RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Bruce is running out of excuses....I hear ya, Montie, i really do. But there are obviously/apparently issues some of the potential funds etc have with the level of DD being performed by the TMX. Again, i'm gonna plead ignorance here, i just do not know.
Monteviale wrote: Squishy, the only lack of clarity that I see has to do with US jurisdiction. State vs Federal law. Canopy isnt doing business in the States, therefore there shoudlnt be an issue about investing in Canopy. Waht clarity needs to be addressed from Canopy's point of view. They arent affected by the issues Aphria is facing. It's a TMX - Aphria issue if anything.
SquishyInc wrote: It's not about the risks Bruce is taking, it's about the risks the US funds/institutions are willing to take. I would agree, that if i were a US fund, i would be more likely to invest in CGC than APH, purely from a risk perspective, but the lack of clarity etc from the TMX makes both choices less likely, from what i understand. Keep in mind, i could fill books with what i don't understand.
Monteviale wrote: Squishy, what risks are you talking about? Bruce has eliminated all risks by not going into the US. Therefore the large firms should have no problem investing in Canopy. Canopy has no exposure to the US. Therefore should it not be easier for Canopy to attract the big investment firms Bruce was talking about compared to Aphria?