Buck: Welcome back to another episode of the
Stansberry Investor Hour. I’m nationally syndicated radio host, Buck
Sexton, and it’s the last week of September. We have a very special episode in store for
you today. The Stansberry Research crew, along with Porter
and your co-host here are all out in Las Vegas for the annual Stansberry Conference and Alliance
Meeting, but we didn’t want to leave you, dear listener, out in the cold while we are
in the Nevada desert at the Aria Resort and Casino with 600 Stansberry readers, over 30
inspirational investment experts, the entire Stansberry editorial staff, and the world’s
greatest breakfast buffet. Prior to leaving for Vegas, Porter recorded
an exclusive interview with none other than Jim Grant, the famed publisher and editor
of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, which is read by every mega-hedge-fund manager, high-profile
institutional investor, and any Wall Street analyst worth their salt. In fact, famous commodities expert, Jim Rogers,
was even the first subscriber to Grant’s many years ago. But before we get to Porter’s exclusive interview
with Jim Grant, here’s a few housekeeping notes. If you haven’t already, please subscribe to
this podcast in iTunes, on Google Play, Stitcher, or wherever you find your podcasts, and leave
us that review or comment. Your feedback is essential to helping us grow
the show and we appreciate it. Also, you can get transcripts from Stansberry
Investor Hour, additional information about our guests, and be notified each Thursday
when we publish a new episode by going to http://www.investorhour.com and entering your
e-mail. That’s http://www.investorhour.com. Just give us your e-mail. When you sign up for free at investorhour.com,
you’ll get an account on the Stansberry Research website, so you can access everything you
need to get the most from the Stansberry Investor Hour. And finally, if you would like to hear and
see all the new investment ideas revealed in Las Vegas this week at the annual Stansberry
conference and alliance, go to http://www.stansberryvegasvideo.com. You can still join us from the comfort of
your own home by just tuning in on your computer, phone, or tablet. You’ll hear new ideas and opportunities from
Porter, Steve Sjuggerud, Doc Eifrig, David Lashmet, Dan Ferris, and investment experts
like Kevin O’Leary from ABC’s Shark Tank, Chris Mayer from Bonner and Partners, and
the dean of high-yield debt himself, Marty Fridson. You’ll see all these speakers and over 30
inspirational presentations when you go to http://www.stansberryvegasvideo.com. That’s stansberryvegasvideo.com and secure
your online access pass. It’s easy and even if you can’t tune in live,
you’ll have instant access to the video archive, so you can rewatch all the speakers as many
times as you want for up to 90 days after the conference. Just go to stansberryvegasvideo.com for the
full speaker lineup and all the details. And now, here’s the man himself, Porter Stansberry,
and his in-depth interview with Jim Grant. Porter: Welcome, everybody, to a special edition
of the Stansberry Investor Hour. I’m your host, Porter Stansberry. Joining us this week is a legend of the newsletter
industry and a new friend of mine. His name is Jim Grant and he is the founder
and writer of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, one of the most expensive and elite investment
research products available on the market anywhere. Jim, thank you very much for joining us today. Jim: Well, Porter, it is my pleasure indeed,
thanks for having me. Porter: So Jim, the first question I’ve got
to ask you, and by the way folks, you have no idea what a pleasure this is for me. For more than 20 years, I have been following
Jim’s work and I’ve been familiar with his reputation, which is stellar in our world. I’ve always wanted a chance to interview him
and ask him a whole bunch of questions and now I finally got him. So, I hope that you will all listen carefully,
because Jim’s story is more than just about investing. It’s also about building a brand and a product,
which is second to none. So the first question I’ve got for you, Jim,
is how did a middle-class kid from Long Island become the most renowned and celebrated financial
journalist of his day? How did you go from zero to being the very
top of your field? How did that happen? Jim: First and foremost, Porter, thank you
for the premise and the question. You know, when you stand at the pinnacle of
financial journalism, if you stand in the pinnacle of financial journalism, you’re kind
of standing at sea level. I am deeply grateful for the compliment and
I’ll pass it on to my wife. I set out in life to first of all play first
base for the Brooklyn Dodgers. Failing at that, I took up the French horn,
played it seriously. Attended college with the intention of either
teaching music or playing professionally. Quit after about four months, went into the
Navy for a couple years, came out again, and got a job where actually now my serious life
begins at the age of about 20. I got a job at a firm called McDonnell & Company,
not to be confused with another McDonald & Company in Cleveland. McDonnell & Company in New York was a member
firm of the New York Stock Exchange. I was there before returning to college. I got a taste of the financial markets, which
taste I savored and have continued to savor. Went back to school and I studied economics. Graduated, went to Columbia for a couple years,
and now, if you’re still listening, Porter and audience, I am at the Baltimore Sun. And because of – as much as six or seven
months experience at McDonnell & Company, I am considered the economic guru of the news
room. That’s what it took. And when there was an opening on the financial
desk, I took it, and a couple years later, I achieved an ambition of mine, which is to
go to New York and to work for Robert Liburg, the editor of Barron’s. It was a wonderful experience. I was there for I guess about seven or eight
years and now, the year is 1983, and there is one of these ever so petty, but because
of the lack of money involved, ever so intense spats. Among the staff of Barron’s, some people were
on one side, others lined up against them, and I was on the wrong side. It dawned on me that I had better leave Barron’s
before I was invited to leave, but where to go? I looked around the possibility for employment
and saw nothing very appealing, so I thought to myself, wait a second, a survey showed
as many as 50,000 or 80,000 people read my column at Barron’s. It was a current yield column. I wrote about the credit markets. I figured if only half of those subscribed
at the rate of $200.00 a year – my wife and I had one of these very early automated
spreadsheets, Lotus 1-2-3. We did the calculation about the first year’s
revenue. We decided that we needed tax counsel owing
to the imminent influx of subscriber funds. That was the plan. The reality was – I don’t think you can
identify with this, Porter, because I think Stansberry Research has never been in this
exact predicament. Porter: Oh, quite contraire. I’ll share something later, but please continue. Jim: I think I had 18 subscribers to week
one and I got into a cab and took the 18, I guess it was, envelopes to the post office
to mail them. It was volume one, number one. I paid the cab driver, closed the cab door,
and looked at the steps, magnificent steps of the main post office on 8th Avenue and
34th Street Manhattan. It is a towering and monumental building. Porter: That’s just across from the train
station, isn’t it, Jim? Jim: Yeah, and ascend to the steps before
I realize that the cab that had sped down 8th Avenue had the envelopes that contained
the first issue of Grant’s. Yeah, so anyway, I’m still proud of that first
issue, as few of them that exist. The headline on the front page was “Interest
Rates Rise,” because Porter, even then, we would not stoop to sensationalism. And the other headline was “Another Voice
in the Choir,” which we introduced ourselves to the world and said you’ve got to read this
thing. That was middle of November 1983. And Porter, that was about 34 years ago. In the interval, looking back, eight books
and about, I guess, three and a half or four million words all together. Some not so bad, some I’d rather have back,
but it has been a wonderful experience. It is one of the rare pleasures in anyone’s
life to be able to say what he or she believes and to have people listen. You know, most of us are confined to an audience
at Thanksgiving dinner for that. I’ve been lucky enough to have a small audience,
an appreciative audience, and I couldn’t be happier, Porter. Porter: Jim, I want to jump ahead. The story of your origins, I think, it’s really
important for everybody to know. When you read a newsletter and you take your
advice and you treat them sincerely and you pay attention to what they’re saying to you,
because it involves finances and your money, it’s really important to understand where
they come from and sort of what the context is of their background. Because otherwise, I think, it’s very difficult
for you to trust them or to understand what they mean by “XYZ.” I think your background is important for people
to know, which is why I wanted to ask it. The other thing that I think is really important
to understand about a potential newsletter subscription or relationship with a newsletter
writer is the scope and the magnitude of what you offer the reader and at Grant’s, the scope
and the magnitude of what you offer the reader, in my opinion, is bigger, broader, and more
professional than any other product that’s on the market. You have a very unique position in the heart
of the financial district and with relationships that you have built over many, many decades
with the leaders in finance. And I’d like for you – I’d like to ask you
to tell the story of how Grant’s became involved in The Big Short. And by that, I mean your newsletter was featured
in a Hollywood movie that dramatized the characters and the actions surrounding the collapse in
the mortgage bubble and those financial actors that were able to make billions from that
market event. And I was reading your newsletter very carefully
at the time and I recall your introduction of the ABX index that was the tool that a
lot of these traders used to short junk bonds. Can you tell us how that story, how all those
ideas came to be in your newsletter and how you grew to understand what an enormous trade
and opportunity this was for so many investors? Jim: I’d be happy to. Let me begin in about the year 2000, 2001. It was then that NASDAQ – the dot-com bubble
had collapsed and the Federal Reserve, looking for ways to rejuvenate and rejigger the American
economy, fixed on the opportunities in residential real estate. If you recall, Paul Krugman – among others
of that political persuasion – were urging the Fed to slash interest rates, hence mortgage
rates, so as to set off a rally, which presently became a bubble itself in house prices. Lo and behold, that’s more or less what came
to pass. The feds slashed and slashed rates and up
and up went house prices. Something was out of kilter as early as 2000
and 2001, that early, and we began writing about house prices in 2000. We noted that you could get a mortgage with
very little collateral. We noted that you could get a mortgage in
which you were not required to service the principal for many years. We noticed your word was your bond in some
mortgages and your word in some cases was not very good. All these anomalies and these oddities and
excesses began to pile up. Year-by-year, we wrote about the levitation
in house prices and we kind of threw rocks at that particular rising bubble. Rocks never brought the bubble down, but I
think our readers began to understand and certainly we believed was true that house
prices were simply out of their customary orbit through well-intended, but ultimately
disastrous federal stimulus through agency of mortgage market. House prices flew way out of range of incomes
with which to service the debts and maintain the structures. Now, the year is 2006, and we get a call from
one of our readers who said have you seen the prospectus for – I’ve forgotten the
name. Very convoluted-sounding mortgage structure. I said no and he said take a look, because
it bears investigation. Porter: By the way, Jim, you’ll recall that
no one ever read the prospectuses of any of those asset-backed securities. Jim: You’re looking at the organization that
did. This was about 800 pages or so and at the
time, had an associate, at Grant’s analyst named Dan Gertner. Dan was a Purdue guy. He majored in – he was trained in chemical
engineering and he got an MBA. I think the MBA was from Purdue. He was an Indiana guy, Hoosier. Dumped this stack of papers on his desk, “Dan,”
I said, “figure this out.” About a day and a half later, he said, “I
can’t”. I said, “Dan, we got ourselves a story.” And we dug deeper and we produced the first
piece on this recondite, complex, but ultimately, analyzable structure. And we began to look at others and we began
to see the contradictions and the main investment appeal. And here was the investment appeal, Porter. These mortgage-backed securities, collateralized
debt obligations, what have you, were priced, most of them, at about 100 cents on the dollar,
101 cents on the dollar, 102 cents on the dollar. If you sold them short, it fell to you to
service the interest and also to stand ready to buy them back in case they rallied in price. They were not liable to rally much, because
they’re already priced slightly above par. However, if we bears were correct that the
collateral would not support the debt, that the homeowners would walk away rather than
continue to pay these – their interest and principal. In that case, these structures would collapse
in price, perhaps to nothing at all, and you would make a lot of money. The upside was vast and the downside risk,
that is downside risk of mortgages appreciating in price, was minimal. So it was that very rare opportunity in which
we were towered over prospective risk and importantly, the world had not caught on,
nor did the world catch on for a long time. We were summoned, Dan and I, into the offices
of Standard & Poor’s for a dressing down and to tell us we really didn’t understand things. I forgot what year it was, early 2008. Porter: Oh, if only you had a recording of
that meeting. Jim: It was a great experience and all honor
to Dan Gertner for his stellar work in figuring this thing out. We persisted and built on the story. A number of readers, a lot of readers began
to get very tired of it. We were becoming slightly predictable in the
topics, we have other topics. But in the end, it was worth it and I’m glad
for our persistence and I’m glad for loyalty of our readers. Porter: A couple things about your product
I’d like to ask. There’s a fantastic lost interview of Steve
Jobs that’s available on the Netflix, one of the many vastly overpriced media entities
around today. If you Google it, it’s worth 45 minutes of
your time for listeners and also for you, Jim. It’s a fantastic interview done by a well-known
West Coast author, who wrote a book about Steve Jobs and Bill Gates and the other leaders
of Silicon Valley of 20 years ago called Revenge of the Nerds. This is a lost interview. It wasn’t published until very recently. You can Google Steve Jobs or you can search
for Steve Jobs on Netflix and it’ll come up as the lost interview. The best part of the interview, I think, is
when Steve Jobs identifies his passion for building a product. He says really clearly that you can’t build
the product that’s like other people and you can’t build a product that people tell you
they want. You have to build something that they’ve never
dreamed of being able to get. To do that, you have to completely avoid listening
to any of the sales people or any of the accountants or any of the engineers and your company,
because all they can tell you about is what someone’s already created and to really be
successful, you have to create that something that’s new. Of course, everyone recognizes now, that’s
exactly how Steve Jobs saved Apple. This interview was back in 1995 before he’d
returned to the company and when Apple was really struggling and almost went bankrupt. The question I have for you is your product,
your newsletter, is so idiosyncratic. It’s unlike anything I’ve ever seen before. It’s certainly unlike anything else that’s
published in the space and you seem, as I told you once, to have a zen-like disregard
for whether or not your subscribers like it. So what I wanted to ask you is what is the
vision you have for the product and where did that vision come from, because it is so
unique? Jim: I’ve set out to – speaking of long
lost, long lost volume one, number one of Grant’s, we set out to do the following. We set out to illuminate the very best ideas
and to expose the worst ideas and to do this in the best prose and to produce the funniest
cartoons. We have a drawing on page one of our issue,
which is meant to be the funniest cartoon. What I wanted to do – this is an aspiration
of craftsmanship. We must be the last publication in the English
language that actually employs a copy editor. I keep on reading about the firings at the
New York Times. You see the prevalence of typos, even in the
once immaculate Wall Street Journal. We take the greatest pains on facts, we take
the greatest pains on accuracy of speech and the humble art of spelling, and the rest of
it. Needless to say, we take enormous pains and
selection of topics. I pour everything I have into every issue
of Grant’s. I think the staff does as well. I’m not quite indifferent to, in fact, I’m
not at all indifferent to what our reader is like. I don’t go to them asking them what they’d
like to read. I keep on hearing that one ought to do that. I’m not going to compare myself to Steve Jobs
or Henry Ford, but I will compare Jobs to Ford. What Ford wanted to do was to give the American
horseman something that he and she had never seen or imagined. I think the same thing as you described Jobs
held true with him. The world certainly has had its exposure to
first-rate pros. It’s had some exposure at intervals to first-rate
financial thinking. We didn’t invent anything at Grant’s, but
we aspire to be the best at producing well-expressed, well-thought out ideas that can help people
and we try to not only look ahead, which is an art that I’m still working on at age 71,
but we also try to incorporate such lessons as we can salvage from the past and give people
a kind of 360-degree look in time, not only gawking ahead staring as we all try to do,
but also to inform that guess work with more than superficial knowledge of what happened
in cycles past. You know, we do it 24 times a year and we
would invite anyone who wants to give it a try to give it a try. It would be a privilege and a pleasure to
have more readers. Porter: I would tell people who have never
read your newsletter before that they should definitely start not only with subscription
to your newsletter, but by reading a book that’s probably out of print now that you
wrote, I believe in 1996, called, The Trouble with Prosperity. Do you recall that title? Jim: Vividly. Porter: I hope I got it exactly right. There’s a copy on my bookshelf. I thought that was one of the greatest financial
books that was ever written, because it really explained the fraud of a credit-backed currency
and the endless expansion of such. I’ve got two questions about that book. Number one, would you ever consider updating
it? Would you ever re-release a book? I know you’ve written books on lots of topics. My other favorite book of yours is the biography
you wrote of Bernard Baruch. But people really should read The Trouble
with Prosperity and would you ever consider updating – creating a new version? The problems you identify in that book have
gotten so much bigger than I think you could have even imagined back when you originally
wrote it. Jim: Yes, I am – it’s hard to go and face
what you wrote years ago. I do that from time to time, I look at a book
I wrote and look at it almost furtively, because you always see something in a page that you
express a little bit differently. To go back and to redo something is to confront
both successes and failures and it’s a bit of an emotionally jarring experience, as well
as an intellectually stimulating one. I guess I would consider that. My eyes are almost _____ on the next thing. But thanks for the kind works about the book,
and I appreciate it. Porter: And the follow-up question to that
is – this is an impossible question to answer with any definitiveness, but I want your opinion
more than anything. That is do you think the Fed will ever lose
the overwhelming power it has, absent a crisis that destroys the dollar and perhaps the government? Jim: That’s a great question and I’ve got
a couple thoughts on that. Indeed, I have many thoughts on that. I think about it more or less all the time. The Fed is a remarkably resilient institution. My goodness, it is populated by 700, 800 PhD
economists. It has thousands of administrative and executive
personnel on the premises that it is giving the governments monopoly to – as the bank
had issue, it has a secondary monopoly, nothing explicit, but virtual monopoly in the prevalent
fashion of host _____ economics. You know, the college and universities give
tenure to people who conform to their fashions and economic theory and thinking. Those people wind up in the Fed. The Fed must be the biggest employer of Doctors
of Economics in America, perhaps in the world. So it’s got a kind of intellectual monopoly
as well. It failed pretty abysmally in 2005 and 6 and
7 and 8. You’d think so many qualified people would
have seen the biggest event of their professional lives coming before it hit them in the back
of the head, but they did not. From this experience and from this failure,
the Fed emerged with greater powers and with, if possible, greater prestige. You wonder what can change things. Some of us thought maybe Donald Trump, who
had spoken pretty glibly on the campaign trail about the gold standard, perhaps he would
be the instrument of some change. But lo and behold, he’s talking about the
former president of Goldman Sachs coming in. That seems to foreclose anything like radical
transformation. I think, Porter, I think what is going to
hobble the fed, what’s going to cause a reimagining of American monetary arrangements is in fact
a crisis. People, I think now, are more or less satisfied. The fed may not be happy that consumer prices
are going up by as measured less than two percent a year. I think most Americans who spent much of their
weekends looking around for bargains are not unhappy with the absence of measured price
inflation. Stock markets making new highs. Economy is not so bad. You can get a job, even if it doesn’t pay
what you want it to pay. There’s a sense of complacency of the Fed
on Main Street I think, as well as Wall Street. And on Wall Street, what’s not to like? New highs in almost every market, so what
changed this? What changed it is a discontinuity of some
kind. Maybe a thunder clap in the financial markets,
maybe a reconsideration through crisis of nature of money itself. Maybe you have the same opinion or observation,
Porter. You listen to people who have, through their
great success in life, collected hundreds of millions of dollars of dollars or the case
of Ray Dalio, billions of dollars. And it’s clear from what they say, they have
never given a thought to the nature of the money that they have worked so hard to collect. What’s a dollar? Ray Dalio, I’m talking to you, what is a dollar? He might say it’s a dollar, for Pete’s sake. There’s no definition. The dollar is what the market says it is. You can pay debts with it. But it is collateralized by our collective
faith in institutions of the American government general and the Federal Reserve specifically
and I guess more broadly, it’s collateralized by the idea of America, which is a pretty
good idea. You don’t have to be so old to recall the
days of the Carter administration in the ’70s when the dollar was kind of a pariah currency
when a Roman hotel clerk would look down his nose at your traveler’s checks. Windy answer to your very good question of
many minutes ago, Porter, I would say yes, a crisis is probably the catalyst for anything
resembling a reform of American monetary arrangements. Porter: Jim, as a student of financial history,
I’m sure you’re very familiar with the early 1700s and the prevalence of various paper
currencies, and the colonies, and of course the corresponding financial bubbles in France,
and the South Sea bubble, and what was it? The Mississippi bubble. All erupting at the same times. Do you see correlation between the rise of
virtual currencies and the major central banks’ enormous inflation of the past decade? Jim: Yes, I think that the – I think there
is a strain, only a strain, but perhaps an important strain of monetary criticism in
the rise of these crypto currencies, by which I mean I think – look on bitcoin in a way
as Silicon Valley’s cry for help. The legendary… I guess literally legendary founder, inventor
of bitcoin, the man’s name is Setoshi, is it? Porter: Setoshi, yes. Jim: Supposedly, got this bright idea around
the time of the financial – not sure if it was 2007, 2008, but certainly his fans
and acolytes contend that the bitcoin – the founding of bitcoin was a reaction to QE and
the depredations of the world’s central bank, which, you know, depredations were, I think,
well intended policies to get us out of the ditch into which the central banks had indeed
helped us to fall into. But I think what might have begun as a monetary
idea has come to resemble something very different. I think it’s just our own _____ mania. People buy these things, because they’re going
up. I think there’s not really the – I think
the fabulous rise, not only bitcoin, but 800 to 900 others, which maybe ended around Labor
Day, maybe didn’t, this rise is the only monetary element and really is the liquidity that’s
available to finance it and things. Again, two very low interest rates and to
all this credit creation by the world’s major and central banks. Porter: I’m of two minds about it. I certainly share your skepticism about the
number of virtual currencies that have proliferated. I imagine much like the web businesses of
the late 1990s, very few of them will survive. But I suspect the ones that do will be incredibly
powerful forces indeed. I think it’s very interesting. There are folks in a political and philosophical
strain that we share. Largely, you would call the hard money crowd. We think obsessively about what the meaning
of money is and the role money plays in our economy and we worry very much about the elastic
currency that we have. We’re afraid of the ultimate outcome of such
currencies, because we understand the history and the human nature involved. Along comes a terrific and elegant and beautiful
solution to that problem and virtually all of us – by us, I’m talking about the hard
money group at its most expansive. Virtually all of us have done nothing but
either criticize it or decidedly ignore it. I think – I don’t know why that interests
me so much, but it does. The programming and the idea behind bitcoin
and the software itself is absolutely brilliant, elegant, and nothing but genius. It solves a problem that we’ve all been searching
for since I came into any monetary awareness such as wow, I really need something that’s
a lot more reliable than the dollar. And yet, we’re all giant critics of it and
myself included. Do you see the irony in any of that? Jim: I do, I do. And I, myself, have – you’re of two minds
and I might be of three. You know, _____ _____ came out famously many
years ago for kind of a free market in money. _____ _____ nationalized and bitcoin seems
to be kind of _____ in that respect. Porter: Very much so. In fact, it’s creation being so confused. You know, no one knows who Satoshi is or if
he’s anyone at all. That’s like a form of spontaneous order. It’s really interesting. Jim: Yes, it is. When you own bitcoin, what do you own? You own a price in a screen to be sure and
very pleasurably, that price has exploded, so that’s one thing you own. It’s no small thing. What else do you own? You own a claim on a finite thing that people
are prepared to call money. In a way, but what’s the appeal of the money? The appeal of the money, if you listen to
the adherence of this, the appeal of money – what is it, $21 million ultimately in
the year 2140, I think, something. They say that this the first currency that
the supply is limited. It’s the first decentralized ledger-based
system. That’s true, yeah, but it’s hackable, it’s
forkable, it is taxable. It is ultimately under the thumb of states
who are threatened by competition for the holiest and most sacred of all rights of encroaching
sovereign state, which is the power to create money, to control it, and to inflate it. The block chain is, as you say, is an elegant,
indeed magnificent piece of software, but is it the last and best item in service of
the transmission of funds? I don’t know, what about superseding improvement
in technology? That’s the trouble with text docs. There’s usually something better such as ingenuity
of people who are inventing these things. The question becomes not is bitcoin a constructive
contribution to the world’s evolution and money. Yes, it is. The question isn’t whether block chain is
not something wonderful. Well, it is. The question is what do you pay for and what
do you own after you pay for it? We wrote about bitcoin a couple of weeks ago
in Grant’s and the headline was “Crypto 36,000,” which is an allusion, of course, to the Dow
36,000 book of some time ago. I guess we’re going to get the Dow 36,000
faster than some of the bears expected, but not in the life span of that particular book. What we see in bitcoin is not so much a monetary
phenomenon or not so much a monetary phenomenon that will complement or supersede the dollar,
but an expression of excess in the monetary – other monetary phenomena. Porter, I’m getting tangled in my own words. Bitcoin to us is manifestation of the central
bank actions of 2007, to date. The parabolic sprint of that price is a reflection
of A, central bankers gone mad, and B, human nature, as it always has been. We think something will come along that’s
even cooler than bitcoin and people will be wondering why they paid the $5000 they did
at one point for bitcoin. Porter: I certainly agree and I cannot even
begin to try to defend a price of bitcoin, even though even though we’ve done a lot of
work on it, understanding the computer power involved to mine the next coin, et cetera. I won’t bore everybody with those details. Just say I have no ability to predict the
price of bitcoin, but I do think that the entire idea of virtual currencies is the greatest
single threat to central banking power that has ever existed. I think it’d be very interesting to see what
would happen if the US government tried to outlaw trading like they did at one time with
gold. Because, you know, we – Jim, I think you
and I both prefer gold as the ultimate alternative currency, the ultimate alternative to central
banks paper money. But I think crypto currencies or the idea
of it, not saying necessarily bitcoin, I think that could be the thing that is most difficult
for central banks to deal with. Because the millennials don’t want to deal
with gold, but they are all desperate to be involved in crypto. Jim: I think there’d be a marriage of crypto
and gold indeed. There has been and there will be. One reads _____ _____ called Glint coming
out of the UK, which is meant to be a crypto currency convertible into gold. Certainly, there have been experiments and
more than experiments in digital currencies in North America having to do with gold. I don’t think the two are separate and distinct
at all. One of my monetary complaints about the crypto
is the kind of reinventing the wheel. Gold’s been around for millennia. It has all the properties of a true _____
value. I think maybe it’s a generational thing. Millennials don’t want gold. That seems obvious. I think if they gave it a think, they would
reconsider. Porter: Jim, you’ve been very generous with
your time and your thoughts with us. I want to wrap things up with something a
little more light-hearted than trying to figure out the future of paper currency and the role
of bitcoin and the destruction of the Fed’s power. As a fellow newsletter publisher, of course,
I have a great interest in Grant’s and a tremendous admiration for what you’ve achieved with your
product. The rumor – I wonder if you could verify
this or build upon it. Was Jim Rogers really truly the first subscriber
of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer? Jim: Oh yes. Jim Rogers was number one and during the early
going broke phase of grants, that lasted about 18 months. I went to see Jimmy, and Jimmy has many sterling
attributes. Of course, he’s the investment biker. He’s George Soros’ partner. He rode around the world on his bike and his
girlfriend now wife and had phenomenal adventures. He’s lived the _____ _____ dream of most people
on Wall Street. Jim is not a sentimentalist and –
Porter: No, he’s not. Jim: I went to see him at his then upper west
side – his then current mansion on the upper west side of Manhattan. I was kind of down in the mouth. We’d been in business six or eight months. I’d run through my Dow Jones profit share. I was trying to raise money to perpetuate
this experiment and journalistic idealism. And so “Jimmy,” I said, “we’re almost to the
point of liquidation.” He said, “What do you got to liquidate?” I probably said, dreams, you know, _____. But Jimmy was subscriber number one and apart
from that somewhat harsh exchange – conversational exchange – he’s been a wonderful friend
and supporter all these many years. Very fond of Jimmy Rogers. Porter: I brought that up, because I wondered
for many years if it was true, but I also have a fun Jimmy Roger’s story. In 1996, I had been in the newsletter business
for perhaps four or five months. I was working as an assistant at another publication
and we got invited to the big investment conference in New Orleans that the hard money crowd was
throwing at the time, and we got invited through – I have no idea how, but I ended up at
the speaker’s dinner. I wasn’t a speaker, I was the wide-eyed 24-year-old
in the crowd. The speakers are all these very famous people
in finance, sat down, including Jim Rogers. No one sat next to Jim, so I hustled over
there and grabbed the chair and introduced myself. And I, of course, was very wide-eyed and very
naïve. And I was just trying to learn whatever I
could from him while we were having dinner. His girlfriend was on his other side. I think I really probably annoyed him tremendously
thinking back on it now. Jim: That’s easy to do, don’t feel bad, Porter. Porter: But he could not have been more kind
and patient with me and he encouraged me. And at the time, he was just launching his
commodity fund. I don’t know if you know much about that. Commodities, of course were in a terrible
bear market from ’96 to about ’98 and we were sort of in the middle of that downturn. I asked him what I thought was a fair question. I think he might have thought it was a little
insulting. I said Jim, you know, one of the things that
I’ve learned recently is about this idea of trailing stop losses and managing your risk
this way. I said if you like commodities the more they
go down and you keep buying more as they go down, how will you ever know if you’re wrong. I wanted to know how he thought about risk
and everything. I thought it was a pretty good question. He looked over at me and he said, “Oh Porter,
well, that’s easy son, I’m never wrong”. Jim: That’s Jim. You got the – that was the guy. Porter: So I just wanted you to know, ironically,
Jim was also my first subscriber. We’ve been friends ever since that dinner
and he is remarkably generous with his time and has kept up with me and he’s been a great
– Jim: Isn’t that great. Porter: Just a booster of me and my work. I’m very grateful to him as well. One last thing, I wanted to share with you
and I wonder if you have something similarly ironic in your file. My friend, Doug Casey, who was a globetrotting
speculator who likes to do crazy things like buy businesses in Central Africa and hope
they don’t get stolen from him. Anyway, he – a couple years ago, two or
three years ago, he arranged to have a meeting with Gideon Gono in Zimbabwe. Do you know the name? Jim: He’s the premier central banker of the
world, certainly in wisdom. Porter: That’s right. So Gideon is a guy who proved all –
Jim: He’s a chicken farmer. Porter: He proved all of the theories that
we have about paper money in spades. Jim: I think Gideon Gono is by trade a chicken
farmer who got – am I not correct in this? Porter: I don’t know that much about him. I haven’t met him. I don’t know if he’s a chicken farmer or not,
but I do know he was head of the central bank in Zimbabwe and he had – he orchestrated
one of the truly great inflations of all time. So Doug was over meeting with Gideon trying
to explain – Doug has a wonderful theory about how you could take an entire country
private and he was trying to explain this to Gideon. Gideon was very worried about what was going
on in the U.S. central bank because he could see they were following his playbook and he
didn’t think that was a good outcome for the world. And Doug was nodding in appreciation that
they were on the same page about that. And Gideon said, in fact, he said I want to
show you something – I wonder if you have ever met this great American economist? He brought – he had his kid bring out his
laptop computer and he went to YouTube and he found my famous End of America video, which
I put out in 2011. You know, it warned about the inevitable inflation,
which hasn’t occurred yet. So here – just imagine the scene. You’ve got Gideon Gono showing Doug Casey
your hyperinflationary warning video. The world is a very small place. Have you ever been traveling or had a similar
circumstance with a subscriber? Someone you didn’t know you’d influenced with
your newsletter, but then had the shocking realization that there was some circular logic
going on? Jim: You know, I’m not going to live long
enough to have a story like that. Every once in a while, I’ll come across somebody
who is carrying a book of mine as if to read and it’s ever so gratifying. If I might just have a moment on Gideon, the
governor of the central bank of Zimbabwe put out the most effecting comment. What was the year that Zimbabwe reached hyperinflation? Maybe I guess it reached hyperinflation on
many occasions. One of the post millennial occasions in which
Zimbabwe reached hyperinflation was the – prompted the governor of central bank of Zimbabwe,
namely Gideon Gono, to give a speech. In this speech, he said in fact that he was
only doing what the others were doing. He didn’t expect it to turn out this way. Porter: Yeah, I’ve seen him be very critical
of the U.S. and European central banks as well, recently saying I don’t know why they’re
expecting it’s going to turn out differently for them. There may be more to Gideon than meets the
eye. Jim: I think there’s a lot more. In fact, Porter, you’ve given me a great idea
for the next Grants Conference, fly in Gideon Gono. Porter: That would make the show even better. I don’t think he’s allowed in the U.S., though. We tried to get him. I don’t think we could because he couldn’t
get a visa. How ironic is that? Jim: Maybe the fed can pull some strings. Porter: All right, well listen, for the listeners
out there, I want to encourage everybody to go check out Jim Grant’s newsletter. It’s Grant’s Interest Rate Observer. You’ll find it on the web, as you find everything
else. I believe your web address it Grant Pub online? Is that correct? Jim: Yeah, http://www.grantspub.com. If you just type in “Grant’s Interest Rate
Observer,” you will get there. And please know ladies and gentlemen, you’re
most welcome when you do. Porter, I want to thank you for this opportunity
and for all the nice things you said and for your friendship, which has not just begun
today, but it’s been longstanding. It’s a pleasure to talk to you, Porter. I’m most appreciative. Porter: Jim, it’s great. I look forward to doing it again with you
soon and best of luck in preparing for your upcoming conference. The date of your conference, Jim, again is
October 10, and if there’s anyone out there listening, Stansberry Research has a current
special offer where you can get access to Jim’s conference, which features about 12
of the most powerful wealthiest financiers you’ve ever heard of. And a year’s worth of his newsletter at a
fixed price, so check that special offer out at http://www.stansberryresearch.com and whether
you can attend Jim’s conference virtually or in person, please do not miss his newsletter. It is one of the great journalistic pleasures
that has ever been published and certainly that is published today. Thanks again to Jim for joining us and we
will see everyone here again next week. Jim: Thank you, Porter. Buck: Okay folks, there you have it. It’s not often we’re able to run long interviews
like this, so hopefully you enjoyed Porter and Jim’s discussion and learned something
valuable today. Let us know your thoughts by writing to us
at [email protected] If we use your question on the show, we’ll
send you some Stansberry swag. No mail bag this week, so send us your best
questions, comments, and criticisms to [email protected] and we’ll read the most interesting mail next
week. Also, next week, once we all recover from
a week in Vegas, we’ll get back to business as usual when Porter and I sit down for an
interview with Ares Calier, CEO and co-founder of Stansberry Asset Management. Ares is a favorite speaker at Stansberry live
events with his no-nonsense and measured approach to investing and money management. Ares brings a unique and timely perspective
on opportunity and risk in today’s stock markets and we hope you tune in for what will be another
great learning opportunity. Until then, love us or hate us, just don’t
ignore us. See you next week, everybody. [End of Audio]