The “Prettiest Stock” Pitch

In Porter Stansberry’s “Artificial Illusion” presentation, Ulta Beauty (ULTA) was the second of three “forever stocks,” teased under the label “The Prettiest Stock on Wall Street.” The hook leaned on cosmetics’ resistance to downturns, with the blunt line that no matter what happens, women are always going to buy cosmetics. That is the kind of framing that sounds right without telling you much about whether the stock will actually work.

The numbers Stansberry cited were genuinely impressive. Net income up 4,000% since 2010. Roughly $630 million in cash. No debt. A 40% gross margin. The one blemish he acknowledged, operating margins narrowing by 1.5 percentage points, was reframed as the very thing that created a “grossly undervalued” entry point at 16 times earnings.

The tease price was $420.01, set in late November 2023. Three years later we have a complete scorecard, and it is the most instructive of the three picks, because the pitch’s own math is the story.

The 15%-Versus-9% Math

This is where the “Prettiest Stock” pitch gets interesting. Stansberry attached a “15% compounded returns” label to the “Forever Company” idea. The reality came in short.

Teased at $420.01, Ulta closed on September 25, 2026 at $545.20, up about 30% over three years. That is roughly 9% annualized. A perfectly respectable return, well ahead of cash, but a long way from the 15% compound rate the pitch implied.

The gap traces back to a real risk Stock Gumshoe flagged at the time. When a company’s earnings grow slower than its sales, efficiency is falling. Analysts were modeling only about 7% annual earnings per share growth for Ulta. The market largely confirmed that slower path. The 4,000% net-income figure since 2010 is real, but it describes a long history, not a forward rate. A retailer that grew net income from a tiny base over fifteen years can still compound at a mid-single-digit or high-single-digit rate going forward.

The narrowing operating margin is the quiet tell. A 1.5 percentage-point squeeze is not fatal, but it is the opposite of the operating leverage a 15% compounder needs. We unpack what a “forever stock” is actually supposed to deliver in our explainer on the forever-stock label.

What the AI Railroad Meant for a Retailer

Ulta sits oddly inside the “AI Railroad” framing, and that oddness is worth spelling out. The pitch’s core idea is that machine learning is quietly improving established businesses, the way railroad barons got rich hauling other people’s gold rather than digging for it. For Ulta, that means things like personalized product recommendations, inventory forecasting, and loyalty program targeting, all of which use machine learning in genuinely useful ways.

The problem is that none of that is new, and none of it changes the retail math. A beauty retailer’s returns still come down to same-store sales growth and margin management. Machine learning can shave costs and sharpen merchandising, but it does not turn a 7% earnings grower into a 15% compounder. Ulta was a decent example of the “AI Railroad” idea in the abstract, and a weaker example of it in practice, because the AI layer did not move the fundamental economics enough to justify the compounding claim.

Directionally Right, Magnitude Oversold

The honest read is that Ulta was directionally right and oversold on magnitude. The pitch did not pick a bad company. Ulta is a profitable, debt-free retailer with a loyal customer base and a real franchise. Buying it at $420.01 worked, just at a slower rate than advertised.

Compare that to the other two picks in the trio. PayPal went nowhere for three years, down about 5%. Deere was the standout, up about 90%. Ulta sat in the middle, a modest winner that compounded at a fair rate rather than a home run.

That middle position is the point. The “Prettiest Stock on Wall Street” was never a 15% compounder in disguise. It was a fair company at a fair price, and it delivered a fair return.

The Bottom Line

Ulta’s scorecard is a reminder to separate a long history of growth from a forward growth rate. The 4,000% net-income figure is a looking-backward stat. The “15% compounded” claim is a looking-forward promise. The two are not the same thing, and when the forward promise is attached to a business with narrowing margins and roughly 7% modeled earnings growth, the realistic outcome is what we got: about 9% a year.

None of that makes Ulta a bad business. It makes the pitch’s rate-of-return claim too generous. If you are reading the “Artificial Illusion” promotion for lessons, the Ulta entry is the clearest case study in why the specific compounding number matters more than the adjectives wrapped around it.

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.