원문 보기
Let me tell you something that keeps me up at night. I have managed billions of dollars through some of the most turbulent markets in history. I have made fortunes betting against the crowd when everyone thought I was crazy. I have seen bubbles form and pop, watched investors lose everything because they refused to see what was right in front of them.
And right now, I am seeing warning signs in four of the most popular stocks that millions of Americans own. Stocks that sit in retirement accounts, in college funds, in the portfolios of people who think they are being safe and conservative. They are not safe. They are not conservative. They are ticking time bombs.
I know this sounds alarmist. I know you have probably heard warnings like this before from people who turned out to be wrong. But here is what separates me from the perma bears who have been predicting crashes for decades. I am not always bearish. In fact, I have made most of my money being bullish at exactly the right times.
In 2009, when everyone was terrified, when the financial system looked like it was collapsing, I went allin on financials and made over 4 billion in a single year. That was not luck. That was seeing what others could not see. Recognizing when fear had driven prices below any rational level. But I also know when to get out.
I know when the crowd has become too greedy, when valuations have disconnected from reality, when the story everyone is telling themselves has become more important than the actual numbers. And that is exactly what I am seeing right now in these four stocks. The stories are compelling, the narratives are powerful, but the math does not work.
And eventually, math always wins. Let me take you back to 2007 because I think there are parallels that most people are missing. Back then, I was watching the housing market with growing concern. Everyone knew that home prices only went up. Everyone knew that real estate was the safest investment. Everyone knew that the sophisticated financial instruments Wall Street had created had eliminated risk from the system.
And I knew they were all wrong. I started reducing my exposure to anything connected to housing and mortgages. My investors questioned me, "Why are you being so cautious when everyone else is making money? Why are you leaving gains on the table? I told them the same thing I am telling you today. When the story becomes more important than the fundamentals, when everyone believes something cannot go down, that is precisely when it will.
By the time 2008 arrived and the whole system started collapsing, I was positioned to not only survive, but to profit massively from the carnage, I bought distressed assets at pennies on the dollar. I scooped up bank stocks when everyone thought the entire financial system was going to zero. That year made my career.
But it only happened because I had the discipline to be cautious when everyone else was euphoric. Today I am seeing that same euphoria concentrated in specific sectors and specific stocks, not the whole market. There are plenty of reasonably valued companies out there. But these four stocks, these darlings that everyone owns, that every analyst recommends that sit in almost every index fund and retirement account, these are the ones I am worried about.
These are the ones where the narrative has completely overwhelmed the reality. So, let me walk you through exactly which stocks I am warning about, why I believe they are headed for significant declines, and most importantly, how you can protect yourself before it is too late. This is not about being negative or pessimistic.
This is about being realistic and prepared because the investors who survive market corrections are not the ones who were right about every prediction. They are the ones who had a plan before the correction happened. The first stock I am warning you about is one that has become almost sacred in investing circles.
I am talking about Tesla. Now before the Tesla faith will come after me, let me be clear about something. I am not saying Tesla is a bad company. I am not saying Elon Musk is not a visionary. I am saying the stock price has disconnected from any reasonable valuation. And that disconnect is going to correct violently.
Look at the numbers with me. Tesla currently trades at a valuation that assumes they will not just dominate the electric vehicle market, but become one of the largest and most profitable companies in human history. The market is pricing in perfection for the next decade. No stumbles, no increased competition, no margin compression, no execution problems, just flawless growth forever.
That is not how business works. That is not how any industry works. And it is certainly not how the automotive industry works. I have watched this industry for decades. I have seen companies that seemed invincible get crushed by competition, by changing consumer preferences, by execution problems. General Motors used to be the most valuable company in America.
So did Ford at various points. The automotive industry is brutally competitive, capital, and cyclical. But here is what really concerns me about Tesla specifically. The competition is coming, and it is coming fast. Every major automaker in the world is now focused on electric vehicles. BMW, Mercedes, Volkswagen, Toyota, Hyundai, they are all pouring tens of billions of dollars into EV development.
And the Chinese manufacturers, companies like BYD, and NIO, they are producing electric vehicles at price points that Tesla cannot match. Tesla had a massive first mover advantage. They deserve credit for that. But first mover advantage does not last forever, especially when you are charging premium prices for what is increasingly becoming a commodity product.
Electric vehicles are not magic. They are cars with batteries instead of engines. Once the technology matures and it is maturing rapidly, differentiation becomes much harder. I am already seeing this in the data. Tesla's market share in electric vehicles is declining, not because they are selling fewer cars, but because everyone else is selling more.
In China, the largest EV market in the world, Tesla is getting crushed by local competitors. In Europe, legacy automakers are gaining ground. Even in the United States, Ford and GM are ramping up production of competitive vehicles. And then there is the margin story. Tesla has maintained impressive profit margins, but those margins are under pressure.
They have had to cut prices multiple times to maintain volume. Every price cut reduces margins. And as competition intensifies, the price cuts will have to continue. This is the natural evolution of every industry. Early leaders enjoy high margins, competition arrives, margins compress, the business becomes much less profitable.
The stock price assumes none of this happens. It assumes Tesla maintains dominance and high margins forever. That is a fantasy. And when reality sets in, when investors start seeing margin compression and market share losses in the actual numbers, the repricing will be severe. I am not saying Tesla goes to zero.
I am saying it could easily lose 50% or more of its value from current levels just to reach a reasonable valuation. The second stock I am warning about is going to be even more controversial because it is the darling of the artificial intelligence. Boom. I am talking about Nvidia. Now I want to be careful here because Nvidia is actually a good company with real products and real profits.
This is not like some of the speculative garbage that trades at ridiculous valuations with no underlying business. Nvidia makes actual chips that power actual AI systems that companies actually buy. But here is the problem. The stock has gotten so far ahead of the fundamentals that it is pricing in a future that may never materialize.
Nvidia has become the default way to play the AI theme. Everyone who wants exposure to artificial intelligence buys Nvidia. The stock has gone up hundreds of percent. It has become one of the most valuable companies in the world. And that valuation assumes that AI spending continues to explode and that Nvidia captures most of that spending with minimal competition.
Both assumptions are questionable. Let us start with AI spending. Yes, companies are investing heavily in artificial intelligence right now. But much of that spending is speculative. Companies are building AI capabilities because they feel like they have to. Because the narrative is so powerful, because they are afraid of being left behind, but many of them have no clear path to return on investment.
They are spending money on AI without knowing how or when that spending will translate into profits. This is exactly what happened with the internet. In the late 1990s, companies spent billions building websites, buying servers, investing in e-commerce capabilities. The narrative was powerful. The internet is changing everything.
You have to invest now or be left behind. And the narrative was right. The internet did change everything. But the spending got way ahead of the actual returns. Many companies that invested heavily in internet infrastructure went bankrupt. The few that survived had to go through massive corrections.
I think we are seeing something similar with AI spending. The narrative is powerful and probably correct in the long run. AI will transform many industries, but the spending is getting ahead of the returns. At some point, CFOs and boards of directors are going to start asking hard questions. What is our return on this AI investment?
When will these capabilities actually translate into higher revenues or lower costs? And when those questions start getting asked, spending will slow down. When AI spending slows, Nvidia's in trouble. Their entire valuation is based on continued explosive growth in data center GPU sales. If that growth slows even modestly, the stock will get crushed.
And I think growth will slow because much of the current spending is speculative rather than driven by clear ROI. But competition is the even bigger concern. Right now, Nvidia has an incredible moat. Their CUDA software ecosystem makes it very difficult for customers to switch to competing chips. Their design lead means their GPUs are genuinely better than alternatives, but that lead is narrowing.
AMD is investing heavily and gaining ground. Intel is back in the game, and most importantly, Nvidia's largest customers are designing their own chips. Google has its TPU chips. Amazon has its tranium and inferential chips. Microsoft is developing custom silicon. Meta is working on its own AI chips.
These are Nvidia's biggest customers and they are all trying to reduce their dependence on Nvidia. Why? Because they do not want to be dependent on a single supplier. Because they think they can build chips that are better optimized for their specific workloads. Because they do not want to keep paying Nvidia's premium prices.
In 3 or 4 years, I expect Nvidia to face much more competitive pressure than they do today. Their margins will compress. their growth will slow and a stock that is priced for perfection will have to adjust to a more realistic future. Again, I am not saying Nvidia goes to zero, but I could easily see this stock losing 40 or 50% from current levels.
The third stock I am warning about is in a completely different sector, but it shares the same fundamental problem. The narrative has overwhelmed the reality. I am talking about Costco. Yes, Costco, the warehouse retailer that everyone loves. Now, I know what you are thinking. Costco is a great company.
Their business model is proven. Their customers are fanatical. Their execution is excellent. And you are right about all of that. Costco is a wonderful business. I am not disputing that. But being a wonderful business does not mean being a wonderful stock at any price. And Costco's price has become absurd.
Costco currently trades at over 50 times earnings. 50 times for a retailer. Think about what that means. You are paying $50 today for every $1 of earnings Costco generates. To justify that valuation, Costco would need to grow its earnings dramatically for many years. But Costco is already a mature established business.
It has over 800 warehouses worldwide. It has saturated many of its best markets. Where exactly is all this growth supposed to come from? The market is essentially saying that Costco deserves a higher valuation multiple than most technology companies, higher than companies with faster growth. Higher than companies with more upside.
Why? Because people love Costco. Because it is perceived as a safe haven in an uncertain market. Because the narrative of loyal customers and consistent execution is so compelling. But narratives do not justify valuations. Cash flows justify valuations. And at 50 times earnings, Costco would need to grow earnings by 15 or 20% annually for a decade to justify the current price.
Their historical growth rate is about half that. The math simply does not work. Here's what I think happens. At some point, growth disappoints slightly. Not because anything is wrong with the business, but because no company can maintain high growth forever. When that disappointment happens, the multiple contracts and when a 50 times earnings multiple contracts are something more reasonable, say 30 or 35 times, the stock drops 30 or 40%.
Even if the underlying business is fine, this is the danger of buying great companies at unreasonable prices. You can be right about the quality of the business and still lose money on the stock because you paid too much. I have seen this pattern repeat countless times throughout my career. Coca-Cola in the late 1990s, Cisco in 2000, great businesses, terrible stock performance for years because valuations got ahead of fundamentals.
Costco will likely be fine as a business, but Costco, the stock, is set up for significant disappointment for anyone who buys at these levels. The fourth and final stock I am warning about is actually a collection of stocks disguised as a single investment. I am talking about the S&P 500 itself specifically through index funds like SPY or VU that have become the default investment for millions of Americans.
Now I want to be very careful here because I am not saying index investing is bad for most people. Lowcost index funds are the best way to invest. I have said this before. The problem is not index investing in general. The problem is what has happened to the S&P 500 specifically and how concentrated it has become.
The top 10 stocks in the S&P 500 now make up over 35% of the entire index. The top seven stocks alone, the mega cap tech companies account for nearly 30%. When you buy an S&P 500 index fund thinking you are getting diversification, you are actually making a concentrated bet on a handful of technology giants.
And here's the concerning part. Most of those meggaap tech stocks are trading at elevated valuations. When you combine them, you have an index that is trading at multiples well above historical averages. You are not buying the US economy broadly. You are buying an index that is dominated by expensive technology stocks.
I lived through the dotcom bubble. I remember when technology stocks dominated the indexes. I remember when everyone said you had to own tech, that these companies were different, that traditional valuation metrics did not apply, and then the bubble burst in tech stocks lost 80% of their value, and it took 15 years for many of them to recover.
I am not predicting something that extreme, but I am saying that the S&P 500's concentration in expensive mega cap tech creates risk that most investors do not appreciate. If those top stocks correct, and I have already talked about why some of them might the entire index gets dragged down, your diversified index fund turns out to be not so diversified after all.
This is especially dangerous for retirement investors who have been told to just buy index funds and hold forever. If you are 60 years old with most of your retirement savings in S&P 500 index funds, you have significant exposure to expensive technology stocks, whether you realize it or not. A 30% correction in the index could devastate your retirement plans.
Now, let me step back and talk about what ties all four of these warnings together because understanding the common thread will help you identify other dangerous investments and protect yourself going forward. The common thread is narrative disconnection. In all four cases, the story about the company or the investment has become more powerful than the underlying financial reality.
Tesla is not valued as a car company. It is valued as a worldchanging phenomenon. Nvidia is not valued as a chip company. It is valued as the key to the artificial intelligence future. Costco is not valued as a retailer. It is valued as a perfect business that cannot disappoint. The S&P 500 is not viewed as a collection of stocks that can go down.
It is viewed as the guaranteed path to wealth. These narratives are powerful. They contain elements of truth, but they have pushed valuations to levels that cannot be sustained. And when valuations disconnect from fundamentals, eventually there is a reconnection. Sometimes that reconnection is gradual, sometimes it is violent, but it always happens.
I have built my career on identifying these disconnections and positioning accordingly. Sometimes I bet against the narrative, shorting overvalued stocks or sectors. Other times I simply avoid the danger and wait for better opportunities. The key is recognizing when narratives have overwhelmed reality and having the discipline to act on that recognition.
Most investors cannot do this. They get caught up in the narratives. They buy what has been going up. They avoid what has been going down. They listen to the stories everyone is telling and assume those stories are true. And then they are shocked when valuations correct and they lose years of gains.
I do not want that to happen to you. So, let me give you some practical guidance on what to do with this information. First, audit your portfolio. Do you own any of these four investments? If so, how much of your portfolio is exposed? Many people do not realize how concentrated their holdings have become.
They have Tesla in their individual account, Nvidia in their IRA, and S&P index funds in their 401k. when they add it all up, they discover that a huge percentage of their wealth is tied up in these expensive stocks. Second, consider rebalancing. I am not telling you to sell everything. That would be extreme.
But if you have significant exposure to these stocks, consider reducing that exposure and diversifying into other areas. There are reasonably valued companies out there. There are international markets trading at much lower multiples than the US. There are value stocks and dividend stocks that have been left behind while growth stocks have soared.
Third, have a plan for what you will do when these stocks correct because they will correct. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next month, but eventually valuations will reconnect with reality. If you do not have a plan, you will panic when it happens. You will sell at the bottom like everyone else. You will lock in your losses and miss the recovery.
The best investors I know always have a plan before things go wrong. They think about scenarios in advance. They know what they will do if a stock drops 20%, 30%, 50%. They are not reacting emotionally in the moment. They are executing a strategy they developed when they were thinking clearly. Fourth, remember that being early is not the same as being wrong.
I am warning you about these stocks, but I cannot tell you exactly when the correction will happen. It might be next quarter. It might be next year. It might be 3 years from now. Markets can stay irrational longer than most people expect, but that does not mean the warning is wrong. The housing bubble did not pop the first time I got concerned about it.
It took years for the imbalances to resolve. The dot bubble inflated long after many smart people recognized it was a bubble. Being early can be expensive, but being late can be catastrophic. I would rather be cautiously positioned and miss some upside than be aggressively positioned and suffer devastating losses.
The mathematics of losses make this clear. If you lose 50% of your portfolio, you need a 100% gain just to get back to even. Avoiding large losses is the most important thing in investing. Finally, maintain perspective. These four stocks are dangerous at current valuations, but they are not the only investments in the world.
There are thousands of companies out there. There are bonds and real estate and commodities in international markets. Do not let the narrative around these popular stocks convince you that they are the only game in town. The best opportunities are usually in places where no one is looking. When I made my biggest gains in 2009, it was by buying things that everyone else was selling.
When I made money during the European debt crisis, it was by seeing value where others saw only risk. The crowd is usually wrong at extremes and right now the crowd is extremely bullish on these four investments. I want to leave you with one final thought. Throughout my career, I have learned that protecting capital is more important than growing capital.
If you protect your capital during the downturns, you will have money to deploy when opportunities arise. If you suffer catastrophic losses, you will be stuck trying to recover while others are building wealth. The warnings I have shared today are about protection, not pessimism. I remain optimistic about the long-term future of markets and the economy.
Innovation will continue. Businesses will grow, wealth will be created, but not every stock at every price will participate in that growth. Some stocks are priced for perfection. And perfection rarely materializes. Tesla, Nvidia, Costco, and concentrated S&P 500 index funds all fall into that category today.
They might go higher from here in the short-term momentum and narrative can carry stocks for longer than fundamentals suggest, but the eventual reckoning is coming. And when it arrives, investors who heeded these warnings will be in a much better position than those who ignored them. I have spent my entire career trying to see what others cannot see.
To recognize patterns before they become obvious, to position myself for what is coming rather than what has already happened. These warnings come from that perspective. They come from watching markets for decades and recognizing the signs of excess. You do not have to agree with me. You do not have to act on anything I have said, but I encourage you to at least consider the possibility that the narratives you have been told about these investments are not the full story.
Because the investors who ask hard questions, who think independently, who resist the crowd, they are the ones who survive and thrive over the long term. Let me go deeper on each of these stocks because I think the details matter. With Tesla, one thing that most retail investors do not understand is how automotive economics actually work.
They look at Tesla and see a technology company. They see software updates and autonomous driving potential and robots and energy storage. But at its core, Tesla manufactures cars. And car manufacturing is one of the most brutal businesses on Earth. The automotive industry has destroyed more wealth than almost any other industry in history.
Go back and look at how many car companies have existed over the past century. Thousands. How many survived? A handful. Even the survivors have had periods of catastrophic losses. General Motors went bankrupt in 2009. Chrysler has been rescued multiple times. Ford nearly collapsed during the financial crisis.
Why is this industry so difficult? Because cars are expensive to develop, expensive to manufacture, and sold in a brutally competitive market. Consumers have enormous choice. They can buy from dozens of manufacturers. They can choose different brands within the same price range. And increasingly, cars are becoming commoditized.
Yes, there are still luxury brands and performance brands that can charge premiums. But the mass market, which is where the volume is, competition is fierce. Tesla has succeeded so far because they had the best electric vehicle. Their technology was genuinely superior. Their brand was aspirational. Early adopters were willing to pay premium prices.
But we are moving out of the early adopter phase. Electric vehicles are becoming mainstream and mainstream consumers are much more price sensitive. They will comparison shop. They will consider alternatives. When BYD offers an electric vehicle that is 80% as good as a Tesla at 60% of the price, mainstream consumers will buy the BYD.
This is already happening in China. It will happen in Europe. It will eventually happen in the United States. And as Tesla loses market share and is forced to cut prices to compete, their margins will compress. A company that trades at 70 or 80 times earnings cannot afford margin compression. The stock will get destroyed.
With Nvidia, I want to talk about something called the bullhip effect. This is a phenomenon in supply chains where small changes in end consumer demand get amplified as you move up the supply chain. A 10% increase in consumer demand might translate into a 50% increase in orders to suppliers because everyone is trying to build inventory and prepare for future growth.
And then when demand normalizes, you get a massive correction in the supply chain. Orders collapse, inventory builds up, suppliers get crushed. I think the AI supply chain is experiencing a massive bullhip effect right now. Every company wants to build AI capabilities. They are all ordering GPUs from Nvidia.
They are all building data centers. They are all racing to prepare for an AI future that might be years away. And Nvidia is the primary beneficiary of this rush. But what happens when the rush slows down? What happens when companies have built enough AI infrastructure for their current needs? What happens when the speculative investments in AI do not produce returns and CFOs start cutting budgets?
You get a bullhip effect in reverse orders collapse. Nvidia's growth rate goes from explosive to negative and a stock price for endless growth faces a very different reality. I saw this exact pattern play out with the telecommunications equipment companies in 20201. Companies were racing to build internet infrastructure.
They were ordering equipment like crazy from Cisco and Nortell and Lucent. These stocks went to the moon and then the music stopped. Demand collapsed. These stocks lost 80 to 90% of their value. Some of the companies went bankrupt. I am not saying Nvidia will go bankrupt. Their technology is real. Their profits are real.
But the current demand has a speculative component that will not last. And when that speculative demand disappears, the stock will repric dramatically lower. With Costco, let me explain why valuation matters even for great businesses. I love studying business history. One of the patterns I have noticed is that great companies often become terrible investments at the wrong price.
Not because anything changes with the company, but because investors get so enthusiastic that they bid the stock up to levels that cannot be sustained. Walmart is a perfect example. In the early 1990s, Walmart was one of the best businesses in America. It was growing rapidly, taking market share, executing flawlessly.
The stock traded at high multiples because everyone recognized the quality of the business. But between 1999 and 2011, Walmart's stock went nowhere. Zero return for 12 years. During that same period, Walmart's earnings more than doubled. The business kept getting better, but the stock did nothing because the starting valuation was too high.
Costco is in the same position today. The business is excellent, but the valuation is extreme. Even if Costco executes perfectly for the next decade, investors who buy today could see very mediocre returns because they are paying too much upfront, the valuation has to normalize at some point, and when it does, the stock will underperform even while the business continues to do well.
This is one of the hardest concepts for investors to understand. They conflate great businesses with great stocks. But they are different things. A great business can be a terrible stock if you pay too much for it. And right now you are paying too much for Costco. With the S&P 500 concentration risk, let me give you some historical context.
In 1999 and 2000, technology stocks dominated the S&P 500 just like they do today. The top stocks were Microsoft, Cisco, Intel, GE, and Exxon. Technology accounted for a huge percentage of the index. Everyone who owned index funds was heavily exposed to tech. Then the dot bubble burst. Technology stocks collapsed.
The S&P 500 fell almost 50% from its peak. But here is what most people do not realize. If you had owned an equal weighted version of the S&P 500, where every stock has the same weight, regardless of market cap, you would have done much better. The equal weighted index fell less and recovered faster.
Why? Because it was not concentrated in the most overvalued stocks. Today we have the same concentration problem. The mega cap tech stocks dominate the index. When you buy an S&P 500 index fund, you are making a huge bet on seven companies. If those seven companies correct, your entire portfolio gets dragged down.
This is not diversification. This is concentration disguised as diversification. I think investors should consider alternatives to market cap. Weighted index funds, equal weighted funds, value funds, international funds, dividend funds. These provide actual diversification. They reduce your exposure to the most expensive and most crowded parts of the market.
Now, let me talk about timing because I know that is the question on everyone's mind. When will these stocks correct? I wish I could give you a precise answer, but I cannot. Nobody can. Markets can stay irrational for much longer than most people expect. I have seen stocks that were clearly overvalued continue to rise for years before finally correcting.
What I can tell you is that the longer valuations stay elevated, the more painful the eventual correction tends to be. Imbalances build up over time. More investors pile in at high prices. More leverage gets added to the system. And when the correction finally comes, it is devastating. I think about risk in terms of expected value.
If Tesla has a 50% chance of going up 20% and a 50% chance of going down 50%. The expected value is negative. You might get lucky and catch the upside, but the math does not favor you over time. Making negative expected value bets will destroy your wealth. All four of these investments feel like negative expected value propositions to me.
The upside is limited because valuations are already extreme. The downside is significant because there is a long way to fall. The riskreward does not make sense. Smart investors focus on expected value, not on stories or narratives or what has worked recently. They ask what is the probability of various outcomes and what does that mean for my expected return.
When you frame it that way, these investments look much less attractive. I also want to address the argument that interest rates justify higher valuations. You hear this a lot. When interest rates are low, stocks should trade at higher multiples because the alternative returns are lower. There is some truth to this, but it has limits.
At a certain point, valuations become disconnected from any reasonable interest rate assumption, and interest rates are not staying low. The Federal Reserve has raised rates significantly. Long-term rates have risen. The era of free money is over. Companies can no longer borrow at near zero rates to buy back stock and boost earnings per share.
The tailwind that supported elevated valuations for a decade has become a headwind. As interest rates normalize, valuation should normalize too, not immediately. There are always lags in how markets respond to changing conditions. But over time, higher interest rates mean lower equity valuations. This is financial math.
And the stocks with the highest valuations have the most to lose. The choice is yours. But whatever you decide, make it a deliberate choice based on your own analysis, not a passive acceptance of whatever everyone else is doing. Because when these stocks correct, and they will correct, everyone else is going to lose money.
The question is whether you will be losing money with them or sitting on the sidelines with your capital intact, ready to deploy into better opportunities. I have been doing this for over 30 years. I have seen countless cycles of boom and bust. I have made fortunes by being contrarian when the crowd was wrong.
And I am telling you today, the crowd is wrong about these four investments. The narratives are compelling, the stories are powerful, but the valuations are extreme. And the risks are significant. Protect yourself. Question the narratives. Do your own analysis and remember that in investing survival comes first.
You can always make money tomorrow if you have capital to deploy. But if you suffer catastrophic losses, you may never recover. That is the lesson I want to leave you with. Not just about these four stocks, but about investing in general. The best investors are not the ones who make the most aggressive bets.
They are the ones who avoid the catastrophic losses. They are the ones who protect their capital during downturns and deploy it opportunistically when others are panicking. They are the ones who think independently, resist the crowd, and focus on risk, adjusted returns rather than raw returns. I know which position I prefer, and now you know which position I recommend for you.
Comments 0