This week, we're doing something that we normally don't do here at Stansberry Investor Hour...
Due to popular demand, we've brought back Stansberry Venture Technology editor Dave Lashmet, whose first appearance on the show took place just three months ago.
As a refresher (or introduction, if you missed his last interview), Dave's forte is in venture-capital investing. It's a speculative approach to the markets – one often fraught with risk – but there's no one better than Dave at pinpointing the best reward-to-risk setups for readers. As we've previously described, he "scours the Earth," conducting boots-on-the-ground research... His years of attending conferences and networking with industry experts have paid off for readers who've followed his recommendations, netting these folks hundreds- and even thousands-of-percent gains.
Said another way, Dave mines the markets for lucrative opportunities in publicly traded, small-cap companies. A typical "diamond in the rough" might pioneer a revolutionary new drug or technology. These early-stage innovators can potentially change the world for the better – and rake in outsized gains for investors. And the best part about investing in these kinds of companies lies in their resilience to bear markets like today's...
I think that every shareholder, unless you're buying an index fund, wants to follow individual companies. What we do is we do it as "microeconomists." The Fed isn't going to stop whether or not this cancer treatment works. It's not up to the Fed... it's not a macro issue. I've always approached how I look for opportunities for investors as a microeconomist. And I don't think that goes away... Today, the entire market is down."
Dave rejoins us today with a special look into some of the most promising new trends in the biotech space. You'll hear about a leader in robotic surgery... cutting-edge radiation therapy that Dave has been tracking for several years... new breakthroughs in cancer treatment... and the true story – one that leaves Dan momentarily speechless – of a man who overcame life-changing, traumatic injuries to become a crusader for patient rights.
Editor of Stansberry Venture Technology
Dave Lashmet undertakes an intensive research process to discover under-the-radar technology, biotechnology, and medical companies poised for near-term growth. He was one of the first employees at Stansberry Research and is the editor of Stansberry Venture Technology. His unique insight into new technologies is responsible for some of the biggest gains in the history of the firm. Dave has spent 10 years teaching and writing about medicine and technology at major research universities, and he has done follow-up research at some of the most important facilities in North America, like Harvard Medical School, Johns Hopkins, MIT, and the Centers for Disease Control.
Dan Ferris: Hello, and welcome to the Stansberry Investor Hour. I'm your host, Dan Ferris. I'm also the editor of Extreme Value, published by Stansberry Research.
Corey McLaughlin: And I'm Corey McLaughlin. I'm the editor of the Stansberry Digest. This week, Dan talks to our friend Dave Lashmet, editor of Stansberry Venture Technology.
Dan Ferris: And for our opening rant, mixed signals from the Fed and Janet Yellen, CPI report, and more.
Corey McLaughlin: No mailbag this week, but remember, you can e-mail us at [email protected] or call our listener feedback line at 800-381-2357 and tell us what's on your mind.
Dan Ferris: That and more right now on the Stansberry Investor Hour.
First thing that I can't avoid talking about this week, of course, is the CPI print, which is still high. I mean, it's elevated, right? It's 8.2%. So nothing's changing. There's still plenty of inflation. I continue to believe that inflation is a much stickier phenomenon than anybody seems to fathom.
Corey McLaughlin: But stocks go up. Right?
Dan Ferris: Right. [Laughter] Right. Now, you know, I don't know how to explain that. Right? Some people say, "Well, look, now that we have the certainty of knowing what the number is," and it's been high for so long, I mean, you know, it's got to be peaking. Right? It's got to be peaking. Right? [Laughter] I mean...
Corey McLaughlin: I mean it looks like at a little bit, but you know, it's still at 40-year highs, which is what I wrote in the Digest. I mean, that's the main point, I think that people, whoever is not paying attention to that should remember that.
Dan Ferris: Yeah, I mean, I don't know. I don't think it looks as peaky as that. Like core CPI, month over month, 0.04%, you know, and core, year over year, 6.5% was expected, and they got 6.6%. So you know, the expectations, they still don't, you know, maybe – they were close enough, let's just say. So, core services... 0.08% month over month. Rent of shelter, 0.08% month over month. That's serious business, man... 0.8%? You keep doing that every month, and you're going to be paying a lot more rent. So, I don't know. I just...
Corey McLaughlin: Yeah, I think that rent, yeah, that rent number, I believe, and I've read a few places that increase is kind of going to be baked into that CPI number for quite a while, I believe. So if you're banking on, you know, inflation going back down to 2%, I don't know who's banking on that at this point, but it seems a bit of a stretch. It does.
Dan Ferris: It does. And I find this topic of housing really interesting because, look, we all know that interest rates are going up, mortgage rates are more than doubled. They're 7% now, and we know what that does to housing prices. You know, mortgage originations are down by some buy some big number. I forget what it was, like 40% or something. I mean, it's a lot. OK? So I get all that. But structurally, we're still like shortage of housing in the United States. You know, there's still just isn't enough, which is really, really interesting. You know, this is the lingering effect of the last – of the housing bubble, which peaked in 2006. And we're in 2022.
I mean, it just shows you how these effects just grind through for decade after decade. And yet, folks look at what's happening now, and they say, "Oh, we're just looking for the bottom. We're fine." [Laughter] You know? I don't know.
Corey McLaughlin: Yeah, that's a great point. The housing market is going to be trouble for a lot of people who – I was talking with a talk with Scott Garliss, our NewsWire editor, this week a little bit about this. Like, what incentive would anybody have to move at this point if you're mortgage-interest-rate sensitive, you know, if you're locked into a 3% rate or something that has been the last couple of years? I mean, when you look at it budget-wise and rates are at 7% right now, likely maybe probably going higher, you know, just kind of freezes the market up. And like you said, I mean people still need to live somewhere
Dan Ferris: You know it's a funny thing, like I did something I never thought I would do. We actually, you know, we bought a house last year or whatever. And we kind of locked things in, in like February or something, or March or whatever it was. But we didn't get into the house till June. So eventually I had to pay to lock in the rate at like 2.875%. I was like, damn it. I have never done this in my life. I hate this. I hate it. Now I'm like, I'm a genius right? I mean now it's like...
Corey McLaughlin: Deal of the decade. [Laughter]
Dan Ferris: Yeah. Yeah, that's a great point. I felt like somebody else told me that exact same thing in the past couple days. You know, why would you move? Why would you give up – especially if you're in a house? Right? You're locked in at 3%, or whatever.
Corey McLaughlin: Yeah, if you're in a house. Yeah.
Dan Ferris: Yeah, I agree. You'd have to have a really, really compelling reason to move. Crazy.
Corey McLaughlin: Which, of course, you know, messes with the, you know, if you're trying to sell a house, who's going to buy it? So it obviously factors into that discussion is where I was going with that.
Dan Ferris: Yeah. You can sell it, I'm convinced you could sell it, but you aren't going to get the price that you thought you were going to get.
Corey McLaughlin: Right.
Dan Ferris: That's another thing. My wife keeps watching all the places we've lived in the past. I'm like, "Why do you do this?" She's like, "I don't know. I'm just obsessive or whatever." And she's watching like, you know, the Zestimates on Zillow fall. She's, you know, and closed transactions in those neighborhood falling. So anyway, I think we agree housing is, it's an interesting topic. I still believe that you might even – I think you can actually belong, a homebuilder or something, just for the structural problem. But it's tough to buy one, you know, all of a sudden. It's more expensive. It's an interesting topic. We could probably spend a lot more time on it.
But I want to talk about Janet Yellen. Because when I saw this, I just thought, "Man, sometimes in Washington, D.C., it's like, they sit around and have a little meeting and say, 'How can we express the greatest disconnect with reality? What can we say in public to convince everyone that we truly don't get it?'" And, you know, we heard Joe Biden say something like, "There's a chance of a slight recession in 2023. But I wouldn't count on it." You know, it's like, maybe, slight.
And then Janet Yellen comes out last Tuesday in D.C., she was at like IMF and World Bank annual meetings or something. And the Financial News Network, CNBC talked with her. And she said two comments that I couldn't believe. The first one was, "We haven't really seen signs of financial instability in the United States and their financial markets." And then she said, "I don't think we've seen anything that rises to the level of a serious concern," presumably, without sarcasm. Right? I mean...
Corey McLaughlin: You would hope. [Laughter]
Dan Ferris: Yeah.
Corey McLaughlin: That's our job. Right?
Dan Ferris: So meanwhile, the guy who took over her last job, Jerome Powell, is saying, "There will be pain. American businesses and households will feel pain." He's almost like saying, "You will, you might get fired. You won't get a raise. Your 401(k) will get cut in half." And she's saying nothing that rises to the level of a serious concern.
Corey McLaughlin: Yeah, I mean, for her, I guess, maybe it's not a serious concern because, you know, she's probably set. But yeah, I was always skeptical of Janet Yellen's presence as the Treasury Secretary, given her role as the Fed chair as well. Just you know, that right off the bat struck me the wrong way. Because I don't think, I can't remember if, it's either it never happened before or happened one time before, where a Fed chair became Treasury Secretary. Just, you know, from the conflicts and just all kinds of reasons for that. It doesn't need to, it doesn't need to happen. There's plenty of other options.
Dan Ferris: It's funny, you should point that out. I think she talked about the Fed independence, as well. She believes deeply in that. Well, you better, I guess. [Laughter]
Corey McLaughlin: Yeah. And this is all, I don't know, if you saw, but a couple of weeks ago, there's some reports and rumors came out about she might be out as Treasury Secretary after the midterms.
Dan Ferris: I did.
Corey McLaughlin: So I don't know if that's true or not, but the fact that at least that's either being floated out there or people are definitely talking about it as a possibility. I mean, consider the source here. I mean, she also said, what was it a couple of years ago, she said, this was 2017, "I don't see a financial crisis occurring," quote, "in our lifetimes."
Dan Ferris: [Laughter]
Corey McLaughlin: Another one.
Dan Ferris: Oops.
Corey McLaughlin: That was 2017. So yeah, I mean, at the time, that was a dumb statement because how could you predict the rest of our lifetimes, but I mean, even for the next 10 years, you know. I would consider inflation at 40-year highs, a financial crisis. I don't know if that's fair. And if everybody would. But you know, to me, inflation, what it is, is bad enough.
Dan Ferris: The lady doth protest too much methinks. [Laughter] She's putting it out there. I mean, it's one of those perfect sort of, you know, "we will not devalue the currency" type of a comment. As soon as they make it, you know, the opposite is true. Right? Why? It's like, she said that. I remember that. She said that, and I remember thinking, "Who said anything about a financial crisis?" [Laughter]
Corey McLaughlin: Right.
Dan Ferris: I was like, you know, where did that come from? It's like, oh, OK, financial crisis. Huh? So that's on the radar screen now. Thank you, Janet.
Corey McLaughlin: So we're still thinking about that.
Dan Ferris: Yeah. You're still worried? Good to know. Thank you. The funny thing is that I mean, I think the propagandists, they largely succeed. They might not succeed with us smart folks in the financial markets all the time, but the propagandists largely succeed, like, you can just tell the lie, and tell the lie, and tell the lie again, and again, and again, and, you know you're lying. We know you're lying. You know, we know you're lying. And still, it just continues. And I think I think they were right. I think Goebbels and Hitler and all those folks, were right. Just keep repeating it. And eventually, even though people know it's wrong, they'll act the way you want them, too. Which is bizarre.
Corey McLaughlin: Yeah, unfortunately, that's a point of psychology. I'm not an expert, but in marketing and advertising, it's one of the basics, I believe. It's just you say something enough times, people will believe it, or at least be thinking about it, so...
Dan Ferris: Boy, I feel like we've taken a depressing turn here.
Corey McLaughlin: [Laughter]
Dan Ferris: We really have gone down a bad road. It's my fault, I brought it up. Sorry. OK. Just [crosstalk].
Corey McLaughlin: Sorry. Yeah, me too.
Dan Ferris: So what do you make like I keep seeing reports, it's usually like Bank of America portfolio manager surveys and stuff, where – and there's a headline on Barron's... "Investors stash tons of cash, expect rallies and stocks." You know, it's this kind of cash on the sidelines ready to go into the market kind of an argument. Ah, you know, I mean, like, the cash just changes hands, right? We know that it. You know, it goes from this bank account to that bank account, and then your stock goes from your account to my account. So, it's always somewhere. Right? I just, I don't know. I find it a bizarre sort of an argument for, you know, for the bulls to make every time they make it. And yet it still makes headlines.
Corey McLaughlin: That people are in cash getting ready for a rally? Is that what you're saying?
Dan Ferris: Well, sure. In other words, the cash is ready to pour back into stocks. And you know –
Corey McLaughlin: Gotcha.
Dan Ferris: – and cause them to rally. And then the numbers are interesting, too. They say BoA, a Bank of America survey shows portfolio managers overseeing equity funds. They're holding about 6.1% of their funds in cash. The bank sees it as a buy signal if it gets above 5%. This is –
Corey McLaughlin: Yeah, I never know what entirely to make of those surveys, to be honest with you. I mean, they're good for general kind of sentiment direction. But when you get down to the percentage points about it. I mean, I don't know what to make of that. But other than that, yeah, if managers have cash to put to work, and they are, and they do, that could certainly help a short-term rally. But if we get another round of whatever it may be, from 2020 to, you know, inflation numbers, something with the war, or whatever. You know, it doesn't really matter what it is.
If there's something that can drop the markets to new lows, then, OK, then they're sitting on a loss on that portion of cash that they just put to work in the portfolio. So you don't think they would take that out that quickly, but still, prices are falling. It's not a long-term, bullish catalyst. You know, in that scenario, at least.
Dan Ferris: Yeah. It just, it feels like, you know, just grasping for anything. It feels desperate to me. But then on the other side, I saw just within the last couple of weeks, that household's cash supplies, after really rising during the pandemic, are now they're making new lows. So households are going through their cash because things cost more because the CPI is 8%. And that doesn't strike me as especially bullish, right?
Corey McLaughlin: No. [Laughter] No, it's not. It's not strong for sure. And I think, to go with that, the amount that consumers, you know, regular people are putting on credit cards, and just the number of credit cards that they have has never been higher that are like open in the U.S. right now. Something like, there's some hundreds of millions number that will make your head spin. So it's, yeah, remember a couple of months ago, and a lot of people were saying, "Oh, but the consumer is in good shape. You know, balance sheets are strong." I was like, I never really believed that. And now that people are spending, yeah, because they need to spend, but they're putting more on credit cards. And, you know, once – that never ends well.
Dan Ferris: Yeah. I e-mailed Garliss, Scott Garliss yesterday because when the market recently in the past couple days, when the market rallied one day. And he put all the S&P 500 sectors and ranked them by their performance that day. And I noticed the bottom three were, you know, the two consumer categories and real estate. And I was like, "What do you make of this?" He's like, "Well, their balance sheets are much worse than they were. And rising rates might just make them worse."
So of course, you know, those are the ones that folks are, you know, kind of selling and then they're buying whatever was up top, oil stocks or something. So like the market doesn't, you know, think that balance sheets are wonderful. And that's, you know, bullish. The market says, "Hmm, the folks' balance sheets that we rely on are not doing well."
Corey McLaughlin: Yeah, that makes me think of just from the consumer side of it, you know, the main street side, a lot of this what we've been talking about for months and a year, and longer, hasn't caught up, yeah, hasn't impacted really main street too much yet. I mean, certainly not like a 2009 level.
Dan Ferris: Right.
Corey McLaughlin: So it's all the spin this sort of like a lot of people speculating that bad things are going to happen at which they might. But I don't think we've even seen like that oh my god moment yet, you know.
Dan Ferris: Which is amazing because like, I was looking through some charts that I decided not to use, actually in my presentation in Boston, later this month. And one of them showed the largest decline in household net worth in the history of that data in the second quarter. And I was like, wow, so this is – we've talked about this reverse wealth effect, right? Your portfolio is down X% – 20%, 30% overall, or more, depending on how much garbage you owned, and your house is now worth less because interest rates have doubled. So those are the components, and then the losses, you know, for that quarter, were bigger than ever.
And yet, I agree. Like, it's almost like these things are piling up, but we haven't really seen, I can almost see what Janet Yellen is talking about. Almost. Right? Because it's not like September 5, 2008. And you know, Lehman's going bankrupt, and we're bailing out Merrill Lynch by getting JPMorgan to buy it. And we're, you know, we're going to have the Fed, you know, doing a trillion-dollar bailout or whatever. We're not at that moment. But I don't know to say that there's no cause for concern. You know, isn't there a middle ground? [Laughter]
Corey McLaughlin: Right. That's a good point. If you're the Treasury Secretary saying, "Nothing to see here," is that the best message practically to be sending to people?
Dan Ferris: No.
Corey McLaughlin: No. So...
Dan Ferris: Well, certainly, it doesn't help in the credibility department, which I think we all agree, as a society, our institutions are, their credibility has faded quite a bit. We don't trust them anymore. We don't believe in them anymore. And I think, you know, just financially speaking, like Fed credibility is really, really suffering, you know. We don't believe they can save us anymore. And it's not like black and white one moment or another. But it's ongoing, and it's building. And the credibility is just wearing away and wearing away. And I think that's probably the right thing to happen. [Laughter]
Corey McLaughlin: Yeah, I mean, we could go, we could talk forever about that one. It's, I think you're right. The default for me is to be skeptical right off the bat of any institution, which, you know, in a nicer world, you wouldn't want to have that all the time. You'd at least want to, you know, when I first started, like, paying attention to the Fed and writing about the Fed, I started out with an open mind.
Then in a very short period of time, you just see, see mistakes that I'm like, what, what... here's no reason I should be knowing some of these things that have happened, and the Fed not at least publicly saying it. You know, you'd think they have to know and aren't publicly saying what they could, which would benefit people in the long run. But nobody wants to hear that in the long run.
Dan Ferris: Completely agree. And this a microcosm of this is Cathie Wood, who stays bullish, you know, the founder of ARK with the big ARK Innovation ETF that soared 350% in 11 months off the COVID bottom and now has crashed 76%. And, you know, she sent an open letter to the Fed this week to tell him to cut it out and stop raising rates, blah, blah, blah, trying to blame them for her losses. But she suffers, too, because she stays bullish, and doesn't say, you know, "We got a problem. We made some mistakes, and we're going to fix them."
I mean, can you imagine if down 30% or 40%, she had said, you know, something like, "We have emphasized too low quality of a business in our funds. We're going to raise the quality, raise the profitability of the average company we buy, and still buy innovation," and blah, blah. She could push the same narrative with higher-quality businesses. Right? And I've talked about some research with this. Jeremy Grantham found, or actually I did a little Bloomberg screen based on what Grantham was saying that the higher-quality growth companies, they don't get bludgeoned by interest rates the way the unprofitable garbage does.
And I did a quick Nasdaq screen, and sure enough, the unprofitable companies were down like 49% to 50% since the Nasdaq topped out, and the profit ones are down like 17%. You know, it's like almost a three-times difference. And why can't Cathie Wood say, "You know something, we're going to redouble our efforts," and blah, blah, blah. That would be a great message. The fund would probably rally. Actually, it's still attracting money. So you know, she doesn't need me, I guess, but down 76%. I mean, you're not going to see a bottom until those people are just obliterated beyond all, you know, reason down 99% or something.
Corey McLaughlin: Yeah, it's... I think you're right. It's harder to admit a mistake in the middle of it than to keep going.
Dan Ferris: But the thing is, man, isn't it low-hanging fruit though?
Corey McLaughlin: Oh yeah. Totally.
Dan Ferris: Admitting [crosstalk] fixing it is low-hanging fruit. It's like an opportunity, a marketing opportunity.
Corey McLaughlin: Yeah, no, I don't, personally, yeah, I think it's – totally on board with you. Like, she could easily – there are so many different ways you could go with just saying, "Oh, we're changing our strategy," or, you know, "Let's show you how really smart I am. And we can navigate this together." But yeah, you've been all over Cathie Wood for a while. And if anybody doesn't see Dan's Digest on who, you know, we can say you're writing an open letter back to Cathie Wood, your most recent one. So you should check that out.
Dan Ferris: Yeah, Dan's open letter to Cathie Wood in the Stansberry Digest, Friday's Digest. All right, man. I don't know, I feel like I went down this little bit of a dark rabbit hole with the credibility and the, you know, the psychology and stuff that we discussed today. But to be fair, I'm still bearish. Are you still bearish? [Laughter] I mean, you know...
Corey McLaughlin: I don't even like to call myself bearish. You know, I just, I'm seeing what I see. That's what I...
Dan Ferris: Exactly.
Corey McLaughlin: You know, I could be bullish, you know, in a week if it presents itself, but, you know, I'm just kind of things are headed, trending downward, I will say, I would say still.
Dan Ferris: Right. So a little darkness is, you know, it's to be expected.
Corey McLaughlin: In the markets.
Dan Ferris: In the markets. That's right. We're not dark folks, you know, we don't talk depressing talk to our spouses and families at home. [Laughter] So with that, with that cheery note, let's go ahead and talk with our good friend and colleague, Dave Lashmet. He's got a fantastic story to tell. Let's do it right now.
Wake up, Stansberry investor – our listeners – because a major market event is right around the corner which will take most Americans by surprise and likely ruin millions of retirements. That's why on October 19, I'm stepping forward to expose exactly what's about to happen, and how it could change everything you know about investing. You might not know this, but I'm the longest-tenured analyst at Stansberry Research. And over my 20-plus years at the firm, I called the Lehman Brothers collapse five months in advance, the bitcoin crash, even the top of the Nasdaq last November to the day.
But what I'll be sharing with you on October 19 is by far my biggest and scariest prediction ever. In short, what I think is about to happen has the potential to destroy everything you spent your life working for, and will require a totally different investing approach going forward. To find out more, go to www.danmarketprediction.com. Again, that's www.danmarketprediction.com. Oh, and just for tuning in, I'll give you the names of two well-known stocks you've definitely heard of and might even be holding, which I think you need to sell immediately.
These are two of the most popular widely-held stocks in America right now. So there's a really good chance you really do own at least one of them. And if you do, I think you need to get out immediately. To get the names of those companies, again, sign up for my free event by going to www.danmarketprediction.com. Dave, welcome back to the show.
Dave Lashmet: Thanks, Dan.
Dan Ferris: Well, it hasn't been too terribly long since the last time we talked to you. But when people I know have something on their mind, and I hear about it, you know, I get them right back on the show to talk. So you sent over a story that kind of blew me away. I mean, it's the most brutal thing about this poor guy who was involved in a propane explosion, and man, just went through hell before – well, his dad died, and then he went through hell. Maybe I should just let you tell us a little bit about that. And then tell us, like, how it revolutionized cancer treatments, which is the real thing that's on your mind today.
Dave Lashmet: Sure, Dan. So I was reading this week's New England Journal of Medicine because that's where new drugs that have data are revealed to doctors so that doctors know whether or not they want to give such a drug to their patient. And I wanted to look at what's new in cancer surgery. So I read this week's issue and I learned about a guy named Dax Cowart. Dax's original name was Don, actually, but due to a horrific accident, he changed his name to Dax, so that he had a word that no one else would use unless they were referring to him because his ears were so damaged from an explosion.
So his dad was a Texas land dealer at the time in 1973. He was a U.S. Air Force Reserve pilot. So we went with his dad to go look at some land in Texas, and they went out there. And there was a propane gas leak next to their car, and they had no idea. So unlike natural gas, which if you turn your gas stove on, you can see that it goes up. Right? Propane is heavier than air, and it'll pool. And this pooled all around their car. So when they started it, the spark of their ignition made their entire world explode, and they had no idea because it was below the level that they breathe, and the engine wasn't.
So they triggered a fireball that was like a mile long. And Dax had to run through it to get out. So he was burned everywhere. His dad didn't make it. They took him like 140 miles away in 1973, probably in the back of a, you know, 1973 El Camino or something to a hospital. And they operated on him over and over and over and over. But at the time, there was an idea that even though you're 25, you can't possibly tolerate painkillers. So they did all these operations with no painkillers. And it was just horrific. He lost both hands. He lost both eyes. And apparently, he had hearing damage, which is why he changed his name from Don to Dax.
And afterward, he not only fought for the entire 14 months he was in the hospital for the right for patients to have control, not doctors. Then he got a law degree from University of Texas, and he was a lawyer for decades. He only passed away a couple years ago right before COVID in 2019. And ultimately leukemia killed him. And the idea that patients have patient rights in the U.S. largely not only because of his story, but because he was literally a tireless advocate for patient rights. And U.S. case law is based on precedent. And every time he'd win, it would be another notch in favor of patients. And it really pushed forward the idea of quality of life for patients, not just life, but quality of life for everything to do with patient care.
Dan Ferris: Wow. And so we have, yeah, we haven't even like gotten to cancer yet. I mean, amazing.
Dave Lashmet: So we came in after this guy was already practicing law, you know, Porter, and I, and you started the firm in 2000. He'd already been a lawyer and been practicing for a decade. And it took him a decade to go through law school with no eyes and no hands.
Dan Ferris: Amazing.
Dave Lashmet: So we always, you know, we're not doctors, so we always presumed to be patients. We always presumed that if we were going to interact with medicine, particularly cancer medicine, it would someday be as patients, not as doctors. We weren't going to med school. So to sort of recognize what patients want and what patients need has always been how we approached all medical investing, including cancer medicine. And cancer's so big and the drugs are fairly expensive because there's literally life and death at stake... That's a pretty big market. So it's a pretty important piece of the medical investing puzzle.
Dan Ferris: Right. So the real point of this story then, I mean it's incredible to me that the real point of the story is not about patient advocacy. Like we're not really talking about that. We're going to talk about cancer. And yet, you know, you just told a story that like, man, I hope your cancer story is this good. [Laughter] I mean, I hope the manner in which, you know, the things that happened to Dax have revolutionized cancer medicine is as amazing as the story you've already told, I guess.
Dave Lashmet: You know, the reason I like the story is because it's about all of us, right? It's all the patient collective as well as voters, right? That we've been able to force into Medicare, which has been able to force into the hospitals, the idea that quality of life of patients matter. That's an outcome measure that's important. So the sort of dark side of that was sort of an overreliance on painkillers. But if we totally put that position aside, the bright side is that a safer treatment wins out. A safer treatment always wins out. And that's because of quality of life issues.
So when we first started to look at cancer surgery 20 years ago, only the most elite universities and their young medical students, their MD residents, were using lots of minimally-invasive surgery for cancer. It had already started that you could drop, you know, a camera on a cable down someone's stomach and look around to see if they have an ulcer or something. Right? So there was already endoscopes and laparoscopes, but the idea of endoscopic or laparoscopic surgery for cancer was brand new. And we get to pick where we go to learn stories, so we always went to the best hospitals and met the coolest doctors. And they were all like, "This will be the wave of the future."
But all the gray beards at the time were all, "No, it's much easier on us to open the patient in half to go grab the tumor and then sew it up, and then sew the patient up. And they'll be fine." [Laughter] And we're like, "No, they're probably right about the minimally-invasive thing." And because we also always positioned ourselves as patients, you know, we were on that side as well. And it just takes literally a generation of better tools, and techniques, and more and more people trained in this, so that the balance overwhelmingly now is minimally-invasive, if you can pull it off.
If it's a huge tumor, or it's a tumor on the tip of your toe, you're not going to use an endoscope because it's on the surface already. You're not going to gain anything by trying to come in from your butt and get to your big toe. Right? Like that's not going to work. So any internal tumor, the idea that you could go in and not rip the patient open, it means that the patient did not lose a swordfight, which is better for the patient not losing a swordfight even though it's hard on the doctor's wrists. Right?
Dan Ferris: [Laughter]
Dave Lashmet: [Laughter] You're enjoying this far too much. So what I read [crosstalk] today...
Dan Ferris: Yeah, I am. [Laughter]
Dave Lashmet: [crosstalk] Dax Cowart was all the improvements that we've tracked in the last 20 years for surgery. So as TV sets have got bigger and better – what was your first TV set that you remember, Dan?
Dan Ferris: Oh my lord. Gosh, you're talking about like the first one –
Dave Lashmet: Exactly.
Dan Ferris: – my folks had when I was a kid... I mean, yeah, I mean, it was gigantic. I remember my father and I going down to the drugstore to buy tubes, and experimenting with all the tubes in the back to see which one needed to be replaced, or whatever. [Laughter] It was weird. It was gigantic.
Dave Lashmet: Yeah, I remember I was like 12. And I was finally able to move to the TV set with my dad. And it weighed something between a million and a billion pounds. It was this glass box that had all the colors burned in.
Dan Ferris: Yeah, that's right. [Laughter]
Dave Lashmet: And it wasn't until about the year 2000 that black-and-white laptop screens were even possible. A laptop is based on an LCD instead of vacuum tube. It's a flat screen, right? And slowly those have taken over. And as they've taken over, the cell, the size of a cell, as you build a three-dimensional liquid crystal display that holds the liquid crystals, and then is a display, have been able to be miniaturized because of better and better engineering, better robotic tools that helped build these things. And ultimately, it points to a computer, but it's also lots of engineers.
So over time, we've had higher and higher resolution screens available, which means more picture elements. So a 4K screen has millions and millions of picture elements. And since we can also design cameras with that much resolution, we can have a continuous change for surgeons in their endoscopes to see things in not only high resolution, but we can put a barrier between their right eye and their left eye. And surgeons can see in 3D because they have a different image going to each eye. So they can basically do microsurgery with depth perception, which makes it a lot easier to figure out how far that vein is and why you don't want to poke that vein while you're getting something closer.
So that was one of the innovations, I talked about robotic surgery. I didn't pitch that book. We've picked this company off and on. I think right as COVID started, all the stocks fell and it dropped out of some of our portfolios. But I've tracked the robotic surgery company for about a decade and a half, and it has a massive monopoly. So in patent worlds, some guy said, "Wouldn't it be great if robots could do surgery?" And that's about how sophisticated his patent is. It's like pencil drawings, not like ink drawings. He didn't hire an artist. He didn't hire a lawyer.
And the patent office gave him like, I don't know, a half dozen patents 25 years ago. And, and those were the ruling patents, and you had to get this guy's pencil sketches on the back of a napkin. He was literally like an American inventor who's just this crazy kook living in his garage. And he didn't actually make the robots or the, you know, 3D split screens or anything. That company had to go buy the guy's patents. They had to go buy the guy who lived in his garage and wrote pencil drawings.
But once they had those patents, they were valid. They couldn't beat them. Because he did invent it. He just did not reduce it to practice. And the patent office was fine with that for some reason. So they have a global monopoly based on some knucklehead's garage-based pencil drawings.
Dan Ferris: [Laughter] You know, I have to say, like maybe we'll do another interview one day about intellectual property and some of the problems with it. [Laughter] But this clearly is one of them, I think. Anyway, let's not go down that rabbit hole right now.
Dave Lashmet: So because of this, this guy in this garage, one robotic company has done very well. And it's robotic-assisted surgery. So what it really does is that there's two ginormous joysticks with buttons. And you look in 3D, and you can have full, physical human range of motions with your hands and have the surgical tools do what you want. You can switch between tools that are at the surgical site inside someone. And whatever you do is translated, down translated 100 to one.
It's kind of like a model train, right? A model train looks like a train, but it fits on your basement table. Right? So it's a 1-to-100 reduction here. And that's what plays out. So it's very, very good surgery. I just saw data from Naples that came out in April. And they had like 900 patients versus 900 patients, and they cut complications in half, even compared to laparoscopic or endoscopic surgery, because they have better depth perception.
Dan Ferris: What kind of complications?
Dave Lashmet: Bleeds, mostly. But also other damage...
Dan Ferris: Oh, bleeding.
Dave Lashmet: So if you are working in there and you nick someone's colon or bladder, and you don't know it, and you come out, and then they have like a leaky bladder or leaky colon, like that's a problem, right? So to be able to have depth perception is kind of a cool thing. But you have to have an apparatus that lets you see in 3D, and also have more hand-eye coordination and depth of field. So that's why it's better.
Dan Ferris: Wow. Boy, the whole subject of complication sounds scary.
Dave Lashmet: Yeah, I mean, the real complications I wrote about yesterday, were actually infections. So in college, I used to work for –
Dan Ferris: Oh, infections? OK.
Dave Lashmet: – for a pediatric neurologist. And she made pretty clear that surgeons buried their mistakes. And, you know, we treat this as a metaphor. But in medicine, it's not a metaphor. If someone has surgical complications, they say the surgery was successful, but the patient died. The idea that you don't open up someone to all the soil, bacteria that happened to find itself on people's shoes, and then made it to the lamp above where you're operating, and then drop into the patient. Right? That's all eliminated when you don't open the patient up, you get rid of post-op infections.
And we also use antibiotics more, so that if we know that you're going into surgery, we give you antibiotics first. And so if we can reduce that sort of complication, that's good. And if we are much more precise, and not making you lose a swordfight, that's good as well. So I used to talk to people on planes. I don't do that anymore because earbuds and Wi-Fi, which we also covered by the way. He was a robotic surgeon, and he went after small pea-sized tumors in people's lungs. And he would get them all. He's like, I could get 20. He can just rearrange the robot... and if you can get 20 tumor seedlings out of someone's lungs, you bought them probably five years of life.
Dan Ferris: Wow. Yeah. Wow.
Dave Lashmet: Yeah. I mean, minimally invasive surgery, the difference, right, minimally-invasive surgery is that you're typically out of the hospital in two to three days or better, but like average right is two to three days. And if they swordfight you and you lose, you're in for two weeks. And the recovery that you don't even know you've had surgery is like a week or two, after minimally invasive surgery. And for general surgery, open surgery, it's months. Months. And the older you are, the longer it takes to heal. So in cancer surgery, this has been hugely important.
Dan Ferris: This has been hugely important in my life. Like I had this thing in my throat called Zenker's diverticulum. And the very first time I went to a surgeon about this, she told me, "Well, I'm going to cut your neck right here. And I'm going to be very careful about the folds of muscle and things. And then I'm going to get past your big artery there and do this thing." I was like, "Whoa."
And miraculously, the next time we did the test, you know, like, it didn't show up as much. So she said, "You know something? Let's back off. Let's not do this yet, and just monitor your symptoms." The symptoms got worse. I went back for another test. But this time, it was years later, and I went to – gosh, I forget his name now. My brother-in-law is an EMT, and he even knew this guy, because this guy has done more Zenker surgeries than anyone on Earth. Hundreds of them. And I was like, yes, the No. 1 guy.
And he went down my throat with, you know, a minimally-invasive tool. It wasn't like robotics, you know, like you're describing. But he did it. I woke up. I felt fine. I got dressed. I went home. And he said, "You know, just eat yogurt for a week or two or something. You know, just be careful what you eat for a week or two." And then I was fine. And I've had, you know, still some minor symptoms, but nothing like the choking and you know, god awful stuff that preceded it." So I shudder to think what would have happened had I let this kind of younger, far less experienced person, you know, do a swordfight on my throat instead of the, you know, the best guy on Earth doing the minimally-invasive. So I like this topic, Dave. I'm glad to be talking [crosstalk].
Dave Lashmet: Yeah, it's a good thing you have a podcast, Dan, because if they thought you were just a writer, they would just rip out your vocal cords. But if you can say like, "No, seriously, I have this podcast." Then it's like, "All right, darn it, we'll have to spare his vocal cords. We can't just swordfight his throat."
Dan Ferris: Yeah, it came up. The subject came up. Yeah, definitely.
Dave Lashmet: See, the podcast saved your life.
Dan Ferris: Yeah. [Laughter] It saved my life. It saved vocal cords anyway. All right. So you can't tell us the name of the robotic surgery company because that's for your subscribers.
Dave Lashmet: I could, but it's such a good story, I'd like to tell it a different time. It's not that hard to figure out. But the reason that's not what we're selling today is that's a huge company. After 25 years of a monopoly, you know, it runs at a PDE of about 50 or 60. Because nothing can stop it from making more money in the future, and everyone knows it. But it's followed up. I mean, we looked at it at a $30 stock, I think it's at 1,200 bucks. [Laughter] Like, nothing's really stood in its way.
Dan Ferris: Whoa. Nice. Yeah. All right. Damn. So when, you know, like, patent protection doesn't last forever, right? You know, when does it run out?
Dave Lashmet: Yeah, it's a great question. Johnson & Johnson is poised to try and step in. But the thing is, when you've been trained on a device in 2010 or 2015 or even 2020, that's the features that you expect. And each feature is also patented.
Dan Ferris: Oh, man.
Dave Lashmet: So even though the original drawings, those will expire, the idea of stereovision, and six degrees of freedom in the hands, those patents are going to last throughout the 2020s. And gearing that down-step something from 1 to 100, 100-to-1 down-stepping, all that gearing is it might be obvious now, but they revealed it. And that's what the patent is about. So that's why they dominated –
Dan Ferris: Actually, yeah, Dave, maybe just to clarify for the listener, when we say 100-to-1 down stepping, precisely what do we mean?
Dave Lashmet: So a joystick in a computer game, if you push it all the way forward, your character jumps or leaps or something. In this case, when you use a robotic surgery device, if you move your hand so that your thumb moves forward 4 inches, the device will move 4/100ths of an inch.
Dan Ferris: I see. Right. Because you can't be moving 4 inches inside of a person.
Dave Lashmet: Right. So your bike gear is either up gear or down gear. Sometimes it's a 1-to-1 ratio when you're going up a hill, you change it so that you get more cycles per revolution on the back wheel. And when you're going downhill, you do it the other way so that one revolution of your feet is four revolutions of the back wheel because there's less resistance because you're going downhill. So bikes tend to go four to one or one to four. But this is like more like 100 to one. Mechanical engineering for $400.
Dan Ferris: I see. So that's like the teeny weeniest bike gear –
Dave Lashmet: Exactly. Exactly.
Dan Ferris: – that you could ever imagine. Right? You're just pedaling and pedaling and pedaling for one revolution.
Dave Lashmet: Yeah, I mean, if you've ever looked at the back of a mechanical watch, where they have, you know, it takes an hour to go an entire cycle, right? [Laughter] Or 24 hours to make a cycle. It's all because even though you've wound it and the spring is going back and forth, then it down-steps. One cycle per day. One cycle per 12 hours.
Dan Ferris: Yeah. All right. You know, it sounds, I mean, you know, the things 50 times earnings, it's got a monopoly, and then they've got, you know, patents on the improvements. Like, do you consider this attractive now, or is this a story that you're telling for another reason these days?
Dave Lashmet: I'm talking to my readers about speculative opportunities in cancer radiation and cancer drug use. But I can't discount that. It's not just a story. There's also been improvements in surgery. So really, I'm saying, although this company's not interesting to me or us, it's still out there. It's still cool technology. It's cool. For patients to understand this and their families to understand it. If someone in your family is looking at cancer surgery. Look at bloody robotic surgery if you find a facility that has that. It's more than doctor shopping. It's finding the right surgical techniques, not just the right surgeons. Kind of like you experienced. Right?
For microsurgery, the throat is a massive open space compared to like, you know, some abdominal organ where you don't get any of those opportunities... because it's not built with open space. It's all closed. The real story is radiation. So what our current package is about is something that happens on October 23. So we've been tracking a tech for years – six, seven years. I was just in Europe, meeting with scientists and touring a factory that makes our radiation device. And the radiation device is cool. And it's extremely cutting edge already. It's already state-of-the-art technology. But we're about to see patient data, and we think it'll be pretty exciting on October 23.
The reason we call it a speculation is we haven't seen this patient data. So it's hard to say, you know, ridiculously promising things about it. But if you like the chance to be at the start of an opportunity, almost like you're buying NSVC... nobody knows this stuff yet, like nobody, because the first presentation publicly is October 23. But it's a cluster of human data. And we have data from one patient, but now we're going to see it, if it can be replicated in a bunch of patients. And if it's replicated in a bunch of patients, then they move to a larger trial. And then they'll get approval.
The device itself already approved, but they're changing the software, and they're changing the dose rate. And as a consequence, it's a different procedure, even though the machine itself is approved. And we're very hopeful about that. And the reason we're hopeful is because it's a radiation machine. And cats like my cats that are running around my house right now, as far as radiation is concerned, cats and people are very, very, very similar, right? Experimental animals don't like radiation. Shocking. They're mammals. They don't like radiation.
Dan Ferris: Yeah, who would have thought? Yeah, who would have thought?
Dave Lashmet: There was the experiment really about five or six years ago in Switzerland, where an old idea was rediscovered, and they built a device really in the lab. And they tried it. And they collected cats in Switzerland and said, "If your cat has a nose tumor, we will treat it for free." And because nobody likes to pay for their cat's cancer treatments, because that's not covered. People brought in all these cats, and all these cats had their tumors destroyed, and no damage to the rest of their face, no damage to their brains, no damage to their optic nerves, even though it was the cat's noses that were getting irradiated.
So it's a whole new approach to how you deliver therapy. I kind of liked this story, although I've never told it before. There's a guy named Dr. Gray, who, outside of London after the Second World War, invented how to deliver radiation to patients. And so now they're called "Gray". The amount of radiation that you deliver to a patient, almost always a cancer patient is called "Gray's". But there's no T, there's no time in the formula. There's no time. Like just deliver the dose. And when they went back and said, "If we deliver the dose, at 1,000 times faster than expected, only cancer cells react, and normal cells do not react." And they proved it in a bunch of animal models. They proved it in one patient. And now we're going to look at data in a lot more patients to see if it's on the path to regulatory approval.
Dan Ferris: Aha. So, in other words, it sounds to me like you've got this stock. And you believe it's highly likely that when this announcement is made on the 23rd, this thing is going to be hot.
Dave Lashmet: We hope so. But you know, the reason we call it a speculation and why it's in one of our more speculative newsletters is because there's nuances to treating 10 people that isn't the same as treating the first human volunteer. So the first human volunteer had already been treated literally dozens of times. He had a recurrent tumor all over his flesh. And he's like, "Yeah, try and fix my arm." But it didn't fix the rest of him, and he was in his late 70s. But it did completely work, you know, pain-free removal of the tumor. And we're like, "Well, that's pretty promising," which is what his sacrifice turned on, this new trial, and we're finally seeing the results.
But I think it's Cincinnati Children's Hospital, getting someone's flesh on the surface of their arm is more like getting cats' faces, right? But neither one report headaches. Not somebody's arm and not a cat, neither report a headache. So we don't know everything about what this will do until we see the data. When it comes to most tumors, it probably will work but certainly surface tumors and near-the-surface tumors. But when it comes to brain tumor, this is much more problematic. The reason that brain tumors are so problematic is that they can spread all over the place in a diffuse way, and not be a solid tumor, but be in the brain, almost like a semi-liquid tumor.
And good luck painting radiation just where that is and not where it's not. It's like your brain, you might need that later. So it's a highly sensitive thing. And kids are especially radio-sensitive. So it could be really promising or it could be, look, this will work for old folk. It probably won't work for children with brain tumors. But we literally have no idea till we see the data. What we can say is –
Dan Ferris: Oh, I see. OK.
Dave Lashmet: – if it didn't work at all, there would be nothing to report to doctors. It's just an approach that didn't work, so we're not going to be at a conference. The fact that it's at a conference suggests that they have some positive data. We just don't know how positive so we can't jump up and down about it. But we think it's going to work. And when I was on your show last time, you were sort of taken aback that I'm not looking for 1,000% gain. What I'm looking for is a 10-to-1 reward-to-risk ratio.
So the three companies that I cover in this report, they're profitable. They're profitable. They sell at perfectly acceptable even valuation metrics, right? Like, they're not bad companies. They almost look like value stocks, but they're not because they're astride this tsunami of something that might hit cancer. So this year, American Cancer Society says there's 1.9 million cases of cancer in the U.S. for 2022. And that is excluding, not including all the like, "Hey, I have this thing in my head, and I really like suntanning." And your doctor goes, "Schwing," and pulls out a scalpel, and it's gone. And it's gone. Right? They don't even count skin tags, skin cancers, those aren't counted.
These are actual, like, if it is skin cancer, it's melanoma, which is a deep penetrating, really ugly, really fatal tumor, or it's any other kind of serious cancer. And that's there's 1.9 million of those that get treated, in 2022, about 600,000 people will die of cancer in the U.S. What's cool is when Porter and I first started looking at this 20 years ago, as the American population aged, more and more people were dying of cancer because cancer hits you when you get older. But now we see the data that just came out this January from 1991 to 2021, cancer death rates in the U.S. fell 32%.
So even though the population is getting older, we've cut death rates by a third, which is great. That's how good amazing medicine is. And one medicine I talk about is a drug, not radiation therapy. And this has literally doubled the rate that people survived from cancer. In particular, lung cancer and deep, penetrating skin cancers called melanoma were the most common and the most deadly cancers. And they're far less, like the American Cancer Society points out. Yeah, there's been a revolution in treating lung cancer.
Well, the revolution wasn't to stop everyone everywhere from smoking. The revolution was a massively better drug that can fight back against lung cancer. And that's the other thing I talk about in the report, and really that does go to patents. One company owns all the key patents in the space, like 95% market share.
Dan Ferris: Wow. Man, there's a lot in this. So tell me, how can listeners learn more about this? Like what's the report called? What's your newsletter called? Can you tell me all that stuff?
Dave Lashmet: I can. So my newsletter is called Stansberry Venture Technology. And it's available. It's available now to subscribers. I cover lots of things. I do a mix of tech and biotech. And I used to cover propane. But our publisher who you know, said, "No, you can't do that anymore. We have our oil newsletter, so you can't cover propane." So pretty much tech and biotech newsletters, but we've done really well in this newsletter. So that's the name of the newsletter. The current report is about three companies that are about to revolutionize cancer treatment. But they're not the robotic surgery one because it's a huge name and it's at a massive multiple.
And that's just not there's no speculation there. Nothing's about to happen with the robots, they already have a monopoly position. What we like is that we can pick three safe plays, that if we're completely wrong, nothing's going to happen. Like we might have 10% downside risk, but we don't have this massive, you know, it's a one-drug company, the one drug didn't work. Like these are already companies that already get massive amounts of revenue. So one of the three gets billions of dollars in revenue a year as royalty. As royalty. Which means it's a 99.9% profit margin. Only how much whiskey your lawyer drinks is your cost.
Dan Ferris: That's right. [Laughter] There you go. Cool. Very cool. So I guess people can go to StansberryResearch.com and find – say the name of the newsletter one more time for everybody.
Dave Lashmet: Stansberry Venture Technology.
Dan Ferris: Stansberry Venture Technology. You can find more about at StansberryResearch.com unless you have another URL for them.
Dave Lashmet: I don't even know what URL stands for. Do you?
Dan Ferris: I know. [Laughter]
Dave Lashmet: No, we want them to go to our website.
Dan Ferris: All right. So do that, and you can learn more about the amazing story Dave just told, and the three opportunities that one of which we're going to find out a whole lot more about in how many days now?
Dave Lashmet: Ten days.
Dan Ferris: Maybe a week or [crosstalk]?
Dave Lashmet: Ten days.
Dan Ferris: Yeah. Amazing.
Dave Lashmet: All right. See you later.
Dan Ferris: Well, thanks. Thanks for being here. I normally, you know, I have my final question. We're normally talking about all this, you know, general kind of investing stuff. We don't focus on a particular topic the way you just did. But I'll still ask you my final question because I asked absolutely everyone the identical final question, which is, if you could leave the listener with one thought today, what would it be?
Dave Lashmet: I think that every shareholder, unless you're buying an index fund, wants to follow individual companies. And what we do is do it as microeconomists. You know, the Fed isn't going to stop whether or not this cancer treatment works. [Laughter] It's not up to the Fed. It's not a macro issue. So I've always approached how I look for opportunities for investors as a microeconomist. And I don't think that goes away. Today, the entire market was down, except about 12 stocks that we own in our portfolio. It's like, yep. [Laughter] Yep. CPI is up. It's like and? [Laughter]
Dan Ferris: Awesome. All right. That's what we want to hear. All right, Dave. Well, thanks. Thanks for being here. I mean, I feel like we could talk for another hour about all this. But you know, I don't know if anybody would still be listening at that point because it just sounds like there's, it sounds like there's another whole story inside all three of these.
Dave Lashmet: Yeah, I'm happy to come back after the 23rd so we have the data.
Dan Ferris: Right. Yeah. I mean, we got to check in with you. Right?
Dave Lashmet: Yeah. I have to tell you how right and how wrong we were.
Dan Ferris: Yeah, OK. We never get people telling us how wrong they were. So that'll be different. [Laughter]
Dave Lashmet: That I think it's very important to know. Porter did something about his loser list, right? I picked Intel right before Russia attacked Ukraine. So China didn't attack Taiwan, which would have spiked Intel because they're waiting on the sidelines to see if Russia nukes Europe. [Laughter] They don't want to be involved in that. And, you know, like my timings wrong on Intel. So it's like, all right. Fine. See how that plays out.
Dan Ferris: Yeah, we will see. All right, man.
Dave Lashmet: Thanks.
Dan Ferris: It's been great as it always is.
Dave Lashmet: Same here.
Dan Ferris: And look forward to hearing more about this maybe after the 23rd.
Dave Lashmet: OK, thanks a lot.
Dan Ferris: All right, thanks. Last year, when most investors were watching their stocks plummet, one Wall Street legend had an unfair advantage that was identifying winning stocks, with massive upside... like Riot Blockchain before it shot up 10,090% in less than 12 months, Digital Turbine before it shot up 789% in eight months,Overstock.com before it shot up 1,050% in four months, and more. Clients have paid as much as $5,000 per month to see this kind of research. But today, you can get a glimpse at his system, the Power Gauge, absolutely free.
It's a new way to see which small stocks could soon be rated a buy across Wall Street and shoot up by using a secret so powerful, CNBC's Jim Cramer once said even he doesn't want to bet against it. This Power Gauge comes from the legendary Marc Chaikin. Marc's the creator of one of Wall Street's most popular indicators, a system that appears on every Bloomberg terminal in the world, and is used by banks, hedge funds, and every major brokerage site. He spent 50 years on Wall Street. Survived and thrived in nine bear markets. Built three new indices for the Nasdaq where he once rang the opening bell.
But today, Marc has turned his back on Wall Street and wants to show you how this unfair advantage works. Right now, you can get a free in-depth look at how his Power Gauge system works, a way to type in any of 4,000 different tickers and see exactly where the stock is most likely to go next, and in any type of market. Simply go to www.trypowergauge.com for your free look. Again, that's www.trypowergauge.com.
Again, all I can say is "wow." I say "wow" a lot after our interviews because I'm always really, really impressed with our guests. And Dave, in particular, you know, he's so knowledgeable about all of these different kinds of technologies – not just medical, as you heard. And it's kind of nice for me as a host to just sort of sit back and let a guy who knows chapter and verse about something just totally off my radar screen that is fascinating and the source of a huge opportunity. And all the background, the whole story with, you know, with Dax, and the whole background of it, it just, I'm fascinated by this stuff.
And when I'm fascinated by anything like this, like Dave is just about the top guy that I want explaining it to me, because I think he does a great job of that. He does a great job of not bludgeoning you to death with technical terminology. And it's pretty complicated technical stuff. So the ability to do that is really valuable, especially for investors. Right? All right. Wow. I hope we can do that again soon. I'm really curious to see how this plays out on October 23. We'll definitely at least check back in with Dave. We have to check back in and see how things went. Amazing. I'm so glad we can talk to Dave.
Well, that's another episode of the Stansberry Investor Hour. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. We provide a transcript for every episode, just go to www.investorhour.com. Click on the episode you want, scroll all the way down, click on the word "transcript," and enjoy. If you liked this episode, and know anybody else who might like it, tell them to check it out on their podcast app or at InvestorHour.com. And do me a favor... subscribe to the show on iTunes, Google Play, or wherever you listen to podcasts. And while you're there help us grow as a rate and a review.
Follow us on Facebook and Instagram. Our handle is @Investor Hour. On Twitter, our handle is @Investor_Hour. Have a guest you want us to interview? Drop us a note at [email protected], or call the listener feedback line at 800-381-2357. Tell us what's on your mind, and hear your voice on the show. Till next week. I'm Dan Ferris. Thanks for listening.
Announcer: Thank you for listening to this episode of 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 Dan? Send him an e-mail at [email protected].
This broadcast is 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.
Opinions expressed on this program are solely those of the contributor and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Stansberry Research, its parent company, or affiliates. You should not treat any opinion expressed on this program as a specific inducement to make a particular investment or follow a particular strategy but only as an expression of opinion. Neither Stansberry Research nor its parent company or affiliates warrant the completeness or accuracy of the information expressed on this program and it should not be relied upon as such. Stansberry Research, its affiliates, and subsidiaries are not under any obligation to update or correct any information provided on the program. The statements and opinions expressed on this program are subject to change without notice. No part of the contributor's compensation from Stansberry Research is related to the specific opinions they express.
Past performance is not indicative of future results. Stansberry Research does not guarantee any specific outcome or profit. You should be aware of the real risk of loss in following any strategy or investment discussed on this program. Strategies or investments discussed may fluctuate in price or value. Investors may get back less than invested. Investments or strategies mentioned on this program may not be suitable for you. This material does not take into account your particular investment objectives, financial situation, or needs, and is not intended as a recommendation that is appropriate for you. You must make an independent decision regarding investments or strategies mentioned on this program. Before acting on information on the program, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and strongly consider seeking advice from your own financial or investment adviser.