In This Episode
Porter talks about the VIX falling out of bed while he was down in Nicaragua last week, and the reactions of Alliance members who were along for the trip at Rancho Santana. Buck prompts Porter on a wild ride covering the moral bankruptcy of fiat money, how US monetary and elected officials have truly “jumped ship” on fiscal responsibility, where interest rates go from here, and the borrow culture of the new America that is making it impossible for millennials to save and build wealth.
Dave Lashmet, lead analyst and editor of Stansberry Venture Technology, connects with Porter to talk about the latest medical and technology trends he’s studying that have the potential to deliver huge returns to your portfolio. Porter and Dave talk about their first biotech research trip together in 1999, the reality of seeing autonomous vehicles on your street, immunotherapy for cancer patients, and the famous “Dinner with Hitler” essay they wrote together.
Scott from Indiana asks Porter about solar energy. Rant alert! You won’t want to miss Porter’s response on what might be the most economically backwards source of energy on planet earth, despite our government’s attempt to make you pay for it.
Male: Broadcasting from Baltimore, Maryland and New York City, you're listening to the Stansberry Investor Hour.
Tune in each Thursday in iTunes for the latest episode of the Stansberry Investor Hour. Sign up for the free show archive at Investorhour.com. Here are the hosts of your show, Buck Sexton and Porter Stansberry.
Buck Sexton: Hey, everybody. Welcome back to another episode of the Stansberry Investor Hour. I'm nationally syndicated radio host and former CIA guy, Buck Sexton. With me as always is our famous leader Porter Stansberry. Hey, what's up, Porter?
Porter Stansberry: I'm not a CIA guy. And last week it seemed like we knew very little about what we were doing. The market kind of fell out of bed. And I imagine a lot of our subscribers were afraid because the fear index went up 114 percent in one day I believe. From like 10 to like at the peak maybe 50, 49. Anybody watching any of that stuff out there? Anyone be like, holy Moses. Porter said we were going to have a big VIX hiccup and this must be it.
Buck Sexton: Stansberry Research leaves the country and the markets go absolutely wild. I'm not saying it's why it happened, but I'm not saying I'm not saying it.
Porter Stansberry: No, it was not that. It was fun though. We were down in Nicaragua surfing and we had maybe 25 alliance subscribers with us. We were having lunch one day at the little taco shack. And Austin was like, holy hell, the market just completely fell out of bed. Cause it was kind of down that Monday. And then at like 2:00 it just went like, whoop. Like down 1,200 points. And I looked around and like, man, the subscribers were cool, calm and collective. They're like, yeah, no worries. I'm hedged. I'm like, great, someone's paying attention.
Yeah, so you know, Buck, actually we had a pretty good week. And our model portfolios I think at the peak the market was down, gosh, I can't remember off the top of my head right now. But the S&P at one point I know was down five or six percent. I think it was after that Monday. From the peak. And our portfolios were in order, you know Capital was down say four percent. And then Total was down three percent. Income was down two percent. I mean we were outperforming the market to the downside, meaning our portfolios weren't dropping as much. And it was great because we just published our Report Card showing how we outperformed the market last year and The Capital Portfolio was up 26 percent or something. Very impressive.
So, glad to see that our work is working. And the idea is you should do better when the market goes up and you should do not as bad when the market goes down. And that's very difficult to do consistently in both up and down markets. So I was very proud of my team. And I hope the subscribers were appreciative of the work we gave them. Because when it really counts is when the market falls out of bed like that and because you know what you own, you know why you own it and you structure your portfolio the right way, you don't really care. You're like, yeah, it's a storm and it'll pass. And I'm not going to freak out and sell at the bottom. I've matured as an investor. I know this is just part of the show.
One of the things I used to tell people is, Buck, everybody starts out as a buy and hold investor. You tell yourself, oh, this is a great business. This pets.com. I mean everyone loves pets and the Internet's growing. How could I go wrong? I'm going to own pets.com. And then you wake up one day and pets.com has been cut in half. The share price has gone from 100 to 50. And you tell yourself, doesn't matter. It's just noise. I'm a buy and hold investor. I watch Jim Kramer at night and I subscribe to the Motley Fool. No ill will intended. But those guys are people who have coached buy and hold investing in the past. I'm going to hold on.
And then, you know a couple more bad days go by and now you're down 75 percent. And you realize how much the stock has to go up just for you to get to even. And you go, oh, man, this is, you know the Motley Fool guys told me I'd have this crisis and I'm going to stick it out. I'm a buy and hold investor. And then Country Club Guy, what happens next?
Country Club Guy: Well, I become a buy and fold investor. I wait until it goes down. Like, you know what? I need that $2,000 back.
Porter Stansberry: Well, that's my punchline. What you're supposed to say is it goes all the way down to 90 percent. Which is what a lot of them do. And at that point you decide you're not a buy and hold investor anymore. You're now a buy and fold investor.
Country Club Guy: Sorry. We're like an old married couple. I just finish your jokes for ya.
Porter Stansberry: Anyway. So, you know one of the things, Buck, you'll see us coaching people constantly on is you can manage risk with either position size or trailing-stop loss, or both. And think about that for a second. You decide, hey, I like pets.com. But I'm not going to fall in love with the stock. I'm going to risk one percent of my portfolio on it. Okay. So if you're going to risk one percent of your portfolio on it, then you can either put one percent of your portfolio into the stock and then just hold it. You're now a buy and hold investor. You've got that one percent allocated. If it goes to zero then you lost one percent of your portfolio. Done.
And by the way, there's nobody who can't take a one percent portfolio risk. Everyone can afford to risk a penny out of the dollar that they have in savings on an idea. So if you're the kind of person who likes to take a gamble, you like to take a risk, you know you're a CIA guy. You're like, yeah let's take 12 guys on horseback and take on the Taliban. Sounds like a good idea. What could possibly go wrong? Fine. You can be that gung-ho. But you can just do it with one-percent positions. Okay. Then you're going to be fine.
But of course that's not what happens. Instead people go, oh, yeah, I really like this idea. I'm going to put 25 percent of my portfolio in it. I'll put 30 percent of my portfolio in it. And then all of a sudden you have no capacity to withstand volatility cause nobody can take those kind of drawdowns. So if you're going to put more in, more than one percent, then you've got to have some other kind of risk-management strategy. You've got to know when you're going to sell. And the way that you do it is you always limit your risk to one percent.
So think about that for a second. If you're going to have a 25 percent trailing-stop loss, then your initial position size cannot be larger than four percent of your portfolio. Why? Well, if lose 25 percent of that position, if it immediately goes straight down, you're going to be stopped out after you've lost one percent of your portfolio.
I'm not really a math guy. Maybe that doesn't make sense to someone who's listening not very closely. But think about that for a second. Right. You want to structure your position sizing and your risk management hand in hand. So that you don't risk more than one percent of your portfolio.
Now, Buck, you might come to something. You might say, look, you know this biotech stock that Dave is recommending, for example, Biogen, which is a big biotech company and it's pursuing this really cool new approach to treating Alzheimer's. And Dave is convinced it's going to work and there's clinical trial data that shows it's working. And you decide this is it. This is the biggest new drug of the last decade and I want to have a bigger than normal position. Okay, great. I'm going to go with an eight percent position. Fine. But now that means you're stuck with a 12 ½ percent trailing-stop loss. And you go, well, there's no way. I know I'm going to get stopped out of that cause Biogen is more volatile than the market as a whole. Market has a five percent drawdown. I'm going to get stopped out of Biogen every single time. And then I'm just guaranteeing myself a loss. So why would I do that?
Okay. Now this is where the discipline comes in. So what do you do? And the answer is, you don't take an eight percent position in Biogen. You take a four percent position in Biogen. And you live within your risk parameters. That's what you do. And you just realize you're not George Soros. You're not a billionaire hedge-fund manager. You can't afford to take those kinds of risks.
If you just do that, you're going to be extremely successful. If you do the other thing, and you go in on big risky positions and you don't manage your risk and you don't follow trailing stops and you don't do position sizing, I guarantee you're going to end up eventually blowing yourself up. And you'll probably blow yourself up first before you even make any money. So that's the speech for today at Stansberry Investor Hour.
Buck, what's on your mind?
Buck Sexton: So I'm not going to take my 401K and transition it into crypto. That's what I'm taking from this. That's probably not the move.
Porter Stansberry: If you had a 401K in crypto, your 401K grew a lot. So you're now in a – I don't know what that would be, a 1,265K or something. I'm not quite sure. But now it's more like a 201. So you've done the roundtrip perhaps. Depending of course when you got in and all that stuff.
I have to tell you, I believe the crypto bubble has burst and will not come back. I think you're going to see all those things head towards their intrinsic value, which in most cases is zero. So if you're thinking about buying on the way down I would urge you not to do it.
Buck Sexton: Yeah, I was kidding about my 401K and crypto, by the way. I've learned enough from the show to know that would be a bad idea. But there are websites that are advocating you do that. There are.
Porter Stansberry: I'm sure. And instead I think you're buying GE as I recall.
Buck Sexton: No, that was one time, Porter. I got my hand blown off. You don't understand, it was a very worthwhile lesson, you see. You have to touch the stove once as a kid, right? And then you know, okay, I have to be careful around the stove. So I learned a lesson. Yeah, I think I lost 10 percent in GE in like a week.
Porter Stansberry: Ouch.
Buck Sexton: It was rough. What's on my mind though is here, I've actually – this is where we get one of these days where you have the merger of conservative political media in terms of concerns and the financial markets and what's going on in the world of all things Stansberry where you got the – I'm just telling you, the cover of the or the main story on the Drudge Report right now, inflation surge. People are all worried about inflation. Because this also ties into the recent budget activity out of D.C. They're spending a lot of money. Trump is going to be spending a lot of money. Not touching entitlements. People are starting to say, at what point does that start to be a problem? Mr. P, I want to know.
Porter Stansberry: Whoo, boy, this is a really tough one, Buck. I hate two handed economists. Right. You know on the one hand and then on the other. So I have always believed that everywhere and always inflation is a monetary phenomena. Meaning it's not about a lack of supply or an increase in demand or anything like that. It's just printing too much money. And it's clear that we have lost all sense of fiscal discipline in this country. It's just completely insane what we're doing to our national debt. What we're doing to our currency. And it would not surprise me at all if there was a stampede out of the dollar. It would not surprise me. So on the one hand you've got the inevitable collapse of the paper dollar system. The world reserve currency, paper backed financial system that we have globally, depends primarily upon American government making the right decisions about taxes and spending. And the only thing you can be sure is that they won't do that. They're going to make the wrong decisions.
Paper money has a track record, a historical track record that's unblemished by success. Every single paper currency system has failed. And I'm certain that ours will fail too. A way it could easily fail is a 20 trillion-dollar debt being added to with trillion-dollar annual deficits as far as the eye can see. That there is no effort whatsoever to balance the budget or to manage our debts is probably the most reckless thing I've seen our government do in terms of fiscal policy ever. So our leaders have completely abandoned any fiscal responsibility, any commitment at all to our trading partners or our creditors. And I don't know how long our trading partners or our creditors are going to take it. And if they say, we're not going to take it anymore, there's hell to pay for everybody. So it's not an easy decision to make.
I don't know – you know that's unknowable. So if you're talking about is the system stable, is it reliable, the answer's no. And you should hedge yourself from that risk by owning gold. Not bitcoin. If you ask me is there going to be inflation. Okay. I think it's a different question. So let me just make sure you understand.
On the one hand the system itself is fundamentally unstable and when it collapses, inflation, in terms of prices, will absolutely skyrocket. You know if tomorrow morning we woke up and we discovered that China had sold all of its treasury bonds and was refusing to accept dollar in payment for trade, the consequences would be catastrophic. You can't imagine how high prices would go. But I'm not talking about that. That's a system failure.
I'm talking about the kind of inflation that people talk about on the news. The producer price index. The consumer price index. The idea that you lose three or four percent of a dollar's purchasing power every year, year in and year out. That kind of inflation I'm actually not worried about. And my reasoning is controversial and may be very wrong. But there's a really good economist out there, his name is Lacy Hunt. And he's done a lot of really important comparative work showing that in situations where people expect there to be what's called a multiplier effect, in other words when the government spends more money than it brings in in taxes, it stimulates the economy and has a multiplier effect on economic activity and aggregate demand. And that typically leads to inflation. Higher prices for things.
But Lacy Hunt has showed that in countries that have extremely high debt loads, like ours, both public and private, additional deficit spending actually tends to have a negative multiplier effect. Because the uncertainty of the system itself falling apart causes people to be conservative and to save. Instead of to spend.
So the risk that the system itself may collapse actually reduces the tendency of people to spend too much. And to take big capital commitment risks. So ironically, the fact that we are highly in debt, both publicly and privately, may, in fact, cap the normal kind of inflationary pressures that you would expect to see in an economy like ours where the government's running a debt to GDP annual deficit in excess of four percent.
Now I don't know whether Lacy will be right or wrong. But when you think about it, we've had 10-year interest rates on treasury bonds for most of – at around two percent – for most of the last decade. And those rates are now closing in at three percent. 2.9% I think we're at today. If those rates get above three and a half percent I have a very hard time believing that they can go much higher than that in the face of an economy that has not grown over two percent in a decade.
So can rates go up from here? Yes, they can. I think they'll go to maybe three and a half percent. I don't think you'll see four on the 10-year. And if rates don't go any higher, I just don't think we're going to see any kind of major change in inflation. I think you'll see inflation at two and two and a half percent going forward. I don't think we're going to tip over into this higher rate of economic growth and higher rates of inflation that everyone currently expects.
I mean with the four-year at three percent, people are saying you're going to see two percent economic growth and one percent inflation. Or one percent inflation and two percent economic growth or vice versa. That's what that rate means. At four percent you're talking about two percent economic growth and two percent inflation. I just don't think we're going to see it. I just don't. I think that Lacy Hunt's right. I think that the burden of the debt is going to prevent economic growth from really taking off and lighting inflation. That's my bet.
So I'm a buyer of those bonds at three and a half percent or higher. I'm not a buyer of them now. And we'll see who's right. I just don't expect we're going to see a big increase in inflation. I don't see it. And also look at the price of gold. It's not showing up in gold or silver. It's not showing up in oil. I don't see it yet. And I think probably there's going to be a big rally in those government bonds in the second half of this year.
Buck Sexton: There's a lot of advertising going on right now, Porter, for silver specifically as a hedge. I'm seeing it all over the place. What do you attribute that? Is it because people have had a rough time who have bought gold in recent years and silver is just another version of the same pitch? I'm just wondering why do you see so many commercials now for silver is the next big thing? They are all over the place.
Porter Stansberry: Because the TV networks and the major media are using the large amounts of deficit spending to scare people into believing that inflation is inevitable. And unfortunately, I'm telling you, it's not inevitable because of the unique nature of our macroeconomic situation currently. But people will believe that and then they're going to go and buy silver in anticipation of a big inflationary period.
You might not have been paying attention or not even remember this, but silver had an enormous run from about 2004 to the mid-2008 period. It went from around six or seven dollars an ounce all the way to $50 an ounce during the last big inflationary cycle. And that was, of course, brought upon us by Bush's war spending. And, you know there was no matching decline in domestic spending. So he was spending on both guns and butter. And the result was enormously inflationary. You remember the price of oil went to I think to $150 a barrel. It spiked enormously.
And so with Trump now saying we're going to spend a lot on military and we're going to keep all of our domestic spending, the idea is that you're going to see the same sort of thing happen. That when we're spending on guns and butter, that's what will ignite the economic growth and the inflation that accompanies it. And if that happens you could see a huge move in silver. It's true. I just don't think you're going to see it this time. I don't think it's there.
A couple of things to look for before you see a big inflation. Here's the number one sign that I don't think we're going to see it. The price of oil. So with fracking producing more oil than ever before, we've been able to replace all of the oil that OPEC has taken off the market over the last two years and as a result, the price of oil has not been able to sustain prices above $60. You're just not going to see a big move in inflation without a move higher in oil. You just won't.
Secondly, there is more grains in storage in the United States right now than we've had ever before. And if you look at the index of agricultural prices, they're at rock bottom. There is no sign of any shortage in agricultural products. Zero. In fact, I think that one interesting trade right now is shorting shares of deer. Because there is no ability for farmers to make a profit in corn or soybeans. And if they can't make a profit they can't pay for their tractors. And there's something like –
Buck Sexton: Farmer suicides have actually gone up a lot. I don't know if you've seen that. That's become a big problem. Farmer suicides have been spiking in recent years.
Porter Stansberry: Yeah. Well, there's going to be a whole big wave of tractor defaults too. And I just saw some charts last night, we can get them for you and we'll put them on the website or somewhere, about these agricultural supply and price indexes. I mean it's just a – it's brutal. So you've got no pricing power in crude oil. You've got no pricing power in grains. Well, there's food and energy right there. How are you going to have an inflation? I just don't see it. I don't see it. I'm just not expecting any significant moves higher in the near term in gold or silver. Especially not with interest rates moving up.
I mean with rates over three percent on the 10-year, that's going to draw a lot of capital back into sovereign bonds. You know where you have the chance to make money in gold and silver is when there is any kind of instability in the financial system or when there's a big inflation. And I don't see either one right now.
Buck Sexton: Well, I guess that's a good thing at least from the perspective of folks who are hoping the market is going to do well this year. Are you still – are you bullish overall? I mean for people who are just buying a lot of S&P ETFs and the very, you know the less sophisticated stuff, which very sophisticated investors tell me or they'll tell people that are getting into things, ETFs, don't try to get too fancy. Is the market going to have a good year?
Porter Stansberry: I think the market will have a good year. I don't think it'll be as good as last year. But I think that there are big gains in productivity associated with the major technology companies. And I think a lot of that equity is still attractive. I think you're going to see continued moves into things that are growing. And look, it's a bull market. Interest rates are still relatively low. Stocks are moving higher. They're probably going to continue to do so for some time.
I am, of course, worried about the overall level of valuation. Stocks are as expensive as they have been at previous peaks. But with earnings growing the way they're growing and with interest rates where they are, it still seems reasonable to me. My big concern, and it has been since 2015, is actually not the stock market. It's the credit markets. Americans are way overly leveraged. Way overly leveraged. And they're not leveraged into mortgages. Which is a very safe and steady form of credit. They're leveraged into credit cards and student loans and auto loans. These other consumer lending stats are all at records. And I'm very concerned what happens if there's any kind of – when there is any kind of reduction to employment or wages. I think there's going to be a very bad credit cycle.
So you've got a highly indebted consumer in America and you've got corporations that have just gone bonkers with debts. Levels of corporate debts are at all-time records. And nobody cares right now because interest rates are at lifetime lows. So the burden of carrying this debts has been very easy. But as these loans reset, as they roll over, as interest rates creep higher, there's definitely going to be a corresponding increase in default rates. And that's for me another reason why I don't see an inflationary surge here because a lot of the private credit markets are tapped out. Corporations really can't borrow a lot more. Individuals really can't borrow a lot more. So I just don't see it. I don't see the cycle as ending in a big inflationary spiral. Instead I see this cycle ending what people call ice. So that's either fire or ice. And if it's fire it's an economy that overheats and that sends inflation higher. And that eventually causes the stock market to crash. And if it's ice, it's credit defaults. It's a lack of aggregate demand. It's falling earnings. And it's rising bankruptcy that cause the market to correct. And I still believe we're going to see ice. I still think that we're going to see rising default rates. I think we're going to see a big wave of personal bankruptcies.
Somehow we've got to deal with the fact that there are 300, 400 billion dollars in student loans that are never going to be repaid. And that's the low estimate. It could probably go much higher. How do those people buy a home? How do those people get credit cards? How do those people get car loans? How do those people become consumers? You're 25 years old. You owe $100,000 on a student loan. You can't service the debt. That's where our economy is heading. And you see all of this excess capacity. Think about the excess capacity right now we have in terms of cars. Right? How many cars are on the road that people don't need thanks to Uber? Think about the excess capacity we have in agriculture. I just mentioned, you know prices are at lows and stores are at highs and the amount of tractors that we have sold in the last ten years that nobody's paid for yet. Right? Thirty billion dollars in tractor loans, Buck. Tractor loans. It's just – there's been a lot – we have pulled forward a lot of aggregate demand by this massive amount of consumer debt.
So I don't see us heading into an inflationary spiral. I see us heading into a default-driven collapse. And I think that, you know who knows if I'll be right or not. But I don't think any of that's going to happen this year. I think this year you're going to continue to see consumer debts grow. And you're going to continue to see asset backed security financings. Which is going to keep cars selling. Which is going to keep credit-card balances growing. And that bubble is just going to continue to build.
Buck Sexton: Also, from what the market is showing me, and I mean from the perspective of just somebody who's very much seeing everything that's being advertised in the media, it strikes me as – and this I think ties into what you're talking about with debt, Porter, but maybe not. There is a lot of, "Hey, refinance your home." Right?
And this is for mostly boomers – people that are 55 and over. And you can tell by the guys, I mean they've got like different – they've got actors that haven't really been doing much in the last 15 or 20 years but people would remember them from when they were younger, and they're coming out there saying, "You know you can borrow up to 100 percent of the value of your home." It strikes me as somebody who's in their... you know retirees. That's what they're really going – retirees borrowing 100 percent of the value of their home. How is that a good idea?
Porter Stansberry: It's not. Here's an amazing statistic for you. We just did the Debt Jubilee book, so this is on sort of the top of my mind. There's some crazy high statistic. I want to say it's 75 percent of Americans now die with debt. And the average that they die with is $60,000.00. It's so funny to me – this will get you, Buck.
If you go back, and you might want to bring it up on your computer now. Go back and look at the original tenets of Marxism. If you look at the original "Communist Manifesto," I think it was written in 1848 by Karl Marx. There's 10 points of the manifesto. It's on Wikipedia. You can find it. And then think about how each one of those 10 points has become a major tenet of American political life.
So each one of those things is part and parcel of American policy. And you can't imagine a president coming forward and saying we shouldn't have these things. So for example, one of the 10 is free and public education. Imagine a president coming forward saying, "We should do away with free public education."
Nobody would go for it. Right?
Another one of the tenets of Marxism is retirement plans. A government-financed retirement system. Pension system. Social Security. Imagine a president coming forward and saying, "We really shouldn't have Social Security cause it's really a form of communism."
There's more. The idea that you have a paper currency. That's backed by a government-owned central bank. Again, part of the "Communist Manifesto." The original idea of communism. The idea that you have a common agricultural policy. That the government helps dictate what farmers grow and provides crop supports. And financing for tractors. Part of the original "Communist Manifesto."
If you read through it, every single thing that the communists were trying to do in the mid-1800s to stop capitalism is now part and parcel of America. And we can't imagine living without it. And so when you ask yourself, "Why do we live in this world where you have to go into debt just to make ends meet... just to live a regular life?"
Can anybody in America buy a house – a reasonable house in a good neighborhood, a 3/2 – without borrowing money? Can anybody?
You know I'm not talking about you got an inheritance. I'm not talking about your parents bought it for you. I'm talking about a guy who went to college, who got a job, who has a spouse who works, who has, you know 2.5 kids and a dog, can that person buy a house without going into debt to New York banks?
Buck Sexton: Well, it's even worse than that, Porter, because actually the people that are trying to do that now, and I speak for that group, we don't have wives or kids yet, in large part because we feel like we can't afford them because we can't even get into the housing market.
Porter Stansberry: That's right. And so then let's just take it a little bit further. Is there a way to farm in America today without borrowing a ton of money to buy land and tractors? Of course not. You can't be in the farming business without being leveraged. Any business. Can you – I mean you know luckily I was able to start my own business because it was the Internet. I had a total of $36,000.00 in capital to get Stansberry Research started. I had a borrowed laptop computer and I was living in a $250.00 a month apartment on the corner of North Avenue and Eutaw Street. Yeah, that's where the riots happened.
But this is a very unusual story. Right? I mean for most people to simply live, to own a car, to own a home, to have a small business, requires an enormous amount of debt. And interest service. And paying money to people in New York. And the reason – the underlying core reason that we have this economy that's structured this way where debt is so central to everything in our lives is because we've adopted the damn policies of the communists.
And you may not see the link. You may think that's a stretch. But it's really not. Everything is so expensive because taxes are so high and because our currency is paper.
So I don't know what my marginal tax rate will be this year with the new tax cuts. I haven't gotten that information from my accountant yet. But for the last decade I've been paying 54 percent of my income in taxes. Okay. If I'm paying 54 percent of my income in taxes, it's impossible for me to build much of a capital reserve. And I'm not a billionaire for Pete's sake. Right. And I mean, Buck, you live in New York. I'm sure your marginal taxes are as high or higher. How are you ever going to start your own media company? You're not. You're going to be a wage slave your whole life. There's no way you're going to have enough capital to compete with those guys.
And as a result, you've got to borrow money to buy a house. You've got to borrow money to buy a car. You have to borrow money to get a college degree. You're trapped in this complete cycle.
And there's two reasons for it. The number one reason is because of the unbelievable burden that our communist system puts on the government. Right. We have to pay for Social Security. We have to pay for Medicare. We have to pay for public education. We have to pay for –
Buck Sexton: It's generational theft, Porter. It's generational theft.
Porter Stansberry: ... all this stuff, right?
But the number two thing. And people get the government expense but they don't get this. They don't get that it's the paper system itself that enslaves you. Because the government prints more money every year which takes away your purchasing power. And, therefore, you don't participate in any of the increases to productivity.
So in our lifetimes, Buck, how much has productivity increased? Right. The microcomputer. Incredible efficiencies of engines and jet engines. The telecommunications revolution. GPS. All these things that make every person so much more productive.
And yet, the purchasing power of the dollar falls by 50 percent roughly every ten years. It's just insane. You can't get ahead by depending on your wages because the government is printing away the value of your wages. And at the same time, they're enabling enormous amounts of credit to be issued which just makes everything more expensive. And that's the cycle.
Anyways, that was a big rant. I don't know where it came from. But.
Country Club Guy: Came from the heart.
Porter Stansberry: Yeah, this bothers me. I don't like seeing everyone in America struggle. And I don't like the fact that capitalism gets blamed for the failure of our economy. When it's not the capitalists that are doing it. It's the damn government.
Buck Sexton: Yeah. It's my side of the house. The political side that's driving all this. Right now, Porter, spending beyond your means is a bipartisan mantra. It's true at the government level.
Porter Stansberry: It always has been. People talk about Ronald Reagan and his economic success. Man, all he did was just write checks that no one could cash. It's easy. I can be president and do that. You get a billion and you get a billion. It's like Oprah. You get a battleship. You get an aircraft carrier. You get free drugs. You get permanent health care. It's so ridiculous. Our whole society is just completely nuts. How about the fact that like – what is it? Ten percent of the working-age population in America is on disability payments. Forty million people are on food stamps.
Buck Sexton: It was over 50 million during Obama, right? It's down a little bit now. I think it's in the high 40s.
Porter Stansberry: It's all shameful.
Buck Sexton: Did you hear what they're going to do? They're going to change it, by the way. They're going to change food stamps, they're saying. They're going to make it more like – they referred to it as a box like those – what's it? Blue Apron. Where they send you the food and you make it. That's obviously a bourgeois yuppie thing. But they're thinking – this is the Office of Management and Budget, they just said on Monday that they're thinking about sending people staples. So we're going back to the era of government cheese and government powdered milk –
Porter Stansberry: Yeah. If you're hungry you can have cheese and crackers. Spoiled cheese. Have at it.
It boggles my mind that as a society we're willing to give food to able-bodied people who won't work. And by the way, when we ask for a drug test or something like that we're violating their civil rights. No, we're not. We didn't ask them to come pick up the food. They chose to. If you want the food then you have to be off drugs. Sorry. We're not going to enable your destructive lifestyle, you piece of crap.
Buck Sexton: People get very upset about this, by the way. They're even upset that we – that the government puts restrictions on EBT cards so that you can't go into a store and buy cigarettes and then go outside and resell the cigarettes for street prices that the government – yeah, that's how they play the game.
Porter Stansberry: How about this? I saw this recently going on in the state of Florida. Apparently one out of four felons in the United States lives in the state of Florida. How's that for an ad for the Sunshine State?
And there's a big to-do down there because there is some kind of executive parole board. And the governor is on the board for some reason. I don't know how he has time to do this. But if you want to have your voting rights reinstated as a felon, this board has to approve you. And so you have to prove that you've been holding a job and been a productive member of society and blah, blah, blah, blah.
Buck Sexton: Reformed.
Porter Stansberry: And there's some kind of a big legal battle about whether or not felons should automatically receive the right to vote – for their rights to be reinstated after some set period of time. Because, Buck, because it seems – the idea that felons can't vote is now an issue of civil rights because there are more black felons than white felons. Or there are – maybe not total numbers. I think it is. But it's not proportionate to their population.
So therefore, the fact that we chose not to allow felons to vote is really an attempt to disenfranchise male black people. By the way, they had to commit a serious crime. But as a society we're saying you shouldn't have the right to vote because you're a criminal, that's just a racial disenfranchisement scheme.
Buck Sexton: Virginia is I think the leader in this so far. They have restored under Governor Terry McAuliffe, close friend and ally of the Clintons, who also, by the way, gave McCabe, who was Deputy Director of the FBI's wife hundreds of thousands of dollars for a state-level campaign race.
Anyway, we'll talk about that another time.
Two hundred thousand felons have had their voting rights restored in Virginia. Virginia's no longer a purple state. Virginia's now been made into – not just via this, there's a whole bunch of reasons – but Virginia's now basically a blue state.
Porter Stansberry: Ah.
Buck Sexton: Felons vote – what I really want to see, and they're just going to be pulling these statistics probably in the next 12 months, what the percentage of restored felons – what the percentage is of restored felons who vote Democrat.
I would wager, I mean I know that for example when you look at families of illegal immigrants, like people who can actually vote who have an illegal in the family, it's over 70 percent vote Democrat. I think it's actually over 90. But I know it's over 70. I would be willing to bet you that 90 percent of felons vote Democrat. When their voting rights are restored.
Porter Stansberry: Hm.
Buck Sexton: So that's why the Democrats are so into it. And that's also why they're so into amnesty for illegal aliens. Which, by the way, the whole – here's a little prediction for you. Cause, you know I like to predict things too, just not the markets because I don't want to be responsible for bad advice. The immigration debate that the Senate just opened up this week. It's going nowheresville, big P. Nothing's happening. There's not going to be a deal.
Porter Stansberry: The Dreamers.
Buck Sexton: Not going to be a deal.
Porter Stansberry: Okay.
Buck Sexton: Because the Democrats are waiting for the whole kit and caboodle. The whole shebang. Amnesty. And anything that is – anything that limits a total amnesty, even a portion of amnesty, so that would be Dreamers plus, which is what they're looking at right now, is unacceptable to the Democrat base and the Democrat party. They'd rather wait it out. Use this as a campaign issue. Try to get control of the House or the Senate in the midterms. And then wait till they have a Democrat president and just the whole thing. That's the plan.
Porter Stansberry: By the way. Every time I talk about the felon voting thing I get feedback email from felons who get really pissed off at me. And they're like, yeah, you know I raped that teenage girl, but that was 15 years ago and I'm a different person now.
Buck Sexton: Well, you know there are – to be – there are felons and there are felons.
Porter Stansberry: If you are a convicted felon and you read any of our newsletters, we can't stop you because it's open to the public. You're not our target audience. And if you write me a letter saying you don't like it that I'm against felons, it's fine by me.
As far as I'm concerned, you guys should all be kicked in a hole somewhere. I mean it's not hard to avoid a felony conviction. Start by not being a criminal.
Now was there ever someone once who was convicted of a felony wrongfully? Sure. Of course. And to all those people I apologize. It really must suck to be labeled a criminal when you're not. But you know I can't help but think that our criminal-justice system is at least relatively efficient. Like our prosecutors probably have more in common with Inspector Clouseau than we'd like to all admit.
Buck Sexton: I've actually got some friends who are federal prosecutors and they say that people always point to the statistic about how 97 percent of federal criminal prosecutions are plea bargained. It might even be 98 percent.
Porter Stansberry: Yeah. And usually plea –
Buck Sexton: And he's like, that also because –
Porter Stansberry: – from felonies. So it's far more likely there's a heck of a lot more felons out there than are labeled felons. And it seems hard to believe that there are too many felons who have been mislabeled.
Buck Sexton: In the drug cases, which I know a fair bit about, and actually if you ever want to discuss cartels, which is a whole fascinating other topic, I've been doing a lot of deep research into it because it's one of these – because of the immigration debate people are not allowed to know that Mexico just had its most violent year in history. And the drug cartels right now are more powerful and more global than they've ever been out of Mexico. But no one wants to talk about it in the media because of the immigration issue.
But with the felons and voting rights, look, Porter, you know at some level, I mean I agree with you. I'd also say that there are a lot of – there are – I shouldn't say a lot. There are cases where people, there's over criminalization. The Wall Street Journal's done a lot of good reporting on this. Where people get felony charges for wrapping fish. Something that'll be near and dear to your heart. In the wrong – I think they were supposed to wrap it in not cellophane, but paper? And then they imported them improperly. And then you had some felony charges against the importation – it's crazy what happens sometimes.
But that's the one percent. Ninety-seven percent, like the 97 percent that are plea-bargained, they're guilty as my prosecutor friends will tell you.
Porter Stansberry: I'm talking about my aversion to violent felons. I just I don't have any sympathy for you. Sorry.
Buck Sexton: Yeah, I just think violent felonies are just always in a totally different category. That's what I mean by there are felons and there are felons. I mean there's, you know writing bad checks is wrong. And you should not do it. But, you know I think you could be rehabilitated. I don't think that somebody needs to live in a village for freaks.
Porter Stansberry: I don't... No. Go sit in jail. That's ridiculous.
Buck Sexton: No, I mean after jail. I'm saying like at some point.
Porter Stansberry: I don't care after jail. You shouldn't lie to people about whether or not you're going to pay them. That's just so clear black and white. And by the way, you don't get a felony conviction if you're written a bad check accidently. Once. That's not what we're talking about.
Buck Sexton: No, no, I know. Oh, no, I'm talking about kiting checks. Like people that are doing this intentionally. You know they actually can go to prison. And they should. But I'm just saying, you know how long do they go and what's the punishment afterwards?
But with drug convictions, and this is what I think you'll find interesting or this is important because this gets a huge amount of attention in the social-justice stuff. Porter, the people that are going to prison for – who are serving prison sentences usually for possessions, are not there for possession. They're usually there because they actually were either caught in a trafficking conspiracy, or had weapons on them, which is an automatic federal 10-year sentence.
Porter Stansberry: It's weapons. Yeah.
Buck Sexton: And then they plea bargain it down to a lesser drug charge. And then when people look at it they say, "Oh, my gosh, all these people are in jail just for having weed."
Porter Stansberry: No, they're not.
Buck Sexton: Not a lot of people are in jail just for having weed. They might have had a trunk full of weed and a machine gun in the trunk. You know then you get in more trouble.
Porter Stansberry: Yeah and, you know just stop. Just stop with all the damn crime. They're going to legalize marijuana everywhere. Just move where it's legal. Stop.
Buck Sexton: No, they're doing pretty well with it.
Porter Stansberry: Let's bring in Dave Lashmet and talk about Stansberry Venture. This incredible high-end research that we do to very risky high-growth companies.
Buck Sexton: All right. Our guest interview this week is with Dave Lashmet. Dave is one of the first employees Porter hired after launching Stansberry Research in 1999. He is the lead analyst and editor of the Stansberry Venture Technology advisory service, which focuses on small cap, under the radar medical and technology companies with stunning catalysts for near-term growth. Dave has spent the last 20 years working as an independent technology analyst and close to a decade researching and writing about technology at five major universities. Dave is also an inventor with three active patents. He has developed, packaged, and sold his ideas to one of the largest consumer-electronics firms in the world. Dave still holds one of the ten best returning positions ever recommended at Stansberry Research, ID Biomedical, which returned an amazing 322 percent for subscribers. Dave is also a senior analyst to Stansberry's Investment Advisory. You can learn more about Dave's latest research with Stansberry Venture Technology by going to www.stansberryventure.com. That's stansberryventure.com. Please welcome to the show everybody, Mr. Dave Lashmet.
Porter Stansberry: Hey, Dave, thank you very much for taking some time out and joining us today. Can you set the stage for us? You're always on the road. Where are you today?
Dave Lashmet: Today I'm home. I'm home for a whole three days. Then I'm off to a medical conference in Orlando and I fly straight from Orlando to Barcelona for the Mobile World Congress cellphone conference.
Porter Stansberry: So you're going to Orlando for a medical conference. What particular field?
Dave Lashmet: It's radiation treatment of cancer. So it's both diagnostic and treatment of cancer for radiation.
Porter Stansberry: And I know you've written a lot about the new super high-end MRIs and targeting radiation with them and stuff like that. I don't want to bog you down with all that right now. But let's get back for a minute to the bigger picture. You and I started, jeez, almost 20 years ago now. Your very first day at Stansberry Research we had an interview scheduled with Craig Venter. The guy who was sequencing the human genome at Celera. There was a whole bunch of computers we saw. It was really mind-blowing tour we took of Celera that day. And conversation we had with Venter.
So we've mapped the human genome and since then we've learned even more about how various proteins are made and the shapes of them and the importance of that. We've come a long way with immunology and fighting cancer. Where is the cutting edge today and how does that sort of – what's the narrative? How does where we are today relate to where we've come with very modern medicine?
Dave Lashmet: You know I think it's stunning. One of our friends, remember when we wrote that story for Stansberry's Investment Advisory "Dinner with Hitler"?
Porter Stansberry: Of course I remember. It was one of the greatest leads I've ever seen written. It was the story about encoding radio communications and we were writing about Ericsson, the telecom company.
Dave Lashmet: Right. So Hedy Lamarr, who was the woman who had dinner with Hitler and then developed code based sequencing, right, she started the USO Club in Los Angeles in World War II. When she was also a Hollywood star. Well, one of my friends, whose name is Dorothy, met her husband at that club. So Dorothy's like 95. She's friends with my mother-in-law. And when we went to a celebration of life for Dorothy, she's still alive. She just wanted to celebrate her life while she was alive. We saw pictures of her going to school around 1925 in a wagon. You know. And 100 years ago we were learning how to fly. A hundred years ago we were moving around the country in wagons. We've just been on an incredible, at least hundred-year tear in technology.
And from when we started in 2000 looking at cancer research, you and I were dumbfounded by how scary and brutal cancer treatments were. We were right at the cusp of targeted therapies. Where instead of all cancer's the same, we're going to cut it out and then we're going to, like the Carthaginians, salt the fields when we leave. That's what cancer treatment was. Now the degrees of precision, you can see it because the patients are older and yet they're living longer. So for the last four years, even though the U.S. population's gotten older, the absolute number of deaths by cancer has fallen. And what we were witnessing was the beginning of the trend. And we're pretty far into that. You know there's no immortality pill. But what we know about the immune system now can keep many more people able to fight off their cancers with minimal side effects.
And the cutting edge is probably getting more people to have more of an immune response and heal from cancer. And that's not cryptic, eat this one leaf and everything will be better for you. It's very precise genetic medicine about: This is what a young person's immune system does to fight cancer. And you're older and your immune system isn't quite as good at that. And cancer figured out a trick, whatever the trick was, we need to undo cancer's bag of tricks and get you to heal from it.
Porter Stansberry: One of the things that struck me as we saw particularly the new immunological drugs moving through clinical trials, the Abgenix and Medarex drugs, I mean what an enormous breakthrough genomic mice have been. And when you look back at the technology, the underlying technology that's enabled these new medicines – by the way genomic mice are mice who have had their genomes altered so that they have fully immune systems. And so we can test them as though they're humans. And we can extract proteins and things from them as though they're humans. And so I'm going to go all the way back to 1985 and talk about PCRs being one of the absolutely critical breakthroughs to where we are today.
PCR, folks – polymerase chain reaction – was what enabled us to create enough DNA to study. So it was a way of copying strands of DNA quickly using chemistry and having basically unlimited supplies to study. And this is, of course, also what led to the stuff that should have convicted OJ Simpson. This is what the FBI crime lab and other people do to test small amounts of genetic material that they can find. They use PCR to create lots more of it in an identical way and then they can experiment with it.
So PCR was an absolutely key breakthrough. The ability to create genomic mice was a key breakthrough. Dave, you know way more about this stuff than I do. What are your other touchstones? The other core enabling technologies that have gotten us to where we are today. The high-throughput stuff from ABI. I'm asking. In your mind what are the dates and some of the key breakthroughs that have gotten to us to where we are today?
Dave Lashmet: Well, I think that what we did on my first day together and went to Celera is pretty impressive. There was a giant global human genome project. But Celera did it all in one shop in one house in basically a couple of tennis courts. One tennis court's for the computers. One tennis court for the sequencing machines. And they took the entire human genome and cranked out what each of the four letters were in order to remake a human. Who happened to be the human who was giving us the tour.
So the second, besides PCR, which is make more DNA, I think the second, like you just said, would be to sequence it and the data output is around 2,000.
And then the third one is somewhere in between. It's the ability to make an antibody to order. So that if you know the sequence and you can make more sequence, you can not put it in a mouse this time, but put it in a egg cell from a hamster. And put it in a tank that stays at 99 degrees and feed it with sugar. And it'll produce the protein that you want. In this case, an antibody. And that's the basis for biotech drugs that are not just proteins but are antibodies. That because they were made in a mammal cell, they have sugars as if they were made in your body. So there's no immune response at all. So instead of being something targeting the immune system, it's designed perfectly to hide from the immune system. It looks like an antibody you could have made. And those therapeutic antibodies are still the cutting edge of medicine. They're something like $50- $100 billion every year still in sales.
Porter Stansberry: Yeah. Monoclonal antibodies. By the way, the very first one was approved way back in 1986. Give you some idea of how important and informative that technology was. And it was designed to help people deal with kidney transplant rejection. And of course, the technology's gotten much, much better since then. And so have survival rates from transplants and a lot of other things in medicine.
So I think that's interesting. So for people who want to do their own homework and learn more about where we are, I would point to PCR. Learn about PCR. I would point to learn about sequencing machines. The best are being made today probably by Illumina, wouldn't you say, Dave?
Dave Lashmet: Illumina's very good.
Porter Stansberry: And then learn about monoclonal antibodies. And you'll have some foundation to understand what's happening in the medical field right now.
Dave, I want to give you a stage to talk about what you're working on in a second. But I have a couple of questions that I've pulled out of the headlines. Couple days ago a company in Japan, Shionogi, talked about how they have morphed or ported rather their HIV drugs into a drug to fight influenza. And they talked about how they can stop influenza from replicating in people. And it's basically like a one-day cure. And I think it's a small molecule, as well. Though I might have that wrong. Anyways, I wondered had you seen those reports and are you optimistic that we'll have a better treatment for the flu available soon?
Dave Lashmet: That's a great question. I'm not familiar with the headline you saw. But I do know that we're trying to take what we learned about stopping a single virus, like HIV that causes AIDS. And the kinds of approach that we use to stop AIDS in different moments of its replication cycle moved over to hepatitis C virus and now it's perfectly plausible that they're moving over to influenza virus. To interrupt key parts of its growth cycle so that it can't grow. And antibiotics don't necessarily cure an infection. What they do is shift the balance of your immune system in your favor. So a bacterial infection – you are fighting it, but you're losing. And an antibiotic helps you win. If this drug that the Japanese have works, it might be because in an acute infection you need to tip the balance in your favor.
So in mice it might be a one day treatment. In humans it's probably a two-to-three-day treatment, just because it depends on where in your cycle of the flu you are. But if you can walk away from the flu and start winning, that's better than losing. So I'm sure that such drugs can work. I don't think that's a clinical trial result so much as a mouse trial result that you're referencing.
Porter Stansberry: By the way, just for reference folks, the company in Japan is S H I O N O G I.
Dave Lashmet: Yeah, Shionogi. We're looking at them because they also have a new antibiotic, actually. We're not going to pick them for any of our newsletters, but I literally have a Shionogi headline on one of the screens on my computer right now.
Porter Stansberry: Interesting. And it was a human clinical trial. It took a medium time of 24 hours for Shionogi's experimental compound to kill the flu in American and Japanese patients during a late-stage trial.
Dave Lashmet: Sweet.
Porter Stansberry: So it's some kind of an anti-replication small molecule that doesn't allow cells that –
Dave Lashmet: – inhibitor.
Porter Stansberry: A protease inhibitor basically. Yeah. OK. The next pulled-from-the-headlines question I've got for you, let's see, we're shifting gears and getting away from medicine. But I want to talk about Nvidia and automation in cars. You know, this is such an enormous breakthrough. It would really change so much about how we think about commerce and transportation. I mean, I can imagine if there's fully automated vehicles, you probably would never, ever go to a store again. You would just summon the Macy's van to your house and pick out whatever clothing or articles that you need and walk out. And they have RFID tags and they'd know you took them. Then they'd know if they need to restock the vehicle or whatever. I mean you can imagine very easily it would really change the nature of transportation completely. Obviously we wouldn't need necessarily as many vehicles because we'd be able to better utilize the vehicles that we have. Because you wouldn't really need to have a car anymore. You can just summon one. And so forth. Or certainly a lot of people would be able to do without owning a car.
And the key to this seems to be the computing speed and the ability to turn analog signals, that is things like measurements and speed and distance, into digitals and processing them quickly so the car can see and hear and feel the road. And Nvidia seems to have a lead in producing these chips, as well as chips for video game graphics and bitcoins. And their earnings and sales are consistently beating forecast quarter after quarter. And Dave is the person who really alerted me to the story maybe three years ago now. And the stock has gone up – he'll know how much. A lot.
My question for you is with the battle between Waymo and Uber, over, the court battle was settled. How, you know where are we in this process? How long will it be before most of the long-haul trucks are not being driven by the person in the cab but being driven by the computer? How long will it be before most of the cabs or most of the Ubers in New York City don't have a driver anymore? Where do you think we are on that technology progression curve? Are we in the first inning or are we in the sixth inning?
Dave Lashmet: You know I'm going to say that we're in the third inning. And here's why. These technologies work reasonably well in reasonable conditions. If you add sleet, you didn't just change how the car stops, you changed what the car can see visually. Right. So in Arizona you might see these cars a lot quicker than you see them in Maine. You get slippery streets and low visibility and you put it in an urban center and it's a crazy toboggan ride with a robot car. And it's not necessarily the robot car's fault. But it won't be able to take the risks that a human driver would in the same conditions. It would probably be more scared and just stall out in the middle of the road unable to make decisions because it wouldn't have enough data or sufficient data to be able to take the risk. So liability law is going to help these cars and just go like, look, pedestrians who cut through the middle of a street have taken a risk that they shouldn't have taken. So long-haul trucks are going to come first because they're no super highways where there's just no pedestrians. They can follow the speed of the traffic. If the speed of the traffic slows because of weather, they can do that.
So I think that we will see trucking first. And I think that the truck driver job is probably most at threat. In urban driving there's just both a lot of things that happen and a lot of liability that has to be sorted out.
Porter Stansberry: OK. And, you know, I want to make sure I give you plenty of time to talk about what you've been working on. I know there's some new names that you're working on. I don't know if you're going to reveal them on the podcast or not. But there's one in particular that starts with an E that I know you're very excited about. Do you want to tell the whole story or part of the story, and what is the story?
Dave Lashmet: The story starts out years and years and years ago when you and I were working on projects. Our desks were about 12 feet apart. And we found this guy who had found the most famous statin drug of all. He was the lead behind Lipitor. Right. This is when you and I were writing about the APO A1 Milano drug from the Italian village where none of the Italians were having heart attacks into their 90s.
Porter Stansberry: Yeah. This is like Lorenzo's Oil. The movie is also about these people, right?
Dave Lashmet: I don't know what Lorenzo's Oil movie's about. But I know that we tracked it to Milano and Milan in Italy. And there was a company that owned the protein. Well, we were going to visit this guy who started Lipitor who then ended up with this Italian protein sequence to stop heart attacks. I called him on the phone and he goes like, look, just don't make plane tickets yet. And that was all he told me. And they already had a deal with Pfizer. And he was an incredibly nice doctor. And they had a deal with Pfizer. It announced the next day. We didn't waste our time going to a company that I would never be able to pick. As a small-cap company. He didn't tell me any news. He just told me don't come yet.
And that company got bought out by Pfizer. But it had invented a small molecule as a second-tier drug. And Pfizer didn't know what to do with that. So he said, hey, I don't want you to fire all my scientists. Can I just sort of take them? And Pfizer said, sure, whatever. Take your small molecule drug, inventor of Lipitor, and go do what you want. We really want this protein from Milan. And the protein was really hard to build. Pfizer eventually abandoned that project. But the same guy who invented Lipitor had another pill that worked differently than statins that turns out to complement statin drugs. But it would be branded.
So Lipitor ended up being a $12 billion drug in 2010. And it was on patent till 2012. Which still wasn't that long ago. But when its rivals like Crestor lost patent protection, a lot of people switched to the rival because they were cheaper. Lipitor was the most valuable drug in 2010 and is still the most valuable drug whether in constant or non-inflation adjusted dollars. That was the biggest drug ever. And this little company started by this same guy under the same name that he had the Milan protein when we spoke to him, I picked up in December 2014 for my new newsletter.
We bought at $36. The market shot up in value on no news. And I said, look, we're going to take half off the table. Because the drug hasn't advanced in the clinic. We don't know any more information. It's just in a fad. Let's just take the money off the table and own the position for free.
So we bought at $36. We sold at $87.23. And then the FDA changed its mind about how its trials were going to run for this small company. It cratered. The stock fell to $9.92. So we bought at $36. It fell to $9.92. And if this was PSI, if it was your newsletter, you know we'd be out. When it fell, we would have hit the trailing stop. But we stayed in because we owned the position for free. Cause we already sold half at double. And so we took out all of the money that we ever put in the position. And today the stock, the FDA changed its mind again back to where the European FDA was about letting this drug stay in the clinic and only prove it lowers cholesterol. It doesn't have to prove how long people live. It just has to prove that it lowers cholesterol. And once the U.S. moved back to the European position, which is let a cholesterol drug lower cholesterol and see if it helps people on statins, the stock shot up again. And today it's at 68 bucks. So we bought at $36. It's at $68. And it looks like we're up nearly a double. But that's not the story. The story was we had the tolerance, the risk tolerance to stay into a small cap as it got beat on by a regulator for no reason. And then the regulator eventually saw reason. And we're back to, you know we're back to a double.
So I can't tell you today that this drug's going to work. What I can tell you is all the evidence we saw suggests the drug works. So it's still a speculative investment, but this is what we're trying to do in this newsletter. We're trying to find the best technologies, whether it's a medical technology or it's a technology like Nvidia, which is also in our portfolio, and ride the future. Surf the wave of the future.
Porter Stansberry: And how's that been going for you guys? Small-cap growth is a very difficult way to make money. It takes a tremendous amount of research and expertise and takes guts. And how have you done?
Dave Lashmet: Well. Did you just go over the report card?
Porter Stansberry: We are issuing the report card. Yeah. I'm sure it's out this week. I'm sure people have seen it. So they have some idea of your numbers.
Dave Lashmet: Yeah. We beat the S&P 500, but 9 out of 31 picks that we've made have doubled and we sold half. And so not only did we beat the S&P 500, but it's like your fund manager calls you up nine times and give you your stake back. So even though we sold out half of nine positions we're still beating the S&P 500 with only 75 percent of the capital at risk. Because the other 25 percent already went back to you.
Porter Stansberry: That sounds pretty good. I like that idea. And do you have any idea off the top of your head, I'm sorry to put you on the spot. You probably don't have the numbers in front of you. But I know you guys about into Nvidia very early. Do you know what your entry price was and the stock's now around what?
Dave Lashmet: Yep. I went with Brett Aitken and one of our experts, one of our outside experts, we went to the Consumer Electronics Show in the beginning of 2016. And I saw what Nvidia had. We put them on our hot list to go visit them at the end of November. By December we were planning what to tell Brett about what we saw at the Nvidia booth. And we went to the Nvidia booth. Immediately in January 2016 we wrote it up for your issue. But we couldn't get it in because we don't have a crystal ball. We didn't know it would do this. Right.
So I fell back. I learned more about the company. I got to talk to the CEO, which is pretty rare. I went to their technical conference. I went to their financial conference. I also flew back to the company and asked questions of the investment relations team. And I bought in on 5/25/2016 for 45 bucks. So it's at $233.09.
Porter Stansberry: Wow. That's an amazing investment. Anyways, one of the things that I hope you're hearing when you're listening to Dave is that this investment approach is very different than anything else that we do at Stansberry Research. We're not looking at earnings. We're not looking at margins. We're not looking at operating income. We're not looking at operating margins. We're not looking at capital efficiency. We're not talking about dividends or buybacks. We're looking at companies that are pioneering whole new ways of doing things. That are very valuable. Whether that's transportation or whether it's medicine or whether it's entertainment. And we're picking companies based on the quality of the underlying technology. When you do that, all kinds of things can go wrong. The technology may cost more money to develop than we think. It may take longer than anyone realizes. And, of course, at the end of the day some of these technologies simply fail. But on the other hand, lots of really good things can happen too. As Dave mentioned, 9 out of the 31 picks since mid-2015 have more than doubled, leading to a complete return of capital. And that strategy where you sell half when you're up 100% or more allows you to ride out these tech companies and take much less risk. Of course it also has the impact of allowing your capital to compound much faster.
The ability to do this, to go to the conferences, to meet with the executives, to higher the outside experts, all of that stuff is beyond the reach of virtually any individual investor and even most small investment firms. And frankly, the larger firms typically don't do it very well at all because they get bogged down in a religious war. They might have other people they do business with who this new technology might threaten. Or they might have invested in a competing technology. Very few investment groups are making investment decisions purely on the relative merits of each new technology. Virtually no one. And that gives Dave a real big edge in the market. Because he doesn't just know what technology is most likely to win. He doesn't have any constraints about what he's able to recommend to you.
So if you want to be involved in this kind of investing, this information is critical. It's also, to my knowledge, the only thing that's like it out there. There isn't another independent research firm that is hiring the level of experts, doing this much travel, has this much staff or has anybody like Dave Lashmet with 20 years of investment experience in new technologies. So I really recommend everybody listening to the podcast treat yourself to a subscription. Get involved with Dave's product, which is called Venture Technology. And sure, it's expensive. But that's because it's worth it. And if you try it for some period of time, for a year, I guarantee you you'll be hooked. And I can tell you this. I have worked with Dave since 1999. He started the first week of January in 1999. So almost 20 years now. And there is no one on my staff who has given me more ideas that didn't just double, didn't just triple, didn't quadruple. Dave has given me more ideas that went up more than a thousand percent. More of those idea than anybody else by a factor of 10. By an order of magnitude. Nobody else has given me more than one or two of those ideas. And Dave has given me well over a dozen.
So if you really have that dream of putting $5,000 or $10,000 into a stock and seeing it go up to $100,000 or seeing $100,000 go to $1 million or seeing a million dollars go to 10, Dave is the one guy on my staff where you will be able to do that. Not, of course, every time. Not even routinely. But it'll happen. You know 1 in 10 or 1 in 12 or 1 in 15 of his ideas is going to perform that way. And if you're looking for them, they all have a couple of things in common, right? They all have a very small entry price. So you're talking about buying companies well bellow $500 million in market cap. Sometimes below $100 million in market cap. And they're all working on products and projects that have enormous upside.
Dave, can you recall just off the top of your head what the entry price was on Regeneron when we originally were recommending it? It was below $12, I'm sure.
Dave Lashmet: Yeah. I don't recall.
Porter Stansberry: Anyways, Regeneron was working on new fully human monoclonal antibodies. And they had very important – I think it was called EFGR targets. And I forget now all the details behind why all that mattered. But it was a really important new approach to cancer. Breast cancer. And it was related to shutting down the growth of blood vessels.
Anyways, it turned out it worked great. And now the stock has gone to over $600 a share. And again, that's one example, sure. But there's dozens of these ideas. And Dave is always finding new ones. Anyway, I can tell you this, you're not going to make money betting against him. And you have the potential to make a lot of money betting with him.
The other thing I will tell you is the best time to get involved in Stansberry Ventures Technology is when no one else will touch growth stocks. And about every 10 years we'll go through a period like that. So for us that was 2001, 2002, and 2003. It was a graveyard for technology. Nobody wanted to invest in it. And then, of course, again in 2009, 2010, and 2011. So sure, we're in a bull market. And this might not be the very best time to buy broadly. But there's always a stock that's had a setback or a downturn. As Dave mentioned, the company which went unnamed developing the new cholesterol drug. There's always something to buy. And if you get in with Dave and you begin to trust him and you learn more about these technologies, you have a lot of upside as an investor. And I want you to do it now so that when that downturn eventually comes, you'll have a great shopping list, you'll know which technologies you want to buy.
Dave, I want to thank you for being here. I also want to thank you for soldiering on. I mean, you have been through the wilderness and back with this investment approach. It's very high-risk. It's very demanding emotionally and intellectually. And no one on our staff travels more or works harder than you do. So thank you very much.
Dave Lashmet: You know, I think you travel hard and you do stunning ,too.
Porter Stansberry: Well, nothing at all like you've done for our subscribers. There are hundreds and hundreds of people out there that Dave has personally turned into millionaires. And they write us letters and they come see us conferences. And it's really exciting what he's able to do for people. And, again, I just want to say, the thing I love about it the most is Dave isn't getting lucky. It's not like he just bought some crypto that went up by 6,000% or something. You know he explains to you exactly how this technology is going to mature. Exactly how much capital it's going to take and exactly what's going to happen when the investments pay off. And that kind of roadmap and knowing all the people involved is what it takes for you to make a confident investment decision.
So read his work, and if you don't agree with me that it's the best thing that we've published, you know then ask for your money back. I don't know if we're giving refunds or not on the product right now though so you have to –
Dave Lashmet: I think we give credit for time served. We'll put you in another letter, I think.
Porter Stansberry: Yeah. We can switch products with you if you're not fully happy. But I mean obviously you can't give away this valuable research to folks to kick the tires. You'll just have to trust us. OK. Well, that's it for today then. Dave, thanks for joining us and look forward to seeing you soon.
Dave Lashmet: All right. Thanks, Porter. See you.
Porter Stansberry: OK. Bye-bye.
Buck Sexton:All right. It's time for mailbag everybody. By the way, I'm glad I got a chance to hear that interview with Lashmet. Some very interesting stuff there. We're going to get into your mail right now. And we want to thank everybody, again, for writing in last week and filling our inbox with all the useful feedback. People like Josh P., John I. Jen B. James A., Mike H., Tim S., Joe P. and Wayne L., just to name a few. Your comments and questions are an important part of the show. So keep them coming. And please, everybody, write to us at [email protected]. By the way, you don't have to just say, oh, we love what you're doing or oh, Porter is so brilliant. I wanted more of the last Porter rant. Although that's nice too. You can suggest topics. If you've got a question for Porter about something specifically that you want him to delve into on the show. You know give us your ideas. Don't think that you have to just stay within the boundaries of what we've already talked about.
So first up here, Scott in Indiana. "Buck and Porter, love the show. Porter, how about an update on your solar energy thoughts? You've condemned solar for its inefficiency and high cost in the past. Are those still your feelings? So many people praise solar and tell stories about how they have no energy bills because of the solar panels they have purchased. My state, Indiana –
Porter Stansberry: it's cause they're stupid.
Buck Sexton: "My state, Indiana, has installed many solar farms over the last year because the government mandates utility companies install them. There was a letter written from one of your companies praising the lower costs and efficiency of solar. Can't remember who. Is the opinion you have right now the same or has it changed?"
Porter Stansberry: If one of my employees wrote that they'll be fired immediately. Country Club Guy, look into that for us.
Country Club Guy: It was not me.
Porter Stansberry: Nothing more fun than firing someone. And let's look in the control booth. I know one of you yahoos has solar panels. You freaking _____.
Country Club Guy: Same guy is looking to buy a Tesla.
Porter Stansberry: Yeah. So let me explain how this works. Okay. You, you the solar guy, you get credits from the electrical company for the power, the excess power that your solar panel produces. Okay. Do you know when your solar panel produces the extra power? In the middle of the day when everyone's at work and everyone's lights are off. And there is no need for power. When do we need power? We need power from 5:00 p.m. until 8:00 in the morning and we need a lot of power from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 at night. And how do the solar panels do during those periods? They don't do _____. Okay.
So first of all, the reason why solar doesn't work on a grid is because of night. That's not going to change. But the bigger problem, the problem I have with solar is not if you want to get yourself off the grid. I think that's great. Get yourself off the grid. My problem is not solar panel technology. My problem is solar panel economics. And specifically, subsidies. If you would rather pay $50 a kilowatt for your power, go ahead. Knock yourself out. But don't be charging me $18 a kilowatt when the actual market price is $10 just so you can subsidize all the yahoos like Jimmy in the control booth who think it's a good idea to screw a solar panel onto their roof. Their idea that it is economic or useful to have solar panels on everyone's roofs is completely bankrupt. It doesn't work. And it doesn't work because the people who have solar panels on their roof are selling power back to the power companies at a retail price. Which is nonsense. They haven't paid anything at all for the generation of the time it's needed. And they haven't paid anything at all for the distribution. Which is a huge part of what goes into the retail cost of power.
So all they're doing is living at the expenses of their neighbors. This is just another retarded socialist scheme. That's all it is. It's not economic in any way, shape or form. Just think about it for a second. If you're going to build a gird to serve all the public power, where should the source of power be? Should it be from the most expensive way possible to generate electricity? AKA solar. Or should it be from the cheapest? AKA natural gas. It should be from the cheapest. And here's the best part. Natural gas burns around the clock, whether it's daytime or nighttime.
So that's my feeling about solar.
Listen, having said that. I do think that you're going to see a lot of growth still in demand for solar panels. I do think interestingly there's some investments that may now be ripe in that space. Because the froth is gone from those markets and now it's just a manufacturing challenge. I'm not recommending anything at all. I'm just saying it's interesting – it's more interesting now than it was ten years ago when it was all hype. Because there are a lot of places, like where I was in Nicaragua last week, where there's never going to be reliable grid. It doesn't matter that natural gas is more affordable and is more reliable because there isn't any natural gas in Nicaragua. You have to import it all. And there isn't a power grid. So there's no way to provision power that way. When I say there isn't a power grid, there are power poles. There are power lines. But it's not like here. The wind blows at 50 miles an hour, the power goes out every day as a result because the lines blow down. And there isn't a reliable power company to service them, okay?
So for a lot of people in a lot of places, the kind of places where you'd want a satellite phone, for example, there could be an enormous demand for solar. In fact, my partners who own Rancho Santana, which is a beautiful resort. Google it. Check it out. Go visit it. It's a fantastic place. They just built an enormous solar field so they now have for the first time ever completely reliable power. And, Jimmy, they have these things called batteries. So it even works at night. It's amazing. Now, Jimmy, how much money did you spend on your batteries? He's making a big zero sign. Because he's not really living on solar power. He's living off the expense of his neighbors. [Beep].
Buck Sexton:All right. I think that's an answer. A member of the Goldman Sachs elevator account on Twitter, which was doing very well for a long time, had one thing about how solar has been the next big thing for the last 40 years. Which I think has probably been true.
Porter Stansberry: Yeah. That's true. But you know I'm telling you, I haven't seen people that I know to be smart and economic install solar panels until I was in Nicaragua last week. And when I heard that my partners who are very savvy tough businessmen, built a solar field, I knew something had changed. And I'm not saying that everyone should build a solar field at their house. Don't be ridiculous. If you've got a power grid, use it. But if you're in the middle of nowhere Nicaragua and you have a commercial venture need you need reliable power for things like freezers, it's probably worth paying $50 a kilowatt. Now who's going to clean the solar panels every day? Yeah, the rain. Jimmy says the rain cleans the solar panels. Mm hmm. How's that work with your car? It doesn't. Yeah. So I'm just telling ya, those panels on your roof are mostly useless. But they're great for causing leaks. So may those leaks come. And may your entire attic be filled with black mold and you have to tear your house down.
Country Club Guy: Elon Musk is coming up with the shingles. The solar.
Porter Stansberry: Yeah, the shingles. The solar shingles.
Country Club Guy: That'll put the holes in the roof.
Porter Stansberry: Yes. And the solar roads. We're going to have entire road systems that are built out of solar technology.
Country Club Guy: I'm a big believer.
Porter Stansberry: I can't wait. It's going to be awesome.
Buck Sexton: They're supposed to be like technology that's clear plastic and you've got light emitting diodes or whatever that are in the photo –
Porter Stansberry: who knows –
Buck Sexton: I read some stuff.
Porter Stansberry: Listen, when there are solar panels that can work from moonlight, give me a call.
Buck Sexton: Number two here. Up in the mail bag. It's going to be tough to top number one, but here we go. This is Evan who is a lifetime SIA subscriber. I noticed you seemed to have – this is to Porter obviously cause I have no idea what this is – a different opinion of Cheniere on the 2/1/18 podcast. So February 1 podcast. Than you did towards the end of 2016. Has your opinion changed, sir?
Porter Stansberry: Yes. When the facts change I am fond of changing my mind. So Cheniere was a fantastically difficult company to understand. Little background here. If you go back and you read my, I believe it's May 2005, maybe Country Club Guy can verify for us. It's May 2005 or May 2006 issue of SIA. I wrote about Cheniere for the first time in my newsletter. The Cheniere, the symbol is LNG. And they originally raised about a billion dollars in debt, Buck, a billion dollars in debt's a lot of money to raise in debt for a startup. But they were building stuff that was sort of a hard asset. So they could get mortgages on it. And what they built was an LNG import facility. You might not know what that is, but you probably know enough about English to have an idea of what it might do.
Buck Sexton: Wait, we're talking liquefied natural gas?
Porter Stansberry: Yes. And if it's an import facility what is this facility, billion dollars in debt, what is it designed to do?
Buck Sexton: Oh, yeah, people are going to bring stuff in. And then they probably realized, oh, I've got a better idea. This is America. We've got a lot of LNG. Why don't we send it out?
Porter Stansberry: So the title of this newsletter, Buck, was Madness. And in the introduction to the story I say, this is absolutely the most insane business plan I have ever seen of all time. Worse than pets.com. Okay. We are going to import natural gas into America which has the largest natural gas reserves in the world. And by a wide margin, the most amount of natural gas pipelines and infrastructure. This is like saying, I don't know, you're going to import cocaine to Colombia. It makes no sense. It's so crazy. It makes no sense. It'll never happen.
So think about what it would cost to import LNG from say, Qatar, Qatar, however you pronounce it, from the Persian Gulf. You liquefy it to whatever it is – minus 270 degrees Fahrenheit. Very close to absolute zero. And then you put on a boat. And then you shop it around the horn of Africa. All the way into the gulf coast of the United States. You bring it off in a liquid form, minus 270 degrees Fahrenheit. And then you re-gasify it. And then you put it into the pipelines in America. And all of that is going to cost you in terms of production and shipping and everything, I don't know, 14 to 16 dollars an MCF. How much is just the gas that's in America at the Henry Hub? Oh, it's $2.20. Right. So why would you spend 14 or 16 dollars an MCF when you can just dig a hole in your backyard and natural gas will come out of it in a lot of places in America? I mean this was the dumbest thing I had ever seen.
And we shorted the stock from 30-ish down to $2 or wherever it bottomed. And by the way, the guy who started the company also was a crook. But that's a much longer story. It was the craziest thing I've ever seen.
So in the middle of the economic crisis in like '09, Cheniere comes out and they go, you know what, guys, I'm sorry. You didn't hear us correctly. We didn't mean import. No, no. oh, no, that's silly. No, no. We borrowed billions of dollars because we're going to export the unbelievable bounty of America's natural gas. And that's a much better idea. So then they went around with their hat in their hand to Wall Street. And I think it was Blackstone that put a ton of money into it. Two or 3 billion dollars of new equity in debt financing. They reversed all of their trains. Which is what these things are called. These liquification processing plants. They're called trains. They reversed them. So that they could now export.
And they started doing that – I think they made their first export shipments I want to say in 2014 or 2015. So I've been following the story for a very long time. But here's what I could never figure out. Their contracts are not public. They're opaque. They will not tell people what the contracts are. So they have a 20 year agreement with a big energy company in Spain. They have a 20 year agreement with a big energy company in Asia. A take or pay agreement. Meaning they either have to take the gas or they have to pay for it anyways. But the terms are never made public.
And so it was impossible for any outsider to know whether or not the company was ever going to make money or not. And I couldn't take the people's word for it. Because they're crazy. So I was stuck, you know I don't think we ever took a position in the company again. I don't think we were ever long or short again. It was just in that category of it's just too tough for us to know. And then they've got negative cash flows and they have huge debts. I think that their debt load is now something around 10 billion.
So it was just one of these companies I was just stay away from. And instead, you know we made a lot of money exporting propane with another big export company. Targa was the name of that one. We did very well with that instead. And we've had other ideas about how to make money with natural gas. TK Shipping, for example. But we just stayed away from Cheniere.
But now the revenues from these contracts are showing up, because they're exporting. And I think they're really in a good position. In fact, what I have said is I can't really analyze it, but as long as the stock goes higher then the thesis that American natural gas will become the dominant source of global electricity is still in play. And think about this for a second, Buck. Twenty years from now lots of things are going to change. I'm sure way more than we can even imagine. But do you think it's likely that in 20 years we'll be producing more electricity per capita globally than we are today? What do you think the odds of that are? You're shaking your head yes and I can see you, but the audience can't see you. So you're on radio, remember.
Buck Sexton: Yes. Yes, of course. Yes.
Porter Stansberry: Okay. Yes, of course. So are we going to make that additional electrical supply per capita of – are we going to create it from solar?
Buck Sexton: NO.
Porter Stansberry: Not much.
Buck Sexton: Or wind. No.
Porter Stansberry: Maybe one or two percent. And maybe four or five percent from wind. Could be. Are we going to make a lot of it from coal?
Buck Sexton: No. Less and less of that.
Porter Stansberry: Less and less of that. How about nuclear? _____ as President Bush would say?
Buck Sexton: Less. Less of that. Still big in Europe but.
Porter Stansberry: Less and less. So where is the additional supply of electricity going to come from?
Buck Sexton: Natural gas.
Porter Stansberry: Natural gas. For sure it's going to happen globally. Here's another question for ya. I'm saying we're going to produce more electricity per capita. And I'm not talking about any kind of transportation fuel. If you believe in the next 20 years you're going to see a significant amount of the global automotive fleet transformed into electrical cars, then you're talking about an enormous increase in electrical production that is not factored into that equation.
So I think that there is a lot of upside for American natural gas exports. Regardless of electric cars. But if electric cars really take off – imagine if China says in ten years all new cars have to be electric to control pollution? Whew. There is a huge potential upside for natural gas production and exports. Huge. So I think that's one of the big trends that you can really watch carefully and bet on in a big way over the next, you know long term. Ten years, 20 years, 30 years.
Now having said all that, who knows. You know they might make little pocket nuclear reactors that just provide unlimited electricity for everybody all the time. I don't know. It's hard to say. Twenty years is a long time. Or maybe solar panels will be so good that the moonlight is all we'll need.
Country Club Guy: And you'll get an apology, Jimmy, from Porter.
Porter Stansberry: And hell will freeze over when that happens. But you know it may be that battery technology gets to be so good that you really can – you can really make solar reliable. I don't know. I'm just saying. From where I sit today, natural gas looks like one of those inevitable things.
Buck Sexton: This is why the climate change people have no understanding of history because we're naturally decarbonizing through technology all the time. But they just don't know stuff.
Porter Stansberry: You know the global warming crowd is just the new manifestation of the old Malthusian crowd. You guys, look at the book, 1969. Population Bomb. Just read that. And then think about how that relates to global warming. That's your homework for the week.
Paul – what was his name? The author of Population Bomb. Ehrlich. No. Something like that. Jeez. My brain. Anyway. Predicted that there would be food riots in Britain by the end of the 1970s because there was no way we would be able to grow enough food to feed the world because of the population explosion. Population Bomb.
Country Club Guy: Ehrlich.
Porter Stansberry: Ehrlich.
Country Club Guy: Yeah. You have a good memory.
Porter Stansberry: Elephant brain. Well, the fun thing about that is, of course, is that apparently he didn't realize that the birth control pill had been invented in the 1950s. He had never heard of it. So oh, well.
Buck Sexton: All right. Well, we got an exciting interview coming up next week, Porter, before we get to the total close out of this episode of Stansberry Investor Hour. We have editor and publisher of Forbes magazine, Steve Forbes, coming to hang out on the show next week everybody. Steven's going to be speaking at the annual Stansberry Conference at the Bellagio in Las Vegas this coming October. We're going to get him up here on the Stansberry Investor Hour first. See what he's up to right now. That's exciting.
Porter Stansberry: It is.
Buck Sexton: I know Steve.
Porter Stansberry: I do too. Steve's a wonderfully charming man. I'm very much looking forward to the conversation. And I'm really excited to ask him a follow up question to the question I asked him the last time I saw him and spoke to him. Which was in the early 2000s in Lake Tahoe. So there's a little teaser for ya. We'll find out what I asked Steve Forbes 15 years ago and we'll follow up on it.
Buck Sexton: And if you've got a question for us in the meantime write to [email protected]. Remember, we use your question on the show we will send you some Stansberry Research goodies. And also, if you want to check out Dave Lashmet's latest research in Stansberry Venture Technology, just go to Stansberryventure.com. That's Stansberryventure.com. For the latest offer. Love us or hate us, just don't ignore us. Porter, thank you as always, sir. It has been educational and fun.
Porter Stansberry: Buck, it was a great pleasure this week. I had a good time. I got pretty wound up this episode.
Buck Sexton: It was great. This is a twofer. People –
Porter Stansberry: We had a guy cancel because I used bad language. And I get – when I get riled up I don't mean it. It just comes out.
Buck Sexton: What? You had a guest cancel because of –
Porter Stansberry: Not a guest.
Buck Sexton: Oh, Porter _____.
Porter Stansberry: No, no. Not a guest.
Country Club Guy: A listener.
Porter Stansberry: We had a listener.
Buck Sexton: Oh, oh, okay.
Porter Stansberry: Yeah, he said, I can't listen to your podcasts because you use bad language. What's her name think about bad language? Is that a problem for her?
Female: It depends, Porter. It depends on if you're like really upset, like if you're run out of gluten free treats and there's no assistant or other underpaid human being nearby to make a quick coffee run for you. And you can't fire her cause you fired like seven in the last four weeks alone. And how are you supposed to be at doubles with only ten assistants?
Buck Sexton: So that's what she thinks. Just want to let you know.
Porter Stansberry: We can't have a show without her. She's the best.
Buck Sexton: I've got to get her to show up somehow in some format for one of the conferences. We'll figure it out. I'll talk to the guys –
Country Club Guy: In full costume?
Porter Stansberry: Oh, jeez.
Buck Sexton: I mean in something.
Porter Stansberry: I've done enough drag. I can't do it anymore.
Buck Sexton: No, no, not you. You remember how they used to do Schwarzenegger on Conan. We could do something like that like they put Schwarzenegger up on the screen and then they just do the voiceover. So we'll figure it out. We'll make it happen. And with that everybody, I think we're going to close it until next time. Steve Forbes next week. So that'll be great. See you then everybody.
Porter Stansberry: Bye everybody.
Male: Thank you for listening to the Stansberry Investor Hour. To access today's notes and receive notice of upcoming episodes go to investorhour.com and enter your email. Have a question for Porter and Buck? Send them an email at f[email protected]. If we use your question on air we'll send you one of our studio mugs. This broadcast is provided for entertainment purposes only and should not be considered personalized investment advice. Trading stocks and all other financial instruments involves risk. You should not make any investment decision based solely on what you hear. Stansberry Investor Hour is produced by Stansberry Research and is copyrighted by the Stansberry Radio Network.
[End of Audio]