3259

The study data for GLP-1 weight loss is for weight loss. Not healthy, fat reduction. If you diet with a calorie deficit (especially at a large deficit), while monitoring body fat % you’ll note that you need to be quite diligent in monitoring your diet (mainly protein intake) and possibly exercise to ensure you’re actually losing fat and not lean mass. This becomes harder as you age and it’s much harder as we age to maintain and build muscle mass. I suspect most people claiming weight loss due to GLP1s are not diligent with protein intake and exercise and that much of the weight loss is not healthy, fat loss. This may solve some problems but create others. If you’re past 40 and are losing a bunch of lean mass, while being sedentary and working a desk job and not making lifestyle changes, you may be making your life harder down the road. If you’re not diligent with your diet/exercise after you stop taking the GLP1s, you will likely regain the weight you lost. This is relevant to the question of what health problems GLP-1 weight loss solves and what treatments will be used less due to the weight loss (e.g. ortho implants, knee and hip replacements, reduction in other healthcare expenses).

@thepupili like this idea but am concerned by the bid ask spread, which appears to be really hi unless I’m missing something. How do you think about that?

Agree with cause mostly being Covid issues and deferred healthcare. The drug overdose death #s in many parts of the US have been pretty scary as well. Here are the figures for Davidson Co (Nashville), TN.

I’ve been told by an automotive engineer with experience in this area that white paint tends to be the most stable pigment and tends to wear better than other colors as well.

Whaaaaat? You're making me nervous. The way you talk about AIV, CLPR, & MSGE, I figured that would be 30% of your portfolio right there. I might have a larger weight in your ideas than you do! haha.

I know most folks don't give a hoot about state pot regs, especially when there are lots more important things going on in the world. But folks should be outraged by these policies. Bad for consumers. Keeps prices too high. Makes it impossible to get rid of the black market. Makes it harder to build a brand.

Not sure I follow you here. The commerce clause applies even if Congress doesn't act. Although there is uncertainty about what regulatory framework Congress will use, I think it is likely that framework will be less protectionist (and potentially much much less) than current state and local policies that insulate the local / state markets from competition. Opening up to more competition is good policy. It would lower prices, allow brands to form which would have safety benefits, it would do a better job getting rid of the black market than protectionist state policies do, and at some point the big boys are going to start lobbying hard to get into the game. FWIW, if you look at the nascent Cannabis lobbying groups, the US MSOs and the big corps ain't on the same team.

The same way they get liquor and cigs in retail now. Pharmacy, convenience store, and grocery chains with more lobbying money, more assets, and superior management are going to want to sell it. NIMBYs? We're not talking about strip clubs. Many (most?) folks under 40 are less concerned (politically and health wise) about edibles than drinking alcohol or smoking/dipping tobacco. I live in the bible belt and can buy liquor at Costco & tobacco at Sam's Club.

Thanks for your post. It helps me think through my own thesis. The issue of interstate commerce and local protectionism (zoning, licensing requirements, social equity programs) is where this space starts to go in the too hard pile for me. I think federal legalization is inevitable (no idea when that happens but definitely won't happen while we're dealing with Covid). Once that happens, a lot of the protectionism goes away due to the dormant commerce clause issue. What protectionism gets thrown out and who benefits from the future regulatory structure is a big part of why I put this space in the too hard pile. Zoning might provide some protection. I don't know. I imagine some pharmacies and large convenience store operators would like to get involved. Does zoning protect liquor stores? In my state, you can just go to Costco.

Agree. But I think the market dynamics will be different post federal legalization. I'm not confident the current MSOs fare well in that environment. I think the odds are against them.

Certainly open to other views (I'm not an expert on cannabis growing / distribution) but long term and post interstate commerce, I don't think BTI will need to grow it just like they don't grow their own tobacco. Long term, I think the winner will be whomever can establish a national brand. I'm not confident any of the MSOs can / will win that fight. OTOH, you could have an MSO that builds a brand prior to interstate commerce by focusing on the key areas (CA, NY, FL) but that MSO might still be saddled with a bunch of stuff (stores, greenhouses, and warehouses) that aren't optimal for a post-interstate commerce world.

Best guess would be roughly 5 years. Feds will need to pause the dormant commerce clause and there will be lots of other issues (social equity) to resolve.

No. Just general ideas about their distribution abilities in a post-interstate commerce world.

Been looking into US MSOs a good bit. Had trouble finding credible thought leaders on the business side so I started reading law review articles, blogs at top law firms, and policy papers from lobbying groups in the space. The more I learn, the less I like the Cannabis space. At best, I'm putting it in the too hard pile. My two cents. I think federal legalization is inevitable, its uncertain how current MSOs fare in that scenario, and my guess is not well. I expect industry will be regulated like insurance and/or liquor. After federal legalization, I think the present MSOs' cultivation, licensing, and distribution assets might be worth less than they are today. Upon federal legalization, I expect there will be a battle among cannabis, alcohol and tobacco companies (and maybe pharmacies), all of which will push to use their distribution networks. I'm not confident the current MSOs win that battle. Some ways I see you could making money in the US MSOs: 1. If congress punts on full legalization and passes SAFE banking act. I would sell the news. 2. Buying smaller players and hope they get bought by a larger MSO. I would sell the news. 3. Buy & hold Constellation, British American Tobacco, TPB, MO or BUD at reasonable valuation and revisit when federal legalization is legitimately being debated. BUD & BTI appear cheap. BUD has dividend withholding issues. The others appear roughly fairly valued. 4. Buy something like Trulieve and hope that it takes lot longer for feds to legalize.

They also bought Liberty Health which, per recent VIC writeup, almost went out of business due to crop failures. @gregmal I'm surprised you'd touch this stuff. Unlike me, you seem to find much easier ways to make money.