|
That's what I go back and forth on. A modern greenhouse or warehouse conversion could run $100 per foot, maybe economies of scale drive that down, but when agricultural land prices topped out at $10,000 per acre, you would need to be 435.6 times as productive per foot before accounting for operating expense differences. With that said, indoor gets you more control of the CO2 as well you you can grow faster, but that won't be cheaper.
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
Moridin920 posted:A pound of tomatoes is like what, $5? http://www.ctga.org/img/uploadedFiles/Tomato_Bulletin_4-15-16.pdf
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
I mean who knows I guess. Last thing: fwiw someone told me their electricity cost to grow indoors w/ hydroponics ends up to be around $700 per pound, with the caveat that he's actually fairly efficient relative to other growers he knows. Also apparently a lot of the electricity is air conditioning slash cooling systems, all those lights produce a lot of heat. However, let's say even $1000/lb to grow indoor above the cost of outdoor farm grows. I still think you could easily sell the indoor stuff for 2x what you could get for the outdoor stuff and more than make back the difference in that cost. Sure, companies could GMO to get the yields/quality better outdoors but why? They could GMO indoor stuff, too, and would be starting from a more profitable position versus trying to dump a ton of research into plants that will grow outdoors, not germinate, yield a harvest multiple times a year, and still be high quality. coffeetable posted:US farmers got $70/ton for tomatoes this year. From a consumer point of view I mean; like what does the crop actually sell for at the end point when a consumer is buying it. Weed has a lot more room for profit. Doesn't make sense to spend an extra $1000 per pound of tomatos to grow 'the best' tomato really, but with weed when you're talking about a profit difference of thousands of dollars per pound (just to retailers, even) then it totally makes sense. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Nov 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
This sounds like a bifurcated market where we'll see craft plants grown indoors/greenhouses then, with commodity product for rendering into oil grown outdoors?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Yeah I think industrial hemp is going to be huge and that's what is going to be grown in the vast outdoor grows. That stuff is dead useful and no one is trying to smoke it (well hopefully; you'll just get a big headache) so it doesn't matter that the THC content isn't carefully monitored and whatnot. Greenhouses have their place too, I bet a lot of that stuff goes into edibles and extracts. Probably larger scale 'mids' grows too (your Budweiser equivalents and so on). e: plus again, we're talking about drugs not food crops. Yeah it's a plant that's about the only similarity. Drug users gladly pay a premium for a better high in my experience. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Nov 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Why would I pay the rent on thousands of acres of land and all the farming equipment that entails when literally a tenth of the same warehouse space will give me the exact same yield of a much higher quality product with what is ultimately a negligible difference in operating cost given the higher profit potential of the higher quality weed? Because A) you're not competing for an exclusively luxury-product market, you're competing for the cheap weed market which is going to be far larger, B) you own that land and you got it cheap as hell because it's marginal or fallow and C) you're massively underestimating the degree to which mechanized crop production decreases costs per yield and D) because there might not be enough affordable warehouse space in the entire country to produce the amount of product the market is demanding. In a nutshell: economy of scale is an incredibly powerful economic factor that is foolish to ignore. I mean any of those assumptions could prove false, but I doubt all four will. Especially the mechanization part. If a single worker with a barn full of equipment can plow, plant, water, and harvest a thousand acres of weed outdoors on relatively poor soil in the sun-drenched, cheap as gently caress expanse of the semi-desert american Southwest, the cost per ounce of pure THC extract they produce has to be lower than what can be done by indoor hand-tended hyrdoponically grown artificially lit plants. Possibly also greenhouse-grown plants. Those will still exist and maybe still be profitable if there's a luxury segment of the market, but I bet the companies making those small-scale products get gobbled up by the giant ones growing pot on thousands of acres of land, similar to how Molson Coors Brands owns a poo poo load of craft brew labels. Cheap Coors and Molsen output generated the mega profits that let Coors and Molsen buy (or just start and run) all those more luxurious, more expensive labels. From an investment perspective, I'd rather be buying stock in the Molsen Coors of the future, than in some one-state craft brewery. Moridin920 posted:e: plus again, we're talking about drugs not food crops. Yeah it's a plant that's about the only similarity. Drug users gladly pay a premium for a better high in my experience. I don't think so. Yeah it's a drug, but a legalized drug is more like alcohol and tobacco than like medicine. And I don't think you can look at who smokes pot today, and assume that's the market you'll be serving in 20 years when pot is nationally legal. People who can afford it gladly pay more for luxury experiences, but the market of people who can't pay more is far larger than the market for people who can: that's fundamental to understanding luxury vs. non-luxury markets, and has nothing to do with it being a drug. It's like claiming that because whiskey-drinkers really prefer single malt scotch and small-batch bourbon, there's gonna be no (or only a smaller) market for malt liquor. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Nov 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Here's a decent video that made the rounds last year, still pretty accurate: https://news.vice.com/video/inside-americas-billion-dollar-weed-business-the-grass-is-greener Adding an order of magnitude to the warehouses you can see here is really not hard to imagine, that's all you need to sell to California and NY.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
I'm not ignoring economies of scale, I simply think you fundamentally misunderstand the product in question.quote:You're not competing for an exclusively luxury-product market, you're competing for the cheap weed market which is going to be far larger, Like... this is just not true dude. Look at any market where weed has been legalized. People gladly pay 2-3x the price per gram for the higher quality stuff. Yes of course people still buy the crappier weed (which isn't even that bad!) but most of them do not. Most people end up getting the upper level mids, the stuff right below top shelf. It's drugs, not wheat. And a Coors gets you drunk the same way a fancy beer does - it's just a question of how much ethanol are you consuming over what period of time. Weed does not work like that. Also I think you're way overestimating how many people will start smoking weed just because it is legal. Pretty much all those people already smoke weed. A 100x increase in consumption is just way WAY too generous sorry. There hasn't been that level of increase anywhere that legalized weed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
This is an interesting discussion that has nothing to do with stock trading.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:This is an interesting discussion that has nothing to do with stock trading. Discussing an emerging market has nothing to do with stock trading? Well poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Weed is legal where I live and half gram prerols are already around $5 for low end. I don't see much of a market to produce more cheap weed. Indoor growing is so much better for light, pests, security.. it's just better all around. Edit: what Moridin920 was saying
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Marijuana is safer than alcohol and tobacco. Even legalized, so far in the US it's still a pretty stigmatized product. In the long run, I see pot becoming more popular than tobacco and approximately as popular as wine. Assuming national legalization.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I don't think so. Yeah it's a drug, but a legalized drug is more like alcohol and tobacco than like medicine. And I don't think you can look at who smokes pot today, and assume that's the market you'll be serving in 20 years when pot is nationally legal. For one thing, it's different from alcohol + tobacco. A cigarette is a cigarette, in the end. A high quality strain of weed will get you higher than mids can no matter the amount of mids smoked relative to the higher quality strain. Malt liquor gets you just as drunk as a $500 bottle of whisky. Also, the 'luxury experience' we're talking about here is already dirt cheap. Leperflesh posted:Marijuana is safer than alcohol and tobacco. Even legalized, so far in the US it's still a pretty stigmatized product. In the long run, I see pot becoming more popular than tobacco and approximately as popular as wine. Assuming national legalization. And yeah the market will change but a one hundred fold increase? Nah. 10% of all Americans already smoke regularly, over 30 million people. How are 3 billion Americans going to be smoking weed in 20 years? Even if 100% of Americans smoke weed in the next 20-30 years (which will not happen) that's only what, 500 million people accounting for population growth (which is generous considering our population growth is negative right now). Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Nov 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:And yeah the market will change but a one hundred fold increase? Nah. 10% of all Americans already smoke regularly, over 30 million people. How are 3 billion Americans going to be smoking weed in 20 years? Even if 100% of Americans smoke weed in the next 20-30 years (which will not happen) that's only what, 500 million people accounting for population growth (which is generous considering our population growth is negative right now). Can you cite that 10% of americans smoke weed regularly statistic, and also what "regularly" actually means? IF it's really that high already, then I'd definitely retract my 100x growth projection. Obviously. Aside from that, you seem to be arguing that there exists a market that isn't price-conscious. I don't find that plausible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:For one thing, it's different from alcohol + tobacco. A cigarette is a cigarette, in the end. A high quality strain of weed will get you higher than mids can no matter the amount of mids smoked relative to the higher quality strain. Malt liquor gets you just as drunk as a $500 bottle of whisky. If you don't live somewhere it's legal you may be underestimating the ease in which you can drive a mile and get whateverrrr you want. Flower, joints, edibles, oils, Stoney indicas, energetic sativas. My mom used once a year and now LOVES gardening with her CBD mints. It's not just smoking anymore, which is probably obvious to anyone under 30 but the older generation who didn't smoke a lot because it was illegal is loving it. Shops are already lowering prices regularly and the low end product is just getting cheaper. Anyone can produce cheap crummy weed, it's all about marketing stronger better strains now
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
How many pots have you all smoked?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Can you cite that 10% of americans smoke weed regularly statistic, and also what "regularly" actually means? IF it's really that high already, then I'd definitely retract my 100x growth projection. Obviously. It's price conscious, I just don't think that most people are going to buy the lower quality weed for $5/g versus the high quality weed for $10/g. Some people will, hell a lot of people will. Most? Idk. I'm just basing this off of what local club sales around where I am are like of course who knows once it hits 7-11s and whatever  Here's what I'm using as a source on that number: http://www.gallup.com/poll/194195/adults-say-smoke-marijuana.aspx and http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(16)30208-5/abstract quote:596 500 adults participated in the 2002–14 surveys. Marijuana use increased from 10.4% (95% CI 9·97–10·82) to 13.3% (12·84–13·70) in adults in the USA from 2002 to 2014 Though I wouldn't blame you if you didn't take a Gallup poll at face value either, I know they're not necessarily 'true' a lot of the time. I also dunno what criteria they use for regularly, I think 1-2x a week. So yeah that could increase too I suppose. e: I'm probably also biased somehow because goddamn everyone where I am smokes weed so it's hard for me to imagine such a massive uptick in consumption. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Nov 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
OK this: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/13-us-adults-say-they-smoke-marijuana-7-2013 says 13%, although it doesn't define what "regular" means so it's probably including people who smoke twice a year or something. I'll say I think demand and production if pot were nationally a legal as alcohol will rise to a point where at least 50% of americans regularly smoke pot within 25 years of legalization, and by "regularly" I mean at least once a month. And I think that would still represent something like a 10x to 20x increase in total consumption. And, I'll also predict that most of the production currently taking place overseas and imported illegally, will become domestic production.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
This is actually way more fun to talk about on election night than the stock market. Smoke em if you got em.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Either way I agree with you that the big industry players are going to be the ones to watch versus mom n pop grow op #241. Probably moot until it is legal on a federal level though... would the NYSE allow listing if it wasn't? e: talking about like actual marijuana companies not pharmaceuticals working on THC replacement pills or whatever Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Nov 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
GPRO down 9 points in AHT due to recalling the Karma. If weed were legalized nationally, this wouldn't have happened..
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Bought some VIX calls today as a hedge, although not nearly enough apparently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
Dow futures showing -630 right now. I guess I'll take my SKF gains in the morning. Surreal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Oh Boy! I'm gonna enjoy the Bloodbath tomorrow! Ha-HAH!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Bought some VIX calls today as a hedge, although not nearly enough apparently. Trump will make VIX great again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
Well the bad news is I'm 60% in stocks. The good news is I'm 30% cash, let's see how far things fall.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Selling my SDS last week was a good idea. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
What do I do with my TVIX shares tomorrow?! Sell at open?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Harry Potter on Ice posted:What do I do with my TVIX shares tomorrow?! Sell at open? 9:59
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
Time to see if my Ford's twitter war with Trump will tank the stock theory works out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
The winner tonight, Capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
poo poo. we should be ok after the market digests that trump is probably on the whole going to be good for business, right? right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
Baddog posted:poo poo. By asking this question you already answered it. Where we're going, we won't need eyes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
Hm, what do I do with these green energy stocks. Sell at open, or hold on and hope.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
I'd also been pretty much only building cash for the last few months as well. Should be a good shopping day tomorrow, both for the sensible retirement portfolio and the pants-on-on-head stupid gambling one. Speaking of the latter, I was still holding FSLR, expecting to still eat a loss after that earnings report but at least a smaller one after a Hillary bump. I'm thinking that one's gonna be extra ugly tomorrow. RIP solar. MagicBoots posted:Hm, what do I do with these green energy stocks. Sell at open, or hold on and hope. I'm just going to close that bet if it's not too terrible. If it's already way past my pain threshold, gently caress it, shift it into the "DO NOT LOOK AT ME" portfolio and peep it in a year or so. The Butcher fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Nov 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
revmoo posted:9:59 Yea?! You're the boss
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
The worst part about Trump winning? I actually have to get up before the market open, to decide where to allocate all my monies. gently caress being up before noon. poo poo is for the birds, Yo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Lol RIP I'm about 70% cash, so I'll be investing in something come 8:30 tomorrow, who tf knows what though
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
CloFan posted:Lol RIP Amongst this forum, Solar is a popular investment. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
This is going to be the buying opportunity of a lifetime. Someone on bloomberg just called it political Lehman.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 06:23
|
|
