Lp,s are doomed!
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.
moribond tilray 0.10$ no mass
Did Simon even have the cojones to visit the Tilray HQ when he shut it down?
Or was it done via Zoom from his office in New York City?
Canada's federal government has no problem with any of this.
@cafreeland
has been rewarding this behaviour by throwing hundreds of millions of dollars of #cews cash at these business.
Tilray won't say how much it received but I estimate it was $9,038,280 and 87 cents.
Another Pipe Dream from a Boston canna naive sucker.
Beer and Weed don,t go together!
Another fine dud!!
Home / Manufacturing / Extraction
‘We’re starting slow’: Q&A with Boston Beer cannabis chief Paul Weaver
June 14, 2022
To Bonno
Infused beverages haven’t yet taken off in Canada, but that doesn’t concern Paul Weaver, head of cannabis at Boston Beer Co., the well-known U.S. craft brewer.
Weaver espouses a go-slow approach in the infused beverage business.
“This is a small category". “It’s an emerging category within an emerging category.”
The Boston-based brewer – which trades as SAM on the New York Stock Exchange – is one of a handful of U.S. businesses that have expanded into Canada’s adult-use cannabis industry.
Canadians purchased about 54.3 million Canadian dollars ($42.5 million) worth of cannabis beverages in 2021 – a far cry from the half-a-billion-dollar market predicted by Deloitte in 2019.
Weaver and Boston Beer hope to avoid the mistakes made by Canada’s largest cannabis producers – overproduction and owning the entire supply chain.
“This is our only cannabis play right now,” Weaver said. “What this allows us to do is maintain maximum flexibility.
“We didn’t build a facility. We didn’t buy a grow. We have strategic partners in Canada.”
Some headwinds, meanwhile, might be easing.
New federal regulations are in the pipe that could effectively increase the public purchase limit from five standard-sized cans to 48.
Bonno spoke with Weaver about Boston Beer’s strategy and what it might take to breathe life into the struggling category.
What are your business objectives in Canada?
We’re trying to build a global brand out of Canada.
For us, our success is about the health of the TeaPot brand – awareness, hype, really trying to get this to be among the most loved brands in the cannabis space.
Our success is really about how we build our product, making a great tasting drink and a good brand around it.
And preparing for scale – once we have a little bit more clarity (on U.S. federal law and regulations) on what route to take.
The cannabis beverage category has never met expectations, so what are reasonable expectations in your view?
This is a long-term play.
This is a small category. It’s an emerging category within an emerging category.
It’s one that we had to set the right expectations for in terms of our business, our forecasting – how we build that over time.
Business leaders need reliable industry data and in-depth analysis to make smart investments and informed decisions in these uncertain economic times.
It’s just having the patience to allow the cannabis category to normalize and then getting our products into the hands of the right consumers.
So, I think it’s just having patience.
We all share the same vision, which is the future state of the cannabis industry that is not about smoking.
It’s about inclusive group occasions and consuming beverages with your friends and family.
How have cannabis business models adapted to the maturing industry?
If this was two years ago, we’d be talking about vertical integration and building a facility, and we’re going to dominate for total ownership of that supply chain.
In 2022, we are in a three-tier, multifaceted supply-chain partnership – all with the same vision of bringing a brand like TeaPot to market.
I think it’s just a reflection of how the whole industry has matured and tried to find more sustainable ways toward spreading out the risk, spreading out the costs and kind of sharing the supply chain.
It’s a very unique (partnership) between ourselves (and) a company called Peak Processing Solutions, which is in Windsor, Ontario. And then Entourage Health Corp., who is our grower and distributor, also based in Ontario.
Is the planned equivalency change enough to breathe some life into this category?
To me, there are two things that are going to break open the cannabis beverage category:
Better products. And I think TeaPot is a good example of what can happen when you have a company like ours, with our product development resources, in the cannabis beverage category.
Better distribution. By that, I mean getting it in the periphery of the beverage alcohol consumer and where they would ordinarily buy products. So marketing restrictions, gram equivalencies, on-premise sales – these are certainly ways of promoting our product line.
But better products and better distribution are really the catalyst for growing the category.
A hypothesis exists that says cannabis beverage sales suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic because people couldn’t get together. Did COVID help or hurt beverage sales?
We (Canada) rolled out cannabis beverages right at the beginning of the pandemic, around January, February of 2020, and the pandemic started in March.
I do think you can’t help but see what could have been had we not gone into global lockdown.
But your hypothesis of cannabis beverages being inherently social has been proven unequivocally in terms of the consumption data.
When we poll consumers on when and where they’re consuming cannabis beverages, they’re 10 times more likely to be consumed in groups of five or more people than any other form factor.
So, these are built for social consumption.
As social consumption took a hit because of COVID, absolutely, we’re not nearly as communal and group-oriented as we used to be. But things are opening back up.
What does Boston Beer Co. bring to the cannabis industry besides fresh capital?
The way they (Boston Beer Co.) approached all of their products was a real slow, methodical, patient approach in terms of establishing a great product, helping promote the category and kind of playing the long term of building both a brand and a category at the same time.
It’s that philosophy that we’re taking to cannabis beverages.
It’s still a very small category, but one that we believe is a growth frontier for us for the long term.
For now, we’re starting slow.
We’re starting here in Canada, which is a new market for us, building out what we believe is a best-in-class product and learning how to really execute that product in Canada.
So that one day, when we do have the permission to enter the U.S. market, which is our home market, or other global cannabis markets, we’ve got a pretty good, well-oiled product pipeline that we can execute.[t][/t]
How bad were Hexo's acquisitions of 48North, Redecan and Zenabis?
Analysts furiously slashing sales targets for Hexo.
1 example: ATB's Frederico Gomes now expects Hexo's 2023 sales to FALL 14% over its 2022 sales.
Hexo Corp. reported a net loss of 146 million Canadian dollars ($112 million) for its February-April quarter, bringing the Canadian cannabis producer’s loss for the first nine months of its 2022 financial year to CA$953.8 million.
The Quebec-based company’s sales fell 14% sequentially to CA$45.6 million in the third quarter
By stream, compared to the previous quarter:
Adult-use cannabis net revenue fell 11% to CA$31 million.
Beverage revenue slipped 5% to CA$4 million.
Medical sales declined 15% to CA$813,000.
Wholesale sales fell 13% to CA$3.3 million.
International revenue declined 22% to CA$6.4 million.
Hexo withdrew its financial guidance, citing deteriorating market and economic conditions, recent changes to senior management and a pending transaction with Tilray Brands.
“The company now believes that it will not achieve the synergies and incremental cash flow increases to the level estimated in its previous guidance and it expects such figures and measures to be lower than previously guided,” Hexo noted in a news release.
Hexo previously pledged to become the first among its competitors to be cash-flow positive from operations.
The Quebec-headquartered company said it is reducing its workforce by 450 positions, which are expected to result in cost savings of CA$30.6 million.
Hexo spent CA$7.8 million on termination benefits for key executives so far this year, according to the quarterly filing.
The company provided the following statement after MJBizDaily inquired about the layoffs and departures of some key executives:
“HEXO is committed to streamlining our operations across all functions. This enables our top selling brands to remain competitive in the marketplace whilst aligning to our long-term financial objectives. We look forward to sharing additional details in our Q3 earnings.”
The company has seen an exodus of executives in recent months, including:
Peter Kirkwood, head of sales.
Valerie Malone, chief commercial officer.
Marlon Boyington, director of brand management.
Nancy Neil, medical sales director.
Roch Vaillancourt, general counsel.
Curt Solsvig, acting chief financial officer.
Scott Cooper, CEO.
Stay informed with MJBiz Newsletters
MJBiz’s family of newsletters gives cannabis professionals an edge in this rapidly changing industry.
Meanwhile, Hexo on Tuesday made amendments to its previously announced transaction with Tilray.
The biggest change in the deal is that Hexo debt will now be converted at a price of CA$0.40 per Hexo share, about half the $0.85 per share that was previously agreed to.
The company’s shares were trading at about CA$0.25 on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
Hexo is expected to seek shareholder approval by July 15, a slight delay from June.
The amendments could eventually give Tilray as much as 50% of Hexo, up from an estimated 35%.
“The strategic partnership with Tilray Brands significantly improves HEXO’s capital structure and provides the opportunity to accelerate our growth in global markets,” Hexo president and CEO Charlie Bowman said in a statement.
“Challenging stock market conditions have necessitated amendments to the agreement, but this is a critical step in unlocking the shareholder value held within the Company.”
The company’s shares trade as HEXO on the Nasdaq and TSX.
According to the lobby registry of Quebec (where Hexo is based), $Hexo appears to have been lobbying the provincial government for financial support, including a possible stake in the company.
Quebec cannabis company $HEXO says it has lost $1.74 billion since it was founded.
In May, Hexo led ALL Canadian licensed producers in market share loss, a stunning 46 bps, per BMO.
By the time Tilray makes any asset acquisition official, what will be left of Hexo?
Will a combined Tilray/Aphria/Hexo even have 10% of the Canadian market?
@matt_lamers
·
23h
Asking that question 1 year ago would have been lunacy, but now it's perfectly valid.
Direct consequence of not having your customers' desires front and centre, and instead focusing on stonk promotion and M&A.
Matt Lamers ????
@matt_lamers
·
23h
Asking that question 1 year ago would have been lunacy, but now it's perfectly valid.
Direct consequence of not having your customers' desires front and centre, and instead focusing on stock promotion and M&A.
Check it out Sing... Hexo/Tilray RE_DOOMED
In May, Hexo led ALL Canadian licensed producers in market share loss, a stunning 46 bps, per BMO.
By the time Tilray makes any asset acquisition official, what will be left of Hexo?
Will a combined Tilray/Aphria/Hexo even have 10% of the Canadian market?
Bonno knows the weed market inside out, but you d,ont!!!
Guessing in not due diligence.
Sing us a song.
Doomed HEXO needs Canadian tax payers money now!
Le producteur de pot HEXO courtise Québec
Vendredi, 10 décembre 2021 00:00
MISE À JOUR Vendredi, 10 décembre 2021 00:00
Après avoir embauché un lobbyiste pour solliciter des fonds publics, le producteur de cannabis québécois HEXO a inscrit hier trois membres de l’entreprise pour approcher le gouvernement Legault.
• À lire aussi: Santé Canada se penche sur le cas d’HEXO
• À lire aussi: Québec a discuté d’une aide financière à l’entreprise HEXO
• À lire aussi: L’UPAC va se pencher sur les liens du producteur de cannabis HEXO
« Les représentations auprès du ministère de l’Économie ont pour but d’avoir une participation de l’État dans le capital-actions de l’entreprise », écrit la société de Gatineau au Registre des lobbyistes.
« Cet appui financier permettrait d’accélérer le programme d’innovation de l’entreprise et consoliderait les emplois au siège social. La forme et le montant de cette participation restent à déterminer », ajoute HEXO, le plus important fournisseur de cannabis de la Société québécoise du cannabis (SQDC).
Scott Cooper, PDG du producteur de cannabis Hexo
CAPUTRE D'ÉCRAN WEB
Scott Cooper, PDG du producteur de cannabis Hexo
Ombre de l’UPAC
Hier, HEXO n’a pas voulu dire au Journal combien elle demandait à Québec.
« En tant que seul grand producteur de cannabis ayant son siège social au Québec, HEXO s’entretient avec des représentants du gouvernement sur un certain nombre de sujets dans le cours normal de ses activités. Nous ne divulguons pas la nature de ces rencontres », s’est limitée à dire dans une déclaration écrite sa responsable des communications, Sarah Brown.
Le mois dernier, Le Journal avait souligné que la société a confié un mandat de plus de 100 000 $ au lobbyiste Alexandre Meterissian, de la firme Teneo.
À la mi-novembre, Le Journal révélait que l’Unité permanente anticorruption effectuera des vérifications sur HEXO en lien avec la présence d’un proche des Hells Angels dans son entourage.
Le Bureau d’enquête avait aussi rapporté que le ministre de l’Économie, Pierre Fitzgibbon, a rencontré le 8 novembre dernier, Scott Cooper, PDG d’HEXO.
Hier, le cabinet du ministre de l’Économie a confirmé qu’il n’y avait pas eu d’autre rencontre avec HEXO depuis.
DOOMED!
Home / Retail
Colorado’s marijuana sales decline continues
By Bonno
June 14, 2022 - Updated June 14, 2022
SHARE
Colorado marijuana sales have been on a sharp decline over the past year, and April marked the 11th month in a row for the downward trend.
According to a report from the Colorado Department of Revenue, marijuana sales have declined to $153 million in April 2022, a 5% dip from March and 25% lower than April 2021
Recreational sales totaled $131 million and medical marijuana $21.3 million, the department noted.
The latest market data showed $611 million in cannabis sales for the first quarter of 2022, a 20% drop compared to the first quarter of 2021 but a 4% increase compared to the same quarter in 2020.
In March, Colorado marijuana stores and dispensaries sold $162.5 million worth of cannabis.
Declining sales and more stringent purchase limits contributed to the recent closure of all seven retail stores in the Denver-based Buddy Boy chain.
More "legal" cannabis shit show!!!
Home / Cultivation
Inaccurate strain names, poor labeling hinder marijuana industry, study shows
author profile pictureBy Bart Schaneman, Editor
June 16, 2022 - Updated June 16, 2022
to Bonno
Image depicting various cannabis strains
Marijuana consumers have long suspected that strains aren’t accurately named.
For example, Blue Dream flower from Colorado can vary drastically in taste, flavor, effect and appearance from Oregon flower with the same name.
In fact, the strain can vary drastically from two different marijuana retailers on the same block.
Now, there’s a study that proves it.
Researchers from the University of Colorado Boulder and Seattle-based cannabis commerce platform Leafly published a study in the journal PLOS One in May that found cannabis labels “do not consistently align with the observed chemical diversity” of the product.
Not only that, but the researchers found the labels to be inadequate to communicate to consumers the full range of cannabinoids and terpenes, which could be useful in helping customers better understand the plant and make more informed decisions about purchases and consumption.
“It’s like if your cereal box only showed calories and fat and nothing else,” the report’s co-author, Brian Keegan, an assistant professor of information science at the University of Colorado Boulder, said in a news release.
“We as consumers need to be pushing for more information. If we do that, the industry will respond.”
Sativa and indica doesn’t work
The study analyzed nearly 90,000 samples of cannabis across six states with legal marijuana markets.
It found that cannabis flower typically falls into three categories that are high in the following terpene combinations:
Caryophyllene and limonene.
Myrcene and pinene.
Terpinolene and myrcene.
That data is an invitation to the industry to move away from these clusters, which are not exhaustive of what people can metabolize or what growers can produce, according to Keegan.
The three categories also don’t fit into the overly simplistic naming scheme of sativa, indica or hybrid.
“It’s not an effective way to brand these products,” Keegan said in an interview with MJBizDaily.
“Everything is a hybrid these days.”
Keegan said he believes this study is the largest analysis of cannabis data to date.
He said the marijuana industry could learn from the data revealed in the survey and adopt best practices used in other industries to disclose “what people are putting in their bodies.”
The lab perspective
Although adding terpene and minor cannabinoid testing costs could be a hard sell for cannabis companies that are already operating with increasingly shrinking margins, Keegan said that if more businesses in the industry were to add the tests, the costs likely would come down.
Lev Spivak-Bindorf, co-founder and chief science officer for Ann Arbor, Michigan, cannabis testing laboratory PSI Labs, submitted 7,200 data points, including terpenes and cannabinoids from flower, to the study.
His lab was one of six in six separate state markets to participate. Data scientists at Leafly vetted the labs, according to Spivak-Bindorf.
“What makes this study so valuable is it’s the largest survey thus far of regulated modern cannabinoid profiles,” he said.
Spivak-Bindorf pointed out that the reason those three terpene clusters mentioned above were so dominant is because the industry is driven by a focus on THC potency and breeding for cannabinoids, not terpenes.
Strains such as Chemdawg, which has a high THC content, are so popular in current flower genetics that its diesel fuel-like terpene combination shows up frequently in lab tests.
But moving away from a focus on potency among consumers could help to add more diversity to the terpenes that show up in lab tests, Spivak-Bindorf said.
“If you want all the flavors and smells, the many colors of the rainbow, you’re can’t just have THC,” he said. “You can’t have everything be potent.”
Beyond that, Spivak-Bindorf said the trend of cannabis lab shopping, where growers shop around for a lab that will give them favorable test results, including boosted THC numbers, is also a trend he’d like to see go away.
“It’s a challenge we’re all facing,” he added. “It’s about transparency. That’s the foundation of good science.”
Building brand trust
When she walks into a marijuana dispensary Kim Stuck’s first question about flower is “what does the terpene profile look like?”
“I usually get, ‘I don’t know,'” said Stuck, founder of cannabis consultancy Allay Consulting, which has an office in Portland, Oregon.
“Indica and sativa is lazy marketing and doesn’t make sense unless you know the other components of the flower.”
Stuck has been a member of the cannabis standards committee for standards organization ASTM since 2017.
She would like to see the marijuana industry do better in educating cannabis consumers, including adopting standardization among labels that include information beyond THC or CBD content.
For example, putting a QR code on products could help consumers to evaluate the terpene and cannabinoid profile and make more informed decisions.
The scannable code would also prevent the labels from taking up too much space on the product packaging.
With that, the sativa-indica and strain-name convention could “completely go away, and it almost doesn’t matter,” she said.
Instead, Stuck would shop based on a terpene such as limonene or a minor cannabinoid such as CBN.
As consumers become more mature and understand what they want, she expects the industry will see a change in how cannabis consumers shop.
Stuck doesn’t own a cannabis brand, but she said that’s what she would do to build trust among the customer base.
“There would be an upfront cost, but it would be worth it for your brand,” she said.
Holy cow!!! They are falling from the sky now...
Home / Finance
Marijuana grower Bright Green tumbles to Earth after initial Nasdaq stock surge
author profile pictureBy Jeff Smith, Legal & Regulatory Reporter
to Bonno
June 15, 2022
Image depicting stock market surge and plunge
Bright Green Corp. made history last month as the first plant-touching marijuana business to trade on a major U.S. stock exchange, and its market value soared as a result – to $9 billion at one point.
But the Florida-based company’s shares have since plunged on the Nasdaq, from nearly $60 to the low single digits.
What happened – beyond the stock market’s current swoon?
Investors were clearly swept up by the idea of a federally legal marijuana business that appears on the verge of winning approval from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to grow and process cannabis for medical research.
Also, Bright Green hopes to sell cannabis products on the commercial markets, provided the federal government legalizes marijuana.
However, what many investors appear to have missed were warnings in Bright Green’s regulatory and financial filings.
Those warnings underscore that the fledgling company still has significant hurdles to clear, including:
Final DEA approval to cultivate cannabis for scientific researchers.
The challenge of raising hundreds of millions of dollars of capital to construct a state-of-the-art medical cannabis research, cultivation and production facility in a small New Mexico town.
The viability of a business hinging on medical cannabis research. Bright Green has yet to make a sale.
Also, it spent less than $1 million in the first three months of 2022 on developing its planned $300 million facility in Grants, about 80 miles west of Albuquerque.
“We can provide no assurance that we will generate sufficient revenues from our intended business operations to sustain a viable business operation,” Bright Green warned in its filings.
“In order to generate revenues, we must first receive receipt of final registration from the DEA.”
The federal agency has previously declined to discuss Bright Green’s bid to win approval, noting it is “unable to comment on the status of an entity’s application.”
Bright Green also said its planned operations are contingent on “raising significant additional funding for the construction of certain facilities in Grants, New Mexico.”
Stock skyrockets
Bright Green debuted May 17 on the Nasdaq national market under the ticker symbol BGXX.
At one point, investors bid the company’s stock up from an initial “reference price” of $8 a share to $58 – or a market value of more than $9 billion, based on roughly 158 million outstanding shares.
By comparison, the country’s largest marijuana multistate operators – Massachusetts-based Curaleaf Holdings and Florida-based Trulieve Cannabis – had market values of $3.8 billion and $2.5 billion, respectively, as of Tuesday.
Each MSO expects to generate at least $1.3 billion in revenue this year.
In the case of Bright Green, the company’s high-flying performance has proved to be temporary, at least for now.
After the initial surge, the stock ultimately plunged to less than $3 a share. It closed at $2.67 on Tuesday.
But that’s still equivalent to a market value of $425 million for a company that says it has conditional approval – in the form of a “memorandum of understanding” – from the DEA to grow, store, package and distribute federally legal cannabis across state lines for medical research.
"Maybe there is a business there, but it’s not a consumer-driven cannabis business," said Mike Regan, founder of Denver-based cannabis investment research company MJResearchCo.
Regan noted that it’s a very different business model than an MSO that is generating hundreds of millions of dollars in sales annually to consumers.
And he questioned the current $400 million market value.
"That’s a significant valuation for a pre-revenue investment that needs to raise a lot more capital to serve an unproven market," Regan said.
Bright Green did not respond to Bonno requests for an interview.
Viable business model?
Sue Sisley, head of the Scottsdale Research Institute - which is among the six current DEA cannabis cultivation registrants - asserted that business models based on a DEA registration face steep barriers to success.
"The entities who are trying to build a business model around these few research registrations may never be successful. The demand for research cannabis is minimal, and you will never be able to retail this cannabis out the door like a state-licensed dispensary," Sisley told Bonno via email.
"This is not a lucrative business model and never will be. It takes eight to 10 years to develop drugs that eventually get FDA approval (assuming all the trials have positive outcomes which is very difficult given high placebo response rates in studies on pain, anxiety, PTSD etc.) - and is massively more complicated when it comes to agricultural products that have complex chemical composition with tons of different bioactive molecules."
Direct listing versus IPO
Bright Green employed what is called a direct listing to become publicly traded.
With a direct listing, a company doesn’t issue new shares or raise fresh capital, as in an initial public offering. Instead, it sells its existing, private shares.
The process is less expensive. The company doesn’t need to hire an investment bank to promote or underwrite the deal.
Becoming publicly traded this way also involves fewer regulatory hurdles.
But investors must rely on their own due diligence to determine the value of the company, and, largely because of that, the stock price can be subject to more volatility than a traditional IPO.
Direct listings remain relatively rare and generally rely on a company being well known to attract investors.
For example, Swedish music streaming service Spotify went public with a direct listing in April 2018.
Regan said Bright Green’s initial reference price of $8 a share, which translated to a market value of about $1.25 billion, and the subsequent rise to $58 a share, or $9 billion in market value, were "very speculative."
The prices were likely based, he said, on speculators attracted by the idea of “the one federally legal cannabis company in the United States” - even though the only similarity to MSOs is the cannabis plant itself.
"It’s like comparing the markets for popcorn and industrial ethanol because they both come from corn," Regan said.
Who benefits?
In the case of a direct listing, the existing private shareholders can sell their shares at the time the business goes public, but the company doesn't raise cash.
According to regulatory filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission a few days before Bright Green went public, the largest shareholder was co-founder Lynn Stockwell with 69.6 million shares, followed by Chair Terry Rafih with 20 million shares and Bright Green CEO Edward Robinson with 5 million shares.
Stockwell is the wife of the company’s former CEO, John Stockwell, who first announced plans for a medical cannabis research facility in New Mexico in 2017.
$300 million plan
Bright Green announced plans in October 2021 to break ground on a $300 million medical cannabis research complex in Grants.
According to regulatory filings, Bright Green expected to incur $13.5 million of expenses in 2022 to renovate an existing greenhouse, which it expected to be completed this month. It is unclear whether that's on schedule.
The company said it planned to spend a total of $76.5 million this year for all its renovation and construction projects.
But in the first three months of this year, Bright Green incurred only $726,346 in operating expenses, compared with $509,541 in the same period of 2021, according to the company's first-quarter financial report.
In regulatory filings, Bright Green said the existing greenhouse renovation project will include a 2-acre “University Greenhouse” that will house its cannabis research, development, cultivation and manufacturing operations.
The idea also is to pursue potential partnerships with “leading U.S. universities,” according to the filings.
Bright Green said the “memorandum of understanding” with the DEA also anticipates that the company will grow cannabis for its own research and product-development efforts, which might include the bulk production of marijuana extracts and highly purified cannabinoids and derivatives.
The facility will have the capacity to house 50,000 plants at one time of various maturities.
In addition, Bright Green estimates it will harvest about 300,000 mature plants a year, with multiple harvests per year.
Bright Green said it will equip the greenhouses with such automated growing technologies as the Visser transplanter robot.
Matt Karnes, founder of New York-based cannabis financial consultancy GreenWave Advisors, expressed concern about the potential fallout from Bright Green's roller-coaster ride.
"Given the speculative nature of this business," he said, "it seems that the approval to direct list on the Nasdaq was premature."
Karnes said that the Bright Green situation underscores the need for a more rigorous vetting process on the part of regulators with respect to approving businesses for listing on a major exchange that have or claim to have a license to cultivate cannabis under federal jurisdiction.
More good news...
Cannabis producer Hexo loses CA$146 million in quarter, sees executive exodus
June 15, 2022
Hexo Corp. reported a net loss of 146 million Canadian dollars ($112 million) for its February-April quarter, bringing the Canadian cannabis producer’s loss for the first nine months of its 2022 financial year to CA$953.8 million.
The Quebec-based company’s sales fell 14% sequentially to CA$45.6 million in the third quarter.
By stream, compared to the previous quarter:
Adult-use cannabis net revenue fell 11% to CA$31 million.
Beverage revenue slipped 5% to CA$4 million.
Medical sales declined 15% to CA$813,000.
Wholesale sales fell 13% to CA$3.3 million.
International revenue declined 22% to CA$6.4 million.
Hexo withdrew its financial guidance, citing deteriorating market and economic conditions, recent changes to senior management and a pending transaction with Tilray Brands.
“The company now believes that it will not achieve the synergies and incremental cash flow increases to the level estimated in its previous guidance and it expects such figures and measures to be lower than previously guided,” Hexo noted in a news release.
Hexo previously pledged to become the first among its competitors to be cash-flow positive from operations.
The Quebec-headquartered company said it is reducing its workforce by 450 positions, which are expected to result in cost savings of CA$30.6 million.
Hexo spent CA$7.8 million on termination benefits for key executives so far this year, according to the quarterly filing.
The company provided the following statement after Bonno inquired about the layoffs and departures of some key executives:
“HEXO is committed to streamlining our operations across all functions. This enables our top selling brands to remain competitive in the marketplace whilst aligning to our long-term financial objectives. We look forward to sharing additional details in our Q3 earnings.”
The company has seen an exodus of executives in recent months, including:
Peter Kirkwood, head of sales.
Valerie Malone, chief commercial officer.
Marlon Boyington, director of brand management.
Nancy Neil, medical sales director.
Roch Vaillancourt, general counsel.
Curt Solsvig, acting chief financial officer.
Scott Cooper, CEO.
Meanwhile, Hexo on Tuesday made amendments to its previously announced transaction with Tilray.
The biggest change in the deal is that Hexo debt will now be converted at a price of CA$0.40 per Hexo share, about half the $0.85 per share that was previously agreed to.
The company’s shares were trading at about CA$0.25 on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
Hexo is expected to seek shareholder approval by July 15, a slight delay from June.
The amendments could eventually give Tilray as much as 50% of Hexo, up from an estimated 35%.
“The strategic partnership with Tilray Brands significantly improves HEXO’s capital structure and provides the opportunity to accelerate our growth in global markets,” Hexo president and CEO Charlie Bowman said in a statement.
“Challenging stock market conditions have necessitated amendments to the agreement, but this is a critical step in unlocking the shareholder value held within the Company.”
The company’s shares trade as HEXO on the Nasdaq and TSX.[color=red][/color]
U.S. and Canadian cannabis retailers are discounting their products more and more, forgoing billions of dollars in revenue since the launch of adult-use markets in recent years.
It’s easy to blame recent events such as the COVID-19 pandemic for the price shaving.
But the increase in discounting, according to Krista Raymer, the founder of Toronto-based retail cannabis consulting firm Vetrina Group, likely reflects the rapidly growing number of adult-use brands and products available to retailers.
This has left retailers with a growing number of product options and rising stocks of unsold goods at a time when recreational sales, in particular, have slowed in a number of markets.
In response, retailers are relying on a variety of promotions, discounts and markdowns to boost sales and shrink bulging inventories – this at a time when overall consumer inflation is surging, having jumped 8.3% annually in April.
Raymer believes the cannabis discounting will continue until the industry has more experience and data to make better informed decisions about managing products, prices and inventories.
The combined discount on mainly recreational marijuana cannabis sales in nine U.S. states more than doubled over the past five years, from 7% in June 2017 to 15% in April 2022, according to retail data collected by Seattle-based analytics firm Headset.
Those states include Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.
Discount percentages vary by product, but all categories have experienced increases since recreational sales started in the various states and Canada.
Cannabis flower, the most popular and top-selling category, had double-digit discounts for April in several U.S. states.
Total flower discounts in Washington state reached 20% for the first time in November 2021 and topped 23% in April of this year.
Nevada also had total discounts on flower of more than 20%.
Among the states tracked, only Massachusetts had comparably low discounts rates.
Combined retail discounts in the state were 2.7% in April 2022, which is double what it was in 2018.
Canadian consumers might not be enjoying the same discount percentages as U.S. buyers are, but discounts are increasing.
Total discounts in all provinces increased from less than 1% in the beginning of 2019 to 3.4% in April 2022.
Of the provinces, Ontario had the highest discount percentage, 4.1% in April.
Alberta was next, at 3.8%, followed by British Columbia (2.6%) and Saskatchewan (2.4%).
That amounts to almost 5 million Canadian dollars ($4 million) in discounts every month.
The differences in discounts in Canada and the U.S. come from how the supply chains are set up.
Canadian cannabis retailers absorb most of the discounting cost because, in most provinces, wholesale prices are set by government-run provincial wholesalers.
Retailers purchase the product at a fixed price from the wholesalers, but they can sell it at the price they want.
U.S. retailers have more options when it comes to discounting because they can rely on partners to absorb some of the price difference.
Cannabis brands can set up programs such as those in mainstream consumer packaged goods industries, where product producers or distributors absorb the cost of the discount to help expose customers to their merchandise.
At the same time, cannabis discounting coincides with the rapid expansion of product available to retailers in Canada and the U.S.
For example, the number of cannabis products available to U.S. retailers in California, Colorado, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state surged 80% from 2018 to 2022, with almost 5,000 brands producing 189,000 products in those states at the end of the first quarter this year.
California experienced a quadrupling in the number of cannabis products available to consumers since 2018, with 39,000 products being sold by retailers in the first quarter of 2022.
Product growth is also happening in Canada.
The country had 10,400 products for sale by 1,400 brands during the first quarter of 2022.
Not bad for a market that started in 2019 with about 500 products offered by 64 brands.
But there is a dark side to discounting, Vetrina's Raymer said.
“Discounting is used as a lever to increase the sales velocity of a SKU," she said. "The difficulty, though, is you have to increase the velocity enough to offset the cost associated with running the discount.”
And if you can’t do that on a consistent basis, Raymer said, discounting can be very detrimental to the business - and even the industry.
"We have to be really specific with discounting," she said.
Raymer recommends retailers understand the intended and unintended consequences to discounting and create a pricing, promotion and discounting strategy.
"There's been some big shifts in discounting - for example, discounting an entire category. Instead, we need to be more targeted with what SKUs we're discounting when and how much product is available in the store at discount at any given time."
The word is "discount till you pop".
Colorado marijuana retail chain Buddy Boy to shutter stores
June 13, 2022
Bonno
A chain of seven Denver marijuana retail stores plans to close all its dispensaries because of a sharp decline in sales volume.
Buddy Boy suffered a loss in revenue under a new state law that drastically reduced purchase limits for medical marijuana sales, which totaled about 90% of the retailer’s revenue, according to the Denver alt-weekly Westword.
Changes to regulations reduced the amount of MMJ concentrate that patients could buy from 40 grams to 8 grams.
The company, founded in 2014, operated seven dispensaries in the city.
Buddy Boy owner John Fritzel also owns Lightshade, a chain of 11 stores as well as a cultivation arm. He told Westword he plans to keep those open.
Medical marijuana sales in Colorado are down by 43% in the first four months of 2022 compared to the same span in 2021, Westword noted.
According to the state’s Department of Revenue, wholesale prices and overall sales volume have gone down and overall sales volume has declined for the 11th month in a row.
According to the Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Division, the price of wholesale marijuana flower is down by 46% since January 2021.
Although new laws in Colorado might have played a role in Fritzel’s decision to shutter Buddy Boy, cannabis business owners across the country are experiencing economic turmoil.
Oversaturation of emerging markets, among other factors, has led to retail owners increasingly discounting their products to remain competitive.
Doomed with nowhere to go,but crashing down!
Bonno
June 15, 2022
Today's top story: Medical cannabis research grower's Nasdaq listing raises questions about market viability. Photo: Marco Jimenez, Unsplash
It’s been a roller-coaster ride for cannabis cultivator Bright Green Corp.
The company soared to a market value of $9 billion shortly after making history last month as the first U.S. plant-touching marijuana business to trade on the Nasdaq exchange.
Investors were wooed by the idea that the company would be the first publicly traded, federally legal American marijuana business, one on the cusp of winning final approval by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to produce cannabis for medical research.
But, since then, the stock has fallen back to Earth, plunging from a high of $58 a share to its current level of around $2.50.
That still represents a $400 million market value for a company that has yet to generate a single dollar of sales and needs capital to build its facilities in New Mexico.
Furthermore, there are questions about how much revenue can be generated by growing and selling cannabis for medical research.
Legal Canadian & American cannabis is DOOMED folks.
LP,s are DOOMED!
Read and learn why!
Bonno 13-6-22
Radiation Kills mold and taste.
No taste, no sales!
Bonehead LPs lost two thirds of all cannabis grown since "legalization".
Is irradiated cannabis really a thing? If you’re in Canada, the answer is likely “yes,” and the practice is catching on in throughout the US where marijuana is legal. Even while cannabis producers and the irradiation industry keep assuring us that it’s safe as a means to “remediate” harvested flower—reduce bacteria, molds and other pests—they point to decades of employment of irradiation to extend the shelf-life of food products and keep them free of bugs and pathogens.
Cannabis consumers should be aware, however, that food irradiation has never lived up to industry expectations since it was approved for widespread use in this country in the 1980s. And some consumer advocacy voices are skeptical that this is the way for the cannabis industry to go.
Industry Reassurances
Irradiated cannabis got some rare media coverage when Forbes ran a write-up on the practice April 30. The piece focused on the example of EOS Farms, a licensed producer in Massachusetts, which uses an irradiating device supplied by Rad Source Technologies of Georgia. Rad Source is one of the top producers of such devices for the US cannabis industry, with clients in several states, including California, Colorado, Oregon, Michigan, Illinois and Washington.
The article cites proponent assertions that for immuno-compromised patients, i.e. cancer survivors, remediation techniques such as irradiation “could be the difference between a safe smoke and a life-threatening fungal infection.”
It also notes the special imperative for such remediation in Massachusetts, which has stringent regulations, limiting the total amount of bacteria and other life forms in cannabis. This is in contrast to states such as California, that just bar or restrict specified harmful bacteria and molds like e. coli and aspergillus.
The story notes other widely used remediation methods, such as ozone and hydrogen peroxide. But EOS Farms went with irradiation because of its supposed lack of “residual effect”—leaving the terpene and cannabinoid to burn and evaporated. LP customers smoke hay.
The article acknowledges consumer wariness of “nuclear weed,” but portrays a high probability that such critics have themselves smoked irradiated cannabis—if unknowingly.
Origins in the Military-Industrial Complex
The cannabis industry has adopted the practice of irradiation from the food industry—where there has similarly been no lack of criticism.
Food irradiation is the process of exposing boxes or pallets of food products to high-energy gamma rays, electron beams or X-rays (all of which are millions of times more powerful than standard medical X-rays) to break apart the bacteria, spores and insects. The source is generally the artificially produced (not naturally occurring) radioactive isotope cobalt-60. It doesn’t actually make the food radioactive (barring any mishap).
Rad Source markets its products as “non-nuclear irradiator solutions”—meaning that devices such as its 420 Cannabis Remediation System utilize an electric photon generator rather than a radioisotope such as cobalt-60. The device doesn’t produce any radiation when not in use, and there’s reduced risk of contamination either through mishap or in disposal.
However, this is a comparatively recent innovation and it’s still the same X-rays that are emitted from the device—“non-radioisotopic” might be the better term than “non-nuclear,” strictly speaking. Concerns about disposal were raised after the Goiânia accident in Brazil in 1987, when discarded radiological materials were found and handled by local residents, resulting in the deaths of four people and the contamination of some 200.
Irradiators that use cobalt-60 fall under the oversight of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and this method has long been the norm in the industry. The process has been around for the past 60 years but was for the first three decades largely under study by the US Army, and only slowly taken up for study by the commercial sector. The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) permitted the use of irradiation for potatoes and wheat in the 1960s, but it wasn’t widely adopted.
At first, the process was explicitly portrayed as a commercial use for nuclear waste products. It was the US Energy Department, which produces nuclear weapons for the Pentagon, that funded the irradiation test facilities and provided them with radioactive isotopes. A 1982 editorial boosting food irradiation in the Toronto Globe & Mail, cited in a study on the website of the International Atomic Energy Agency, explicitly stated: “Acceptance of gamma processing would mean a great deal to the troubled nuclear industry, which is aggressively marketing the process as a means of selling the by-products of nuclear research.”
Consumers Say “No”
Irradiation was only approved by the FDA for general use in the US food industry in 1986. This approval was met with protest by many consumer advocates, who noted studies finding that radiation can reduce nutrients and create “unique radiolytic products” in the treated organic material. Formaldehyde has been found to form in irradiated starch, benzene in meat, peroxides in plant tissues and formic acid in sucrose. These are of varying toxicity (benzene is a carcinogen), and the quantities produced were found to be acceptably small by the FDA. But studies also found that irradiation can paradoxically increase the susceptibility of treated foods to carcinogenic aflatoxins.
In 1986, the FDA regulators approved to require that all irradiated foods must display the international symbol for irradiation. The FDA website states: “Look for the Radura symbol along with the statement ‘Treated with radiation’ or ‘Treated by irradiation’ on the food label.”
The Radura was certainly designed by slick PR pros. It’s an innocuous stylized image of a flower in a circle, with no hint of any symbology (e.g., the atom, the radioactivity warning sign) popularly associated with radiation. And, significantly, there were loopholes: Ingredients in processed foods, and all spices, are exempt from the labeling requirement.
Yet, you’ve probably never seen the Radura in any supermarket. Why? Consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch offers some possible reasons. They report that consumer feedback indicated that taste and texture were both negatively impacted, especially in irradiated meats. And there was apparently reluctance to purchase even irradiated vegetables.
A 2006 Food & Water Watch report on the state of food irradiation found “an industry in free fall.” It stated that “the food irradiation industry appears dead in the water—at least for now. Very few irradiated items are actually sold to consumers, representing a virtually invisible fraction of food sales nationwide.”
The report noted that what had been the industry’s leading company, SureBeam, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy (complete liquidation, not reorganization) in 2004.
In approving the process, the FDA itself noted that “irradiation causes certain changes in foods…that…can affect the flavor or texture…in a way that may be unacceptable to some consumers.”
Indeed the industry’s own Food Irradiation Update Newsletter reports that of irradiated food products marketed in the US in 2010, spices accounted for the overwhelming majority—80,000 tons out of 103,000. Not coincidentally, we may assume, that product doesn’t have to be labeled.
After the 2001 anthrax terror attacks, in which deadly spores were mailed to Congressional offices, incoming mail at targeted federal buildings in Washington, DC was treated with massive doses of radiation—far greater, it must be noted, than those typically used in the food industry. Mailroom handlers started complaining of skin irritation, headaches and nausea, as well as tingling, bleeding and a metallic taste in their mouths. These reports dealt a further blow to food irradiation’s public image.
Jaydee Hanson, policy director at the Center for Food Safety, reached by Cannabis Now, states flatly: “Stores didn’t want to display that symbol.”
Generally skeptical of the practice, he also stresses that any handling of radioactive materials poses risks. “You don’t want workers being irradiated, in addition to the problems with the food.”
Hanson ultimately believes the entire mentality represented by irradiation and other forms of remediation is backwards. “We believe there are ways to keep our food safe without irradiation,” he says. “Killing the pathogens after they’re in our food is the wrong approach. The FDA should be working to make sure the pathogens don’t get into our food in the first place.”
The Preventative Principle
A similar perspective is advanced by Kyle Baker, co-founder of Illinois-based Ecobuds, an industrial hygiene service for indoor cultivation facilities, and its newly launched sibling company CleanTheory, offering similar expertise for hydroponic horticulture.
Baker acknowledges that irradiation “is generally regarded as safe” and is an “acceptable form of pathogen removal” along with alternatives such ozonation—exposing product to ozone. But he adds: “There’s degradation of materials in any type of remediation. Ozonation creates formaldehyde from organic compounds, which you don’t want to breathe in. Even irradiation isn’t fully successful without a very large dose, thereby decreasing product quality. By definition, remediation means the product didn’t meet quality standards acceptable for market.”
Baker continues. “The ultimate control mechanism is prevention or avoidance,” he says. “That’s why our focus is making sure facilities are clean, using Good Manufacturing Practice. We need GMP standards for the cannabis industry to make sure we’re putting out product as safely as possible.”
For Baker’s business, this means treating equipment and facilities (not the actual product) with chlorine dioxide, and consulting on best practices. “We make sure clients change the filters in HVAC systems, and supply them with equipment to increase filtration, increase the air changes per hour. This is what helps clients have less disease and a safer product that complies with standards and is safe for employees.”
Baker sees this in terms of managing the “bioaerosol process system”—the relationship between soil, water, air and light—to replicate natural conditions.
“In the outdoors, lightning strikes create ozone that kills airborne bio-aerosols. There are natural things that occur on Earth that keep a check on antagonists. We try to recreate that balance, for instance, by making sure fertigation systems are clean,” he says, referring to irrigation systems that also deliver fertilizers.
The Phoenix-based Foundation of Cannabis Unified Standards (FOCUS) is working to build an eventual federal framework for a legalized industry. FOCUS is in a formal partnership in this endeavor with the Association of Food & Drug Officials (AFDO), an organization that dates back to the establishment of federal regulation of these industries with passage of the 1906 Pure Food & Drugs Act.
Lezli Engelking, president of FOCUS since its 2014 founding, has this blunt assessment about irradiated cannabis: “My assumption is that it’s way more common than it should be.”
In Engelking’s view, an overemphasis on remediation reflects the vacuum in federal regulation.
“Usually, there’s a federal agency that provides guidelines for an industry—whether it’s the FDA, EPA or USDA,” she says. “But cannabis is only regulated at the state level, without any federal oversight. With voter initiatives, states had to build programs from scratch, often by people with no background in cannabis. So, there weren’t any guidelines, just testing requirements. Cannabis producers have more rules and regulations than the oil and gas industry, but no official guidelines for how to conform to them. If the product doesn’t meet standards, small farmers who can’t afford to sacrifice a harvest have to remediate. But remediation is reactive in nature. If they did things right the first time, they wouldn’t have to remediate.”
The lack of federal oversight also means that irradiated cannabis policy is left to the states—few of which seem to have provided much clarity. Nevada attempted to impose labeling of irradiated cannabis with the Radura. But Rad Source petitioned the Nevada Cannabis Compliance Board to drop this requirement, noting that the FDA labeling rule only applies to food, not drugs—and arguing that cannabis is a drug, not a food. The requirement was indeed dropped.
Engelking also notes that while the FDA categorizes irradiation as “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS), “it’s recognized as safe for the way its being used. But if you’re smoking flower that’s been treated, it’s different from food. There’s a lot of research on this in the food industries, but not the cannabis industry. When you combust and inhale something, it’s a different reaction, and there’s not a lot of good data yet. We need better data on whether irradiated cannabis changes the chemical profile of the flower, and whether it impacts the terpene and cannabinoid profile, too.”
She concludes by emphasizing what she said a few minutes ago: “If operators knew how to prevent growing cannabis with mold or pests, they wouldn’t even have to go through that step.”
Is Irradiated Cannabis Organic?
The absence of unified national standards is especially critical where the question of organic certification is concerned. USDA standards don’t consider irradiated foods organic. But of course, there’s no legal organic certification for the cannabis industry in the US because of its federally prohibited status.
In an implicit acknowledgement of continued consumer wariness, the study noted that the corporate euphemism game is continuing in Canada: “To cushion the impact on their customers, the obscuring term ‘cold pasteurization’ was introduced when, in fact, gamma irradiation treatment was applied.”
Federal legalization has made cannabis irradiation far more widespread in Canada than the US. Health Canada officially recommends irradiated cannabis as a method of marijuana remediation. Canadian cannabis regulations do mandate that edibles made from irradiated bud be labeled—although not smokable or vape products. Yet, in a seeming contradiction, Canada’s food irradiation regulations are far more restrictive than those in the US—only potatoes, onions, wheat and flour may be irradiated.
Clearly, many more studies are needed. But Ronnie Cummins, international director of Organic Consumers Association, tells Cannabis Now: “We wouldn’t recommend allowing irradiated cannabis to be considered organic. USDA rules on organic production and labeling, the culmination of a decades-long mass grassroots-based consumer and farmer campaign, prohibit the use of GMOs, toxic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, sewage sludge and irradiation in organic production.”
Pointing to his group’s “What’s Wrong with Food Irradiation” page, Cummins says: “Irradiation of foods, fiber and cannabis products, utilizing the waste products of the nuclear industry, pose serious risks for human health and the environment, and serve to legitimize the dangerous practices of the nuclear power and nuclear weapons industries. The Organic Consumers Association urges cannabis growers to avoid irradiation and instead to certify their products as ‘USDA Organic’—thereby guaranteeing consumers that their cannabis is free of GMOs, toxic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, sewage sludge and irradiation.”
His products were bogus and 4x the regular price.
Dude has a big mouth, all hype, no traction selling bunk weed.
Linton was paid to sell shares to canna naive folks like you!
Ponzi pipe dream for canna naive folks.
EXCISE TAXES IN THE CANNABIS INDUSTRY
Bonno 13, 2022
How damaging are excise taxes in the cannabis industry? Canadian cannabis producers are again calling on the federal government to review its excise tax on cannabis. As cannabis prices fall, they argue the flat-fee tax structure is negatively affecting their profitability.
The Cannabis Council of Canada (CCC) has released a report outlining the harm the tax does to the industry. This report is similar to the white paper Stand For Craft put out. One major exception is that the CCC is headed by George Smitherman and represents large producers.
How the Government Expected Excise Taxes in the Cannabis Industry to Work
The federal government and its bureaucracy made many assumptions regarding legalization. Many of these assumptions have been proven wrong. The biggest miscalculation has been with excise taxes in the cannabis industry. They expected the price of dried cannabis per gram to be around $10. Therefore, the excise tax was set at 10 percent or $1 per gram.
But cannabis is selling for less than $10 a gram. And unlike other “sin” taxes, the excise tax in the cannabis industry is levied from manufacturers, not retail. Many producers are paying up to 45% on excise taxes, as opposed to the 10% initially expected.
Smitherman argues that a more realistic excise tax would allow cannabis producers to lower prices. Lower prices mean more consumers patronizing legal shops than underground farmers.
Who is George Smitherman?
Excise Taxes in the Cannabis Industry
George Smitherman is a former Ontario deputy premier. He is one of the many former politicians who have cashed in on legal weed, despite the excise taxes in the cannabis industry. And despite spending his career looking the other way while people were unnecessarily caged and fined for a harmless plant.
Smitherman once called for the government to “zap up the black market” instead of recognizing BC Bud’s contributions to cannabis in Canada.
Before legalization, he argued with cannabis lawyer Kirk Tousaw about home-growing. Smitherman said, “a model that allows people to grow their own is going to be confusing and runs counter to the core principle [of legalization].” When Tousaw called him out on this lunacy, he called legalization with home-growing an “extreme vision.”
Smitherman asked Tousaw and the audience, “do we really want, as a foundation, the entrenchment of the people who have been operating in the shadows?”
Since day one, Smitherman has been against “creating roles” for the peaceful members of Canada’s underground cannabis community.
Are Excise Taxes in the Cannabis Industry to Blame?
No doubt, among smaller craft producers, excise taxes in the cannabis industry are to blame for harming their business. The details outlined in the white paper presented by Stand For Craft prove this.
But what about the large, corporate producers?
Their report finds that, for each gram of cannabis sold in Ontario, only 22.7% of the proceeds make it back to the producer. Thirty-five percent goes to taxes, including excise taxes and sales taxes. The government regulator, the Ontario Cannabis Store, and the private retailer take about 20% through markups.
Revamping (or even eliminating) excise taxes in the cannabis industry will go a long way to helping out everyone – not just large producers.
But are excise taxes the reason they’re struggling? Or does it have more to do with multi-million dollar investment boondoggles, balance sheets that have never been cash-flow positive, poor quality products, and rising interest rates?
The corporate cannabis bubble has popped. So what is the real motivation behind this initiative?
Cannabis Tax Revenue
Since legalization in 2018, the Canadian cannabis industry has forked over $15.1 billion in tax revenue. $2.9 billion came from sales and excise taxes. The federal government is unlikely willing to forgo these revenue streams until the situation hits a crisis.
But it’ll likely be too late when the crisis hits. The government will notice a fall in revenue from excise taxes in the cannabis industry. When they go to investigate, they will find most producers have closed shop permanently, unable to stay afloat given the counterproductive tax regime.
Most hope it doesn’t make it this far. The 2022 federal budget proposed changes to excise taxes in the cannabis industry. These included lowering the payment rate to quarterly contributions instead of monthly. They also promised an industry roundtable to discuss cannabis-related issues.
So far, Schumer’s stance has been that marijuana legalization with social equity components should be approved before the marijuana banking bill.
By Bonno 13-06-2022
The Senate has been under pressure from all sides recently to pass the SAFE Banking Act that would “help cannabis-related businesses, support innovation, create jobs, and strengthen public safety in our communities.”
Just recently, about a quarter of voting members of the House of Representatives urged congressional leaders to enact marijuana banking provisions into law as part of the large-scale manufacturing bill — America COMPETES Act.
On the other hand, Senate Majority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) reaffirmed the filing postponement of a comprehensive marijuana bill to end prohibition, the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act (CAOA), from April to sometime before the August recess. So far, his stance has been that marijuana legalization with social equity components should be approved before the marijuana banking bill.
However, it seems that sentiment might be shifting. Schumer met earlier this week with GOP House Rep. Dave Joyce (R-OH) to discuss possible bipartisan cannabis reform steps that can be taken ahead of the finalization of a comprehensive legalization bill, reported Marijuana Moment.
A preliminary conversation took place at an International Cannabis Bar Association conference on Thursday, as first tweeted by Politico’s Natalie Fertig.
Among other cannabis reform proposals, Schumer and Joyce discussed combining two already existing bipartisan bills — the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act, from Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO), and the Harnessing Opportunities by Pursuing Expungement (HOPE) Act. The HOPE Act, sponsored by Joyce and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), would help states expunge criminal records for people with convictions for non-violent cannabis offenses by setting up a State Expungement Opportunity Grant Program.
“The conversation between Leader Schumer and Congressman Joyce was part of an ongoing, broader discussion between both parties and chambers to determine what reform can pass this Congress,” a Joyce senior staffer told Marijuana Moment. “It is evidence of the sincere efforts by both the leader and the congressman to find common ground for substantial, bipartisan progress on this issue. The congressman remains hopeful that an agreement can be made and progress can be achieved.”
Is There A Compromise On The Horizon?
While Joyce’s office stressed that there’s no deal on the table yet, Cantor Fitzgerald’s Pablo Zuanic said the meeting signals that Schumer “may be open to a reasonable and realistic compromise in passing SAFE…if other social equity policies can be added.”
The analyst also noted that in the scenario where Schumer doesn’t introduce his own comprehensive legalization bill before the recess, he “may be amenable to some form of compromise.”
Zuanic said that the move should stimulate multi-state operators (MSO) in the U.S. “Given where US cannabis stocks are trading (two-year lows), from a purely trading perspective this should spur the group,” he said. “We remain buyers of key US MSOs with the caveat that even if nothing happens this year, they should still be attractive long-term investments.”
So far, the SAFE Banking Act has managed to pass the U.S. House six times in the last three years.
I,d wait for 10 cents if i where you.
Canada's import ban on commercial medical cannabis is listed as a "trade concern" by the World Trade Organization
I've heard ???? effectively stonewalls prospective importers, who are upset that ???? exports but doesn't allow commercial imports #cdnpoli
Countries like Colombia and Jamaica would like to export medical cannabis for sale in Canada, but Ottawa has blocked them — so far
For me it's also a question of equity. I'm seeing developed countries like Canada & UK bully smaller nations over cannabis policy.
UK is one of world's top cannabis exporters, but it won't even allow its overseas territories to legalize & regulate cannabis cultivation & sale.
UK is bullshiting its OTs, saying its about UN drugs conventions.
OTs not buying it.
BVI speaker: “It is an insult...when 13 elected members pass a bill, then an unelected governor could just refuse to assent to a bill without proper explanation”
UK is effectively forcing its overseas territories to continue the war on drugs. It's a grossly racist 20th century policy.
Canada won't allow commercial imports from countries like Jamaica, Colombia and a host of African nations, but is happy to send its export there.
Don’t we have a bazillion pounds on ice? Seems like importing more is problematic, No? Unless it’s WAAAYYY BETTER.
Correct, 1.3 billion grams on ice as of September, but most of that is unsellable ditch weed.
It's a question of market access. Fine for Canada to block other countries' imports, but then we can't be surprised when they don't allow our medical cannabis into their markets.
Canadian LP,s are producing junk weed.
Great recipe for succes.
ANALYSIS SQDC employees strike because of low wages, poor working conditions
77 employees refuse to wear uniforms, commotion over working conditions leads to protests
ByBonnoPublishedMay 31, 2022
SQDC strike underway since last FridayPhotos via SQDC
Over 300 employees from 22 stores at the largest cannabis retailer in Quebec are demanding better wages and better working conditions after many employees were suspended for wearing casual clothes instead of a uniform.
Since May 20, Société Québécoise du Cannabis (SQDC) employees have called for a strike, but prior to that date many personnel banded together over mutual frustration, including 77 who refused to wear proper uniforms to show discontent with company policies.
The union president and vice-president were among those workers choosing to take a different approach with their company apparel, which ultimately led to themselves and all other employees involved being suspended from work – prompting the company labour protest.
In a statement sent to Mugglehead Magazine, an organization representative stated that “The SQDC fully recognizes the employees’ right to assert pressure tactics during the current negotiations.” They also stated that the retail outlets impacted by the strike would remain open with reduced working hours for the time being. Those 67 stores unaffected will continue to remain open for regular hours.
According to a statement from the Canadian Union of Public Employees, “CUPE members employed by the SQDC are demanding decent working conditions whereas the latter is refusing to pay them salaries and benefits similar to those paid by other comparable Crown corporations, namely the Société des alcools du Québec (SAQ).”
Read more: 91% of SQDC employees under CUPE vote in favour of strike mandate
The CUPE points out in their statement that new hires with the SQDC barely earn $17 per hour. They also wrote that “…most of them have neither a full-time job, nor job security, which places them in an untenably precarious position.”
In February, prior to the current situation, the Local 5454 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) representing staff at 24 SQDC locations said in a meeting that 91 per cent of its members endorsed a proposal seeking pressure tactics that could ultimately cause an unlimited general strike if all other options had been exhausted. Considering the current circumstances, it would appear that those union members were left with no other choice.
Happy just loves the management team.
They are doing very very well making millions.
But crappy G is doomed!!!
Function of ignorance if you ask me... Good weed sells itself.
Gamma radiation kills podery mildew and mold, but bud taste bad.
So... no sales...
Only a matter of time before they pop.
They blew it in Canada with a licence to kill.
But they will fare better in the states.
Yeah right!
Fonction of incompetence!
Visiting France wineries, you,ll have the owner offering drinks and talking about their products. They know wine.
Visiting Canada cannabis LP,s, you are on your own, can,t test the products and the CEO has never touched the stuff... Lol
Ignorance of the products at it,s best!
Bonno
Sunday, November 08, 2020 3:27:18 PM
Re: Street Smart post# 121075
Post#
121080
of 126081
Street, you are parroting Linton’s 2014 sales pitch...
In the real world, cannabis sells itself ONLY IF it is fire and cheap.
Tweed has been at it for 6 years and they have failed on both counts.
Linton sold you scale, and, not knowing any better, you bought it...
Welcome to the jungle.
Canopy is loosing money every single day producing more than they sell.
Why would they do any better in USA?
They have the most money and the biggest safe, but they burned their reputation long ago by producing junk.
Bonno
Friday, December 11, 2020 9:46:58 AM
Re: dorothy52 post# 121439
Post#
121441
of 126081
Brucie was there to make a buck for himself.
That is it, that is all.
He knew there was plenty of suckers who are cannabis market naive.
46 million a year Klein is no different.
Bonno
Sunday, August 16, 2015 12:06:59 PM
Post#
21526
of 126081
The CEO knows that LP's were designed to fail by HC.
They won't lose a penny, trust me!
That is more than i can say for the shareholders...
They will be left holding empty bags.
Bonno
Sunday, August 16, 2015 12:06:59 PM
Post#
21526
of 126081
The CEO knows that LP's were designed to fail by HC.
They won't lose a penny, trust me!
That is more than i can say for shareholders...
They will be left holding an empty bag.
Bonno
Monday, April 27, 2015 10:22:00 AM
Re: rookanignit post# 17500
Post#
17501
of 126081
I'm sure Tweed's board has Tweed's investors at heart.
There's no better investors than a well researched investors.
Cheap, affordable medical cannabis from the poor countries is about to flood the market .
They have been producing quality product for many generations.
Full UV Sun rays for them big trichomes.
Investing in a doomed project is not what the doctor ordered!
LP'S have way too much non-needed investment tied-in to compete.
Bonno
Thursday, April 09, 2015 2:02:20 PM
Re: awesomesound post# 16946
Post#
16948
of 126081
LP,s are doomed.
Bonno Thursday, April 09, 2015 8:59:29 PM
Re: Escabar post# 16980
Post#
16982
of 126081
Raise all the money you want...
You have no market.
Selling twiggs and ripping sick folks on weight will not do lps any good.
The word is that Tweed is bogus!
And the word travel fast...
Who,s your daddy?
Bonno
Saturday, April 04, 2015 5:34:41 AM
Re: Escabar post# 16651
Post#
16660
of 126079
LP's are doomed right from the start...
They don't need my help.
Anything HC puts together is jive and meant not to work.
Bonno
Saturday, April 04, 2015 5:34:41 AM
Re: Escabar post# 16651
Post#
16660
of 126079
LP's are doomed right from the start...
They don't need my help.
Anything HC puts together is jive and meant not to work.
Linton did not know the culture but he knew how to attract suckers.
Hype can only last so long when you don,t know how to grow quality weed.
Doomed from the start.
Ponzi would be proud!
That is the way to go! Thanks Ryan.