Comment by
JMark80 on Apr 30, 2018 1:52pm
Like I said, they own 30% of phase 1 production and are an intermediary on the other 70%. Wonder why that wasn't in their presentation.
Comment by
Sunniva4Life on Apr 30, 2018 6:20pm
Because the difference between what they have and 100% ownership is negligible? Because it won't have a material effect on revenues?
Comment by
JMark80 on May 01, 2018 12:16pm
The 7 licensees aren't growing it for for free, so how could it be neglibile? Also don't forget effective tax rates can be nearly 90%.
Comment by
Sunniva4Life on May 02, 2018 12:13am
I think that when the company states, very plainly and repeatedly, that the difference between their business model and 100% ownership is negligible and that it will have minimal impact on their bottom and top line, we have no choice but to take these statements at face value and basically assume their honesty and goodwill. We simply lack the information to support a contrarian point of view.
Comment by
JMark80 on May 02, 2018 1:44am
If licensees need to profit, and their profit is currently taxed at a very high rate - as much as 70% (IRS code 280e) then the only way it can be considered negligible is if they are gaming the system. If the regulators don't have a problem with it, then so be it.
Comment by
Sunniva4Life on May 02, 2018 2:16am
That's a good observation... I guess that's why they put out that press release to celebrate being granted all the temporary licences in California - they could see the significance of that as being a validation of their business model, while many of us considered it more or less a non-event.
Comment by
URLaughable3 on May 01, 2018 12:41pm
You also have to look to the investor prez and news releases saying the target is sub $1 per gram in costs. Maybe canada side production drags that avg down because cali production has the “renter premium” added in. Im positive the numbers and projections are accurate as it is all part of the bus model and application requirements.