$2.10 (4.98%) Today
52 Week High
52 Week Low
7 Days Mentions
“U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter, the primary sponsor of the SAFE Banking Act, told reporters recently that he’s secured a commitment from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that she’ll support keeping the SAFE measure attached to a larger omnibus spending package…”
China calls the America COMPETES Act a product of Cold War mentality. However, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnel calls the SAFE (Cannabis) Banking portion a "non-starter." Meanwhile, McConnel's in-laws own a shipping company with shadowy ties to China that got a federal loan. What a hypocrite!
At the very least the "excitement" that SAFE passing would bring would most definitely provide an outsized increase to the Canadian LPs stock price. It's not right, but it's reality. Canadian LPs, because of liquidity and TSX/NASDAQ, always run harder on good news for the sector. Having said that, SAFE may trigger FinCEN to update guidance, which the TSX/NASDAQ could use to overcome their liability concerns with listing MSOs and allow uplisting. It's not a guarantee, and it may not happen exactly like that either (lots of unknowns and minefields to wade through). Once MSOs can uplist, there's likely nothing holding Canadian LP's up from purchasing, or completing their purchases of, US cannabis assets. They won't be able to ship product across the border, but they'll be able to own and operate US cannabis companies \[upon uplist\]. Removal of 280e only comes with removal of cannabis as a Schedule 1 (not 2 either) drug. SAFE has nothing remotely to do with that.
I've been wondering as well... Trying to make my own macro theories of weed sector within what's going on. We were due for a recession - this took time to build up and it's not just about the pandemic. First stocks to go down would always be the growth risky type stock and with the lack legislation, weed stocks have been shitty for the last year... Where we the canary - first sign we heading down the tubes? with the megacaps falling last, just my theory. Shorts have also been scrambling to bigger and better options - Weed've already been beaten down to submission If this goes as a standard recession and if we get good head winds with maybe some action towards SAFE - Could we be the first to start making gains? Of course it's gonna be rocky, a few run-up and a few crashes before this all works out. I'm holding out on hope cause there is no way I'm taking those losses at this point
SAFE has NOTHING to do with uplisting or 280e. It's strictly about banking. Outside of share prices, a possible small run-up, mentions here and in media, and the offices in small dispensaries, SAFE will be "the law nobody noticed" if it passes.
The House passed legalization twice and the SAFE act six times, I believe. They've also passed laws allowing more testing and research. Of course, none of these things happen or would have if the GOP had retained power past 2018.
Pulling the below out of a side conversation I've been having (with some edits): \[Question\] I don't understand why these stocks are now bound to federal legalization news. Shouldn't this just be a great time for DCA? \[My reply\] It is and it isn't. Volume is low and is almost entirely ETF and volatility trader driven (if we're to believe some color on this matter), which makes "real" volume tiny. Anyone buying right now needs to expect to hold for at least 3 years and also expect to at least lose another 30-50% (unrealized) until we truly change sentiment and start a sustained upward channel. The heightened focus on legalization is because no one currently sees a way of getting out of this downward channel until something significant for the sector occurs to change the sentiment and volume. So far the belief (and I agree) is that the only significant catalyst for the sector that we haven't already seen is some sort of actual passing of a pro-cannabis bill (disregarding the research bill as it's too minor and narrow to move the needle). We've already seen big growth quarters, huge revs, billion dollar run-rates, huge mergers, profits, +ve FCF, new states opening up rec sales (NY/NJ and others) and everything we've seen thus far hasn't moved the needle or changed the narrative at all. We just keep dropping. Right now the focus on SAFE is because of it's current progress in COMPETES as the nearest-term possibility for passage. Whether that comes to pass or not, as we approach mid-July, likely the focus for much conversation will again shift to Schumer's CAOA bill, as his last update was that it would drop mid-July. Beyond that we'll have more politicians driving further conversation around pro-cannabis positions as we approach mid-terms, then a possible surprise in the lame-duck session post mid-terms. Maybe somewhere in there Mace's States Reform Act drops in the House for a vote (and if so I hope it passes, it's an excellent comprehensive bill with compromises for both parties). If Dems fall in the mid-terms in either the House or Senate (or both), then bringing up cannabis legislation for a vote and passing gets increasingly less likely until 2024, which would be super depressing.
I'm skeptical SAFE triggers it too, but they clearly left wiggle room here to make that call at some point in the future. I think of it going something like this (in the case where SAFE does allow it - obviously not directly): 1. SAFE passes (disregarding how it passes, and assuming this is prior to a more comprehensive bill) 2. FinCEN updates guidance on permissibility of major exchanges that works in the sector's favor 3. (possibly regardless of FinCEN guidance) TSX decides SAFE is enough for them to allow US cannabis businesses on their exchange. This would be huge regardless of a NASDAQ/NYSE listing. Good for US MSO, probably not enough for CGC to pull the trigger. 4. NASDAQ/NYSE decide updated FinCEN guidance gives them the liability coverage they need to allow uplisting US cannabis businesses to their exchanges. 5. CGC decides that NASDAQ/NYSE now allowing uplisting of US cannabis companies warrant completion of their purchase rights for their targeted US assets, since there's no difference between a US or CAN company owning a US cannabis company at that point from the perspective of the major US exchanges (ie. ultimately, CGC just wants to own those US assets without being kicked off the big-boy exchanges). No idea if any of that comes to pass, but that's my theory as to why they've been building in that wiggle room statement into all their US asset purchase warrants.
I’m personally not familiar with Jetty but will research them. I anticipate Canopy will seek to bring Jetty products to the East coast via Acreage by way of licensing agreements in order to expand their footprint. As a few have pointed out, Canopy likes to use the words “federal permissibility” when discussing the closure of their standing U.S. agreements. Federal legalization will automatically close the agreements, but Canopy, as they stated here, holds the right to close before that event. As has been alluded to many times by the company, Klein, and Acreage, it is likely they can close these deals after SAFE + Uplisting becomes a reality. That is why uplisting, not legalization, is the true catalyst for this sector. It “corporately legalizes” cannabis and the financial flood gates will open up and M&A activity will absolutely erupt. Canopy is better positioned than any other LP for this event and will be a top 5 MSO by revenue + have the major advantage of Constellation’s distribution network and business connections.
Paying $69M, nice... for 75% of the company, so total value of Jetty purchase of $92M if my math checks out. ​ >the right to acquire, upon federal permissibility of THC in the U.S. or earlier at Canopy Growth’s election Interesting phrasing. Basically saying we're waiting for comprehensive legalization (ie. cannabis no longer a schedule 1 drug), but can also choose to buy sooner if they decide something like SAFE is good enough, without having to explicitly say SAFE will trigger it. Probably wording it like this for optics with the intention of triggering the buy upon SAFE passing, if it passes.
Maybe read your own posts for strawman arguments. As for partisanship, maybe go read my other posts, as you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. I call out poor arguments regardless of affiliation to political party and am just as quick to call out republicans. If just 10-12 republicans... Yeah, I'd love to see that. I doubt it's possible, given the Senate Republicans generally vote in line with McConnell and he clearly does not support cannabis. Not to mention the House vote on MORE and the fact that even SAFE can't seem to get more than 9 republicans to co-sponsor. The industry will be lucky to even get SAFE to squeeze through, let alone something more comprehensive. I wish this weren't the case, but this is the reality and we just need to take wins where we can find them.
A lot of gloom and doom too, like most places. Ppl freaking out about de-listing haha I have common shares and warrants. I'm in it for the long haul and hopefully unload these warrants on the next little run, if we get one. I figure Midterms will get things pumping again if SAFE is still fucked, and there are no other rallys this summer. Those fucking warrants tho....
Full legalization isn't possible. Perfect is the enemy of good enough. The only way forward here are incremental wins. And to be frank, declining SAFE because it helps the rich get richer, ignoring the fact that it also helps small cannabis businesses (arguably much more so than MSOs) and WILL HELP reduce violent crime at dispensaries (nobody is claiming it "fixes" the problem) is in my opinion disgusting and vile and is everything wrong with the far-left nut-jobs. A rising tide lifts all boats. There's nothing wrong with something benefiting more than one group of people.
SAFE is literally the only near-term legislation, regardless of whether or not it's destined to fail, which of course for each of us (yes that includes you too) is simply an opinion at this point. Of course it's going to get talked about a lot here. We should be encouraging that. We need all the help in here we can get to keep this community thriving.
>Besides the fact that it will make the rich even richer, another glaring problem with the logic behind SAFE is that robbers are often targeting the cannabis products at dispensaries as much as they are the cash. >Take, for example, one of the only successful robberies of a dispensary so far in Massachusetts. In June of 2020, a group of well-organized thieves broke into Pure Oasis, a dispensary in Dorchester that was the first Black-owned recreational store to open in Massachusetts. Robbers didn’t take any cash, but did get away with more than $100,000 worth of cannabis products. >So even if this legislation does manage to reduce the amount of cash being stored in dispensaries, they are highly likely to remain targets for robbery until federal prohibition no longer exists. And there’s some serious doubt that SAFE will actually have a significant impact on reducing the amount of cash at shops; more and more banks have already begun accepting cannabis business as clients despite the lack of action from Congress, and many dispensaries already offer cashless payment through the use of debit cards Excellent points. So much of the narrative around SAFE is built on a fantasy. It's mostly just a way to ensure only the wealthy can operate in the cannabis space. Banks will still ignore small producers. I know it's an unpopular sentiment here, but the best thing for the industry as a whole will be full legalization, not SAFE.
I used to think SAFE was a bartering chip to get more Repubs on board with a more comprehensive bill, but don't anymore. Most Repubs (in the Senate) still don't even like SAFE and McConnell is still calling it a poison pill. There's no bargain here. Either the Dems slip it into a bill like COMPETES or NDAA, or we get absolutely nothing passed with respect to cannabis for a while.
hmmm... Not really liking that echo chamber of negativity against SAFE. Perfect is the enemy of good enough. SAFE isn't exactly good enough, but it's a step in the right direction. We need to incrementally build wins to push this over the finish line. Not lambaste others for wanting progress that is beneficial to both cannabis businesses (big and small) and indirectly and directly beneficial to social justice themes (reduced violent crimes at dispensaries as an example) AND has the highest likelihood of passing through Congress out of any other pro-cannabis bill we've seen to date. These are the people on the far-left that are holding cannabis legalization up just as much as the Repubs. Screw them.
This article almost seems like a veiled attempt to point out the flaws in SAFE as seen from the proponents of social equity. The author admits that he previously worked with Shaleen Title (who is solidly against SAFE). It would not surprise me if Shaleen and/or The Parabola Center was behind the writing of this as she has been very outspoken against SAFE on her twitter page recently. https://twitter.com/shaleentitle
Good article. Blumenauer seems confident SAFE will be included in the final ACA even though Schumer has not yet ceded or signaled his approval. Tons of bipartisan support among the conferees. Conference negotiations expected to be finalized before summer recess begins in August (6th, i think).
I can agree with most of this. Nice. I think your original reply to this chain is why this went off the rails a bit. ​ I do want to summarize a few things to help clear the air here. Also, I'm mostly talking about the Senate, since they ultimately have all the power. 1. Dems do not have the sole power to do make the changes we all want to see here. 2. Repubs have come out to say that they will obstruct at every chance they can, and so far have been fairly successful at that (not just with cannabis). 3. It is the Repubs who have been unwilling to compromise 1. The far left haven't been great in this regard either 2. Anyone in the House or Senate (on both sides) that isn't willing to compromise on legislation in good faith should be voted out at first opportunity. Fuck those guys. 4. Repubs ran the Senate prior to Jan 2021 and had the power to vote on cannabis legislation in the Senate on multiple bills and chose not to. 1. It is McConnell (the R lead in the Senate) that specifically refused to table any cannabis bill. 2. Repubs literally said at the time that SAFE was too much (WTF?). 5. Repub Senate leader, McConnell, called SAFE in NDAA and COMPETES a poison pill. 6. Dem Senate leader has so far refused to table a cannabis bill that isn't his, as he wants comprehensive legislation. 1. His all-or-nothing approach sucks 2. In an all-or-nothing scenario, do you vote with the "all" team or the "nothing" team, Dems or Repubs, respectively. 3. We've heard this before, but Schumer said his bill would drop in July. If that actually happens, we can then see where the cards lie on each side. 7. Cannabis has been easier to pass in the House, but has thus far been a led by Dems, not Repubs 8. Mace's cannabis bill is widely considered the best, and most passable, bill released to date. I 100% agree with this. 1. Other Repubs in Senate, House, and her State, all attacked her and her bill when initially released. We'll see if they come around to backing it in the next few months. 9. SAFE and HOPE are the only current bipartisan bills circulating. SAFE being Dem created, and HOPE being truly bipartisan. Neither of which does enough. 10. Ultimately, Dems think SAFE isn't enough, and Repubs think that anything more than SAFE is too much. 1. I would argue that the Dems are right 11. MORE Act, even just in the House was supported along party lines with Repubs almost completely rejecting it. It wasn't as good as Mace's bill, per-se, but it was the most comprehensive cannabis legislation to be voted on thus far. 12. Almost all state-led pro-cannabis legislation has been led by Dems. There are some exceptions to this, but they are exceptions. ​ Damn. I did NOT set out to write that much. lol. Please make clarifications where necessary as I'm sure I have a few things not quite right here. Reading through that, I think it's pretty clear who is mostly to blame. Ultimately, it doesn't much matter who gets blamed so much as recognizing which legislators are actually pro cannabis and continuing to vote for them and supporting them however necessary. Let's hold any politician that is anti-cannabis accountable, no matter which "team" they're on. If they're blocking forward momentum on cannabis, whether that means saying "no" to cannabis legislation or because they wont compromise on some aspects of social justice, then fuck them and vote them out.
Random Cannabis Musings #2 Over the past couple of years we have seen several American trading platforms block OTC weedstocks from trading. So it was nice to see WeBull do the opposite with their announcement last week that they will be supporting the OTC market soon. Reasons to think that this may be a positive development for weedstocks include: 1. Could be a win-win if the WeBull traders are able to trade weedstocks around the same time as SAFE is hopefully included in COMPETES. Given WeBull’s client demographics I could see potential excitement and sentiment shift among this trading base; 2. As others ahve already pointed out…hopefully WeBulll creates a competitive response from RobinHood. Wall Street is having a rough year and now is the time to hustle for business. It is not a huge stretch to think that more may join WeBull on the OTC to try and drive trading revenue growth; 3. American cannabis OTC tickers desperately need more volume. This move can only help in this regard. Should be like chicken soup and a cold…may not help all that much, but certainly can’t hurt.
I’m very excited to say I closed babby’s first PE deal. We’re doing a SAFE with a valuation cap that would give me 20% equity in the company down the line. I learned a lot about negotiating for mutual interest instead of only my own and feel great about the terms we arrived at. It feels super fulfilling to demonstrate my faith in a business and a ceo and give them the ability to grow into what we both know they can be. I have to say that this one deal today is more fulfilling than millions made trading. Invest in people. Trading is so isolating at times. So a deal like this and the human connection central to it makes me appreciate you guys in this sub. It’s very nice to shoot the shit and share ideas and learn together. Hope everyone has an awesome weekend
I'm all in and been following LFLY ever since in March my shares were sold +$1 above asking my limit price on a GTC order i had for lot of shares. Sold at ATH and bought back at the dip. A bipartisan support of the SAFE banking act was announced yesterday so bullish by Q4 there will be more legal support for cannabis businesses.
Low. There aren't enough votes to include it (they need at least 10 GOP votes to go along - and probably 12). Which means not only GOP senators that would be ok with SAFE, but GOP senators that are ok with BOTH SAFE and COMPETES. Schumer can whip Dems into line since they really want to pass COMPETES. McConnell won't do the same for the GOP - and probably will campaign against including SAFE.
No way GOP do anything. Just look at cosponsors for SAFE. Out of 42 cosponsors, only 9 are Repubs and all 9 of them would likely still vote against it if McConnell says so. McConnell has called it a poison pill and refused 4 times to bring it to a vote You're in a dream world if you think GOP will do anything positive for cannabis.
The political play is so clear. The Democratic Senate puts SAFE in COMPETES and dares the GOP to shitcan it. It's a win-win. If they get the vote through, the Dems have passed some popular and much needed reform (that will reduce violent crime too!). If the GOP votes it down, they're the bad guys holding up said popular reform. Such a sweet play. It'll be a hoot to watch and see how they're gonna fuck it up.
Yes, for the standalone bill. Not sure how many support it now and for inclusion in the COMPETES bill. Not too worried about the dems as they will whip up at least 48 votes if Schumer wants to include it, but McConnell and the GOP won't whip at all if SAFE is included.
SAFE is about the only bi-partisan bill that could be brought before the Senate right now and Schumer needs to let this go through in the ACA or bring up a standalone vote. Currently the bill has 42 co-sponsors with 9 of them being Republicans (33 D, 9 R).
This is what worries me. We all talk about how SAFE is a sure thing IF it came up for a vote, but realistically, we have no idea. Co-sponsors don't actually have to vote "Y", some Dems (like that shitbag Manchin) likely will vote against, and there's not even close to enough Repubs that will vote yes. It's a total mixed bag. Likely we'd need 12-14 Repubs to vote "Y" with the 45-48 Dems who will likely vote "Y". I just don't see it. If it stays in COMPETES, that's likely the best chance we have until sneaking it into the NDAA later this year.
I won't fully disagree with that, but thinking the Repubs would bring it to a vote is ignoring reality. McConnell had something like 4 opportunities to pass SAFE from the House passing it, but didn't bring it up to a vote in the Senate. Ultimately, you have Dems, who think it's not enough so are trying to bring a more comprehensive bill to the floor (Schumer, just fucking release it already), and then you have Repubs, who thinks it's too much and won't vote for it and obstruct at every chance they can get. Either way it doesn't come up for a vote, but I'd rather lean on the team that actually WANTS to do something, even if ultimately they can't.
Tbh I really have no idea. The problem is even the best weedstocks are generally thought of as garbage by your average retail smooth brain. Same retail that think companies like TESLA are a great deal despite P/E ratios of like 100. "B-b-b-but Elon!", "peak oil brah", "Mars dude, I'm going!" I'm looking at High Tide now, which is losing like 5%/day on like $500k trading volume. They're going to release quarterly earnings somewhere north of 70 million but their market cap is only like 170 mil, 300 mil if you throw the Nasdaq listing in there. I get that ppl are cutting their loses, but at what point do things like EV/R get too insane not to buy? GTII and AYR are also looking pretty damn good at these levels, but I wouldn't be surprised if they lose another 50% before we saw a legit bounce. "They're never gunna pass SAFE Man!"
Honestly I think that we're too close to midterms and Rs won't vote for anything that even resembles a D win no matter what they personally think of the legislation. I disagree that SAFE has sufficient support though. It might. But pretty sure they're a vote or two short, even if you assume every cosponsor follows through with a yes vote and Ds get unanimous support in their party.
I think the real question is whether SAFE**+** is the ultimate demise. Will supportive Dems require social equity to vote in favor? Will Re oppose if SE provisions are included? SAFE as a standalone issue has sufficient support. But my understanding is that the **+** is a catch-22 that dooms majority support.
If that's the case then SAFE banking is doomed cos he will need GOP members to vote with him. I don't give a shit about your American bipartisan politics and how you people think in binaries, but I do give a shit when it gets in the way of progress. VOTE GREEN PARTY!
🇩🇪🇷🇺🇺🇦 HEAD OF GERMAN ENERGY: WE APPRECIATE THE COOPERATION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND UKRAINE ON INSURING SAFE DELIVERIES OF GAS TO EUROPE The funniest thing (and saddest at the same time) is that almost all of you believed in ‘Ghost of Kyiv’ and Bucha
Not that it matters right now, but I’m feeling a bit better from a fundamental perspective after GTI and Curaleaf’s results. Competent given Croptober and the never ending Sooner Crisis. We could talk about $100 million run rate dispensaries in NJ. We could talk about improving State sales numbers. We could talk about scale and efficiencies and optionality and decent cash positions. We could talk about deferred taxes and IRFS accounting. At some point I’d like to get back to talking about these things, but right now the Macro environment and Sooner holding SAFE hostage is all that there is to talk about. —
Series is the order that money came in. It correlates to security type because the security types used in venture goes in patterns, but they are not tired to a rule. SAFE is a subset of the type of security , convertible bonds, typically used in earlier series. It’s very possible that some of those other earlier investments are essentially the same thing as a safe but with a different label. From your perspective, this fund has a mix where they were very early investors and later venture stage, but you can’t know from this list if they came in at later stages or invested earlier and stayed in for later stages. It’s a pretty typical mix