Long on Hims; thesis rests on transformation into a data/retention business and international growth outweighing management trust issues and current valuation concerns.

today I've got Paul Cerro on for the second time. Paul runs Cedar Grove Capital and he has a thesis on Hims. The ticker is Hims.

He used to work for a Hims competitor, so he's got a you know, actual sector expertise and this is like he's done a write-up on This is his third time he's written up gone traded kind of quote-unquote traded the stock.

He went long the stock to great success. He went short the stock to great success and now he's long the stock again.

we're going to talk competitive outlook, valuation, all sorts of stuff. Um I've got a lot of questions. It's it's an exciting story and but I think you're going to hear like and Paul share some of these skepticism.

I don't think I'm saying anything like questions on management, questions on ad backs, everything, but I think it's a really good conversation.

Tratta has, if I am going to count, 1 2 3 4 different transcripts on Hims. All of them are less than a year old, including one that is roughly a month old. So, they've got a lot of coverage on Hims.

If you're interested in Hims, you should listen to this podcast. You should go read Paul's note, and then you should go on Tratta, follow the link in the show notes, and go read Tratta's Hims coverage.

Paul, the company we're going to talk about today is Hims. Uh I was I'm going to include a link to your most recent write-up in the show notes, and I'm laughing cuz I say most recent write-up cuz I follow Cedar Grove, and I know you've got uh you know, you've been long, you've been short. Now you're long again.

For you, you were bullish and right and then you were bearish and right and now you're bullish again. So, that's my overview. I'll just toss it over to you. What is Hims? What is your history with it and why is it so interesting? So, full disclosure, yeah, we are long stock.

uh which is why, as you alluded to earlier, uh we did make our first investment into Hims in 2024. And that whole premise was around just the future of what telehealth was going to be and who were going to be the biggest players in it, Hims was being uh Hims being one of them.

And uh the the thesis revolved around, you know, foregoing insurance, opting in for cash pay because the US healthcare market is just bananas for how it's how it's being run.

which, you know, players like Hims and Ro are are effectively trying to prove out that, hey, with a cash pay model, meaning I don't have Forget insurance. Old-hard, open my wallet cash, I can get things for cheaper, whether it's drugs, whether it's services, uh etc. It could It could be cheaper if I did it that way than if I went through my insurance.

Let's go back to Hims and talk about, you know, in in 2024 you come into them long thinking, "Hey, cash pay revolution." Let's go back a little bit from the history and then we can pull it to today and that opportunity right now.

Yeah, so like in 2024 I actually invested in it before all the compounded GLP-1s even happened. It's because I was like, "I know exactly what this business is. I know exactly what it's trying to accomplish.

I know how it's going to accomplish it." And ever since they you know went public through through a DESP you know they've they've they've shown that they can actually slowly generate cash, become profitable, and that I know you know with scale and and the unit economics being being better over time that that trend would continue.

And then of course you get the benefit in 2024 when they launched compounded GLP-1s and most people know that story it just exploded in growth.

Our problem arose uh as early as August in 2024 and that was after the Q two earnings call. It was a Q2 2024. And I always knew that the compounded GLP-1s had an expiration date.

So, I knew there's an expiration date, but then Andrew, the CEO, goes, uh yeah, I think you know, even after the shortage ends, I think we're still going to keep keep making it.

And I'm like, wait a second, back up. Cuz that's not allowed. You can't do that.

come January of 2025, um you know, through our own research, which we flagged to everybody that that read our work, we're like, there is a massive problem brewing and it's that one, the short- there is no more shortage anymore.

Like we've talked We We did research where we talked to I think it was like 18 different states and like 32 cities, like pharmacies in 32 cities. And for the drug, we could get it either the same day or the next day.

The worst-case scenario would be like a couple of days out we'd have to wait. Um that is not grounds for a shortage anymore. That means that the drug is readily accessible. So, we put out our our we put out our research like, oh no, this is a problem.

This shortage is this shortage is imminently about to end and once it ends, then the party's over for compounded GLP-1s.

FDA pulls the short- ended the shortage in the third week of February of 2025. That's um everybody was trying to time that shortage end, so the stock memed from like 25 to $72 a share.

And then it just immediately crashed after that.

And then throughout the year, I kept saying, listen, they're over indexing to GLP-1s. This business is reliant on GLP-1. The whole growth is basically coming from GLP-1s. The core business is slowing down, it's decelerating.

So, either they need to pull some rabbits out of their hat or they have to keep doing this quote unquote arguably

I'm not saying it's gone forever because they um they dismissed the case they dismissed the suit I believe without prejudice um so they can they can bring it back up if Hims steps out of line.

But what I was but what I was still bullish on 2024 is still happening now just in a different way and one of the main things like I know you you you you read it but so many bulls and analysts are focusing on Hims' ability to just market and dispense drugs efficiently and effectively.

That's not wrong uh per se. The problem there is that the the the emphasis on that is wrong uh because the whole reason why this business exists is because they can they can market very very well to you to me to you know um some 50-year-old person sitting at home on Facebook etc. That is the table stakes part of the business.

If they don't continue doing that then there's no business to be had.

So, when they keep talking about, "Oh, the peptide launches. Oh, they keep talking about um testosterone." Or they keep talking about um the generic uh GLP-1s in Canada and the UK.

It's like, "Okay, great. That's all great. It's a net positive." But the thing is they need to do that. It's not an It's not a a miss, it's a must.

My part My part is that everybody's missing what the actual play here is, um which is the the which I believe started with them offering lab services. Is that the company has not had an issue getting customers.

They have had an issue keeping customers. Uh and that is where they're bleeding. Is that if you look at the if you look at the subscriber numbers in the last like three quarters, like they've barely grown relatively speaking. And that's after having a blockbuster year.

Um so the So, my point was having data and having insights through various forms that they are actively already working on. It's not like it's a pipe dream or a hypothetical. They're already doing it.

That's where the value is really going to be coming from. Because if they can improve patient outcomes, if they can improve um uh the data points so that um these these customers uh retain better, right?

Or more active, more engaged, uh feel more heard, uh get acknowledged that they are a unique individual, they will stay on. That That increases their LTV, it dramatically reduces their payback period, and it's a scalable product not just in the domestic market, but internationally.

That is where I think everybody fails to realize where the value is and not necessarily just them launching new products, because that's a given. They need to do that.

Like a you know, Hims has in their deck, I think it was slide 28, their payback period to acquire a customer when they online market or however they got them is under is about six months, right?

And what you're saying is, yeah, that's great. Like payback period of 6 months, and if the average customer lasts a year, you're basically doubling your money. That That's awesome.

But that's a as you're saying, that's a really high churn business. And the problem with the that business is high churn businesses, uh you know, they run into a growth problem when they start churning a lot.

You're You're saying, hey, the real play is they get that person in the door and they say, hey, we get the data, we get your lab, and all of the sudden that 1 year goes to 2 years, goes to 3 years, goes to a lifetime because they say, hey, we've got your your lab data from when you were 25, 30, 35.

And by the way, that's also a great business, too, because you come in and you get your labs and you say, hey, I want testosterone. I think it's kind of their third or fourth store right now.

I want testing for testosterone. And then 3 years later, they say, hey, how about cancer? How about cholesterol? They started adding it up. So is that kind of the transformation and the inflection that you're seeing that you think the market's missing?

Yeah, absolutely. Cuz I mean, if you if you if you look at even Okay, forget actually forget Hims for a second cuz it it'll loop back into Hims, but it's important to understand what the what the market landscape is.

So, what I was arguing for is look at the market, look where the money's going. Right now, it's all data. It is I mean, there's still some additions to condition investment, but data.

So, your Whoop band, my Aura ring, which I'm not wearing right now, I should, but like Aura ring, um, other other devices that can, uh, track your data and be able to not only give you insights, but then also potentially give you, um, um, curated recommendations for what you could do and what you could improve on. also give you like a look back of like, oh yeah, how did I feel, you know, 6 months ago?

Like, how's my sleep progress since then, right?

So, let me get there's two angles to push back. I I wouldn't go out there, right? The actually there's three. There there's valuation, there's transformation, and there's management.

Let's start with transformation cuz I think it's the more interesting part and fun one, right? So, what you're saying is you've got this business that, let's just say they they sell GLP-1s, and I think these guys are going to when peptides are legalized, I think these guys are going to just crush it in peptides.

Though, we can talk, there are there are questions there, right? You've got this business that does, you know, sells to customers for a year to 18 months, makes a great money off them, all this sort of stuff, selling branded drugs, off-brand drugs, compounded drugs, whatever it is.

You're saying, "Hey, I think they can transform, ladder up into this long-term data business that gets a lot stickier." And I hear that, but like I I worry that it's such a transformation, and we mentioned Whoop and Oura rings.

Like, Whoop and Oura rings are are trying to do that, right? And you mentioned data is the key. Whoop and Oura rings have the data, right? Like, my Whoop has literally every every second of the day, I think they argue it's a hundred times per second, they're tracking my heartbeat, and they got all this off, and they're always pushing me to do measurements, put my weight in everything.

And I I hear you. I'm sure Hims will probably try to do that, but because I interact with the Whoop, and I I need to record my workouts on it every day and all that sort of stuff, like Whoop has that daily interaction with me, and they have unique heart rate data that no one else has.

So, my two pushbacks to Hims would be, they don't have that like wearable, like Whoop and Oura have the wearable, and they have unique data from that. Whereas, what Hims is trying to do is they're trying to get it in through labs, right?

Blood work labs. And that's a lot more commoditized. A lot of people can get that. I mean, Whoop is always saying, "Hey, Andrew, send us your blood work." And I I have not done done that per se.

And then, you know, the other thing is on the wearables, like I would not invest I love my Whoop, I would not invest in the Whoop round because I hear you on unique data, but on the my other wrist, for those who are on YouTube, I've got my Apple Watch.

And you know, there there is something to Apple Watch does take your health it does take a lot of this data, and if you're Whoop, you're always betting that, "Hey, we'll be able to do keep longer battery life or convenience or something that Apple will just never attack that."

I don't know if that's a great bet for Whoop. So, my two pushbacks to you would be, "Hey, they're trying to go into this data play, and that's what you're kind of saying the inflection is.

I don't see what's unique about their data play, like a Whoop, I at least see where the uniqueness is there. And B, aren't you always at risk of even if you say, "Hey, they they can figure out a way."

Aren't you kind of always at risk at this guy and Google on the other end coming and you know, these guys aren't the only one like Amazon is clearly dabbling around in this place.

They've got a lot of different telehealth plays. Aren't you at risk of oh, you unlock it and oh boom, a giant swoops in and kills them. So, that that would be my pushback on the transformation angle.

Well, that's why it's the most interesting and the most fun piece of the story, right? No, it is because it's because you are betting on like what the future actually is going to be and who and who basically wins at that future.

If you're right about the future, then who wins with that with that reality. And um So, few things to unpack. One So, uh yeah, I would agree with you. Like the Whoop the Whoop device like the I think it was last valued at like $10 billion.

Um so, they were valued at I read that and I'm like what? Like I was like it was I was I just didn't make heads or tails of that. So, either somebody knows something that I definitely don't or people are just so willing to you know, pay a premium for for that company on just a wearable device and the data.

Cuz they don't they don't do anything else. And it's actually really interesting. I don't know if you caught this when you said it. You said, "I have a Whoop and it reminds me all the time to upload my lab results."

Yeah, so here's Okay, so here's my pushback on that is that all the wearables with the with their data are moving I don't know if that's upstream or downstream. I maybe it's upstream in order to get get health care data and then being able to recycle it into their own system.

Where my argument against your pushback is that if you're already with a platform that already handles all of your medications, arguably, you would probably want to stick with that place for all of your prescriptions, for all of your provider access, for all of your your follow-ups, you know, etc., etc., and then be able to somehow I don't know how it would work.

Somehow have some like API plug-in with you know, a Whoop device or a your aura ring or something where it can sync, something where you can manually update.

The The bare case on Whoop is Hims does that and they just say, "Hey, we'll just take the data off your Apple Watch and you don't need the the Whoop subscription, right?" So, you just get that the Apple Watch data, we plug it on API and boom, you've just saved I I think Whoop is like 250 a year.

Yeah, we've we've just cut you out of 250 per year and we're giving you like uh we're combining your medication and all this sort of stuff. So, I think that's an >> there's but there's a caveat there, too, because uh I'm not sure if you remember, but when Fitbit came out, everybody was going crazy with I even had a Fitbit.

Everybody was going crazy about Fitbit because you can you can track all that stuff on your on your on your wrist and then and I think it actually rose up to like I think like a 9 billion or 10 billion dollar valuation on the public markets.

And what ended up happening was Apple ended up releasing their Apple Watch and everyone was like, "Oh, a smart watch is just going to kill this like health-centric fitness watch uh which it ended up doing."

And then Google bought them for like 2 billion dollars, I think like 6 years later or something.

Everybody knows they need to expand out, which Hims is doing, but just like in the reverse. So, right now as we're sitting here, I I'm just kind of glancing. I think uh Hims is about a 7.5 billion EV.

You can correct me if I I'm slightly off or anything. And the stock is kind of $31 per share.

About 7.5 billion EV. >> Uh EV is a little bit higher now, but yeah. >> Okay. There are some converts and everything and they're they're >> of the converts. Yeah. It's cuz of the converts.

Yeah. It's cuz of the Yeah, it's cuz of the converts. Yeah.

Uh completely okay. We we can round to 8 billion, whatever you want. You know, they they have given out 2030 targets of at least $1.3 billion in EBITDA. That compares to I think their 2026 targets are a little over 300 million dollars of EBITDA.

So, you're talking on a 2026, the year we're in, basis, you're talking approaching 30 times EBITDA. You're talking on a 202030 on a 2030 basis, 6x EBITDA. So, how do you think about the valuation?

Hims is already kind of at 8 billion right now. If Whoop raised at 10 billion, like is there really that upside? And now maybe it's VC exponential upside, but that that's kind of the other thing other than just the EBITDA number that was weighing on my valuation.

you know, you have a business right now with Hims." And mind you, I am I you've you've you've seen this. I am hyper critical on Hims. I will if if they're wrong

Either Whoop is being uh overvalued at $10 million over uh at $10 million valuation, or Hims is uh the market is pricing Hims wrong at an $8 billion valuation. One of those two has to be wrong.

when when when management gave out long-term targets, 2030, $6.5 billion in in revenue, 1.3 at least $1.3 billion in EBITDA by 20 by the end of 2030, they gave that out in think May of last year, 2025, and I read that and I was like, "What mythical numbers are these and where is he getting them from?"

Because that this doesn't seem realistic in the slightest. Mind you, this was before Zoba and this is before Eucalyptus. So, there was no There's really no international business. Yep.

but then, you know, as time goes on, you're like, "That The only way he actually gets there is because of the international business, not because of the American market. It's because of the American market tied with uh the international business."

So, now when you take a look at the lens of um international and US, then I'm like, "That's probably conservative, actually. That's probably a very conservative number."

so, when you're when you're talking about paying like a six times 2030 EBITDA multiple, that's still growing at like a, you know, a mid-teens, high-teens clip top line, then, you know, things start changing. It doesn't actually look too crazy anymore.

Uh obviously, there There's a lot of execution risk in there because, you know, the rules, regulations, compliance, whether it's in the EU, Canada, Brazil, Australia, they're all very, very different.

So, there's a lot of execution risk involved in there, but uh valuation-wise, you have to either believe that he at least hits what he thinks he's going to hit, which is still, you know, not uh like dumb cheap, but at the same time, if you believe that the thesis holds, the the data play is right, the retention improves, LTV goes up globally, then, you know, it does it's not it's not extreme in the slightest in our opinion, right?

Uh which is why, you know, like we we decided to to go long stock again this year. So, you mentioned management I I mean, I don't think it'd be an understatement to say you don't trust them.

You know, there's a Bloomberg Law from 2025 where you're quoted and and your quote is says, "When you're disrupting health health care, you have to push the boundaries a little bit.

The emphasis is a little bit. As soon as you cross the line, you end up going to jail." Talk- talking kind of about some of the lies that they cross. And in your report, you said, "Would I trust >> [laughter] >> the the CEO to walk my dog or plant sit my cactus?" No.

So, you know, I think it's interesting like you've got these this growth outlook that management is providing, and you're you're saying you're you're basically saying, "Hey, I like everything about this company except the visionary CEO who started it, founder CEO who started and everything."

And then if I was applying that to him specifically, you know, when I look, I mentioned uh I'm just looking at their 2025 numbers. 317 million in adjusted EBITDA, right? But it's pretty heavily adjusted, you know, 130 million of the adjusted EBITDA is stock comp, 135 million is depreciation and amortization, and they add back uh investments of websites.

Like they they do have a lot of investments into intangible assets and stuff. So, that DNA number is like kind of a real number. They add back legal settlements. They add like it it's a pretty adjusted number.

So, when I say, "Hey, we're modeling them on 1.3 billion," we're like almost double trusting management. We're double trusting, "Hey, they're saying they're going to 4x their EBITDA, 3x their EBITDA over the next 4 years or so."

B, they're saying that heavily adjusted EBITDA, we're trusting them. And Paul's over here saying, "I wouldn't trust him to walk my to walk my dog or grow my cactus." But we're saying we're going to we're trusting their growth numbers. Does that make sense?

Mind you, I've actually never spoken to Andrew. Andrew This will be fun for your listeners. When Andrew when the company went public in 2021, I was very critical of the valuation in 2021 and to the point where Andrew ended up blocking me because I was so vocal about the valuation and then it dropped 90%.

So, I I feel like I earned my stripes back then, Sarah.

Anyway, but yes, no, I don't trust Andrew and I don't trust Andrew because everything stemming from the compounded GLP-1 fiasco that happened last year. And I'm In my mind, I'm saying, this guy is very talented.

He is very bright. He is very uh future-forward and in its thinking. The problem is, I think, is when a CEO is is is sitting on the top for so long that he thinks he can be untouched, he can do whatever he wants and and nothing can touch him, which is why my my my short report last year was titled titled The Teflon Don because nothing was sticking to this guy.

Um uh because it wasn't. And I'm sitting there like, this guy he I think he actually thinks he's like some type of god right now because no one's going after him. And eventually that comes crashing down.

But, I do trust his business acumen when it is checked. Uh which he got his reality check in February of this year when he got sued when he got hit by the FDA, got hit by the FTC, got uh um I think it's the S- the SEC one is still going on.

And um and Novo Nordisk sued him. I'm like, that was his reality check. And now he knows that you actually can't step out of line and not face consequences.

So, when it comes to, you know, our thesis, yes, I believe management can get it done, but management still needs to operate under the same rules, which is why I made that comment in in Bloomberg that people go to jail when you don't.

Life goes on. Hims will continue to go on

And it's a big it's going to be a big bull case for Hims in my opinion cuz I think these guys are very well situated to take over the Instagram marketing actually start compound

peptides get legalized, and that's a big bull case for Hims. But a a lot of this peptides get legalized, like, Hims is somewhat regulated. Like, again, we talked about the the management team being willing to push boundaries.

I do worry like Uh and this would apply to Hims, Woop, whoever you want.

Like, I worry that you just because so much of it is going to be Instagram marketing and acquiring the customers, right? I worry that if you are a bigger player with some something of a reputation, you get out-competed by a smaller startup player.

Like, hundreds of smaller startup players, Instagram influence, whatever, are going to work with people, and they're just going to try to churn and burn, right?

And that, you know, Hims did that to to beat a lot of the players who were like kind of playing by the rules when the compounding went away. As you and I know and discuss, like, but if Hims is going to be this big player, are they actually going to get out-competed by smaller a hundred smaller startup by night players that will say, "Hey, F it.

We'll sell them most We'll push the boundaries as far as humanly possible on peptides, whatever it is. And that kind of undercuts Hims' ability to acquire customers. So that that's the low-end competition I worry about.

so when I worked at Ro, um yeah, I was I was working basically directed from the CEO um at certain points. And one thing and I'll tell you a very quick story. So like um we were trying to see where we could go as a company, and my job was to figure out where that where that where we where where that would be.

One of them was actually ADHD medication. And I was like, "Listen, I looked at the numbers. We can make a lot of money with this." Um my job I just come from investment banking, so my whole job is how do I create value?

My whole mindset is how do I create value? I was like, "We can make a lot of money with this." And without skipping a beat, you know, he tells me he's like, "We're not doing that."

And I'm like, "Wait, what do you mean?" Like I'm like I had I have all the numbers, I have all the data, and he's like, uh "Because we're because it opens up more doors to actually hurt people than help people."

And he told me that as long as we do the right thing for patients, then we will win over the long term. The short term might get bumpy, but the long term we will still win. And now to you and I and I respected that immensely. I was like, "Oh, wow, this guy actually cares."

so to your point about all these little brands popping up and shooting peptides with a placebo, real, fake, mix, whatever. I mean, it's I'm fentanyl and who cares? Uh who cares?

Who who knows? Um they will they might win in the short term. And that might disrupt some some or add some volatility to, you know, if we're talking about Hims, Hims' stock price because if as long as they're doing the right thing, over the long term, it will it will net out for them.

Um because in the hopes that like regulators come in, and then an unfortunate aspect of like, "Oh, if somebody if somebody dies with one of these companies, then like everybody gets sued and the blah blah blah."

So it it it will create some short-term volatility for the people who are okay with breaking the rules and the laws in order to make some cash with those who are like, "You know what?

We should do the right thing cuz it's the right thing to do."

but the issue with the long term is hey if the short-term players eat it and you mentioned you were like sometimes you've got the great thing and maybe it's the time's not right or maybe there's so much competition and so much competition's doing the wrong way.

Your company isn't the one who actually survives and makes it there and it like for Hims if let's say the next few years is just a blood sport of low-cost players like Hims never starts inflecting and maybe the low-cost players in 2027, 2028 kind of get kicked off the market, but then you know, it's 2 years later and maybe a new startup comes in and kind of attacks from new ways. So, that's that's my one word.

I will say I will say maybe you agree with this is that then it then it again it plays on who's who's who's better capitalized. Who's balance sheet is better because if it's a race to the bottom on price, then arguably and I'm not saying this is going to happen.

I'm just I'm speaking hypothetically here is that if if all these new startups are basically saying like yeah if if price is the determining factor for these peptides once once once they come online, then a well-capitalized business who is arguably a leader in the business can take their prices down in order to in order to grab share and still have cross-selling opportunity which plays into the whole data which plays into the additional additional conditions that they can treat so on and so forth.

They can they can play that short game. Mind you it still hurts their profitability, but because they're capitalized well enough, they can endure that short-term pain for I think a long-term long-term return.

First question. We are recording this, gosh, what's the date? August 6th. Hims reports August 10th, and this podcast is generally not a what your earnings bro, what your outlooks bro, but we're going to try and post this the day of August 10th because they report after hours.

It's kind of hard to talk about, you know, you can look at Hims volatility. Hims ball is 100 ball. Uh this stock does move a lot on names earnings. I I hate to say something like if this releases August 10th, it looks stale or like but how how are you thinking about like kind of just the near-term earnings on a name with this much volatility?

Yeah, I've been thinking about what's publicly been announced already. So, they already given guide from Q1. And but the thing is they didn't incorporate Eucalyptus. Eucalyptus is now closed as of June.

So, when you talk about this coming year 2026 guide, it is it will be updated even all else being equal just for Eucalyptus. So, you have you're talking about a few hundred million dollars in revenue that they'll recognize in 2026.

It's not profitable, so then they'll they'll assuming all else being equal, they'll negatively revise EBITDA guide down to compensate for that lack of profitability over at Eucalyptus.

Um and then then the then the then the game is, okay, how well has a full quarter of a Novo Nor- Novo Nordisk partnership uh materialized into their into their financials? And then secondly, how well has the aforementioned labs business, testosterone business, menopause menopause business scaled since they launched in September and October of last year?

Um and I I I I feel like a little bit of that I feel like a little bit of that is already been baked into guidance, but then who knows if there's upside risk there? Um so, it'll be very interesting to see, but um that's kind of like the easy takeaway is that guidance will be revised at least upwards for revenue because of Eucalyptus acquisition and folding into the financials.

And then um negatively adjusted EBITDA just because if they are if they are indeed not profitable and nothing else has changed, that it arguably has to come down. Um so that's like my very quick takeaway there and then we'll see what happens. But long-term still still very okay with it.

Uh I would say they don't matter. Um cuz I think they I think all special I think pharmacies and specialty pharmacies that are like a pharmacy within like a Kroger, pharmacy within a Costco, uh Walmart, um then there's then there's pure play pharmacies like CVS, Walgreens, then Reed, etc. I think they're all fighting each other in their own respective markets, which is mainly insurance insurance-covered medications.

That's where they're fighting each other. And while yes, there is some overlap that's like GLP-1s, whether it's insurance insurance-covered or through cash pay, there is some there's some overlap there.

But I think because uh Hims is focusing all its efforts on cash pay, there's actually no insurance involved on the cash on the on the on the on the Hims model, that for now they're okay that they're not really bumping heads at the moment.

Could they work in the future whether it's like some type of like he said acquisition tool or or referral or referral system or whatever. Yeah, it totally it totally can happen.

But I think at this moment I don't think it's really a threat cuz I think each each company Hims and all the pharmacies are fighting their own battles and they're on their own turfs that they're not even thinking about each other at the moment.