Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Sure was!
It bounced hard off $0.98 on the U.S. side in August when it hit its low before the rally and did that again this morning. After it crashed through $1.18 I knew the next stop was near that $1 level. So it seems like that $0.98 level is one to watch, if it goes below that, it could get even bloodier.
It's hitting pretty good resistance right now, but it's simply mirroring OGRMF and CGC. Those are the ones to watch. So, for OGRMF it hit resistance and bounced off of $4 and CGC bounced off of about $38. Both are still very close to those levels. You could argue the same thing happened yesterday and then they were creamed in post-market and pre-market trading. So traders vigorously tried to defend the positions during day trading yesterday, and then got cooked overnight. If OGRMF heads to $3 and CGC heads towards $30, SPRWF could be roasted before it's all done.
For Supreme, it's already corrected 60 percent. CGC has corrected about 35 percent. The entire sector went completely bear market in a week. Points to grossly overinflated valuations and weak positions. Once panic sets in, a vicious cycle can occasionally be formed, causing the values to massively overcorrect. Good luck choosing the bottom. When the rebound happens it might be between 9:30am and 9:45am on a single trading day. Lol. :)
If you look at OGRMF which SPRWF tracks well with, it peaked at $4.37 on Jan. 24 and then finally bottomoed at $2.72 on Apr. 9. It took about 2 months to get there. SPRWF capped out at $2.62 on Jan. 3, and by Apr. 9 it was $1.20, only it kept cratering, hitting lows of $1.18 on May 8 and all the way down till Aug. 14 when it hit $.98. That was when the rally happened in anticipation of legalization, which just peaked in the $1.70s. Honestly, since much of the investing was speculation in anticipation of legalization, this result should not really be surprising. Going forward, revenues and market share should dictate stock valuations. Could SPRWF be undervalued? That really depends on revenues and market share relative to its competitors.
It's really tough to hold on when the correction appeared so imminent. It kept trying to get above $1.70 and failing, so a major correction seemed highly likely. Once it got below $1.50 it was clear that a rout was imminent. Obviously it's a lot easier to hold on if you came in when it was still below $1. I imagine there will be many investors who see buying opportunities across the sector in the fallout. Many stocks appeared overvalued and in many ways its connected to overall valuations (markets not just pot stocks need to book profits, which means a correction, and then it can sustain another bull run). A very similar pattern followed California's legalization where there was a peak and then a major sell off. Choose your buy points wisely and book your profits when you can.
It's tracking more or less with larger caps like OGRMF. Overall, SPRWF is about 50 percent up from its August low. One could argue legalization is already baked into the cake. In which case, we're waiting for earnings and the like. Speculators' market is over. Now it's fundamentals. So, we need news.
Good call. About a week and a half ago, I was listening to some sage advice about putting a stop on the market in case the bottom fell out after legalization. It was set for $1.42 on the U.S. side and then watching the churn leading to today, I started to feel like $1.40 would be a better buy than a better sell point to lower bottom, and so I took off the stop several days ago. The lesson is if I had kept the stop in place, I would've sold today's bottom only to watch it promptly bounce and somebody would've gotten my shares. If you believe the future is bright, then there's no reason to sell, it's a reason to find a good buy point.
If you go back to the beginning of the year with California's legalization, on 12-28-17, SPRWF was at $1.61. By 1-2-18, it closed above $2.17. It peaked at $2.62 on 1-3-18 and then it trailed down. It stayed above $2 until 1-29-18 and then the bubble came out and then everything massively corrected. So where are we in that cycle? Since August, we're up 60 percent, thereabouts. One might expect another run and then dump again. I will note that SPRWF is defending the $1.50-$1.65 range rather well. I'd like to see another run again but it's always possible that legalization is already baked into the cake. It's hitting a wall at $1.70.
Let's say you're right and we're still at the base of the mountain. My current cost basis is $1.05; I like that because it bounced hard off $1 a month ago and tells me there's a lot of support for this stock. That said, when California legalization came about there was a massive rally and then a massive selloff. It's not hard to foresee the same thing happening here, so the question becomes, will there be one more correction before the climb? Should I jump in now and raise my cost basis or should I wait for it to correct downward before climbing the mountain again? :)
I tapped out at $1.68 on U.S. side earlier. The current rally seems to be based off of retail enthusiasm from the Tilray side with a lot of small investors coming in across the sector. Current negative news on Drager could also be helping push price up. But the fact remains that the Canadian legislation does not provide for breathalyzers. I'd like to see this one settle back down closer to $1 and will consider coming back in with lower cost basis. I think long term the potential is here but I think there's other stocks whose moves on the upside are probably more imminent. If it starts zooming again I can kick myself.
I'm wondering if the Tilray supply agreement isn't already baked into the cake, seeing as it was announced 11 days ago. This one's been riding high since it got on the OTCQX. It'd be nice to see another rally to Oct. 17 and beyond. On the other hand, these stocks are already pretty high off their lows. Everyone hopes that you see a rally like Tilray's but they are rarely sustained. As usual, it leaves investors wondering if they're at a summit and should book the gain or if they're at the base and the sky's the limit. :)
"Mann put his saliva in the Dräger 5000 and tested positive for THC even though it had been 10 hours since he'd smoked pot. 'This device could take someone off the road when they're not presenting any risk,' Lee said. 'People are going to be wrongfully punished and arrested.'"
This is incredibly significant. If the Drager tests positive long after a driver has been impaired -- 10 hours later?! -- the utility of the test in courts will wind up being very dubious.
The reason BLOZF is surging at the moment is because over the long-term, breathalyzer technology with spectrometer gold standard. It's speculative, they have to prove the technology works, so the downside is that it won't work, but the upside is incredible if it does.
The point is that there is demand for a more accurate test besides spit. BLOZF could be the ticket.
WHERE? RE: "I also believe C-46 was specifically reworded for Breath sampling." Read the bill and tell me where you see a drug breathalizer allowed under the law: http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-46/royal-assent Cite the section please.
Reading the statute currently and in proposed Royal Assent form that I posted below, the only breath test an officer can and will be able to use is for alcohol. The legislature will have to revisit later on. My point is, market should have known this as of April 2017 when bill was proposed. The reason the stock tanked is because Cannabix responded to the Royal Assent version yesterday. The Royal Assent version was available on June 21 and the stock didn't move at all. Therefore, without Cannabix' statement it is doubtful the stock would have moved the way it did. That said, it is helpful they clarified where they sit in context with the law. Here was Cannabix' statement: "It has been well signalled for some time by the Canadian government that a roadside saliva-testing device would be used when Canada legalizes marijuana later this year. The move to use saliva testing, we believe, is because no court accepted breath test device currently exists on the market. This the chief objective of Cannabix and our ongoing advanced product development work. Saliva testing is not a new technology and has been available for many years. There are well documented issues with saliva testing including its ability to effectively identify impaired individuals and operate in cold weather conditions, to name a few. Of note, the Vermont Senate Judiciary Committee recently rejected a bill authorizing the use of saliva testing in traffic enforcement, amid concerns of scientific validity, accuracy, and infringement on civil liberties. Cannabix believes that an accurate breath test for THC is the future for law enforcement and workplace testing, as it is less invasive and will look to provide superior sensitivity to better determine impairment. The Company has received significant interest for its technology from police and companies in the U.S., Canada and elsewhere. As the issue of drugged driving becomes increasingly acute, Cannabix is committed to using its technology, R&D and scientific experience to provide effective tools to aid law enforcement and help governments and the public transition to marijuana legalization in various jurisdictions. Cannabix is a well funded Canadian company that is rapidly developing is FAIMS-based marijuana breathalyzer."
Read the current statute at http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-254.html The only breathalizer anticipated under current law is for alcohol. Read the bill in its latest version at http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-46/royal-assent It only still only provides for a breathalizer for alcohol. It allows for physical coordination tests for drugs and alcohol, breath for alcohol or "bodily substance" for drugs. Ergo, to have an approved drug breathalizer in Canada that cops can use will require the statute to be amended. Legislature will have to respond to market.
Testing for presence of alcohol or drug
320.?27 (1) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has alcohol or a drug in their body and that the person has, within the preceding three hours, operated a conveyance, the peace officer may, by demand, require the person to comply with the requirements of either or both of paragraphs (a) and (b) in the case of alcohol or with the requirements of either or both of paragraphs (a) and (c) in the case of a drug:
(a) to immediately perform the physical coordination tests prescribed by regulation and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose;
(b) to immediately provide the samples of breath that, in the peace officer’s opinion, are necessary to enable a proper analysis to be made by means of an approved screening device and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose;
(c) to immediately provide the samples of a bodily substance that, in the peace officer’s opinion, are necessary to enable a proper analysis to be made by means of approved drug screening equipment and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose.
Bill C-46 has provided for saliva samples since April 2017: http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-46/first-reading It *never* provided for drug breathlizers because none exist. When Cannabix has a finished product that successfully deploys somewhere, Canada can go back and amend the statute again. So the fact that this got to Royal Assent with the original language intact changes nothing about the calculation. If you believed in post-April 2017 that roadside breath test would become common, then you're long. It sucks that the bill does not anticipate a breathalizer along the lines that Cannabix is offering but we'll just have to wait for the product to be completed and hope the legislature responds to the market.
CBD may be commercially available in the U.S. locally but that does not make it federally legal. The combination of the DEA March 2017 statement on CBD I attached at https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/marijuana/m_extract_7350.html and the Attorney General's statement means that you could be looking at major busts of U.S.-based companies selling CBD. In the meantime, the SEC has begun cracking down on publicly traded companies in the cannabis arena: https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2017-62.html That's three entities you do not want looking at a publicly traded company. The whole U.S.-based industry on CBD depended on an Obama DOJ interpretation of the law that is clearly no longer valid. I will grant that this differs from what local officials have been saying about the matter. It is possible states will ask Congress to clarify the law but until they do the risks appear to have substantially increased.
CBD is basically illegal in the U.S. The DEA clarified this in March, stating, "As the scientific literature indicates, cannabinoids, such as tetrahydrocannabinols (THC), cannabinols (CBN) and cannabidiols (CBD), are found in the parts of the cannabis plant that fall within the CSA definition of marijuana, such as the flowering tops, resin, and leaves." https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/marijuana/m_extract_7350.html PURA is a U.S.-based company whose patent is for CBD extraction. Until federal law is settled by Congress in favor of deferring to states that opt for legalization on the recreational side, there will not be a federally legal way of doing CBD-based business in the U.S. I was very bullish on PURA until the Attorney General stepped in. Unfortunately, U.S.-based stocks are going to be viewed as too risky in this environment. The place to bring something to market is Canada, not the U.S., and it does not seem advisable to be a U.S. company doing business across international lines. U.S. CBD and other companies would be far better off fully relocating operations and incorporations until Congress settles these issues.
I see this news story here: https://www.benzinga.com/content/10972741/puration-plans-to-issue-dividends-in-cannabis-extraction-subsidiary-with-facilities Does anyone have any idea how many shares are expected to be issued to PURA shareholders? Is there an anticipated ratio?
That filing was from a year ago, dated Jan. 4, 2017: https://www.bcsc.bc.ca/Enforcement/Cease_Trade_Orders/PDF/2017_BCSECCOM_4/ Note the year. This is a nothing burger. Trading has not been banned.