In This Episode
What’s the Porter solution to the big bully on the block, North Korea? Porter and Buck get into an uncensored discussion about the rouge nation and the options available for dealing with Kim Jong-un’s nuclear ambitions. Famed publisher and editor of the daily Gartman Letter, Dennis Gartman, joins the show to give you a prediction on oil that no one is expecting…but is supported by one of the biggest producers in the world. You’ll also hear Gartman’s thoughts on Bitcoin and a simple fix to the US tax system that would instantly change the way we all perceive our fiscal duty to Uncle Sam.
Announcer: Broadcasting from Baltimore, Maryland and New York City, you're listening to the Stansberry Investor Hour. Tune in each Thursday on 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: Welcome, everybody to the Stansberry Investor Hour. I'm nationally syndicated radio host Buck Sexton and with us the founder of Stansberry Research the man himself, Mr. Porter Stansberry.
Porter Stansberry: Hi, everybody. Happy Labor Day. Buck, did you celebrate the working man this weekend?
Buck Sexton: I did. I did it by roasting some cauliflower with some grapes and then also a bit of roasted Brussels sprouts with a mint yogurt drizzle. As I was telling you, my dad made the steaks. I went full commie this weekend. I might as well have had a beret on while I was cooking, it's ridiculous.
Porter Stansberry: It's no wonder you look so much healthier than I do. I was preparing for North Korea this weekend. My boat crew was in town. I have a little hunting shack on my farm and we went down to the bungalow as we call it, got out all of my weapons, there's 20-something guns, and started shooting all of them, citing in scopes, making sure they're on target. Within about 20 minutes, police are surrounding my property. There's a helicopter overhead. It was hysterical.
So we drive out to the gates and the cops are there and I'm like, "Hi, I'm Porter Stansberry. I own the property. We're shooting all of our guns for the hunting season that's coming up." And the cop is like, "Awesome, man. I wish I was doing the same." And I'm like, "Well, is everything okay? I know we're allowed to shoot guns on this property. It's 100 acres." It's not in the metropolitan zone, it's in the rural zone, which means you're allowed to shoot guns.
And the cop is like, "Yeah, but you know, every time you guys start World War III out here all your neighbors call and complain." I'm like, "Well, I gotta shoot my guns sometime. This is the one day of the year they gotta pay the tax." So anyways, we had a great time and we have a permit to shoot dear year-round because I have crops. I'm a simple farmer, Buck, as you know, so we shot probably ten deer this weekend, got a bunch of venison in the freezer, and celebrated the working man. It was a great time.
Buck Sexton: So you're on my list of people that I have to call when the zombie apocalypse comes. I've actually got a pretty good list. I've got all kinds of former intel and military guys, but it sounds like the Porter Express with all the weapons, you got your own food, food processing, food storage, and boats which especially when things get really rough you wanna get out on the seas for a while, let things cool off here on the mainland.
Porter Stansberry: Yeah. Zombies don't swim, so I've got an advantage there.
Buck Sexton: Very important point. Given that North Korea is claiming to have gone thermonuclear recently, the world is a dangerous place to go with the biggest platitude ever.
Porter Stansberry: I'll just tell you about one of my guns that I'm in love with. It's a Daniel Defense AR platform gun, but it has an extended barrel and it has a tripod on it and it has this awesome scope. It's a Leopold 12x scope and it has the red dot. I don't know how to do this, but it glows at the center, and that thing we have it dialed in out to 200 yards and it only drops about another two inches at 400 yards. It shoots a super flat trajectory. It is amazing. There is no recoil and you can hold it on target and blast the entire bull's eye away. It is so much fun to shoot. It's a joy. If any of you guys out there are gun nuts and you're looking for a good AR platform I highly recommend the Daniel Defense. It's a spectacular gun. It's the best gun I've got.
Buck Sexton: I just wanna give everybody an overview of what else they can expect on this week's podcast, by the way. Joining us will be Dennis Gartman. He is editor and publisher of the famed Gartman Letter. You've seen Dennis all over financial media discussing commodities and capital markets. We are glad to have him on the podcast today to weigh in on gold, oil, and maybe even bitcoin. Also a big thank you to all the listeners out there who have been leaving us comments and reviews on our iTunes page. You're helping us attract brand new listeners and giving the podcast some traction in the rankings, so please do keep it up already.
If you haven't already, please do subscribe to the podcast in iTunes on Google Play, Stitcher, or wherever you find your podcasts. Leave us that review or comment, and remember you can get transcripts from the show, additional information about our guests, and be notified each Thursday when we publish a new episode by going to InvestorHour.com and entering your email. Sign up and you'll receive a free account on the Stansberry Research website so you can access everything you need to benefit from the Stansberry Investor Hour. With that, I turn to Porter's mind.
Porter Stansberry: Well Buck, I'm just begging you to tell me how serious this stuff with North Korea is and I want some numbers. So on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being we just launched nuclear weapons, where are we now in this crisis.
Buck Sexton: Status quo, really, although you could say that the status quo is just one long serious of security deteriorations. The problem is this… Everything that people come up with to deal with the situation is terrible, and everything short of something terrible doesn't do anything. So this is a situation where they say, okay, if you were to do anything military against North Korea you face not just the possibility of a nuclear launch from the North Koreans, from Kim Jong Un, but you also could have just a simple conventional strike on Seoul, capital of South Korea, which depending on whose estimates, and nobody knows, right?
These are estimates just of how terrible the terribleness will be, you're looking at tens, maybe hundreds of thousands, maybe more, killed with conventional munitions in any military exchange with North Korea from the start. So everyone says, okay, the military option is off the table. Now we look at the other options which are diplomacy, sanctions.
Porter Stansberry: Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
Buck Sexton: Strongly worded letters. We've been doing that for decades.
Porter Stansberry: We're gonna put them on double secret probation.
Buck Sexton: Yeah. Kim Jong Un is gonna be really scared. When you execute your political rivals with anti-aircraft guns as Kim Jong Un is reported to have done pretty recently, that tends not to scare you when Nikki Haley goes in front of the UN and is like, "The sanctions have to get stronger now." It's like, okay, sanctions largely punish the people, and one of the things I find so fascinating about North Korea is that the more digging you do about North Korea the more you realize that this is a place that all the experts cannot actually predict what the end state outcome is.
They don't know what Pyongyang wants. They don't know what they're willing to do. Everyone is just guessing, and the conventional wisdom on this has been proven wrong over and over again, which is there is some way that we can make them give up their nuclear program. Porter, there is no way short of a full scale military invasion or an implosion of this regime which looks like a think tank fantasy, there's no way that North Korea gives up its nuclear program.
Porter Stansberry: You know about the guessing, I always like what Ron White says about guessing. He says, "Oh, they're just guessing, and they're shitty guessers." I think there's some shitty guessers out there. I mean you look at this guy's track record, there's no variation from the linear direct approach, right? So for the last 25 years, he or his father before him have been working steadily towards this application, thermonuclear weapon. Now they have it.
What I think is so interesting is didn't we invade Iraq because they might have had some nuclear material? So this is a guy who has had the same UN sanctions placed on him. There's no doubt about whether or not he has any nuclear material. He's got fully fledged nuclear weapons. So in my mind, and Buck, you're gonna have to pull me back here because I'm sure I'm a simpleton in my thinking, but in my mind this is why we spend x hundreds of millions of dollars a year on our military.
And I gotta tell you, I'm not a bloodthirsty person. I'm really sad to see all those Koreans die, but they gotta die, because you just made a nuclear bomb that can hit our country and so that means I'm sorry, but goodnight. So we've spent how many trillions of dollars on our military the last 25 years and I gotta go to bed tonight wondering if a crazy North Korean leader is gonna drop a bomb on New York City?
I don't think so. I think that's why I elected a President 'cause I want somebody to pull the trigger and make that guy go away. Let's just take that northern peninsula of North Korea and see how big of an obsidian mark we can make on the surface of the earth.
Buck Sexton: Well, there are a few reasons that I don't think it's quite as dire as the Porter assessment right now. One is just because they have the ability to fire off – let's say they could hit Honolulu right now, right? Just theoretically let's say they could hit Honolulu or let's say they could hit Tokyo with a nuclear weapon. There are some measures in place, terminal high altitude area defense for example, THAD, that are intended to shoot down missiles of that nature.
Porter Stansberry: And do you think that's gonna work?
Buck Sexton: I wouldn't wanna rely on it. I also think that's one of those things where -
Porter Stansberry: Hold on. Aren't we the fucking 10,000-lb. gorilla? Why don't we fucking act like it for once in our lives?
Buck Sexton: There are a few things. So there's the possibility that even if they went full crazy, and I'm trying to write a piece this week and get it published about what if North Korea wants war? Maybe not today, but actually this is all just building to war. We keep thinking that because we put it in a normal foreign policy rubric that there's carrots and there are sticks. There's things we can do to get them to change. The more you learn about North Korea, I would recommend to everyone listening, to check out this book. It's a really easy read, but it's fascinating and scary called The Cleanest Race by B.R. Myers.
Porter, it's all about how whatever you think about North Korea in terms of its level of crazy, its level of racism, xenophobia, delusion, is not enough. And when you look at internal propaganda within the North Korean state, one, there's actually more support for a lot of the crazy ideas than people realize and two, they are all geared towards one thing which is the reunification of the Korean peninsula by force. There's no plan B. There's no other option. It's not like if we got a nice enough treaty and good enough trade deals we would let South Korea be South Korea. That's not even under discussion.
So when you have that as your starting point for negotiations, I don't really know why anyone thinks that diplomacy is gonna do anything other than give them an excuse for more delay as they get stronger and better. But the big problem is China, which we haven't really brought into this discussion at all. If you were to go with a first strike on North Korea, and people are saying crazy stuff, Porter. Not crazy in terms of they're out of line, but scary.
You got the Secretary of Defense Mattis speaking of annihilation. He's saying, "Look, we don't wanna do it, but we could do it." You've got Nikki Haley saying that North Korea is "begging for war." That was just the last few days. So when that's the situation you gotta start thinking what would actually happen here? China getting involved is what I – largely other than the killing millions of people with a first strike, which is not something anybody really wants to do, China getting involved is what terrifies everybody because there's the possibility of this becoming a world war.
Porter Stansberry: Whatever.
Buck Sexton: Look, whether you believe that or not, that's the -
Porter Stansberry: Look, you tell these maniacs that they've got a simple choice. They can either decide they're gonna be on the team of a lunatic dictator or you can decide that you're gonna be on the team of a modern trading partner, us. So which one do you wanna be? You know how many nuclear submarines we have? You park 12 of them off the coast of China and you say, "Go ahead. You flinch, Shanghai is no longer Shanghai. Beijing is no longer Beijing. We've got about a 20-minute flight time. Don't try us."
And you tell the people, the poor people of Seoul, South Korea, you say, "Look, I'm sorry, but you know what? you never had a peace treaty. This whole peninsula has been at war now since the 50s and there wasn't ever a peace treaty. There was just an armistice." So it's still in the minds of the North Koreans an active war.
Buck Sexton: It's an active war.
Porter Stansberry: So you tell them, "I'm sorry, but you gotta evacuate Seoul or you're a moron. That's what you gotta do. You got planes. You got boats. Get out of town." Then you tell Kim Jung Il, "Look, you pick the timeframe. Six weeks, six months, 12 months, I don't care. Whatever." You say, "Look, this is the deadline. You are going to obey the UN sanctions. You are going to stand down your weapons program or we have to go to war, and that's that." And then you see where the cards fall. But otherwise why the hell are we spending $800 billion a year in the military?
If we cannot keep our country safe, why are we spending all this money, and when is someone gonna stop being such a goddamn pussy in Washington? I'm not talking about some special forces in Afghanistan. I'm not talking about 80,000 troops. I'm talking about winning a war, absolutely unequivocally where the other side has no chance, otherwise why the hell are we spending all this money? Why do we have a 300-ship navy? And if we would stop dicking around and say, look, this is how it has to be for the world to be a safe place, then you know what?
Then America can claim the exceptionalism that it deserves. Then we get to be the world's leader 'cause we're gonna start acting like it. If we would start obeying the Powell Doctrine which is we do not get involved militarily unless there is a clear path to overwhelming success, we'd be a lot better off. Let the Afghanis and the Pakistanis and the Iranians kill each other for all I care for as long as they want. They've been fighting each other for thousands of years. They're gonna keep doing it.
But when one of those tin pot dictators decides they're gonna threaten the United States with a thermonuclear weapon, this is what they get, and they get it every time, and they get it hard, and they get it fast, and if you would start doing that you wouldn't have these problems. By the way, I don't think that China is gonna go into a nuclear war with the United States over North Korea, and if they do, better that we find out now so that we can stop trading with them.
We can say, okay, great, now we know. We know why you're building those little bases on those dumb islands. Fine. You either gotta be with us or you gotta be against us, and this isn't terrorism. This isn't the risk of a couple thousand people dying because a plane flies into a building. This is a whole different level of security threat.
I think one of the things that happened is I think America has gotten dumbed down. We think of security threats as terrorism, as oh, a couple thousand people dying. Nothing that the towelheads could ever do to America threatened our security, not one thing, but a thermonuclear weapon, yes, that threatens our security, and we have to take action. That's what led us to war in Iraq because you convinced the American people that this lunatic was gonna end up with a nuclear weapon. Well now there's a lunatic who has several of them. We have to take action.
Buck Sexton: The other side of this is that once you get the nukes then it's impossible usually to stop you from continuing on, right? The lesson that a lot of dictators one would draw from Iraq and Libya is if you've got nukes, keep 'em. By the way, it's a lesson from Ukraine as well, a country that we wrote the Budapest Memorandum as it's called, which said the U.S., the UK, and Russia would have Ukraine's back if they gave up their very substantial post-Soviet Union nuclear weapons and they did, and then Russia later on invaded and we did pretty much nothing about it.
But yeah, North Korea is not getting any better any time soon. Can I ask you about tax reform, by the way, or is that too boring? North Korea is more fun, but I've wanted to ask you.
Porter Stansberry: We can move on to tax reform, but I got one more thing to say about this, which is we have a bunch of really sophisticated stealth fighters and stealth bombers, and I don't know what the real capabilities are. Buck, you would probably know better than me, but I like to believe the idea that we could put a fucking bomb right down Kim Jung Il's toilet any time we want, and he'd have about, what, 90 seconds to prepare for that?
Buck Sexton: So you're saying to try to lop the head off the snake? That's the move?
Porter Stansberry: Not only that, but we've got a bunch of these planes. We can hit every one of their military installations with a big-ass bomb at the same time if we want to and see if we're able to respond.
Buck Sexton: I can't wait to see the email in the mailbag for next week. I get grief for saying maybe we need to leave some advisors in Afghanistan or something. Porter just wants to straight up erase North Korea, so -
Porter Stansberry: I do. I'm sorry. Hey listen, I think about it as like the school yard bully, you know? This is not the kid with the spitballs who maybe needs to get slapped around after school. This is the kid who beats up your sister and that kid has gotta go. Gotta.
Buck Sexton: You can't beat up sis, I agree.
Porter Stansberry: No, hell no. Let's talk taxes.
Buck Sexton: Unacceptable. All right, so Porter, this is what I wanna know. Here's the storyline, and I'm seeing this from the conservative right-wing point of view. The storyline is Trump is pushing it, Congress is pushing it. There's gonna be tax reform. It's gonna be great for the middle class. It's gonna be amazing. Some people are looking at this and they're saying, "Hold on a second, is it just gonna be corporate tax reform? Is this the donor class getting its way?"
Is this really gonna help a guy who owns an auto body shop in Nebraska? Because they make it sound like it will, but people are asking questions. Does tax reform actually help as proposed right now, which is predominantly about corporate tax reform, does it just help the everyman the way that they're saying that it does?
Porter Stansberry: Well let's think about this in a new way, and you've never probably thought about it this way, but this is the way I think about it. It's the economist's viewpoint. So the economy, Buck, is like a big pie. Think about it as a pie chart, and the least valuable part of that pie chart is tax revenue. So the government pie, the government piece of that pie will not create any wealth, will not have any residual value, or will have very, very little. So there are certain kinds of government spending that does have a multiplier effect, spending on roads, spending on the enforcement of contracts, spending on defense.
That spending has tremendous utility because it allows the marketplace to function. Spending on things like transfer payments has zero multiplier effect. You're taking money from Peter who's productive to pay Paul who's not. That has a negative multiplier over time. So the larger that slice of the government becomes, the less productivity growth there's gonna be, the less wealth creation there's gonna be, and the worse off everyone is gonna be, everyone, over time. Middle class, lower class, and upper class.
So the question for me that is important is not necessarily how much taxes are cut or shifted around. It's whether or not those cuts in shifting around can lead to a smaller government portion of the pie, and I don't believe that's likely to happen whatsoever. Now when it comes to the actual tax reform, I just want you to understand, what really matters economically is the slice of the government pie. That's what really matters. It matters to individuals how their taxes are structured and it matters a lot for incentives how those taxes are structured, and the worst thing you can tax for the economy is capital, but everybody wants a tax capital.
I think about capital in two ways. There is of course the capital gains taxes, what's actually being paid on capital, but there's other ways which is how steeply progressive the tax rates are, matters a great deal to incentives. Are you really gonna save money and take all those risks if you have to spend 25 percent of your earnings on taxes? You're much less likely to do that then if you have to spend 10 percent or 15 percent. So anything that can be done to reduce the steeply progressive nature of our tax code will lead to more wealth, and anything we can do especially to reduce taxes on capital will lead to increases in wealth.
The trouble is that any time you reduce the steeply progressive nature of the tax code, the liberal democrats get to position it as tax cuts for the rich because if you make $500,000 a year or $300,000 a year or even some places $200,000 a year you're perceived as being rich, and you're gonna be the main beneficiary of a reduction of the steeply progressive nature of the code. So if you take the top rate from 39 percent to 30 percent or to 25 percent you're going to be the winner, the "rich."
Unfortunately, economically that's what's critical to do to make our economy both more productive and more competitive globally. The other big important change is getting rid of the global nature of our tax code. We wanna have a territorial tax code, not a global tax code, because it's insane to try to tax the earnings of an American who spends his entire life living in Tokyo for example.
It makes zero sense and it causes big problems that you don't anticipate, like the fact that that guy can't open a bank account, he can't transfer money back to America because he can't use the banking system. There's a big giant problem and we're the only G20 nation that has global taxation. It's a ridiculously greedy and ineffective policy, and people by the way don't pay those taxes when they live overseas. They just stop being a member of the banking world, which is not helpful for us or for them. What do you say, Buck?
Buck Sexton: That all squares, but I just wonder if the promise is that you go to a 15 percent corporate tax rate which I think is what Trump has been saying and that's what Congress is considering, I just wonder whether the impact will be such that it helps Trump and helps the Republican party in terms of what people feel in their wallets. I understand at a macro level this is good economics, but there's also just what does this mean for people over the next 12 to 18 months, and assuming they do this corporate tax – we're supposed to see a big increase in hiring, we're supposed to see more investment and all this stuff going on. Do you think we will?
Porter Stansberry: I know for sure that if they could lower the corporate tax rate which is a tax on capital, you lower the corporate tax rate 1 to 5 percent, they're gonna do some other things that are technical, but it's going to allow a lot of small businesses that are registered as S corps to be much more tax efficient because they're also gonna lower the marginal rate – at least that's what they're saying – from 39 percent to 30 percent or maybe lower. If you could lower the taxes on those S corps to, say, 20 or 25 percent, you're gonna see a tremendous increase in capital in the hands of small businesses and entrepreneurs across the country and that would be tremendous.
My company as an example would be one that would benefit directly from that. Law firms, real estate investment groups, lots of folks would have a lot more capital to put to work. If you take the capital away from the government's coffers and you put it back in the hands of entrepreneurs and business builders, you're gonna see a big, big step up in capital investment. Just think about it for a second, Buck. Nobody feels comfortable about going into real numbers, but I think it's pretty clear I've got a successful business and that I have a high income, which I do, but my biggest single expense every year by a huge margin, by probably ten fold, is taxes.
So I'm spending way more on taxes every year than I can spend on anything else, and if I was able to keep some of that money in my pocket, am I really going to increase my lifestyle spending? No. I already live the way I wanna live. I'm not gonna buy another house or have steaks twice as often or anything like that. I'm gonna have more cash so that I can build a bigger business or I can buy other businesses or I can invest in building more things. And you replicate that decision across a million other entrepreneurs just like me, and that can have a profound impact on the economy. It will have a profound impact on the economy.
We know that by studying comparative economics looking across the world – which places have the most dynamic economies, which places have the most growth. It's real simple. It's a very simple formula. The government makes up a very small slice of the pie, and taxes are very uniform, meaning everyone pays the same rate and there's very little tax on capital. So you look at Singapore and you look at Hong Kong for example, you know all these arguments. But the real question to me is whether or not any of this is palatable politically. I don't think it is.
I don't think there's any way that Trump is gonna be able to reduce the marginal rates so that the tax code itself is what I would call "more fair." By that I mean "less progressive." Or that it's politically possible to cut the tax for corporations because again the liberals out there, they have this crazy notion that the middle class isn't paying for those corporate taxes anyways, and of course they are. The middle class is paying for the corporate taxes because the middle class is a part of the pie, and the more of that pie goes to the government the less efficient the economy is and the poorer we all are.
Buck Sexton: I'm sold. I like it. Let's see if we can do it. By the way, this Congress I do not expect to come back from them. I think this is gonna be weak sauce.
Porter Stansberry: I just think that, I mean, Trump can't even lead his own party. How in the world is he gonna get a divided Congress to pass really meaningful tax reform? It's not gonna happen, and you've gotta get rid of a bunch of stuff to make the tax code fair. For example, the mortgage interest rate deduction is a complete nonsense tax break. I mean talk about a tax break for the wealthy.
You can't even get rid of that... How are you gonna tell people that you're really reforming taxes in a way that's economically positive and what I would call "fair." By the way, as you know the notion of fairness in America is completely different than anywhere else in the world. So in most places fair means you pay 10 percent and I pay 10 percent. In America, "fair" means I pay 50 percent, you pay 10 percent. It's crazy.
Buck Sexton: Can I just say, I know this is way outside the box, but wouldn't a truly progressive tax code, I mean if you were really gonna go with the full faculty lounge approach to this, wouldn't it be based on wealth and not income? Here's my example...
Porter Stansberry: Absolutely.
Buck Sexton: John Kerry when he was running for President. John Kerry, who is excellent at marrying fortunes made by other men – he did it twice, by the way. At that point I think it's not an accident. He made I think $7 million of passive income that year. That was what he reported when he was running against Bush back in the day, and he paid – check me on the numbers, but -
Porter Stansberry: Nothing.
Buck Sexton: - somewhere in like the 10-15 percent range on that, something like that, and he's going around talking about how everybody should have higher taxes. Well that's 'cause John Kerry is sitting in a $7 million townhouse in Beacon Hill or whatever and doesn't give a what about paying a little bit more percentage on his passive income. A truly progressive tax should be what are your net assets, pay 5 percent of it above $5 million. That would be truly progressive.
Porter Stansberry: Well Buck, but that would threaten the limousine liberals, so that's never going to happen. By the way, this is something I've said for years. You can pass taxes on the rich, but you can't collect 'em, because the rich are gonna hire accountants and lawyers and they're gonna structure their income and their wealth in a way that's very tax efficient. No matter what the code is that's what they're going to do. So one last thing and then we've got to get to our interview, because I know Gartman is waiting on us.
The other thing I would suggest is you can make any kind of tax code you want. You can tax the wealth, you can tax the income, you can tax while we're walking down the street... I don't care how you do it, as long as I have this option which is if you paid at least $1 million in federal income tax or whatever it is you're gonna tax, you give the government $1 million a year, you're done. You don't have to pay anymore. So that way what you would do is you would just allow the middle class to just tax themselves into oblivion and be idiots about it for as long as they want.
By the way, I'm still paying $1 million a year, Buck. I'm definitely covering my debt to society, and then I can just stay out of it, which is really where I'd rather be. Or similarly, if you had allowed me to opt out of every government service that I can, I mean I'm not even allowed to drive on the roads. Fine. I can't go to the hospitals, I can't call the cops, I get no social security, I opt out of everything. Fine. I'll still pay 10 percent just to be an American.
Buck Sexton: Yeah. We pay taxes to support military, health care for old people, and the welfare state, basically. That's why you pay taxes.
Porter Stansberry: I know, but I want to opt out of it 'cause I think it's ridiculous that I pay 50 and you pay 10 or less, or the rich people who – it's a terrible system. It's awful. And if we would have the ability to opt out then all of a sudden Congress has to pass laws that we all think are fair, or let me pay $1 million a year and then I'm done – which is another option for me – which is fine. So if you're successful in America, you can pay $1 million a year, great. You don't have to hire an accountant, you don't have to send anything but a card with a check. "I'm Porter Stansberry, here's my $1 million. Leave me the fuck alone." But let's get to Gartman.
Buck Sexton: That should be a bumper sticker. Dennis Gartman is editor and publisher of The Gartman Letter, a daily publication focused on global capital markets addressing political, economic, and technical trends. Its subscribers include leading banks, brokerage firms, hedge funds, and commodity trading firms around the world. Dennis served a two-year term as an outside director of the Kansas City Board of Trade from 2006 to 2008 and often appears in financial media discussing commodities and capital markets.
Porter Stansberry: Dennis, hi, it's Porter Stansberry and Buck Sexton. How are you?
Dennis Gartman: I'm doing well, and what a very interesting conversation that I was listening to just prior to that. I have one other suggestion regarding taxes. I think it would be far easier, far better, far more efficient if we did away with withholding and if everybody had to pay their taxes by check once a quarter, you would be surprised how many people would want a massive change in the tax system very quickly, very easily. That would bring the revolution.
Buck Sexton: Couldn't agree more.
Porter Stansberry: I would love it, Dennis, but I think that's about as likely as my "Here's $1 million, leave me alone" idea. It's not gonna happen.
Dennis Gartman: That's right. Neither one is gonna happen, but we can dream, my friend.
Porter Stansberry: You know, Dennis, when I started this company my accountant told me I had to pay taxes quarterly now 'cause I wasn't just gonna be an employee somewhere, I was gonna be an entrepreneur, "step into the game," as you know. I was like, quarterly, great. So I started paying taxes every four years 'cause my brain doesn't even work that way. They weren't happy about that. That wasn't what they had in mind.
So, Dennis, how are you? Tell me how things are. You've got your finger in a bunch of different pies. Tell the folks what you do. You've got a newsletter out there. If they're interested in getting that, where do they go?
Dennis Gartman: Well first of all you can go to www.thegartmanletter.com. It's a very simple website. I've been writing a daily commentary on the capital markets for almost 35 or 36 years and quite honestly never missed a day. I don't get to take July 4 off because my friends in England have never learned to celebrate July 4. I don't get to take Labor Day off because my friends in Japan and China and Russia are still working. I don't get to take Memorial Day off because, well, it's Memorial Day here in the United States, but it's not memorialized elsewhere.
The capital markets are around 24/7 except for Saturdays and Sundays, and even then there are capital markets working over in the Middle Eastern countries. I've always said that my job is to be the liberal arts major of the capital markets. I know a little bit – actually a fairly good bit – about the grain markets. I know a fairly good bit about what goes on in energy. I know a fairly good amount about how the Federal Reserve policy functions, how the foreign exchange market functions, how the stock market functions, and my job is to look at how the energy market impinges upon grains or how the grain market affects the foreign exchange market, or how the foreign exchange market affects the equities market to try to put together a cogent eight or nine pages every morning: Here's what's happening, here's what's going on, and here's what you do with it.
I've been very fortunate to have been able to do it every morning. I get up at 1:00 Eastern Time and try to knock out those pages every day. Sometimes there's a little humor in it and oftentimes I'm very wrong, but the important thing to do when you're wrong is to admit it, and I hope I have another 35 years of doing this, but as I approach 67 years old my bet is that I will be on the short side of that issue.
Porter Stansberry: Dennis is actually very modest. His newsletter, his daily commentary is the most widely read thing on every major investment trading firm desk in the world, and he is the voice of the market. So congratulations on that success. Dennis, I know you manage your own money. Do you also dabble in investment management or are you just a writer?
Dennis Gartman: Well, quite honestly we had a hedge fund about five years ago. We only had four investors. I don't wanna say who they were, but they were world-famous people, and one of them after a year and a half of doing quite well decided he wanted to close any of his outside money that he had other people managing, and rather than go out and try to raise more money we said, "You know what, it's been a nice two years. Let's let it go at that."
I just run mine, my lovely bride's money, and write the newsletter, and that is more than sufficient. That takes up enough time, that and pulling for my beloved NC State in football who got beaten over the weekend by the Gamecocks of South Carolina in a terrible football game, but that's another story for another time.
Porter Stansberry: Yeah. I sympathize with you. A lot of people don't understand that investment management is a very different business and it has much more to do with raising money than it has to do with management.
Dennis Gartman: Yeah, it does.
Porter Stansberry: But I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you live in Virginia Beach, Dennis?
Dennis Gartman: Well actually, when people ask me where I live I tell them that it's close to Virginia Beach. I actually live in a little town called Suffolk, inland from Virginia Beach on the James River. The James is a monstrous, very large river. It's about seven miles broad, and we live on a little lick of land that extends into the James River surrounded by the Nansemond River on one side and the Crittenden Creek on the other. The Crittenden Creek is only about a half-mile across so it doesn't even get river status down here.
Porter Stansberry: Well I ask because you were talking about Memorial Day and I thought for sure that you're the kind of person that would talk about Decoration Day, 'cause the Yankees not only beat us in the war, then they stole our holiday as well.
Dennis Gartman: Exactly. Let's not take that up. We'll cross very quickly into politically incorrect commentary and we'll worry about having monuments drawn down upon us. Let's move on to other concerns.
Porter Stansberry: Buck, you're a Memorial Day kind of guy. Buck is a New York Yankee and there's nothing wrong with that. I think we can both fairly commemorate the past without trying to continue the Revolution. But listen, I do wanna talk about something meaningful for our dear listeners. For me, the biggest conundrum right now is the oil markets. You know way more about it than I ever will, but for me the question is: Can the U.S. supply revolution really hold down the price of oil for long, or is the market telling us something is changing about the oil market permanently thanks to electric cars? Do you have a view?
Dennis Gartman: Well, first of all, let's understand that we really are the revolutionaries in the world of oil, finding, drilling, and exporting. People don't realize how important have been two major changes. Obviously everybody talks about fracking, and fracking has indeed changed the composition and the makeup and the production of crude oil here in the United States. We've gone from 5 million barrels a mere ten years ago to almost 10 million barrels a day now. Actually I think it's 9.3 million, but we're gonna be at 10 million barrels production in the not-too-distant future.
Also, we have to understand how much technology has increased using seismic technologies looking down into the ground, better able to see what exists down there. As I like to tell people, 15 years ago when you drilled for crude oil you sent a soda straw down into the ground, maybe had a 50 percent hit rate probability. Now we're at about 95 percent hit rates, and perhaps most importantly what we've learned to do is in the old days we hoped if we hit a 50 percent crude reservoir or natural gas reservoir we thought it was relatively finitely shaped, but now we understand it looks like the fingers of your hand that extend and protrude miles under ground.
And we've learned how to go down, see precisely how those formations exist, and instead of sending one soda straw down, we send one soda straw down into the ground and bend it five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten times, moving out two, three, four, five miles, drawing crude oil from areas that a mere five years ago were un-economic and now are clearly economic. What's more important to us is that we're the only people fracking and using seismic technologies efficiently.
The Russians have just drilled their first fracked well. Guess what? There will be hundreds. The Chinese haven't even begun fracking yet. Guess what? There will be hundreds. Africa has not even begun fracking yet. Guess what? There will be hundreds. That's the important thing to understand here is that maybe the most important person in the oil business is the new crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Prince Muhammad, who is convinced crude oil is going to zero sometime in his lifetime because of the abundant supplies that still exist and the ability to get it, and perhaps more importantly the changes in technology that will derive better fuels in the future.
Remember, we were using crude oil – which replaced whale oil as a lighting instrument – a mere 120 years ago. There will clearly be nuclear fission, nuclear fusion. There will clearly be better use of green technologies that will eventually replace natural gas and crude oil over the course of the next 30, 40, 50 years.
Does that mean that you can't get crude oil to go to $60 or so on some spike in geopolitical risks over the next five years or so? Of course we can. Is that likely? Is that likely to be sustained? No because there will be so much hedging, so much production brought online, and remember, Russia just had its first fracked well. There will be hundreds.
Porter Stansberry: Speaking of nuclear fission, will we see any of that over North Korea any time soon?
Dennis Gartman: I hope not. My wife and I argue about this all the time. She's fearful about what the North Koreans can do. As everybody says, the man is irrational. I say he is "rationally irrational." He has no intention of using his weapons to destroy South Korea, Guam, or the United States because, as I've written in my newsletter, we must remember he has no intention of being a martyr. This is not ISL – or ISIS, as others prefer to refer to it. This is an atheist who has no concept, no knowledge, no understanding of an afterlife. He knows his only life is to be the leader of the North Korean society as long as he is able to remain alive.
He's not gonna put that in jeopardy. The only problem will exist if there is some untoward action, a ship bumps into another ship, an airplane bumps into another airplane, and things go out of control. But he has every intention of blackmailing us for as long as he can in the future. The Chinese, we must remember, wanna make sure that his regime maintains on the Korean peninsula because they don't want to have a unified South Korea and North Korea with U.S. military probably 25,000 or 35,000 or even 50,000 U.S. soldiers there on their border.
China intends to continue to hold North Korea as its buffer state. That's not gonna change. We can put as much pressure as we want on China. They're not gonna do anything to remove that regime because they want that buffer. So through the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s as it was United States versus Russia using what was known as MAD, mutually assured destruction, which kept us from going to war with one another, now we have mutually assured rational irrationality that will keep us from going to war with one another.
Porter Stansberry: The other topic I've been dying to speak with you about for months is bitcoin. Just to give you my take on it, I think the computer programming behind bitcoin is some of the most elegant and beautiful programming I've ever seen. It's really, really an amazing breakthrough of math and of thinking about the role of money. I just think it's really cool stuff. On the other hand I think the soaring value of bitcoin is just a proof positive of the nature of the speculative bubble that we're in right now across all the markets. What's your view?
Dennis Gartman: I couldn't agree with you more. bitcoin, Ethereum, and the other, what, almost 1,100 various crypto currencies, and remember when bitcoin came out we were told it was going to be a finite currency that was going to take over from the fiat currencies reported on and supplied by the central banks. That was supposedly the finite nature of bitcoin was supposed to be its driving impetus. We've found out since then it's now actually infinitely large because there are as I just said over 1,000 other crypto currencies. The Chinese basically put the kibosh on bitcoin and other crypto currencies over the weekend when effectively it's not quite a ban, but effectively they banned the trading of crypto currencies in China. They were 20 percent of the world market.
I'm afraid this is one of the great examples of a tulip bulb mania that just caught for lack of a better term the millennials who have been the great supporters of it, and I'm afraid that that's going to come a cropper. On the other hand, what you said about the block chain is absolutely correct. It is an elegant use of the computer system. It will replace the methods and the manners in which we trade almost anything and everything. If we've learned anything from bitcoin, it was a tulip bulb mania supported by a truly ethereal, elegant computer technology that will serve us all well in the future. I couldn't agree with you more.
Porter Stansberry: Well you know I've really enjoyed this conversation, Dennis. I hope we get to do it more often. Congratulations again on your tremendous success with your daily commentary and subscribers out there, if you want first-class, deep, he said eight or nine pages every day covering all the markets around the world, Dennis is the only person I know that does anything like that and he does it very, very well. So thank you very much, Dennis Gartman, for being our guest today.
Dennis Gartman: Oh, thanks.
Porter Stansberry: And hope we'll have you back soon.
Dennis Gartman: It was my pleasure, my honor, and call me back any time. I'm usually around and can be found having gotten up at 1:00. I'm still here.
Porter Stansberry: Thanks, Dennis.
Dennis Gartman: Thanks for your time. Cheers.
Buck Sexton: That gentleman is very astute. I thoroughly enjoyed that.
Porter Stansberry: He works very hard. He's the hardest working man in show business in the financial journalism world. He's great, and there's not a market he doesn't know a lot about – and he also knows every one – so it's a great resource to subscribe to and to use.
But Buck, listen, I wanna switch the conversation back towards an article you sent me last week about Google. It was a very interesting concept that Google and Facebook and these very large properties that they own have subsumed so much power over journalism and really over other kinds of commerce. Do we have to worry about the monopoly impact of what they've done in search and in social media?
Buck Sexton: I think we absolutely do. I mean I wrote a piece in the fantastic magazine American Consequences – which everybody should subscribe to, as well who's listening, it is free – on exactly this point. I wrote about how Google is the world's largest echo chamber. The piece that you're citing, the title of it I think says a lot which is a journalist writing that he was a serf on Google's farm, and that really does start to get closer I think what the reality is here than most people are comfortable with.
Google has not just an enormous impact on what journalism is seeing via search, it also now has the ability to fund or defund on a whim journalism at a huge scale and all of a sudden very rapidly, effectively Google can say your ad dollars are gone, and they can do it at the drop of a hat, and your resource is nonexistent. One has to think about how if you're not building a subscription-based business, if you're building a clicks-based CPM getting revenue from the number of people that see something, if Google has power of life and death over your company, Google has a whole lot of say in everything including what people say about Google which has started to come up recently.
Porter Stansberry: Yeah, I thought the most interesting thing in the article which is called "a serf on Google's farm", if you wanna Google that you can, it's from an online magazine called TPM and I have to admit I'd never heard of TPM before. I don't even know what -
Buck Sexton: Left wing. It's very left wing, just so you know. It's very progressive.
Porter Stansberry: I don't know what TPM stands for. I'm not making any judgments about TPM.
Buck Sexton: Talking Points Memo.
Porter Stansberry: Talking Points Memo. But anyways, I thought this was a very interesting point that they made, and they said that on several occasions Google had notified them that they were violating their ban on hate speech, and the reason why they were violating the ban on hate speech is because they had been reporting about white supremacist incidents in Charleston, particularly the Dylan Roof mass murder in the church down there.
So they were reporting on what had occurred in South Carolina, and as a result of their reporting they were triggering Google's hate speech triggers – which of course is just a robot reading stuff. It doesn't have an ability to really discern the difference between reporting and editorial, or between criticizing white supremacy and endorsing it.
Buck Sexton: "Here's a guy with a swastika" looks a lot like "Here's a swastika."
Porter Stansberry: Right. So you'd think that you could just contact Google and have some human being go, "Oh, the software has made a mistake. We see that you are a very left progressive magazine" which by the way matches Google's culture. "We can turn that filter off for you or we can help you manage that problem." No, not at all. Google said that they're hopeful that we would do a better job of avoiding their filters in the future.
And this is, as you said, a left, Talking Points Memo, a left leaning online magazine. The point that I'm making is if they're having a hard time managing Google, getting Google to treat them fairly and equitably, imagine what's gonna happen to the conservative voices that Google doesn't even want to see succeed.
Buck Sexton: And that's already been happening. They are adjusting their regulations. You know all that stuff about terms and conditions? You could be giving away the naming rights to your first child. No one pays any attention. They just click, they say "sure." Google is a private company. Google is allowed to determine what goes up and what does not on its site, and when you start to think about how Google is – and it's not just Google, I should note. If you are an app developer which for a while, we're talking about crypto now.
Four or five years ago if you wanted to get rich really quickly, what did you do? You had to come up with a new app, you hoped to get bought out by Google or one of the big boys. If you were an app developer and there was – at the most, and I have friends who were in that business, in that space – the most random problem that you could imagine might get you held up in the iTunes store or the Apple store for buying an application for your phone for a few weeks. That crushes some of these companies especially if you're not funded yet, if you're trying to get to a place where you're doing your first series of funding.
What do you do when iTunes is like, "You don't comply with our terms and conditions"? You go to iTunes part two? You're done. You're out of the space. So Google is able to do the same thing and once it becomes content policing under the guise of terms and conditions, this changes what you read without you even knowing it. At least Dan Rather at CBS News and all the rest of that journalism generation had to put "CBS News" on what they're doing. Google has the presentation of all of this as objective when it is not in fact objective. They just say it's an algorithm, but that isn't what it sounds like.
Porter Stansberry: It's an interesting problem, and I've run into the same issue of that monopoly power with Amazon. So I have a razor business outside of Stansberry Research that's called OneBlade, and it's a premium men's razor. It's made out of the highest quality German steel. I'm not gonna get into the pitch, but it's a very expensive product and it's designed for people who really want the best possible shave. So we're using a Japanese steel blade, and we're using a German steel handle, and it's a product that you only have to buy once and it lasts forever.
Getting that product on Amazon was very difficult to do. You had to jump through a whole bunch of hoops and we had to make a bunch of compromises that we really didn't wanna have to make. But if we're not on Amazon we cannot sell product. It is the gateway for all of small, which is what we are, online retail. But here's an interesting philosophical question because these monopoly power companies, Amazon, Google, Facebook, they tend to be very progressive and very liberal, and they tend to try to punish in some obvious ways and some very insidious ways, anyone who doesn't share their worldview.
It's interesting to me because the conservative view about that is, well, we have to let the market decide. These are private companies. They don't have the force of government behind their monopolies, and if they really do adopt those abusive policies then the free market should find a solution.
In other words, Google might find its biggest weakness is its strongly progressive liberal culture, because that could lead as we've already seen with at least one software programmer, a revolt in using it and people could set up an alternative to Google just like the Huffington Post became an alternative to Drudge because in most people's eyes Drudge became too conservative. So as free market conservatives we can't really complain too much about a private company that has earned a monopoly, can we?
Buck Sexton: I think you're gonna see a lot of conservatives rediscover the need for regulation as a result of these Internet mega companies having so much – whether that's based on principle or not I think you've already established, but they would say that this reminds me of when we have the discussion about health care, and people always say that's not free market. That's kind of like saying, well, that doesn't take into account that the health care system we currently have is so far from free market that even discussing how it's not free market is a waste of time. It's being a purist when you're covered in filth.
So I think there's gonna be a similar argument leveled against the monopolies in which they're gonna say, look, you've got FCC regulations in place, this and that. They're gonna find all the regulations that currently exist that have greatly benefited companies like Google and they're gonna say well now we're not gonna regulate how big it can get? People are gonna say that they're pro-regulation on this. Staunch Milton Friedman loving conservatives will all of a sudden discover the joys of government interference in the market because they're too powerful. It's unbelievable. Nothing has ever existed like this.
Porter Stansberry: Yeah. Right. So AT&T at the turn of the last century wasn't more powerful than Google is today.
Buck Sexton: No, I mean in media. I'm sorry, I'm in a very media-centric mindset 'cause it's what I do all the time. I mean in media. Nothing like this is – you've never had control of the distribution mechanism of the actual distribution of it. So it's what people see, you own that. Within what they can see you determine what they see first, and then beyond that you determine what gets monetized. That's everything.
Porter Stansberry: I think if you go back to the early days of radio you find just as strong of monopoly powers. I can't remember the names of all this stuff, but my dad told me about growing up in rural Tennessee, the only radio station he could get was broadcast out of Washington D.C. That's how big of a radio station it was, and that was the only thing he had access to. So he ended up becoming a fan of the Redskins because that was the only football game he could ever listen to. I just think that when people say this has never been before, that's just not, never, never right.
There's always something that's very analogous. But we need to move on to the mailbag and it's not really an important point. We could go back and forth about that all day. It's not gonna change anybody's mind. I will tell you just one last thing about this concept, not about the issue, but that's the difference between a libertarian and a conservative, and that's why libertarians can never win any elections because libertarians stand on principle even when it destroys their base.
Buck Sexton: Yep. It's fun to be libertarian. _____ _____ what you wanna say. In New York if you're at a cocktail party and you wanna get a lady's phone number, which something that until recently I had to be focused on, you wanna say you're a libertarian. You never wanna say you're a conservative. So there's that too. That's why they exist.
A libertarian is a conservative who wants to have friends. All right, mailbag.
Porter Stansberry: Yeah, let's get to the mailbag.
Buck Sexton: Hello, Porter and Buck. This is from Peter. I'm really enjoying the Stansberry Investment Hour podcast. Keep up the great work. I am curious to know what Porter thinks about owning the Canadian dollar as a hedge against the eventual decline of the U.S. dollar, seeing as the Canadian dollar is backed by actual natural resources that the world needs, example copper, gold, oil, lumber, fertilizer, fresh water, etc. – it is a freshwater superpower – wouldn't it make sense for Americans to own some Canadian dollars in their portfolio? Best regards, Peter.
Porter Stansberry: Sorry, Peter, not for me. I've never owned the Canadian dollar and I don't think it's a very good hedge. If you wanna have a commodity hedge there's I think better ways of doing it. I'm not gonna get into all of that now, but no, I don't really endorse the Canadian dollar. It's got two problems that make it unattractive for me as a currency. No. 1 is the very small size of the Canadian economy. You've got 20 million people in Canada versus 300 million people in America.
It's just not big enough and it's not big enough in terms of world trade either. You don't have banks around the world hoarding Canadian dollars. It's not a reserve currency and so in my mind therefore it's not a good way to hedge the dollar. The second issue is, and this maybe is not as strong of an argument, but I see Canada as a socialist tiny little brother to America, and when I buy a currency I want something that's gonna be less socialist than America, not more socialist than America. Sorry about that.
Buck Sexton: All right. We've got No. 2 in our mailbag this week. Dear Porter and Buck, the Millennial Wealth Project sounds like the investment project you started with a guy that used to work at Stansberry and do podcasts with you. As I remember, he was kind of a charity case.
Porter Stansberry: That's not nice.
Buck Sexton: You hired him – I'm just reading what the guy wrote here. You hired him, taught him the ropes, then he ran off to South America about six months later after a bad investment in Weight Watchers? Why would you start this project again? Anyway, given this history I hope he's sorry to see Buck go. A loyal listener. He doesn't wanna give his name. I like this guy, though. He's feisty.
Porter Stansberry: Well none of that is correct. A, the person in question wasn't a charity case. He was a very good copywriter and he wrote some very valuable packages for us. B, he didn't run off to South America. He started his own business in _____ and he's done incredibly well. I don't wanna give an unnecessary endorsement to his product, but he's done very well in the health space and he's made a fortune. So he was not a charity case in any way, shape, or form.
Lastly, it was not a bad investment in Weight Watchers. We stopped out and more recently we got back in at – country club guy, do you remember when the most recent buy-in at Weight Watchers was? Something like around $20 and it's now I know it's been at least double in the last six months. So none of that is correct, Buck, but I will be sorry to see you go too. I really enjoy working with you.
Buck Sexton: Me too, man. This podcast is fun. Loyal listener, don't worry about it. I have a nationally syndicated show on over 100 stations that's actually growing every month so I'll be fine, but I like doing the podcast and if Porter wanted to turn me into a Colombian-based multimillionaire who invests in health products, sounds great, actually. If you could do that for me, let me know.
Dennis Gartman: Medaine is a really nice place to live, but in fairness to the person in question, I had nothing to do with any of that. He did that all on his own. I'm very happy for him.
Buck Sexton: All right, we got Eric, a paid-up Flex Alliance member, by the way. He writes Porter and Buck, thanks for the show, guys. It's entertaining and informative, but I was VERY – all in caps, Porter – disappointed with Porter's quote and apparent endorsement of a Margaret Thatcher quote about socialism. "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. If this is true, it would logically follow that if the money didn't run out, socialism would be a morally defensible economic system. From a libertarian perspective the problem with socialism is that it violates the non-aggression principle, and well supplied with money or not, it cannot be defended." Comments? Eric to Porter.
Porter Stansberry: Well, I gotta give him credit. That's exactly correct. I was just quoting that of course not because I endorse the lack of the moral code that Margaret Thatcher did, but I was endorsing it because it's the practical problem with socialism. The reason why socialism doesn't work in practice is because you run out of other people's money.
I'm sure you would agree with me about this, the politicians have long since ceased violating the non-aggression clause. In fact, the entire nation of government is violence. If you're gonna have any government at all, you hopefully want it to practice something that's not as stupid as socialism. What was that novel called about the Lilliputians? That was the only place that—
Buck Sexton: Gulliver's Travels.
Porter Stansberry: Yeah. That was the only place that there wasn't any government which was utopia which doesn't exist. Unfortunately I don't see a time in my lifetime where we're going to have a libertarian utopia in America or anywhere else. So until then let's just focus on the fact that socialism doesn't work.
Buck Sexton: There we go. All right, if you've got questions for us you can write to [email protected]. Remember if we use the question on the show we will send some Stansberry Research swag. Love us or hate us, what comes next, Porter?
Porter Stansberry: Just don't ignore us, guys. We love doing this. Please give us some feedback on how we can make it better and I'll see you next week. I gotta run. I got a doctor's appointment. Gotta not die.
Buck Sexton: Porter, talk to you soon. Everybody, next week we'll be interviewing Danielle DiMartino Booth, author of Fed Up: An Insider's Take on Why the Federal Reserve is Bad for America. Danielle will be joined by all the Stansberry editors and investment experts like Kevin O'Leary from ABC's Shark Tank, Chris Mayer from Bonner and Partners, the dean of high-yield debt Marty Fridson, plus 30 other speakers and entertainers at the 2017 Stansberry Conference in Las Vegas on September 27 and September 28.
You can watch all the action on your computer, phone, or tablet by going to www.stansberryvegasvideo.com. It's easy. You'll see all the presentations and investment ideas from each of our speakers and you can re-watch all the videos too for up to 90 days after the conference so you won't miss a thing even if you can't watch it live. Just go to stansberryvegasvideo.com for all the details. Also go to InvestorHour.com for all of the latest on this show on the Stansberry Investor Hour. Please join us next week. We're excited for it and we will see you then.
Announcer: 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 e-mail. Have a question for Porter and Buck? Send them an e-mail at [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]