Consequences of a Divergent Fed

Featuring Christophe Ollari

The central banks of Europe, Japan and the U.S. were converging their policy through 2017. Christophe Ollari of Ollari Consulting argues that this year’s change at the Federal Reserve marks a highly significant turning point. Not only is the Fed moving in an opposite direction of other central banks, but their policy goals also set them in opposition to the Trump administration. Filmed on June 26, 2018 in London.

Published on
4 July, 2018
Topic
Global Outlook, Macro
Duration
27 minutes
Asset class
Bonds/Rates/Credit, Currencies, Equities
Rating
0

Comments

  • F

    Floyd .

    12 7 2018 20:16

    0       0

    well done. Agree on the subtitles,will read transcript.
    Outstanding feed back from Christophe on comments and questions made by subscribers.

  • F

    Floyd .

    12 7 2018 20:16

    2       0

    well done. Agree on the subtitles,will read transcript.
    Outstanding feed back from Christophe on comments and questions made by subscribers.

  • TB

    Tim B.

    12 7 2018 19:55

    2       0

    Fantastic! Christophe broke some new ground on how to assess the current setup. No easy feat with all the competing brain power here on RV.

    Thanks Christophe

  • AE

    Alex E.

    12 7 2018 03:25

    1       0

    A very enjoyable interview. Would like to see Mr. Ollari come back for a follow-up at year's end. While I'm no expert, I cannot see J. Powell doing QE Infinity...It's not in his financial makeup and he has stated that he would rather keep the system stable and let the Economy sort itself out rather than try pussy-footing around with Financial engineering...

  • LA

    Laurence A.

    10 7 2018 02:37

    1       1

    Enjoyed this a lot, thank you Christophe !
    Quick/basic question regarding the dollar shortage (re EM pain and weak balance sheets struggling) - how is this measured ? How can we keep track of this 'dollar quantity/flow' in ~real time, and what caused the recent shortage ?
    Merci !

    • CO

      Christophe O.

      13 7 2018 08:50

      2       0

      Sorry for the late answer Laurence. The best way to assess the dollar liquidity is through the usual us$ funding measures: libors, fra/ois, cross currency basis swaps and various unsecured dollar funding vehicles like CPs and CDs. For the shortage, the dynamic has been powerful as we had the add up of several forces: 1) The fed reducing its balance sheet - 2) the US Treasury rebuilding its cash reserves - 3) The tax reform, leading to us corporates repatriation of $ held abroad (therefore shrinking the poof of eurodollar funding) and also leading to extra supply in the US to fund the reform (redirecting us$ flows into the US). In other words, all the engines for a cheap dollar funding have reduced or disappeared going into 2018. And last one: oil prices have sky-rocketed 130% from early 2016 to the end of 2017, contributing to generate a very healthy amount of petro-dollars. This as well has lost some momentum in 2018. If you add on to the mix the emergence of the US-centric growth and the central banks diverging monetary policies path, you end up with sizeable tailwinds for the us$. Until.....

    • LA

      Laurence A.

      16 7 2018 01:03

      0       0

      Thank you very much Christophe for the precisions; maybe a couple followup questions if you'll allow me:

      1) re EM, it seems a main factor is $ held offshore - could we thus conclude that the US tax reform (and move into onshore MMFs) actually led to the EM FX / sov rout ?

      2) slightly different but related topic; massive bill issuance (for a debt-ceiling induced buffer I take it) at the Treasury would affect $ supply only if cash balances are held at the Fed (vs at banks) - i.e. would this place cash at Fed-vs-banks decision point to the Tsy having some form of implicit monetary policy role ? (from a money supply standpoint)

    • CO

      Christophe O.

      19 7 2018 06:03

      0       0

      The repatriation of cash held offshore has dramatically impacted the us$ funding as hundred of billions of us$ have "left" the eurodollar funding pool. Therefore yes, it has a direct connection with the EM rout as it has contributed to the $ shortage. A shortage that started to be visible late 2017/early 2018 through various us$ funding measures like the fra/ois. Then with the usual ripple effect on the FX and the us$ rally that started in March. Regarding the US Treasury: Mnuchin & Co have an obvious monetary policy role. Best example: remember the Operation Twist decided by Bernanke in 2011 when the economy was starting to show worrying signs of slowdown. The FED decided to sell short maturities and buy long dated treasuries in order to bring long yields lower, flatten the curve and support the economy. What did the US Treasury in 2018? They have decided to fund the extra-supply (due to the Tax Reform) by increasing the TBills, FRN, and short/belly of the curve relatively to the long end. I call that an Operation Twist 2. Not implemented by the FED by the US Administration. Any sensible decision, considering the deficits outlook, would have been to issue long, decide to start ultra longs issuance (50 or even 100 years) or even perpetuals!! You want to extend the duration of the debt, not issue floaters. The average duration of the US debt is 4.54 years. While for example the French or Italian average duration are just under 7 years. Does it make sense? No, unless you want to keep the long end and the curve under control in a context of unprecedented fiscal expansion.....

  • RS

    Richard S.

    9 7 2018 19:45

    2       0

    Excellent thought provoking interview. Would be curious on Christopher's views on why the PM's and particularly PM mining shares have held up so well vs. the ongoing strength of USD. Discounting the "end game" ?

    • CO

      Christophe O.

      9 7 2018 20:48

      9       0

      Thank you Richard. About the PM Complex: PM have not only held up very well versus the USD but also remarkably well against US real yields. I will tend to agree with the "end game" narrative. At least, this is the reason why I am in the long run very bullish PM. My conviction (and expressed in the interview): the FED will tighten until something breaks. The risk: the FED doing too much, becoming once again the catalyst for the next shock. With most of the central banks left without any monetary policies ammunitions. This will lead to QE forever. In the context of an already exploding debt outlook. DM debt is reaching 382% of the GDP. EM: 210%. We have one certainty: this will not be reduced as the current growth generated is not even covering the debt servicing. On top of my head, France for example needs an annual GDP above 3.5% to "just" break even its debt servicing....likely? No. Which brings me to second certainty and I will essentially talk about Trump here: he wants and needs as much inflation as possible to "deal" with the surging debt! 1 Trillions us$ federal budget deficits by 2020, 2 trillions by 2028: the last thing he wants and needs is a tight monetary policy. If we put together major central banks left without many conventional tools to fight a recession + debt that will never be paid back: this doesn't bode well for fiat currencies. I have asked recently to my readers the following question: which fiat currency would you buy today as a long term investment for your children? Well....In conclusion, the PM complex is already pricing that the central banks will not achieve any substantial normalisation and therefore will be left nose bleeding when the next shock occurs (like fighting against Mike Tyson with an eye already closed). That the next step will be the Helicopter money and that the obvious casualty will be the fiat currencies. Now, again, the tipping point will be when the FED changes its rhetoric. I am expecting the snow ball effect when it happens as markets will assume that: either they know something we don't and the economy is showing the first signs of weakness. Or Trump is putting some pressure and the FED's independence will be questioned. To summarise: PM are reflecting the fact that Central banks are in some kind of lose-lose situation and facing a cruel dilemma: choosing between Quantitative Tightening (with the risk to derail growth in the current uncertain environment) and Quantitative Failure (doing nothing with the obvious risk to be powerless soon).

    • TB

      Teresa B.

      12 7 2018 13:53

      1       0

      great reply Christophe. I agree with your reasoning and am very surprised a lot of smart minds aren't talking more about PM's.

  • PB

    Pieter B.

    8 7 2018 14:09

    1       0

    Thanks a lot for the analysis Chris!

  • VM

    Vincent M.

    8 7 2018 02:10

    5       0

    This type of content is why I have been with RV since the beginning. Thank you Christopher O.

  • BM

    Beth M.

    7 7 2018 02:52

    8       1

    great commentary. although it would be nice to have closed captioning as it was difficult to understand him at times.

  • BM

    Beth M.

    7 7 2018 02:52

    1       0

    great commentary. although it would be nice to have closed captioning as it was difficult to understand him at times.

  • CC

    Charles C.

    6 7 2018 22:53

    6       0

    kudos to Christophe for commenting on viewer comments and questions. that's over and above and very helpful

  • TE

    Tito E.

    6 7 2018 21:16

    3       0

    Very good. Would enjoy hearing more from Christophe.

  • MB

    Mike B.

    6 7 2018 19:02

    0       0

    That was interesting. I had a hard time with the accent but managed to get most of his perpective. He said something about real assets being long $%$*^^% commodities. Was that agricultural commodities?

    • MB

      Mike B.

      6 7 2018 19:04

      0       0

      PS> That was an excellent overview...

    • CO

      Christophe O.

      6 7 2018 23:12

      4       0

      Thank you Mike. And yes, the $%$ was agricultural commodities :)

  • DI

    Dabangg I.

    6 7 2018 17:32

    6       0

    change the MUSIC!! or at least normalize it so that it is not significantly louder than the speaker's base volume. basic editing!

    • AE

      Alex E.

      12 7 2018 03:14

      1       0

      Does your device have a volume control???

  • TS

    Tyler S.

    6 7 2018 16:19

    0       0

    I really need to get me an accent, I'm thinking English.. cheers!

  • NH

    Neil H.

    5 7 2018 17:15

    1       0

    Well thought out. I would like to hear thoughts from Felix zulauf if you can get him on rv.

    • MP

      Mark P.

      7 7 2018 15:35

      1       0

      Grant interviewed Felix a few months ago in long format. Easy find with the RV search function.

  • tW

    tgwtom W.

    5 7 2018 17:12

    1       0

    Text of recent clever Juliette Declercq tweet that seems relevant here : @LukeGromen The thing is @LukeGromen is that I don't think Powell would have a put so low if he did not know Trump's one was so high ...

  • AG

    Abhimanyu G.

    5 7 2018 11:59

    3       0

    could someone please explain the following to me - apologies for my ignorance

    "When you have a steepener of the curve, you have an implicit long gamma, with a positive carry"

    thank you

    • AG

      Abhimanyu G.

      5 7 2018 12:03

      7       0

      forgot to mention, I thoroughly enjoyed this and hope to see more of Christophe in the future !

    • CO

      Christophe O.

      5 7 2018 13:16

      17       0

      If I may, I just wanted to bring some clarity on that specific subject. This was a comparison with the early 2018 price action when the fiscal expansion, surging inflation measures (YoY average Hourly earnings at 2.9% in January) coupled with a FED seen as falling behind the curve triggered a disorderly spike of the US yields and a disorderly bear steepening of the curve. This led to a meaningful spike of the Move Index (IR vol) and spilled over to risk assets and risk assets vol. This is why, in that specific context, the steepener becomes an implicit long vol with positive carry (bear steepening triggering a vol spike and risk assets sell-off). I hope it helps xx

  • AH

    Ahmed H.

    5 7 2018 11:26

    4       0

    amazing thinker..great timing on all topics..one thing lacking i think is Pboc..very few people comment on pboc...imo, pboc n fed the 2 to watch..if we can get someone to give more insight on pboc wud make for a more complete view

    • DS

      David S.

      5 7 2018 13:59

      0       0

      It appears the PBOC is trying to clean up the Chinese private and public debt and may need some of their three trillion US$ reserves - down from four trillion US$ . These effects are more in line with the Fed, but in opposition to the Europe and Japan central banks. It is reasonable that the effects of QT will be different from QE. The QT/QE battle is not the only megatrend going on – immigration, tariff wars, political effects on the oil market, deregulation in the US of banks, etc. It is a good idea to protect your portfolio in cash or long-term hedges with counter-parties that will be able to pay off. I suggest you watch the RVTV video with Mr. Haworth, PROTECTING AGAINST PORTFOLIO DISASTER. DLS

    • CO

      Christophe O.

      5 7 2018 15:28

      14       0

      Just some colours on the PBoC. As mentioned by David below, Beijing has started last year what I always describe as its tightrope walk: deleveraging the Shadow Banking System (which amounts roughly 100% of the GDP) while still injecting and supporting the real economy. The purpose is not to tighten dramatically but to re-allocate the resources and engineer some kind of soft landing and burst the toxic shadow banking toxic bubble. Purpose: Xi wanted to make the economy as beautiful as possible for his 2 key events: the 100th China Communist Party anniversary in 20221 and the 20th Party Congress 2022 where he will be seeking for a 3rd mandate. Therefore the plan was to put the "bride" on diet in 2018 and 2019 to avoid any over-heating or inflation pressures and make her (the economy) beautiful for 2021. The trade war jitters have changed the initial plan as raising the prospects of a more hard landing. Reason why the PBoC has cut the RRR by 50bps 10 days ago. In other words, Trump has triggered, at least momentarily, a FED/PBoC monetary policy divergence. Which in itself is becoming a tailwind for the us$ versus the yuan....

    • DS

      David S.

      6 7 2018 07:06

      1       0

      Mr. Ollari: I really appreciate your interview and comments - insightful and brilliant. Since you know what you are doing, you can step in and out of trades quickly to protect your clients. I trust that you are correct about the FED/PBoC divergence for the moment. President Xi, however, has many levers to pull to ensure problems and pain are behind him before the next big Chinese elections. It is normally not good for the US to be in a trade war with a country that holds three trillion dollars of its debt -ace number 1. China can fight a tariff war with coherent goals, strategies and tactics while the US seems to be shocked when arbitrary short-term tactics do not work – ace number 2. President Xi has already slowed Chinese investment in the US and can do much more if pushed – ace number 3. Any tariff war will encourage China/Europe relationships, and somewhat China/Russia relationships – ace number 4. Devaluing the yuan could offset US tariffs – ace number 5. Many in the US believes that tariffs are just a border tax – ace number 6. (How many aces does this deck have.) I admit that the above are general possibilities, but they are more than enough to drive me to cash. If I wanted to invest my small capital instead of hide, I know you would do a good job. DLS

    • CO

      Christophe O.

      6 7 2018 07:44

      5       0

      I was essentially putting the subject back into the theme of the interview: diverging monetary policies. For the trade war, absolutely: China has means of retaliation and targeting soybean has symptomatic of Beijing's determination. Targeting soybeans is purely politics and has no economics sense or justification. While this initially appears to satisfy the conditions of a rational target for a tariff (the US exports more soybeans to China than anywhere else), it is actually China’s most economically vulnerable import as there is no ‘spare capacity’ in global trade which can be rerouted towards China to compensate. However, even if China will pay the economic price, soybean is a good that is politically relevant, given the importance of the farm belt in US politics. In other words, hitting Trump where it hurts: the elections...

    • DS

      David S.

      8 7 2018 07:50

      0       0

      Soybeans are very important to China, but American soybeans do not have grown in the USA on each bean. China can allow soybeans in from anywhere and may turn a blind eye if they are from the USA or trans-shipped. Therefore, no Chinese tariffs charged to the Chinese consumers, but political points made. DLS

    • TB

      Tim B.

      13 7 2018 01:21

      0       0

      @Christophe,

      "Targeting soybeans is purely politics and has no economics sense or justification."

      Or it might. If there is indeed no supply from other nations to adequately fill the gap, then higher prices could lead to grassroots anger. Since China has a history of nation-wide boycotts against national adverseries, companies like Apple et al could be vulnerable.

      Incidentally, if we are going to pick a fight with the world's second largest economy, it sure would be better if we had all of our traditional allies standing with us. Instead, we have wasted precious political capital distancing ourselves from those most willing to stick with us.

      Cheers

    • TB

      Tim B.

      13 7 2018 01:21

      0       0

      @Christophe,

      "Targeting soybeans is purely politics and has no economics sense or justification."

      Or it might. If there is indeed no supply from other nations to adequately fill the gap, then higher prices could lead to grassroots anger. Since China has a history of nation-wide boycotts against national adverseries, companies like Apple et al could be vulnerable.

      Incidentally, if we are going to pick a fight with the world's second largest economy, it sure would be better if we had all of our traditional allies standing with us. Instead, we have wasted precious political capital distancing ourselves from those most willing to stick with us.

      Cheers

  • RS

    Richard S.

    5 7 2018 01:22

    1       0

    What is the trade?? Gold has no chance in this environment.

    • BR

      Boyd R.

      5 7 2018 10:57

      1       0

      He said precious metals ?

    • AH

      Andrew H.

      5 7 2018 14:58

      2       0

      I disagree. Per his commentary (and also the strategy I have been working with for the past two-three months) is that the next several months will set up the trade. ie dollar will top out, and QE(which is still flowing), will become QT. Financial assets will get more volatile, then reverse. Real assets will begin to rally(not just PM).

      I love this set up. Does not make it right, but it looks like one of the better set ups I have seen in years(for global macro trades). I also like EM on further weakness, though it may be more correlated with other equities/risk assets in the short term.

    • CP

      Christopher P.

      9 7 2018 08:40

      3       0

      @Andrew H, I respectfully disagree and here is why. It’s going to be about the timing. The FED is draining liquidity from the system in a world starved of US$ (massively short $’s).
      The FED (as they have always done) will hike their way into a policy error and have to reverse course. Except this time, there will be no ammo! Draining liquidity and hiking at the same time is exacerbating the global US$ shortage.
      When the FED realises this, it will already be too late as the US$ will have already had a massive face melting rally and caused a crises in EM, China, and commodities. That is when the FED will do a backflip and go to QE Infinity (and ultimately destroy the US$ through unbridled printing and ultimately bring about the next monetary reset).
      Precious metals will then do as they have always done for 5,500 years and account for all the excess fiat currency in the system and preserve the purchasing power of those that own the asset.
      In a world where the debt is now mathematically never going to be paid back, this was always the plan.
      Fiat currencies will be sacrificed to monetise the debt!

    • AE

      Alex E.

      12 7 2018 03:06

      1       0

      Chris P., I see two problems with your thesis. 1.) Powell is NOT your typical PHD. He couldn't give two hoots about markets, EMs or any other factor. He wants interest rates around 3% before the next recession so that he (The Fed et al...) have some ammunition to help the Banking System survive. 2.) There will be no QE Infinity. Why? Powell knows that QE did very little to jump start the economy, so rather than skew the money supply, he'll help stabilize the system and let the Zombies die the natural death they were suppose to during the Great Recession!!! I.E. YOU are on your own, as it should have happened the first time....

  • VV

    Vanessa V.

    4 7 2018 22:27

    10       0

    What a brilliant thinker - definitely one to revisit. Thank you for sharing your insights, Christophe. For those new to understanding Central Banks and the history/policies of the Fed, the 2013 documentary "Money for nothing: Inside the Federal Reserve" might be a useful backdrop. It features other RV guests such as Jim Grant, Peter Atwater, William White, John Mauldin and more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maC7phpUVno

  • JH

    Jesse H.

    4 7 2018 21:46

    5       1

    Transcript of interview is helpful to decipher comments, but many instances of “inaudible” in document. Would be great to get subtitles next time. Cheers.

    • WE

      William E.

      5 7 2018 00:21

      1       2

      I could only understand about 80% of the words. If we could slow the replay, I think that would help.

  • JH

    Jesse H.

    4 7 2018 21:43

    0       0

    ...if possible. Thanks again.

  • JH

    Jesse H.

    4 7 2018 21:42

    4       1

    ...other viewers may have struggled at times. Thank you Raoul and RV! P.S. please update iPhone app to remove character limit on comments; and please get Stan Druckenmiller on for an interview if poss

  • JH

    Jesse H.

    4 7 2018 21:41

    0       1

    ...subtitles if interviewees have strong accents. Good practice though in developing our listening skills. As I am a French speaker, not too difficult for me to make out 90% of comments but other buew

  • JH

    Jesse H.

    4 7 2018 21:38

    1       0

    This was excellent, and well worth replaying to decipher some of his comments. Very sharp thinker, interesting comments and like his focus on velocity of money as well. Please next time include...

  • FH

    Franz-Xaver H.

    4 7 2018 21:00

    2       0

    Great. Would like to hear more later.

  • MD

    Mathieu D.

    4 7 2018 19:38

    1       0

    Very interesting. Merci.

  • CN

    Charles N.

    4 7 2018 18:38

    1       0

    Fantastic piece, both the insightful commentary and the overlays of relevant graphs and definitions. Bravo!

  • Rk

    R k.

    4 7 2018 17:57

    2       0

    Superb overview of the tectonic battles ensuing.. Technicals surely favour his thesis but ultimately price "trumps"
    all. Time to fasten seat belts .

  • dm

    daryl m.

    4 7 2018 17:56

    5       4

    The music is great !

  • SH

    Steve H.

    4 7 2018 17:24

    1       0

    Excellent.

  • WM

    William M.

    4 7 2018 16:45

    1       0

    Very good indeed. Many good folks are saying commodities are close to the bottom and RV viewers who are pro gold and silver may now finally seeing the last act of the bear market. Silver has performed well considering the gold price fall, but its closer to critical support. Gold looks like it could breakdown below 1200 for a re-test of 1140. Definitely time to watch closely. Christophe seems to have a good handle on a potential major turning point as we move into 2019.

  • MP

    Mark P.

    4 7 2018 16:16

    9       0

    Brilliant. Dovetails well with Eric Peters fantastic recent contributions (RV and Macrovoices). Both conclude counter intuitively QT will be inflationary for real assets while arriving at that conclusion via different logical pathways. Symmetric, non consensus, and just rings true. Thanks RV!
    Mark

  • HS

    Hubert S.

    4 7 2018 16:08

    19       5

    Off topic: Again, could we have at least a slightly less loud and annoying music ?
    I would not complain if it were for me alone, others have brought it up too .....

    • WM

      William M.

      4 7 2018 16:47

      6       4

      Agree just can't understand the need for music to be so loud, its so easily abated and a constant minor annoyance.

    • NI

      Nate I.

      5 7 2018 00:52

      7       3

      Many of us have been asking RV to dump the music since forever. If the music gets any louder or more annoying, we'll all be as deaf as the RV video producer..

    • AE

      Alex E.

      12 7 2018 02:52

      0       1

      Boys, how about just turning the volume down on your device during the intro and ending???

  • FD

    Francesco D.

    4 7 2018 16:02

    2       0

    Great interview. brilliant reasoning... any chance to have any references to his twitter account/blog etc etc?

    • MP

      Mark P.

      4 7 2018 16:24

      2       0

      @chrisollari but just made his first tweet. Look forward to more.

    • FD

      Francesco D.

      12 7 2018 15:37

      0       0

      thanks!

  • BD

    Bruce D.

    4 7 2018 14:56

    3       0

    Fabulous explanation of what type of changes are on the horizon. Logic dictates that what worked under QE will suffer under QT, and inflation will next target Real Assets, which have suffered and are at historically cheap valuation levels vs paper assets, stocks and bonds. Buy commodities, gold, silver, and trim the highly inflated US stocks/bonds. Thank you again RV for providing thoughtful direction on possible outcomes.....

  • DC

    Daniel C.

    4 7 2018 14:38

    2       0

    Really smart thinker, trying to understand how being long the steepener is long gamma, at least in credit, steepners are short gamma, long carry and very dangerous trades to put on at the end of the cycle. I agree with his conclusions on long USD and US equities, this market has echos of the mid 70s before stagflation hit, the nifty fifty were the FANGs of their day

    • NL

      Nick L.

      4 7 2018 17:59

      0       0

      I think he was saying that a steepener is long gamma play on rise in Vol and risk asset sell-off.

  • JM

    Jason M.

    4 7 2018 14:36

    10       0

    This was excellent. Combining the political-economy instincts of a veteran trader with excellent knowledge of the global liquidity system is a great way to tackle this market. I also liked the fact he kept pointing out the many things we don't know...but kept pushing forward into the darkness using his instincts. Please come back to RealVision in 3-4 months when the real game is beginning Christophe.

  • RP

    Raoul P.

    4 7 2018 13:25

    23       0

    I've known Christophe for a long time and he was one of the best traders I've ever met and one of the smartest thinkers. His macro research is astonishingly good too.

    • sB

      sylvain B.

      5 7 2018 06:52

      3       0

      thanks for having him onto RV. Brilliant guy.

  • RK

    Robert K.

    4 7 2018 12:57

    2       0

    This is gold! Very nice.
    Need to rewatch it once more to fully digest.

  • NG

    Nick G.

    4 7 2018 11:57

    3       0

    Just spent 2 hours doing money flows on the blackboard. Not sure I agree with all the conclusions, but that is neither here nor there. RV is here to make you think. This has made me think in spades. Thank you.

    • RD

      Ravi D.

      5 7 2018 20:27

      0       0

      hello Nick. be interesting to hear your why you don't agree with those conclusions
      ..

    • RD

      Ravi D.

      5 7 2018 20:27

      0       0

      hello Nick. be interesting to hear your why you don't agree with those conclusions
      ..

  • KJ

    Kulbir J.

    4 7 2018 11:32

    9       2

    Subtitles please. Really difficult for me to understand.

    • SD

      Sebastien D.

      4 7 2018 12:07

      7       0

      Go for the transcript :)

  • LP

    Lionel P.

    4 7 2018 11:31

    1       0

    Great interview, comments and explanations on and of his views ! Merci Christophe

  • CM

    Carlos M.

    4 7 2018 10:41

    4       0

    one of the most logical and clearest stories I ve heard so far.

    • SM

      Sebastien M.

      4 7 2018 11:31

      0       0

      brilliant!