The Trillion-Dollar Claim

When Porter Stansberry’s “Artificial Illusion” presentation named PayPal as its “$1 Trillion Powerhouse,” the pitch looked simple on the surface. PayPal Holdings (PYPL) had, in Stansberry’s telling, locked up 40% of its market and posted 40 consecutive quarters of sales growth, putting it on course to become a trillion-dollar business by 2040. The tease price in late November 2023 was $57.97, a level Stansberry called “one of its lowest valuations on record” after a single quarter of slightly slower sales.

The framing matters more than the headline. PayPal was not pitched as an AI company. It was pitched as an “AI Railroad,” a profitable piece of infrastructure that machine learning quietly runs on top of. Stansberry’s argument was that PayPal uses machine learning to speed up product development, improve authorization rates, and stop fraud. The stock, the story went, was cheap because investors had overreacted to what he called a “temporary dip” in sales growth.

That framing is the entire reason this pick has a scorecard worth reading. The tease is now three years old. We can look at what actually happened instead of arguing about what might have happened.

The Dead-Money Scorecard

Here is the number that matters. Teased at $57.97 in November 2023, PayPal closed on September 25, 2026 at $55.04, down about 5% over three years. A market capitalization of roughly $47 billion today reflects a business that grew but never got the market to pay up for it.

The “40 consecutive quarters of sales growth” claim was real as a historical fact, but it did not become a forward catalyst. The specific promise, that the slowdown was “only a temporary dip,” is the part that failed. Three years later, the “temporary dip” reads more like a reset of expectations. PayPal was not a broken business; it was a mature one whose easy-growth years were behind it.

The “AI Railroad” label did not help either. PayPal does use machine learning across its payments and fraud operations, and that work is genuinely valuable. But the market never treated that machine-learning use as a reason to re-rate the stock. PayPal behaved like a large-cap value stock, not an AI beneficiary. The wrapper added color, not return.

Why “Cheap” Didn’t Turn Into “Up”

The lesson here is a valuation one. “Cheap” and “temporarily slowed” can both be true at the same time, and both can persist for years. A value investor who bought the “temporary dip” story in late 2023 earned roughly nothing on the stock for three years while the broader market rose.

That is not a criticism of PayPal as a company. It is a profitable business with genuinely powerful brands, including the Braintree B2B payment processor and the Venmo consumer network. We unpack the Braintree asset inside PayPal separately, and it is the most concrete piece of infrastructure in the entire pitch. The narrower point is this: a 40% market-share “forever stock” can still be dead money for years when the growth story stalls. There is more on this in our Porter & Co.’s ‘Artificial Illusion’ — The Three ’Forever… article.

Part of why the stock stalled is that the growth engines PayPal leans on, the Braintree processing business and the Venmo consumer app, are not the same kind of businesses. One is a high-volume, lower-margin B2B processor. The other is a consumer money-transfer network still working to turn users into revenue. Together they give PayPal real scale, but they do not add up to the simple re-acceleration story the “temporary dip” framing implied.

What Worked and What Didn’t

Stansberry’s valuation discipline was real. He did not pick a speculative story stock. He picked a profitable household name trading at a lower multiple than its history, with a defensible reason it was cheap. That instinct, buying good businesses at reasonable prices, is sound.

What did not work was the label. PayPal was sold as a “beneficiary of AI,” which implied AI would be the engine of returns. In practice the stock tracked its fundamentals, not any shared AI tailwind. Compare that to Deere, the one pick in the trio that actually delivered, and the difference is clear: Deere won because its precision-agronomy business improved, not because an AI label attached to it. Ulta Beauty landed in between, compounding at a modest rate rather than the 15% the pitch promised.

The Bottom Line

PayPal at the tease price has been a lesson in patience without reward. The business is fine. The “trillion-dollar by 2040” narrative is still theoretically possible. But the specific claim that the stock sat at “one of its lowest valuations on record” and was about to recover has been wrong for three straight years.

If you are studying this pitch for anything, study the discipline, not the pick. Buying profitable, capital-efficient businesses at reasonable prices is never a bad instinct. Just do not expect a “forever stock” label to turn a stalled growth story into an AI winner.

Ready to see the research? Click here to access Porter Stansberry’s report.

NewsletterVetter is an independent publication. We receive compensation from some of the services we review through affiliate links. Nothing on this site is investment advice. Always do your own research.