RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Share split 2019Tin - yes they voted July 30th then two weeks later announced STZ $5B Aug. 14th the morning after financials came out. What was your thinking that they planned to do the split since they new about the STZ investment? Not following that.
TinToronto wrote: Thanks, thats what I thought too, I was at both meetings, the first was in July to vote where we all attended the community center and they gave bus tours and the second was in September for visitors opening at the site. They voted in July and announced STZ in August the morning of financials, no?
investor1964 wrote: TIN - see my post to Rainbow below this. The split was approved on July 30th,, 2018. He was asked about the split at the Tweed visitors center opening which was filmed and he said he had 9 more mos. before it would expire.
TinToronto wrote: Pretty sure there were two meetings, one was a special meeting to vote and the other was the Annual meeting - at the latter he was asked about the split and he said at that time he didnt feel it was needed any longer but he still had it in his back pocket if needed. But then again, I like to get fuzzy too ...
RainbowRunner wrote: My memory is fuzzy (nuthin new there), and I can’t find the actual AGM notice, but didn’t the split and the STZ deal both get approved at the AGM? (I was actually at the AGM but damned if I can remember - was too busy being mesmerized by Bruce). If the split WAS approved prior to the AGM it was certainly with the executives’ knowledge that STZ was a done deal. Why bother with a provision for a split (prior to the AGM, if that’s when it happened) if the thinking is “they won’t need it because STZ is in the bag”?
I agree the company’s thrust has been to attract more institutional buyers, but I don’t believe that is an argument against attracting more retail. Otherwise, why have juggernauts like Apple & Amazon done split after split over the years? Also (and this reasoning may be more altruistic than reality), maybe Bruce likes the idea of “the little guy” still being able to buy a piece of his pie and knows that a slice costing $25 - $30 is more do-able than one costing double or triple that. I dunno, really - just throwing out ideas here. Personally, I would like to see a split because, to me, that screams GROWTH. Either way, I am confident whatever Bruce does will be 100% in his shareholders’ best interest.
TinToronto wrote: Bruce also mentioned that since the STZ investment, there was no longer a reason to split the stock as its better off in stable hands, i.e institutions, as they aren’t as likely to cause such volatility in the SP...could go either way, and while I’d love to have more shares on a split - I dont see the need or benefit at this time.
investor1964 wrote: Rainbow, I agree with you a hundred percent! And I recall Bruce saying at the AGM that they had until July 2019 (a year from the split approval) to implement the split. So I'm guessing it'll happen soonish. STZ has a history of implementing stock splits in May I believe so maybe we'll see it announced in March or April?
RainbowRunner wrote: Stock split is good because, for one thing, it plays to the mentality of a lot of retail buyers who think they can’t afford 100 shs @ $70 but are happy to buy 100 shs @ $35. It’s a psychological advantage that brings in new buyers. One thing I know for sure - there WILL be a split, it’s just a matter of time. Bruce & Co. didn’t pave the way for a split at the last AGM for nothing. Maybe this year, maybe next year, but I’m betting sooner rather than later.
gringodude wrote: not being argumentative
but why is a stock split good for current shareholders?
and I agree with the NY news being very good for the Co
the CBD business will be strong there and expect it to span state borders eventually
Cali not so much... it's a mature market with well established medical system
and a thriving rec system, as well as massive existing grow operations
maybe if the state gets more involved with regulation I can see space for CGC
but we also have CGC's stance that they will not egage in THC business
as long as it remains federally illegal