All time lowInvesting, to me, is the purchasing of shares for the purpose of holding them for an appreciable length of time, in the belief that they will increase in value.
Typically, for a company to see an increase in the value of their shares, they need to show an increase in their ability to generate sustainable, profitable growth, meaning....
....(a) they continue to increase their net revenue
(b) they generate a profit in so doing
And this flows from a leverageable value proposition - the thing they do well that generates consumption loyalty. It could be a Point of Difference or it could be a Low Cost Producer (read: Benefit or Price).
But Canopy has no value proposition - there is no thing they do well, and certainly not better than competition. So there is little chance they can (a) or (b). Their net revenue, in a growing market, has shown a D. Klein, their gross margin is low to negative and their operating expenses exceed their revenue - they are a terribly-run company.
So why would someone who wishes to invest in Canadian cannabis, choose Canopy? Why would they represent anything more than a Wild Ars (Bad) Bet?
So many (many) things would have to go hugely in favor of Canopy for them to have any chance - they need to hit a home run on cannabis beverages - they need the US to legalize federally in the next 3 years - they need to hit a home run in that US federally-legal market - they need to cut COGS and Opex, while increasing overall innovation and executional excellence - that's not just a big ask, it's an impossible one, for the purposes of a prudent and responsible investment thesis.
I wish these "analysts" would actually start talking business strategy, because, at the end the day, these companies need to have someone buy their product or service at a price higher than the cost to provide it - it's that simple,
and that hard.