Now it's in no man's land. If it doesn't quickly revert to $.95 USD -- the prior hold on the line -- and with no news then the next stop could be $.50s or $.60s. Given the uncertainty, and with no news, I'd expect to see more correction and potential bargain pricing by Friday-Tuesday (?). Really wanted to see this one run but there might not be any word until mid-November if not sooner, depending on what happens on Tuesday.

Good luck!

There's no such thing as 100% guaranteed in human affairs. There's always a risk, even if it's a small risk, that the administration's decision could be overturned by Congress or the courts. The judicial branch is a whole other mess, with the former Pebble project leader claiming to be able to talk to the White House Chief of Staff. That's the sort of thing where courts will start sticking the words "arbitrary" in their decisions striking down administration actions. Now, it could be that the new CEO straightens things out, and wins back support, but nothing is ever guaranteed. Buyer beware.

Norpoth tells you explicitly he's been wrong in the past: "For the record, the PRIMARY MODEL picks the winner of 25 out of 27 elections since 1912, when presidential primaries were introduced. The misses are 1960, one of the closest presidential elections, and 2000, when the late count in Florida handed Bush the victory; still Al Gore wound up winning the popular vote." http://primarymodel.com/

2016 could be considered a miss too because he predicted Trump would win the popular vote as the basis for saying he would win the election. In 2020, he has revised the model to predict the Electoral College, which he has never done before.

Norpoth's reaction on Nov. 10, 2016: "I feel a little bit caught in a bind... This time it’s almost tragic for me to have to admit that I didn’t get that right,” he said, referring to the fact that Clinton in fact won the popular vote and his model predicted Trump would. https://www.newsday.com/news/nation/helmut-norpoth-stony-brook-professor-predicted-donald-trump-win-1.12600807

Not saying Trump won't win, but Norpoth's model is far from infallible. It's more of a guidepost that tells you where you are in the electoral cycle, and urges that if Republicans stick together with their guy, the odds of winning skyrocket.

Murkowski said, "I plan to build on my appropriations language from last year to make sure that the Bristol bay region remains protected." https://www.rollcall.com/2020/10/16/murkowski-says-shell-use-appropriations-to-block-alaskan-mine/

She is the Chairman of the Senate appropriations subcommittee on Interior and Environment, so she would be in a position to insert a defunding provision or some other language (assuming Shelby who chairs the main committee and McConnell go along with it): https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/subcommittees/interior-environment-and-related-agencies

Usually the language would say something like "None of the funds shall be used" toward whatever the action is being defunded, in this case, presumably extending a permit. Language could go further, though, and direct that funds be used to revoke a permit. The assumption you're making is that, once approved, Congress cannot preempt the process but Congress is F'ing pretty powerful, and so are the regulations under existing law. A Biden administration could certainly revoke the permit.

That's because these permits are explicitly revocable. Under 33 U.S.C. Section 1344(e)(2): "such general permit may be revoked or modified by the Secretary if, after opportunity for public hearing, the Secretary determines that the activities authorized by such general permit have an adverse impact on the environment or such activities are more appropriately authorized by individual permits." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1344

In that vein, Congress could direct that funds be used to revoke the permit and effectively modify the terms of that section. It's not an idle worry.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see this project go through, but Murkowski's threat means it's a two-front war. You have to win at the agency level *and* in Congress (by effectively getting Congress to do nothing). This is one of those things where you need friends in Washington, D.C. and both senators are steadfastly opposed. Not saying it can't still go through, but somebody senior to Murkowski would have to block her legislation from being what the House and Senate vote on at the end of the year. It's a legitimate risk to investing.

Looks like the stock tests $.95 again before the end of the month. Everything rests on how good the mitigation plan is and how much damage was done by the tapes. So far, U.S. Rep. Don Young gives hope that political support in-state could be sufficient to warrant federal approval, provided the mitigation plan dots the I's and crosses the T's.

Here's Young: https://www.alaskapublic.org/2020/10/12/rep-don-young-says-feds-should-compensate-pebble-if-mine-gets-blocked/


Rep. Don Young says feds should compensate state if Pebble mine gets blocked
By
Eric Stone, Alaska's Energy Desk - Ketchikan -
October 12, 2020

A man speaks at a podiumRepresentative Don Young at the August 26, 2020, opening ceremony for the Operation Lady Justice Task Force Cold Case Office in Anchorage, Alaska. (Jeff Chen/Alaska Public Media)

On the Pebble Mine, Congressman Don Young is holding his ground. The state’s sole U.S. House member said Monday that the federal government has no business telling the Pebble Limited Partnership whether it should be allowed to build the proposed copper and gold mine near the headwaters of Bristol Bay.

Rather, Young said he thinks the state should be the one deciding whether or not the mine goes forward. And he says if the Environmental Protection Agency or Army Corps won’t give the mine a federal wetlands permit, the feds should compensate the state for the lost potential.

“I do not like outside influence. This is state land. People forget that — they never mention that, ol’ Tucker [Carlson] on Fox News never said it’s state land. It’s land that was granted to myself and to you and you and you and you and you. And when outside influence takes that land — or the value from the state — they should pay us for it,” Young said at a campaign stop at Ketchikan’s Chamber of Commerce.

His remarks echo what he said in August, when the Army Corps of Engineers announced it would require Pebble to submit plans for extensive environmental mitigation before it would issue a permit.

But Young said he would not support a project that harmed the Bristol Bay fishery. The Army Corps’ environmental study of the mine said it would have “no measurable effect” on the world’s largest sockeye salmon fishery. Then the agency seemed to contradict itself in its letter to Pebble, saying the mine “would result in significant degradation to … aquatic resources.”

The other two-thirds of Alaska’s congressional delegation have said they don’t support the mine. On Tuesday, Sen. Dan Sullivan went further — he told Alaska Public Media he wouldn’t support the project even if the developers come up with a plan to compensate for the mine’s environmental damage. But Sullivan didn’t say he’d take action to block the mine.

Young said he had no interest in changing his position on Pebble.

“I don’t know why people change their mind because it politically becomes attractive. I’ve never understood that. If you believe in something, you stay with it,” he said.

During his visit to Ketchikan, Young also said he’d helped persuade the White House to overrule the Centers for Disease Control. The agency had pushed to keep cruise ships from sailing through next February. The CDC’s no-sail order is now scheduled to expire at the end of this month.

Young wore a mask for some events in Ketchikan, but he did not wear one while speaking at the meet-and-greet, held in a large room that was not crowded. One of the half-dozen or so attendees wore a mask, and Young asked him to take it down while answering a question from the congressman.

Young will face independent Alyse Galvin, the Democratic Party’s nominee, in the November election.

Yuge! https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-addressing-threat-domestic-supply-chain-reliance-critical-minerals-foreign-adversaries/

"[T]he Secretary of the Interior conducted a review with the assistance of other executive departments and agencies (agencies) that identified 35 minerals that (1) are “essential to the economic and national security of the United States,” (2) have supply chains that are “vulnerable to disruption,” and (3) serve “an essential function in the manufacturing of a product, the absence of which would have significant consequences for our economy or our national security.”... For 31 of the 35 critical minerals, the United States imports more than half of its annual consumption.I therefore determine that our Nation’s undue reliance on critical minerals, in processed or unprocessed form, from foreign adversaries constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat... It is the policy of the United States that relevant agencies should, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, prioritize the expansion and protection of the domestic supply chain for minerals and the establishment of secure critical minerals supply chains, and should direct agency resources to this purpose..."

Rhenium, abundant at Pebble, is on the critical minerals list:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/05/18/2018-10667/final-list-of-critical-minerals-2018 The list: "Aluminum (bauxite), antimony, arsenic, barite, beryllium, bismuth, cesium, chromium, cobalt, fluorspar, gallium, germanium, graphite (natural), hafnium, helium, indium, lithium, magnesium, manganese, niobium, platinum group metals, potash, the rare earth elements group, rhenium, rubidium, scandium, strontium, tantalum, tellurium, tin, titanium, tungsten, uranium, vanadium, and zirconium."

Rhenium is used in aircraft engines: https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2014/3101/pdf/fs2014-3101.pdf

The U.S. is 80 percent dependent on rhenium imports according to the USGS:
https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2020/mcs2020.pdf#page=11

According to NAK CEO Ron Thiessen: "Pebble is the largest deposit of rhenium in the world;" https://www.miningnewsnorth.com/story/2020/09/25/opinion/a-lot-riding-on-alaskas-pebble-mine/6457.html

Don't kill the messenger: Corps issues statement on Environmental Investigation Agency’s recorded conversations

https://www.poa.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/Article/2358737/corps-issues-statement-on-environmental-investigation-agencys-recorded-conversa/

Sept. 23, 2020

JOINT BASE ELMENDORF-RICHARDSON -- We are aware of the Environmental Investigation Agency’s recorded conversations. We are committed to a fair and transparent process, which includes maintaining high standards of integrity through to the record of decision.

Upon review of the transcripts, we have identified inaccuracies and falsehoods relating to the permit process and the relationship between our regulatory leadership and the applicant’s executives.

“We have the highest level of trust and confidence in the integrity of our regulatory team,” said Col. Damon Delarosa, Alaska District commander. “As we continue to work through this process, we will continue to uphold and follow applicable laws and regulations.”

***

I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but I hadn't seen this posted yet and you should see it. I was long on the stock and would consider jumping in again but am not seeing any conciliatory statements, not from the Governor, the Senators, the Corps or the administration.

I saw a comment repeating the President's statement that there would be "no politics" involved in the final decision, and ideally, that would be true. Unfortunately, the tapes are the thing that now injects politics into the equation, with the executives vouching for relationships that put the named elected officials on the spot.

On one hand, you would hope that the company has a working relationship with leaders in the state, but on the other, those making the final decision have to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. The pushback across the board from the state and the Corps is not surprising.

A key item to consider is that after the Corps, the state still has a role to play in making a final decision with the pending "certificate of reasonable assurance". https://www.thecordovatimes.com/2020/09/12/harvesters-critical-of-dunleavys-pebble-agenda/

Reportedly, "The Department of Environmental Conservation recently held a 30-day comment period on the state’s decision on whether to provide a “certificate of reasonable assurance” for Pebble’s major federal permit, a document required as part of the federal Clean Water Act permit. The state has until Sept. 22 to make its decision on that certificate."

But nothing can be found on Alaska's DEC site (select "Certification under Corps 404 permit" under "Permit Type": https://dec.alaska.gov/Applications/Water/WaterPermitSearch/Search.aspx

So, I suppose given the timing, the tapes were designed to impact that decision, which appears up in the air. Again, this is all pertinent, publicly available information. I'm looking for a reason to be hopeful. If the state issues the certificate, that would be a positive sign.

Who's Joel?

About that downside. The mine is losing political support at the state level and the tapes may make it politically impossible for the named elected officials to now publicly support the mine.

According to the executives in the recording, the governor's support was *essential*: "I did, in my home, the largest private fundraiser for the governor when he was running for office, and it’s not unusual for the governor to call me," Collier said.Thiessen discusses the strategy Pebble uses to reach White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to talk about the project. Rather than Collier reaching the White House, it’s better for Collier to talk with Dunleavy, who can make that call to the chief of staff, Thiessen said.“I mean, we can talk to the chief of staff of the White House any time we want,” Thiessen said in the recording. “You want to be careful with all this because it’s all recorded. Every telephone call that the chief of staff to the White House has to be recorded. It’s not that they tape the call, it’s just that it’s recorded that, ‘He had a call with Tom Collier, the CEO of Pebble Limited Partnership.' You don’t want to be seen to be trying to exercise undue influence.”

Now, to save his political skin, the governor has to distance himself from the company and the mine. If the governor's not on board, and neither are the senators, why would the President stick his neck out?

https://www.adn.com/politics/2020/09/22/alaska-governor-and-senators-accuse-pebble-mine-executives-of-embellishment-and-untruths-in-recorded-calls/

Alaska governor and senators accuse Pebble mine executives of embellishment and untruths in recorded calls

Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy and the state’s U.S. senators Tuesday sharply criticized Pebble mine executives after an environmental group released secretly recorded video meetings of the executives describing their connections to the politicians.…..Thanks for being an ADN.com reader.

In a statement, Dunleavy’s office said the executives “embellished their relationships with state and federal officials at all levels.”

Sen. Dan Sullivan accused the executives of multiple fabrications, adding “it’s clear that the company executives are floundering.”

And Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she’s not sitting “quiet in the corner” to allow the Pebble project to move ahead, as a Pebble executive said.

The videos, released on Monday, were recorded by the Environmental Investigation Agency, an environmental group, using people hired to pose as potential investors in the mine. The online meetings occurred in August and September of this year.

In the videos, Pebble CEO Tom Collier and Ron Thiessen, president of Pebble parent company Northern Dynasty Minerals, described Pebble as having easy access to Dunleavy’s office.

They also said Republican Sens. Murkowski and Sullivan are simply making political points when they express reservations about the project.

The candid "interview" with NAK, if authentic, makes it sound like the company has its political ducks in a row: supportive Governor. That, plus 180 years of metals, all sounds bullish to me. Thiessen sounds incredibly confident about the future of the company.

The potential downside is politically the tape could hurt the governor, and then there's blowback against the company. The thing to watch for would a public pushback by Dunleavey against the company.

So far no comment from the governor. However, there is pushback from the Senators, including Murkowski. On that, I'd note that with Murkowski coming out against Trump's Supreme Court pick *and* Pebble Mine, the mine could be approved simply to spite Murkowski.

https://archive.is/1y9HI

“Let me be clear: I did not misunderstand the Army Corps' recent announcement," Murkowski said in response to the videos. "I am not ‘embarrassed’ by my statement on it and I will not be ‘quiet in the corner.’ I am dead set on a high bar for large-scale resource development in the Bristol Bay watershed. The reality of this situation is the Pebble project has not met that bar and a permit cannot be issued to it.”

Collier said in the tapes that Sen. Dan Sullivan, up for reelection on Nov. 3, has gone quiet on Pebble and is hoping to “ride out the election."

Sen. Sullivan’s office said he continues to believe a permit cannot be issued.

“Senator Sullivan stands by that clear statement — any suggestion otherwise by Tom Collier or anyone else is either wishful thinking, a blatant mischaracterization, or an irresponsible ploy to secure funding,” his office said in a prepared statement.

I suppose the question I would ask is whether the charts were able to predict regulatory actions, either anticipating a pending action (resulting in positive or negative price movement), or even predicting the outcome of the action.

If so, what does NAK's pending response potentially mean for price movement? Or the Record of Decision to follow?

I think under normal market conditions, with a company that was already drilling and had decent revenue, using the volumes and the averages to determine buys and sells might be more useful. This stock on the other hand is at the mercy of the regulators, and so is much riskier. At the moment it seems to be entirely dependent on positive news surrounding the pending regulatory action.

On the plus side, the Justice Department is moving to dismiss a case against Pebble, but watch out for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.law360.com/appellate/articles/1305861/feds-say-corps-pebble-mine-delay-shows-enviro-precaution This seems bullish:

Feds Say Corps' Pebble Mine Delay Shows Enviro Precaution

By Juan Carlos Rodriguez
Law360 (August 31, 2020, 8:42 PM EDT) -- The federal government on Friday told the Ninth Circuit that its recent decision to temporarily block the controversial Pebble Mine is proof that it's taking a measured approach to project approval and urged the court to dismiss a conservation group's lawsuit.

Trout Unlimited had asked the Ninth Circuit to overturn an Alaska federal judge's decision upholding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's withdrawal of Clean Water Act restrictions that would have effectively blocked the mine. But the government said Aug. 24's announcement from the Army Corps of Engineers that it needs more information from Pebble Limited Partnership on its plans to mitigate environmental impacts around the proposed mine proves environmental concerns are being handled appropriately.

Trout Unlimited alleges the mine will jeopardize Alaska's Bristol Bay watershed, including its salmon habitat and fishing industry, and that by withdrawing its action that would have effectively blocked construction, the EPA violated the Administrative Procedure Act and Clean Water Act by failing to consider whether the mine posed "unacceptable adverse effects."

But the government said the evidence shows that's not the case.

"The Corps' recent action does not affect the district court's correct conclusion that EPA's withdrawal of the 2014 proposed determination is not reviewable as a matter of law; it does, however, show that the Corps is not 'racing ahead to grant PLP's permit soon,' as Trout Unlimited contended," the U.S. Department of Justice said in a notice to the court.

The government urged the court not to grant Trout Unlimited's motion to expedite the case.

The Corps' Alaska district last week posted a letter to PLP, which is owned by Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd., asking the company for detailed plans on how it will address the "unavoidable adverse impacts to aquatic resources" that would result in "significant degradation" at the project site in Bristol Bay.

The Corps, which issued a favorable final environmental impact statement in July, said in-kind compensatory mitigation will be required within the Koktuli River Watershed for discharges associated with the transportation corridor and the port site.

PLP is seeking a Clean Water Act permit for the mine, something it cannot proceed without.

Alaska U.S. District Judge Sharon L. Gleason in April said the APA prevents challenges to the EPA's withdrawal of its Clean Water Act restrictions. The judge said the EPA had discretion to withdraw those proposed restrictions and its decision can't be reviewed by the courts.

Trout Unlimited has told the Ninth Circuit that Judge Gleason was wrong to conclude that there is no judicial review of the EPA's action and warned that if the ruling is allowed to stand, it "would severely erode the right of those harmed by agency actions to obtain redress through judicial review."

Paul Werner of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, who represents Trout Unlimited, slammed the notice.

"The Corps' notice highlights the irrationality of EPA's withdrawal of its proposed determination without considering the mountain of scientific evidence showing the proposed Pebble Mine will have unacceptable and disastrous effects to Bristol Bay waters and salmon, and the lawlessness of its attempt to defend the withdrawal by invoking unfettered discretion," Werner said. "The government is also incorrect that there is no need for timely judicial decision given PLP's pronouncements that it expects it will address the Corps' concerns within weeks."

The EPA is represented by Anna T. Katselas of the U.S. Department of Justice's Environment and Natural Resources Division.

Trout Unlimited is represented by Paul A. Werner, Steven P. Hollman, Abraham J. Shanedling and Kirsten O. Ryan of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

The case is Trout Unlimited et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency et al., case number 20-35504, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Thanks! Here's another consideration. Trafalgar says in Michigan, it's Trump 47, Biden 45: https://www.thetrafalgargroup.org/news/mi-pres-0820/ That's the outfit that correctly called 2016.

I'd say a Trump victory would be bullish for the mine, but maybe Trump, Jr.'s fishing buddies have more pull.

Finally, I think it would be kind of arbitrary to do a 180 on this for the Trump administration after the favorable EIS showed there were no serious issues. Businesses operate on rational regulatory certainty, particularly among extraction industries. If the mitigation strategy is reasonable offered by Pebble, it should be approved on the merits. Otherwise, they should have never lifted the Obama block and signaled with the EIS that the mine was a go, fueling investment. To just turn around now and say "not good enough" would be bad for public policy, and throw every permitting process into disarray and uncertainty.

I think the opposition is sincere w/ Trump Jr.'s language that the location is "sacred" and the President describing his son as an environmentalist. There are big interests set out against the mine, and those cross party lines sometimes.

I think what is more telling is Sullivan and to a lesser extent Young up for reelection in November. Alaska GOP wants the mine but a poll in July had Alaskans tilted against the project: https://www.nrdc.org/experts/taryn-kiekow-heimer/62-alaskans-oppose-pebble-mine-new-poll-shows

So, the delay could have more to do with casting doubt on the project prior to the election so that it's not a wedge in the election to potentially hurt Sullivan and Republican officials in the state. If so, then the mitigation letter's 90 day window puts the record of decision off until after the election.

And so the fate of the mine may simply comes down to who wins in November. If Trump wins, the odds of approval go up. If not, it could still be approved during the lame duck and then leave it up to federal courts to decide when Biden tries to pull the plug, or the Army Corps could just reject it in a show of deference to Biden. In theory, an approval even if Trump loses *could* be binding on the Biden administration *if* a federal judge rules that a rejection following an approval violates administrative law and is arbitrary and capricious.

Right now, the issue is political, but post-election it immediately becomes regulatory once again and a potentially thorny legal issue if Biden wins and it gets approved.

State could get involved to support mitigation (it also could not): https://www.adn.com/business-economy/2020/08/27/pebble-mine-must-now-clear-an-unusually-high-hurdle-before-it-can-be-developed-experts-say/

I managed to average down from 1.45 to 1.01 and escape with a tidy loss this afternoon. :( Better than where I was though! I suspect it holds at either .90 or into the mid-.80s on U.S. side. Tomorrow should be a lot of profit taking so there could be an opening in the AM to jump back in. What a rollercoaster! Maybe another dip and load up again?

Could be an opportunity to average down. The Aug. 20 letter by the Army Corps offers 90 days to submit mitigation plan. This will constitute NAK's rebuttal and could fuel temporary speculation, which might help some of you break even if you're in the red right now. The downside is if the White House preemptively kills the process. The upside is if the White House preemptively supports the process, either due to the national security side with the rhemium find, or just in general to reaffirm that no final decision has been made. Given the three-month window provided for NAK to produce its mitigation plan, I suppose it's possible some short-term positive news could fuel a short-term gain.

If it's a rocket, what are the historical resistance points to watch out for?

Trump admin. moves forward on grower applications: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/458838-trump-administration-to-move-forward-on-new-marijuana-grower-applications Could this help the sector to go back into positive territory or do falling commodity prices driving down revenue keep the downtrend going? Are we seeing a reversal forming?

Next stop $20?

$25.24 USD new 52 low. :(

I hope for anyone holding's sake that a reversal comes. Trying to spot one now but looks like steady downtrend. On cusp of USD $25.26 52 week low. I imagine if it shoots below $25 on U.S. exchanges next stop is something like $20. :(

Do you really think it's going to $50 USD? Also, does anyone have a reliable commodity spot price for marijuana in Canada? It would be interesting to see how commodity prices are affecting stock valuations. Thanks.

Amendment dead. Grassley objected: http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/marijuana-states-rights-amendment-blocked-cory-gardner-will-back

It looks like it will take unanimous consent to get his amendment to the floor: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/senate-to-vote-on-trump-backed-federal-pot-legalization-but-passage-unlikely For the uninitiated, the Senate operates on unanimous consent, meaning things can move quickly to the floor or be adopted -- as long as *nobody* objects.

Now, if he can get the vote, there's a good chance it could pass, but the fact that it's being tripped up by a unanimous consent requirement could mean the move is designed to fail.

How is the $12 billion market cap justified with just $23 million of revenue? I suppose that could rise substantially when they report again... But between now and then shouldn't we start baking into the cake what expected sales in Canada are actually going to be? TD doesn't show what the P/E ratio is when I look it up.

What's Canopy's current P/E ratio? Anyone?

Well they should be the 2001-03 and 2008-09 crashes are still somewhat fresh in everyone's memory. However those coincided with recessions and we're no where near recession territory if the 10-year, 2-year is any indication:



It has not inverted yet and even when it does, you could still be 18 months out from the main event. So I think there's still time... In the least if S&P crashes ala the prior major bear markets, it would be the first time in recent memory it preceded a recession (although to be fair the first correction actually began in 2000, so if that's where we are buckle up!).

This looks more like a correction but as usual stay tuned. :)

As for S&P, currently it is 7.8 percent off its September high, and was off by as much as 9.9 percent. Some analysts are suggesting that the S&P has already bottomed and that a new high will be reached: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-13/wall-street-expects-sp-peak-3056-will-rotate-bonds-when-yield-hits-37

I agree (running pretty well with S&P) and long-term that could be very bullish!

Or CGC and the sector were driving S&P. ;) Guess we'll find out tomorrow. :D

S&P could be forming inverse head and shoulders in the coming days. Needs to get above 2800 and stay there:



If S&P can break out of its funk I think CGC will be good.

When does Supreme report Q3?

It seems like we're sideways essentially. See-saw until S&P firms up new bottom, which may already be happening. Right now CGC is 30 percent off its August high. At one point it was 42 percent off its high. So I think you can foresee volatility until you don't unfortunately, it's very tough to predict how long bear corrections will last. S&P has a lot of overvaluation decks to clear.

How do tariffs on China prevent Canadians from selling pot to themselves?

Amazon is 19 percent off its high. Facebook is 35 percent down, Google is down 17 percent. I'd say that is pretty well bear marketish. Canopy fwiw was down about 50 percent off its high. Long term model suggests eventually they all take off again as long as they have revenue to justify price... I suppose the question is how long do stocks scrape the bottom before reentering a virtuous cycle?

How long do bear markets last? How long will this one last?

Is that like sticking a 10.0 landing in gymnastics? How rare is that?

What's all that churning and bubbling? You call that a stock? ;)

Who says it’s over?

Nice chart. Seems to show a triple bottom. I guess we'll find out soon if it breaks out. Might be tough with top heavy overall market dragging everyone down. A strong indicator might be that it's keeping value while larger caps are still going down and correcting. Thoughts?

I love your charts. I totally bought it when you said it would break out. ;) There's always tomorrow.