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’ll take a hard look at the 10Q, but the short version is revenue is down and SG&A is up. Not a good combo.
Stirring the pot again I see. Maybe we should see what happens first before you take a victory lap.
Way to go wolfy, I post that the failure with this company has been poor sales, falling sales at that. Can’t support themselves on what they sell. And what do you do, you post the people that are accountable and responsible for just that.
Way to go wolfy. That will show them!
CVSI’s problem is a simple one. They are unable to sell enough of their product to support themselves. If sales were flourishing, they would have no need for dilution, loans, government handouts. No, this is a case of a failed business plan to create sales. You can plug in any reason you want for falling sales year after year, it doesn’t matter the reason, only the end result.
Yes, the 5-year trend was posted. Doesn’t matter, 4,3,2 doesn’t matter. The buy and hold thought process would have almost everybody at a loss.
You mentioned depressed stock, yep, but what you did not mention is why. I’ll help you here, it’s lack of selling their product, less and less qt after qt does not make a good investment.
In a handful of days, they will have the latest qt numbers. No reason to guess, just wait. However, I did see you mentioned awesome number coming. We will now see what awesome to you means. You must be expecting big sale numbers coming. I’m thinking not, we’ll see.
As far as what I’m holding, you have no clue but you can assume since your wrong most of the time that you’re guessing once again is in error.
BTW a 5 year down trend is never a good thing. Holding on hope is not a good investment plan either. IMO
Yes, it certainly was from JD. No challenge on that nor did I make any. You seem confused, pity, perhaps the strain of trying so hard to back this losing stock has taken its toll.
No wolfy, you posted the subject matter of how great Mona was for the company.
From your post ““The company has grown substantially and has flourished under Mr. Mona’s leadership. His presence at the company as well as his work with our suppliers and vendors”
I just added that the 5-year ban is now up and he now can come back. Will he, who knows, frankly I don’t care, but if he was that great and all, what do they have to lose. Currently DEAD IN THE WATER.
Well there you go. Mona can now come back . "a prohibition from serving as an officer or director of a publicly held company for five (5) years, and (b) payment of a penalty in the amount of $50,000"
However if he doesn't want to come back, I would guess then this thing is toast.
LOL. Facts are facts, the picture is for all to see, no amount of BS can change that. Embrace the failure that is.
It’s too bad that the facts get in the way of the constant BS here, but it is what it is!
You are correct. Thomas, aka no clue, and the furry one just try and stir the pot because the company has nothing going for it. DEAD IN THE WATER. I'll post the same on I hub.
LOL. You once again missed the whole point of the post. Think no interest in this one, DEAD STOCK, you can defend and deflect but you can’t change the facts.
2 hr’s in . Already 7 trades today for $104.
Should be roughly 2 weeks till earnings release. Think standard losses and excuses as to why. IMO. Man, what a terrible company!
FYI-Verano Opens MUV(TM) Satellite Beach, Elevating the Company's Retail Footprint to 72 Florida Dispensaries and 135 Locations Nationwide
6:00 am ET October 27, 2023 (Globe Newswire) Print
GlobeNewswireOctober 27, 2023
Located at 106 Florida Highway A1A, MUV Satellite Beach bolsters the Company's retail presence in Brevard County, an area with more than 606,000 residents1
MUV Satellite Beach joins nearby MUV dispensaries in Titusville, Merritt Island and West Melbourne
Verano's active operations span 13 states, comprised of 135 dispensaries and 14 cultivation and processing facilities with more than 1 million square feet of cultivation capacity
CHICAGO, Oct. 27, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Verano Holdings Corp. (NEO: VRNO) (OTCQX: VRNOF) ("Verano" or the "Company"), a leading multi-state cannabis company, today announced the opening of MUV Satellite Beach on Friday, October 27, the Company's 72nd Florida dispensary and 135th location nationwide. MUV Satellite Beach, located on 106 Florida Highway A1A, will be open Monday through Saturday from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. and Sunday from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m., local time.
Situated in Brevard County which counts more than 606,000 residents1, MUV Satellite Beach strengthens Verano's presence along the Atlantic Coast, complementing existing MUV dispensaries in Titusville, Merritt Island and West Melbourne.
"As we further expand our retail footprint across Florida, we're thrilled to open a new MUV dispensary in beautiful Satellite Beach, where we'll offer patients our extensive variety of high quality cannabis products," said Joel Noonan, EVP of the Southern Region. "Like the rest of Florida, Satellite Beach continues to experience population growth over the last decade, and we're excited for MUV to join this thriving community where our talented and compassionate team will proudly serve area patients for years to come."
MUV dispensaries feature online menus for effortless browsing of Verano's extensive, award-winning product selection spanning an array of categories, including Verano Reserve(TM), MUV and Sweet Supply(TM) flower; Encore(TM) edibles; On the Rocks(TM) concentrates and extracts; and Savvy(TM) flower and extracts. MUV also offers one-on-one virtual and in-store consultations at no cost to patients and provides patient-centric concierge services via phone, email, web chat and text to address patient questions and inquiries.
For additional convenience and accessibility, patients can visit muvfl.com or the MUV mobile application - available in the Google Play and Apple App stores - for additional information and to place orders for express in-store pickup.
Product images, logos and b-roll footage are available on the Company Newsroom.
About Verano
Verano Holdings Corp. (NEO: VRNO) (OTCQX: VRNOF), one of the U.S. cannabis industry's leading companies based on historical revenue, geographic scope and brand performance, is a vertically integrated, multi-state operator embracing a mission of saying Yes to plant progress and the bold exploration of cannabis. Verano offers a superior cannabis shopping experience in medical and adult use markets under the Zen Leaf(TM) and MUV(TM) dispensary banners and produces a comprehensive suite of high-quality, regulated cannabis products sold under its diverse portfolio of trusted consumer brands including Verano(TM), MUV(TM), Savvy(TM), BITS(TM), Encore(TM), and Avexia(TM). Verano's active operations span 13 U.S. states, comprised of 14 production facilities with over 1,000,000 square feet of cultivation capacity. Learn more at www.verano.com.
FYI- According to Green Market Report, Las Vegas marijuana shop employees voted in favor of unionizing under the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW). This particular Ayr Wellness Inc (OTCQX:AYRWF) shop, operating under the name The Dispensary, becomes the second of its kind under the Ayr brand to join the UFCW.
Ayr employee Alberto Villalobos said, "We look forward to negotiating a strong union contract that fairly rewards our labor and respects the contributions we make every day toward making the shop successful."
Both the UFCW and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters have been actively engaging with cannabis industry workers across the U.S. Their approach in negotiations with big multistate operators has been notably assertive.
Recent Unionization Efforts
This news follows several other successful unionizing efforts undertaken across the country over the past months in facilities such as Cannabist Company Holdings Inc (OTCQX:CBSTF) in New Jersey, Cresco Labs Stock (OTC:CRLBF) in Illinois, Grassdoor in California, Verano Holdings Corp (OTCQX:VRNOF) in Chicago.
FYI- Lawsuit Seeks Equal Treatment for Cannabis Businesses
1:48 pm ET October 26, 2023 (PR Newswire) Print
Federal criminalization of safe, regulated intrastate cannabis legal in 38 states is unconstitutional—and unfair to small businesses
Cannabis businesses are unconstitutionally prevented from getting small business loans, investments; unable to have normal banking relations; and subject to discriminatory taxes
A coalition of U.S. cannabis operators and investors working in state-legal medical and adult-use cannabis markets today filed a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney GeneralMerrick Garland. The coalition, represented by the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner, seeks to enjoin the federal government from enforcing the Controlled Substances Act in a manner that interferes with the intrastate cultivation, manufacture, possession, and distribution of cannabis, pursuant to state law. The lawsuit asserts that the federal government has no basis for enforcing the Controlled Substances Act against intrastate, state-regulated cannabis operations.
Boies Schiller Flexner and Lesser, Newman, Aleo & Nasser LLP filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Western Division, and will represent plaintiffs Gyasi Sellers (CEO and Founder of Treevit), Canna Provisions, and Wiseacre Farm, all of which are local independent operators in Massachusetts who have suffered significant harm and business challenges due to federal prohibition. Verano Holdings (OTCQX: VRNOF) is also named as a plaintiff, while foundational supporters of the suit include Ascend Wellness Holdings (OTCQX: AAWH), TerrAscend (TSX: TSND) and Green Thumb Industries (OTCQX: GTBIF), as well as Eminence Capital and Poseidon Investment Management.
The lawsuit seeks to confirm the rights of Massachusetts and other states to regulate cannabis within their borders, and to confirm the corresponding limits on the federal government's power to regulate commerce. The federal government's power to regulate commerce is based on the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The law at issue in this suit, the Controlled Substances Act, exceeds that limited authority: it bars the production, distribution, and possession of marijuana, regardless of whether those activities cross state lines or, as in the case of Plaintiffs' cannabis businesses, are intrastate. This unjustified and unconstitutional prohibition on intrastate cannabis harms Plaintiffs and hinders the efforts of states to provide patients and adults with access to strictly-regulated and tested cannabis.
In 2005, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the Controlled Substance Act's cannabis prohibitions, but the facts today compel a different result. A critical factor in that decision, Gonzales v. Raich, was that the federal government intended to "eradicate" the market for cannabis nationwide. The Court concluded that the federal goal of eliminating commerce in cannabis, combined with the assumption in 2005 that intrastate marijuana could not be differentiated from interstate cannabis, justified the Controlled Substances Act's prohibitions on intrastate cannabis. Neither of those facts, however, are true today. In the eighteen years since Gonzales, Congress and the Executive Branch have abandoned any intent to "eradicate" cannabis, and numerous states have developed regulatory programs for legal marijuana that is not fungible with, and is readily distinguished from, illicit cannabis.
Today, 38 states including Washington D.C. have medical or adult-use cannabis programs with significant regulatory oversight. They require compliance with a multitude of stringent regulations aimed to protect patients, customers, and the public at large, including video surveillance and seed-to-sale tracking. The cannabis that is cultivated, processed, and distributed under these regulations is not fungible with, and is readily distinguishable from, illicit interstate cannabis. The regulated cannabis products in these states can be traced back all the way to the original batch of seeds from which they grew.
These changed facts compel a different result than was reached eighteen years ago in Gonzales. Absent the relief sought in this lawsuit, Plaintiffs and other state-regulated cannabis operators will continue to suffer severe harms. State-regulated cannabis businesses are deemed illegal under the CSA; their everyday activities are considered federal crimes. As a result, they are cut off from numerous federal programs and protections (including small business loans), they are subject to discriminatory tax penalties, and many organizations—including banks and credit card processors—refuse to do business with them, rather than risk being deemed conspirators, aiders and abettors, or money launderers.
The result is that many cannabis businesses are suffering, people are losing their jobs and individual wealth is being destroyed. In addition, social equity licensees harmed by the War on Drugs and who were supposed to have equal access to the industry do not have the same benefits as otherwise situated business owners to start a business and build their wealth.
"The federal criminalization of safe, regulated marijuana commerce in states where it is legal unfairly burdens legal operations and expands the production and sale of illegal marijuana that is unregulated, can be unsafe, and is likely to find its way to other states," said David Boies, Chairman, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP. "Federal criminalization also denies small, legal marijuana businesses of access to SBA loans, investors, benefits for their employees, and normal banking regulations (which among other things, forces them to rely on cash transactions with all of the dangers to them, and to the community, that result) - as well as burdening them with discriminatory taxes," said Mr. Boies. "Americans believe that cannabis should be legal and available subject to reasonable regulation by the states. 38 states have legalized some form of cannabis. The federal government lacks authority to prohibit intrastate cannabis commerce. Outdated precedents from decades ago no longer apply - the Supreme Court has since made clear that the federal government lacks the authority to regulate purely intrastate commerce; moreover, the facts on which those precedents are based are no longer true," said Mr. Boies.
"While reforms such as the SAFER Banking Act and rescheduling cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act would improve certain aspects of this broken and antiquated system, they will not solve the fundamental issue. The application of the CSA to lawful state-run cannabis business is an unconstitutional overreach on state sovereignty that has led to decades of harm, failed businesses, lost jobs, and unsafe working conditions," said Darren Weiss, President of Verano. "We are prepared to bring this case all the way to the Supreme Court in order to align federal law with how Congress has acted for years. We believe that the Supreme Court will adhere to the core value on which our country was founded and which is central to guaranteeing freedom: that the federal government's powers are limited."
"We want to be treated equally, on an even playing field with any other small business in Massachusetts," said Meg Sanders, CEO and co-founder of Canna Provisions, an award-winning independent craft cultivation, with two retail dispensaries in Western Massachusetts.
Plaintiffs are represented by David Boies, Jonathan D. Schiller, Matthew L. Schwartz, Joshua I. Schiller, and David Barillari of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and Thomas Lesser and Michael Aleo of Lesser, Newman, Aleo & Nasser LLP.
FYI- Cannabis companies hire Microsoft antitrust lawyer David Boies to sue U.S. government for federal pot prohibition
11:40 am ET October 27, 2023 (MarketWatch)
Print
By Steve Gelsi
A group of cannabis companies said late Thursday they hired law firm Boies Schiller Flexnor to file suit against U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland in U.S. federal court in Massachusetts in an attempt to overturn federal prohibition of cannabis because it restricts state-legal commerce.
The group listed as plaintiffs in the federal suit include Verano Holdings Corp. (VRNOF), Canna Provisions, Wiseacre Farm, and Gyasi Sellers, who is the chief executive of Treevit.
Foundational supporters of the suit include Ascend Wellness Holdings (AAWH), TerrAscend Corp.. (TSNDF), Green Thumb Industries Inc. (GTBIF), Eminence Capital and Poseidon Investment Management.
"Federal criminalization of safe, regulated, intrastate cannabis legal in 38 states is unconstitutional and unfair to small business," according to a statement from the group.
The plaintiffs also said cannabis businesses are "unconstitutionally prevented" from obtaining loans and investments, which makes them unable to maintain normal banking relations. They're also subject to discriminatory taxes.
Boies Schiller Flexnor was the firm that won an antitrust case against Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) on behalf of the U.S. government. The firm also overturned California's same-sex marriage ban.
Jefferies analyst Owen Bennett said he'd take no view on the success of the suit, but added that the legal cannabis landscape is much different than it was when a similar case failed in 2005. At that time, far fewer states allowed medical cannabis and no states permitted adult use of cannabis.
"Circumstances have now materially changed, as even Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in 2021, argued national prohibition may be unconstitutional," Bennett said.
The suit argues that many cannabis businesses are suffering, people are losing their jobs and individual wealth is being destroyed.
Verano President Darren Weiss said the group is prepared to bring the case to the Supreme Court.
The lawsuit marks a third branch of the federal government considering cannabis reforms: Congress, the White House and now the federal courts.
The SAFE(R) Banking legislation to open up the financial system to legal cannabis companies has been winding its way through Congress for a decade, although its fate remains uncertain in the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives.
The Drug Enforcement Administration, is considering a recommendation from the Department of Health and Human Services to re-schedule cannabis to Schedule III from Schedule I. Attorney General Merrick Garland is also working on an update of the Cole memo which instructs federal prosecutors to avoid going after legal cannabis companies.
The AdvisorShares Pure U.S. Cannabis ETF (MSOS) fell 0.6% on Friday. The index is down by 30.8% in 2023 compared to a 21.5% increase by the Nasdaq .
Well, I think you need to help me here. I thought I had this right. What I thought is you talking about this is “The Florida Supreme Court scheduled oral arguments for next month in a case on whether voters will be able to decide on a marijuana legalization initiative on the 2024 ballot. The state attorney general is pushing to block the vote”. This the one that will have it’s court date on Nov 8.
CASE NUMBER SC2023-0682
Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Adult Personal Use of Marijuana
Summary of Argument
The people of Florida retain ultimate political power. They can
amend the Florida Constitution directly through the ballot initiative
process. Art. XI, § 3, Fla. Const. While the Florida Supreme Court,
legislature, and state officials can ensure ballot integrity, they cannot
interfere with the will of the people.
Yet, the Florida Supreme Court sometimes prevents ballot
measures from reaching voters. The Court has struck down citizen
initiatives on grounds not based in the text of the Constitution. It has
invited inappropriate judicial review on the merits of initiatives.
Finally, it has decided cases based on certain objections while
ignoring others. This all comes at great cost to citizens.
The Court must return to constitutional grounds of review
under Article XI, Section 3 and Article XI, Section 5(e) of the Florida
Constitution (as codified by § 101.161(1), Fla. Stat.). It must provide
clear rules to enable citizens to draft valid amendments. Finally, it
must identify every defect in a ballot measure to give citizens an
opportunity to redraft it.
Hello Cabos. Regarding: Jim, you think the immediate future of our investment is in the hands of a Florida Supreme Court that so far, hasn’t given a rats ass on what Floridian’s want .
There are many issues at hand concerning FL and MJ. I believe your talking about Smart & Safe Florida, you have Ron DeSantis and Ashley Moody pushing one way { which is a real problem} and the Supreme Court which will be listening to arguments on Nov 8.
https://acis.flcourts.gov/portal/court/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/case/85dca015-d108-4595-8cdb-d4488890aa88
So, yes in an answer to your question. There will be impact to what they decide. It’s a We the people vs the politicians and their personal views. Need better lobbyists in FL IMO.
Just a reminder here, but a reschedule from 1 to 3 would be helpful it would not change the law. It would still be illegal FED wise.
Should be noted that the HHS has given this matter to the FDA. Both the FDA and DEA are doing their study of this now.
Stages in rescheduling proceedings
Filing of Petition with DEA
Acceptance of Petition by DEA
Initial Review by DEA
Referral to HHS
Scientific and Medical Evaluation by HHS
HHS Report to DEA
Evaluation of Additional Information by DEA
Publication of DEA Decision
(Judicial review by the U.S. Court of Appeals)
(Public Hearing on Disputed Matters of Fact)
Hello gatorman96. Well, that’s a very good question. And, at this current time an unknowable one. But here, lets go just a little deeper. You can have one reasonable person say by 2025 this should be at 20 dollars plus. Another reasonable person could say 2.00. From here either answer could be correct. Why is that? Because we don’t know what is going to happen with many things that still have to be determined.
SAFE banking issue, schedule 1 to 3, when we really need is de-scheduling, what exactly is the DEA going to say, and far more important what is the FDA going to say, along with the policies, procedures, testing, potencies allowable and rules to follow. IMO FDA could make this far more difficult with their approval than what we have now. How big of a tax per oz will there be. And what about the black market, with those testing cost, restrictions, tax being applied, will it push more sales back to the black market? Then there are the state-to-state issues in regards to fed legal. And frankly many more areas to consider.
When all that is known it will be easy to project. But for right now it’s nothing more than guess your best on outcomes and time lines.
I will say from my own point of view I don’t know what will be. And I believe nobody anywhere does.
So, best advice I can say is play it as it comes.
Clearly the MJ space has become more cloudy, more speculative until the House speaker is chosen, but I believe there are far more issues that will need to be resolved before MJ becomes a focus point for the House, for that matter the senate will need 60 votes to pass SAFE of fed legal and at this point I don’t believe they have those votes. We’ll see how it all plays but I think it’s a bad time to rely on coin flips on the whim of the politicians nor the overall lack of clarity on where this is heading.
Well after a slow start, a regroup and today were now up to $2400 in trades today, on fire it is. . . .
No clarity at all. I know this isn’t a political board but this has become a very much a political stock. Nobody has mentioned much in the way of fundamentals on this one, and if you did it would have to done in a poor light. So today we have this “House GOP tanks its own funding bill’ which will very likely mean a shutdown. The question is for how long. They also still need to get that defense bill pasted.
My point is I don’t think when the government reopens the SAFE banking will be a high priority. There was some momentum on this that could have provided clarity to project, but now IMO everything will be viewed in limbo. Regroup would be the best we could hope for unless they open quickly. Anyway just my thoughts.
3rd qt earning release should be out in about 6 weeks. Nothing has happened for me to think they made money in the 3rd qt, especially after that 2.31 loss they showed in the 2nd qt. SAFE and FED legit is still very much the focus point.
Well, there goes some good input, instead of talking about CVSI failures, you know, falling sales, SG&A, losses even with that government welfare check, etc. Easier to talk about other things that have no effect on this one like that Senate bill being voted on WED. I do get it, there is nothing good going on here. But wishing the bill goes nowhere isn’t going to get it done either. I mean the Senate committee doesn’t really care about what fluffy and the puppies say, they are going to vote and likely pass the bill, but CVSI gets nothing out of it. No this seems to be more like stuck in Loserville where investment money goes to die. Yes, the real wolfman jack, had a bit part in a movie 50 years ago, a disc jockey by trade but dies about 28 years ago, don’t think too many under the age of 50 knows who he was. I guess they call that dying out. But CVSI is still going, heck they just awarded themselves 34 million shares to management plus 4 percent y/y for the next 10 years. {read dilution} so we know between that 69 percent SG&A and those 34 million shares per the next 10 years that management has been taken care of. As long as management is happy, everybody is happy, right! Living rent free!!!
Regarding the SAFE banking bill that will be voted on WED. I think this will likely pass and then be forwarded to a later date on the Senate floor for a vote, then the House vote of course.
THIS WILL NOT PROVIDE ANYTHING FOR THIS COMPANY HOWEVER.
The SAFE act is for Marijuana companies which is selling an illegal FED product and has to do so on cash only transactions. Also, banks are reluctant to do business with those type of companies.
CBD companies don’t have those restrictions, they are selling a legal product, can work with any bank already and credit cards are widely used. It will provide nothing for CBD companies as they already have all that.
The big problem with this company is they just can’t sell enough of their product, no banking can help that. They have 69 percent of the money taken in goes to SG&A. Then the cost of the product they make is added and instant losses. Now they, as stated raised the price of those products they sell, but all that did was create less sales, apparently people aren’t willing to pay 1.20 for a 1-dollar product when they can just go elsewhere and get the same thing cheaper, who knew!
But SAFE banking, no, no help there, no the only thing that will help is to SELL MORE PRODUCT, not less and less every qt as they have been. IMO
Well, the SAFE from the committee is certainly going to be a positive step forward, but the trading right now is based on hype, people are joining in but it’s not going to last. How SAFE/ when safe/ gets finalized and how that effects the fundamentals are still a long ways away.
Still need more information, when we have a final on this on the 1 yr. FDIC set up for guidance.
Should be another big bump if/when they get that 280e resolved.
OH, the farm bill is going to change or revise bank regulations and easing limitations for hemp companies. Sure, sure.
And again, what revised bank regulations and easing limitations are you talking about? What revisions EXACTLY.
The 2023 Farm Bill debate continues to evolve in our nation’s capital amidst a lot of political challenges. The farm bill is a massive comprehensive piece of legislation covering everything from farm programs, conservation, rural development, forestry, trade promotion, nutrition, and even ag research and education. Generally, the farm bill comes before Congress every 5 years, with the current (2018) farm bill set to expire on September 30, 2023.
I believe they recently postponed till next year or at the end of this year. Will need congress to pass whatever they come up with. Very little in the farm bill to do with hemp, yes, it’s in there but who know what they will push thru.
But what ever they work out in the farm bill they still need to get the FDA to sign off on their own issue with cbd. But in regards to cbd the FDA has referred this back to the congress for proper classification. ““We have not found adequate evidence to determine how much CBD can be consumed, and for how long, before causing harm,” FDA principal deputy commissioner Janet Woodcock said in a statement. after careful review, the FDA has concluded that a new regulatory pathway for CBD is needed that balances individuals’ desire for access to CBD products with the regulatory oversight needed to manage risks.” The agency said that it would work with Congress to develop a new cross-agency regulatory framework for the substance”
FDA also has been assigned by the HHS to study the effects of sch 1 to sch 3 on MJ. The DEA is also doing their own study, unknown time frame there. Will need congress to be involved as well.
The bottom line is congress is going to be very busy trying to get all of this passed, and there is no way of knowing what will be passed and what will be left off the plate.
Also LOL, with the government likely going to shut down at the end of the week, might just delay a few things.
Well, you should know, the misinformation is yours. First a little untangling of your outdated and false post. The House bill of 2017/19/21 which failed is not the same as the 2023SAFER act of 23 which is going thru the Senate committee for review, why you would take pieces of failed bills from the House and blend them into the Senate version is beyond me, unless of course you don’t know the difference between the House and Senate.
A stream lined outlook of the 2023 SAFER bill. On SEPT 27 the Senate committee will vote on this bill, 9:30am, I think it will pass. From there it goes at some point to a full floor vote in the Senate. Currently they have 42 votes more or less locked in, they need 60 to pass. At this point let’s say they work it out and it passes. It then needs to go to the House for their vote. Providing the House accepts it as is, makes no changes{unlikely} and passes it would then go to the President to sign. If the House does some changes, it goes back to the Senate to work on and repass.
Since we don’t know what changes could occur it is hard to project a time line. Perhaps very late in the year. One of the things that I need more clarity on is whenever it does pass is the updated FDIC wording. “The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) will now have 365 instead of 180 days to create guidance for financial institutions, and will have to conduct a biennial report to understand barriers to accessing deposit accounts. Banking regulators will also be required to create guidance for deposit account access within two years of the bill’s enactment’ I really would like to know what can happen while the FDIC works out the guidance.
Anyway, I said streamlines so, but Wolfy if you could kindly point out the two red areas you mentioned “They include protections for hemp businesses” what are those? And “The bill also provides protections for hemp and hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD) related businesses.” And again, what are they. I have no idea what you’re talking about in this bill.
Below is a quick summary of what is going on with next week’s vote.
Secure And Fair Enforcement Regulation Banking Act or the SAFER Banking Act of 2023.
The text for the SAFE Banking Act that aims to transform banking for the cannabis industry has been amended.
The SAFE Act aims to prevent banking regulators from penalizing banks for providing services to cannabis businesses, prevent proceeds from cannabis-related businesses from being subject to money laundering laws and enable loans and financial services to cannabis businesses.
Key amendments as reported on by the publication include changes to wording that initially prevented regulators from taking action that would discourage banks from working with cannabis-related businesses to instead state that these regulators must have a “valid reason” for preventing such relationships.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) will now have 365 instead of 180 days to create guidance for financial institutions, and will have to conduct a biennial report to understand barriers to accessing deposit accounts. Banking regulators will also be required to create guidance for deposit account access within two years of the bill’s enactment.
The text has also been amended to prevent the denial of “covered” mortgages to those using proceeds from legal cannabis businesses, as opposed to “federally-backed” mortgages as the bill initially read.
Federal regulators will now also be required to submit a report on access to banking in tribal communities.
“It is not clear how next week’s markup will unfold procedurally, in terms of whether members will vote on the new bill that will presumably be formally filed in the coming days or if they will instead move to amend the previously introduced measure with the substitute text.”
The bill is scheduled for mark up on 27 September, 2023, when the bill will be debated with all amendments considered.
“Under the bill, a federal banking regulator may not penalize a depository institution for providing banking services to a state-sanctioned marijuana business. For example, regulators may not terminate or limit the deposit or share insurance of a depository institution solely because the institution provides financial services to a state-sanctioned marijuana business. The bill also prohibits a federal banking regulator from requesting or ordering a depository institution to terminate a customer account unless (1) the regulator has determined that the depository institution is engaging in an unsafe or unsound practice or is violating a law or regulation, and (2) that determination is not based primarily on reputation risk.” The pending markup in the Senate Banking Committee comes more than four months after the body’s members welcomed six witnesses to testify on the SAFE Banking Act in early May. During that hearing, majority member Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., expressed concern over language in Section 10 of the bill: “Requirements for Deposit Account Termination Requests and Orders.”
Specifically, Reed said this section makes it more difficult for federal regulators to raise the alarm about bad actors who pose significant risks to banks without “tipping off” these actors before enforcement measures. From Reed’s perspective, as he said during the May 2023 hearing, Section 10 is too broad beyond the scope of the cannabis industry, “so it could allow permit schemes or all sorts of other interesting activity to go on without an effective response by the regulator.”
The specific language of this section was added to a previous version of the SAFE Banking Act in 2019 (then as Section 13) in an effort to appease Republicans who had concerns over how the legislation would impact lending to borrowers connected to other industries, such as gun manufacturing.
Despite 11 of 23 members on the Senate Banking Committee signed on as co-sponsors for the SAFE Banking Act of 2023—including eight Democrats and three Republicans—differing viewpoints on Section 10 have largely played a role in the delay for the pending markup. But now with indications that a full committee markup could come as soon as next week, the wrangle over Section 10 no longer appears to be a deal-breaker on moving forward.
Should the Senate Banking Committee advance the SAFE Banking Act, it would be a landmark victory for the legislation, which failed to make headway in the Senate under former Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and then under current Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., last Congress. Notably, Schumer showed a lack of interest in the incremental reform effort throughout 2021 and most of 2022 as he sponsored a broader legalization bill, the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act.
The million-dollar question is: If the committee recommends the bill to the Senate for a full vote, will the SAFE Banking Act have enough support to pass as standalone legislation without a filibuster?
As Cannabis Business Times Associate Editor Tony Lange wrote in July, "Federal cannabis banking reform now has public support from nine Republicans in the Senate, enough to avoid a possible filibuster on the floor of the chamber should Democrats come together. This GOP threshold for support comes with Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, adding her name as a co-sponsor July 13 to the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act. Collins also co-sponsored the 2021 SAFE Banking Act."
According to a Sept. 14 article on NBCNews.com, "Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee support the bill and expressed confidence that it would have enough support to pass the Senate when it comes up for a full vote, a step Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., vowed to take as soon as this fall."
But now that the SAFE Banking Act is on the cusp of advancement in the Senate, the House is no longer under Democratic control, like it was when SAFE Banking passed seven times between 2019 and 2022. In 2023, U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., largely controls the reins in the lower chamber this Congress. The Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act of 2023 (S. 1323/H.R. 2891) will be moving forward in the U.S. Senate, according to the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. The committee confirmed Sept. 19 that the SAFE Banking Act is scheduled for in-person markup Sept. 27.
UPDATE: Since that confirmation on the date, the committee has calendared an executive session to consider a revised version of the legislation at 9:30 a.m. Sept. 27.
The scheduled review will be the first Senate action on the bill, which has passed seven times in the U.S. House since 2019, most recently in July 2022 as an amendment to the fiscal year 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The latest version of the bill was introduced April 26 in Congress by a group of bipartisan House and Senate lawmakers, including Sens. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore. and Steve Daines, R-Mont., and Reps. Dave Joyce, R-Ohio, and Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. The bill currently has 42 co-sponsors in the Senate and 72 co-sponsors in the House.
According to a U.S. Senate document, "A markup is a meeting of the committee to debate and consider amendments to a measure under consideration. The markup determines whether the measure pending before a committee will be recommended to the full Senate, and whether it should be amended in any substantive way."
Well, you should know, the misinformation is yours. First a little untangling of your outdated and false post. The House bill of 2017/19/21 which failed is not the same as the 2023SAFER act of 23 which is going thru the Senate committee for review, why you would take pieces of failed bills from the House and blend them into the Senate version is beyond me, unless of course you don’t know the difference between the House and Senate.
A stream lined outlook of the 2023 SAFER bill. On SEPT 27 the Senate committee will vote on this bill, 9:30am, I think it will pass. From there it goes at some point to a full floor vote in the Senate. Currently they have 42 votes more or less locked in, they need 60 to pass. At this point let’s say they work it out and it passes. It then needs to go to the House for their vote. Providing the House accepts it as is, makes no changes{unlikely} and passes it would then go to the President to sign. If the House does some changes, it goes back to the Senate to work on and repass.
Since we don’t know what changes could occur it is hard to project a time line. Perhaps very late in the year. One of the things that I need more clarity on is whenever it does pass is the updated FDIC wording. “The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) will now have 365 instead of 180 days to create guidance for financial institutions, and will have to conduct a biennial report to understand barriers to accessing deposit accounts. Banking regulators will also be required to create guidance for deposit account access within two years of the bill’s enactment’ I really would like to know what can happen while the FDIC works out the guidance.
Anyway, I said streamlines so, but Wolfy if you could kindly point out the two red areas you mentioned “They include protections for hemp businesses” what are those? And “The bill also provides protections for hemp and hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD) related businesses.” And again, what are they. I have no idea what you’re talking about in this bill.
Below is a quick summary of what is going on with next week’s vote.
Secure And Fair Enforcement Regulation Banking Act or the SAFER Banking Act of 2023.
The text for the SAFE Banking Act that aims to transform banking for the cannabis industry has been amended.
The SAFE Act aims to prevent banking regulators from penalizing banks for providing services to cannabis businesses, prevent proceeds from cannabis-related businesses from being subject to money laundering laws and enable loans and financial services to cannabis businesses.
Key amendments as reported on by the publication include changes to wording that initially prevented regulators from taking action that would discourage banks from working with cannabis-related businesses to instead state that these regulators must have a “valid reason” for preventing such relationships.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) will now have 365 instead of 180 days to create guidance for financial institutions, and will have to conduct a biennial report to understand barriers to accessing deposit accounts. Banking regulators will also be required to create guidance for deposit account access within two years of the bill’s enactment.
The text has also been amended to prevent the denial of “covered” mortgages to those using proceeds from legal cannabis businesses, as opposed to “federally-backed” mortgages as the bill initially read.
Federal regulators will now also be required to submit a report on access to banking in tribal communities.
“It is not clear how next week’s markup will unfold procedurally, in terms of whether members will vote on the new bill that will presumably be formally filed in the coming days or if they will instead move to amend the previously introduced measure with the substitute text.”
The bill is scheduled for mark up on 27 September, 2023, when the bill will be debated with all amendments considered.
“Under the bill, a federal banking regulator may not penalize a depository institution for providing banking services to a state-sanctioned marijuana business. For example, regulators may not terminate or limit the deposit or share insurance of a depository institution solely because the institution provides financial services to a state-sanctioned marijuana business. The bill also prohibits a federal banking regulator from requesting or ordering a depository institution to terminate a customer account unless (1) the regulator has determined that the depository institution is engaging in an unsafe or unsound practice or is violating a law or regulation, and (2) that determination is not based primarily on reputation risk.” The pending markup in the Senate Banking Committee comes more than four months after the body’s members welcomed six witnesses to testify on the SAFE Banking Act in early May. During that hearing, majority member Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., expressed concern over language in Section 10 of the bill: “Requirements for Deposit Account Termination Requests and Orders.”
Specifically, Reed said this section makes it more difficult for federal regulators to raise the alarm about bad actors who pose significant risks to banks without “tipping off” these actors before enforcement measures. From Reed’s perspective, as he said during the May 2023 hearing, Section 10 is too broad beyond the scope of the cannabis industry, “so it could allow permit schemes or all sorts of other interesting activity to go on without an effective response by the regulator.”
The specific language of this section was added to a previous version of the SAFE Banking Act in 2019 (then as Section 13) in an effort to appease Republicans who had concerns over how the legislation would impact lending to borrowers connected to other industries, such as gun manufacturing.
Despite 11 of 23 members on the Senate Banking Committee signed on as co-sponsors for the SAFE Banking Act of 2023—including eight Democrats and three Republicans—differing viewpoints on Section 10 have largely played a role in the delay for the pending markup. But now with indications that a full committee markup could come as soon as next week, the wrangle over Section 10 no longer appears to be a deal-breaker on moving forward.
Should the Senate Banking Committee advance the SAFE Banking Act, it would be a landmark victory for the legislation, which failed to make headway in the Senate under former Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and then under current Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., last Congress. Notably, Schumer showed a lack of interest in the incremental reform effort throughout 2021 and most of 2022 as he sponsored a broader legalization bill, the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act.
The million-dollar question is: If the committee recommends the bill to the Senate for a full vote, will the SAFE Banking Act have enough support to pass as standalone legislation without a filibuster?
As Cannabis Business Times Associate Editor Tony Lange wrote in July, "Federal cannabis banking reform now has public support from nine Republicans in the Senate, enough to avoid a possible filibuster on the floor of the chamber should Democrats come together. This GOP threshold for support comes with Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, adding her name as a co-sponsor July 13 to the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act. Collins also co-sponsored the 2021 SAFE Banking Act."
According to a Sept. 14 article on NBCNews.com, "Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee support the bill and expressed confidence that it would have enough support to pass the Senate when it comes up for a full vote, a step Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., vowed to take as soon as this fall."
But now that the SAFE Banking Act is on the cusp of advancement in the Senate, the House is no longer under Democratic control, like it was when SAFE Banking passed seven times between 2019 and 2022. In 2023, U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., largely controls the reins in the lower chamber this Congress. The Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act of 2023 (S. 1323/H.R. 2891) will be moving forward in the U.S. Senate, according to the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. The committee confirmed Sept. 19 that the SAFE Banking Act is scheduled for in-person markup Sept. 27.
UPDATE: Since that confirmation on the date, the committee has calendared an executive session to consider a revised version of the legislation at 9:30 a.m. Sept. 27.
The scheduled review will be the first Senate action on the bill, which has passed seven times in the U.S. House since 2019, most recently in July 2022 as an amendment to the fiscal year 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The latest version of the bill was introduced April 26 in Congress by a group of bipartisan House and Senate lawmakers, including Sens. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore. and Steve Daines, R-Mont., and Reps. Dave Joyce, R-Ohio, and Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. The bill currently has 42 co-sponsors in the Senate and 72 co-sponsors in the House.
According to a U.S. Senate document, "A markup is a meeting of the committee to debate and consider amendments to a measure under consideration. The markup determines whether the measure pending before a committee will be recommended to the full Senate, and whether it should be amended in any substantive way."
I should have mentioned all your projections have been wrong since you started posting here as well. This company is not what you think it is and they have done nothing but hurt the shareholders here for their own benefit. I sure hope you don’t have any stock with this one.
Still don’t know who John Smith is, but since you addressed to me you should know you have zero credibility with me especially after that leaked post you did to pump the stock. Of all your posts have very little to do with this stock, more of reaching out to other sectors, companies and their news that you try and align with this one in a poor attempt to shine this one in a better light. Pathetic IMO. Please don’t address me as there is nothing I need to here from you. TIA
Still trying to figure out why this is above 0.04.
IMO, you can disregard the entire write up as what is written is all about getting on the old political soapbox. It might make people in their home states happy and get them a few more votes but that’s about it. If you reread it again you should see what I mean.
No, that is incorrect. CVSI, a cbd company already enjoys all benefits. They are not selling MJ, just cbd which is already legal.
Also, SAFE banking will not affect federal taxes for the MJ companies. That would be under 280e and would require sch 1 to scd 3. Currently not approved. The HHS has referred to the FDA for study, DEA is also doing their own study, from there it needs to go to the senate to pass, then the house to pass and then be signed off by the President.
However, again none of that will help CBD companies as they are already legal and again enjoy all those financial benefits already.
That will come into play if they make it to the floor vote I would think.