A catalyst driven contrarian call/'firmly' and 'surely'/Bank comments/Other

In addition to the Hang Seng (where we own a few stocks, along with some in Macau) where my contrarian call, stated here multiple times, is that it outperforms the S&P 500 this year notwithstanding the rough start to the year (it's dirt cheap, China's economy will be less bad and KMT winning majority in parliament in Taiwan), I'm going to add cannabis stocks to the contrarian list for 2024.  This comes after documents were released Friday including an August 2023 letter to the DEA from the Health and Human Services (not previously publicly seen) saying "the FDA recommends that marijuana be placed in Schedule III of the Controlled Substance Act" from Schedule I and thus HHS also recommends the reclassification. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/pw3rfs9gm6lg80ij9tja6/2023-01171-Supplemental-Release-1.pdf?rlkey=v5atj0tcnhxhnszyyzcwdcvvt&dl=0

The DEA has the final say on this but the Washington Post talked to a former FDA deputy commissioner who "predicted DEA would follow HHS's recommendation. He noted that DEA, by law, must defer to the FDA's analysis on the science of marijuana's potential for medical use."

If the case, this should reduce the barriers to regular banking services and most importantly end the application of Section 280E of the IRS tax code which prohibits businesses from deducting normal business expenses from revenue associated with selling schedule I or II substances. The cash flow improvement if cannabis companies can deduct expenses like all other industries would be substantial. Lastly, this can bring in institutional investors if the stocks can be uplisted to the NASDAQ from the pink sheets and Canada. This group is cheap and just maybe the regulatory clouds clear soon.

While we don't own individual cannabis stocks for clients, I own Trulieve (TCNNF) and Medicine Man Technologies (SHWZ) personally.  

Let's add the words 'firmly' and 'surely' to 'sustained' when gleaning what will satisfy Fed members with regards to inflation. Voting member Raphael Bostic said over the weekend that "Inflation must be firmly and surely getting back to our 2% target. It would be a bad outcome if we started to ease and inflation started to rise up and down like a see-saw. That would undermine people's confidence in where the economy is going." He also talked about what's going on in the Red Sea and the jump in shipping costs. "It will be very interesting to see to what extent the Middle east conflict and attacks on the container ships are starting to show up in the cost structure for businesses in my district." I'll add, if the Fed cuts 6 times this year it is because the unemployment rate is at 4.5-5%, not because inflation is lower from here. 

If I had a dollar for everyone spiking the football on the end of inflation I'd be able to buy a lot more things but I'll say AGAIN, it is not the cyclical come down after the cyclical spike in inflation that matters, it is WHERE DOES INFLATION END UP ON A SUSTAINABLE BASIS that is most important.