Here’s a bombshell that could shake up the telehealth industry: Hims & Hers just took a hit after U.S. lawmakers proposed a bill that could severely limit their ability to sell popular weight-loss drugs. But here’s where it gets controversial—is this a necessary crackdown on potentially unsafe practices, or an overreach that stifles innovation in healthcare? Let’s dive in.
On Wednesday, Hims & Hers saw a dip in its stock price following the introduction of the Safeguarding Americans from Fraudulent and Experimental (SAFE) Drugs Act of 2025. Sponsored by Representatives Rudy Yakym III and Andre Carson—both from Indiana, where Eli Lilly is headquartered—the bill aims to tighten regulations on compounding pharmacies. These pharmacies have been producing copies of blockbuster weight-loss drugs made by giants like Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. For context, compounding pharmacies are typically allowed to create custom medications only when there’s a shortage of the branded version. However, with the surge in demand for weight-loss drugs, this gray area has become a goldmine—until now.
And this is the part most people miss: The bill would require a doctor to certify that a compounded version of a drug offers a “significant difference” compared to the commercially available option. This could significantly hinder Hims’ ability to market its compounded GLP-1 drugs, a category that’s been driving its revenue growth. Citi analysts bluntly stated that the bill would “significantly curtail [Hims’] ability to compound GLP-1s,” potentially derailing their momentum.
But here’s the kicker: Drugmakers like Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk argue that telehealth companies are exploiting loopholes by labeling mass-produced drugs as “personalized.” They’ve even taken some of these companies to court, though with limited success. The SAFE Act could tip the scales in their favor by empowering the FDA to crack down on compounders. Is this a win for patient safety, or a strategic move by Big Pharma to protect its market share? We’ll let you decide.
Meanwhile, in a completely different corner of the market, EchoStar is soaring on the wings of SpaceX’s rumored IPO. Analysts at Morgan Stanley upgraded EchoStar to “overweight” and raised their price target to $110, citing the company’s lucrative deals with SpaceX. In September, EchoStar sold spectrum rights to SpaceX for a whopping $17 billion—half in cash, half in SpaceX stock. With reports suggesting SpaceX could be valued at $800 billion, EchoStar shareholders are understandably giddy. But here’s the question: Is this optimism justified, or are investors getting ahead of themselves?
Shifting gears, the market narrative ahead of the Fed meeting is crystal clear: “Sell your speculative stocks, but don’t panic—the U.S. economy is holding steady.” Traders are dumping high-flying names like Bloom Energy, Opendoor Technologies, and IonQ, while cyclical stocks and regional banking ETFs are enjoying a rally. Goldman Sachs’ index of high-beta momentum longs is down, while shorts are bouncing back. Is this a temporary shift, or the start of a broader market rotation?
In other news, Palantir is on the rise after landing a $448 million deal with the U.S. Navy to modernize its submarine maintenance and supply chain. While Palantir has been making waves in the private sector with its AI-powered software, its biggest client remains the U.S. government. Does this deal signal a deeper reliance on Palantir’s technology, or is it just business as usual?
Finally, Nextdoor is soaring after hedge fund manager Eric Jackson—the mastermind behind Opendoor’s rally—gave it his stamp of approval. Jackson believes Nextdoor is undervalued and poised for a “massive re-rating” thanks to its untapped AI potential. But here’s the catch: Nextdoor hasn’t turned a profit since its 2021 IPO, and its stock is down 80% from its peak. Is Jackson’s bullish thesis a game-changer, or a risky bet?
What do you think? Are lawmakers overstepping with the SAFE Act, or is it a necessary check on the telehealth industry? Is EchoStar’s rally justified, or is it riding on speculation? Let us know in the comments—we’re eager to hear your take!
