The Supermajors of the Attention Economy

The Stansberry Conference is one week away... A guest essay from Scott Galloway... Attention is like oil... The supermajors of the attention economy... The case for banning TikTok... YouTube's astonishing reach... No free lunches... Editor's note: Today, we're pleased to bring you a special guest essay from New York University professor of marketing, noted market […] [Stansberry Research Logo] Delivering World-Class Financial Research Since 1999 [Stansberry Digest] The Stansberry Conference is one week away... A guest essay from Scott Galloway... Attention is like oil... The supermajors of the attention economy... The case for banning TikTok... YouTube's astonishing reach... No free lunches... --------------------------------------------------------------- Editor's note: Today, we're pleased to bring you a special guest essay from New York University professor of marketing, noted market commentator, and best-selling author Scott Galloway... Scott will be among the featured presenters at our annual Stansberry Conference, which begins a week from today at the Encore Boston Harbor hotel and resort. For those unfamiliar, this is our biggest event of the year. The annual gathering brings together our editors, subscribers, and special invited guests. In addition to Scott, this year's guests include best-selling author William Cohan and the always-entertaining and informative hedge-fund manager Hugh Hendry. In-person tickets to this year's event are now sold out... But you can be "in the room" October 24 to 26 via our livestream package, which will give you access to all the presentations, breakout rooms, and archived videos for 60 days afterward. [Click here for details and to grab a livestream ticket](. To give you an additional sense of what to expect from the conference, Scott – who writes a free weekly newsletter, "[No Mercy / No Malice]( – gave us permission to share one of his recent essays directly with Digest readers. The following essay – which Scott published in his newsletter's September 16 edition – provides his take and insight on the nuances, opportunities, and threats in the "attention economy." I (Corey McLaughlin) hope you enjoy... --------------------------------------------------------------- For the better part of the past century, the most important commodity has been oil... Wars have been fought over it – Pearl Harbor was a preemptive strike to secure Japanese access to Indonesian oil – and it elevated desert tribes to the ranks of the wealthiest cohorts in history. But the sun has passed midday on oil's supremacy. We've moved from an oil economy to an attention economy. We used to refer to an information economy. But economies are defined by scarcity, not abundance (scarcity = value), and in an age of information abundance, what's scarce? A: Attention. The scale of the world's largest companies, the wealth of its richest people, and the power of governments are all rooted in the extraction, monetization, and custody of attention. Commercial exploitation of attention is not new. Humans have been competing for attention since the days when nomadic leaders argued over which branch of the river to follow and turning "content" into wealth since Aeschylus produced the Oresteia. Oil was elevated by the invention of the internal combustion engine, industrial revolutions in mechanization and plastics, and the development of a Western lifestyle dependent on the mobility of goods and humans. Now the shift from atoms to bits – digitization – has put wells into pockets, on car dashboards, and on kitchen counters, drilling night and day for... attention. The largest companies by revenue are still mostly oil companies, but the most valuable companies are mostly attention-seeking enterprises – Big Tech holds four of the top five spots. From Apple to Amazon, Facebook to Fox News, Twitter to TikTok, tech and media companies are the sheikhs and wildcatters finding and capping our attention. And, just as in the rise of the oil economy... there will be blood. Artisan attention... There are more players in the attention economy than just the tech and media giants. Podcasting is a high-growth, low-barrier-to-entry opportunity for newcomers to harvest attention, and ([for about 1% of them]( to convert it to wealth. Conferences are a nice business of in-person attention harvesting. Substack has spurred a modest revival of the e-mail newsletter, Salesforce paid $30 billion for Slack's command of workplace attention, and Spotify is leveraging our music listening attention into a platform for all media. Conferences, newsletters, and even music streaming are all artisan projects, bit players in the shadow of the supermajors. Even a mega-conference like the 130,000-strong Comic-Con is a sub-2.0 flutter on the Richter scale of the broader attention economy. The biggest players measure monthly active users in hundreds of millions. Supermajors... However, the attention economy is defined by disruption, and even the giants are susceptible. If Facebook is Exxon and Netflix Shell, TikTok is fracking king Chesapeake Energy, the rule-breaking insurgent armed with novel extraction methods that threaten the established order. Like oil, attention must be extracted, processed, and monetized. Disruption occurs when innovators re-architect the attention economy value chain. Pre-digital attention entrepreneurs drilled for attention with interesting or entertaining content such as a newspaper or TV show, and monetized it through subscriptions and ads. The first wave of innovation was driven by the infinite capacity of digital storage and distribution: the bottomless well of choice. Netflix rose to dominance by cracking a gusher of classic sitcoms and rewatchable movies. More commercial-free content extracted more attention. By 2016 that was enough to make Netflix bigger than the entire industry it supplanted, cable TV. But the scale was linear, with few network effects. Social media brought two major innovations. The first was to offload content production, and its cost, onto the user. No matter how efficient Netflix gets at producing shows in multiple languages, or how shamelessly Disney milks its existing intellectual property, their economics are dwarfed by TikTok or YouTube, where consumers build the content drill rigs that the platforms monetize. Next, the social media companies broadened the very notion of what content could be. Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit feature "content" in the traditional sense, but they turn the emissions (users' comments) into content that's still more valuable (addictive even) as it has more emotional resonance. By emotional resonance, I mean they satisfy a deep need for others' approval or they enrage us. The comments/replies, the pissing match, the rapidly brigaded insanity is what mines attention and emotion. It's as if Exxon found a way to make heroin out of exhaust. Connecting the world has augured a simple question: Should we be this connected without having a commensurate presence? You'd never say (much of) this to people in person. And anonymity enables fake accounts and bad actors, which platforms tolerate so they can profit from greater noxious emissions. FrackTok... While the sewer of ad-driven social media enragement was contaminating the water table, a new innovator arrived. TikTok is remixing the attention economy value chain. The short-form video platform relies on the economics of user-generated content, but it takes a narrower, less "social" approach to delivery. Netflix rose on the back of infinite choice. Choice, however, comes with a hidden cost: the cognitive work of choosing. TikTok asks less of its consumers than any platform since broadcast television. Open the app, and a video starts playing. A single swipe at the end of every video tees up the next one. An algorithm watches how long you watch, what you watch to the end, and whether you like or follow, and manicures a streaming network that is singular. You can get more involved, following individual creators and even responding, but the app is built around a passive experience. TikTok's recombination of attention economy capabilities makes it the new apex predator: The app commands more attention per user than Facebook and Instagram combined. And among teens it's catching up to the passive king itself, television. Externalities... Fossil fuel's externalities are now well understood. An economy built on burning carbon has had a catastrophic impact on the planet. The advent of fracking led to huge profits and a recalibration of the oil economy, but at increased cost: flammable water, earthquakes, and chemical leaks. Though it's wrapped in dance and dog videos, TikTok comes with many of the problems linked to algorithmically generated content and platforms. A Wall Street Journal investigation found new accounts registered as belonging to 13- to 15-year-olds would veer down "rabbitholes" of sex- and drug-related videos in just days, simply by lingering on initial, tamer videos with those themes. And TikTok comes with an additional, unique externality: its links to the Chinese Communist Party. The potential risks in that relationship have been recognized by our last two presidents. I'm particularly concerned with the [propaganda potential]( of the platform. To be clear, there is no evidence the CCP has manipulated content to undermine American interests. What is also clear: A headjack installed on America's youth, who spend more time on TikTok than any other network, that connects them to a neural network that may be shaped by the CCP is a risk we cannot tolerate. If the product cannot be separated from the ownership (e.g., spun off or acquired by a Western firm), I believe the app should be [banned](. Putting the term "ban" so close to the term "media" justifiably raises concerns. An easier argument may be that we should have a reciprocal approach with China regarding media businesses. (See above: Ban TikTok.) It was a theme sounded by others at the Vox Media Code Conference in September. When I asked Axel Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner for his thoughts on TikTok, I expected a watered-down "we're watching them" nothing-burger response. (That's the protocol for a public company CEO.) Instead: "It is of course a tool of espionage... TikTok should be banned in every democracy." There are signs of momentum: rumored regulations that could result in a ban, and calls for app store bans from Federal Communications Commission member Brendan Carr. We banned Russian oil, why not Chinese (potential) propaganda? Others see it differently: After I [spoke about the issue on Bill Maher]( last week, several prominent tech journalists said my TikTok rant was distracting us from the real issues in the industry, including privacy and data reform. But this isn't a zero-sum mess. Big Tech offers us more than one threat, and I've been warning about those posed by Facebook and other platforms for years. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. What's next... Is TikTok the ultimate evolution of the attention-economy titans? Everyone else in the attention economy is acting like it. Original content is out. CNN+ was unplugged; Netflix is churning subscribers and has shed 70% of its market cap; households are canceling cable and streaming subscriptions in record numbers; and two tech platforms that tried to launch their own original content streaming services just threw in the towel: YouTube Originals shut down in January, and Snap Originals followed in August. Instead, everyone is trying to outTik the Tok. Netflix launched "Fast Laughs," Instagram introduced "Reels," YouTube brought out "Shorts," Snap did "Spotlight," Roku is trying "The Buzz," Pinterest launched "Watch"... even Twitter is exploring a TikTok-like product. I think they should call it Vine. Just a thought. [Internal documents at Meta]( reveal that users spend less than a tenth of the time watching Instagram Reels as they do watching TikTok. Reels engagement is in fact falling, perhaps because a third of the videos on the platform are created on a different platform (usually TikTok, complete with watermark). Meta has tried to algorithmically "downrank" these videos so they receive less traction, but they remain pervasive. Users are actively resisting these product changes. After Kim Kardashian and Kylie Jenner spread a meme asking Meta to "Make Instagram Instagram Again," a petition gained, at last count, 315,000 signatures. The petition will fall on (Mark Zuckerberg's) deaf ears. Meta is not innovative (see Oculus and fever dreams of a legless hellscape), just the fastest follower in social. Note: Many who pushed back on my calls to break up Meta and let the market do its job have an increasingly strong argument, as the company's stock is at a five-year low. The dragon of the attention economy... TikTok's short-term dominance at the front end of the attention extraction business won't be stopped by anyone who doesn't hear "Hail to the Chief" every time they walk into a room. However, if you check this space five years from now, will TikTok still be a supermajor in the attention economy? If the answer is no, I'd posit that the likely dragon reigning over, and defending, Kings Landing will be YouTube. Fifty-six percent of Americans watch YouTube on a daily or weekly basis. Ninety-five percent of teens use the platform, compared to a third who use Facebook and two-thirds who use TikTok. Back in 2019, YouTube disclosed that users were uploading more than 500 hours of footage to the site every minute, a number that's likely much higher today. Last year the platform generated almost $29 billion in advertising revenue – roughly equal to Netflix's total revenue. As with so much in business and biology, diversity is key. Oil can be found in the desert, under the sea, or in the tundra, and extracting it from each ecosystem demands a unique skillset. Likewise, refiners convert crude into gasoline, natural gas, lubricants, and aspirin. No attention-economy player has the diversity of YouTube. Videos can be as short as one second or as long as 12 hours. Some are user-generated, others are studio-produced. (In fact, the second half of my Bill Maher appearance was produced [specifically for YouTube]( You can socialize (argue) with people in the comment section, or you can just use it as you would a streaming platform. More and more people turn to YouTube for more and more reasons: home improvement projects, makeup advice, music videos, product reviews, etc. You can load up infinite videos on a topic or from a creator, subscribe to your [favorites]( or just let the recommendation algo take over. While it depends on user content, YouTube isn't passively waiting for that content to arrive. The company's strategic partnership managers advise about 12,000 creators. According to a senior director, if a YouTube star doesn't post once a week, their manager is "likely to know why." YouTube's kevlar is its betweenness, especially on the creator end. Users can get their start with low-production vlogs and selfie videos – just as they do on TikTok. However, as your following grows, the scale of your production can grow with you, bringing longer videos, broadcast-quality camera crews and performers, and increased costs commensurate with revenue. A prime example of this is YouTuber Jimmy Donaldson, otherwise known as MrBeast. MrBeast started making cheap gaming videos and commenting on YouTube dramas. As his YouTube subscriber base grew, so did Donaldson. Today, MrBeast creates formidable productions with reinvested earnings. His most popular video, a real-life reenactment of Squid Game, cost $3.5 million to produce (the cost of an episode of Mad Men). It received 300 million views. This is the sort of content that currently doesn't happen on TikTok, whose specialized attention-extraction tech has a much more limited range. Now, Donaldson is refining his attention to offline energy, with a burger restaurant (it drew 10,000 fans opening day) and cloud kitchen venture. What to do... Any massive increase in wealth over a short period is accompanied by externalities. There is no free lunch. OK, maybe caffeine. The externalities are typically opaque, and the parties best able to address them early are incentivized to create weapons of mass distraction to delay and obfuscate while they achieve economic security for themselves and their families. It's also clear that the longer the externality runs unfettered, the more damage is done and (exponentially) greater the cost to address the issue. TikTok's COO, Vanessa Pappas, didn't wrap herself in glory at recent congressional hearings. She was over-consulted by her comms team and claimed that ByteDance has no headquarters, as it's "a distributed company." Despite the awesome news that there's a new class of firm we can legitimately call a DisCo, being full of crap only fosters additional resentment against the company, and the uncomfortable link it's forged between the CCP and the emotions and beliefs of a rising generation of American citizens. This shouldn't distract us from the (still) clear and present danger American platforms present to our privacy, teens' mental health, and our less and less civil discourse. The leaders of American media platforms don't suffer from immorality but amorality – indifference and dissonance about the damage their companies do. When it's raining money, your vision gets blurred. An autocratic government that seeks to diminish America's standing and way of life is, in my view, immoral. There is evidence that the CCP has used, and will continue to use, all assets at its disposal to undermine U.S. interests domestically and abroad. TikTok should be spun to Western investors or treated the way China treats American platforms: kicked out. Watch Our Conference Live Do you have your ticket yet? The Stansberry Conference, our biggest event of the year, kicks off one week from today... and while in-person tickets are sold out, you can be "in the room" October 24 to 26 at the Encore Boston Harbor hotel and resort via our livestream package... [Sign up now to get live access]( to all of the great presentations from our special guests like Scott... plus your favorite Stansberry Research editors like Doc Eifrig, Dan Ferris, and Eric Wade... and many more. You can watch everything – the talks, the breakout rooms, and the actionable recommendations you won't hear anywhere else – from the comfort of your home or office. With a livestream ticket, you'll also have "on demand" access to all the videos for 60 days afterward. [Click here for more information]( and to get access today. Time is running out... --------------------------------------------------------------- Recommended Links: # [October 19: CRASH WARNING]( The man who predicted the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and the "bitcoin crash" is issuing his newest warning. Now Dan Ferris says the biggest mega-bubble in stock market history is about to burst... and you need to prepare now. [Click here for full details](. --------------------------------------------------------------- # [Major Announcement Could Disrupt a $150 BILLION Market]( The medical and financial communities eagerly await October 23. Why? Because a potential major announcement that morning has the power to alter your financial year. One of Stansberry's first analysts just sat down for a rare interview to break the full story. [Get the critical details here](. --------------------------------------------------------------- New 52-week highs (as of 10/14/22): short positions in iShares Russell 1000 Growth Fund (IWF) and iShares U.S. Real Estate Fund (IYR). A busy mailbag today... Our Thomas Carroll replies to feedback on Medicare Advantage ("MA") plans... plus your thoughts on Dan Ferris' [open letter to Cathie Wood](... Do you have a comment or question today? As always, e-mail us at feedback@stansberryresearch.com. As a reminder, for those who want to hear more from Dan or are simply looking for guidance on your investments today, he is debuting a new stock market warning in a brand-new video presentation on Wednesday. [Click here for more details]( to make sure you don't miss it... It's free. We just ask that you sign up in advance. "In general, thank you for providing some good information to your readers. I'm a 76 year-old health & life [insurance] agent that specializes in Medicare. While you pushed [Medicare Advantage ("MA") and Part D ("MAPD")] plans I think you did a disservice to those who choose Medigap plans, or Medicare Supplements. "When I talk with people aging into Medicare (about to turn 65, or on disability) I normally go over their options. The preponderance of these folks are really confused about those options... And for many, one of the keys is the drugs their doctors have prescribed. "Most people coming off an employer's plan are used to having very reasonable co-pays for their meds. The Medicare drug plans are a tad more complicated. Many are used to taking brand name drugs but will immediately see their cost share on brand name drugs will be quite a bit higher, and certainly more convoluted than their old employers plan. "When it comes to the health plan options I kind of approach it this way: MA/MAPD plans are for people who 1) don't have any money, 2) for people with outstanding health, 3) for people who have lots of money that will cover their health costs if issues develop. "The question we can't answer at age 65 is what will my health be like at 75 or 85? If you run into big health issues, people will always wish they had a Medigap plan. If you develop heart [or] lung [problems], or any other serious condition, your MA plans will nickel and dime you to death. And unless you qualify for a special enrollment situation (like moving out of your MA's service area), the only way to get to Medigap is via health underwriting. Which means you have to answer health questions and disclose medications. And if the findings fall outside the carriers' guidelines, they can reject you. "There is one other individual I never see mentioned. It's the individual who worries about their expenses, because they don't have a lot of extra money/income. With MA plans it is difficult knowing what kind of expenses you will incur, simply because you don't know what treatments you will need... "Love all the Stansberry analysts. You folks are to be commended." – Paid-up subscriber Glenn M. "I am an old, retired doctor. I recently had food poisoning bad enough to go to the hospital. After eight hours of vomiting, I could not even hold water in my mouth let alone swallow because I knew a bad potato chip was caught in the greater curvature of my stomach. I could point to the spot. "I said, 'Put down a stomach tube and wash it out.' I was told that was old fashioned and in 34 hours my bill was $38,000. I paid $158 with Medicare Advantage. It could have been over in one hour in the ER. "Modern medicine is unrestrained and now uncontrollable." – Paid-up subscriber James T. Thomas Carroll comment: We received a lot of feedback on [last Thursday's Digest](... and our latest issue of Prosperity Investor. Current subscribers and Stansberry Alliance members can read the issue [here](. As expected, the feedback was emotional – both pro and con. That is par for the course with health care. I've experienced it for 25-plus years in my health care services research career. This is why one of my favorite sayings is, "Don't hate your HMO, invest in it!" In this case, people who love their MA plans really love them. And folks who hate them deplore them. Other opinions, like James', extended further to the health care system in general, calling it "unrestrained" and "out of control." The emotional responses health care elicits is a primary reason I love spending my life in this sector. As I like to say, "[we are all customers]( managing our most important asset. And key to doing that is understanding how the system works. Understanding and explaining complex health care systems has been a primary personal goal in my life. The goal of our report was to recommend a stock investment, not to primarily provide advice on MA. That said, I am a fan of MA given the experience of my parents, older relatives, and friends... and commenting on the "product" is necessary when recommending a stock related to it. Look, no insurance product is perfect. And MAs may not be right for individuals in particular circumstances. For instance, a few folks wrote in noting that crossing state lines can complicate getting care. If you move around a lot, you may want to consider that situation. If MA has not personally worked for you... switch to another method of insurance. You can always go back to original Medicare during open-enrollment season. Here's the thing, though... I've looked at many, many health insurance models over the years, and I assure you that despite any limitations, MA is an important innovation that is helping millions of subscribers. Almost half of all Medicare-eligible people have chosen MA. As we approach 2023, even more people are expected to choose this system. Even if you hate the idea of MA plans, that's not necessarily a reason to not invest in a leading provider and innovator of them. In fact, insurance companies – like the one we recommended in relation to MA plans – offer some of the best operating characteristics for investment. Pull up almost any 20-year chart on a publicly traded health insurer. You will wish you'd invested in 2002. I can go down so many roads talking about health care, and I've had troubles with my own health insurance and hospital bills. I shared the story about [my first inpatient experience]( in the Digest back in 2019. At the end of the day, there are limited health care resources to go around. It can't be "everything for everybody" as most doctors espouse. MA is far, far, far from perfect. But it is exponentially better than it was 20 years ago. And it offers one of the best, most successful examples of public and private partnership. Would you prefer a single-payer government system? I think not. This is the U.S., and you can keep hating and complaining. But I'd still rather get my health care in the U.S. Like it or not, the system is only getting bigger. I believe it's critical to understand and invest in it. It's not a stretch to say the potential returns, in investments made in the right companies, could be paying for at least a part of your health care expenses right now. "Thank you Dan for your magnificent research and writing. I sincerely appreciate your mature values and courage to speak the truth." – Paid-up subscriber Warren F. "This Digest was particularly on point. Thank you for the articulate and entertaining read." – Paid-up subscriber C.A. "Whoa Dan, You came out very strong in that Digest . In fact your presentation was so strong I thought it might be a sign of a rally but man there doesn't seem to be anything but weakness. Well I'm with you on Cathie Wood... that was exactly my impression before you mentioned it in the article. With you on the Fed. I don't really know where the Fed stands now as opposed to Bernanke and Yellen but they certainly have allowed us to get trillions in debt. Thanks guys, nice work! Amazing work. Hard to tell how colluded they are now with the admin/politics. Once again the incompetence is just jaw dropping." – Paid-up subscriber Al M. "Dan, I'm a fan. Read all your stuff and listen to your podcast. But I was a little disappointed with your Digest yesterday. Attacking Cathie Wood just felt over-the-top and beneath you. I have to admit that I've found your rants about Elon and Tesla over the years to be pretty funny, but what you said about Cathie Wood just felt a bit too personal. "I'm not really offended. I don't know Cathie and I'm not an ARK investor, but your Digest just sounded angry. And I think you're better than that. Anyway... feedback, FWIW." – Paid-up subscriber Tom G. "Hey Dan, Bravo on your forensic reporting of Cathie Wood and her sinking ARKK. More than that, though, I so appreciate your brutal honesty (and humility), and agree 100% that 'Family is the most important institution in the world. And any policy that's bad for the family – yours, mine, or everyone's – is bad for humanity.' The traditional family is being undermined by the current administration on many levels, which only strengthens my belief in how essential the family is to our decision-making, and ultimately, our survival. "You have become my go-to for checking research. When in doubt, try to find Dan's unfiltered opinion about it." – Paid-up subscriber John C. Life is so rich, Scott Galloway New York, New York October 17, 2022 --------------------------------------------------------------- Stansberry Research Top 10 Open Recommendations Top 10 highest-returning open positions across all Stansberry Research portfolios Stock Buy Date Return Publication Analyst MSFT Microsoft 11/11/10 815.2% Retirement Millionaire Doc ADP Automatic Data 10/09/08 801.4% Extreme Value Ferris MSFT Microsoft 02/10/12 698.6% Stansberry's Investment Advisory Porter HSY Hershey 12/07/07 530.1% Stansberry's Investment Advisory Porter ETH/USD Ethereum 02/21/20 475.2% Stansberry Innovations Report Wade AFG American Financial 10/12/12 411.3% Stansberry's Investment Advisory Porter WRB W.R. Berkley 03/16/12 393.9% Stansberry's Investment Advisory Porter BRK.B Berkshire Hathaway 04/01/09 383.5% Retirement Millionaire Doc TPL Texas Pacific Land 11/05/20 307.4% Stansberry's Investment Advisory Porter FSMEX Fidelity Sel Med 09/03/08 278.6% Retirement Millionaire Doc Please note: Securities appearing in the Top 10 are not necessarily recommended buys at current prices. The list reflects the best-performing positions currently in the model portfolio of any Stansberry Research publication. The buy date reflects when the editor recommended the investment in the listed publication, and the return shows its performance since that date. To learn if a security is still a recommended buy today, you must be a subscriber to that publication and refer to the most recent portfolio. --------------------------------------------------------------- Top 10 Totals 5 Stansberry's Investment Advisory Porter 3 Retirement Millionaire Doc 1 Extreme Value Ferris 1 Stansberry Innovations Report Wade --------------------------------------------------------------- Top 5 Crypto Capital Open Recommendations Top 5 highest-returning open positions in the Crypto Capital model portfolio Stock Buy Date Return Publication Analyst ONE-USD Harmony 12/16/19 1,137.4% Crypto Capital Wade ETH/USD Ethereum 12/07/18 1,137.3% Crypto Capital Wade POLY/USD Polymath 05/19/20 1,081.4% Crypto Capital Wade MATIC/USD Polygon 02/25/21 834.5% Crypto Capital Wade BTC/USD Bitcoin 11/27/18 410.4% Crypto Capital Wade Please note: Securities appearing in the Top 5 are not necessarily recommended buys at current prices. The list reflects the best-performing positions currently in the Crypto Capital model portfolio. The buy date reflects when the recommendation was made, and the return shows its performance since that date. To learn if it's still a recommended buy today, you must be a subscriber and refer to the most recent portfolio. --------------------------------------------------------------- Stansberry Research Hall of Fame Top 10 all-time, highest-returning closed positions across all Stansberry portfolios Investment Symbol Duration Gain Publication Analyst Nvidia^* NVDA 5.96 years 1,466% Venture Tech. Lashmet Band Protocol crypto 0.32 years 1,169% Crypto Capital Wade Terra crypto 0.41 years 1,164% Crypto Capital Wade Inovio Pharma.^ INO 1.01 years 1,139% Venture Tech. Lashmet Seabridge Gold^ SA 4.20 years 995% Sjug Conf. Sjuggerud Frontier crypto 0.08 years 978% Crypto Capital Wade Binance Coin crypto 1.78 years 963% Crypto Capital Wade Nvidia^* NVDA 4.12 years 777% Venture Tech. Lashmet Intellia Therapeutics NTLA 1.95 years 775% Amer. Moonshots Root Rite Aid 8.5% bond 4.97 years 773% True Income Williams ^ These gains occurred with a partial position in the respective stocks. * The two partial positions in Nvidia were part of a single recommendation. Editor Dave Lashmet closed the first leg of the position in November 2016 for a gain of about 108%. Then, he closed the second leg in July 2020 for a 777% return. And finally, in May 2022, he booked a 1,466% return on the final leg. Subscribers who followed his advice on Nvidia could've recorded a total weighted average gain of more than 600%. You have received this e-mail as part of your subscription to Stansberry Digest. If you no longer want to receive e-mails from Stansberry Digest [click here](. Published by Stansberry Research. You’re receiving this e-mail at {EMAIL}. Stansberry Research welcomes comments or suggestions at feedback@stansberryresearch.com. This address is for feedback only. For questions about your account or to speak with customer service, call 888-261-2693 (U.S.) or 443-839-0986 (international) Monday-Friday, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Eastern time. Or e-mail info@stansberrycustomerservice.com. Please note: The law prohibits us from giving personalized investment advice. © 2022 Stansberry Research. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, copying, or redistribution, in whole or in part, is prohibited without written permission from Stansberry Research, 1125 N Charles St, Baltimore, MD 21201 or [www.stansberryresearch.com](. Any brokers mentioned constitute a partial list of available brokers and is for your information only. Stansberry Research does not recommend or endorse any brokers, dealers, or investment advisors. Stansberry Research forbids its writers from having a financial interest in any security they recommend to our subscribers. All employees of Stansberry Research (and affiliated companies) must wait 24 hours after an investment recommendation is published online – or 72 hours after a direct mail publication is sent – before acting on that recommendation. This work is based on SEC filings, current events, interviews, corporate press releases, and what we've learned as financial journalists. It may contain errors, and you shouldn't make any investment decision based solely on what you read here. It's your money and your responsibility.