Have $100 to invest in Marijuana stocks, which to invest in?

hello?

>>975517

They don't talk about how marijuana penny stocks were the most manipulated and prone to becoming pump and dumps. Sure there are always some winners but there are plenty of losers too.

>>975517
It doesnt matter. Canadas gonna legalize. When 2 us states legalized every pot stock went up regardless.

>>975544

So what are the good ones?

NEWL

None of them. Buy a big tobacco stock if you're really interested in it. You honestly think these upstart grow houses and 'medical' stocks are going to show any kind of real profit long term? There's not even the market that people are imagining for it, but if there was, all big tobacco has to do is throw it on the truck with everything else. Bet on the infrastructure, not the meme.

>>975611
This is my view on it. Big tobacco companies will dominate the market if they ever decide to branch out into it. I'd wager they just haven't bothered doing so because Marijuana is still illegal on a federal level & in most states.

>>975616
>>975611
I don't smoke, but what are the most competitive cigarette companies these days? Still Marlboro?

>>975637
Altaira(Marlboro: MO) is the one I'm focusing on. Lots of growth post 2008, good dividends, and strong roots in the US.

>>975664
Philip Morris Int looks surprisingly attractive. Might as well throw 350$ into the PM stock.

>>975616
>Big tobacco companies will dominate the market if they ever decide to branch out into it.

Lmao, do you think these companies are run by like, five people? They've spent millions on research since the 60's on the possibility of selling cannabis, and they've concluded that it's not an ideal pursuit.

Look at Privateer Holdings, Willies Reserve etc if you want to see the big money plays into the industry.

But by all means, completely ignore the desperate market need for growers and the shortage of product on the shelves in many states, and invest in tobacco as their power slowly diminishes by the second lol.

>>975710
But shouldn't the change in laws make it much more interesting for the bigger companies?

>>975717
What do you mean interesting? Altria didn't get to where they are because of going into "interesting" ventures, they're top dog because they're just plain, the damn best at what they do.

The best growers in the world are not as financially motivated as people think

Even at the moment, there's a large conflict in the industry between big money (VCs and the like) and the "culture" (growers for that have been going for decades etc). The biggest names (Marley's brand, Snoop's brand, Willie's Reserve) can't even find competent growers because all the talented ones want are going independent. Maybe in 10-15 years tobacco will get involved. But not anytime soon.

>>975728
By interesting, I of course mean profitable.
Also, big tobacco doesn't have to be the best in the market. If they can make something half as good as Willie's at maybe 20% the cost, they have a huge market. Also, a giant welloiled marketing machine.

>>975736
Well, that post came out a lot more condescending than I planned. Don't take it too harshly, I am genuinely interested in the subject, of which I am by no means an expert.

>>975742
No you've got it right. Just keep going with it to its logical conclusion. What 'marijuana company' is going to be able to have the capital to pay liability insurance, 'donate' to congress when the inevitable backlash comes, settle lawsuits, run anti-marijuana commercials, not to mention taxes, regulations, the FDA etc etc. There's a reason you can't buy stock in someone making homemade aspirin or bathtub gin. It's economies of scale. If it was 100 percent legal, all the little guys suddenly go away.

>>975710
Shortage of product for whom? Casual users? They can get it elsewhere. I refuse to believe there's people jonesing on the street cause the local marijuana market is out of legal weed. And if that is actually true, who do you think that means should get involved to make sure there's a constant, steady supply? The fact that big tobacco hasn't means that this isn't an actual industry yet.

>>975764
>>975768
>'donate' to congress when the inevitable backlash comes
lel cannabis lobbyists have existed for decades. Y'know, that's sorta how the states have been able to legalize, and how the DEA is prohibited from touching legal operations. Also how the DEA's cannabis budget is about to be cut literally in half.

>Shortage of product for whom? Casual users?
What fucking purpose does that question even serve? The answer to the question you should have asked (WHY) is because of state to state standards on mandatory testing (microbial, heavy metals, pesticides etc) is cutting out all of the amateur growers who think growing weed is easy.

>The fact that big tobacco hasn't means that this isn't an actual industry yet.
Right. $3B in 2016, $20B industry by 2018; definitely not a real industry.

>And if that is actually true, who do you think that means should get involved to make sure there's a constant, steady supply?
Uhhh probably people who are good at growing? Perhaps you ignored my post about the current disparity between cultures. Take a look at Dixie, Moxie, other big brands and observe why they're successful. Do the smallest amount research at least, I mean god damn.

>>975793
Also, I forgot to mention the licenses. Recreational cultivation+commercial licenses are in limited supply. Honestly, there will probably be a state or two (bible belt) where the legislation is set up so that big tobacco can have a monopoly (see: Ohio's latest failed law) but it's nothing like the average pleb who thinks that cannabis consumers==tobacco consumers. As states legalize recreational use, teen consumption is down significantly and use is up considerably among educated, working professionals (in fact the most prevalent demo in Colorado and Washington). The average demo for big tobacco is a poor, white trash, highly malleable, high school student.

>>975793
There's no need to shout. I get that your passionate about it. Great. It's good to have dreams. When I say not a real industry, I mean it's not federally regulated as a legal consumer good available for sale nationwide. Once (and if) it is, then the game changes and the issues that you are bringing up cease to exist as it now falls under federal requirements for consumer and environmental safety. The companies best equipped to deal with that paradigm shift are large multinational ones with a large pre-existing market share for a similarly processed and distributed product. I hear you, brother, but there are lobbyists and then there are lobbyists. We're talking about two different types here. You're talking about the ones that (smartly) went the state by state route to get this issue on the ballot. I'm talking about the ones that funnel billions of dollars annually into re-election campaigns. I'm not comparing tobacco and weed by users, those are two separate markets with minimal overlap. I'm comparing buying an qt oz with an mmj card in some rundown strip mall or converted house versus buying a pack of 20 rolled cigs worth at every truck stop between Jacksonville and Los Angeles. Those are two very different economies requiring two very different sets of inputs. You can invest all you want in the former. I think I'll wait for the latter.

This is the only good advice you will get, do what you will with it:

You have already missed the marijuana train, don't waste your time and money. You will not get rich investing in marijuana, penny stocks or whatever is the current meme (like coal). Just throw your cash at some etf that tracks the S+P 500 and forget about it for 10 years.