Ep 325 – Investors Getting in Early Thanks to the First Member-Managed Cannabis Fund

jeffrey finkle arcview

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 

Key Takeaways: 

[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.

Click Here to Read Full Transcript

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 feedback@cannainsider.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]