings per share growth for the next 4 years, it still seems expensive to pay so much for only 10% growth. Now, I accept that there's the Ferrari premium. But still, if we look at net income, income statement, net income, we're at 1.6 billion. Well, if we aim for 10% growth and a price to earnings of 25, that's already a premium, because 25 is quite good for a company growing 10% per year, that would give us 6% per year. It should be bought around €200 and not €280. So we are still quite expensive currently if we want to outperform for the next five years. To justify the current price, it would mean we estimate a price to earnings of 30 and 13% annual growth in net earnings per share, because the company can grow its net earnings per share by 13% per year and then aim for a price to earnings of 30. A price to earnings of 30 seems possible given that it's a very popular company, a strong competitive advantage, a big brand. Now, 13% annual growth in net earnings per share, that's where I have more doubts. So not a big fan, I'm going to put it in C. Mercado Libre, which is among the companies that represent for many the opportunity of this beginning of the year. The stock has dropped by almost 20% since the beginning of the year. Okay. It has dropped quite a bit from its highs. I believe it's -40% from its highs. So that's a nice drop. But despite that, over 3 years it's up 30%, and over 5 years it's up 10%. So not great. It's a company that grows very, very, very fast, that should continue to grow at over 20% per year, that should grow its net earnings per share by 40% per year, that has good profitability. Now, the ROE is quite low, there are potential adjustments to be made to it. The ROCE is good. So let's value that. To value that, we'll take, well, we need to adjust the free cash flow. Okay? Because if we look at the free cash flow, we can see a very big explosion, but adjustments need to be made. The reason is that they opened their banking services, so there are deposits that are not theirs. So we would need to take free cash flow, so the 10 billion minus more or less. Okay, not exactly that, but it's more or less minus the receivables, so minus 7 billion, that makes more or less 3 billion of adjusted free cash flow, which corresponds more or less to the operating income. Okay? 3.2 billion here is more or less the operating income. So we'll value it like that. If we take the free cash flow, so we have to roughly divide it by 3. So we have a price to free cash flow, well, multiply it by 3. We have a price to free cash flow of 8 currently. So x 3 makes it approximately here, x 3 makes it 27. So the historical median for the company since, let's say from 2021, because there was this slight change in business model. Since 2022, we have a median of 12. We need to multiply by 3, that makes a median of about 30. Okay. So today, what is estimated for the business is that it will grow its free cash flow per share by 15% per year for a price to free cash flow of 25, and then we would get 13%. Which seems achievable. Okay, we're talking about estimates generally around 25% here. So here, if we have 25%, it largely deserves 30. Even if, let's say, we remove the premium because it's Latin America, so we leave it at 25, that would give us 23% per year. 23-25% growth in free cash flow per share, I think it doesn't leave enough safety margin. We're still talking about a company that has just changed its CEO. We're talking about a company that is planning a lot of CapEx to accelerate its growth. So if something goes wrong, 25% could be a bit more complicated. So I think 15% is good. I think today we are at a very interesting price. That is to say, when I say very interesting, I think it's not as interesting as Meta. I think Meta will offer a bit more security, more guarantee compared to Mercado Libre, but it remains a very good price. So Mercado Libre, I'm putting it in A+. Okay, I'm not putting it in S, I'm putting it close, I'm going to put it in A here. But it deserves an A+. It really deserves between the two, between A and S, it's an A+ for Mercado Libre. Let's move on to Hermes. Hermes, which has also taken a hit since the beginning of the year, 22% for the company. At the same time, I've been saying for quite some time that it's overvalued. This is not the first time we've had it here, but you told me each time, people told me in the comments, "Yes, but Guillaume, it's an exceptional competitive advantage. It will probably never come down to the level you're aiming for, etc. So I prefer to buy. Even if I get burned, I prefer to buy." Well, you need to know how to be patient in the stock market if you want to outperform, you need to be patient. The problem is that you are not patient. The majority of you are not patient. You are not willing to wait for a stock to drop 30% to open a position, to get a good price. As soon as you like a stock, you want to invest regardless of the valuation, or by saying it will never drop that much, so it will never be interesting. It's a bit like if you walk into a bar, a woman comes to see you, she touches your hand, she says hello, and suddenly you want to marry her, you want to have children with her, you barely know her first name. Well, no guys, don't exaggerate, you need to study the business a bit more and be a bit more patient, go less fast. Here, we're talking about a company, the fundamentals are exceptional, 84/100, Hermes' fundamentals don't really need proving. The problem with Hermes is the valuation. Today, it's trading at 37 times earnings despite the drop. It's a company that historically, let's take the maximum since 2001, trades at 36 times earnings. So we're slightly above the historical median again, keep in mind, we're still above the historical median. We'll see what happens, but we're still paying a very high premium for a company that shouldn't grow by more than 10-12% per year. Okay. Here, we're talking about companies today that we can buy at 20-25 times earnings that should grow at 15-20% per year, and people still want to go for Hermes, paying almost 40 times earnings for a company that will struggle to grow by more than 12% per year for the next 5 years. So frankly, you're weird guys, you're really weird. If we look at the valuation, well, at the moment, the market estimates, if we take, well, I'll check if the free cash flow I took, well, to take the P/E instead, is the net income good? 4.5 billion, 4.5 billion net income, price to net income, because let's not kid ourselves. If we have 12% growth, we get 7% per year. The fair value is €1200-1300. We'll need another 20% drop for it to become interesting and for us to position ourselves. If we want to estimate that we will grow at 15% per year, we'll have to wait for €1450 to position ourselves for a price to earnings of 30. Here, what the market estimates is approximately that, approximately 14% annual growth in net earnings per share and a price to earnings of 35. That's what the market estimates. That's what the market is aiming for and considers fair for the company. It's expensive, frankly, it's very expensive for not a lot of growth for such a high premium. Now, I accept that it's a very well-known brand, that it has a huge competitive advantage, that it has decades and decades of know-how, but honestly, it's too expensive. 35 times earnings for a company that grows, and even then, 14% per year, you have to achieve it, but for a company that grows 10%, 35 times is too much. 25 times is already generous. So 30 times, here, my estimate, the best I can do is that, really the best. And even then, I would be more comfortable. Honestly, below €1000, above €1200, I won't touch the stock. If I ever get in, I think it would be around €1200, slightly below €1200. That could interest me. So, currently, Hermes, it's with Ferrari. It's in C, it's not in D because it's not a bad company, it's a very good company, but unfortunately, it's still trading far too expensively. Faurecia, I just published a deep dive on the company, by the way. So you can find it in the video just before this one that I published on the channel. So Faurecia, we have generally a very good score. We have a company that since the beginning of the year is down -42%, so it's taken quite a hit. We'll look at the valuation. So we were in this scenario too, where again, the valuation was very high. We're at a price to free cash flow of 32 currently. We're at a forward price to free cash flow around 22, which is one of the lowest historical levels for the company if we take forward earnings. It's still a company that has guided for 25% growth for the next 3 years. Knowing that every time they've made guidance, they've generally done better. So not bad at all. We're talking about a company that historically trades at 35 times earnings. We're at 32 times currently. What the market expects today, well, it would be a price to free cash flow of 25 and a growth of 19. That's what the market expects. Which is largely achievable. Which is really largely achievable. Here's what's guided. Okay, it's 25% growth in free cash flow per share. 25. We're at 19% CAGR by buying today. So we're at a fair value of $1300. My fair value is between $1002-1003. So here, honestly, we're really at a price that's not expensive. Here, Faurecia, for once, it's really not expensive. It's up to you now, with your analysis, to see if you think the wind score will really bother Faurecia and make them lose market share. I don't think so. So I'm putting it in S. It's a company I own in my portfolio, and I find it to be at a very interesting price. Let's move on to MSCI. MSCI, which is generally holding up quite well since the beginning of the year. We're at what? -5%. That's okay, it's doing a bit better than the S&P 500, which is at -7% if I'm not mistaken. The company, we have an excellent margin score of 84. We have margins that are increasing and are incredibly high. We have very good profitability as well. Capital allocation with a lot of buybacks. They just took on debt to do buybacks. So debt is the small black spot here, but they have debt that pays 5%, 5.5% interest on it, approximately. Their cost of capital is around 8-9%, so that reduces the cost of capital a bit. And behind that, we still have a
This is a company that will buy back a lot of shares because all the debt they took on was to buy shares. Okay? So here, we see a vir 4, meaning there are a lot, a lot of share buybacks. And if we look at the cash flow statement, financing activity, common stock repurchase, we see 2.4 billion in 2025, which is enormous. It's the biggest share buyback they've ever done, and we're likely to see the same for the first quarters of 2026. So we'll see how it evolves, but it's very promising on that front. All that's left is to value it. What price does it deserve for a company like this? We're currently at a price-to-free cash flow of 25. 25 on price-to-free cash flow for a company that historically trades at 32 times free cash flow over 20 years, 20 to 25 times free cash flow over 30 years, 25 times. So 25 seems more or less correct for the company. Okay. To achieve 13% per year, we need 12% annual growth in free cash flow per share and a price-to-free cash flow of 25. This seems largely achievable. It's a company that historically grows its free cash flow per share by 15%. 15% growth in free cash flow per share. The guidance, well, the analysts' estimates here, not the guidance, the analysts' estimates are around 15% as well for earnings per share growth. So 12% seems to provide a decent margin of safety. If we were to aim for 15% here, we would have a fair value of almost $600, and we would achieve 16% per year at that price. So 12% seems quite conservative to me. I find that $520 is a very attractive price to position oneself in MSCI. So MSCI, I'll put it here. It's not at the same level as Faco and Meta in terms of valuation. MSCI's valuation today is still a bit more expensive, but it's not bad at all. I'll put it at A+. I'll put it at A+, I'll leave it at A, but it would go to A+ if we could place it somewhere. Uh, Apple. Apple has an excellent margin score, even if we've had a small problem recently, it's the growth that's struggling. Now, we had good earnings per share growth last year thanks to share buybacks, thanks to the mechanisms they were able to implement, and a very good launch of the iPhone 17, but it's struggling a bit. If we look at shares outstanding, we see that there are quite a few share buybacks done every year. Okay, a lot, 90 billion in share buybacks for a company that trades at 30 times earnings, 29 times free cash flow. So that's quite a lot, it's quite high. If we look at growth, we had almost no growth since 2022. It's picked up a bit now in 2025. We'll see if it can continue. But overall, it's a company that trades at 29 times free cash flow. The historical median is 26 times over 20 years, 17 times over 30 years, 17 times. Okay? So we'll aim for 26. 26 seems reasonable. What is the current free cash flow? The current free cash flow is 123 billion. So if we aim for a price-to-free cash flow of 123, well, we'll settle for 24. 24 leaves a margin of safety. 18% annual growth in free cash flow per share. Is that possible? I find that high. I find it will be difficult to achieve more than 13% per year, honestly. Here we'll aim for 13%, which gives us 8% per year. The market estimates that we'll be more around 15% here and 27%. Okay. 27 price-to-free cash flow for 15% growth in free cash flow per share. It's possible, but it seems a bit difficult to me. So I would put Apple at C, at C. It's not garbage, but it's not very attractive at these prices. Microsoft. Microsoft has experienced a nice drawdown since the highs it reached around October 2025. We went from almost $530 to now $380-$350. So that's quite a bit. Let's take a look. Well, the numbers are excellent. We're still in the hyperscalers, so a lot of CapEx spending. Although Microsoft's CapEx spending is lower than Google's, Amazon's, or Meta's, it's still quite substantial. So we'll focus on price-to-operating cash flow. We have a current price-to-operating cash flow of 16.5 for a company that historically trades at around 21 times over 20 years, 16 times over 30 years, 17 times. It's hard to go back to 20 years plus 30 years because from 2016-2017, when Satya Nadella took the reins of the company, he made a big transition to the cloud, which improved the business and margins, so it's normal for the company to be worth a bit more and have a higher multiple once it recovered. So from 2016-2017, we'll be looking at a median of 21. If we look at the current operating cash flow, it's 160 billion. We're looking at a company, so we have our 160 billion here. Currently, the market estimates that we would have a price-to-operating cash flow of 18 and a growth of only 11% per year, which seems largely, largely achievable for the company. Okay? It's largely, largely, largely achievable. Revenue alone should grow by more than 17% per year. So we should see a nice acceleration in revenue. So that seems achievable. I find Microsoft to be cheap today. It's among the potential good opportunities. It will be in S tier with Meta and with Fo. We still have six companies to put in this table, and the suspense is on because they will come next week. So next week in the video, I will rank these six companies and also rank those that will be in the comments, in the comments that get the most likes or those that appear most often in your comments. So which company would you like to see for the rest of this ranking that will be released next week, let me know. Don't forget, if you want to go further, I invite you to click on the link in the description to discover my entire strategy that allows me to outperform major indices like the S&P 500, the Nasdaq, or the MSCI World. And you'll see the entire strategy I use if you want to go further, if you want me to help you implement it in your portfolio, or if you want me to build your portfolio for you, then click on the link, book a call with me, and you'll leave with an action plan during that call, and if necessary, we'll work on it together. If you liked the video, please give it a thumbs up. Tell me in the comments what you think of this ranking so far. And of course, tell me the companies you want to see, that you don't see on screen right now, that you would like to see for the rest of the ranking coming next week. I'll see you very soon for another video. Bye. Bye.