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.
Explains the deep sleep benefit. Thanks for posting.
I take CW pills and oils. Both do wonders for my insomnia. I don't necessarily sleep longer, but my sleep is deeper and I feel more rested.
Roth Conference starts Monday. Might get some nibbles next week pushing this bad boy higher.
Have a good weekend, all.
Heading towards $17. Shorts covering.
Good find, S_T. Certainly not what CVSI needs considering its past...
And...there it is. $16. Time for Shorty McShortingtons to pay their bar tabs.
Those of us with young, hyper children took you seriously and liked that idea. A lot.
11. It isn't alcohol.
HA!
My sentiments exactly when I read that (after missing it the first time). I'd like to see that email, as would the SEC.
It's a message board. Of course there is speculation. You read what's going on with a stock, an industry, the market, government, etc. and you try to interpret how that might positively or negatively help or hurt your investment. What you've done is gone the opposite, bearish direction and interpreted no news as bad news..which is perfectly fine! "And the reason for this is because the company has not given us any leads from which to make an educated decision on this investment. I hold this as a negative and a red flag to date." A completely rational conclusion.
But don't fool yourself that your approach is any more grounded. You're reading the lack of PR in your view as a red flag. You've made a conclusion. My conclusion is: the data we have on CW is positive IMO. The lack of PR is not a negative at this stage. But, again, that's just how I'm reading it. If something empirical comes my way to the downside, then I hope I am sober enough to adjust my investing decision on CW accordingly. GL
Thank you, DY. My laziness knows no boundaries on a Saturday morning.
Good post.
Also, it should be noted that silence, itself, is a PR move. CW provided earnings guidance and published its initiatives. If it executes, then CW can leverage that performance in future PR.
I've disagreed with you before on this subject. I don't think your concerns are immaterial. Rather, I take issue with the timing of the concerns. You do note that you are giving it a year. I think that's wise.
Does anyone have information on the specifics of the compensation package for the COO and CGO? If these folks, along with the new CEO hire, have a significant portion of their compensation wrapped-up in options, then I think we can be optimistic on promotion.
Also, I note the following: PR companies are so hit and miss. I tend to be on the conservative side of things with PR firms because some are talentless but fetch a high fee. If you meet someone who has worked in management at a publicly traded company, they will likely tell you horror stories of paying big sums of money after getting wined-and-dined, but little to show for it. There might be some in CW's management team might that have similar experiences so they place a low priority on PR at this stage. Just a hunch.
Some people argue to educate and persuade.
Some people argue to win, and utilize misdirection. That misdirection is effective with subtle changes of position, facts, and emphasis.
The two groups are separated by intent. The former people are beneficial for everyone because they test theories for the sake of knowledge. They are testing their own beliefs and, in doing, are helping you test your own.
The latter people are typically motivated by selfish motives (i.e., the win).
Your insincerity revealed itself many posts ago.
The brothers are right out of Central Casting. The story of the company, from their upbringing, to fighting johnny law, to effectively helping a little girl with a rare disease, to a brand leader...it is almost laughably cliche. But it is real. Now they sit on lots of cash, with no debt, and are a legit force waiting to take off.
I know you shouldn't fall in love with a stock, but...
This, here, is fantastic PR. Terrific nugget right here:
Who cares about Snoop Dog? Who cares about Martha Stewart?
You write:
PR excites retail investors. I doubt retail investors are going to move CW appreciably. IIRC, CW was on a non-deal roadshow recently. That's positive. Pitch to institutions, family offices, and large investors. That's who needs to hear the story.
Good overview of both companies, but the conclusion is shallow. If the author believes CGC will "win in the matchup" with CW (what does that even mean?), then why? Is it just because of its cash position (which, admittedly, is a huge advantage)? CGC has no significant footprint in the US hemp market aside from the planned construction of the NY industrial park. Assuming CGC focuses on the organic growth of its US hemp business, it will take time to eclipse CW's 14% market share. Years, I would assume, and at significant cost which will divert capital from its other products in other markets. CW's advantage vis-a-vis CGC is that it is focused on one segment of the cannabis market and it is already established.
S_T: My thoughts exactly. CW should strive for a high-end retail partnership. So much better for the brand, and customers of stores like Whole Foods and Sprouts will pay a little more for quality. You can always go downwards and sell at a CVS, etc. Much harder to reverse that and sell at a higher-end store.
55% of revenues were online. Curious where that number will go in the coming quarters.
This is fantastic, kf3991. Thank you very much.
We're talking about a pop in shareprice. I'm sure the float was a limiter. And I'm also sure that there were and are investors accumulating. But markets aren't efficient. I wonder when the market will reach a consensus on how to value these companies. Hence, quality like CW may get lost in the noise.
BTW: Check out the new CW presentation S_T posted today. It indicated CW is looking to introduce new product lines. Might explain why all that hemp was grown, as someone opined upon a few days ago. :)
"“I’ll say at the outset that we heard Congress loud and clear with respect to that legislation,” Gottlieb said, referring to the Farm Bill. “I understand Congress wants there to be a pathway for CBD to be available.”
GOOD
We're in a promoter's market. I think it is very difficult for the investment community to sort out the pets.com and etoys' of the cannabis sector from the amazon and ebay's of said sector. Thus, CW goes unnoticed. There will be a shakeout evenutally, probably due to some sort of common, industrywide phenomenon (i.e., regulation, margin suppression etc.) that will sink a lot of the bigger names. That's when CW will shine. Until then, there will be ubiquitous cannabis companies going public regularly. So long as they're subscribed, investment bankers will continue to roll them out to the market.
Thanks S_T
By teasing new products in the 1Q19 presentation, I acknowledge that the poster here a few days ago (RavenStu52) who argued that CW didn't grow all that hemp for just oils, capsules, and balm was definitely onto something.
US Revenue Rankings
https://www.newcannabisventures.com/cannabis-company-revenue-ranking/
*apologies if this is a re-post as Darth and S_T are usually fast on these.
All good. I meant to write "count" to my wife the other day in a text, but it autocorrected to "c8*&".
We are in a good position, here.
If you're making a derogatory reference to the current product line by calling it "cute", then you probably aren't getting it.
Precisely. Be NutraSweet.
CW needs to stay focused. Branching out into a bunch of different product lines NOW is unfocused. CW doesn't need to beat the other players in every segment of the CBD space. Instead, it needs to build and grow its brand. In time, when its competitors cannibalize each other, CW can then move into different product lines. It will have lots of data on other segments of the CBD market based on the failings of its competitors. Right now, though, it should focus on only what made it the market leader.
Monday is a temporal price event, at most.
Insider selling would be the only material outcome and, even then, the volume of insider selling would be what to watch. I anticipate no material insider selling. If the Stanley Bros want to sell a little and buy a house or 2, then bless their hearts.
For Longs, I wonder if 2018 4Q are that big a deal, too. 2019 earnings matter considering the Farm Bill was passed in late 2018 and we won't see its effect in the year-end numbers. We also won't see the (largely immeasurable) effects of the CGO, COO, and (eventual) CEO hires.
My guess? We get a CEO announcement by the end of March along with some 2019 1Q guidance. That's a wild a** guess.
Exactly. Patient longs wait while anxious retail investors and day traders flee on a low float stock. While the SP will experience some short term decline, the increased volume after 3/1 will bring more price stability.
No, it isn't true. It is the quality of the PR and the frequency. Plenty of companies issue PR when their CEO's speak at a Rotary Club meeting. When that occurs, it dilutes the quality of good PR (or emphasizes negative PR).
See post #2597
The poster is intentionally spreading misinformation. I am not coming on the CVSI board to discuss these issues. I'm staying here to do it.
I don't think CVSI has adequately cleaned house because Junior is still an executive and is on the Board. "Sins of our Father..." and all that. CVSI is a competitor, a player in the space, and therefore its history and current operations are fair play.
Needlessly antagonizing investors that don't believe these issues are relevant and merely trying to get a rise out of them on another board is inappropriate. I'm addressing the CVSI troll. That's it.
Heck, Darth, why not just provide source documents? :)
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2017/lr23861.htm
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2017/comp23861.pdf