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.
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.
I think that’s a fair post. A lot of moving parts in all that. I think the thing to remember is this is not a growth company any longer, nor a value play, not with losing 2.31 per share in earnings last qt. No, this is all about the politics and government and what they will do, or not do. It’s very much a political play and that is where my clarity is clouded.
Well, it’s true, there is a little more to it however. There is a senate committee that will be holding a vote on safe banking next week. If it passes that vote it will then move to the Senate for a full floor vote. If it passes that vote it will then move to the House for their vote. If it passes that it will go to the President to sign off.
Well, in regards to “Is there an event on the near horizon that will give more clarity to the issue of marijuana”
Near term it would be full passage of safe banking. That may happen later this year if all goes well. All other events are most likely to happen in 2024 or 2025. Kim from a interview seems to think 2025 for fed legit.
And you are welcome.
Now we have a little more color, from today. - Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) reaffirmed his commitment to expeditiously advancing a revised marijuana banking bill.
Some of the highlights.
{My Note the 1 year for the FDIC to develop guidance seems like a little too padded. }
“This bill will take cannabis banking out of the shadows and give access to the banking system to thousands of small businesses. With the addition of HOPE, it will take a needed step toward restorative justice,” the senator added “For too long, our laws involving marijuana have undermined the ability for small businesses and entrepreneurs from all backgrounds to succeed on a more level playing field with the wealthy and highly capitalized corporations. And for too long, the prohibition on marijuana has disproportionately targeted low-income, minority, and disadvantaged communities. Finally, we have a bill that is moving us in the right direction and making meaningful strides toward justice.”
The newly released bill reveals the types of compromises senators made over recent weeks. Most of the new provisions are described under Section 10—a component of the reform that Republicans have strongly favored and certain Democrats opposed over concerns it could undermine broader banking regulations.
Here are some of the key changes from the previous Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act:
In Section 7, the SAFER Banking Act omits earlier language preventing federal regulators from taking action that “discourages” financial institutions from working with state-legal marijuana businesses.
However, Section 10 of the bill now spells out how regulators must broadly have a “valid” reason for requesting or requiring the termination of bank accounts for any business.
It was revised to give the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) one year, rather than 180 days, to develop guidance for financial institutions serving state-licensed marijuana businesses.
The original bill said that income derived from state-legal cannabis business activity couldn’t be used to deny “federally backed mortgages.” That’s been revised to say that standard applies to a “covered” mortgage. A new example of such a covered mortgage is one that’s “acquired or purchased by a Federal Home Loan Bank or pledged as collateral for an advance from a Federal Home Loan Bank.”
Section 10 has been expanded, for example to include a “sense of Congress” language stipulating that the personal and political beliefs of financial regulators should not influence their decision making.
The legislation would newly require federal banking regulators to work with state banking supervisors and the secretaries of commerce and treasury and, within two years of enactment, form rules or guidance to increase access to deposit accounts for businesses and customers and to enable banks and credit unions to more effectively maintain customer relationships—especially for those in rural, low-and moderate-income areas, Tribal communities and unbanked businesses and consumers.
There’s a new requirement for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to conduct a biennial survey and report to identify barriers to accessing deposit accounts for small-and medium-sized businesses.
Further, the bill has been revised to include explicit mention of tribal communities in Section 11, which requires federal regulators to submit a report to Congress on access to banking for historically underbanked communities. Tribes are now listed beside minorities, veterans, women and small state-sanctioned cannabis businesses as subjects of that report—which is not the case in the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act as introduced.
I’ll tell you, after reading what’s being said out on the web/internet, I’d be amazed if 1 in 10 really know what’s going on. There is a lot, and I mean a lot of misinformed, followed by misinformation, pumping, hype and just plain BS that seems to have taken control.
It started a few weeks back with the request of the HHS to Schedule I to Schedule III. In order to reschedule, HHS must evaluate the drug through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and report findings to the Attorney General based on scientific and medical considerations. The DEA will also do its own research as well. If and when those two align marijuana moves to Schedule III, Internal Revenue Code 280E (IRC 280E) would no longer apply to marijuana businesses. {note read better tax break}.
But let’s go there right now. If its goods sch 3, you will still need s prescription for use. It will still be illegal “In other words, approving a pill containing marijuana derivatives does nothing to change the legality of edibles or joints. State-legal marijuana programs will still exist, but rescheduling will not make them legal”
Currently 38 states, or there abouts allow MJ in some from, but only 23 states allow it out right.
The positives - The industry’s hated 280E tax will eventually go away. That will boost margins and make cannabis companies instantly more profitable.
It’s likely it’ll be replaced by an excise tax, as the federal government won’t want to leave all that money on the table.
And that’s fine but what we need and what the President has said is we need all that to be DE scheduled.
Grab a snickers on that.
SAFE. Yes, the committee will be having a vote next week, no, the votes isn’t to pass SAFE, what it does is if passed by committee they will then bring it to the senate floor for a vote, currently they are 18 votes short of passing, but that can change if they get to the vote, from there, if passed it goes the House, if passed there it goes to the President.
Nothing above makes it legal, fed wise, and when it does become fed legal it still may be illegal in whatever state you’re in, it will not change state laws.
Also, of note when it does become fed legal, I fully expect the Canada large weed companies to flood over the border has they have stated for several years now they will do, and take a lot of lunch money away from the smaller base, and they will either cherry pick locations, or perhaps do some buy outs along the way.
And finally, this will not in any way slow down the black market which, depending on what numbers you use, control 40 to 60 percent of the MJ trade. In fact, it will help them.
Everybody looks for their own insight into all this, mine is how far and how long will congress take, and what will the FDA do with policy and procedures and for that matter rules that all will follow.
As I said a lot of misinformation out there, the best one so far is after the committee vote if passed, will allow all MJ companies to up list right away.
Amazing to me, it pays to do a little DD to resolve this talk, so you truly know what your are investing in. IMO
So were all on the same page of what it is, and for that matter what it isn't . Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act of 2023 or the SAFE Banking Act of 2023
This bill provides protections for federally regulated financial institutions that serve state-sanctioned marijuana businesses. Currently, many financial institutions do not provide services to state-sanctioned marijuana businesses due to the federal classification of marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance.
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.
Additionally, proceeds from a transaction involving activities of a state-sanctioned marijuana business are no longer considered proceeds from unlawful activity. (Financial institutions that handle proceeds from unlawful activity are subject to anti-money laundering laws. Violators of these laws are subject to fines and imprisonment.)
Furthermore, a financial institution, insurer, or federal agency may not be held liable or subject to asset forfeiture under federal law for providing a loan, mortgage, or other financial service to a state-sanctioned marijuana business.
Well, I do think they are inching forward with this. The committee markup meeting has got a firm date, give them a time to hash everything out so to speak. That will be the first step. Frankly I thought this should have passed last year. You know, stock market investing is pretty straight forward, the rules and guidelines are there for all to see/use to make reasonable decisions on how to invest. But when politics is involved to create the pathways needed, it IMO, becomes unpredictable, open ended, with especially the whims of what is decided and the time frames that can’t be counted on. We’ll get SAFE thru at some point, that will be the easy one to get thru, but I feel were still a ways away from a true open field run.
In regards to the House or the Pres sign off, I think those will align in a reasonable time frame. Anyway, were all going to find out.
I should have mentioned the 60 is needed for the senate vote, what they are doing now is to get it to that vote.
“The Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee is expected to hold a markup session for the bill, known as the SAFE Banking Act, the week of Sept. 25, three sources familiar with the talks said. The markup process, which allows senators to debate and consider amendments, is viewed as a key step in advancing the bill to the Senate floor”
If it gets passed the committee that vote in the senate may very well happen later this year. Or very early next year.
It appears they are making progress. Currently they have 42 on board, only need 60 to pass. Still waiting to see that clarity I need. If it fails while still this high on the overbought, the drop could very well be breath taking. Best to have those ducks in a row, if not it will be a while before they have another crack at it. IMO
Interesting. -- Attorneys for the Drug Enforcement Administration filed a federal court brief defending the agency’s decision to fire an “outstanding” special agent who tested positive for THC after using what he believed was a legal CBD product as an opioid alternative.
Well, as I said, I don’t have the clarity I need. Perhaps you do. You mentioned safe and fed legal to be voted on very soon. That’s part of the clarity I’m missing. Safe I believe will happen far sooner than fed legal. But as far as when/ and passing, no , I have no vison, especially on fed legal. I’ll wait for that vison.
Thanks for the reply. Always interested in another’s thought process. But alas, I did sell out today. Up almost 100 percent up on this one, over 200 percent on 2 others, my worst I think was 80 some percent. Doesn’t matter, I don’t have the clarity for this type of further move. When I sold this one today the rsi was at 77.17. Volume was dropping day over day. I do understand the reasoning for the move from last week/ schedule 1 to 3 request. But that in itself will not change the fundamentals for this company. From the release it shows “The ball is now in the DEA’s court, since the top narcotics enforcement agency in the nation must now conduct its own internal review and then make a recommendation to Attorney General Merrick Garland” that’s fine but this is not going to happen overnight, nor IMO anytime soon, as they go on to say from the release “While there’s no set timeline for any of the review process or deadline for when it may be finished, industry experts have been speculating for months now that the Biden administration will likely push to have a resolution before the 2024 election”
The whole thing about this is it is not de-scheduling which really needs to happen. Still going to be illegal on the federal level. I do see your post which you state “Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown (D-OH) said a marijuana banking bill is among his “priorities” that he wants to advance “in the next six weeks” He is still pumping it, he did get it included as a add on a couple times now, but never made it to the vote, I do not think it’s a guarantee it will be resolved, but I guess sooner or later it should pass, helpful when done, but the big hit will be when the congress votes and passes fed/legal/ legit. There certainly be some interaction with the FDA at that point, policy/procedure/rules/ guidelines and so on, and there will be a special {they seem to be locked into 10 percent range to start} but, we’ll have to see what the finally wording is. In any event I still have over 25 other stock that needs to be paid attention to and I think most of the fluff has been taken on this sector, at least for now. If not, I’ll have to rejoin later. IMO
We will, why?
What ! From your post "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice"
No, was not referring to you, but another trying to tie it to this company. Fully agree on has zero impact to the cbd sector.
Well son of a, yep I would say were on a roll! I worry a little on the rsi, but it's still a good run.
I see a poster put out a link without understanding what they posted. “Cannabis businesses could recoup millions on exit, thanks to ‘280E asset’
While that is true it has nothing to do with this company or CBD. No help coming from that for cbd sector.
DEAD IN THE WATER STOCK, NO HOPE NO PRAYERS, SORRY
I should have said the same stuff they have been unable to sell in any kind of volume for a couple of years
Same stuff they have been selling for the last couple of years, nothing new.
That is correct, he's dead and buried 13 years ago. I think the question is why is he still be used by you under the alias to reinforce your statements? WOLFMAN says followed by Dr Fang says.
Should also be noted DR Fang had nothing to do with stock investing. Strange choice. I can see Charles Dow says if your just trying to create a reinforcement to a point your trying to make , even then it wouldn’t make any sense, so.
Please explain yourself.