Most Recent Interviews
- Andreas BoecklEp 328 – The World’s First Cannabis Inhaler Is Disrupting the Wellness Industry
- Paul RosenEp 327 – Insider Details the Mega Trends Impacting the Cannabis Industry
- Alex RowlandEp 326 – How Contract Manufacturers Can Scale Your Cannabis Product
- Jeffrey FinkleEp 325 – Investors Getting in Early Thanks to the First Member-Managed Cannabis Fund
What will the cannabis industry look like in the next few years? Paul Rosen of Global Go shares the nine trends shaping cannabis worldwide (and wait till you hear #4).
Learn more at https://globalgo.consulting
[2:22] An inside look at Global Go, one of the world’s leading consulting firms for cannabis and hemp businesses
[4:34] Paul’s background and how he got into the cannabis space
[10:03] The nine trends shaping cannabis on a global scale, beginning with catastrophic failure
[16:20] The divergence of medical and recreational markets
[21:36] The end of Canadian domination in cannabis and the rise of the US
[29:02] New FDA rulings on CBD
[35:39] Biosynthesis and what it could mean for the cannabis industry
[40:57] Why “cash remains king” in cannabis
Matthew Kind: Hi, I'm Matthew Kind. Every Monday look for a fresh new episode where I'll take you behind the scenes and interview the insiders that are shaping the rapidly evolving cannabis industry. Learn more at cannainsider.com. Now here's your program.
Today we're going to hear about the nine trends impacting the cannabis industry from industry insider Paul Rosen of Global Go. Paul, welcome to CannaInsider.
Paul Rosen: Great to be here. Thank you so much for having me.
Matthew: Give us a sense of geography. Where are you in the world today?
Paul: I am in beautiful Canada where I am from, in the province of Ontario. I wish your audience could see where I am. I'm at my country home, which is on Lake Ontario, I think the third largest lake in the world. We're here in late fall, early winter. We had a bit of snow this morning, which happily did not stay on the ground. This is where I've been sheltering in place along with my family since, really, COVID struck hard in March.
Matthew: Okay. When are they going to let us Americans back up into Canada? I'm feeling a little bit like a secondhand citizen here? What's the deal?
Paul: Yes, I could [crosstalk]
Matthew: I know you were personally responsible for it.
Paul: Yes. I'll just make a quick phone call and everything will be fine. Let me say, Matt, that it's a reciprocal thing that we also are under some restrictions to just being able to enter the United States. We need to have a viable reason other than just feel like going on a holiday or visiting. I think with the promise around the Moderna vaccine and the Pfizer vaccine, there's a lot of optimism that will start in the spring, to start to see something that looks a bit more normal. I do think Americans can come to Canada still, but they need to have a compelling reason.
Matthew: Okay. Got it. How about just like our deep desire for authentic maple syrup? Is that a good reason--
Paul: So good. I was just driving in my neck of the woods and all the trees are being tapped for sap right now, so it is that season here. [chuckles] Yes, Canadians were good at maple syrup, bacon, doughnuts, hockey, and of course, cannabis.
Matthew: Yes. We're going to talk a lot about that. Good segue. Paul, before we do that, what is Global Go at a high level?
Paul: Global Go is a advisory platform that is delivering and set up to continue to deliver a whole range of service offerings to the global cannabis industry, so kind of my core thesis, which is something I know we're going to touch upon, is that cannabis already has gone global and more and more countries are beginning to adopt sensible cannabis reform, whether it's medical or recreational. I don't have enough fingers in both hands to count the number of countries that have transitioned if you will. I think that we can learn a lot from some of the early countries like Canada, where I was an early entrepreneur, as to what best practices work and what not so great practices should be discarded.
Global Go is really designed to help not just emerging cannabis entrepreneurs, but either mature or emerging cannabis entrepreneurs in any jurisdiction, minimize their risk, to be honest, because this is a risky industry. We have a whole range of service offerings from the very basics of applying for licenses, to meaningful consultation on growth technology, extraction technology, to brokering deals by being able to act for buyer or seller to move cannabinoids compounds from one regulated jurisdiction to another, to guide on capital strategy, to guide an M&A strategy. From the micro to the macro, we're a full-service advisory.
I call it a platform because we've opened up affiliate offices in a number of the countries that I predict will have a bright future in global cannabis. These include Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador, Switzerland, Cyprus, Mexico, Singapore as a hub into Asia. We're really building what I think is going to be like the McKinsey of cannabis. When I say we, myself and a lot of really talented, hard-working individuals that all have years of experience in the global regulated cannabis industry.
Matthew: Okay. Can you talk a little bit about your background and what you were doing before Global Go?
Paul: Definitely. I'm in my mid-50s just to put an age to a voice, which means I've been at it careerwise for a long time. My ark is kind of interesting, I think, as to how I got into cannabis, which leads to Global Go. I'm an attorney in Canada. Although I stopped practicing law in the late 1990s- Matt, I was a constitutional and criminal defense attorney, a wonderful career, the foundation stone of everything that happened since, but I was really more built for business than I was to be a lawyer. I just never loved selling my time by the hour as a business model. I could kind of calculate my lifetime earnings when I was about 30 years old, which concerned me, and I would really enjoy the risk and the potential upside of business.
I've been a small business owner and operator my entire career. Even as a lawyer, I opened my own law firm, but I entered the cannabis industry way back in 2012. That was around the time that the Canadian government was beginning to promulgate a commercial cultivation licensing program in Canada for cannabis. Those words really got my attention, licensing, commercial cultivation. I had a strong sense, like a lot of other early Canadian participants, that this was going to be quite a big economic boom to the country and a great opportunity for risk on entrepreneurs to enter the industry, and I did. I started a company with three co-founders that originally was called Hortican Incorporated, and then, it name changed to PharmaCan Capital Corporation.
We figured out quickly that our skillset was to analyze deals rather than necessarily run or apply to run a grow up, and so we became the first Canadian investment company to invest in other cannabis operators companies. I took that company public with my colleagues in Canada in 2014. I think we were the third public company in Canada. Then the company was corporate rebranded to the Cronos Group in October 2016, shortly after I had departed as CEO. That whole experience, which for me, lasted about four years was the deepest possible dive into what a regulated cannabis regime or platform would look like. It really blew my mind as to what the possibilities were around this plant, both as a medicine, as a wellness product, but also as a source of great commercial potential.
I've been super active in the cannabis industry. I won't bore you and your audience with everything I've done. I started a number of companies, one of which is Global Go. The reason I started Global Go, along with some talented partners, is when I wasn't starting my own companies, I was doing advisory on the side for a whole range of great cannabis companies, quite a few of which have gone on to great outcomes.
I was never an advisor. I always looked at consultants or advisors with a little bit of a skeptical eye. I always felt like entrepreneurs do advisors' advice. Probably, I was a little bit too prideful in that assessment but it was how I felt. I did discover that I had a knack, especially for helping early-stage entrepreneurs navigate both the opportunities and the potential risk around startup culture. I never really thought that was a scalable business, but it was a great pleasure to be able to mind share with all sorts of cool companies, not just in cannabis, in multiple industries, learn from them, but also impart what experience had taught me and wisdom and experience are really something that you earn over time. It's not a function of intelligence. It's a function of experience.
I love that advisory business because I really felt that I was adding value and I could see the impact that was having on young companies, but to me, it wasn't scalable. Then I met a great colleague of mine named Tom Zuber, another great colleague named Phil Valvardi, and we decided to launch this company together because we saw what was a scalable platform and we have scaled quickly. We have about 15 staff now. We operate in, as I mentioned, seven different countries, and we have a pretty incredible client list growing all the time.
I've been all-in Matt in the cannabis industry. Like once I got pulled into the gravitational orbit [chuckles] of the cannabis industry, I really just had to reorient my other companies that continued to operate, restaff them, replace myself, and I've never really looked back. I just cannot express my affection for this industry enough. I love it. I love what we're doing. Global Go is a vehicle to extend all the knowledge that we've picked up in North America over the last eight years, and help transport that to emerging economies even if emerging means a new state in America. To us, it's all really one global industry at this point.
Matthew: Okay. Yes, every other industry seems boring after hearing and this one for a while. It seems vanilla, so I agree with you. Let's talk about the nine trends affecting the cannabis industry. Jump right into the first one, what is catastrophic failure, and what do we need to know about it?
Paul: Yes. We highlighted nine things that I think are-- They're not exhaustive. They're illustrative of things that are, at least from an investor perspective, or a market participant perspective, things to be aware of. Catastrophic failure in the cannabis industry looks like companies going into a form of creditor protection or receivership, possibly being taken over by their debenture holders or their debt holders if they can't maintain their covenants.
We have seen in the last year, even a year and a half, an increase in the velocity of either restructurings, workouts, or just outright failures were companies that were here last year are not here anymore. I don't want to go through a laundry list and name names, but we can definitely see, especially when structured debt came to the cannabis industry and just for the audience, this is highly, quite frankly, fairly expensive debt with very strong security attached to the loan, and usually with underlying warrant coverage. It's like a free carry on, the future of the equity, a guaranteed coupon, regardless of how the equity performs, and if the equity does not perform an ability to take over a company.
One recent example, just to put a name to it, would be iAnthus Capital, which is a company that actually I sat on the board on, a multi-state operator with assets in multiple states, but they recently were unable to maintain or service their debt covenant, and this resulted in them being offside with their lender. Their lender was senior secured, and the lender enforced security in that instance. What that meant for the equity holders, was that the lenders during the enforcement of security took over about 98% of the company, which isn't a catastrophic failure in the sense of the company will continue on, but for the equity holders, it was a near-catastrophic failure.
The impetus behind this is a few things, Matt, as to why this was happening. It's a pairing of one, a tremendous enthusiasm in entrepreneurial startup culture to start cannabis companies. We have had literally tens of thousands of cannabis companies founded in the last five years, which I will argue, as the industry matures out is probably more than the actual amount of companies that are necessary to service this industry. We start with the fact that there are maybe too many market participants for a mature market to absorb.
Then we look at the fact that this is a very capital-intensive industry. It's very hard to grow a meaningfully viable cannabis asset without a lot of capital. We've seen companies in the cannabis industry now collectively raised or individually raised into the billions of dollars. Canopy Growth Corporation, Aurora Cannabis, Cronos, these companies have gone to market and each raised over a billion dollars, in some instances, multiple billions of dollars during their lifecycle. As long as the money is coming into the industry it protects us from understanding who are the more talented operators, who can really swim and who maybe can't swim but has this giant life preserver called unlimited capital.
We went through a period of time where capital, if not unlimited, was not particularly discriminating so I would say that the seeds of catastrophic failure where companies are going to, unfortunately, not have any future. Many will, but quite a few will not. Probably, more will not make it than will make it just because of the number of market participants. It began to assert itself when there was a bit of a bear sentiment into the overall industry, which we can correlate to more or less April of 2019. That's when stock prices started to go down, and that's when capital markets started to seize up a little bit.
You could say that the cannabis industry in some sense, like a lot of startup industries, could be compared to an enormous game of musical chairs with too many players and not enough chairs, but capital is the money. As long as the music's playing, you don't realize that, necessarily, there's not enough chairs or you don't know who's going to not find a chair, but when the music stops, and the music is the availability of capital for everybody, then you will see that there are not enough chairs. Chairs being total addressable market, too many participants, and without capital, these companies cannot continue on.
You can even see right now, Matt, some of the most mature names in our industry, Canopy Growth Corporation, Cronos, Aurora. Now, these are Canadian companies, but they're big names that trade on US exchanges. We're into year seven for these companies. I should know. I was involved with-- I knew them all well from day one. None of them are profitable yet. If you're not profitable for years and years, what you need to keep going is more and more capital, but that capital is not available to everybody, so we are beginning to see that type of market event where there is companies going out of business or going into a form of creditor protection, and I think this will continue. Even though the markets are warming up a little bit again, I still think that this will continue.
What it means for investors or for new founders is to be very aware of the risk, and to make sure you understand not only how much capital you need, but where that capital is coming from.
Matthew: Okay. Let's go to the second trend here, the divergence of medical and rec markets. What's important there?
Paul: Well, that's a really meaty issue. I'm glad that we're going to go through this. My belief is, and I think this is a belief shared by quite a few market participants, is right now we could talk about medical and we could talk about recreational, but the truth is, it's conflated into one amorphous market, featuring both medical and recreational patients. To me, if you look at the budtender, right now, the budtender, in a dispensary is almost playing the role of patient advocate. You have a lot of patients who are new to the plant as a source of healing, and their doctor or their nurse practitioner isn't necessarily strain knowledgeable.
They may not know or even want to know that you'd want to use a bubba kush for this or an OG for that. It's just not traditional medicine where you have approved products, approved by your health authority like the FDA, and you know, "Hey, if you have a blood-thinning issue, this is your medication. If you have an infection, this is your medication." Right now, I will say that both medical and recreational patients are going to a dispensary which is really meant for recreational ultimately.
Where we start to anticipate is that now that cannabis is legalized or partly legalized in many countries, we're finally having the type of necessary medical research or drug development, if you will, that will allow cannabis to go through a conventional drug approval process. We had the first instance of this a few years ago when GW Pharmaceutical got received the FDA approval for Epidiolex, which is a best in class, cannabis-centric remedy for Dravet syndrome, sometimes referred to as childhood epilepsy. This is what we'll call the canary in the coal mine that in no way was it a sort of a sui generis one and done that won't happen again. That's where the medical industry is going to go.
It's going to go into approved targeted formulations that physicians can or nurse practitioners can prescribe with the same certainty that they currently prescribe a whole- pretty much every other approved medication and that the true patients are more likely to seek the certainty of an Epidiolex, for example, versus the uncertainty of, "Hey, I've made a high-CBD low-THC strain, which probably will mirror some of the salutary effects or efficaciousness of an Epidiolex." You would be like, "No, that's okay. I'm just going to go with the approved medication."
I say that like that budtender that I certainly know and love, that budtender, I probably help, but some of those budtenders kids to university in my cannabis consumption career, but it doesn't strike me as overtly medical, and I think when I see patients in need asking a budtender, "This is my symptom--" The budtender is trying. They're not trying to be a disingenuous actor, but they're not trained medical practitioners and they don't have necessarily the body of scientific research to be be able to say with certainty, "If you suffer from neuropathy, this is what I recommend. If you're having early-stage Parkinson's syndrome, this is what I recommend. If you're an ALS patient, this is what I recommend." You're just putting too much burden on a non-trained professional that doesn't have the datasets to prove that.
It doesn't mean that you can't go to a bartender and say, "I'm having trouble sleeping," and they can say, "Well, a lot of my clients or customers or patients have said try this." Let's just say that cannabis is one of those few medications that it's okay to trial and error. In fact, it might be essential because there's virtually no toxicity to it and it doesn't really contraindicate any other medication. It's not like the moral hazard of being wrong is just that it didn't work, not that it caused devastation to your organs or contraindicate with another medication that you were taking.
What I see inevitably is that the medical industry is going to behave like medicine, where there's approved targeted formulations that are proven to be efficacious for whatever condition you're seeking. The rec market will look a lot like it looks right now except that the rec market will really become more or less a giant CPG market with all the CPG playbook, quality of brand and quality of distribution, quality of manufacturing, having an outsized impact upon who were the big winners in a post-prohibition era recreational market.
Matthew: Let's talk about the next to you, which is the end of Canadian domination, the rise of the US. Talk about that a little bit.
Paul: As a good Canadian patriot there's very few things we dominate. To give up any one of them is painful. We want to be the best in hockey, which, of course, we are. I think everyone knows that. All flippancy aside, Canada continues to be, in my opinion, the most important cannabis jurisdiction in the world right now as measured by a whole number of different measuring sticks. Let's start with the fact that it's still, as a federally legal market, the largest federally legal market in the world. The United States if you aggregate all of the states, I'm talking about adult-use not medical, if you aggregate all of the states, of course, you have a larger total addressable market but it's not federally legal and that means it limits its market development.
Canada we're 37 or so million people and so just a large market to be in. Canada was- early we had a commercial medical cannabis cultivation in 2013. We went full rec in 2017 so we've been at it for a while. The big advantage that Canada had is it became the World Bank for Cannabis. Our capital markets were not at all shy in a way that US capital market participants like investment banks have to be because we were federally legal. It meant that there was no risk to jumping into the industry. Our transactional investment banks started, at first, raising money for Canadian companies but very quickly began raising capital for a whole range of companies regardless of where they're from.
If you look at, for example, Matt, the United States and you just do a roll call of the largest public cannabis companies in America. Every one of them has raised most of their capital in Canada using one of the Canadian investment banks, and every one of them is listed on the Canadian Exchange because they're not able to list on the NASDAQ or the NYSE. Curaleaf listed on the CSE, the Canadian Securities Exchange. Green Thumb Industries, GTI listed, on the CSE. Harvest listed on the CSE. Cresco Labs listed on the CSE. MedMen listed on the CSE. I'm just getting going. I think I've made my point. I don't need to name them all.
We became the wallet of global cannabis which allows us to have an outsize impact on the development of cannabis because it's such a capital-intensive industry that if we're the place to list a company-- By the way, I only mentioned US companies. Columbian have come here. Israeli companies have come here. Companies from the UK, from Germany, they've all come to Canada to either list or raise capital. Just by giving us that capital platform it ensures Canadian, I wouldn't say domination but a very strong and enduring role for Canada outside of our own borders. We have the largest rec market. We are the global bank for cannabis more or less. Of course, there's capital in other jurisdictions but we're still where most of the capital is being raised.
Then you look at the third measure which is who's exporting the most regulated cannabis in the world right now? It's Canada. We are exporting close to 20 countries right now, Israel, Brazil, Germany, the UK, et cetera. This is a future look at what cannabis is going to look like. We've developed the most export-minded economy in cannabis right now. We have some reasons why that is. In order to export regulated cannabinoids, the first condition precedent is that you be federally legal. Canada can export to other federally legal jurisdictions. We cannot export to America because it's not federally legal. Conversely, America cannot export anywhere because it's not federally legal.
This global trade in cannabinoids is increasing in frequency. It's allowing Canada to play an outsize role or has allowed Canada to play an outsize role in the development of global cannabis because we're raising the money, we're often exporting to emerging jurisdictions, and we're often taking stakes in these companies. A lot of our larger more well-capitalized [unintelligible 00:26:47] companies have either bought outright or made meaningful investments in a whole range of emerging market participants in other countries. We really have done an incredible job for a small country for the reasons I've outlined becoming the most dominant cannabis jurisdiction.
With that being said, that's not sustainable in the long term. Inevitably we're going to need Canada to always fight above its weight, but for the global cannabis industry to develop, to scale, it's going to require, quite frankly, the United States to take its rightful role as the global center of commerce. In some ways, we're beginning to see that already. Certainly, if you look at the economic performance of the largest US cannabis companies, they're cleaning the clock, at least, currently, of the Canadian companies. They're starting to put up meaningful revenue numbers but they're showing profitability in a way that the Canadian companies have not yet been able to achieve.
I think that as soon as America resolves the dichotomy between the legality at 35 plus states and the federal illegality, as soon as that is resolved then, immediately, America is going to become the most important and dominant cannabis jurisdiction in the world. The same things that made Canada so dominant, America is going to have access to the same opportunities. Import, export, a domicile to raise capital, and the largest federally legal total addressable market in the world, that's what made Canada dominate, and that's what will erode Canada's domination.
When America has the federally legal resolution, all those things will just naturally start to gravitate towards America. Which is not to say that the Canadian industry is going to atrophy or necessarily undergo major compression. It just means that it will continue to play an important role but it won't dominate quite the way it has.
Matthew: What about the FDA and CBD as the next trend? What's important there?
Paul: The important thing to note there whether you're an investor or whether you're a market participant is we're still waiting for the FDA to set out with clarity what you can and cannot do with CBD. Specifically, there's a whole range of issues if you're a farmer. There's a whole range of issues around hot crops, what's the threshold? Is it going to be 0.3%? Just for clarity, the 0.3% is the maximum ratio of THC and biomass in order for it to be categorized as hemp not as regulated cannabis.
There is a lot of uncertainty from both the FDA and the USDA about what the final rules are going to look like. To be specific if you're a grower, a farmer if you will, you need to make sure that you don't inadvertently break federal law because when you tested or when you cured your product, you tested a THC content below the threshold, but as it cured, it exceeded the threshold, and all of a sudden, you might be violating the controlled substances act, which is not what any farmer is expecting when they're growing what they think is a hemp product.
We need to have clarity from the USDA on a whole bunch of issues relating to testing, relating to thresholds. That's when that is fully ideated, it'll be easier for the ag side of the business to understand what they can and cannot do. On the recreational side or the CPG side right now it's not clear to us that you could add CBD to food and advertise it as such. It's not clear that we could advertise it in a beverage, and advertise it as such. Now it's okay to do those things if it's paired with THC.
For example, Lagunitas sells beverage like a hard seltzer, if you will, in California that can be 5 milligrams CBD, 5 milligrams THC. It's a regulated product. It's fine, but I'm talking about where you're trying to be an over-the-counter non-regulated product sold at a whole foods, or a Kroger's or a Ralphs or any other grocery store or on amazon.com for that matter. Then there's still uncertainty about whether, for example, you can add it to food or beverage. We'll just start with that two huge form factors.
I've seen beverages now on the shelves of multiple retailers that don't have any THC in them, or at least they're not putting it on the label. Obviously, there's none if they're sold at mainstream retail, but they're not using the word CBD. They're using euphemisms like hemp extract, for one example. Right now we don't know necessarily whether you will be able to add CBD to food without having to go through a regulatory approval process. We don't know if you could add it to a beverage right now in the absence of THC.
We know that it's okay today to be a topical cosmetic. That is okay. We have clarity on that, but the FDA has been going through a research and an information-gathering phase for the last year or so. We will wait to hear what the final rules in order to say whether you can put CBD in food. You will see that no mainstream grocery retailer is yet putting CBD in food or beverage on their shelves. You'll get some boutique, more cutting edge smaller retailers, not chain-wide, but you're not going to see it in Walmart yet. Just not yet. You will see if you went to walmart.com, you will see a topical, but you will not yet see a vegan protein bar with CBD in it yet because it's not clear.
There's a lot of anticipation that the FDA could either make or slow down the development of the CBD industry, depending upon what actually they will opine on. There have been CBD warnings from the FDA. It should be said. Last year the FDA warned, I think, 17 companies for selling CBD products. Congress and the FDA have squared off over CBD. CBD companies have been sued for false advertising in the United States. FDA has warned that CBD has the potential to harm you. FDA has said that CBD products run real risks. It's just a state of exquisite uncertainty right now as to what will be the final status of CBD as a consumer product good, and it is inhibiting the market potential, I will say so.
When you can actually put CBD in a beverage without having to go through a licensed cannabis rigmarole and just treat it like any other ingredient, whatever else you might put sugar, frankly, or syrup, then you're going to see a huge development in the available CBD products. No doubt you'll see Coca-Cola and PepsiCo and Keurig Dr Pepper release CBD products. You could ask yourself, "Why doesn't Coca-Cola have a CBD product yet? Why doesn't PepsiCo have a CBD product yet? Do they not believe in the CBD industry?" Of course, they believe in it. They can't wati but there's no way they're going to put their global reputation at risk by jumping the gun.
That is the clarity that we're waiting for. That is why you have to be somewhat mindful and respectful of the fact that these rules have not been written yet. If you want to go out and spend $7 million setting up a CBD bottling plant because you'd think it's safe to do that, and you're going to sell CBD beverages, you have to be prepared for the fact that you might not be able to operate that bottling plant in a few months.
Matthew: Good points. How about biosynthesis? I agree with you. That's a big trend there. Talk about that a little bit, if you would.
Paul: Biosynthesis, just to give a little bit of-- If you saw my marks in high school science, you'd be like, ''Please don't explain science to us, Paul'' I'm going to give it a go anyways. It's essentially using non-plant mediums to grow cannabinoids at scale. You can produce, you can use all sorts of mediums. Mold would be one example. I invested in a Canadian company called Hyasynth.
Matthew: Yes, we have Kevin on the show a couple of times.
Paul: There you go. I was actually one of their first investors back in 2014 because I understood immediately what I thought the potential of that could mean because, just using Kevin as one example, the footprint he needs to grow cannabinoids at scale is microscopic compared to having to grow plants. The environmental- the carbon footprint which is going to be very important, because let's face it, cannabis is a dirty environmentally insensitive industry right now. His carbon footprint is teeny tiny compared to what a conventional plant-based cultivator would require to grow plants. This is a really, really important part is their ability to achieve standardization is just something that the plant-based therapies cannot necessarily ever achieve.
The way I anticipate is that biosynthesis is really being built, not for the recreational market, but for the pure medical market. I think that when large pharmaceutical companies are looking to source APIs, active pharmaceutical ingredients, which would make up the core chip into what they're going to produce, they're unlikely to use plant-based cannabinoids because of the reasons I outlined. First of all, standardization is really, really tricky. You can take one cannabis plant and you could, through multiple harvest in a controlled environment, still see variation. That's where you have to test each batch one by one. You can still see why this harvest I had 27% THC, the next harvest I only had 24% THC.
Now in the recreational market that's not a catastrophic outcome, but in pharmaceutical drug development, you can't have that type of variation. You need to have precise standardization. I really see biosynthesis beginning to become commercially viable when we have more approved cannabis therapies, cannabinoid therapies and it's likely going to be a source to buy low cost, low carbon footprint, perfectly standardized cannabinoids. That's the case with biosynthesis is it just makes sense for conventional pharma to want to get out of the plant business.
Now that's not a certainty. Let's just say that Epidiolex, which is the only approved medication is still derived from plants. It can be accomplished, and I'm not saying it's one or the other, but biosynthesis will likely play a role. It could also play a role just in CPG because if it gets to the point where you can have an isolated cannabinoid, that is exactly the same as a plant, that same isolated cannabinoid in a plant. The only difference is that's a lot cheaper and it can be made a lot more quickly. Then it's going to likely also play a role in CPG, in consumer packaged good development as well.
I see that biosynthesis is going to play a role. Now, I also just want to walk that back a little bit and say it's not going to devastate the plant-based economy because I do think there's something near miraculous about the cannabis plant, its sort of entourage effect, if you will, full spectrum. It may be that, despite the challenges of creating standardized formulations, it's still, from a pure efficacy side, could not be replicated precisely in a laboratory. I do think that it's going to take years of development and study and research to understand where is biosynthesis appropriate for? Where are you better off served by the plant?
I think the plant will always be the larger economy of the two but I do think that biosynthesis isn't just like a noble idea that will not be commercialized. It will be commercialized, and it'll operate on a parallel track to the plant-based economy, and where there is improved outcomes, specifically, we'll go to biosynthesis depending on how you measure that improved outcome, and where the plant still provides improved outcome we'll use the plant. Largely, I think you'll see amongst either medical or recreational applications, you'll see companies wanting to have both a biosynthesis, as well as a plant-based cultivation asset.
Matthew: Okay. The last trend is cash remains king. Can you talk about that a little bit?
Paul: I can go back to my musical chair comment which is that this industry is always going to be cash-intensive. Even if you're "cash flow positive," you're still probably going to want to have access to fertile capital markets in order to be able to make sure that if you want to go acquire another asset or if you want to expand meaningfully, your production footprint without dipping into your own account or your own working capital having access to capital, is still going to have a dramatic impact.
To be more specific when I look at a cannabis company to evaluate them, I will do call it a holistic evaluation. I'll look at their growth technology. I'll look at their management team. I'll look at their go-to-market strategy. I'll look at their marketing strategy. I'll do all that stuff, but it won't matter a wit if I don't like the balance sheet because I know that every cannabis company, what they said in their investment deck in terms of how quickly they would achieve revenue targets and what their gross margins would be and when they become cash flow positive, I've yet to see one company actually deliver on what they said.
No, I'm not accusing anyone of fraud. It's excessive exuberance about how great this industry is and how good we are as operators but the old rule, everything is going to cost twice as much and take twice as long is a pretty good mantra to expect. If I see a company, I don't care if it's like we've got the Google algorithm for cannabis, unless they've got cash on the balance sheet, it's very hard to get excited about that company because we know empirically now that if you want to build a large scalable asset, you're probably going to burn through tens of millions, possibly hundreds of millions and in some instances, billions of dollars. I'm not speculating. That's happened already.
This is an expensive industry. It's a problem that it's expensive because it creates access issues and another trend is social equity. I think there's a connection between the paramountcy of capital and as of yet unmet social equity ambitions of our industry. Cash is going to be king for a while, Matt, because there's no-- This is to say in every aspect a brick by brick, [unintelligible 00:43:44] industry and it ain't cheap. It's quite the opposite. It's very expensive. It's not to say that the capital investments are not worth it. We're fighting for a market that's going to be measured in the trillions of dollars. It's very much worth it, but how much did Amazon spend to become Amazon? We're talking about billions and billions of dollars.
The cannabis industry is not much different so that's why these things are connected. Catastrophic failure is connected to a shortage of capital for all the market participants which is connected to the market getting more intelligent about how it allocates capital which, again, buttresses the thesis that those that have capital, those that have cash have almost unique advantage to those that do not. Even if their technology isn't as good, even if their management teams aren't as good, even if their go-to-market isn't as good, the cash levels things up very quickly.
Matthew: Paul, I want to move on to some personal development questions to help listeners get a better sense of who you are personally. With that, is there a book that's had a big impact on your life or way of thinking that you'd like to share?
Paul: Yes. I am a truly avid reader. I'm trying to be like a book a week for a lot of my adult life. It's like, "Tell what's your favorite album." It's a tough question to be honest. I have so many, but I did give this some thought because I didn't want to whiff on the question. I'll say a few from a business book. The book that had the biggest impact on me is a book called The Hard Thing About Hard Things by Ben Horowitz, a well-known Silicon Valley monster. That book, as a lifelong entrepreneur, I've started I think 13 companies in my life. It's one of the few books, and I've read a lot of great business books like Shoe Dog or Bob Iger's book.
I've read really into those business memoirs but I love The Hard Thing About Hard Things because it was one of the few books to really deal with the emotional journey of being an entrepreneur. The insane highs and the challenging lows, the lying in bed not being able to sleep at night, the amazing amount of stress that we put on ourselves, the sort of chip on the shoulder that we all typically have if we're entrepreneurs. I thought that book for me was very personal. It was like, "Oh, okay. It's not just me that has gone through these crazy almost operatic emotional cycles in my career," where I feel like what is wrong with me. Anyway, I said, "There's nothing wrong with me. This is just the nature of entrepreneurship." That book was great.
Another book on a personal level that I have read I think four times now is called Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig. It's a classic. It's sort of a counter-culture book but I've been a lifelong spiritual questor and that book was just a remarkable elucidation of a western mind embarking upon a spiritual pursuit. It's an iconic book. It's probably well-known to many people but for whatever reason that was one of those books I read. I think I first read it when I was 17 and it took me months to read it. Then I read it again when I was 22, and then I read again when I was 35. Each time I read it, it just exploded in terms of its relevance. In fact, the more experience I gathered the more that book spoke to me.
I've just chosen those two out of-- I could talk books for days out of just an immense pile. I'm a huge believer in reading makes you a better person. You can tell a lot about who you are by the friends you have in the books you read. I've always loved that expression. I switch my reading up. I love fiction. I love literature and I love non-fiction especially business memoirs.
Matthew: What's most interesting thing going on in the cannabis industry apart from what you do today?
Paul: I think, not to circle back on a subject we've covered, but it's got to be the globe-- It is what's happening in the United States in some sense and that we're all waiting and uncertain about how we're going to move from here. The United States cannabis industry is really excited right now. The stocks of the well-known companies have been on quite a run. The Biden bump was a real thing. The ballot initiatives that resulted in six states evolving or birthing programs, all of this is, in some sense, I think the most interesting thing but just to peel that onion layer back a little bit more it's what's going on in global cannabis that's just blowing my mind.
When I entered this industry back in 2012 I just didn't-- I had a very bullish, very almost like pollyannic view of where industry could go but I miscalculated the accelerated development or the expediency in which we've got to such rapid growth. I just see the new countries that are looking seriously at what I call sensible cannabis reform. It's incredible. It's shattering any geopolitical, regional, stereotypes you may have. Pakistan, South Korea, Lebanon, Russia started articulating now.
I'm doing a webinar tonight through Global Go on hemp and CBD in China, Thailand, most of the EU, mostly of Latin America, all over the African continent, cannabis is undergoing now a quick transmogrification from this taboo product to an essential part of a country's health program, a reflection on that it should not be a criminal justice issue, and a meaningful sense and understanding that it can be a source of great economic development.
We're talking about better outcomes for all stakeholders, better outcomes for patients, better outcomes for consumers, better outcomes for the government in terms of now being able to capture, through private enterprise, high paying or decent-paying jobs, taxes, quality assurance. It's just the speed that cannabis is unfurling across the globe that is to me the most interesting thing going on. Now I'll just take that a step further to say, what's going on in psychedelics is very much the long tail of what's going on in cannabis.
I'll say that cannabis was the battering ram that knocked down the partition to re-evaluate and rediscover plant-based medication. We knocked that door down and now rushing in right behind us, is the psychedelic industry, which is going to have transformative impact on mental health in the world. That is staggering to me how quickly the psychedelic industry is developing and it's in large part because the cannabis industry laid down the tracks, and by laying down those tracks, we should lubricate it, reduce the friction for the psychedelic industry to develop. It's moving in some sense more quickly or as quickly as the cannabis industry.
Those are the two things for me as a long-term market participant that makes me go like, "Holy blank, this is just what we dreamed of, what we imagined, what we hope for, is actually happening in the here and now." It would be just the globalization of plant-based therapies led by cannabis, but with others following them, that is electrifying me at the moment.
Matthew: Thanks. Here's the Peter Thiel question for you, last one. What is the one thought you have that most people would disagree with you on? It can be about anything.
Paul: All drugs should be decriminalized.
Matthew: It makes a lot of sense. Portugal's done that. I've been over there and the sky's not falling.
Paul: Portugal's done it. Oregon's on the verge of doing it, and I think that we have to understand-- When I say all drugs should be decriminalized, I mean, the use, not necessarily the sale of. I do think that there is moral hazard associated with certain street-level drugs, but I do think that the mistake we've made in multiple economies is treating a drug user as a symptom to be responded by the criminal justice arm of government rather than the health arm of government.
Using Portugal as an example, we want less people to die from opiate addiction than are currently dying, and these numbers are staggering. As you probably know, more Americans die of opiate overdoses in one year than died in the entire Vietnam War. It's crazy statistic. The way to measure the success of any government regulation around, say, opioid abuse, starts with not how many people are in jail, but how many people died, and that if you can lower the amount of people that died by decriminalizing it and treating it as a health issue, which is largely what we do in Canada. We have methadone clinics in Canada, for example, that are legalized. I'm going to say that's the superior outcome.
Addiction should not be a criminal act. It should be if someone is addicted- and I'm not advocating everyone should do all drugs all the time at scale, far from it. I'm saying that a criminal justice response is blunt when we need something more subtle. I'm not opposed to criminalizing drug cartels, moving crystal meth across borders. That's not what I mean by decriminalized. I mean, going after the user is not really solving any problems. It's just, in a way, criminalizing people that need a healthy response. That would be, I guess, my one thought that most people would disagree with.
If I had a second one, I would say we're living in a simulation, [chuckles] like Elon Musk. What we think is reality is not actual reality. I'm very comfortable saying that. I don't know if that's controversial, and most people would not agree, but I view that we are living on some form of a simulation. Unnecessarily someone else's video game, but something like a simulation, where we're getting a mutated version of what is real. Those are my two so-called controversial most-people-would-disagree-with-me thoughts.
Matthew: Until Elon Musk said that, that there really wasn't a lot of places where you could talk about that without it seeming like some sort of, I don't know what, like people wouldn't take that seriously. Now we can actually talk about that and it is compelling in many ways. He calls it a simulation or there could be some other maybe name for it besides simulation, but you're right, a lot of more people jumping on that idea, and I think it's maybe got some merit. It's hard to describe it while you're in simulation, right? Unless you're- it's like Ready Player One.
Paul: It's like Ready Player One, exactly, that Ernest Cline book. When you're in a dream, you're pretty convinced the dream is reality, during the dream. Then you wake up and you say, "Okay, that was just dreaming." You could just say life is a dream that we haven't woken up from.
Matthew: Right. Row, row, row your boat, merrily down the stream. Finish it, Paul. I'm waiting.
Paul: [laughs] I can't. I'm laughing too hard.
Matthew: Okay. Paul, as for the listeners that want to connect with you, and learn more about what you're doing with Global Go, how can they do that?
Paul: They can reach out to me. I'm going to give my Gmail because the Global Go handles a mouthful, then I'll switch you off. Life is but a dream. I will just say that, [chuckles] to your point, merrily so. Everyone, ready. It is my name, email@example.com. Look forward to hearing from anybody and everybody. I love to bring an open tent and most people that know me know that I will pretty much try to talk or meet with as many people that want to talk with me.
Matthew: Paul, thanks so much for coming on the show. Enjoy your maple syrup in the simulation, and we'll hope to connect with you, again, soon.
Paul: Thanks, Matt. Best wishes to you as well.
Matthew: If you enjoyed the show today, please consider leaving us a review on iTunes, Stitcher, or whatever app you might be using to listen to the show. Every five-star review helps us to bring the best guests to you. Learn more at cannainsider.com/iTunes. What are the five disruptive trends that will impact the cannabis industry in the next five years? Find out with your free report at cannainsider.com/trends.
Have a suggestion for an awesome guest on CannaInsider, simply send us an email at firstname.lastname@example.org. We'd love to hear from you. Please do not take any information from CannaInsider or its guests as medical advice. Contact your licensed physician before taking cannabis for using it for medical treatments. Promotional consideration may be provided by select guests, advertisers, or companies featured in CannaInsider.
Lastly, the host or guests on CannaInsider may or may not invest in the companies or entrepreneurs profiled on the show. Please consult your licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions. Final disclosure to see if you're still paying attention. This little whistle jingle you're listening to will get stuck in your head for the rest of the day.
Thanks for listening and look for another CannaInsider episode soon. Take care. Bye-bye.
[00:58:03] [END OF AUDIO]
Is it better to produce your own cannabis products? Or outsource to expert manufacturers while you focus on your brand? Here to tell us is Alex Rowland, CEO of NewTropic.
Learn more at https://www.newtropic.com
[00:51] An inside look at NewTropic, a leading cannabis manufacturer based in Santa Rosa, California
[1:18] Alex’s background in cannabis and how he came to start NewTropic
[5:56] Examples of NewTopic’s average clientele – particularly unlicensed brands looking to overcome California’s strict regulatory hurdles
[7:47] How NewTropic helps relieve two of the biggest pain points for cannabis companies: financial resources and compliance
[17:05] Why removing the regulatory overhead of fulfillment allows companies to focus their attention on core competencies
[18:45] NewTropic’s extensive onboarding process and how the company’s team works to ensure all your needs are met as a client
[20:30] Alex’s plans to expand NewTropic across the US
[25:21] The requirements a company needs to meet before working with NewTropic
[30:16] Alex’s advice to new entrepreneurs on how to develop a successful business plan and pitch to investors
[33:11] Alex’s thoughts on the federal rescheduling of cannabis and where he sees the industry heading in the next few years
Matthew Kind: Hi. I'm Matthew Kind. Every Monday look for a fresh new episode where I'll take you behind the scenes and interview the insiders that are shaping the rapidly evolving cannabis industry. Learn more at cannainsider.com. That's C-A-N-N-A insider dot com. Now here's your program. Should you be producing your own cannabis product or outsourcing that to expert contract manufacturers as you focus on your brand? Who'll help us answer that question is Alex Rowland of NewTropic. Alex, welcome to CannaInsider.
Alex Rowland: Thank you. I appreciate it.
Matthew: Give us a sense of geography. Where are you in the world today?
Alex: I'm actually in Santa Rosa right now. Santa Rosa, California is about an hour North of San Francisco and it's where we have our facilities.
Matthew: What is NewTropic on a high level?
Alex: NewTropic is a contract manufacturer for cannabis products. What that means is brands, specifically cannabis brands in California come to us and engage with us to manufacture products on their behalf. This includes everything from pre-rolls, to package flower, to concentrates, to vape carts, topicals, tinctures, edibles, beverages. You name it, we're making it.
Matthew: To give us a little detail about your background and journey and how you got to this point in setting up NewTropic.
Alex: I appreciate it. It's actually rather a Securitas route. I actually came out of tech. I've been starting tech companies since the mid-1990s back in 1995. Actually, it was the first internet company I started and I've been involved in those tech companies out in the East coast until 2002 and then moved out to California. Most of those were enterprise software. Most recently in media we actually start a business back in 2009. That wound up in 2013, getting to number eight on the Inc. 5000 fastest growing businesses.
I've been around a lot of fast-growing tech companies, but I've been looking at cannabis really for probably 20 years as a market segment I thought would be very interesting to get into, but it wasn't until 2012 when Colorado and Washington was moving towards legalization. Then ultimately in 2015, when California started taking the same steps for the passage of MAUCRSA.
To me, all these markets were interesting, but they were simply that a curiosity until you have some regulatory framework to build a business model around. Once that happened in 2015, I decided to jump into the space. I was still working in tech so we sold off some of the companies we had in the space, the Canadian company. I went on a walkabout as I'd call it. I spent really the last half of 2015 almost all of 2016 driving up and down the state of California talking to operators, regulators, going to see dispensaries, grow operations, kitchens. Really talking to anyone who would talk to me giving us business. Trying to get an understanding as to what exactly was going on in the space and where I thought the business opportunity was. Really the net culmination for that was by the end of 2016. It was fairly apparent to me that manufacturing was a big weakness in the space and so we need to focus our attention on.
Matthew: Alex, you did all this due diligence with driving around California talking to operators. What was your key insights you had when you were doing that?
Alex: I think it was fairly apparent to me that regulators were going to focus on manufacturing. The regulators are really there primarily to ensure consumer safety when you launch new products like this new categories. That was going to be clear that cannabis was obviously [unintelligible [00:04:00] had a great deal of stigma and I think regulators were especially concerned about, so consumer safety was going to be paramount along with that. Obviously, tax collection is probably their second highest priority.
I think what we realized is that while there were a lot of people cultivating cannabis and a lot of people actually at that point in time even retailing it, the middle of the supply chain was radically underserved. The way it was really traditionally is most cannabis was flower and it was farms would walk into a dispensary with literally pounds of flower in Turkey bags and would sell directly to dispensary who would then go ahead and segment it out to consumers.
That was changing dramatically. All flower products would have to be pre-packaged and certified as safe by regulators, but B there was a proliferation of these new products coming out concentrates, topicals, tinctures, all these infused products that were going to require manufacturing expertise. The state of the art at that point in time, it was literally people's private kitchens, a converted garage, a barn here and there. It was literally a joke and we knew that given the regulatory scrutiny and the importance of delivering a high-quality consistent product nor to build brands that manufacturing is going to be the fulcrum of the market, and there's just nothing there.
We looked at that and said, initially we were going to go ahead and make many factoring expertise a core part of our business model. It became fairly apparent, I think early on back in early 2017, that this was a function that we were going to have to provide for other brands because most people were just not doing it well. I think that was really what we came to that conclusion in late 2016 and really said about the goal of producing or developing a very scaled high-quality manufacturing solution that all brands could share.
Matthew: Do you have an example of a NewTropic client and how they partner with you?
Alex: Yes. I think one of the interesting cases actually because I break it up into distinct quadrants, the clients what we really specialize in are unlicensed brands. Brands who are IP licensing organizations, these are companies who have figured out product-market fit. They've formulated some product, design the packaging, but now they actually need to go about executing on that. If you look at California, like most of the states there's a fairly rigorous, rigorous regulatory set of hurdles you have to overcome to get licensed and operating in the state.
Most brands right now are not going through that process. Certainly in the future not going to go through that process of building their own facilities. These are unlicensed brands and these are brands that are either pure startups and they've raised a bunch of capital or they might even be licensed brands and other states they're looking to get into the California market or they were in the old medical prop 215 market. They're trying to get back up and running.
There's a whole bunch of different scenarios, but generally speaking, the typical client is unlicensed, but they have either sales velocity already in the marketplace either through some other contract manufacturer or like in the case of [unintelligible 00:07:12] they had their own manufacturing facility. They're looking to divest themselves of that asset and move to this asset light model, but that is really typical. It's someone who is saying, "We're going to focus on sales and marketing and building demand velocity, retail channel. We want you guys to focus all the logistics around making sure our supply chain is able to scale to meet our demand, able to deliver products reliably at the quality that our clients would expect." That is really a division of labor. It's unlicensed brands.
Matthew: What are the clients come back in, they tell you is like they identify as their biggest one or two benefits? You have a lot of benefits there, but what is the thing that their biggest pain point or opportunity that you help them with?
Alex: I think it's financial resources and focused. I put those two at the top of the list. What we hear a lot is manufacturing compliant product in cannabis is enormously challenging. We still, we've been at this now for a solid year. We still understand and go through the pain and suffering of delivering compliant product in the marketplace to our clients exacting specifications and our level of quality that we require out of our facilities. That's enormously challenging to do.
What winds up happening is when you're a brand and you're trying to manage that supply chain, it's very difficult to focus on selling. Most of what you want and focusing on are supply chain logistics and how you actually fill those shelves. We allow brands to really get back to focusing on building that demand at the retail channel and let us focus on those logistics.
The second thing is something that we've seen over and over again with brands is lack of financial resources leads to gaps in their supply chain. What I mean by this is we've seen this over and over again, a brand will launch into the market, they'll do a great job of selling, they start to get some scale, and then they run into cashflow issues. They can't support buying additional biomass or packaging or whatever the case may be to refresh their inventory levels. Collections takes longer than they think to happen and they start to run into gaps financially and that leads to gaps in delivery to dispensaries.
I think as anyone can tell you in the market once you accept an order from a dispensary and you're unable to follow up that order with consistent delivery, the dispensary tends to drop you. Selling back into that dispensary is 10 times harder than selling in the first time. These brands going to come up great velocity at retail they have supply problems. Those retailers drop them and they disappear within months.
Matthew: It makes a lot of sense because people want it into a retail environment dispensary. They like a product and they get this totally disappointed when it's not there and these dispensers are not in the business of disappointing customers, so they want something consistent even if it's not an A+ in their mind, they say it's a B+, but we can always get it. I totally understand what you're saying there. How big a problem is this? You're obviously you sound busy, you have clients, but how many cannabis product companies are suffering from some of these issues you described?
Alex: I would say almost all of them. The funny thing is I think there's rare exceptions to this, but if you look at the vast majority of brands in the marketplace, there's a few that stand out that have stood the test of time. Mostly that's because they've gotten a robust supply chain in place and managed to stay on store shelves. That's about yes, building a brand and recognition with the consumers such that they're looking for that product but a lot of what allows brands to remain relevant and sticky is the ability to actually get their supply chain right and consistently deliver a broad range of products into the retail outlets.
That is a very rare bird right now. There's not many brands- even some brands that were very successful back in the prop 2015 days, before a lot of the testing requirements and regulatory hurdles were erected, they could manage their supply chain. They had enough cash and wherewithal to make it happen but these new regulations have really made execution that much more complicated and a lot of brands that were very successful have not been as successful now in this new market.
It's a rare exception, but we've got a line out the door. We started onboarding clients back in January, started shipping first product in March, and by May, it was pretty clear that we had essentially maxed out all of our processing cycles. We're still in a position right now where the 14, 15 clients or so that we onboarded, we're only able to execute on about 40% or 50% of their current order volume because we're just constrained by the capacity of our facility. We're doing a lot to help resolve that problem, but I don't see any shortage of demand right now.
Matthew: Are you going to build a second facility or expand your existing facility or go to Southern California too, or what is that going to look like?
Alex: All of the above. We've actually already expanded by adding a second facility so we actually have two facilities now in the Santa Rosa area. We have a third under contract that we're starting construction on in December. We have another facility in Santa Rosa that we're putting an offer in on in the next few days and a sixth facility down in Southern California in downtown LA that we're looking to put an offer in on before the end of the year.
Matthew: You mentioned Los Angeles, is this an opportunity since COVID-19 is still a thing, there's probably in the commercial real estate space some softness which translates into an opportunity for you, would you say that's accurate? Could you describe that a little bit?
Alex: It's actually commercial space is different than industrial space. What we're seeing is there's a lot of office space freeing up, but industrial space is still trading at a premium. This is because if you really look at what's going on in the broader economy, more and more people- people are still buying things, but they tend to be buying it more on places like Amazon, and they're going directly out to retailers.
What's that leading to is more and more of this industrial distribution space is trading at a premium, whereas a lot of retail and commercial space is going vacant. The facilities we tend to focus on are still industrial warehouses and distribution facilities so that market is still red hot.
Matthew: Sometimes building a manufacturing facility and operations, people bailed-out or companies bailed out, operations that are too small or the opposite problem, it's too big. Can you talk about finding that sweet spot there and how you look at that?
Alex: This is part of the reason why we focused on our specific model, but we recognized very early on if you're going to be a brand and you're going to own your own facilities to manufacture, there's this very difficult decision you face at the beginning. Either A, do we go conservative and build a very small facility to keep our capital investment low and to keep our overhead low and the expectation that we're going to grow more slowly.
The problem with that obviously is that if you're able to get a lot of sales done, [unintelligible 00:14:51] A, each of the unit you produce is more expensive because of everything's done manually, you don't have a lot of automation or mechanization in your facility, and B you're just tapped in terms of the total amount of product you can push out of a building. The other choice is you go ahead and get very aggressive and you invest substantial amounts of capital into these facilities and you essentially overbuild assuming that you'll be able to sell off that capacity through product sales fairly quickly.
You carry a lot of fixed overhead on a per-unit basis, but you can't make those units more expensive, but you're assuming over time that your sales will catch up and put you in a position where you're very cost-competitive. Neither one of these decisions is very palatable and I think it's part of the reason why more and more brands as they're getting into the market now are not looking to do either one of those things. They're looking to avoid that question entirely and just look to variablize all those fixed costs with a provider like us.
I think it's very, very difficult and what you're seeing is there's a lot of brands in California who overbuilt. They got easy to capital back in 2017 and 2018, they massively overbuilt their facilities. What they're doing is they're doing both. They have their own brands, and also moonlighting and selling excess operating capacity to third party brands. We don't think that's a great solution either because you're naturally conflicted. You're enabling your competitive products through your manufacturing capacity and it's not really your expertise, your expertise should be around building and launching your own brands on your own platform.
I feel like that there's all these bad decisions that have to be made given all those criteria and that's what we try to avoid. As we want a big centralized manufacturing, we think it's a much more efficient way to build and scale a brand to variabilize all that fixed costs on a per-unit basis, predictable unit margins, but also have a massive amount of capacity such that you can drive unit cost into the ground as fast as possible.
We don't want to compete with our clients if we're launching our own products, that would create a conflict with those brands. Every day we get up, our focus should be on how do we make our brands more successful so we make the NewTropic facilities more successful and that's how we've gone about it.
Matthew: Sacramento loves to make regulations and laws and so forth, and you have to comply with those. Can you give us a sense of what some of those are and how you take those off the plate of your clients?
Alex: Well, first of all, all of the regulatory overhead of handling fulfillment is now remote. A brand essentially sits entirely outside of the supply chain. Their job is to go to retailers and delivery services to sell their brand and to essentially open up those doors and get those retailers ordering products from us and then we go ahead and fill those orders. Everything from procuring the initial biomass to testing that material to bring it into the facility, processing it, extracting if necessary, packaging it, retesting it, hoarding it, or dating delivery to the retail channel through a fulfillment agent, all of that is handled by NewTropic. Essentially, the brand gets to avoid all of those regulations.
Matthew: That's great. Do you have a lab right nearby that does the testing quickly?
Alex: Given our volumes, we work with multiple different labs. Sometimes our brand partners have specific labs that they've got a good relationship with, that they bring to the table. Oftentimes we work with labs that are close physically to us and have more frequent pickup times. Sometimes it's a price point consideration. It really depends, but we've got probably seven or eight labs at this point in time that we're working with on a fairly consistent basis.
Matthew: Is there a single point of contact once you're onboarded? Do you work with a project manager or as an account executive or do you have software as the primary interface with NewTropic? What does that look like once you come on board?
Alex: I would say that in general, working with us is a very white-glove experience. There's a whole team that works with the client upfront. First of all, to vet the clients and make sure that they're going to be a good fit for our business model and that we believe that they've got the financial resources and the business acumen and the sales capacity to scale our brand within our platform.
It's a fairly lengthy process of vetting the clients and then onboarding that client and making sure all of the components of that product from packaging to design, all of those things are plugged into our model and we understand exactly what the supply chain looks like. That's really a three to four-month process. Once you're up and running, you work directly with an account representative. We're in the process right now of working to provide an online interface that'll help our clients track product as it moves through our facilities. Generally speaking, right now that is one or two different account reps that work on a day-to-day basis with you.
Matthew: Why focus exclusively on California?
Alex: From a regulatory standpoint, we're forbidden exporting product out of the state. If we're going to go ahead and start supplying Nevada or Oregon or someplace even like Massachusetts or New York, we have to build facilities in those markets to supply to those markets. We are driven to this decision from a regulatory team.
Matthew: Any plans to move outside of California and expand market or not right now?
Alex: No, 100%. We believe that ultimately what is going to be most valuable for our clients is for us to have facilities in every single adult-use market, such that you can work with us and we're going to share product reliability and consistency in every market in which you want to operate. Our goal is first we're looking to expand into Massachusetts. We're down the path on looking at a facility to get that up and running in that market and that'll be our first foray into the East Coast. We think New Jersey is obviously a very interesting market, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, but at the end of the day a big chunk of what we are going to specialize in is not just the competency of producing high-quality product in our facilities, but it's also developing new facilities and get us facilities up and running in new regulatory environments.
Matthew: What about a potential client that says, "Hey, how can Alex and his team really understand the nuances of my business?" We look for a certain terpene profile or this or that and they can't do it as well as us. You probably see that type of thing. How do you help them get their arms around breaking down how the whole operation works?
Alex: I'd say in general, a lot of clients come in feeling like they've got a secret sauce and that their products is completely unique in the marketplace. I think we value and respect that IP. A big chunk of what we feel like our advantages over other manufacturers who are also brands in the market is you can feel very safe with your IP here. We go through the entire process where brands are asked to identify specific steps in their process that they believe are proprietary. We vet that process and once we essentially segment off that component of the supply chain that is proprietor the brands, we've got a whole mechanism or a whole protocol it gets implemented to make sure that we're protecting that IP from other brands that we work with.
That is something that I don't think you're going to see when you've got another brand you're working with and you're buying their excess capacity that they've got competing products directly in the marketplace. I don't think there's any way a brand could feel comfortable that IP is safe. I think that's true. I think brands are getting more successful at developing innovative delivery systems, innovative formulations that are unique to the marketplace. It's our job to protect that IP.
Matthew: There's a lot less upfront costs because there's no capital outlay for buildings and staff and so forth for the operations since you're handling that. That frees up time to allow your clients to focus on their core competency and for your successful clients that you see like, "Hey, this partnership's working out really well." What do they consider the core competency to be? Is it back to that? It's like, we know we're a brand and I'm a sales and marketing company. Is that really what it boils down to?
Alex: I think that's it. I think it's enabling the brand to focus on what is product-market fit because all brands, I think they'll start out with a specific product, but almost certainly within months or maximum years, they're looking at expanding the scope of their product mix to be able to boost the amount of revenue they can generate from each of the retail outlets that they've got access to. That means new products development. I think that's a process that almost every brands goes through and that's part of I think the magic of working on this platform is launching those new products is vastly more cost-effective. They're able to harness this customer data and having this direct communication with the retailer to start to look at if we're hitting this specific demographic what are other products can we add to our roster?
They're going to hit that same demographic effectively and then they can launch those new SKUs on our platform relatively trivial or at least vastly easier than if they own their own manufacturing system or they're looking to go ahead and outsource that with a brand new partner. I think the focus that brand should be on understanding product-market fit. Then once those products are developed and ready to launch, build a sales velocity and again, being able to rely on us to make sure that we can scale up to meet that sales velocity is absolutely critical and a big chunk of the reason why we think we're so valuable.
Matthew: You mentioned a little bit about how you vet clients before they come on board. They need business acumen, they need product-market fit. They probably need a certain amount of capital to know that they're in the game and can can partner with you. What else describes the ideal clients for people that are listening and saying, "Hey, maybe I want to work with NewTropic or my business would be a good fit." How can you help them get an idea if they are?
Alex: I would say the number one thing we look for is natural sales talent and relationships in the business where we've had I think a great deal of success or with folks that have some history in cannabis. They have tight relationships with retailers already and they've demonstrated an ability to build sales velocity with those retailers in the past. That is of critical importance to us. I can't tell you the number of times we interact with partners that they think they've got a unique product offering or they've got a brand name or a celebrity name behind them and they think that's going to be sufficient to really be successful in California.
When I'd say that it's really about on the ground execution at the retail channel, working with those retailers, understanding what their objectives are, helping to meet those objectives, and constantly evolving their product offering to meet evolving consumer demands. This is not something I think it's viable in the short term potentially to outsource some sales just to get things kick-started. At the end of the day, brands have to be committed to putting resources on the ground the state to actually execute around building sales velocity.
Matthew: Now, I want to get an idea of the unit economics here. Is there a successful client that you don't have to mention their name, but you could maybe mention what their costs are and what they sell for in retail so they can get an idea of what a profit margin that's realistic might look like?
Alex: In general, I think a good way to look at this is and I'll just say, let's say you're trying to hit a $20 wholesale price for some SKU. What we aim at is a situation in which that products we're going to spend somewhere around 10% of that on third-party logistics fulfillment, basically getting that product from our warehouse onto the store shelf. Again, not the sales function, but just the actual mechanics of getting that product on that store shelf is about 10%.
Generally speaking, our cost of actually making it a $20 wholesale products is going to be about $10. There's some products like edibles that that might be more like $6 to $8. There are other products that might be $11 or $12, but across the portfolio you're looking at somewhere around 50% of wholesale toss is the actual cost of producing that item. What you're left with there is 10% is going to fulfillment and 50% to the raw cogs of producing that product. You're winding up with somewhere around a cumulative margin of 40%.
Generally speaking, our brands are going to wind up getting $4 of that and rating at $4 or about 20% of the wholesale price. That's I think a good way to look at it where there's a lot of this in an overhead generally in running our business. There's certainly a lot of sales and marketing to be done with a brand. We want to give them really the power necessary to build successful brands that can scale. We look at that as a fair distribution of the proceeds out of each unit.
Matthew: If you were just talking with maybe somebody that was starting out in the industry, you're given some really great ideas here to make your new brand successful too even if they're not ready to partner with NewTropics. If you let's say you have a new brand it's still in your mind, it sounds like you need to raise capital or have capital yourself. You definitely need the relationships with all the retailers and understand how they think. It's not just the relationship, but understanding how to create a win-win and then you need to have product-market fit. If someone comes to you with those three things you're like, wow, you're 80% of the way there or do you feel like add one or two things more?
Alex: I think we want to make sure the product is fully baked. We are not a product development shop. By the time the product comes to us, we're about operating scale not about product development. These products have to be fully formulated and ready for us. The packaging needs to be designed. We do tend to work with brands to make sure their packaging works better within our automation systems, so we can drop unit cost down. Generally speaking, the product should also be there.
Matthew: When you're looking at business plans then, there is probably a few things that you touched upon this year, but is there anything that a business, someone is working on a business plan now should make sure they have when they're creating their cannabis business plan, when they're going to pitch investors, like what do you think a lot of people leave off? Because I want to help the businesses that are still early on, but might want to partner with you later on.
Alex: Yes. I think one of the most important things you've got to focus on right now in cannabis is understanding where price points sit in the marketplace for different products. I routinely see people come into the marketplace, they're making assumptions about what they think they can sell a product for and I'd say universally right now, two of the prime drivers that drive purchase decisions by consumers is how much THC am I getting for what price. While that seems a little antithetical to where I think the model will ultimately be, it's almost like walking into a liquor store and saying, "All I'm concerned about is how much liquor am I getting for what price."
I think the market will evolve from that, but that's fundamentally a lot of the purchase decisions are made that way. I think you've got to accept that as reality and regardless of where you're looking to play on the top shelf or middle shelf or bottom shelf in the marketplace, you have to have a very good understanding of where price points sit and what the specifications are the product within that price point you have to hit in order to be successful.
Matthew: You have your finger on the pulse of that, but how do other companies get their finger on the pulse of that? Do they work with like a headset or a BDS analytics or some other consulting company that provides that data?
Alex: I think that's precisely it. I think you can get access to data, that way that can be a little expensive. If you're just going through the initial product development phase, a lot of it's going out to talk to as many different people who are actively selling in a marketplace and retailers to understand where those price points sit. I think you can get a fairly good cross-section if you hit a few retailers in Southern California and a few in Northern California. You're going to get a pretty good sense as to where the retail price sits for these products and you're able to extrapolate from that where the wholesale price has to be in order to get on those shelves.
I think you can collect that data manually, you can collect that data through third parties like salespeople who are actively selling in the marketplace or market research firms like Headset or BDS. We also actually, we have a subscription to Headset. We actually, as we're going through this exercise with all our brand partners, we actually plug in our Headset data about the price points and who the market leaders are and the specific SKU category that a brand is looking to launch and we provide access to that data as part of our integrated onboarding process.
Matthew: How do you feel about one federal rescheduling of cannabis is coming? Do you think it's going to be soon or far or what's your general thought on that?
Alex: I think it's always two to three years away and it will be in two to three years. It's funny. I mean I think it's interesting. When I first got into this back in 2015, I think the- if I had to pick an over-under as to where people thought it would be, most of what I heard is, it was three to five years and here we are five years later and I think we're closer, but I think it's still difficult to predict.
Assuming Biden goes ahead and takes office on the 20th, it seems pretty clear that there's a lot of immense and behind the states act. Now, states doesn't allow for federal descheduling, but it does remove a lot of the impediments that really are, from my perspective, the most substantial headwinds to cannabis being treated as a real business and that is banking restrictions and [unintelligible [00:34:13] which is this onerous tax obligation we as dealers have a schedule one substance have to deal with.
If you can remove [unintelligible 00:34:25] and if you can remove the banking restrictions, part of what the cannabis business suffers from in generally is lack of liquidity in the financial markets to support these businesses. You go into a tech business or pretty much any other type of vertical market, it's federally legal. There are thousands upon thousands, tens of thousands of investors and institutions that can support those organizations in their growth objectives using capital. That is not the case in cannabis. The rates tend to be very predatory. It's a highly liquid market, so the terms can be very, very onerous beyond just the interest rates on [unintelligible [00:35:02]
There have been cases right back in 2017, 2018 when equity was relatively cheap, that's not the case right now. Part of what we're looking for too, I think is, hopefully passage of states. I think there's broad Republican support in the senate, which is really the only thing that I think can hold it up at this point in time. As long as McConnell listens to his constituents and it can get through the senate, I think there's broad by part of support for the states act and I think that would be a revolution in terms of how we finance and scale these companies.
Matthew: You got a lot of moving parts in the business here in with people, process, technology. How do you see cannabis manufacturing and operations evolving over the next few years?
Alex: I think it's two things. Our number one competitor is the black market. People always talk about who's the company if they're out there. I don't think California can support 20 NewTropics. There's really only one of the company I think right now that is as close to our operating scale and ambition for the market. We compete with the black market, that's our number one competitor and it's the 800-pound gorilla. It's currently occupying probably somewhere around 80% market share in California and we're chipping away at it, but it's going to take some time.
The only way this really works is if we're able to drive the production cost through industrialization, mechanization, automation, every single type of strategy we can use to reduce costs, such that we're able to retail products at somewhere around a 20% or 30% premium over black market prices. I think consumers will pay a premium for legal products, A because it's legal, but B also because it's tested and they know it's safe, but they're not going to pay a 100% premium for that product, which is really what the market's asking them to do right now.
We have to figure out as an industry, how to through these steps and through the industrialization of this crop, drive these prices down to a point where we can compete effectively on price with the black market. Once that happens, I think you're going to see a very, very rapid transition of people over to that. It's going to take some time, but we're getting pretty close.
Matthew: Where are you in the capital-raising process, Alex?
Alex: We've raised, I think actually we just brought in some more cash today, so we're a little over $25 million in cash raised, predominant at this point in time as a debt. There's a whole host of different ways in which you can finance these businesses. Fundamentally, there's a lot of assets that we hold both in terms of equipment and receivables that we can finance against. We've definitely done quite a bit of work around capitalizing the business using debt. Fundamentally, we are looking to go out and raise a much larger chunk of capital where the businesses starting to gets to operating scale. It should be breaking even on an accrual basis here within the next quarter and once we do that, we think that we've demonstrated that the business can be self-sufficient, it ultimately needs capital to grow to meet all this market requirement.
Our goal is, we're continuing to raise a small amount of cash right now to bridge the company, but once we get done with that, we're looking to raise, probably I think our appetite is closer to $20 to $30 million sometime in the first half of next year.
Matthew: Is that open to accredited investors?
Alex: Only. Yes, we are not looking to do a public offering so we can only take a credit investor money.
Matthew: As we close in a couple of minutes, I'll get your contact information for people that are interested in reaching out to you about that if they're accredited. Before we do that, let's go over to the personal development questions. Alex, is there a book that's had a big impact on your life or your way of thinking that you'd like to share?
Alex: Yes, there's really two books. One is a book by Max Tegmark called Our Mathematical Universe, which I think is fascinating. It's a pretty dense read but I think it gives a really good perspective on the way things work at a very fundamental level. The other one is called a Radical Abundance, is a book by Eric Drexler, which talks about massive changes in terms of how the way the world works and what's underlying those trends and what's creating all this radical abundance in the way we get through a day-to-day [unintelligible 00:39:29] Those are two books I think it's been pretty impactful on me.
Matthew: What's the most interesting thing going on in your field besides what you do?
Alex: I think the primary thing that's fascinating for me is the diversity in product delivery systems. If you look at cannabis a decade ago, the only way of really consuming it, except for really fringe activity, it was you were smoking it. You were taking some flower, you were putting into a pipe or you're grinding it up and putting it in a pre-roll and you were inhaling it, and that was pretty much it. You've got an explosion in things like drinks, we're working with a company called CLICK for sublingual delivery. Another company called [unintelligible 00:40:12] who has a very unique way of actually consuming flower but in a healthier faction. There's a whole host of different work going on around the delivery of THC, and these are the cannabinoids and terpenes and flavonoids. That's, I think one of the most interesting things.
Matthew: What's one thought you have that most people would disagree with you on?
Alex: I think it's driven by those books. I think it's about abundance. I think we are entering an age in which exponential growth and a lot of underlying factors are driving us towards a situation of radical abundance. I think that's foundational and I'm also a big believer in minimal income for all people. I think there's a way in which we can solve a lot of our problems by a negative taxation system. I get into lots of debates around inflation with some economic minded people around me, but I think there's something to be said for helping provide a fundamental framework that allows people to operate a minimal income. Really unlaunched, I think a lot of the entrepreneurial aspects of our economy.
Matthew: [laughs] I love this stuff, but you're right. It's not directly cannabis-related, so we'll end it there. Alex, we talked about a lot of things here, so just remind people exactly what kind of products, we talked about what's an ideal client for you, but just remind them of what kind of products you manufacture and can help them with?
Alex: We try to focus on the major product categories in the marketplace, but that's really packaged flower. It's, pre-rolls, it's solvent-based extracts, and the category of the word just now embarking upon right now is ingestibles. We're doing also [unintelligible 00:45:32] is another big chunk of it, but ingestibles. Ingestibles is somewhere around if you include beverages and edibles, it's somewhere around 18% of the marketplace give or take. Beverages are very small category but are growing announced size pace, and I think over the next decade, it could become a much larger part of the overall market. That's the one, call it fifth of the marketplace that we're not currently attaching revenue to and that's what we're going to be adding.
Pretty much, if you look at it this way, you walk into a dispensary, we're going to be manufacturing pretty much any product you see on the shelf. We'll be manufacturing for different brands, but we don't want a single product category to allude our focus.
Matthew: For accredited investors and potential clients, how can they reach out to you to learn more?
Alex: My email address is alex@newtropic N-E-W-T-R-O-P-I-C.com. We have a website, newtropic.com where you can go to the investor section and get access directly to us there, or you can email me or email@example.com.
Matthew: Alex, thanks so much for coming on the show. We really appreciate it and good luck with everything you're doing.
Alex: Matt, I really appreciate the time.
Matthew: If you enjoyed the show today, please consider leaving us a review on iTunes, Stitcher, or whatever app you might be using to listen to the show. Every five-star review helps us to bring the best guests to you. Learn more at cannainsider.com/iTunes. What are the five disruptive trends that will impact the cannabis industry in the next five years? Find out with your free report at cannainsider.com/trends. Have a suggestion for an awesome guest on CannaInsider? Simply send us an email at firstname.lastname@example.org. We'd love to hear from you. Please do not take any information from CannaInsider or discuss as medical advice, contact your licensed physician before taking cannabis for using it for medical treatments. Emotional consideration may be provided by select guests, advertisers, or companies featured in CannaInsider.
Lastly, the host or guests on CannaInsider may or may not invest in the companies, entrepreneurs profiled on the show. Please consult your licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions. Final disclosure to see if you're still paying attention. This little whistle jingle you're listening to will get stuck in your head for the rest of the day. Thanks for listening and look for another CannaInsider episode soon. Take care. Bye-bye.
[00:48:11] [END OF AUDIO]
As the cannabis industry matures, new and innovative ways are emerging that allow investors to capture a stake in the growth of young cannabis companies. Here to tell us about it is Jeffrey Finkle of Arcview Ventures.
Learn more at https://arcviewgroup.com
[00:52] An inside look at Arcview Ventures, the leading private investment network and market research firm in the cannabis space
[1:34] Jeffrey’s background and how he got into the cannabis space
[4:39] How Arcview’s new member-managed cannabis fund is giving investors access to deals with greater ease and flexibility
[8:42] The requirements an investor needs to meet in order to join Arcview Collective Fund
[10:03] A breakdown of the different investor archetypes and how Arcview Collective Fund benefits each
[20:57] Jeffrey’s advice to entrepreneurs on how to successfully pitch their companies to investors
[25:33] Arcview’s process for follow-on investments and liquidity events
[31:03] Gaps emerging in the cannabis marketplace right now and where Jeffrey sees the industry heading over the next few years
Before you go, check out Matthew Kind’s favorite new cannabis smoking device.
Matthew Kind: Hi, I'm Matthew Kind. Every Monday, look for a fresh new episode where I'll take you behind the scenes and interview the insiders that are shaping the rapidly evolving cannabis industry. Learn more at cannainsider.com. That's C-A-N-N-A-insider dot com. Now here's your program.
As the case cannabis industry matures, new and innovative ways are emerging that allow investors to capture a stake in the growth of young cannabis companies. Here to tell us more about it is Jeffrey Finkle from Arcview Ventures. Jeffrey, welcome to CannaInsider.
Jeffrey Finkle: Hi, Matthew.
Matthew: Give us a sense of geography. Where are you in the world today?
Jeffrey: I am calling today from Port Washington, New York, about 25 miles outside of New York City.
Matthew: What is Arcview Ventures?
Jeffrey: Arcview Ventures was formed to manage the principle investing activities of The Arcview Group. I'm sure you know of The Arcview Group. I know Kim Kovacs has been a guest on your show. The Arcview Group, over 10 years, has been the nation's largest investor network serving the cannabis industry. We formed Arcview Ventures to try to put and get assets under management to not only facilitate the funding of the cannabis industry but to participate in it.
Matthew: Tell us a little bit about your background and journey and how you got started in this space, what you were doing before and how you joined the Merry Pranksters over at The Arcview Group.
Jeffrey: Sure. I started my career as an operating executive in the software industry, and through a series of acquisitions, ended up at Computer Associates, which was a very large software company in New York. I was originally from Boston and was really that transaction that facilitated my move to New York. From there, I got recruited out to start a venture capital fund focused on the web 1.0, a period where we were building the infrastructure of the web.
I operated that fund from 1999 to 2009, at which time I started to get involved in this new method of investing, the member-managed fund method, where I became the treasurer and founder of Angel Round Capital, which was the first member-managed fund in New York focused on the tech industry. I'll talk a little bit more about that, but I guess in summary, I spent half of my time as an operating exec and the other half as a professional venture capital and angel investor.
Matthew: Before we dig into all that's new in investing and specifically cannabis investing and what you're doing, let's go back to what's been up to this point. How have early-stage cannabis companies gotten funding up to this point?
Jeffrey: Early-stage companies have had a hard time. I think many of them got their first round of funding from friends and family, unlike the tech industry where raises are typically up to $500,000, $600,000, $700,000 just to get, in the case of a licensee, to maybe get their application in and to secure some real estate, in the case of an ancillary provider to write some software, if that's what the product is, get it out there, get in front of some users and get some early feedback.
Really, the next stage after that, the seed stage, has been even more difficult. There was a handful of investors and funds really focused on this industry in the early days, 2014 to let's say 2016 where they were providing seed funding. A lot of that actually has run its course as those funds now have exhausted their capital supply to do new deals and are reserving capital to follow on on the companies that they've done.
That's the way it's typically been done. Family offices did get involved, but usually at the later stage, not really at the seed stage. I think the industry right now is experiencing a supply and demand imbalance where there's certainly more companies looking for money than there is capital to fund them.
Matthew: Now with Arcview Ventures, you're offering something that's new and innovative and flexible for investors. Can you talk about that?
Jeffrey: Sure. At a high level, Arcview Ventures really has an ambition to put together a number of investing platforms to serve the industry, but the first product, and that's one that I rolled into our view in January, is the Arcview Collective Fund. It is uniquely member-managed. What that means is our members, who are essentially limited partners, are also part of the general partnership, and as such, they vote on how the fund is run and in which companies the fund invests. We do it pursuant to a committee structure that allows for participation not only in the decision-making process but in the economics of the fund or the carried interest.
It's a great way. The way to think about it is the perfect hybrid between a traditional venture fund, an LP/GP management company structure, and a loosely coupled angel network where individual angels are out making their own decisions. It fuses those two notions together, allows those investors to be part of the decision-making process, but instead of voting on behalf of their own pocketbook, they're voting on behalf of the treasury of the fund.
Matthew: Let's just backtrack for a second. For people that aren't clear on what carried interest is, can you describe what that is and how that's taxed?
Jeffrey: Venture capital funds get compensated through a management fee on the capital that is committed to the fund and what is called carried interest. Carried interest is the profit on an investment that is made from the fund. For example, if Arcview Ventures or the Arcview Collective Fund puts 250,000 into a deal, and five years later, that deal exits and the fund gets a million dollars for its 250 investment. It has $750,000 of profit. That profit is split between the limited partners in the fund and the managers of the fund. That profit is called the carried interest.
Matthew: I heard a story on where that name originated from. It was when royalty or wealthy merchants would finance a ship, let's say from New York to London. If queen Victoria sponsors it, she gets a 20% carried interest. If she ensures it's safe voyage to get from harbor to harbor, she would get part of that cargo as her carried interest, let's say. Is that true? Do you know if that's where that term came from?
Jeffrey: No, I haven't heard that story, but I think, in many ways, that's what we do as fund managers, is ensure the success of the companies that we're involved in.
Matthew: Tell me how many people are involved in this now in Arcview Ventures, limited partners, general partners? Can you give me a sense there?
Jeffrey: We started with 15 members on our first close, we're now up to 55. Each member is part of the limited partnership and the general partnership. However, not all members sign up for the committees that direct the way in which the fund operates.
Matthew: We'll get into maybe some of the archetypes of the different types of investors and participants in this because some people are saying, Well, I don't want to be on a committee, and some are saying, Hey, maybe I would like to do that. Or maybe people that are raising capital one understand that a little bit more too. We'll get into that.
Let's say I'm someone that's listening and I'm like, Hey, I want to participate in this. What does it take to participate? What kind of capital is required? Do I need to be an accredited investor? What does that look like?
Jeffrey: You do have be an accredited investor. We decided to make the capital commitment for a member fairly modest. It's a $75,000 commitment. It's called capital. We don't call it all at once when somebody signs a subscription agreement. To date, we've only called half the capital. We'll probably make additional capital calls the beginning of 2021 and then probably mid-2021.
The reason that we wanted to keep it low is that we really wanted to aggregate smart, thoughtful investors to be part of the membership. Even though some of them want to put more money to work in the industry, we give them the opportunity to do that. The 75,000 is the unit that they purchase in the fund. Certainly, some can purchase more than one unit, but to the extent that they have dry powder that they'd like to put into the industry, to the extent there's room in one of our deals, we open it up and let them participate in those deals side by side the fund.
Matthew: Jeffrey, what are the big advantages here in this model versus, say, other forms of early-stage investing? What's the big benefit here or big benefits for different people?
Jeffrey: You mentioned the different archetypes of investors. Here's how we think about it. First, there's the asset allocator. This is the person that's got 250, 500,000, a million dollars that they've decided to allocate to early-stage or growth stage venture in the cannabis industry. What they'll do is they'll look and see who the best managers are. They'll pick one of them, they'll subscribe to the fund. They don't want to be involved. They don't want to go to meetings. They don't want to do any work. They're less concerned about education and solely concerned about getting the best return that they can get.
They pick managers through that lens with that goal in mind. They'll read the annual reports. They'll read the quarterly reports. They'll go to the annual meeting. That's the asset allocator. On the complete other end of the spectrum is the experienced individual angel investors, we like to think of them as the go-it-aloner. The go-it-aloner is perfectly comfortable listening to a company's pitch, doing due diligence, and deciding on their own which company's cap table to go on.
In the middle is what we call the collaborative decision-maker. This is the person that understands that with a group that have varied and different experience than they do, that they can make a better investment decision. We initially focused on the collaborative decision-maker, but what I've learned is that the go-it-aloner, when they heard about what we're doing, they found it more interesting and a better program.
I would say this, what investors get out of this is really four things. The first is access to better deal flow because the 55 members as a group can source through their networks deal flow than any one individual. Now that we're on the ArcView platform, that is multiplied. The second is participation. Not only participation in the decision-making process. You're sitting at the table hearing the company's pitch and voting on whether or not those companies should advance but also participation in the fund economics.
The next I would say is education. As I think about our membership, say there's probably 20 members who have experience in financial services, either as an angel investor from the tech industry, an executive in a family office, a private equity investor, hedge fund managers, and they bring certainly the experience of how to invest in private companies, then I'd say we probably have 10 to 15 people that have direct experience in the cannabis industry on the operating side.
Then we have a bunch of functional business experts. For example, a woman who's a senior HR executive and a gentleman that runs and owns a consumer-focused market research firm doing primary market research. Education, there's cross-education between all of those people. I can tell you from my experience, doing this in the tech industry, that we had individuals in the first year that really wouldn't raise their hand and make comments but by year two were leading due diligence exercises because they learn from the others and they were moved along and they felt comfortable.
I would say then, the next reason that people engage, and perhaps the most powerful, is diversification. Because for a fairly modest capital commitment of $75,000, this fund will do between 20 and 25 deals. In order for an individual angel to get that kind of diversification, they have to put out about a million dollars given that the minimums in most of these companies are 50,000. Sometimes they're 25,000, sometimes they're 100,000, but on average, they're 50,000. To be able to get diversification across 20 to 25 companies just requires a vastly different financial commitment.
Certainly, these are LPs will have a smaller interest in all of these companies, but it really does give them the ability to learn, see, and participate in a number of deals. I would say those are the reasons that investors find this a compelling program.
Matthew: That is a lot of deals. What kind of timeframe would that be over? You said 20 deals. That's a lot. That does make sense. That diversification is great for that amount of capital. They say, Okay, so I put in 25,000 or 75,000. I get a unit. It's not called all at once. It might be over at some period of time. Can you just walk us through what your expectations is of how much-- Let's say that 75,000 or that one unit would be called over, let's say, maybe six months or a year? Then what kind of the timeframe is on deploying that capital to 20 different companies?
Jeffrey: The capital will be called over about a two-and-a-half to three-year period. The investment period, so when most funds are set up, there's two periods they define, the investment period and then the harvesting period. Usually, the investing period is four to five years. I think ours is four. That is the period of time with which we can initiate a new deal. Then the harvesting period is the period of time that we can do follow-on deals in those deals we funded during the investment period, and of course, harvest those deals to exit. I think we'll put that money out before the four-year clock runs out, probably three to three and a half years from our inception.
Matthew: It's key to note that your money's not losing value through inflation like a melting ice cube. It's actually you're getting called as it's needed. You can keep it in whatever you need to until it's time to deploy. That's helpful.
Jeffrey: Most funds do that. They do it somewhat selfishly because if they take the money in early, the time horizon starts when it's called and that can lower their IRR if it's just sitting in a money market account at their bank. You don't want to really call capital too much in advance of you needing to deploy it but certainly enough in advance that you're not scrambling around to get a deal done.
Matthew: For people that are listening, IRR is just internal rate of return. It just means your return on the investment but also Jeffrey is saying in context of other investors looking at your rate of return or other managers just as they're like, how well is this fund doing? If you wait to deploy until it's needed, that return rates going to be hypothetically better. Moving on here, talk a little bit about the vetting process and what's that like?
Jeffrey: It starts with submissions to our website. Many of those submissions are actually pre-screened by myself or my partner or some of the members of the fund. Let's say on a monthly basis, 30 to 40 companies make it to the submission stage, if you will. We convene. The first committee we have is a screening committee. It's five of the most experienced investors among the membership. We'll parse through those submissions. We'll pick four companies to present to an evaluation committee. We usually do this on the first Tuesday of the month. We run this in monthly decision cycles.
On the first Tuesday of the month, those four companies will pitch. Could be in person, certainly not in the days of COVID. It'll be on Zoom. They'll pitch, they'll do a 10-minute presentation with a 10-minute Q&A. The evaluation committee, which numbers about 17 but I would say on an ongoing basis, we have 10 to 12 participants, will vet those companies.
After the Q&A, we'll have a subjective discussion about which two to advance to the full members' meeting? The full members' meeting takes place on the fourth Tuesday of the month. All the members are invited. It's not just for the committee. Those same two companies will present. This time, they'll present for about 12 minutes with about 15 minutes of Q&A. We'll do a hard vote. We'll vote which, if any, should advance into formal due diligence.
From there, we'll establish an ad hoc due diligence committee. It's usually five or six people. We'll assign the sections. We produce our own investment memo with defined sections. We'll assign the sections to those members of the committee. We'll do a kickoff call. We'll ask the company to open up a deal room and to fill out a two-page form of basic information. Then we'll perch through the deal room. We'll come up with our questions. We'll send the question in advance to the company. When we receive the answers, we'll schedule a conference call and go over the answers with the company. By the time we first engage in a formal call, we want to have something to talk about, not just ask sort of the first level of questions. We'll do that. Then oftentimes, we'll repeat that process as more due diligence is done and more questions emerge.
Then at the end of that, each member of the committee will write their section. Whoever's leading the exercise, because we do appoint one of the committee members to lead, will craft the document into one cohesive piece of work. We'll then send it out to our membership for vote. If the vote comes in yes, and we have a double test by the way to create a yes, we'll then fund out of our treasury. That's essentially our process.
Matthew: Now, can you think of any entrepreneurs that have done a better job than others and why or how they did it differently? Is there any that come into your mind? Because I've heard a lot of pitches. Some entrepreneurs and founders are just so well prepared, they have a very clear vision. Then they do this like-- I didn't realize this until I saw some of this in action is that some of these people that pitch, they've done some legwork ahead of time where they're talking to someone like you or maybe one of these other partners. They're saying, What are these meetings like in general? What do they look for? How have other companies done well or done poorly?
They've kind of given themselves a real advantage by asking these questions. Then the majority of entrepreneurs don't ask any of those questions at all. They just come in with their best pitch-- they can do well, too, they can do very well, but some entrepreneurs give themselves a better chance for success I'll say by doing that kind of work. Can you comment on that at all?
Jeffrey: Well, I think that's true. I think presenting entrepreneurs should surely take advantage of all that's available to them. There are certainly guides on the web. I will tell you this. Oftentimes, we will open up our meeting and allow entrepreneurs to guest, to watch the way in which our membership vets companies and the kinds of questions we ask. Then even sit in for the rich discussion after the company leaves to see what we thought of them and what our critique is? We're open that way. We encourage that. Look, I could talk for a very long time about mistakes companies make when they pitch. That's a whole nother subject.
If you're a pitching company, you really should take advantage of everything that's out there. I think most pitch decks I see have advisors, many of whom have been through the process before. I Imagine that they're advising really for that purpose to help demystify this whole fundraising process.
Matthew: We talked a little bit about the archetypes but review there's options to be passive, there's options to be more involved. In your experience, it sounds like there's kind of a lifecycle where some people start out and they're just listening and observing and being more passive. As they get comfortable and marinate in the wisdom of other people that have been through the process many times, they jump in and say, Oh, I see this. I can add value here. Maybe my background from this industry could be helpful. Maybe I'll lead this committee meeting or do this or that. Is that accurate, or what would you say about that?
Jeffrey: Less experienced investors who are joining to learn, to put money to work but also to learn, generally are guarded with their input at the beginning until they feel comfortable. I would say - I've been doing this for a long time - that we have maybe 20 to 25 really engaged members, that want to sign up for committees, that are on most of the calls. Then maybe there's another 10 that are somewhat active because life gets in the way, family events get in the way. Their job, if they're still working, gets in the way, and they can't always be present for the meetings.
What I've seen over time is that does ebb and flow. Sometimes you're available in the winter months but you're not as available from May to July. That's fine. We can incorporate that. With a membership as deep and as large as ours, we still have plenty people to participate and do some work. I would say this. We understand that this is not a second job for our members. To the extent that it feels like a second job to them, to the extent it feels like an obligation, it means we're not doing our job. Because it's really something they should enjoy and participate in and should be a hobby, not an obligation. We're very aware of that. We make sure that no people can engage that we can cover and we do.
Matthew: Now, what about in the instance where the committee and the members have invested in a company, they really like what they're seeing and they want to do a follow-on investment, what's the process like there? Is there capital just for that or how does that work?
Jeffrey: We left it pretty open. If there is an open round and the fund is going to commit, let's say $150,000, to that deal and there's a room in the deal, it's first come first serve. Whichever members want to take a piece, it's open to them. The only rule that they need to follow is to not to front-run the fund, that we get the first piece that's available, to the extent that we want to take that piece and up to the amount we want to fund. Everything else that's available is on a first-come-first basis. I would say out of the 11 deals that we've done, I think in six of them, we've had fund members go side by side.
Matthew: That's cool. What's kind of your estimate in terms of follow-on investments or second investments in later rounds? What percentage of investments would get a follow-on investment would you say?
Jeffrey: Historically, funds will reserve one-third to 50% of their invested capital for follow-ons. My experience, it ends up being just about under a third because some companies, you won't want to fund any further. You'd rather take your loss. Some companies won't need any more funding, that's certainly more rare. Some companies will get acquired early. Then some companies will do so well that the follow-on around will just be priced at a level that earlier stage investors will be uncomfortable with. We do that. We reserve $0.33 cents for every dollar invested. Then we'll free that up over time as we get visibility into each company and whether or not we're likely participant in a follow-on route.
That's not uncommon. I think that's pretty common how most seed early-stage driven growth capital funds think about it.
Matthew: Liquidity events. Everybody wants to know. How do I get my money back, Jeffrey? Will it ever come back? Is it all going into a hole? What do you tell them when they say, how long? How long before I get my money back?
Jeffrey: Listen, when you're an investor in early growth and seed-stage funds, and I would even argue growth stage funds, you have to have a long term view. I tell people, think of this as seven years. Now, that doesn't mean in year three, companies that you invested in year one won't start to exit. Certainly, companies that you invest in your four, at the end of the investment horizon, may not exit for three years later, so year seven. While you'll get liquidity along the way, and certainly every time there's a liquidity event, we don't recycle the capital, we we pay it back to the LPs, you have to really think of this as long term.
I think in the cannabis industry, and particularly with what's likely to happen on the East Coast. Today is a very important day. It's election day. I know that this won't be aired until sometime after today. With New Jersey on the ballot as a non-binding referendum with just tremendous support among the voters in the state and even support in the legislature, it is likely to go, which will pull New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut. I see this whole emergence of the East Coast, it's very likely to see some consolidation as companies from the West come East and look to grow in geographies that they haven't in the past.
My feeling is that we'll see exits sooner than we saw in tech, but my advice to people is to have a seven-year horizon.
Matthew: The biggest benefits here are pretty much access to deals, diversification, a great peer group, and then this platform to participate in on many deals. Did I miss anything there or did I cover them all?
Jeffrey: I would add something. I said access, participation, education, and diversification. A sub-point of that is the ability to do institutional-level due diligence. Just to give you an example, one of the go-it-aloners who eventually joined the fund had done four cannabis deals on his own. The comment that he made to us was, "I could never do the level of due diligence alone that I could do as a participant in a due diligence committee for the fund." I would say the ability really to vet these companies deeper and leverage the experience of the other members of the fund to make a better decision is also a very strong reason people do this.
Matthew: Do you see any gaps in the cannabis investment marketplace emerging now?
Jeffrey: Well, I've talked about this a few times. In 2012, in the tech industry, there was something that was framed the Series A Gap. That was simply created by a number of dynamics. One, crowdfunding had just titled three, had just gotten approved. Angel investors came out in mass. All these new Angel groups popped up. A lot of early seed stage, companies got funding, but at the same time series A funds shrunk. They shrunk because the SBIC canceled their co-matching fund program. A lot of the funds from the 2008 to 2010 who were active became zombie funds, they had exhausted all their capital, and there was this huge gap. Even well-performing seed companies couldn't find series A capital.
I think something like that, although a little bit different is happening in the cannabis industry. A lot of the seed funds that were $15 to $25 million that were vintage, '13, '14, '15, and '16 have also now exhausted their capital and many of the high performing ones are out raising growth capital funds at the $100, $150 $200 million level. That's creating the seed gap. Where will companies go to find capital?
There are probably four or five active seed funds. When I mean real funds, I mean, professional managers that have held out their shingle and said, we're in the business of seed and early growth venture capital. There's few of them and there's not really a lot of capital. I think our timing is pretty good, and certainly from the vantage point of Arcview Ventures because we're doing this member-managed fund. We're also going to build a $30 million seed fund, which will be marketing in Q1 of 2021. With Entourage Effect Capital as our partner, we think we're really well-positioned for the seed gap that I think is imminent.
Matthew: This is really interesting stuff. I love how technology, Zoom, and all these different things, people in different geographies are coming together. This is really a marriage of you're on the East Coast. Arcview is based on the West Coast. The finance industry, the tech industry, and now this emerging cannabis industry coming together. It's fun to see how these different skill sets come together to really craft and to galvanize this industry.
With that, I want to move to some personal development questions to help listeners get a better sense of who you are, Jeffrey. With that, I'd like to ask, is there a book that's had a big impact on your life or your way of thinking that you'd like to share?
Jeffrey: Yes. I think on the business side-- On the business side, I'd say there were two books that have had an impact on me. One is Zero to One by Peter Thiel. I imagine in asking this question you've heard that in the past.
Matthew: Oh yes.
Jeffrey: The other is The Hard Thing About Hard Things by Ben Horowitz from Andreessen Horowitz.
Matthew: Great books. Those are all famous.
Jeffrey: Yes. I'm sure they come up as favorite books often. On the personal side, I think a great book is The Untethered Soul. It's a journey about discovering who you are and really enriching yourself in the path to happiness, which I think we're all on. Great book. Those three books, as I think back over the last 10 years, have probably had the greatest impact.
Matthew: What's one thing you see in the world that people are under-appreciating in terms of the impact it will have on society, apart from cannabis?
Jeffrey: I'm an advisor to a telehealth company that's focused on men's health. I was shocked to learn this unbelievable statistic that the rate with which testosterone levels are dropping in males is incredible. It's over 1% a year. As you play that hand out since I think-- The last statistic that I heard was from 1988 to 2004, those levels dropped about 18%. As you really start to play that hand out and get 10, 20, 30, 40 years from now, the effect on reproduction, on families, on what defines manhood, I think is all going to change. I think that's going to have an enormous effect.
This entrepreneur is really on a mission to solve that problem, but I've never really imagined and really understood the extent of that decline and its impact.
Matthew: Now, clarify your thinking a little bit there. What do you think the impact is?
Jeffrey: Difficulty in reproduction and the ability to replace the population.
Matthew: I think also there's other waves driving that, other smaller waves, just the difficulty for many to household form to have enough income to provide for a family of four, or five or more. Real wages in the US haven't increased since the '70s mostly because of globalization. There's a lot of tricky things happening there. Also, the cost of higher education for kids, maybe I want to have only one or two kids, people are thinking things like that. You're right, maybe it's a perfect storm of downward demography wave like we've seen in Japan.
Jeffrey: You think this is the universe's way of self-correcting?
Matthew: [laughs] It could be. Interesting stuff.
Jeffrey: It's a scary stat, whether it will mitigate some of those issues or not. Again, I was shocked to learn, and I do think this will have dramatic impact on life going forward.
Matthew: You're in the tri-state area there, and one thing I'm thinking a lot about lately is, what's going to become a New York City? Will it be able to get out of this doom loop where no one really wants to come back to the extent that they were there before? Prices go down. There's not enough to cover the tax base, all these terrible things can happen. What do you think the roadmap is for New York City to come back? Will it not come back in a generation, or what are your thoughts?
Jeffrey: I don't think it's a generation, but I do think it's multiple years to get back to where we were. The scariest is storage are boarded up for what they think is likely to happen after the year results of the election are tabulated. I know more people who are not going into the city. I have kids who live in the city, have actually left the city, not understanding what might happen tomorrow. Absent that, if you just look at the restaurants and how many have closed and you understand how many people are employed by that industry, I think that's the big thing that you notice when you walk down the street in New York.
Just seeing how many just couldn't make it this early. We have the winter in front of us, and I think it's going to get worse. I don't think it's generational, but I do think it's a couple of years. I do think it's not going to be really till late 2021 where it's going to start to feel the same. Then certainly a year or two after that until it is the same. Also, New York is a real travelers destination. It makes most of its money from travelers, not residents. That's certainly not going to come back anytime soon.
Matthew: Well, thanks for that Jeffrey. As we close, how can listeners find out more about Arcview Ventures and connect with you? This is only accredited investors I guess at this point but also maybe startup founders that want to pitch the investor group.
Jeffrey: Yes. Go to our website, www.arcviewventures.com. On the top menu, if you are an entrepreneur, you'll see how to submit for financing consideration and you'll learn all about what we're doing at that site.
Matthew: Okay. Jeffrey, thanks so much for coming on the show. We really appreciate it and good luck with everything you're doing.
Jeffrey: Matthew, thanks so much. I enjoyed it.
Matthew: If you enjoyed the show today, please consider leaving us a review on iTunes, Stitcher, or whatever app you might be using to listen to the show. Every five-star review helps us to bring the best guest to you. Learn more at cannainsider.com/itunes. What are the five disruptive trends that will impact the cannabis industry in the next five years? Find out with your free report at cannainsider.com/trends.
Have a suggestion for an awesome guest at CannaInsider, simply send us an email at email@example.com. We'd love to hear from you. Please do not take any information from CannaInsider or its guest as medical advice. Contact your licensed physician before taking cannabis or using it for medical treatments. Promotional consideration maybe provided by select guests, advertisers, or companies featured in CannaInsider.
Lastly, the hosts or guests on CannaInsider may or may not invest in the companies or entrepreneurs profiled on the show. Please consult your licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions. Final disclosure to see if you're still paying attention, this little whistle jingle you're listening to will get stuck in your head for the rest of the day. Thanks for listening and look for another CannaInsider episode soon. Take care. Bye-bye.
[00:42:05] [END OF AUDIO]
We just reached possibly one of the largest milestones in creating pure, consistent cannabinoids in a lab. Here to tell us about it is Kevin Chen of Hyasynth Bio.
Learn more at https://hyasynthbio.com
[1:32] An inside look at Hyasynth Bio and its work creating biosynthesized cannabis compounds
[3:05] Hyasynth Bio’s first product, an ultra-pure CBD oil created using cultured cannabinoids
[7:44] How Hyasynth Bio is improving CBD production in terms of both speed and purity
[9:12] Why multinational companies are gravitating towards biosynthesized cannabinoids for better consistency and supply chain performance
[16:55] How biosynthesized cannabinoids are paving the way for international cannabis brands and which products Kevin believes will go global first
[21:23] How cellular agriculture is giving us better access to rare cannabinoids
[27:48] Why cellular agriculture is easier to automate and how this might influence prices in the cannabis industry
[32:21] Hyasynth Bio’s strategy to profit primarily through intellectual property licensing
[36:24] Where Hyasynth Bio currently is in the capital-raising process
Matthew Kind: Hi, I'm Matthew Kind. Every Monday, look for a fresh new episode where I'll take you behind the scenes and interview the insiders that are shaping the rapidly evolving cannabis industry. Learn more at cannainsider.com. That's C-A-N-N-A insider dot com. Now here's your program.
Our guest today is on the cutting edge of research where laboratory science meets cannabis. As you're about to hear, we have reached what is possibly one of the largest milestones in creating pure consistent cannabinoids in a lab. I am pleased to welcome back Kevin Chen of Hyasynth Bio. Kevin, welcome back to CannaInsider.
Kevin Chen: Hi, Matt. Great to be back.
Matthew: Give us a sense of geography. Where are you in the world today?
Kevin: I am based in Montreal, Canada. A little bit further north from you, but not too far.
Matthew: Okay. We were just talking about pumpkin. What is it about pumpkin this time of the year, everybody wants pumpkin spice, pumpkin latte? I'm not making fun of them because I'm one of those people. What is that?
Kevin: [chuckles] Not sure. Like I was saying, maybe it's a genetic thing or same as the reasons why birds like to fly south this time of year, maybe get some kind of psychological attraction to [unintelligible 00:01:16] into pumpkins, the squashes around this time of year. I've got some squashes that I'm going to cook up myself later today or next week sometime. I'm a pumpkin fan too. Why not?
Matthew: Maybe it's nesting or something. I can't figure barely. Well, Kevin, as I mentioned, you've been on the show before, but please remind us what on a high level does Hyasynth Bio do?
Kevin: We're a biotechnology company. Our main focus is on creating strains of yeast that produce cannabinoids. Instead of growing up plant having soil and adding water to that, you just have a big steel tank, you add yeast, which looks the same as baker's yeast to that big steel tank, you add some sugar and some water, let that grow for about a week, and then at the end of that, you extract pure cannabinoids from that yeast culture.
We do that by modifying the yeast cells themselves so that they have the ability to produce cannabinoids. That's genomic engineering. It's synthetic biology, it's about looking at the genome of a yeast and the genome of a cannabis plant and then taking all the genetic parts and the cannabis plant that are related to cannabinoid production and putting those into a yeast's genomes that these on its own can produce cannabinoids.
By way of analogy for anyone that's confused right now, this is the same way that we produced insulin for the past 50 years or so, where insulin is always coming from an engineered bacteria or engineered yeast. It's actually human gene for insulin that's been put inside of a yeast or bacteria genome. Then what these pharmaceutical manufacturers will do is just cultivate that bacteria, that yeast, and then extract pure insulin at the end of that. We're doing the same kind of process, but for cannabinoids, for all kinds of great reasons that we're going to talk about today, too.
Matthew: Okay. I've been banging the drum about this. This is the third time you've been on the show. In a couple years, I've been up to your lab in Montreal and I've kept on thinking, "Wow. If this really, really works, it's going to be huge for the cannabis and hemp industry, and all these other industries that we'll discuss." It sounds like you've made your first sale. Can you talk about that and what you sold and why it's important?
Kevin: Yes, definitely. I'll start with what we sold is CBD and CBDA, if you want to make a distinction between the carboxylated and the non-carboxylated form, that's more of a finer detail. At the heart of it, what we've done is successfully taken our yeast strains from our lab, handed them over to manufacturer, we gave the manufacturer instructions on how to produce the CBD using our strains. They follow those instructions, and at the end of that, we ended up with some ultra-pure 99+% pure CBD and CBDA.
It was, I would describe it like a pretty small batch, we're going to have a few small but important customers around the world with this batch. The key thing that I want to emphasize with it is that this is the first time we've taken our yeast strains out of our own hands and actually done-- We've essentially operated the business model that we want to scale up with almost where we're trying to take advantage of manufacturers that exist all around the world that can do fermentation, enabled them to use our strains of yeast to do the manufacturing of these key ingredients and have them do that consistently, robustly, and cost effectively. We can actually make these cannabinoids into products that are available worldwide and that are available with the right quality and consistency, the same as how insulin available worldwide.
Matthew: It's analogous to how Coca-Cola back in headquarters, they syrup exactly right to a specification that can be duplicated, and then they ship out small amounts to the bottlers. The bottlers, they understand the spec, and then they make their cola on-site to add the water that's to spec, the carbonation, the bottle, it's all done at the edge, where you're getting the formulation, just what it needs to be there, by your standards, or by the customer standards, by both. Then when it's time to scale up, you send them essentially the recipe in the strain in a small form that can be expanded greatly on-site. Is that right?
Kevin: Yes, exactly. That's a perfect analogy and also a good analogy, because I would say large brands like Coca-Cola have taken interest in cannabinoid-related products too. That's exactly what we essentially want to do here, so we have this level of consistency that starts to look more like that consistently that Coca-Cola has where you can get it anywhere in the world, it's always the same look, the same taste, the same brand. We want to have that be something that people can rely on and that brands can rely on.
Right now, if you imagine doing that with cannabis or hemp growth operation, to some extent, people have tried to do this in the cannabis industry and there's so many fine details about how you grow the cannabis plants, what genetics are involved, how much lighting or water or different fertilizers, pesticides, that all go into that process that it's incredibly hard to replicate that. On top of that, you have to deal with the local regulations around each of those, like cannabis growth operations you might want to operate around the world. That's going to add another layer of complexity. That makes it very difficult to actually for any larger from a company or larger brand to really want to invest in that, because there's so many of these risks and so many unique cases involved.
We really, really wanted to focus on how generic our process can be and how robust it can be and how it can be this thing that people can actually rely on. That makes it a lot like the way that Coca-Cola might manage their manufacturing practices, or any multinational brand that has that crosses borders, or that has a nationwide supply chain, because that's ultimately where we see these partners going is that cannabis has always been on its way to becoming part of that mainstream and it's come close, but it's not there yet. Right?
Matthew: Yes. Well, we mentioned the purity, but the thing that one of the other variables I'm focused on is the speed. Let's talk about how much faster this would be to get these cannabinoids versus growing them indoor or outdoor, the plant and the harvesting, curing, and extracting.
Kevin: We highlighted that in our press release stuff about this, just because it is one of the most important aspects of this and to give some experience to this, our process runs in one week. That means that by the time if you started to grow some cannabis plants and I was growing my yeast, on day 1, we said like go today, then like at the end of this week, I'd have a few hundred milligrams or a few grams of yeast or maybe two kilograms, depending on how large a batch I try and run with this stuff.
At the end of the week, I have my first product and then you will have your first maybe seedlings at the best. That's one of the key things here is that we're operating on a weak batch process. That's a huge improvement in efficiency. That changes the way that supply chain works as well a bit. With plants, of course, you're waiting like three months to grow these plants. Then at the end of that, you have to do your processing. For us, it's like this one-week turnaround. Every week, there’s new batch. It's going to make a big difference for how much you can make and how fast you can make it.
Matthew: Right. Okay. I said curing early, but that's not necessarily what needs to be done for extraction. Still, there's a huge amount of time delta here that we'll be able to be capitalized on in the future. It's not just about speed in growing cannabinoids, these big multinationals or even small companies too, they really need the lab cultures because it provides something they just can't get from extracted cannabinoids. Can you talk about what exactly, why they're gravitating to these lab room cannabinoids? What it does from what itch it scratches?
Kevin: I'll clarify a bit with the language there. I think lab-grown is a nice one way to put it. We also like to use the word cultured cannabinoids or biosynthesized cannabinoids. I think biosynthesized cannabinoids is the most popular word right now. I don't like lab-grown as much, because then it sounds like we're growing them in the natural lab and that's not-
-really what we're doing. In some sense, we're still doing agriculture, it's just a different kind of agriculture. It's agriculture inside of cells. Then you can use the word cellular agriculture, which is another fun topic.
Anyways, [chuckles] your question was about like why our company, why people gravitate towards this stuff? I spent like the past six years looking at industry and to some extent, I've been doing everything that I can to get people to start gravitating toward this stuff. I think what it boils down to is a bit of those hard metrics of like, where it's coming from, how it's being made, and what that means for the end consumer. What I mean by that is that we can have a supply chain that is always going to have product available, that's a part of you always using what you always want.
We saw that issue in Canada, where medical cannabis providers would run out of supply suddenly of the strain that somebody was using. If you can imagine if you're using one dose of one particular kind of strain, it's working really well for you for whatever condition you're dealing with, and then suddenly, they're out of stock. That's totally unacceptable from a pharmaceutical supply chain kind of thing. Like if the world ran out of insulin, that'd be the biggest in the world. That's like millions of people that are suddenly in trouble. We can do that with this technology and has been done with technology before. That's one of the things that I think is key.
Other things that are a little bit softer as far as what attracts people to things are getting into the sustainability and the efficiency of it. Sustainability in the sense that like, we care about the planet, we should try and make products in environmentally friendly ways. We know that cannabis cultivation is very not friendly for the environment, in the amount of greenhouse gas [unintelligible 00:12:06] that you have, the [unintelligible 00:12:06] control, you have to put into your process. We're really targeting that as an interesting thing.
That ties into what kind of companies are people building nowadays and what do people care about from that consumer lens, whether you're a small brand or a big brand, maybe small brands here, but it's more because they want to have like an edge over their competition and looking for these kinds of things that are like, "Oh, this will be the way that this will go and the way the future is, therefore I'm going to want to use the cultural cannabinoids or the biosynthetic cannabinoids."
Even the major brands of today I think are tying on and getting behind these sustainability organic green technologies and that's what we are. That's what we provide with this industry. It's not as relevant as maybe like you could argue that producing biofuels using a yeast might be another way of more directly addressing an environmental issue with biotechnology. That doesn't mean that we can't just incorporate a random sense of sustainability into our pharmaceutical manufacturing and enter into manufacturing of consumer products as well.
Matthew: Some of these large food and beverage companies and other types of companies, they want that purity, consistency, and scale. They can't really get that through plants because even if they have a mother plant, the seedling or the clipping that they take off, the mother plant may be grown in a different environment every time. The conditions, environmental conditions are different, so the outcome may be different. We're really talking not like a mother plant, but a mother culture here that is essentially identical or cloned and reproduced over and over again.
This is the moment where you feel the multinationals are like, "Okay, this is-- We have a mature industry that's ready to give us cannabinoids and we can start looking at it as an ingredient."
Kevin: Yes, definitely. You're exactly right about that analogy of having a mother plant and the conditions except-- I guess in our case, we have like-- [chuckles] Trying to tie into that analogy. We do have a mother culture, we have seed cultures that we store and they're all super consistent and then you grow that seed culture into huge volumes and it is still consistent. There's no genetic or environmental version, or at least you have control over all of the environment that goes into your steel tank. There's no airflow concerns or humidity being in half the greenhouse being different from the other half the greenhouse somehow.
All of these things are easily controlled and consistent across our batches. That's definitely true. You could imagine like not just large scale multinational brands that people are familiar with, but also large scale ingredients suppliers that are starting to catch on to this as well, where they can see this as a process they can incorporate into their own manufacturing facility and then have a new product line, which is like-- Essentially, what it boils down to is an ingredient supply ecosystem where we're providing the technology to enable this all to happen.
Then there's manufacturers who are able to produce the ingredient at large scales and move that into the larger brands who are their main clients and purchasers. That's all like with the way pharmaceutical ingredient supply works is it's like there is a lot of different parties involved. It starts with this. It starts with this like having some kind of foundation to stand on and one that doesn't rely on the cannabis plant.
I'm reflecting back on some earlier stories from the cannabis industry where people really wanted to have special genetics or special strains. Maybe those strains were tied more to their name or their brand, rather than their actual chemical composition almost. That's going to go away. We don't need that kind of thing and it's not very useful from a pharmaceutical standpoint either when you're talking about like, "What's the actual ingredient here? What's actually giving us the benefit?" Then we have the cannabinoids, of course, and that's what we focus on.
That's another really big change of mindset is that it's less about plants and strains and greenhouses and indoor grow versus outdoor grow and tan trim versus not having trim, whatever. All these things just start to fade away and we can focus on what's actually helping people and what's actually the active ingredient of the product and how we can use that in the best possible way to treat whether it's a skin condition or epilepsy or I guess to some extent like [chuckles] an alternative to like alcohol on a Friday night, let's say. [chuckles]
Matthew: The big story here and the reason I get excited about this is that it finally paves the way for an international cannabis brand, or CBD, or hemp brand. We almost couldn't be more fragmented or decentralized industry than we are. I like all the small mom and pop businesses, I think they're fun. I enjoy that. At the same time, it would be great if there was like one brand that the whole world understood was cannabis, because I think that would really catalyze the adoption of cannabis, especially away from other traditional medicines and different, maybe even cannibalize alcohol, if we can get more cannabis out there.
I mentioned Coke, but I also think about like other brands that wouldn't exist if there wasn't some way to standardize them. McDonald's, Adidas, that's not food or medicine, but the shoes are essentially the same all over the place. Now we have this opportunity. We have enough countries that are legalizing, at least if not, THC, then nonpsychoactive cannabinoids. What's your guess? Which type of product will go global first, or at least be on multiple continents with one brand? Will it be a supplement? Will it be food? What will it be?
Kevin: Yes, that's a good question. Definitely, it's exciting times internationally in seeing who's developing which regulations. [unintelligible 00:18:44] made the point where it'd be really nice to move some of the dial there with regulations in different countries, or how people you can look at this stuff where they can look at our products and say like, "It's not coming from cannabis. We're trying to regulate cannabis." That reminds me of the whole development of the Canadian cannabis regulations where there was years of tasks forces and figuring out how to grow the plant and how to regulate that process and all that kind of--
Again, starts to fade away a bit when you start to think about like, well, fermentation. We have fermenters, we understand that. We can call somebody tomorrow and ask them how to produce things in fermenters. They'd have 50 years of expertise in that. Then in cannabis, it's a lot from the ground up kind of thinking or maybe the most experienced cannabis growers were obviously doing it illegally for a very long time. I'm excited for what that might look like on a regulatory standpoint worldwide. As far as what product do we actually-- What do you think is going to be worldwide? That's a good question.
I think there is A, pharmaceutical products is like once you get an approval somewhere, then getting that to track around the world is not too challenging to some extent. If you want to think about what are global barriers to like how we make cannabinoids available to people who need them, that's one thing that to some extent already exists with companies like GTB Pharmaceuticals, but from a standpoint of less, less pharmaceutical and more into like the consumer range, it seems like cosmetics are one of the more perceived as acceptable areas where you might have a skincare product that has this stuff in it, as opposed to one that somebody has to consume, or really, for example, again, that ties into some of the different regulatory and maybe even emotional perspectives on cannabis or on cannabinoids in general as well, because you're not going to like rub something on your skin and then get high or something like that. [chuckles]
That's not how people normally think about using cannabis. Therefore, we would have like some fresher perspective from if the stricter governments around the world to try and like enable these kinds of products to exist. The other nice thing that exists already is how the perspective of CBD like Europe, for example, is still complicated, but a lot more open to allowing CBD oils to exist in the health and wellness and nutritional supplement area. To some extent, CBD oils might be like the first one that really starts to become more available anywhere in the world.
Matthew: Yes. Similar to maybe like a five-hour energy drink, there might be something you see everywhere. That's a small little container that you drink or in some way, that's just instantly recognizable that'll just be around everywhere. This is interesting. There's also another benefit to the lab-grown cannabinoids in that it's easier to experiment with rare cannabinoids and not that they're actually rare. It's just that they're not widely adopted at the moment. Can you talk a little bit about cellular agriculture with rare cannabinoids?
Kevin: Yes, definitely. That's one of the super interesting things that excites me a lot about the technology is that with the cannabis plant, we know that there is 150 cannabinoids and there's the main ones which are THC and CBD. Does that make sense? CBG as well and it's slightly different one, but either way, there's ones that Canada has produced in large quantities and ones that are pretty soon very, very small quantities. Some of the latest research and some clinical trials, they're starting to investigate what is the potential of these more rare cannabinoids? That's an area where if I take a THCV or CBDV as an example, like that might be 0.0001% of a cannabis flower.
If you wanted to extract a gram of that, you might need like 100 kilograms of cannabis farming. That doesn't make sense as like a process. There's just not enough there. With a engineered yeast, we can actually, well, we have yeast strains that produce THCV and CBDV, and we've done that successfully and clone that pathway and network-- To figure out how to get a yeast to produce these unique compounds is a matter of like engineering, just looking at these genes, how to assemble them properly and then you have your yeast strain at the end and that takes months of time, not years. It's all about like having a breeding program for cannabis that you're going to just breed strains until you get the right one.
We know exactly what we're changing and exactly what we're doing and our process for producing these rare cannabinoids will be the same process that as what we use to produce the CBD and the THC that we'll make as well. At the heart of it, we've got the ability to clone these strains that produce these rare cannabinoids. We've already done so in a lot of cases. Now that we've done that, it's the same process as what we'll use to produce CBD essentially. We can do the same thing and have large scale quantities of these rare cannabinoids suddenly available for-- ultimately, for human consumption when you go through all the steps to prove them out. But first for researchers, of course, so that they can actually figure out how good these things are at treating different conditions.
That's to some extent, a lot of the ways that people talk about cannabis and how it's useful for so many things is coming from where there's some activity in these rare cannabinoids or in combinations of cannabinoids that right now you can't really get access to by growing just cannabis plants.
Matthew: How do you think cellular agritech culture will affect the global supply chain for cannabis and hemp? I'm just thinking that if we can grow cannabinoids, if we can use biosynthesis or cellular agriculture for cannabinoids, that can be done in more of an urban environment, or at least it doesn't have to be done in a rural environment like outdoor farming for hemp, anyway. Do you think if there's any other ways that it might affect the global supply chain?
Kevin: One of the funnier ideas [chuckles] that I think about sometimes is that a lot of the products that are made using industrial fermentation are exist in the background a little bit. Citric acid is one of the biggest ones where it was in all your foods, it's a common product, it's vitamin C, it's everywhere. That's made using fermentation. A lot of people don't really realize that, or you think it comes from oranges or something like that, but it's actually a fermentation process that's used to make that. In some ways, we want cannabinoid production to start to fade away in that direction, to where you're aware of where it comes from, or maybe actually I'll flip that around. [chuckles]
Historically, these things have faded at the background a bit. Nowadays, people care a lot more about where their parts are coming from and that's probably why cellular agriculture and licenses just become really important because we don't just want to buy a piece of meat in the store and accept that as just normal. We care about the cows and the farmers that are providing this to us which is different today than it was maybe like 10 or 20 years ago or whatever.
What I mean by what we're going to do with cannabinoids is that we're going to remove some of that drama around cannabis production and having that be a big event or having that be a headline news about, "Oh, this cannabis group is opening here," or people getting upset about the smell of cannabis plants because their neighbors growing them or controversy around like the pesticide use around cannabis and how it's making people sick. These things start to fade away and what people get in the end is that they have CBD that's available at a pharmacy maybe the same way that you might want to look at aspirin and you can buy it like on your way to work.
You can buy small jar of CBD oil and it's not a big question of, "Oh, I'm not going to take this and get sick later today," or, "Am I contributing to global greenhouse gases significantly by buying this one CBD oil thing," or, "Do I even know if there's CBD in the CBD oil that I'm buying?" All these things that exist, those are problems that are at the forefront today and those are going to start to fade away. Then we have this really nice and established and reliable ecosystem of manufacturing.
Matthew: Well, it seems like it may be correct me if I'm wrong, but cellular agriculture seems like it lends itself to automation, much more so than plants being grown. Even when I visited your lab, you have things spinning and you have things in refrigerators, all this stuff going on that I can't even describe, but it looks like, "Hey--"
Kevin: A good memory. [chuckles] You got a couple of things done already.
Matthew: Right. I was like, "Okay." These things tend to be smaller than plants, at least when they start out. All these things, these combinations that are being created of cellular agriculture can be done in an automated way. That further brings down the price, if all these experiments and all these initial cannabinoid creations done in an automated way, once it's dialed in. Do you think that's accurate? Do you think that cellular agriculture is really going to bring down the price a lot?
Kevin: Yes. I think automation definitely plays a big role in this. When you look at a fermentation facility, it's maybe a few people who sit beside behind the computer for their days watching the main factoring process go, and it's way different from a cannabis production facility where you have like people trimming plants and moving the plants around and there's always staff handling these things. Again, yes, it's much easier to manage one steel tank where you have all control every single input and output in there than it is to control like a field of Canada's plants that is going to grow and some of that's going to change and it's going to be pests or whatever.
In terms of costs, there's definitely going to be a difference there and that's an interesting one just because we-- fermentation is also-- it's not a very cheap process. [chuckles] I wouldn't put it that way. A lot of the most expensive ingredients on the planet or the most expensive pharmaceuticals on the planet are produced by fermentation. I don't want to say too much about trying to bring down the cost of CBD but there's definitely some cost benefit when you get to the right kind of scale. Let me think about what else I could say on cost. In the end, like cannabis, you do have some floor cost about how you have to handle the plant, how you grow it.
One of the complicated things about cost that's being talked about right now in cannabis is the price of CBD in the US where everybody's like, "Oh, it's so cheap, it's everywhere, no problem." Yet, there's these issues of CBD remediation where there's too much THC somehow in your hemp grow, and therefore we have to remediate it. There's issues from the FDA that are saying like, "Well, half the CBD products on the market don't even have CBD in them."
There's things like that that are starting to come out. Yes, it's easy to grow hemp, and you can try and do that, and then have this low cost, but the cost of CBD, of high quality CBD of CBD that people can actually rely on, maybe that hasn't changed as much. There's still a need obviously for technology like ours to address the cost issue and the supply issues.
One of the other exciting things about cost is when you start to get the price of your ingredients into a range that is also suitable for having this be ingredient in other kinds of products already exist. I remember one of my conversations with a food manufacturer a few years ago, which went like this, where they were super excited about getting into CBD and having products that have CBD in them and making that a new thing for them. They make and sell bars, maybe they pay like $2 for the ingredients, they sell the bar for $4.
If I'm asking them to put like, "Oh, pay an extra like $5 for a gram of CBD to put into your products." That suddenly exceeds what they understand is the cost and how it ends up actually a grocery store shelf or whatever. The cost of ingredients for them is really, really important. If it's fundamentally past a certain point, then they can't commercialize products. That's where we might be able to with fermentation, we can definitely start to break those barriers and get the cost ranges that start to make sense for these kinds of ingredients. The same thing about scale again, and so on so forth. Those are my comments in cost, a bunch of thoughts there. It's an interesting one.
Matthew: Just describe a little bit of how you envision making money here. Is this through intellectual property licensing, or some other royalty agreement? What does that look like?
Kevin: In the end, it'll be a combination of those things. It might depend a bit on who our partners are, how regulations need to be handled, and these kinds of things where it might make sense for some markets for us to get into just purely by licensing, it might make sense for others for us to get into by having a partner and their billing or facilities. I'd say to some extent, we have some options there as far as like how we might deal with each situation.
The heart of it, what we're looking for here is really the ingredients companies or those brands, or those retailers and distributors who understand the market, who have products that are out there now, and maybe they have like a market share and some other sectors, and they're curious about like, "Oh, maybe I could add CBD to my products," or, "Maybe I'm well positioned to take in the supply and commercialize like a CBD product around the US or in Canada or around the world," wherever.
Then they might want to start talking to us and see what that might look like, what commitments do they need to make to have as partner with them, and what it takes to get manufacturing online so they could start to do that kind of work. [chuckles] It'll be a little bit complicated. In the end, we have these kinds of options and choices to make. It'd be exciting to have these conversations with these different partners or investors.
Matthew: You've achieved this milestone here in selling the first lab, cellular agriculture CBD, just for people that are listening, and they're like, "Okay, what are the milestones should I look for, Kevin, to see that this is all really happening and that this biosynthesis is going to become a larger and larger part of the cannabinoid market?" What's the big one or two, maybe three things that you'd say, "Okay, look for this, and then you'll know this industry is getting traction?"
Kevin: Look for me flying overhead in a private jet that I own.
No, I’m just kidding. That's good. The milestones, for years, it's always been a bit of the same, I would say, where we decided to get into this. We knew that the advantages of doing this process are that it's somewhat traditional, there’s these facilities worldwide. You can take your process from your lab, put it somewhere else, and somebody else can run it for you. We've done that at least at this level to show that it works. We'll do more of that, we'll do some larger scales, that'll be one thing to watch out for.
The next thing is to prove that, of course, we can have partnerships around our technology and have ways that we can get access to the market. Does that make sense? We've done that with our relationship with Organigram, which is another big Canadian cannabis producer. Now we're looking for more partners around that and seeing who might be our best partner in maybe by country or by application and say like, "Okay, well, we're going to partner there for this product line."
One of the exciting things that's coming up now, too, is also the idea of product diversity and having a range of cannabinoids that we can make and demonstrating that. That's going to be another really interesting one, where we start to show a bit more of our ability to diversify products. With those three things, we've covered the bases a bit as far as like, here's the advantages, we've proven that these advantages make sense and that they work, and that it will be about growing the business. Of course, we're a startup, we're looking for more investors all the time a bit. That's something else that we can talk about, too.
Matthew: Where are you in the raising capital process?
Kevin: I would say we're always fundraising. There's a way for you guys, a way for people to reach out to me directly to say like, if you're sending whatever. We are looking for more capital, of course. It's going to focus on the commercialization of our technology and seeing who's around that, that can support that.
Matthew: Okay. Well, Kevin, since you've been on the show a few times, I have some different personal development questions for you.
Kevin: Cool. You should change them up, because otherwise, people will get bored.
Matthew: You're right.
Kevin: Then one day, they'll know everything about me after a few times.
Matthew: They might just clone you. We don't need Kevin anymore. We can [crosstalk] What other technologies do you see on the horizon? The public may not be totally appreciating how that might dramatically change their lives apart from what you're doing in the labs, or anything else you just see, anecdotally, we're like, "Hey, this is going to have a big impact." Then people really don't understand it.
Kevin: One of the most exciting things to me is all of this other agriculture and biosciences field is interesting to me. You start to move the bar about like looking at your daily life and the [unintelligible [00:37:43] that you eat, or that you buy in the store or that you have around even today and seeing like, "Okay, well, maybe all these materials can be made using keys or bacteria or something like that."
It seemed that reality is coming up really, really fast. There's one of my favorite other companies is called Perfect Day Foods, and they're producing milk using yeast essentially, and people in the US can buy their ice cream. I can't buy their ice cream because they don't have international sales yet. [chuckles] If you're in the US, you can buy some of this interesting yeast-based ice cream, which is super exciting. I see that's right on the horizon here, that's pretty much here now. What's on that horizon is a bit more of that what else can be made and how else can biosynthesis play a role in our lives?
Matthew: Well, you mentioned ice cream, do you have a favorite comfort food?
Matthew: Your go-to? I forget that concoction that cheese curd they put on fries and stuff there in Montreal, it’s really good. What’s it called again?
Kevin: That's called poutine.
Matthew: Poutine, yes. That is really good. It sounds gross, but it's really good. What's your favorite comfort food? I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Kevin: That's pretty high on my list. I would say that the poutine element, for sure. My favorite comfort food is Chinese food actually. My dad is from Singapore originally. We grew up eating Chinese food all the time. There's a specific restaurant where I grew up, which is the one that we always go to. That's maybe my ideal comfort food spot, in my brain, that's like, "This is the one."
Matthew: I was truly impressed by the food options in Montreal. I don’t know if that's the French kind of legacy there and culture or what, but I was like, "Hey, this is really good food." Every place I went, it seemed like it was really good food. You're in a good food city.
Kevin: Definitely, yes.
Matthew: All right. Last question here. What is your favorite tool? It can be a software tool, physical tool, doesn't need to relate to what you do day-to-day. It's just you'd be bummed if you could never use this tool again.
Kevin: Let me think for a second. Maybe my favorite tool right now is my coffee grinder. I think making coffee at home and working from home, it's been a good experience, one of the silver linings of the current situation. I'll give it that. [chuckles]
Matthew: That's great. That's definitely a ritual I couldn't live without. I'll tell you what my favorite tool is. How about that? I recently got a big Berkey water filter. It's just amazing. They've been around for a long time but it purifies the water. It takes out chlorine and all the things in there and also takes out the fluoride and arsenic and all these things. I've just been amazed at how much different just drinking water it is with it. I don't have any relationship with them, but it is truly a great tool for just having pure, clean drinking water around the house.
Kevin: It's good.
Matthew: You don't have to go for water bottles and stuff like that.
Kevin: Totally. Montreal just has a bunch of scandalous things around lead in the pipes and other kinds of stuff. I think the city is actually supposed to send me a water filter for my own water but I already had my own, but I would say plus one to that, for sure. Water filters are great tools. [chuckles]
Matthew: Kevin, we learned a lot today. I feel like this was a combination of a science course and a business class wrapped into one. As we close, let accredited investors and also companies that may be interested in learning more about your cannabinoids and how they might partner with you or work with you somehow, how can these two parties work with you, accredited investors and who are interested in investing and also businesses?
Kevin: Yes, definitely. I would say our website is the best place to get started. Head over to hyasynthbio.com. You can scroll through the little animation that we've got on our website. People seem to like that a lot and then we've got a few contact forms at the bottom which people can choose whichever one they feel like they fall into. Then that'll get sent over to me and leave a bit of information about yourself and what you're looking for and I'll do my best to help out.
Matthew: Kevin, thanks so much for coming on the show yet again and educating us on what's going on. This is a fast-moving industry and I watch it very closely. Well done with your business and keep us updated.
Kevin: Likewise and really glad to be back and glad to hear CannaInsider keeping up the good word and I'll happy to be back again sometime in the future, of course.
Matthew: If you enjoyed the show today, please consider leaving us a review on iTunes, Stitcher, or whatever app you might be using to listen to the show. Every five-star review helps us to bring the best guests here. Learn more at cannainsider.com/iTunes. What are the five disruptive trends that will impact the cannabis industry in the next five years? Find out with your free report at cannainsider.com/trends.
Have a suggestion for an awesome guest on CannaInsider? Simply send us an email at firstname.lastname@example.org. We'd love to hear from you. Please do not take any information from CannaInsider or its guests as medical advice, contact your licensed physician before taking cannabis for using it for medical treatments. Emotional consideration may be provided by select guests, advertisers, or companies featured in CannaInsider.
Lastly, the host or guests on CannaInsider may or may not invest in the company's entrepreneurs profiled on the show. Please consult your licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions. Final disclosure to see if you're still paying attention. This little whistle jingle you're listening to will get stuck in your head for the rest of the day. Thanks for listening and look for another CannaInsider episode soon. Take care. Bye-bye.
[00:43:59] [END OF AUDIO]