Transcription
Well, the ranking, here it is. First, the top two. Bernard Arnaud reclaims his throne as the wealthiest Frenchman last year. To everyone's surprise, he had ceded it to Axel Dua and the Hermès family. Well, this year, the head of LVMH reclaims his property with over 121 billion euros in wealth, compared to 114 billion euros for the Hermès family. For the rest of the top 10, what is striking is that we find exactly the same people as last year, with the Vertimer brothers for the Chanel house, Françoise Bettencourt for L'Oréal, Rodolphe Saadé for the shipowner CMA CGM, Xavier Niel for Free, and the d'Assos, Mulliez, and Pinault families. Finally, Emmanuel Besnier is in 10th place in the ranking, heir and president of the Lactalis group. That's it for the first ones. But there are also some curiosities. The most notable one is found at the other end of the ranking, at the very bottom. The 500th wealthiest person in France is at least as well-known, if not more so, than the first, as it is George Clooney. Yes, George Clooney, the actor, director, producer, and Italian-American who enters this ranking with a fortune of 250 million euros. Why? Because the artist was naturalized French last year. He lives a good part of the year in the south of France in Brignol, in the Var region, in this immense Provençal farmhouse. An estate of 172 hectares with lavender fields, vineyards, a private lake, and of course, the swimming pool that goes with it, and a tennis court. The estimated value of the property is 8 million euros. But he owes his fortune mainly to his investments in beverages, particularly his tequila brand, which was a hit in the United States and which he sold last year. Since then, he has launched into non-alcoholic beer. George Clooney, 500th French fortune. Do you like the winks, Emmanuel Dutilleul? The wink is that this year we have set the lowest bar to enter at 250 million, and he is exactly at 250 million euros. But well, it's true that there's a little wink, as you say, it allows the ranking to generate buzz, and it must be acknowledged that we were not mistaken. Welcome to France, George. Let's move on to the major lessons from this ranking, Quentin. And the first lesson, as we just said, is that the entry ticket to be among the top 500 has never been so high. The magazine Challenges gives a name to this entry ticket, the FMIC for the minimum fortune for inclusion in the ranking, and it is set this year at 250 million euros. So, George Clooney's fortune 30 years ago, David, was about 15 million euros, or 20 times less. Moreover, there have never been so many billionaires in the ranking. 153 this year. That's 8 more in one year. 78 more than 10 years ago, 111 more billionaires than 20 years ago. Among the 13 new entrants to this ranking, we can mention, for example, Jean-Christophe Cardélou, 102nd fortune, founder of the company NW, specializing in electricity storage, with 1.4 billion euros. Olivier Goudet also, 117th fortune, who thanks to multiple investments in beer, wine, oat milk, and today in BIC pens, reaches 1.25 billion euros, or Isabelle Marleix, 69th French fortune, from the Biogroup laboratories, who goes from 600 million euros to 1.9 billion euros, a 315% increase in one year. The second lesson is more counter-intuitive, David, because the 500 richest French people are less wealthy than before. When we add up these 500 largest fortunes, we reach the figure of 1076 billion euros. That's astronomical, but it's less than last year, when the ranking reached, look, 1129 billion euros. That's a 5% decrease in one year. And we can start to talk about a trend, as this is the second consecutive year of decline. So how to explain it? Well, because the fortune of the 500 is linked to the international economy and to the price of hydrocarbons, the magazine recalls. The new US customs duties launched by Donald Trump, and especially the war in Iran with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, have caused certain fortunes to plummet. For example, -8 billion euros for the d'Assos family, -3.5 billion euros for the shipowner Rodolphe Saadé, whose cargo ships were blocked for months in the Persian Gulf. The luxury and spirits sector is also not spared. Thus, the family of Pinault loses nearly 50 billion euros. Alexandre Ricard loses 1 billion euros. And conversely, some profit from the geopolitical situation. Special mention to the duo François Cazeau and Jean Mier, founders of the website Capler, which analyzes the data, routes, and cargo of tankers worldwide every day. With the war in Iran, the use of their analyses has exploded. Result: they enter the ranking at 315th place, the 315th fortune, with 450 million euros. This is also the last piece of information, David, from this ranking. French fortunes are increasingly focused on new, so-called Californian sectors, tech, and especially artificial intelligence. We can mention the three founders of Mistral, who move up 20 places in the ranking and double their fortune to reach 6 billion euros. Or Yann LeCun or Alexandre Lebrin, creators of their artificial intelligence company Mistral AI, who also make a striking entry into the top 500 fortunes with 1.15 billion euros in wealth. Thank you, Quentin. So there's a lot there. They enter the ranking. It's in homeopathic doses, though, when you compare it to what's happening elsewhere. French fortunes remain predominantly old fortunes. That's also your conclusion, Emmanuel Dutilleul. Yes, very clearly, when we look at the top 10, they are French families who have been at the top of the ranking for a very, very long time and who are doing very, very well. After that, what's very important to remember when we talk about fortunes, your viewers shouldn't think it's the money they have in their bank accounts. The great peculiarity of this Challenges ranking is what we call professional fortunes. It's the valuation of all the stakes they may have in the different companies they own. It's important, I think, to make the distinction between the two. So, the question I want to ask you tonight is, of course, and Quentin explained it well, the overall volume of these fortunes is stagnating. There's a trend towards stagnation. We understand that it's directly linked to geopolitics, but nevertheless, the entry threshold for the top 500, the famous FMIC that you defined with a sense of humor, 15 million 25 years ago, 250 million today. The question I want to ask you is, do you think that these fortunes, in a way and to a certain degree, not necessarily massively, but do they challenge the idea of national cohesion? Or are those who say that simply bitter or jealous? I don't think so. What I observe is that these fortunes, it's true, are the old economy, but it's us, it's France, that's how it is. It's a reflection of the French economy. Yes, it's us. That's exactly what I just said. And on the other hand, I also see that it's the capacity to drive growth. That is to say, when you go from 15 to 250 million euros, it means you've gained volume in reality. I see in the names some industrialists, for example, who were SMEs and became mid-sized companies and then very large companies in the healthcare sector, in the industrial sector, extreme cables, a small company in Vergniat in the Marais. No one knows who it is. In reality, these are the cables that equip space stations, high-speed trains, nuclear power plants. That's French genius. So we have business leaders today who have been able to drive growth. And then indeed, it's professional assets, so it's productive assets. On the contrary, I would say that it fuels national cohesion. It creates jobs, it pays taxes, it pays social contributions. It's not personal wealth, it's not Uncle Pixou's piggy bank, it's assets that are for the benefit of all. Now, I do have a small nuance to add, and that is the nature of these fortunes. Emmanuel Dutilleul said many are inherited. I would like to show you the first time a news broadcast started talking about the ranking of great fortunes. The Challenges ranking didn't exist at the time. Yet, it's the 31st edition. So, that's 30 years ago, but at the time it was Le Nouvel Observateur that had done this ranking, and there was a report on the news broadcast, and here's what appeared. The editor-in-chief of Le Nouvel Observateur at the time was a certain Franz Olivier Giesbert. So you're going to discover this report, and you'll see what comes through. 1984, the first French fortune is 5 million francs. 5 billion francs for a certain Marcel Dassault. Look, the richest of the very rich is a self-made man, Marcel Dassault. At 92 years old, he's worth 5 billion francs. Airplanes, buildings, banks, newspapers. The father of mysteries and mirages has invested in many sectors of activity. First equal in the ranking, Liliane Bettencourt, whose father Eugène Schueller founded L'Oréal. She has a comfortable personal fortune of 2.5 billion and owns 25% of the cosmetic firm's shares, or 2.7 billion. The two largest fortunes are about 10 times less than the largest American fortune. Well, these two largest fortunes are people who have practically made themselves. So, in a way, you could say it's quite moral. Quite moral because at the time, Marcel Dassault, for example, was an entrepreneur, a self-made man as the Anglo-Saxons say. He started from nothing, Marcel Dassault, and he built the Dassault empire. Today, there have been two other generations of Dassaults. Today, the Dassaults are heirs. And today, if we look at the top 10 ranking, there aren't only heirs. Bernard Arnault, we can say that for the most part, he is the one who built the group he leads today. But look, there's also Xavier Niel who is a true founder. Xavier Niel, there are quite a few, François Pinault who is still there, the top 10, but there are many heirs. Isn't that, pardon me for returning to it, what fuels this French distrust and perhaps this issue of French cohesion? Géraldine and Stéphane. I'm not so sure because, once again, Emmanuel reminded us, and it must be reminded again. It's not their fortune. It's the companies, the valuation of these companies. So, indeed, they are heirs, but that tells us that they inherited a company that they managed to maintain, sometimes expand, make prosperous. It's the structure of French capitalism, which is a family capitalism. We see it in agri-food, the big families Mulliez, etc., in a number of restricted sectors. I think it's rather good news that we're moving a little away from luxury, that we're diversifying into new sectors. We talked about artificial intelligence, even if it remains homeopathic, it's good news. It means that there are companies that are on the next growth vectors that are present and succeeding. Because that's what this ranking tells us. It's just starting. Well, there's a little bit in logistics, as we said, in agri-food, but that's it. It's this diversification that's interesting to observe, I think. And what about you, Stéphane? Well, listen, when I... your report is interesting, at least on the archives. The Dassault family, which had a fortune of 5 billion francs, is the equivalent of 900 million euros today. And when I see that this company today is worth 27 billion, we can rather be proud of having built and established solid companies that have managed to export, consolidate, and are still here. You know, investment equals risk, because we shouldn't let the idea that it's easy, that you just have to invest to become rich. An investment is a significant risk, regardless of the level at which you invest. You know, I might have been able to enter the rankings in 1996 if I look at the threshold at 15 million. That's about the turnover my group makes. So in 199... You're talking about turnover, not your capital. Generally, in our sector, turnover is roughly equal to the value of the restaurant. Yes, it's the value of the whole. But what needs to be included in this valuation is not just the goodwill, the brands, all the equipment you have, all of that is valued. So it's not liquid money, ultimately. And I'm rather happy to have companies that have weathered storms and are still here. And the positive point is that there are new entrants. Not enough for my taste. 5%, Emmanuel, I'm talking about. Indeed, 5%. After that, what we must consider is that it's not unique to France. If you look at German capitalism, it's also rather family-oriented capitalism. So it's quite logical that we find families. But even in the United States, we only know the big names, but if you look, for example, at the Forbes rankings, which is somewhat the... I would say the main competitor to Challenges, perhaps in the other direction, but for once, let's praise ourselves. But for example, the family that owns the local supermarket called Walmart, they are still at the forefront. The big, the big difference with Asia and the United States is that they surfed the wave of Google, of all that was called the new economy at the time, long before us. We didn't manage to catch that wave. That's why we don't have these investors, that's why we don't have these industrialists like the boss of Apple, like the boss of Microsoft, like the boss of SpaceX. But in itself, you still have, in all the rankings, especially in the United States, large families. They are the ones who carry a large part of global capitalism. Since you're talking about international comparisons, let's look at the curve of the level of very large fortunes in France and elsewhere. You also published it in Challenges. So, in red at the bottom, it's Europe, in blue in the middle, it's Asia, and in green above, I hope I'm not colorblind, I see the right colors, it's the United States. So, we realize that when we look at these figures in absolute value, we might feel that these large fortunes are at an unprecedented level. When we look at international comparisons, we realize that they are less so in Europe than elsewhere. We can also correct by saying that in the United States, there are the famous Magnificent Seven. These are what are driving the stock market in the United States today, tech stocks and a few others, etc., which are indeed the core of the economy and added value. Will the promise be kept? It's not entirely certain. It's likely that AI will play a decisive role, but some think bullishly. I'm not a financier, but I listen to financiers say that there might be a bubble. So, we probably have less strong growth, but it's tied to things that are know-how, production units. I was looking at the ranking published, companies that are perhaps, for some, a bit historical. Do you know of Lesaffre? Lesaffre is the champion of yeast in France. 70% of the world's yeast is Lesaffre. Butendorf, it's the closures we mentioned earlier. So, we talk about heirs, not entirely heirs, though, because in the first, in the poster we saw earlier, you have Bégné. But yes, but Bégné is Lactalis. Lactalis started, when you look at the history of Lactalis, it started with the collection from a few farms, and then it became a world champion that invented brands. Take Mulliez, well, Mulliez created the first supermarket in the Hauts-Champs neighborhood in Roubaix, which would even give its name to the chain, but they started from scratch. These are people who started from scratch. They are not people who inherited. We can also say that Bernard Arnault may have inherited, from what I recall, a public works company. That's it. But he completely, well, he completely changed sectors. That's all forgotten. When I said that in the United States, these fortunes are much larger, the absolute symbol, you know it, Elon Musk. After the IPOs, we talked about it here, he became a billionaire. So he's the first man to have a fortune exceeding 1000 billion euros. That's 12 behind the 1, the 500 largest French fortunes. Simply. Ah, exactly. Simply. That's the entire Challenges ranking condensed into a single name, a single man, in the United States. But what's interesting is your dynamic. When we look at the dynamic of wealth evolution in Europe, we can't say that the dynamic is strong. In Asia, it's a bit better. And when we look at the dynamic in the United States, it's exponential. You see the curves, they are exponential. You become rich more quickly there. But if I may make a final comparison, 1000 billion is the total of the 500 French companies. The French debt is 3500 billion. If we seize all this wealth, let's be crazy, some want to say, let's seize all of the top 500 fortunes, we barely repay 30% of the French debt. The French people need to be aware of the weight of this debt. By seizing the 500 most powerful companies in France, we barely wipe out a third of the debt. I just wanted to tell you that in the United States, this debate on inequality and on taxing great fortunes is emerging, particularly in California, the kingdom of Silicon Valley, or rather New York, where Mayor Adams invited Zucman, Emmanuel Zucman, author of the Zucman tax, Gabriel Zucman, forgive me, and in the middle is the other Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, who was also in the middle. And Adams said he was ready to examine the idea of a tax on New York fortunes, and in California, it will be voted on in November. In November, there will be a vote, as we would say in Switzerland, to establish a 5% tax on billionaires, on fortunes exceeding one billion, including professional fortunes. Don't you think that's happening in the United States today? Will it happen in France tomorrow? It's very different in the United States because, remember Bill Gates' initiative, saying we give 90% of our fortune, our children don't need it. Even if they have 10% or 1%, it's more than enough, and quite a few billionaires signed up for that. It certainly raises, you are absolutely right, the debate is emerging, but we have the impression that they participate more in the economy in the United States because they fund foundations, they fund a lot of philanthropy, they fund a lot of culture. Here, it's a bit different, we have very strong taxation. So, I will cite the number one in fortune, Bernard Arnault, and I might be accused of being biased because the Arnault family owns Challenges, but well, he is number one in the ranking. He is the primary contributor to taxes in France and the primary contributor to the surtax on companies in France. So, there's that at play. And what's interesting is that we also conducted a survey with Odoxa for our special issue on fortunes. Last year, 80% of French people in our survey were in favor of taxing the richest. This year, 80%. This year, it drops to 68%. So, I'm not really able to explain what changed between the two, but there's a 12-point difference between the two votes. Perhaps because we've become aware that the debate needs to shift to the field of professional assets. These are not personal fortunes. Perhaps the pedagogy is finally working. It's not money in a vault, it's money that is directly useful to society, provided, of course, that one accepts the principle of a market economy. But even in a socialized economy, there is capital. If this capital is productive, if it creates jobs, if it allows for growth, if it allows for investment, for taxation, for social contributions, it's an investment, it's an asset that is useful, that is directly productive in society. Perhaps the French are becoming aware of this on a regular basis. Géraldine, debate in the United States today, vote in November in California. So, it's true that a number of these billionaires have decided to leave California. This debate is not new. It's been around for about twenty years. There have been movements. After all, the candidate Bernie Sanders also advocated for it many years ago. Every day, there were demonstrations in New York. Absolutely. New York. I think that in reality, because it's a rather populist idea and it's supported in reality. Yes, it's populist. I'll tell you why. And it's supported in fact by a very small number of economists. You see Zucman, he's duplicating himself because there aren't many economists in the world who advocate for this type of solution, which is quite simplistic. And in fact, what does it say? Why do people adhere to it? Because it tells the story of the stalled social elevator. In the United States, it's even truer than in France, there's a real collapse of the education system. That is to say, if you are rich, you will pay for very good schools. If you are poor, the average level is mediocre. You will no longer be able to rise in society the way you could in the 60s or 70s. In France, this has also happened. We feel a sort of... and so it's counter-intuitive. Pardon me, Géraldine, think of Zuckerberg, he's barely 40, 45 perhaps now. Well, he's very recent, he didn't go to public school. Yes. No, no, but it's really the collapse of the general level, it's that for the average person who doesn't have a very... well, we are still lucky to have very heavy taxes on companies that finance a system of education, but which is working less and less well. And I think there is this legitimate resentment of the population, which can very easily be redirected against, well, on simple and binary issues, just take from the rich. Well, but that's really deep in American society too. Stéphane, Mr. Mayor of New York, even Adams will crash against reality. He has the theory of wanting to apply it. He's put it in place. What we observe, at least I have a number of acquaintances in New York who are moving to London, so I'll sign it for you, next year we'll explain that there has been an exodus of these famous rich people that Mr. Adams wants to get rid of. He has to understand one thing: they are mobile. I'm talking about non-Americans. Those who are established for tax reasons, because they have an international business and who are in New York, I know a number of them. They're leaving. They don't want to pay this level of taxation, which is purely confiscatory. But don't you think that if the United States, because of more interesting taxation, it was already said there's room for maneuver worldwide. You have a problem with the rich when you say I'm going to tax the rich, because ultimately the whole world dreams of having rich people because it generates wealth. The German rich, I'll take the example of your shareholder. They did La Samaritaine in Paris, 1.5 billion investment. The trickle-down effect on all businesses and the economy in terms of tourism, because we're talking about what they pay directly, but I'm going to talk about all the trickle-down effect on businesses, and I'm part of it. I have two establishments at the foot of La Samaritaine. I am very happy that Bernard Arnault built La Samaritaine with restaurants, hotels, which bring attractiveness and tourism. And that's not counted in the value he brings to France through his investments. The Champs-Élysées, if you remove LVMH. Well, so the trickle-down theory, the trickle-down theory works. Of course, it's an incredible radiance. I'm telling you, I saw the difference when La Samaritaine opened and today, well, before, it was desolate. Yes, but that's the trickle-down theory. The trickle-down theory would be that because those at the top are earning more and more money, it trickles down. That's a... No, but those are the laws of competition. You have an attractive location that is established in a city, and all around, businesses benefit. Open 200 La Samaritaines. Well, of course, and we can only hope for that, but that's normal competition. We're not in the idea of trickle-down, and as Géraldine explained, one of the problems with the non-acceptance of a form of fortune is that the trickle-down that we might have hoped for for some when Emmanuel Macron was elected unfortunately has not been seen in practice. I believe there is no study today that says there has been a form of trickle-down despite real aid. The reduction in... the abolition of the housing tax, targeted reductions. Despite all that, we haven't seen it arrive today. And then, just, I wanted to say the big difference compared to the examples you cite in New York. Most fortunes, even if we look at the top 10, are not relocatable. That is to say, when you are the boss of Dassault, you are obliged to stay in France with your Rafales. Because your economy also depends on state subsidies, defense financing. Most of the people in our ranking, unfortunately for us, have little choice about their tax domicile. The last word, Pascal. We do have, it's true, in France, a tax system that cannot be compared to that of the United States, acting on income tax, production taxes, the entire tax system that, let's say, hits production, value creation. But I still think we should be proud to have people in France, companies with extremely different profiles. You have global companies that are capable of exporting know-how, that create jobs in heritage professions. I'm thinking of Bernard Arnault, but also Hermès and others. In France, there is still glove making, saddlery, work on crystal, work on... yes, leather goods, leather goods, and AI won't replace that. And then there are also, and I'm pleased about this after quickly reviewing these 500 fortunes, many medium-sized companies in growing sectors. Medical research, pharmaceuticals, small industry, the electrical industry, well, all these sectors that are spread across the territory today. In any case, you know, the factors of production in economics are extremely simple: it's labor and capital. If you only have labor, and no capital, it doesn't work. So you need both. And in France, unfortunately, many companies lack equity today, that is, funds that they absolutely own. When some have the capacity to both maintain themselves and experience growth that is enriching growth, everyone benefits, and that's very good. Thank you.