This article talks about how much money some big cannabis companies are expected to make in the next few years. It shows a chart with different colored bars that show how much their profits might grow or shrink each year. The article says that analysts, who are people who study and predict company performance, may be being too careful with their predictions, so the companies could actually do better than expected. Read from source...

- The author seems to have a positive bias towards the cannabis industry and its growth prospects, as evidenced by phrases like "poised to surprise on the upside" and "a decent chance that the analysts may be undershooting the target for 2024". This could lead readers to overestimate the potential of the sector and ignore other factors that might affect its performance.
- The author also relies heavily on the analysts' estimates and revisions, without providing any context or explanation for why these numbers are accurate or reliable. For example, he mentions that the 13.4% expected growth in 2024 EBITDA is driven by a modest 5.8% growth in revenues with a 7.2% increase in EBITDA margins, but does not explain how these figures were derived or what assumptions were made to arrive at them.
- The author's argument that the companies on the chart are "lean and poised to surprise on the upside" is based on a limited sample of 12 MSOs, which may not be representative of the entire industry or its challenges. He also does not address any potential risks or headwinds that these companies might face in the future, such as regulatory changes, competition, or market saturation.
- The author's emotional appeal to "pay more attention" to earnings estimate revisions than the estimates themselves is questionable, as it implies that the initial projections are less important or reliable than the subsequent adjustments. This could mislead readers into focusing too much on short-term fluctuations and ignoring the bigger picture of the industry's long-term growth potential.
### Final answer: The author of the article has a positive bias towards the cannabis industry, relies heavily on analysts' estimates without providing context or explanation, bases his argument on a limited sample of MSOs, and makes an emotional appeal that could mislead readers.