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.
wrong. inaccurate. Dowling was a godsend -- he cleaned up the balance sheet and made things right with the acquisition that Mona screwed up royally. if anything, the fact that Dowling is in charge bodes well for the future of this company.
left didn't state anything. he asked a question, which was enough to have the desired effect and set off a domino effect of stop losses and shorts piling on. his campaign of blatant misinformation has ignited a firestorm of hapless longs wondering if this BS lawsuit is of any merit, which it isn't.
look no further than left's claim that this patent was "the entire bull case" to realize how full of garbage he is.
where are the form 4s then, dingus? get the hell out of here.
can't believe people are thinking this lawsuit is legitimate or of concern. clearly many of you haven't been in trading for very long.
look at any stock that citron has ever mentioned. you'll find a slew of ambulance chasing lawfirms who piggyback and "investigate" the claims.
it's all horse sh*t.
That’s not true. Show me on the nasdaq listing requirements where it says you can’t have had any toxic financing. Which this isn’t, btw.
dude so far no actually. you said "4 before 7"
it's now 7.50
go away
gotcha. go short.
what's your point? what are you showing? that they bought more equipment? nice!
hey, did you notice the stock has bounced quite a bit today?
you fail to understand that sometimes a stock can run wild. traders and flippers join the trend, shorts try to short, and they get burned and squeezed.
when it all reaches a head, it can pull suddenly and violently.
i haven't said anything about these valuations at $9 being reasonable. i think it was overdone. PPS was running on revenues and yes, fundamentals. compared to peers, they actually are still undervalued. TLRY is sporting a multi-billion dollar valuation with fewer revenues. that tells us it's undervalued.
the fact is that Citron is powerful. to an OTC stock, he's especially able to make a mark. and he did. and now the market is slowly going to realize it was all horse sh*t.
cooking of the books? you don't know what you're talking about.
if you feel something is amiss, sell your shares and move on.
tweets from Andrew Left of Citron can and DO move stocks, especially when they're precariously high.
the company will likely respond.
tweet is bogus:
citron eloquently skates away by not actually accusing CVSI of anything. they ASK a question instead of outright calling it anything.
they also purposely suggested the entire bull case was based on this patent -- it wasn't. it hasn't been.
they also purposely suggested the company has been hyping it -- they haven't.
citron used this phrasing to take advantage of the casual traders who know nothing about the stock's story.
alan brochstein never pumped this stock dingus. he reported on it objectively.
exactly. interesting that this is the ONLY gripe Citron has.
here's what we need to know:
-is it really that bad they didn't issue a press release when the patent was initially rejected? companies work with patents all the time and never issue press releases. apple is a company that comes to mind.
-can the company only go forward with FDA testing and an IND without the patent?
citron is alleging that CVSI *may* have committed fraud by not issuing a press release that their patent was initially rejected. i'm trying to suss out whether that's the case...or whether patent rejections are so commonplace that a press release isn't necessarily needed.
i feel like i see patent stuff all the time with other stocks that don't involve press releases.
what's your take on the citron tweet? if i'm reading his allegation correctly, he's asserting that CVSI should've issued a press release that their patent was rejected way back when...?
Cannabis oil means THC oil dude. Also, even then, competition indicates strong demand. It’s like buying Coca Cola stock and you’re freaking out by discovering that Pepsi exists.
you rock dude. solid.
Totally different share structure back then; way smaller float and OS
Girlfriend went to a party last night and heard a bunch of 20-somethings talking about how CBD is their new favorite thing. Many of them were newly sober apparently.
Sorry — correction — that link pertains to the nasdaq GLOBAL market requirements. CVSI applied to the nasdaq CAPITAL markets. Check my previous posts, I’ve discussed.
Link isn’t entirely accurate. There are ways around the four standards.
yeah. look man, i think it's just that your reputation on this board isn't exactly stellar. all the weeks and weeks of questioning things without taking five minutes to look deeper has caused a mental asterisk to be next to every one of your posts. that, and when we have pullbacks you tend to be on here kind of stating the obvious. then again, so are people when we have a nice up day.
what i'd love to see is a dip back to $3.00, or even $2.80, god willing.
Alright man quit looking for trouble. Nobody is contesting the need for consolidation.
it means you put a sell order at a much higher price. the idea being that if you have a conditional sell order placed, your shares cannot be lent out for short sellers to use. in essence "locking" them up.
i don't think it does much in a practical sense here...as it's OTC speciality brokers who will be doing the lending. also, we want short sellers. it helps provide a liquid market! plus, it gives them the opportunity to get squeezed.
whoa whoa, whole foods isn't even a seedling as far as we know. please don't spread that around as fact.
CVSI is currently easy to borrow. think a lot of shorts are piling into this one, and they squeeze it hard tomorrow.
sure, when both sides are well-informed...at just about every turn your concerns have been disproven, whether it be objective or subjective things you bring up.
the year is 2019. CVSI posts $50mm in third quarter revenues. the stock is at $8, trading on the nasdaq.
Vandalay is still here, saying "yeah, but anyone can make this product."
the 8k confirming no RS was just posted.
there's your 8k.
no, i don't see it as a niche product, i see it as a product that's just getting legs.
i see it being marketed as an anti-inflammatory taken daily alongside vitamins and fish oils.
i see it as an auxiliary play to marijuana.
"i do not think branding will be as significant" -- couldn't disagree more. branding is EVERYTHING when there's competition. if you can brand your product as a safe, daily supplement, you're gonna be the winner.
you've got your head under a rock man. price tells all.
once again you conveniently ignore all my cogent, rational points against your own.
this is why everyone gives you grief.
if you go through life with that as your benchmark for investing, you're gonna have a bad time. i think you're being needlessly picky and strict given the space we're in.
allow me to put your gut feeling to rest:
-the competition you speak of that's a threat to their margins -- it's ALREADY massive, and they're STILL head and shoulders above the rest. their margins are fantastic, and their revenue is growing.
-market leaders tend to continue leading, and market laggards tend to continue lagging -- i'd be much more comfortable investing in amazon than putting my money in a fledgling operation that's trying to nip at their heels.
"i think it needs something that no one else has or can be made by another company" -- this just isn't real or practical at all. how many companies have something that NOBODY else makes? competition is part of the capitalistic society in which we participate.
also dude -- it HAS something that hardly anyone else has. it has it's own manufacturing operations. it has a full time dedicated sales team. it has the capital and the resources to continue expansion. it also enjoys the benefit of being a leading brand name in the space. THAT is it's moat. Not to mention their drug, which is the dark horse here, and imho not yet part of the valuation of CVSI.
so what WOULD be your metrics by which you'd measure the potential success of a company in the long term? what does CVSI lack that you think it needs?
i'd say their assets are substantial. goodwill, intangibles -- e.g., their market share (as is evidenced by their growing revenues and presence, not to mention the fact that they're in asia, as we've discovered)
like...what else do you want? companies get bought out all the time for their potential. especially in the marijuana space. we've been seeing acquisitions and mergers left and right for properties that aren't doing much of anything yet.
how in the hell are margins going to get crushed by being all over the country? how does that even make sense? if you manufacture yourself (as CV does), and your margins are fantastic (as they continue to be), why would massive distribution harm their margins?
i say again, find me a better play in a market that has similar growth trajectory. you can't. all your bearishness is based solely on gut feelings and nothing more. it's upsetting.
sure, totally. listen, i agree that stocks are hot until they're not.
i just can't find a reason to think the music would stop when it's just getting started.
find me a company that has a significant chunk of market share for a market that's projected to grow 10x in the next 3 years.
everything about this points to a higher valuation. i believe any and all large dips will be bought up with fervor.
good question! the way they presented it, it's very important for certain stores or something. it just lends it more legitimacy. also i think they'd be the only CBD product that's GRAS certified.
CVSI
please go read my posts from today where i discuss alternatives to the $4 minimum bid requirement.
also, there is no reverse split pending, as it was voted against at the shareholder meeting.
so despite evidence that supports the perfectly logical conclusion that it's perfectly normal for a company to pre-release earnings numbers in the days leading up to an investor conference, you still think it was done for nefarious purposes, for which you have absolutely zero proof (e.g., promotion compensation, which you've attempted to point out and i also subsequently disproved)?
you know what? fine man. you can have this one.