tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527840491496268397.post8562242885236932032..comments2024-03-08T11:20:30.095-07:00Comments on Credit Bubble Stocks: Thoughts on Big Tobacco and Compendium of Tobacco Books Read in 2021Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527840491496268397.post-5501948591109131362022-08-14T15:14:14.331-07:002022-08-14T15:14:14.331-07:002) Build a regulatory moat around [Electronic Nico...<i><br />2) Build a regulatory moat around [Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems]:<br />- Push legislation which will require FDA submission and ingredient disclosure for e-liquid based [Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems](consumer safety regulations, labeling, etc.).<br />- Regulate nicotine levels.<br />- Keep chasing MRTP for IQOS.<br />- The U.S. regulatory environment would then be the model for the rest of the world.<br /><br />This would effectively cede the ENTIRE electronic cigarette space to the big players. Only the big players can afford to comply with a complex approvals/disclosure process--it would put all the small importers of various Chinese-made products out of business in the U.S. because they will not be able to afford this kind of testing/QC. <b>The more burdensome/labyrinthine the regulatory process becomes, the better it is for PM/MO with their armies of lawyers and quality engineers.</b><br /><br />This will be the same play in the cannabis space if and when the big players are ready: bury the small competition in regulatory bureaucracy. This is what worked in the cigarette space for decades. This is why there are now only a handful of giant companies selling a commodity product with in developed markets. No one else can afford to.<br /><br />PM and MO, or future NewCo, are selling razor blades, not razor handles. The strategy is to have good enough technology, best-in-class distribution, but most importantly: giant regulatory barriers to prevent new entrants.</i><br /><br />https://www.creditbubblestocks.com/2019/10/opportunity-in-big-tobacco-duopoly.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527840491496268397.post-55494199528281165292022-08-14T15:09:07.219-07:002022-08-14T15:09:07.219-07:00Forcing small manufacturers -- whose products mill...Forcing small manufacturers -- whose products millions of people count on to avoid cigarettes -- to prepare multi-million dollar applications (which are not guaranteed to succeed) for each SKU is a process designed to clear the market of legal products. And that's what has happened: 99%-plus of all products have been denied authorization -- including ALL open-system (refillable) products that make up half of the vaping market.<br /><br />It's only a minor error if you ignore the manufacturers and user-innovators that pioneered vaping, and wrongly consider the tobacco industry-backed products to be the whole market. Which they aren't.CJ McDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14416167062279513429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527840491496268397.post-24386354578830566472022-08-14T14:54:12.709-07:002022-08-14T14:54:12.709-07:00Minor error, you mean?Minor error, you mean?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527840491496268397.post-33509428273006849132022-08-14T12:41:44.894-07:002022-08-14T12:41:44.894-07:00Good article with one major error.
You wrote, &qu...Good article with one major error.<br /><br />You wrote, "Like cigarettes, the vapes on the market today are "grandfathered in" by the FDA, and it is doubtful that anyone would be allowed to make a significant change to the chemistry of vape fluid."<br /><br />No vaping product is grandfathered by the Tobacco Control Act. They were all introduced after the Feb. 15, 2007 deadline to remain on the market without undergoing premarket review.CJ McDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14416167062279513429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527840491496268397.post-15021436224466095122022-05-26T08:02:44.856-07:002022-05-26T08:02:44.856-07:00There are two big questions for the tobacco invest...<i>There are two big questions for the tobacco investments. First, can they maintain operating income from their cigarette businesses despite the long term secular volume decline? This question is one of consumer preferences (for cigarettes versus reduced risk alternatives or even other dopamine modifiers), politics (of taxation and regulation, both of cigarettes and the replacements), and demand elasticity for cigarettes (the price-volume tradeoff).<br /><br />The second big question for tobacco investments is, assuming that the reduced risk businesses continue to grow and that they do cannibalize the cigarette businesses, how much of that new business will be captured by the big tobacco incumbents? This is where the big tobacco "cigar butt" investments have the potential to be growth stocks if things go right. </i>CPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12701174164478027499noreply@blogger.com