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.
I am awaiting WW to unveil the "Shareholder to Chemist Program" under which common shareholders would be given incentives to go to 24/7 grad school to become SGBY chemists by next year. /s
In all seriousness, I agree with Mary that the 10q will probably be released after close.
I also agree with those who are skeptical that WW will launch a bunch of labs in 18 months. But these are known unknowns. We know that WW has more information about the company's plans than we have. And all indications are that the man cares about his credibility.
It's the unknown unknowns that are tough to planfor.
But I am all for SGBY at this point.
Mags sometimes does repeat himself, but this is not one of those cases.
I was surprised to hear the CEO say it about 18 labs on May 7. I thought it was great news. It made me buy.
I think the answer to your questions lies in figuring out the in's and out's of METRC or maybe some Oregon Administrative Rules.
https://www.metrc.com/
http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_800/oar_845/845_025.html
845-025-5045
Laboratory Tracking and Reporting
(1) A laboratory licensee is required to utilize CTS for sampling or testing conducted for licensees and research certificate holders and follow all requirements established by OAR 845-025-7500 to 845-025-7590.
(2) A laboratory licensee conducting sampling or testing for licensees is responsible for tracking and entering the following information into CTS:
(a) Receipt of samples for testing, including:
(A) Size of the sample;
(B) Name of licensee or research certificate holder from whom the sample was obtained;
(C) Date the sample was collected; and
(D) UID tag information associated with the harvest or process lot from which the sample was obtained.
(b) Tests performed on samples, including:
(A) Date testing was performed;
(B) What samples were tested for;
(C) Name of laboratory responsible for testing; and
(D) Results of all testing performed.
(c) Disposition of any testing sample material.
(3) A laboratory must also comply with any recordkeeping requirements in OAR 333-007-0300 to 333-007-0490 and OAR 333, Division 64.
845-025-5720
Labeling, Storage, and Security of Pre-Tested Marijuana Items
(1) Following samples being taken from a harvest or process lot batch a licensee must:
(a) Label the batch with the following information:
(A) The licensee’s license number;
(B) The harvest or process lot unique identification number;
(C) The name and accreditation number of the laboratory that took samples and the name and accreditation number of the laboratory that will perform the testing, if different;
(D) The test batch or sample unique identification numbers supplied by the laboratory personnel;
(E) The date the samples were taken; and
(F) In bold, capital letters, no smaller than 12 point font, “PRODUCT NOT TESTED.”
(b) Store and secure the batch in a manner that prevents the product from being tampered with or transferred or sold prior to test results being reported.
(c) Be able to easily locate a batch stored and secured under section (1)(b) of this rule and provide that location to the Commission or a laboratory upon request.
"Any thoughts on what the revenue needs to be to maintain .02 a share ?"
I think same revenues plus a rejection of Oregon's proposed regulations would do it.
The combination of higher revenues, plus a rejection of the proposed Oregon rules, plus adoption of the proposed CA rules, plus more labs... that would be amazing.
I bought back most of what I sold on 4/20 and am very excited at how things look now.
The stars are aligning.
I wrote "temporary rules" but I meant to say "proposed rules." Sorry all.
This is a great start in stomping out these rules. We should find out early June whether the OHA adopts all or part of the temporary rules. Thank you to all the 3900 people who wrote to OHA to help support the SGBY mission.
The sticky part in all of this is that OHA is required to consider the ultimate cost to the consumer when adopting regulations and are required use the least restrictive means necessary to protect public health. The people have spoken, but the people through public comment-- in theory--- aren't supposed to be able to overrule the legislature.
Hopefully, OHA can figure out how to listen to both people and the legislature.
Soon, it is likely that the name of the lab that tested the product won't be on the package.
"The bill would also remove testing from the labeling requirements on recreational products, no longer allowing consumers to know what lab has tested their product. "
https://www.orpublichealth.com/
Above, the lobbyist that is partly funded by some Oregon labs opposes it.
The bill, which has been passed by the senate and is now awaiting vote in the house:
http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2017/SB1057/
But any day now, the proposed regulations could be adopted, which were introduced to shorten backlogs and lower consumer costs.
Released today: Oregon sales are steady
Month/state sales tax revenue/local tax revenue
Feb 2017* $4,509,163 $682,601
Mar 2017 $4,476,032 $705,927
Apr 2017 $4,484,514 $685,289
https://www.oregon.gov/DOR/programs/gov-research/Pages/research-marijuana.aspx
State sales tax on MJ = 17%
To find total rec sales for April:
17/100 = 4,484,514/x
17x/100 = 4,484,514
17x = 448451400
x = 448451400/17
x= $26,379,494 total dollar value of taxable marijuana product sold in April 2017.
Nice catch Mags.... Unfortunately between today and yesterday, one new entity applied for a lab license. The applications number was at 26 yesterday and now it's at 27.
http://www.oregon.gov/olcc/marijuana/Documents/mj_app_stats_by_county.pdf
Oregon has passed the threshold of having issued 2,500 marijuana-related licenses.
http://www.oregon.gov/olcc/marijuana/Documents/mj_app_stats_by_county.pdf
I thought the big sell today was related to new Oregon regulations, but I could't find anything new. We are still waiting.
I took away my buy at .016 order yesterday and lowered it to below where today went. .... Mistakes are tough. Would've should've.
What happened today?.... Did someone try to sell a bunch at market price but there weren't that many buy orders to take the shares so it plummeted?
I like the sound of being on track for 18 labs. I can't see it, but it's nice to hear.
I can't believe you're getting criticized for buying. There's some crazies around here. Enjoy your purchase.
Informative article about testing, with discussion of an Oregon lab:
https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/how-cannabis-testing-works/
A lot of the risk of the changes in regulations in Oregon is certainly priced in by now. Even though the proposal came out in March, I don't think the market reacted to the proposals until after the 10Q came out.
And the California regulations being proposed just a few days ago (ten pound batches w/ 100% testing?) look like they would provide for a robust testing market. But the stock price did not react to that.
I think a lot of people on this board are bored of the stock and don't really feel like they know their company's vision. But if people bought at 0.0235 two and a half weeks ago, why won't the same people also buy at 0.0182?
Nah, I'm not one of the big boys. I bought at 0.0183.
falling enough to induce me to buy back the shares I sold at 0.0248. Why is it down 8% today?
"The testing sector will be booming. More regulations coming. SGBY is set up for mega growth! "
Are you referring to something specific or are you pumping? We'll find out soon about the proposed Oregon regulations, which the PAC supported by some Oregon labs has been fighting.
What do you think about OPMZ's big dive?
I believe that SGBY did not know how much to invest in California until regulations were released, which happened last week.
If the Oregon regulations get eased, like is being proposed with the public comment period ending yesterday, it will be bad for the company.
If the regulations change, it may make sense to close down shop in two of the Oregon labs and move that equipment to California. How much more is the marijuana market in Oregon going to grow, really? We're seeing more producers and more stores, but sales aren't growing proportionally. They're down, slightly most recently. There should be four more labs in Oregon coming on in the next few months, based on state application data, and there's a bill proposed that would make it easier to be a lab testing Oregon marijuana.
A crop supply glut is actually good for labs in the short term, but in the long run, production will decrease to match demand and that will cause testing demand to decrease.
Our management team is stuck being unable to effectively plan right now in Oregon, until regulations get sorted out, while now they can start making revenue forecasts for California. Right now 33% of marijuana batches are being tested. That number could drop to a 20% minimum, (a reduction of 39% in batch testing? (33%-20%= 13%; 13/33= 39%). And concentrates testing could go down to one random test per year, if I understand that correctly, which I disclose I might not.
It is unfortunate that there are no real population centers within easy driving distance between Oregon and California. In N Out burger only recently got the logistics down to expand north into Southern Oregon.
There are investors who will likely buy or sell SGBY depending on Oregon's regulatory decisions (myself included). SGBY has been unable to plan most effectively because they are in an environment were one state agency can greatly increase or reduce revenues.
I thought that the financials showed that were not $10k per day in revenue, but I forgot about the accounts receivable. I think that's still under $10,000 though.
It's time to take down the sticky from December about bringing in $10,000 per day, IMO
But why did he specifically mention the Colorado Attorney General?
He gave three reasons for the move. #2 was marijuana. #1 was the Colorado Attorney general being friendly to business opportunities.
Listen to the interview. He gives three reasons for the move: 1. Colorado attorney general is very open to business opportunities; 2. marijuana; 3. revenue
Why would he list these as three reasons if it's just one? The attorney general? This did not sound right. It sounded like fluff.
That thing he said about moving to CO because the attorney general is good for business.... what the heck is he saying? It did not make sense to me.
http://bmcr.ca.gov/laws_regs/mcrsa_ptor.pdf
https://www.newcannabisventures.com/breaking-california-issues-proposed-medical-cannabis-licensing-regulations/
Edit: the other guy beat me to it, Sorry for the repetition.
This prediction wasn't far off.
I picked up some at 0.0195 today after selling 3/4 of my position on 4/20.
In my experience stores usually have a price for medical and a price for recreational. But now I am seeing more and more of one price on the menu, but they'll add on the tax at the time of the sale.
The prices have always just been based on the tax difference. I have not seen prices differences due to testing disparities.
No sales taxes on medical in Oregon.
The recreational MJ state sales tax was 25% last year, in 2016.
In 2017, the state tax is 17% and local government can put 3% on top of that with voter approval.
Article from yesterday: http://marijuanapolitics.com/ombc-cover-marijuana-testing-deadline-approaches/
Seriously folks:
"And no matter where you stand on the issue, make your voices heard by emailing the Oregon Health Authority regarding its proposed testing regulations at publichealth.rules@state.or.us."
My prediction is that tomorrow we will see below 0.02 for a bit and then close at 0.0201, and that for the next week we'll fluctuate between 0.019 and 0.021, and we'll take a dip if the testing requirements get scaled back or we'll get a bump if they don't. I don't think we'll jump 25% on old news... just, IMO.
I think it means that labs that are already USDA certified wouldn't have to go through the Oregon accreditation process.
That's already the law, and only the BOLD language is the proposed change in the law.
I don't really understand its full significance. I think it ultimately allows more labs to compete in the industry. Labs could be certified by the USDA instead of accredited by the state.
The bold part is proposed being added:
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB875/Introduced
Maybe this allows labs that do testing on crops to do testing on marijuana.
I wrote my state senator and asked him what he thought was going to happen about marijuana testing in Oregon, specifically SB875 and the proposed rules, and he wrote back and said that it will be a couple of weeks before they know everything. Vague, but I think he is just waiting for the rulemakers to do their thing next week.
After the rulemakers do their thing, the legislatures Joint Committee on Marijuana Regulation have a few bills that they could send to the floor that could affect the bottom line.
I had thought HB875 was dead, but I changed my conclusion based on further reading that bills assigned to joint committees don't have to have to be passed by one of the chambers yet. https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Committees/JMR/AssignedMeasures
The tax data that concerns me is all from this year, when the tax rate was uniform. They took in less money in March than they did in February. It went against my expectations. I thought since more stores were open, and with the tax rate the same, and since March has more days than February, then March tax receipts would be higher.
https://www.oregon.gov/DOR/programs/gov-research/Pages/research-marijuana.aspx
I appreciate the correction about my mistaken timeline about when 100% went to 33%.
We should find out the status of the proposed rule changes next week.
I agree that Q2 is very important. These rule changes, if implemented, would be reflected in Q4.
I have concerns about the March tax data, which I have discussed here.
If the rules pass, IMO there will be a rush to sell. If a press release comes out saying there are 5 news labs in CA, it's off to the races or maybe the moon.
GLTA
I also think we are entering a downward cycle, unless some sort game-changing news is released. CEO's of publicly traded corporations have to report to shareholders and are generally optimistic about their company.
I think WW is a great CEO, but at the end of the day he is the head of a publicly traded company.
With these proposed regulations, I think more insightful are the statements from leaders of Oregon marijuana lab companies who don't have to report to shareholders.
https://www.dailyemerald.com/2017/04/20/green-rush-industry-brink/
"Rowshan Reordan, a managing partner at Green Leaf Labs, a testing lab based in Portland, says the initial testing rules created by the state, especially those regarding pesticides, helped brand Oregon as a “clean cannabis” state. But she expressed dismay at OHA’s new set of requirements, which she says makes it more difficult to protect the longevity of the marijuana industry.
“I think Oregon had taken the great position of ensuring that there were these pesticide standards,” Reordan said during a phone interview. “And now the state is looking at rolling that back. And it’s disappointing.”"
If you support rigorous pesticide testing in Oregon or if you think it might protect your investment, you can fill out this form on the political action committee's page so that your voice is heard by the Oregon regulators:
https://www.orpublichealth.com/
Isn't supermarket produce tested?
I heard one Oregon state senator say he wanted marijuana to eventually be tested for pesticides just like any other crop, and that a lot of the test failures now are due to poor grower education and that lots of growers are using chemicals that they don't really need to be using, but that should change as growers gain knowledge and experience.