RE:POKING HOLES IN THE REPORT? Ummmm.....First off, Constellation had four seats on the board the day the 4 billion dollar deal was approved. What does this mean you ask? It means that Constellation effectively had control of the company and thereby control of the money they invested. Obviously, Constellation approved every major deal after getting their seats on the board. None of the aquisitions, I repeat, none of the aquisitions comes as a surprise to Klein as he sat on the board and issued his approval for the aquisitions. So for you to sit here and imply that they were not happy with the way their 4 billion dollar investment was being spent makes you a bigger fool than anyone can possibly imagine.
As far as no one being able to refute the report.........no one is going to waste their time refuting a short attack, opinion piece. Canopy might refute it but I hope not. Formally responding to a joke like that just lends it credibility kind of like when the longs here engage you in serious debate. Luckily for everyone here you have outed yourself as a complete buffoon because only a Buffoon could have been calling for $40+ soon, $100 in the future and then embrace a worthless opinion piece calling for a $1 share price. All this in the span of a couple of weeks. You are done here. Nobody except your other aliases is buying your bullsh!t anymore.
To suggest that Constellation might be purposely tanking the share price borders on libel and if it were the case they would be risking a lawsuit that would effectively cost them their entire Constellation empire. I hope people can see how moronic you are being by implying these things. You don't have to do any sort of DD to see how idiotic your comments are. Just apply common sense here people and you will see Starcrapper for what he is.
Starsearcher80 wrote: As I've said before, I take all information as it comes, for AND against, and try and poke holes in it equally. I've spent some time trying to do this with this report, and I can't find anything that I can directlyrefute. I take it that since I've seen nothing posted here by anyone to the same extent, that they too have been unsuccesful.
The process of going through it in detail, however, has raised some further questions for me.
1) This report seems to be "very close" to the company. I wouldn't go so far as to say it was based on insider information, but the report certainly seems to be...."very well informed". Surprisingly so actually.
2) So that then begs the question, who stands to benefit from this report?
a) First off, obviously, the report is a boon to the short position. I've seen orchestrated short attacks before, but none quite so thorough, and none without a greater "margin for error". This is something I might have expected more back in the bubble days....but now?? So if it is a short effort, it's quite beyond the norm of what I've seen. I'll leave it at that.
b) The only other beneficiary I could possibly consider is Constellation. If their intent is to ultimately buy Canopy, I'm sure they would love to do that at a substantially reduced price. And playing nice isn't exactly their first consideration. To be sure, they've ousted the CEO, taken over the Board, and replaced fully with their own, effectively making Canopy their own company even without the share count.
I'm sure Constellation, in hindsight, isn't happy about about paying $48.00/share, and even less happy about some of the way that money has been spent since then on acquisitions that now face substantial writedowns. If the opportunity presented itself such that the price of Canopy went down substantially...like REALLYsubstantially, would Constellation complain?? Somehow I doubt they would.
This hints towards the dirtiest of dirty pool being played, and such consipiracy theories are most often only the result of overactive imagination. I only bring it up as mild posturing at best, trying to make sense of things. How could this report be that well constructed, and is it to Constellations' advantage are my two biggest questions right now. I have no definitive answer to either.
So at best, it's food for thought. It will be fascinating to see if Klein addresses some of these very issues raised in the report. If so, there is a lot of downside potential here, sorry to say.