Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Supreme Cannabis Company Inc. (The) T.FIRE

The Supreme Cannabis Co Inc is a Canada-based company engaged in the production and sale of medical and recreational cannabis. Its portfolio includes products that address recreational, medical, and wellness consumers. Its brands include BlissCo, Truverra, 7ACRES, Sugarleaf, and Hiway.


TSX:FIRE - Post by User

Comment by Methodon Dec 11, 2020 9:50am
96 Views
Post# 32087480

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Silver lining

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Silver lining

What you are describing is trading around their position, not shorting. 

Sure they can do it. They just have to file once a month.


brentkostaa wrote: Why would there be a cost to borrow when they have their own inventory. To me they are selling their own shares, walking the share price down (bullish retail cant compete with the ATM and the bombardment of institutional selling)... and then covering to go long, only to sell again from their net position in the high teens. 

Long story short, they are NOT waiting for their 40 cent break even when they can make money along the way with both short and long trading and interest payments.


So it makes more sense to you that they are selling at over a 50% loss? 

 

johnale wrote:

what your saying doesn't make sense to me. 

shorting requires borrowing shares - which has a cost involved. They can just sell their own shares. 

to short at 20 - (for instance) - and cover using shares they own at ACB of .41 for instance - they would register a loss. 

If they sell at 20c and buy back at 17 - then sure. But it doesn't look like that happened. It just looks like they sold some shares. And on nov 11 when they sold 700k shares - we were at .135/.14 cents. 

and .... we haven't been lower since? So impossible that they made any money on that trade in any scenario. 


Unless they sold to get another fund involved - so they can get some money on the table to bring this up and gain some liquidity. 

 

brentkostaa wrote: Still think MMCAP isnt shorting? Seems likey they are derisking and liquidating their equity as they make from the short side. 

In my opinion they are shorting this and offsetting their equity losses. THis is a win for them as they liquidate at break even, leaving the coupon as their cash cow. Eventually MM will own zero equity, and only debs and have their original investment totally recouped thanks for profits on the short side. 
 

 

johnale wrote:

Ya lots of possible reasons, we'll never know. 

ON second look -  they probably aren't subject to insider blackouts, as they sold November 11 and earnings were released nov 16. 

there has been a ton of volume lately, and maybe they took the opportunity to trade, take some off the table, and maybe get another fund involved. tax loss selling has some financial implications as well. 

All told if equity passes 45 - MM would end up with 175+mil shares - so I get it. (Even after the 12.65 sold) 

At least .... the selling co-incided with a pop during the period and 108million shares++ traded. 

 

 


 

 




<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>