Canopy Growth Corp T.WEED

RE:Ponzi ? -> Nonsense Article

[quinlash]

So there theory is that those who paid $50 Million for the shares this week will sell them at a loss right after getting the shares?  You do realize the $1.09 paid for those shares was in US Dollars right?

So, if I had a boat load of cash and opted to invest in the Cannabis Industy, which i personally see as a growth sector and one which will take off as soon as the US move forward with loser regulations (as early as next week with the SAFE Act) that I would be inclined to sell just after a few days and during what could prove out to be a temporary dip in prices?

That's an interesting theory, I guess that must be how the Rich get Richer and the Poor get Poorer.. by always selling at a loss ?   ( I don't think so )

roflmao.. who comes up with this nonsense?  These articles have to be written by someone who knows nothing about how to make money and how to ride out the markets for a profit.

[Oldweed]

Bare with me on this question as I always have trouble wrapping my head around shorting strategies. Is it possible that these new shares (at a lower price) cna be used to cover and replave previous shorted shares at a higher price? I so, would this give me the option to either increase my short count at a new lowere cover cost/contract and or reduce my risk by reducing my share count but maintain

[Oldweed]

This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy

[quinlash]

Yup.  If the ones who bought the shares are the same folks shorting then they could cover the short shares with the newly purchased Long position shares.  That's an option for Hedge Funds that smaller short position traders do not have access to (simply as they do not have such deep pockets).

[Oldweed]

So they can basically ride this down with no risk as long as the have access to new shares. That said the 1st 25 mil is done and there is an option for another 25+. So possibky at least 1 more leg down at little risk to short, yeesh.

[quinlash]

No, there is always risk, doesn't matter if the trade is short or long.  The shorts have to contend with the risk of something happening in the market and a swarm of new investors coming in or others covering before they get a chance to.   The SAFE banking ACT vote is one such example.  If that goes through we are likely looking at every tom "richard" and harry

[Oldweed]

Yes of course, but this was a private placement and they have exclusive access to theses additional shares at 1.09, so effectively sheltering them from a short squeeze, or am I misunderstanding?