The Third Party and "Russophobia".

With regard to "Russophobia" and the dangers of extrapolating the rule of thinking to any operator or sub-operator, if any economic operator extends its exit from Russia to the fact that it will only subcontract directly or indirectly to companies that have neither their own subsidiary nor even licensing agreements to Russia, we may find ourselves with a rather unforeseen scenario. 

‍

In that sense, I think that everything has to be analysed in its proper perspective. With regard to the issue of information, it seems to me that the fact that Facebook or some operators have censored the Russian media does not correspond, that you have to listen to both bells and whistles. You can't be guided by something because you are already censoring. So let people listen to the two bells and then make the decision to say whether this is right or wrong, but you can't do it, it seems wrong to me. When I can, I listen to the Russian media, to see what they say, and then they leave me thinking. And the best thing of all is to be able to think, and to draw your own conclusion.

‍

The other issue is that you have to go zone by zone. In Europe you have certain concerns as a citizen and as a company that you don't have in Latin America. For example, in Latin America, Russophobia is given a different importance than in countries such as Poland and Germany, which are next door and will give it much more importance because they have people who are escaping and arriving by train from those countries, so they can take it differently. In Argentina, for example, or in other Latin American countries, we are worried that maybe we can't make ends meet with our economy, and then going to the supermarket and seeing a Nestlé or Danone product, which today are so criticised in Europe because they are still in Russia, suddenly someone here says, it costs 5% less and I'm going to buy it anyway.

‍

I think that today there are almost no borders between some countries; in some things yes, in others no, but in the idiosyncrasies of the regions, we have to analyse everything, because you cannot come with rules of thought that work today in Spain and want to adapt them or implement them in Argentina, Chile or Peru. 

‍

The employees of Renault, which has 30% of the car market in Russia, with Lada, the famous Russian car company, and they are not leaving Russia. There are 23-year-olds, just graduated as engineers: are they going to want to go to work at Renault or are they going to go to the competition, or are they going to go somewhere else? In France, are they going to want to buy a Renault car or a Lada car? These things will become clearer over time. The truth is that I really want to start looking at the Forbes and Fortune reputation rankings, and compare them with those before the war in Ukraine, and see how this affects or doesn't affect companies, and analyse sales. 

‍

Today I read about Carlsberg beer, which outsells Heineken in Russia. In recent days it announced that it was leaving Russia, and that's why its shares rose by 8%, just the announcement that it was leaving. There are people who doubt whether or not to continue investing in the company. This issue hits you in the pocket. The issue is that your reputation today makes or breaks your wallet. Consistency and reputation today is worth much more than money.

‍

Talent retention is one of the fundamental issues. Where you want to work or where you want to develop your career plan in companies that could affect you professionally. But there are also many issues linked to the third parties we engage with. That is, how many risk factors in identifying and preventing transactions related to Russian beneficial owners, politicians, oligarchs, relations with the elite, investing or obtaining financing from companies related to Russia and its government, risk of insolvency and transactions with Russian banks that may then suffer from what has happened, the OFAC operating ban and asset freeze, identifying alternative suppliers and starting exit plans, as part of these boycott efforts. 

‍

That is to say, there are many collateral effects that a company has to consider, even if it does not have its position in Russia or subsidiaries in Russia or commercial strategy in Russia, it is also important to consider third parties, the famous third parties linked to our organisation, and even investors. A majority investor with Russian origins comes and wants to invest in your company or in the sports sector, which are now becoming very popular. So you also have to take these measures.

‍

Talking about investments, I always use a quote from Warren Buffett, the fourth largest investor in the world, who says that it takes 20 years to build a reputation and only 5 minutes to destroy it. Warren Buffett and many investors like the CEO of Blackrow, another very large investment fund; they don't invest in companies that don't have a good reputation and because they invest at least for the medium term. So, if they don't have a good reputation, tomorrow the stock could go down, it could fall like a piano. So we have to analyse these kinds of things and we have to learn from the one who burns himself with milk, who sees a cow and cries. 

‍

The reputation, the aftermath of all this war, we are going to see over time. Today we have to analyse it very quickly: the sale of shares, the talent that does not want to join companies that, to tell the truth, with the Russia affair they have shown that it is all bluff, it is all air, there is nothing true; then I am not going to work in that company or I am not interested in working there. The consequences and the fallout will come with time. I work a lot with LinkedIn and it's amazing how many people have blocked contacts in Russia and unsubscribed. You say: what does this person have to do with it? And that person works in such and such a company that is state-owned, Russian and probably agrees with Putin. In other words, these conversations that I never imagined I would hear, I have heard them.