The main concern I have is the alleged violations of the STAKE Act in CA. The worst case interpretation is that Haypp has flagrantly violated multiple requirements of the STAKE Act, including (1) the need to match ID address with credit card address (2) signatures at PoD (3) specific labelling requirements (4) phone calls required after 5pm to confirm orders. Haypp hasn't substantively commented on the alleged STAKE Act violations, and perhaps that's the appropriate thing to do, and I'm sure that's what their lawyers advised. So we don't have a good sense for the validity of the allegations. However, in reading some of the tea leaves my spidey sense is tingling. For example:
- Haypp has given quite good information on the Stockholm legal situation, and as it relates to the San Francisco complaint regarding the flavored products Haypp has also given helpful color. They mentioned that they had advice from a reputable law firm that they were able to sell flavored products in SF, so they have effectively admitted the allegations in that instance but explained to the market that they feel that they acted reasonably. However they have said nothing on the alleged STAKE Act violations - which is a different posture to the SF flavored product allegations in particular.
- they have stopped all sales to CA. They say this is because of pending legislation, but the legislation is pending (why can't you continue selling until the legislation is passed?) and the legislation is only related to flavored products (why can't you continue to sell non-flavored products in CA?). Is it possible they are banning CA because they don't have the systems in place to comply with the STAKE Act?
The biggest possible downside here is that Haypp just hasn't been compliant in many jurisdictions beyond CA, and CA is the canary in the coal mine. And that would obviously be a massive issue.
I'm not saying that's a likely outcome, and I'm not trying to be alarmist, but it's hard for me to completely rule out that possibility given the fact pattern.
I'd love to hear your take on the above, including any holes in my facts or logic.
Let me start by saying I don't think you are being alarmist. These are valid concerns, and brushing them off would be a disservice.
While the alleged STAKE Act violations are technically a 'seperate' piece of the law, they're grouped into the same suit. I do not think they are being approached differently, and whatever settlement is reached will likely be all-encompassing. When the lawsuit was filed, my gut response was to imagine myself in management's shoes. What would I do? I would immediately shut down sales in the area concerned. Perhaps I'd shut down other sales, too. I'd scrutinize any action based on the opinion of external counsel, seeking reviews from secondary sources. Those aren't extreme actions. They are conservative. The company's reputation is integral. Can't jeopardize that.
What do you do after you shut down sales? Internal audit. Experts. Lawyers. Figure out the damage and determine if anything is wrong to fix. Then fix it. Why keep all of CA suspended? It's the safest course until a settlement is reached. If you think about the timing, the new bill, which will bar online sales of flavored products for the whole state, will go into effect on Jan 1st, 2025.
Greater communication should be encouraged, but that is difficult until a settlement is reached. I would expect more after reaching an agreement.
Thanks Devin. I can probably imagine a scenario where management believes they have done minimal wrongdoing but nevertheless shuts down CA to be conservative.
However, the question is whether they have been flagrantly and knowingly breaching the law in CA. Their silence on the STAKE Act allegations, while giving commentary on the SF flavored products allegations and the Stockholm allegations gives me great concern that these may not be isolated mistakes but part of a larger pattern of broad non-compliance in California. Which then raises the question of where else have they been non-compliant, and what else is there that management haven't been upfront about.
Fair. Everyone must make an informed view on how intentional, capable, and truthful the team is. At the end of the day, that's true for all companies. You could reach out to their team to discuss directly - they are generous with their time and IR is quick to respond to emails.
I have no affiliation, but Robotti is hosting a fireside chat with Gavin in about an hour from now:
Devin, what’s your view on the likelihood of an EU wide ban on pouches (excl Scandinavia) and how material would that be to Haypp? Poland/Germany/France/Netherlands/Belgium so far seem to driving in that direction.
Unfortunately, I can't put a percentage on the chance. AFAIK, Germany and Austria are the only of those that Haypp operates in. France has turned more negative on NPs. The EU as a whole is still up in the air, and I fully expect certain countries to take matters into their own hands. I do think Sweden's recent policy proposal to shift focus from reducing usage to reducing social and medical harm has the potential to positively influence other governing bodies around the world. But I also have no doubt some will go the prohibitionist route.
This is a very comprehensive article, Devin. I think you covered all the major issues facing the company but also its strengths and potential. Thank you.
I’d add a little tidbit from the conference call. Answering a question about future gross margins, the CEO said the following: “the opportunity ahead of us seems even greater than perhaps we previously expected across many markets.”
If Haypp’s management pursues those opportunities, that could lead to an even longer growth runway. (Your observation about HNB products in the emerging division seems to indicate management will do that.) That also means shareholder returns might be delayed, but IMO that would be a good trade off.
(Btw the audio from the CC was horrible, I hope they fix that next time.)
I agree with your points. Especially the last one! They need some better audio equipment.
Haypp has good internal data on how markets are playing out -- they wouldn't be able to sell Insights products if they didn't. When I look at investments like the automated warehouse in the United States, I trust that these decisions are well-reasoned. I expect future reinvestment rates to stay elevated, but I won't try to get too far ahead of myself.
"Like clockwork, people wrap themselves in their preferred narratives and gyrate to the siren songs of perma-bulls and perma-bears alike. Extrapolation. Flows. Reflexivity. Reversion. Every cycle begins and ends with a new cover of the same old tune.
thansk Devin for putting in effort. I have 3 major question
1- what is CA lawsuit minimum $ damage value?
2- firm have good relation with a lot of manufacturers especially zyn and on . I am confused why don't these brands sell online by themselve as PMI and Atria are these brand name owners. how come they dont have resources to tap by themselve to go with full gas in ecommerce. I understand haypp has data but there will come a point in some years, where brand owner (especailly zyn and on) would itself have so much data that they can kick out haypp. haypp has not IP, simple online e-comerece stores, buy at cheap bulk prices, and then sell it a cheap prices as well but how long they would keep on undercutting the zyn.com as sooner or later, zyn.com would wake up and say, our retail sales is hurted by haypp's strategy. Same goes for other brands as well. Sorry, if i lack my understanding of their moat except cheap prices and economoies of scale but i am confused with it, would apprecaite your guidance.
3- Just liek FDA banned JULLS Vape Flavor products, you think they would ban all flavor pouches as well? like CA is trying to do.
1. No way to claim a number with certainty. I assume the DKK 11m reserved as a base-line.
2. Most brand owners do - including not just in Growth Markets but in Core Markets. Zyn (dot) com likely isn't resuming US sales in the United States, and even when it was running sales, it wasn't priced as cheap as Haypp. It is not about 'us vs. them' and is much more symbiotic. Additionally, cohorts that gravitate online are looking to branch out. Single brand stores don't offer the assortment value proposition.
3. This is a looming question. We have not seen determinations made on any pending PMTAs for nicotine pouch products. The FDA has been very anti-flavor, historically speaking, but also must consider relative harms, impacts on broad societal level, etc, for applications. I expect to see some outcomes in the following year.
Devin, thank you this is very helpful.
The main concern I have is the alleged violations of the STAKE Act in CA. The worst case interpretation is that Haypp has flagrantly violated multiple requirements of the STAKE Act, including (1) the need to match ID address with credit card address (2) signatures at PoD (3) specific labelling requirements (4) phone calls required after 5pm to confirm orders. Haypp hasn't substantively commented on the alleged STAKE Act violations, and perhaps that's the appropriate thing to do, and I'm sure that's what their lawyers advised. So we don't have a good sense for the validity of the allegations. However, in reading some of the tea leaves my spidey sense is tingling. For example:
- Haypp has given quite good information on the Stockholm legal situation, and as it relates to the San Francisco complaint regarding the flavored products Haypp has also given helpful color. They mentioned that they had advice from a reputable law firm that they were able to sell flavored products in SF, so they have effectively admitted the allegations in that instance but explained to the market that they feel that they acted reasonably. However they have said nothing on the alleged STAKE Act violations - which is a different posture to the SF flavored product allegations in particular.
- they have stopped all sales to CA. They say this is because of pending legislation, but the legislation is pending (why can't you continue selling until the legislation is passed?) and the legislation is only related to flavored products (why can't you continue to sell non-flavored products in CA?). Is it possible they are banning CA because they don't have the systems in place to comply with the STAKE Act?
The biggest possible downside here is that Haypp just hasn't been compliant in many jurisdictions beyond CA, and CA is the canary in the coal mine. And that would obviously be a massive issue.
I'm not saying that's a likely outcome, and I'm not trying to be alarmist, but it's hard for me to completely rule out that possibility given the fact pattern.
I'd love to hear your take on the above, including any holes in my facts or logic.
Thanks for your thoughts and questions, Duncan.
Let me start by saying I don't think you are being alarmist. These are valid concerns, and brushing them off would be a disservice.
While the alleged STAKE Act violations are technically a 'seperate' piece of the law, they're grouped into the same suit. I do not think they are being approached differently, and whatever settlement is reached will likely be all-encompassing. When the lawsuit was filed, my gut response was to imagine myself in management's shoes. What would I do? I would immediately shut down sales in the area concerned. Perhaps I'd shut down other sales, too. I'd scrutinize any action based on the opinion of external counsel, seeking reviews from secondary sources. Those aren't extreme actions. They are conservative. The company's reputation is integral. Can't jeopardize that.
What do you do after you shut down sales? Internal audit. Experts. Lawyers. Figure out the damage and determine if anything is wrong to fix. Then fix it. Why keep all of CA suspended? It's the safest course until a settlement is reached. If you think about the timing, the new bill, which will bar online sales of flavored products for the whole state, will go into effect on Jan 1st, 2025.
Greater communication should be encouraged, but that is difficult until a settlement is reached. I would expect more after reaching an agreement.
Thanks Devin. I can probably imagine a scenario where management believes they have done minimal wrongdoing but nevertheless shuts down CA to be conservative.
However, the question is whether they have been flagrantly and knowingly breaching the law in CA. Their silence on the STAKE Act allegations, while giving commentary on the SF flavored products allegations and the Stockholm allegations gives me great concern that these may not be isolated mistakes but part of a larger pattern of broad non-compliance in California. Which then raises the question of where else have they been non-compliant, and what else is there that management haven't been upfront about.
Fair. Everyone must make an informed view on how intentional, capable, and truthful the team is. At the end of the day, that's true for all companies. You could reach out to their team to discuss directly - they are generous with their time and IR is quick to respond to emails.
I have no affiliation, but Robotti is hosting a fireside chat with Gavin in about an hour from now:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_V3o9DGTOQGO65LppdUVZkA#/registration
Devin, what’s your view on the likelihood of an EU wide ban on pouches (excl Scandinavia) and how material would that be to Haypp? Poland/Germany/France/Netherlands/Belgium so far seem to driving in that direction.
Unfortunately, I can't put a percentage on the chance. AFAIK, Germany and Austria are the only of those that Haypp operates in. France has turned more negative on NPs. The EU as a whole is still up in the air, and I fully expect certain countries to take matters into their own hands. I do think Sweden's recent policy proposal to shift focus from reducing usage to reducing social and medical harm has the potential to positively influence other governing bodies around the world. But I also have no doubt some will go the prohibitionist route.
This is a very comprehensive article, Devin. I think you covered all the major issues facing the company but also its strengths and potential. Thank you.
I’d add a little tidbit from the conference call. Answering a question about future gross margins, the CEO said the following: “the opportunity ahead of us seems even greater than perhaps we previously expected across many markets.”
If Haypp’s management pursues those opportunities, that could lead to an even longer growth runway. (Your observation about HNB products in the emerging division seems to indicate management will do that.) That also means shareholder returns might be delayed, but IMO that would be a good trade off.
(Btw the audio from the CC was horrible, I hope they fix that next time.)
I agree with your points. Especially the last one! They need some better audio equipment.
Haypp has good internal data on how markets are playing out -- they wouldn't be able to sell Insights products if they didn't. When I look at investments like the automated warehouse in the United States, I trust that these decisions are well-reasoned. I expect future reinvestment rates to stay elevated, but I won't try to get too far ahead of myself.
Embrace the bear market Devin. Reflexively lean into it.
"Like clockwork, people wrap themselves in their preferred narratives and gyrate to the siren songs of perma-bulls and perma-bears alike. Extrapolation. Flows. Reflexivity. Reversion. Every cycle begins and ends with a new cover of the same old tune.
It’s a marvelous, invariant dance."
thansk Devin for putting in effort. I have 3 major question
1- what is CA lawsuit minimum $ damage value?
2- firm have good relation with a lot of manufacturers especially zyn and on . I am confused why don't these brands sell online by themselve as PMI and Atria are these brand name owners. how come they dont have resources to tap by themselve to go with full gas in ecommerce. I understand haypp has data but there will come a point in some years, where brand owner (especailly zyn and on) would itself have so much data that they can kick out haypp. haypp has not IP, simple online e-comerece stores, buy at cheap bulk prices, and then sell it a cheap prices as well but how long they would keep on undercutting the zyn.com as sooner or later, zyn.com would wake up and say, our retail sales is hurted by haypp's strategy. Same goes for other brands as well. Sorry, if i lack my understanding of their moat except cheap prices and economoies of scale but i am confused with it, would apprecaite your guidance.
3- Just liek FDA banned JULLS Vape Flavor products, you think they would ban all flavor pouches as well? like CA is trying to do.
Thanks for the questions, Ahtsham.
1. No way to claim a number with certainty. I assume the DKK 11m reserved as a base-line.
2. Most brand owners do - including not just in Growth Markets but in Core Markets. Zyn (dot) com likely isn't resuming US sales in the United States, and even when it was running sales, it wasn't priced as cheap as Haypp. It is not about 'us vs. them' and is much more symbiotic. Additionally, cohorts that gravitate online are looking to branch out. Single brand stores don't offer the assortment value proposition.
3. This is a looming question. We have not seen determinations made on any pending PMTAs for nicotine pouch products. The FDA has been very anti-flavor, historically speaking, but also must consider relative harms, impacts on broad societal level, etc, for applications. I expect to see some outcomes in the following year.