CANNAINVESTOR Magazine May / June 2017 - Page 49


Barry Ritholz’s April 18th article in the Chicago Tribune titled The investing parallels of alcohol and weed should be must reading for anyone investing in this industry or is considering it. Succinctly, Mr. Ritholz rhetorically asks what if you could travel through time (I assume in a certain blue police box) to the year 1932 when alcohol prohibition ended and invest in what you know now would be the clear winners in the alcohol industry. The parallel is drawn to the cannabis industry and to countries such as Canada and Uruguay that are leading the world in bringing an end to the prohibition of cannabis with Canada being the first G7 country to do so. The author makes a compelling case as to why the US will also end its prohibition but it could be delayed

somewhat due to the current administration’s position. On the newsstands now, is Time’s April 2017 updated Special Edition “Marijuana Goes Main Street” - first sentence of this special edition reads “Welcome to year zero”. Subscribers of CannaInvestor Magazine may recall a similar timeline that appeared in an article months ago. Being months ahead of mainstream media and using terms that become the industry standard is a CANNAINVESTOR Magazine advantage.

Companies operating in states where it is legal just may have that much coveted first mover advantage when cannabis is rescheduled federally and California is arguably the front runner with the largest population and customer base. CANNAINVESTOR Magazine and various third party sources have identified several companies listed and headquartered in Canada with US operations. Being officially in Canada affords domestic treatment not afforded to American counterparts plus the big advantage of the legal status of Cannabis in Canada and listing on a national exchange. The current foreign exchange difference may be attractive to some. For companies operating in the US, many retail investors I have spoken with prefer companies operating in California as that state is contemplating safe haven status meaning state resources would not assist any federal investigation or action: