Founder of MarketWise, OneBlade, and Porter & Co.

Stevenson, Maryland
On July 5, 2024, after nearly 30 years as a working economist and market analyst, I launched Meadowdale Capital. My fund has achieved a 589.0% absolute return in 19 months. Here’s how I did it.
40
32
353
259,045
Correct! Bank of America is a sell.
Crazy banking stat from FT: JP, BofA and Wells Fargo carry $1.6 trillion of ZERO interest deposits. Paying 3% would wipe out half their earnings. So the big banks blocked the exits. No agents allowed. What do you think happens next? Meta probably buys a bank and rebrands it Muse Freedom or something to provide a warm off-ramp. Simply put in your current interest rate (um zero) and tally how much you would make by porting over (a lot more). Takeaway: A business that depends on the customer being ill informed or lazy is doomed to succumb to the market equalizing forces of AI. Just a matter of time.
9
8
176
51,347
Porter Stansberry retweeted
Yesterday (August 11, 2026) CoreWeave, Inc. (Nasdaq: CRWV) reported second-quarter revenue of $2.575 billion, up 112%. It also reported a net loss of $626 million, depreciation of $1.393 billion, and interest expense of $640 million. The balance sheet carried $35.07 billion of debt against $5.02 billion of equity (7x leverage), plus $16.3 billion of capitalized leases and another $35.5 billion of payments due on leases that have not started yet. Count the leases and the company is 17x leveraged. Ironically, the CoreWeave bulls explain the company’s extreme debt by comparing it to Amazon! CoreWeave’s investors explain that Amazon too lost money for years. And Amazon borrowed, heavily. Amazon, they say, poured everything into infrastructure while the market called it lunacy – but it was exactly the infrastructure the world needed most! It paid off, in spades, ever since. See no evil. Hear no evil. Apparently, they never read Jeff’s letter. Here’s the reality. Bezos's version of CoreWeave (his teleportation business) turned $160 million of equipment into $100 million of annual revenue. That’s sixty-two cents on the dollar – and the business was still hopeless. CoreWeave now has $46.7 billion of property and equipment against trailing revenue of $7.59 billion. That’s sixteen cents on the dollar. The question is not whether CoreWeave is the next Amazon. The question is whether CoreWeave is even as good a business as Jeff’s teleportation machine. In any case, there is no question that it will fail. Why did Amazon succeed with a debt-funded, heavy investment strategy? Because the underlying business is incredibly capital efficient. At the beginning Amazon sold books. The customer's credit card cleared the day the order shipped. But the publisher's invoice didn’t come due until sixty days later. Inventory turned eighteen times in 2003 and sixteen times in 2004. Again, the CoreWeavers should read Jeff’s 2004 letter: "We have a cash generative operating cycle because we turn our inventory quickly, collecting payments from our customers before payments are due to suppliers." Amazon always, even from day one, was extraordinarily efficient. By 1998, Amazon had reached a billion-dollar sales rate with only $30 million of inventory and $30 million of net plant and equipment. Six years later, on nearly $7 billion of sales, fixed assets were still only $246 million. Four percent of revenue. CoreWeave's fixed assets are 616% of revenue. Amazon's entire capital program from 1997 through 2005 — nine years covering the boom, the bust, and the recovery — only consumed $886 million of purchases of fixed assets. CoreWeave spent $14.1 billion in the first six months of this year. That’s the difference between a supermodel and the winner of The Biggest Loser. It’s Paltrow vs Shallow Hal. There’s no business model that can afford that much capital. Not even a teleportation machine. And, unlike the teleportation machine (and Amazon), CoreWeave doesn’t get paid upfront. CoreWeave has to build everything and maintain it first. Two weeks ago, CoreWeave’s $2.6 billion term loan repriced from 425 basis points over SOFR at launch to 550 at close, an all-in yield of 10.44%, with tighter covenants attached. Amazon's interest expense peaked in 2002 at $142.9 million, which was 3.6% of that year's sales. CoreWeave paid $1.176 billion of net interest in the last six months against $4.653 billion of revenue. A quarter of every dollar the company bills belongs to a lender before a single chip has been depreciated. The differences between the two businesses become most apparent when you look at cash earnings. Amazon's operating cash flow was negative while it was building out its national fulfillment centers: -$90.9 million in 1999; -$130.4 million in 2000; -$119.8 million in 2001. Three years of operating cash burn totaling $341 million, and $813 million after capital spending, all to build an untouchable company brand promise: next day delivery on virtually any retail item in the world. And how did that pay off? Amazon began producing hundreds of millions in cash flow beginning in 2002: $174 million in 2002; $392 million in 2003; $567 million in 2004; $733 million in 2005. Amazon started buying the debt in 2003. Interest expense fell from $142.9 million to $92 million while sales doubled between 2003 and 2005. CoreWeave consumed $1.11 billion in 2023. In 2024, $5.95 billion. In 2025, $7.25 billion. In the first half of 2026 alone, $10.45 billion. That’s $24.8 billion of cash outflow against $11.9 billion of cumulative revenue since 2023. That’s $2.08 consumed for every $1 billed. And guess what? The ratio widens every year. Why? Because while CoreWeavers claim the company’s massive cash consumption will lead, someday, to Amazon-like economics, what they actually own is the teleportation machine that Jeff shorted.
5
13
135
48,478
Porter Stansberry retweeted
Replying to @mihilus
You don’t understand even the most basic facts of human behavior. I honestly feel sorry for you. I will waste my time explaining, not because i believe it will help you - people like you can never admit your own worthlessness — but it may help others. The difference is simple and it is everything. I can only get an ‘army’ of people to help me if I offer them more than they would earn otherwise. To say this is the same as the power to tax is profoundly ignorant and ignores the entire essential function of the market. Unless my business leadership leads to an increase in efficiency, we will earn no reward — no profit. And I will lose my capital. It is, for some strange reason, impossible for you to accept the real democracy of an economic system because you prefer a political system that only depends on your success, not the success of the economy as a whole. I don’t know how to cure that disease of envy. But that is real greed.
5
6
68
5,904
Porter Stansberry retweeted
No, you obviously don’t. And that’s a testament to your own stupidity. I have spent my entire adult life helping investors beat the market for a fixed subscription fee, rather than a portion of their assets. That may not matter to you, but along the way I have educated millions of investors for free. How did your government reward me? It sued me for recommending a stock that almost tripled in four years. If you had any idea how corrupt they all are or what really happens in DC, you would be standing a picket line with a pitchfork. You aren’t a bad person; you just don’t understand the difference between media and reality. Here’s the redpill: No matter who you vote for, do the wars stop? No matter who you vote for do your after tax wages increase? No matter who you vote for does inflation actually ever reverse? No matter who you vote for do the rich ever stop getting richer? I am telling you the truth. Judge my words by their outcomes. amazon.com/dp/B0GYZPBCMS
5
7
20
3,018
This looks like a disaster in the making. If Porsche wants to develop a higher priced model than the 911, why not bring back the Carrera GT -- my all-time favorite sports car. I'd bet that 9 out of 10 Porsche buyers would agree with me. Likewise, I'd bet that 9 out of 10 Porsche buyers would never buy an electric Porsche. Why are these companies led by people who don't even understand their products? wsj.com/business/autos/insid… via @WSJ
28
3
59
10,025
Brilliant.
Why is the overall market so fixated on $CRWV's imminent demise? At the peak of the Dot Com bubble, $CSCO - the largest company in the world, and the $NVDA equivalent of the era - generated about 10% of its revenue from circular deals through vendor-financed startups. When those startups lost access to capital, $CSCO's revenue growth went from +66% to -30% within a few quarters, and the stock lost 80% of its value. The same story played out across the dot com supply chain, sending the Nasdaq down 80%. Today, $CRWV alone makes up roughly 8% of $NVDA GPU sales. Losing that demand is enough to nuke $NVDA's growth story all by itself. Oh, and $CRWV isn't an isolated example - every major neocloud is hemmoraghing cash and borrowing costs are going UP across the board. If you lose the neoclouds, you lose the incremental growth driver for marginal data center capacity, and the AI capex trade goes up in smoke. That's why we're seeing carnage across the entire AI supply chain, from $CAT and $GEV to $MU, $AVGO and more recently $NVDA. This is what the beginning of the end of a debt-fueled, circular-financed capex bubble looks like.
2
4
83
37,730
Hell yes. The only thing I like about Baltimore (besides my farm) is McCormick. Also, we — our ancestors — created America through conquest, but instead of enslaving the natives or killing them all, we gave them citizenship. If we had lost, they would have killed every last one of us. My farm’s deed says won by right of conquest. My land recognition is: you lost.
Replying to @SenWarren
My grandfather built McCormick Spices from nothing after your ancestors tomahawked his wife and kids. I'll be damned if you take another scalp from my family fortune!
6
10
234
17,034
This aged well. If you didn't read it before CoreWeave collapsed, maybe you will this time. Great lessons here for investors.
Jeff Bezos Shorted CoreWeave. Here’s Why.👇 In the spring of 2005, Jeff Bezos mailed Amazon's shareholders his 2004 shareholder letter. It was a description of CoreWeave’s business model. Yes, I’m serious. Bezos is so freakin’ smart he foresaw a time in the future that CoreWeave would build huge data centers – machines that would change everything about the economy and our daily lives…
10
6
179
94,069
I've got fantastic news... As many of you know, for 11 years I had the pleasure of owning the best damn dog (the "BDD") in the world -- Mr Scouts. Had perfect manners. Never quit. Could kill anything. Would retrieve everything. Cancer took him last year, at 11. But... we had him cloned. And Scout II was born on September 30th. Even better news...? We got twins. Twin clones. Mr. Scout II & III.
16
2
111
9,978
Just finished my tax return for 2025. I paid over $6m in federal taxes last year, which dwarfs the amounts I spend on my family. Taxes shouldn't be anyone's largest expense... and certainly not by a order of magnitude (10x). But, until I'm willing to pick up a rifle, I'm certain there's no way to prevent the criminals in D.C. from continuing to rob me. What I find far more troubling is that the document that I'm required to submit along with these funds is over 600 pages long and costs me a fortune to prepare each year. And ... don't forget... if my accountants make a mistake... this document can be used in a criminal trial against both me and my wife. Please explain how anyone could possibly be responsible for knowing, as a matter of law, whether or not every number in a 600 page document is accurate? And the best part? If you send this document to ten different accounting teams, you'll get ten different final amounts. This is all nuts.
344
268
3,646
176,751
Correction: the file was over 700 pages.
5
3
174
9,035
Porter Stansberry retweeted
You know... maybe he's got a point. Perhaps if white men raped black women at the rate that black men rape white women, something would be done to simply put all rapists (who are overwhelmingly black men statistically) in jail. Seems like a fair trade. Let's get to raping!
1
1
9
2,461
Porter Stansberry retweeted
Replying to @Harnetts_Thighs
You're not listening. Yes, I went to the restaurant too. It's great. I had two bottles of the 2019 Calon Segur -- one of my favorite bottles in the world and 2019 bottle of Ridge Monte Bello. Great wines, great food. Great service. I was specifically commenting on the room service menu, as I made perfectly clear. My point: If I'm renting a $2,000 per night townhome, I expect a much higher level of service. I expect a burger, cooked how I want it, and access to the full wine list. Tell me again why I'm wrong.
1
16
3,339
Porter Stansberry retweeted
Replying to @grok @amksy_
Why would I bother to make this shit up? Just call Fox Harbor and ask about the room service menu and wine list. Would take less than 5 minutes to verify what I'm saying. And by the way, I LOVED the resort. I'm saying, with all of the nonsense rules Canada will make it impossible to succeed. I'm not insulting your country or the resort. I'm saying your government is literally retarded. No one wants or needs a burger served at 160 degrees. Nuts.
1
2
18
2,623
No, it's crazier that the Americans of Boston don't carry him out of his home and tar and feather him. We've become a nation of whipped dogs. What we need is a group of men who say enough, put on Indian costumes, and make the bastards pay. Happy to contribute to that PAC.
Crazy that a United States Senator can openly violate civil rights law on Twitter
3
3
51
6,196
Serious question. The last administration sent out a faggot black woman to parrot the nonsense they were peddling. How is this any different?
Ooof. This was painful to watch. It was like listening to an 8th grader make a statement
55
7
149
21,326
If you, like me, believe that CoreWeave isn't merely a zero, but it could have never been anything but a zero, I beg you to read this. I understand that, as a newsletter publisher, there's been a lot of criticism of my "clickbait." I get it. You may never agree with my "End of America" hypothesis. Just like you might have doubted my claims in 2010 that America would soon be the world's largest exporter of energy (and that Peak Oil was a myth). Or in June of 2008 that both Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac were worth, a combined, negative $250 billion. Or, in 2006, that GM couldn't escape bankruptcy. Or in 2010 that GE would eventually collapse in an accounting fraud. I know... But this? CoreWeave? This is the biggest pile of garbage that's ever been sold to the American investor. It isn't merely going to zero. It is going to take an entire generation of high tech "leaders" with it. In fact -- Bezos has already shorted it. Doubt me? Read this and tell me why I'm wrong. Yours -- The best selling financial newsletter writer of all time: Porter Kiss My Ass Stansberry
Jeff Bezos Shorted CoreWeave. Here’s Why.👇 In the spring of 2005, Jeff Bezos mailed Amazon's shareholders his 2004 shareholder letter. It was a description of CoreWeave’s business model. Yes, I’m serious. Bezos is so freakin’ smart he foresaw a time in the future that CoreWeave would build huge data centers – machines that would change everything about the economy and our daily lives…
16
11
343
95,640
I thought this review of my book Warren's Mistakes was great because what happened to Berkshire over the last 25 years is an incredible story. And learning about what went wrong is a great way to learn how to be a great investor. "The best book on investing I've ever read." "This one kind of pisses me off because, first of all, it's exceptionally well written. It's a fascinating story. I couldn't put it down. What really pisses me off is that, if I had known the things that are in this book, had I read it 30 years ago, I probably would have invested quite a lot differently (because through this book I learned the true power of compounding year after year, decade after decade)." "Stansbury [sic] is just such an expert, such a guide, taking you through Warren, what made him successful, and then what made his investments really bad after around the year 2000. Now I know how Berkshire Hathaway works. I've learned so much about business. I have to say, this is one of the best business books or investing books I've ever read, if not the best." If you or someone you love wants to become a great investor, read this book: amazon.com/dp/B0GZ6PYQGQ
4
2
15
4,615
Worth reading again if you care about liberty.
As we approach our 250th anniversary, I believe it's worth noting that our government is only actually 165 years old. The American Republic established in 1776 ended in 1861. The Civil War cost almost a million lives: one out of every five white men of military age in the South and one out of every ten in the North. It destroyed virtually all of the wealth in the South — a 90% reduction to per capita GDP. The South would not recover economically until 1950. But the real cost of the war wasn't economic. It was political. The Civil War destroyed the Federalist system that our founders built to ensure the central government's power remained genuinely limited. Not limited by the goodwill of its legislators, which is no limit at all, but limited by the existence of rival sovereign States, which could restrain the central government and each other through competition. After 1865 the only real limit to federal power was the self-restraint of the men in office. And that didn't last for long... But, before we look at the long-term impact of America's first war of aggression, let us dispel a critical myth: that the Civil War ended slavery. Slavery was ending because of technology and economics. And it would have ended just as surely if no war had ever been fought between the States. Britain abolished slavery, without a war, throughout its empire in 1833, freeing some 700,000 people in the West Indies alone. France abolished slavery in its colonies in 1848. Russia — the most backward great power in Europe — emancipated some twenty-three million serfs in 1861, the very year of Sumter. The Netherlands freed the slaves of Surinam and Curaçao in 1863. Across the entire industrializing world, unfree labor was abandoned within a single compressed generation. And, in no other great nation, was war required. In America, slavery did not end because of General Grant and the boys in blue. It did not end because of a moral awakening. The cause was economic. Chattel slavery extracts muscle power from human beings. Therefore, slavery only makes economic sense if muscle power is the binding constraint on production. Once machines had multiplied the labor output of muscle by hundreds of times, slavery was not only immoral but inefficient. In an industrial economy a slave costs more than he yields. As a result, capital flees from slavery into factories. All over the world. And even in the South. Slavery ended everywhere at roughly the same time for the same reason: innovation and economics. It would have ended in the American South regardless of who won at Gettysburg. Even Brazil, the last holdout in the Western hemisphere, freed its 725,000 slaves with the Golden Law of 1888. No war was required: slavery was no longer productive. With apologies to the celebrants of Juneteenth, slavery was not legally abolished in the United States until the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified in December 1865. The institution died, not because of the war, but because the world had entered the machine age. The unnecessary destruction of half of our country and almost a million people wasn't the greatest tragedy of the Civil War. The greatest tragedy was the loss of Federalism and the hard-won liberty Americans won in the Revolution. The Civil War destroyed the federal structure of the American republic, in which the several States were sovereign in their own spheres, with genuinely different legal systems, cultures, and traditions. The national government was beholden to the States, with only limited and enumerated powers. The clearest proof of this change lies in our language. Before 1861, the United States was a plural noun. Men said the United States "are." After 1865 our country became singular. The United States "is." The doctrine that a state could check the central government — by interposition, by nullification, in the last resort by departure — died at Appomattox, and with it the last structural brake on the power of the federal government died too. The framers had not relied on parchment to limit the government they created. They relied on competition. So long as the States were genuinely sovereign — so long as a man oppressed in one State could remove to another, so long as the national government had to reckon with twenty or thirty rival centers of authority each jealous of its own jurisdiction — the central government could not easily grow into a Leviathan. The States were not administrative subdivisions. They were the Constitution's immune system. What followed the Civil War was America's first empire -- in the South. And Empire's require a strong central government. Thus began a long erosion of the line between the citizen and the State, and between private institutions and public power. Twelve years after the war, the Supreme Court considered whether a State could fix by law the prices a private grain warehouse charged its customers. The owners argued it was a taking of their property without due process — that what a man does with his own property, and what he charges for its use, is rightfully his own affair. The Court disagreed. Chief Justice Waite ruled that when private property is "affected with a public interest, it ceases to be juris privati only," and may be regulated by the government for the common good (Munn v. Illinois, 1877). That was the end of private property in America. After all, if the national legislature may decide which property is "affected with a public interest," and may then dictate its prices and uses, there is in principle no property the government may not control. Justice Stephen Field saw it and dissented with prophetic fury. The doctrine, he warned, "is nothing less than a bold assertion of absolute power by the State to control at its discretion the property and business of the citizen." A legislature that could fix the uses and prices of property "against the consent of the owner" could "deprive him of the property as completely as by a special act for its confiscation or destruction." New York City's landlords are finding out the truth of this reality. They believe they own their properties. But they are about to find out otherwise, as rents will now be controlled by the mayor, who is a communist. This will spread. A communist ruling over all of America is only a matter of time. Why? Because the law provides an unlimited incentive for such power. There is nothing in America the government cannot take from you. Nothing. The proof of the unlimited central authority was established in blood. The courts followed where the armies led. And the first American Empire — the North's conquest of the South — led to more such military adventures, which continue to this day. In its first century, the United States heeded its founders' warnings against entangling alliances, a large standing army, and foreign military adventures. But the creation of the massive Northern army created its own momentum. Only 20 years after Reconstruction, the country clamored for another Empire and war against Spain. America became an imperial power, with possessions from the Caribbean to the far Pacific — Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines. The consolidated nation that emerged from the Civil War was the precondition for the American Empire that emerged in 1898. Power flows to the center, and the center's reach has no natural boundary. The Leviathan must be fed. In 1913, every American became a direct serf to the national government: The Sixteenth Amendment gave the federal government the power to tax incomes directly. The size of a government is set, in the end, by the size of its revenues. The income tax removed the ceiling. The Seventeenth Amendment, ratified the same year, provided for the direct election of United States senators. Under the original Constitution, senators were chosen by the state legislatures. This was the last vestige of State sovereignty. It could not be allowed to stand. The Senate stopped being the guardian of federalism. And… then… with these Constitutional impediments finally vanquished, you saw Leviathan act to ensure its permanent dominance: it would control the money supply. In December of 1913, Congress created the Federal Reserve System. The power over money, which the Constitution had strictly withheld from the central government, was enshrined into law. Income tax, a central bank, and the removal of the states from the Senate — all in one year. The Revolution that began in 1861 was complete. America's Empire had begun. Munn established that the government may dictate the use of private property. 1898 established that the consolidated nation would project power without limit beyond its borders. 1913 established the revenue, the money power, and the removal of the states from their guard post. The 1964 Civil Rights Act expanded this dictatorial power into every private transaction in America. Government of the people, for the people, and by the people has been destroyed. We now live in an Empire, not a Republic. The Civil War didn't free any slaves; it enslaved all of us.
4
3
36
10,266
Porter Stansberry retweeted
Talk about a thankless task. I spent about 10 years writing a book about Warren Buffett's mistakes (Warren's Mistakes). People ask me: "don't you know he's the greatest investor who ever lived?" Really? Gee, I had no idea. I've spent 30 years studying every investment he made and everything he's ever written. But I had absolutely no idea what an incredible genius Warren Buffett is.... Of course I do! That's exactly why I've spent so much time studying his mistakes. It's like Charlie Munger taught: to find the best answer, invert the question. Figure out where you're going to die... and don't go there. Figure out what goes wrong in the best investments and you'll make far fewer mistakes and you'll understand investing in a far deeper way. So... look at this. Here's exactly what you don't want to do with your capital. This is, I believe, the worst investment Buffett ever made, by a huge margin. Not because he lost money, but because of the enormous opportunity cost and the fact that there was no way, under any condition, that this investment would ever beat the S&P 500. Enjoy -- if you want to become a better investor. 👇 amazon.com/dp/B0GZ6PYQGQ
10
7
115
22,709