TheChek News Flow

Because OpenAI’s for-profit business is controlled by a nonprofit, investors currently get stock that entitles them to a share of future profits. The company is trying to convert the shares to traditional equity so its for-profit unit can go public someday, though it faces legal and contractual tussles with the likes of Elon Musk and Microsoft, which could affect the timing and structure of that proposed conversion.

Being publicly traded could make it easier for OpenAI to borrow money and pursue some of its data center ambitions, which could include renting out its servers to other AI developers, according to recent comments from its executives.

Cost Breakdown

Until then, it has to find ways of paying the almost unfathomable costs of developing its technology and serving it to what it hopes will be billions of customers. At the same time, OpenAI is grappling with increasing competition for talent that has already led to key departures and increased salaries and stock compensation.

For instance, OpenAI has projected about $20 billion in additional stock compensation charges between now and 2030 compared to its earlier projection.

But the biggest change emerging from OpenAI’s latest projections was to its cash flows. The company projected it will burn more than $8 billion this year, or roughly $1.5 billion higher than its prior projection from earlier this year. Cash burn will more than double to more than $17 billion next year—$10 billion higher than what the company earlier projected.

And in 2027 and 2028, the company projects to burn roughly $35 billion and $45 billion, respectively. In the prior projection, the company said its 2028 cash burn would be $11 billion, meaning the new estimate is more than four times higher.

One factor pushing up the company’s cash burn is its plan to spend nearly $100 billion later this decade on costs related to servers it would control, the new data suggest. CFO Sarah Friar has said OpenAI could offer servers to other companies the way Amazon Web Services does.

Another large driver of the increased costs is computing costs. While the cost of running its AI models, known as inference compute expenses, is close to what it projected earlier this year, the small differences add up to more than $11 billion in extra spending by the end of the decade. The company expects to spend more than $150 billion on such costs from 2025 through 2030.

And its cost to develop AI models, also called training or research compute, is far higher than it previously projected.

The company projected a steady increase in AI training costs through 2030, which suggests this type of expense could grow even after then.

The company projected a steady increase in these costs through 2030, which suggests this type of expense could grow even after then. As the company’s struggles to develop GPT-5 this year showed, training AI can yield unpredictable results, including false starts and do-overs that can raise costs.

On the bright side, OpenAI’s revenue outlook is improving somewhat.

Overall, the company has projected $13 billion in total revenue this year, up three and a half times from last year and about $300 million higher than its earlier projections for 2025, the new data show. Its revenue projection for 2030 rose about 15% to roughly $200 billion compared to the prior projection.

ChatGPT is a large driver of the company’s increased projections. OpenAI expects the chatbot to generate nearly $70 billion in additional revenue over the next six years, compared to earlier projections. Millions of people and thousands of businesses pay subscription fees to use ChatGPT.

OpenAI projected nearly $10 billion in revenue from ChatGPT this year, an increase of roughly $2 billion from projections earlier this year, and nearly $90 billion in revenue from the chatbot in 2030, a roughly 40% increase from the earlier projections.

OpenAI’s projections also raised expectations for how it will generate revenue from users who don’t pay for ChatGPT. It’s unclear how OpenAI plans to make money off that portion of its user base, although it could include shopping-related services or some form of advertising. The data show the company expects to generate around $110 billion in revenue between 2026 and 2030 from such services.

Altman had previously discussed the possibility of charging shopping-related affiliate fees–or a cut of a sale initiated from a user’s search on ChatGPT. Earlier this year, Friar had also discussed the possibility of selling ads but said the company has no active plans to do so.

Facebook-Like Margins

In its earlier projections, OpenAI projected that the average revenue per user from “free user monetization” products would be $2 per year starting next year and $15 per user per year by the end of the decade, by which time it expected to have two billion weekly active users. OpenAI also told investors these products to have gross profits margins similar to those of Meta Platforms’ Facebook, between 80% and 85%. It isn’t clear if these expectations have changed lately.

Notably, OpenAI lowered its projections for generating revenue from its application programming interface, which companies such as Anysphere and Salesforce use to power their AI applications, by $5 billion over the next five years. And it projected about $26 billion less revenue from “agents,” or products that involve AI that handles tasks involving multiple steps. The reasons for that couldn’t be learned, but it’s possible that more such technology will be built into ChatGPT rather than offered as a separate product.

In any case, the increase in ChatGPT revenue projections more than made up for those decreases.

Microsoft, which is OpenAI’s biggest outside shareholder, is entitled to 20% of OpenAI’s revenue, and the startup’s cash flow projections account for that payout.

As someone who has lost nearly 25 kilos on Mounjaro, I think the higher cost is worth it. But is it fair?

As someone who has lost nearly 25 kilos on the weight-loss jab Mounjaro, I still think it’s worth paying for despite this week’s price increase. But is it fair?

The price of my (private) prescription has risen from £200 to £300 per month as a result of manufacturer Eli Lilly bowing to pricing pressure from Donald Trump. If I lived in the US and wasn’t covered by health insurance, I’d probably pay much more, which has drawn the president’s ire. While the UK price rise wasn’t as steep as initial reports suggested, I fear it will make losing weight an unaffordable luxury for many obese people.

I fully expect some readers to be thinking: “Good! The lazy salad dodgers can try and lose weight the hard way and exercise some willpower.” Well, I had been trying “the hard way” for two years. After the age of 45, nothing I did to slim down as a younger woman seemed to work.

I managed to lose 10 pounds after my GP referred me to a 12-week weight loss programme in my local leisure centre, but each pound was a struggle. I constantly felt not just hungry, but “hangry”. By contrast, the silencing of so-called food noise that many people on the jab speak of is exactly why I was able to stick to the diet and exercise regime I currently enjoy. I cannot tell you how motivating it is to see the scales finally start to move down.

Two in three adults in Britain are thought to be overweight or obese, a health crisis that Frontier Economics claims costs the UK £126bn a year. An estimated 1.5mn people in the UK are taking GLP-1 drugs to suppress their appetite, with around half on Mounjaro, dubbed the “King Kong” of weight loss jabs. The majority pay for private prescriptions — only the most severely obese stand a chance of getting these drugs via the NHS, where waiting lists are long.

Before I ordered my first pen with the blessing of my doctor, I did a lot of research. I was very concerned about potential side effects (mercifully, I have experienced very few) and the as-yet-unknown longer term consequences. However, I felt the risks of carrying excess weight were greater. As someone who writes about longevity and retirement, I was particularly focused on extending my healthy life expectancy. I never wanted to be “thin”; I wanted to regain fitness and achieve and maintain a healthy weight.

The sudden price rise, while unwelcome, is something my budget can absorb. However, polls conducted by online pharmacies suggest large numbers of private patients will switch to cheaper alternatives such as Wegovy. There are fears that more people will turn to the UK’s thriving black market. Last week, a friend of a friend offered to put me in touch with her supplier in India (I politely declined). Others may stop taking the jab altogether.

Like them, I am fearful of putting weight back on when I start reducing my dose. To guard against this, I have completely overhauled my diet. Tim Spector, the founder of Zoe, a personalised nutrition company, has spoken passionately about the need to educate yourself about nutrition while on weight loss drugs, rather than consuming less of what you were already eating. I learned a lot from doing the Zoe tests and wearing a blood sugar monitor, but didn’t lose much weight.

After 10 months on the jab, I am nearing my goal weight and feeling fitter and stronger than I have in years (note: resistance training is a must to avoid losing muscle mass). The free weights I’d purchased under lockdown were gathering dust, but I have found salvation in fitness guru Suzi J on Instagram, and joined a gym class where 70-year-olds were confidently and inspirationally lifting much heavier weights than me.

All of the above has cost money, but I consider it an investment in my future health. So it saddens me that other obese people, who desperately want to be healthier, could find themselves priced out of losing weight.

I’ve received heartbreaking messages on social media this week from women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who say their symptoms have been transformed by using Mounjaro, yet they can no longer afford it.

When you consider the future cost of treating the consequences of rising obesity, there’s an argument that access to these drugs on the NHS should be expanded alongside greater investment in preventive healthcare and so-called wraparound services. In my experience, there is a lot that NHS GPs can do if you ask for help with weight loss, even though very few people currently qualify for these drugs on prescription. But imagine how the health of the nation could be transformed if they were.

The obesity epidemic is a growing political issue as government spending on welfare and out-of-work benefits spirals. In the most deprived areas of England, healthy life expectancy ends in your early 50s. In the least deprived areas, it extends to your early 70s — a spread of 18 years. Common comorbidities of obesity, such as diabetes, heart disease, osteoarthritis, and an increased risk of certain cancers, are a drain not just on NHS budgets, but on economic output. Frontier estimates that reducing obesity prevalence by just 1 per cent could recover £245mn in lost productivity costs. Impressive savings, but the problem is, who will fund the upfront costs?

Spector has previously argued that ministers should “start treating ultra-processed food like cigarettes” calling for more sin taxes on the food companies that manufacture them. I feel profoundly lucky to have been able to self-fund my own treatment, but the growing health inequalities in the UK make me feel very sick indeed.

The chairman of Apple’s board sold more than $20 million of common stock late last month, filings show.

A Form 4 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday shows Arthur Levinson sold 90,000 Apple shares on Aug. 28 on the open market at prices ranging from $231.815 to $232.36. A separate document shows Levinson purchased the shares on Feb. 27, 2001, when they were worth around 29 cents each.

Following the latest transaction, Levinson owned 4,069,576 shares of Apple’s common stock, currently worth around $976 million. As of the end of August, Levinson indirectly owned an additional 56,000 shares of common stock, worth $13 million, through his spouse.

Levinson has served as chairman since 2011 and has been on the board since 2000. He is the CEO of Calico, an Alphabet owned biotech focused on the science of aging. Apple and Calico didn’t respond to a request for comment regarding the latest transaction.

While Apple shares have risen 3.1% since Aug. 28, the stock has trailed the benchmark S&P 500 index this year, falling 4.3% against the market’s 11% gain. Uncertainty around tariffs and continuous delays to the rollout of new artificial-intelligence features have weighed on shares.

However, there has been a string of positive developments over the past few months. Earnings and revenue in the third quarter both topped consensus estimates, with iPhone sales—which accounted for nearly half of total net sales—coming in stronger than expected.

Another bright spot was the outcome of the Google antitrust lawsuit. Judge Amit Metha published his ruling on remedies Alphabet must make to mitigate its monopoly on Internet search on Tuesday. The judge didn’t bar Google from making payments to Apple in exchange for making Google the default search provider on its devices.

The next catalyst for Apple will be its product showcase on Sept. 9, when the tech giant is expected to pull back the curtain on its iPhone 17 lineup.

Inside Scoop is a regular Barron’s feature covering stock transactions by corporate executives and board members—so-called insiders—as well as large shareholders, politicians, and other prominent figures. Due to their insider status, these investors are required to disclose stock trades with the Securities and Exchange Commission or other regulatory groups.

U.S. v. Google ended with a whimper, not a bang this past week. Though Google Search was declared a monopoly that had shut down competition, it escaped the worst of the government’s proposed remedies. The stock soared 9% on the news to a record high. Still, there are significant antitrust dangers in front of the company that investors seem to have overlooked.

In his decision, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta skirted the most drastic remedies proposed by the plaintiffs—the U.S. Department of Justice and most of the states—because circumstances have changed since the initial trial that declared Google Search a monopoly.

In the late 2023 “liability” phase of the trial, no one brought up the nascent competition from artificial-intelligence search engines. By 2025, when the court was considering remedies, the landscape had drastically changed, with Google seeing its first real competition in years from ChatGPT, Perplexity, and others.

“The emergence of GenAI changed the course of this case,” Mehta wrote in his ruling.

Google’s lawyers made that argument forcefully in the remedy phase of the trial, and Mehta agreed with them. “Venture funding in ‘internet search’ was considered Silicon Valley’s ‘biggest no fly zone’,” he wrote in his opinion. “The money flowing into this space, and how quickly it has arrived, is astonishing. These companies already are in a better position, both financially and technologically, to compete with Google than any traditional search company has been in decades.”

This was the main reason for the judge’s light touch. But Google didn’t get away unscathed. Here are three areas in which Google’s business could still be hurt by the court’s ruling:

Data sharing: A potential time bomb in the decision are the data-sharing remedies that made it through. Mehta shaved off much of the plaintiff’s proposals in this regard, but he left in some crucial parts that, with a lot of time, talent, and investment, could enable competitors to reverse engineer Google Search and the underlying technologies.

This could be a difference-maker for upstart AI search engines from Perplexity and OpenAI that currently rely on less complete web data. Until now, Google’s biggest competitive advantage in search has been its unique view of the web and how users interact with it. Maybe no longer.

The threat of AI disruption might have saved Google from a court-ordered breakup, but the company still faces a long-term threat from AI—and potential rivals will now be amplified by the data sharing requirement.

The Case May Not Be Over. Mehta said Google could continue making payments to Apple, which can keep its search engine as the default option on Apple devices. Apple investors breathed a sigh of relief here, as the “revenue sharing” came to $20 billion in 2022. But Mehta said he could still revisit this part of the ruling over the six-year term of his decision “if competition is not substantially restored through the remedies the court does impose.”

Then there is the issue of appeals. Neither Google nor the Justice Department would commit to appealing but the DOJ seemed open to the idea, stating in its press release, “We will continue to review the opinion to consider the Department’s options and next steps regarding seeking additional relief.”

It could use the leverage of an appeal to negotiate a better deal for the plaintiffs, to Google’s detriment. Or it could go to trial where the remedies could be vacated and sent back to Mehta with further instructions that are less favorable to Google.

Pending Cases. There will be more cases around Google antitrust, both abroad and in the U.S. The search monopoly case began in 2020 under the first Trump administration, but a second suit was filed in 2023 by the Justice Department during Joe Biden’s presidency. This case revolves around Google’s advertising network, which acts as a market for buying and selling digital ads across the web. Think of it like Nasdaq’s role in facilitating stock trades. The liability phase of this trial concluded in April with Google being declared an illegal monopoly for the second time. The remedies phase begins later this month in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

According to the DOJ, Google’s ad exchange has a majority market share, and is one of the biggest buyers and sellers on its own network, as if Nasdaq was one of the largest buyers and sellers of stock on its own exchange. “Google positioned itself to function simultaneously as buyer, seller, and auctioneer of digital display advertising,” reads the original complaint.

Put another way: In an auction for ad sales, Google effectively gets first and last looks every time, the court said.

Compared with the just concluded U.S. v. Google, the 2023 case “is the much more obvious candidate for divestiture with some kind of structural remedy,” according to Anne Witt, professor of law at France’s Edhec Business School, who has studied Big Tech’s global antitrust challenges.

The DOJ has proposed that Google be compelled to divest the exchange and its seller-side software.

To be sure, the importance of Google’s ad network to Alphabet’s business has waned. Once 21% of company revenue, it dwindled to 8.7% in 2024. The decline comes as Google Search AI Overviews have reduced traffic and ad demand on the web.

Still, the importance of the business can’t be measured just in dollars. Should the judge force Google to divest, the company would lose its 360-degree view of the market for digital ads. That could negatively impact its revenue and gross profit margin in its larger ad businesses, Search and YouTube.

And what about Google’s regulatory risk in the EU? That’s for a future column.

Kennedy’s autism report, touted by Trump, will suggest that using the pain reliever during pregnancy may be linked to the developmental disorder

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. plans to announce that pregnant women’s use of an over-the-counter pain medication is potentially linked to autism in a report that will also suggest a medicine derived from folate can be used to treat symptoms of the developmental disorder in some people, people familiar with the matter said.

The report, expected this month from the Department of Health and Human Services, is likely to highlight low levels of folate, an important vitamin, and Tylenol taken during pregnancy as well as other potential causes of autism, people familiar with the matter said.

Kennedy’s department also plans to pinpoint a form of folate known as folinic acid, or leucovorin, the people said, as a way to decrease the symptoms of autism, which affected roughly one in 31 eight-year-olds in the U.S. in 2022.

Tylenol, whose active ingredient is acetaminophen, is a widely used pain reliever, including by pregnant women. Some previous studies have indicated risks to fetal development, but others have found no association. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says it is safe to use in pregnancy, though it recommends pregnant women consult with their doctors before using it, as with all medicines.

Tylenol is made by McNeil Consumer Healthcare, a division of Kenvue, and other companies make similar acetaminophen-based products.

“Nothing is more important to us than the health and safety of the people who use our products,” a Kenvue spokeswoman said. “We have continuously evaluated the science and continue to believe there is no causal link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and autism.”

The Health and Human Services secretary has long embraced anti-scientific ideas that run counter to germ theory, the basis of treating infectious diseases

Why do people get sick? Ask Robert F. Kennedy Jr., America’s highest-ranking public-health official, and he may chalk it up to their terrain.

For centuries, doctors and scientists have agreed that germs are the underlying cause of infectious diseases. Someone coughs on you, you get a cold. Drink raw milk, and you might end up with E. coli or listeria. This widely accepted truth is the basis of pasteurization, vaccines and antibiotics.

But Kennedy has long embraced ideas rooted in theories that run counter to germ theory and help explain his deep mistrust of vaccines and his efforts to remake the U.S. public-health system. Those efforts came to a head last week as the Trump administration fired the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other top officials quit their jobs in the midst of disagreements with Kennedy vaccine policy. On Thursday, Kennedy testified before a heated Senate panel about the administration’s health agenda and the recent staffing shake-ups.

“Secretary Kennedy is committed to building the healthiest generation in American history,” said Andrew G. Nixon, director of communications at the Department of Health and Human Services in a statement. “He is working to end the chronic disease epidemic and restoring trust in public health through transparency, gold-standard science, and evidence-based medicine.”

As chemist Louis Pasteur’s germ theory of disease was gaining traction in the 1800s, his rival Antoine Béchamp raised an alternative explanation: Disease, he said, was caused by the state of the body, which he referred to as the “terrain.” In his view, a strong inner environment, bolstered by nutritional food and a healthy lifestyle, could fend off illness.

Most doctors and scientists rejected Béchamp’s view, and the science of germ theory, bolstered by a German doctor named Robert Koch who identified bacteria that caused specific diseases like anthrax and tuberculosis, became a foundational piece of modern public health. Today scientists recognize that even healthy people can get sick when a virus infects them. But Béchamp retained a fringe following, one that has spread in the internet era. Kennedy’s critiques of germ theory reflect the persistent support of that sentiment.

Germ theory, Kennedy wrote in his 2021 book “The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health,” is at the heart of his critique of American healthcare.

“The ubiquity of pasteurization and vaccinations are only two of the many indicators of the domineering ascendancy of germ theory as the cornerstone of contemporary public health policy,” he wrote in the book. “A $1 trillion pharmaceutical industry pushing patented pills, powders, pricks, potions and poisons and the powerful professions of virology and vaccinology … fortifies the century-old predominance of germ theory.”

In his book, Kennedy refers to Béchamp approvingly as a “miasmist”—a believer in miasma theory, which predates both germ and terrain theory. It is the belief that disease is caused by bad air, or something poisonous in the environment. There is firm consensus in the public-health community that environmental factors like air quality, as well as good nutrition, are important for good health, but these factors do not reliably protect people from getting infected by viruses.

As his political profile grew, Kennedy made his war on germ theory part of his public platform. As a presidential candidate in 2023, he promised to tell the National Institutes of Health to “give infectious disease a break for about eight years,” NBC reported. On a 2023 episode of Joe Rogan’s popular podcast, Kennedy said “it’s hard for an infectious disease to kill a healthy person with a rugged immune system”—an assertion that runs counter to modern medical consensus. When Rogan said that wasn’t true of the 1918 Spanish flu, which killed more than 50 million people globally, Kennedy replied: “Well, the Spanish flu was not a virus.” He said that people became sick and died after receiving a new vaccine that was being tested at a military base in Kansas—a conspiracy theory that has been disproved. In his book, Kennedy writes that “government virologists” have invoked the Spanish flu to “terrorize generations of Americans with vaccine compliance.”

Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again movement has advanced fringe proposals such as removing fluoride from public water and defying vaccine schedules. Meanwhile, wellness influencers are promoting myriad “detoxifying” supplements and treatments to their millions of followers. All of this has brought long-debunked ideas about health back into the zeitgeist.

Actor Woody Harrelson, a vocal Kennedy supporter, asserted his belief in terrain theory while appearing on Rogan’s podcast in February. “People’s immune system gets messed up from what they’re consuming,” he said. “And in a nutshell, that’s why I believe in Béchamp’s theory as opposed to the germ theory. And, at least, it’s got to be both.” Harrelson, who declined an interview request, also discussed the theory on Bill Maher’s podcast in 2022, where Maher showed support for the theory too.

In their remarks, Harrelson and Maher acknowledge that germs do exist—but that healthy people tend not to be affected by them. “No serious person would contend that terrain isn’t a factor in our health,” Maher said in a statement. “A pathogen invading healthy terrain will have a harder time surviving. Terrain is a key factor among many.”

Others, like Dr. Jessica Peatross, entertain more extreme views. A physician, health coach and guest on MAHA-favorite podcasts such as Alex Clark’s “Culture Apothecary,” Peatross promotes terrain theory and said she finds conspiracies that viruses do not exist to be “intriguing.” “I don’t want to dwell on what is actually making people sick,” she said, adding that she is instead focused on the remedy to help people feel better. On a 2024 episode of jujitsu practitioner and conspiracy theorist Eddie Bravo’s podcast featuring NFL quarterback Aaron Rodgers, Bravo, who believes the earth is flat, backed terrain theory. Larry Cook, a prominent vaccine critic whose X handle is @stopvaccinating, has tweeted about germ theory and terrain theory.

Paul Offit, a doctor, professor and virology expert, said Sec. Kennedy’s views were evident in his response to the 8-year-old girl in West Texas who died of measles, Offit said; Kennedy suggested that malnourishment and living in food deserts played a role in what appeared to be a clear-cut case of infectious disease.

“And what does he do? He pushes vitamin A,” said Offit, noting that the supplement is not an effective treatment for measles.

Even without Power of Siberia 2, there was already a risk of superfluous LNG sloshing around the system

China’s summit with Russia and North Korea this week and the military parade that followed contained plenty to shock, from new missile technologies and drone submarines to what appeared to be autonomous robot wolves. But investors in energy may notice a different threat: potential progress on a new Russia-China natural gas pipeline that could, if it goes ahead, leave US suppliers out in the cold.

The Power of Siberia 2 pipeline is a huge project that would bring 50bn cubic metres of natural gas to China per year, starting perhaps in the early 2030s. Such infrastructure investments are usually backed by a decades-long supply contract which binds buyers and sellers. 

The issue for other countries is that cheaper Russian imports to China — in volumes that could increase to 60 bcm if some extensions on other routes are factored in — would displace much of the liquefied natural gas China was expected to buy from elsewhere. The potential flows are roughly equivalent to the amount the UK consumes, and would meet a big chunk of China’s expected demand growth of about 150 bcm in the period, as estimated by Bernstein analysts. 

This should concern the US, which is already the biggest exporter of the fuel in the world. Moreover, the country has a lot of new liquefication capacity already under construction and further potential besides.  

Even without Power of Siberia 2, there was already a risk of superfluous LNG sloshing around the system. The International Energy Agency reckons that projects under construction will add almost 300 bcm of annual LNG capacity to the system by 2030, of which about half comes from the US. That is more than the demand expected to grow in the period, creating a glut until potentially the early 2030s. A new Russia-China pipeline would extend that glut, keeping prices lower for longer. 

In the short term, US LNG developers such as Cheniere and Venture Global have some protection from these shifts in supply. They tend only to start construction when much of their capacity has already been sold under long-term contracts. Oil companies such as TotalEnergies and Shell and traders such as Vitol and Trafigura account for more than 40 of new LNG contracted volumes from 2021, thinks Wood Mackenzie, a consultancy.

Those who have bought it, however, may find themselves more exposed — especially if they have not secured “back-to-back” contracts to sell their LNG on to industrial and retail gas users.

Longer term, Power of Siberia 2 would cause problems for the developers too. About 250 bcm of potential LNG projects are still on the drawing board, according to consultancy Baringa. In a world in which China uses ever more Russian gas, many of these would struggle to get built. At current European gas prices, that is almost $90bn a year of lost revenue for US industry — money that could, literally, end up going down the pipes.

Revue de presse. Avant le vote de confiance à l’Assemblée nationale et la journée de manifestations du 10 septembre, les médias étrangers s’inquiètent de voir la France, nouvel homme malade de l’Europe, s’enfoncer dans la crise.