% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

National Western Life Group, Inc. Message Board

bengrahamman 7 posts  |  Last Activity: Mar 17, 2016 9:38 AM Member since: Oct 15, 1998
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • VRX says all companies get SEC comment letters once a year. That is not at all correct. "It's a comment letter that all companies get."

  • Reply to

    Canopy , earnings and Inventory under IFRS

    by bengrahamman Mar 6, 2016 5:38 PM
    bengrahamman bengrahamman Mar 8, 2016 10:03 AM Flag

    Canopy is the only Canadian company I follow, and the only MJ company I currently invest in.

  • Reply to

    Canopy , earnings and Inventory under IFRS

    by bengrahamman Mar 6, 2016 5:38 PM
    bengrahamman bengrahamman Mar 7, 2016 10:32 AM Flag

    Kaya803 - (Q from another board) - For some reason Yahoo kept deleting my posts, so I tried later in the day. My Canopy concerns I wrote about still exist. I am long Canopy, and have no current plans to change that. Yet, if I did need to sell it, I would do it as quick and quietly as possible. I follow the industry fairly closely, and at this point have found no long candidates in the sector. I am most concerned with US code section 280E. Most of the US pot stocks are insolvent, burning cash like crazy, or a mixture of both. I include TRTC in that statement as well

  • Reply to

    Canopy , earnings and Inventory under IFRS

    by bengrahamman Mar 6, 2016 5:38 PM
    bengrahamman bengrahamman Mar 6, 2016 5:40 PM Flag

    I brought this up extensively on the conference call. I think it is out in the open now, and if an issue, the auditors and Canopy will make sure it is corrected for the fiscal year end March 31, 2016 (assuming only 4 quarters this fiscal year.

  • I am pleased with the revenue growth, and progression of Canopy Growth Corp. Our thesis remains intact. Yet, I have concerns on their reporting of inventory as described below.

    Something unusual could be going on with TWMJF reporting. You can't carry cannabis at $6 a gram, sell it for a little over $7, and claim a 70% to 79% gross profit. I know that is what they said on the call, presented in the statements and so forth. Yet, it just doesn't add up. Plus inventory even under IFRS is to be basically reported at cost (unless net realizable value is less than cost). Yet, TWMJF is marking up inventory to fair value, by using Biological Assets as a conduit. Unlike inventory, biological assets are marked to fair value under IFRS.

    Inventory is clearly supposed to be historical cost (in most cases). Hence, inventory without biological assets would be a lot less than $6 per gram. Yet, what Tweed appears to be doing is properly marking biological assets to fair value, just like they disclosed in their financials. The concern I have is they are then releasing the biological assets, which are already at fair value, to inventory, and then claiming inventory is at cost. Just seems like an odd way to do it, and certainly a way you can step up inventory to closer to fair value. The question becomes, "Is this permissible under IFRS?"

    I am concerned with the size of their inventory, which is currently CAD $22M, with MRQ sales at CAD$3.5M. Canopy claims oils will extend perishable life. Yet, I suspect it will turn out that Canopy will at some point discuss an "unplanned" inventory issue.

    I do not think there presentation is illegal in any manner whatsoever. I think the reporting could possibly be aggressive or incorrect. Or, at worst, I would think these are growing pains. At best, I would think I am incorrect in my assessment of inventory in this situation.

  • I spent a bit of time researching ROX today. This is a total speculative high risk investment. They are burning a great deal of cash, and at the same time increasing revenues and productions materially. The brands and quick concept look interesting. Question becomes once again, "Can they survive until an eventual profit?"

    If funding ceases or an adverse event occurs, ROX could be toast. If we wait for profits, then share price might no longer be $0.89, and could be substantially higher.

    Institutional ownership is not telling. One firm has 0.40% of assets in ROX, and that is the largest allocation I have seen.

    Institutional ownership is listed as 6.85%. Should they survive and should institutions start looking at it, it could escalate in price. Lots of “ifs.”

    The 5 year chart has been impressive. The 10 year chart is ugly.

    In June 2008, the price was $0.20. I think it came public in April 2006 for $9.00.

    Philip Frost owns 33% of the common shares.

    Shareholders’ equity is $23M, of which $7.9M is intangible.

    Shares outstanding as of November 6, 2015 is 160M.

    Auditors are Eisner Amper.

    Officer salary is not excessive for a public company, as COO made $438K in 2015, SVP made $354,401, CFO made $300,808 and SVP of Marketing made $229,976. This isn’t cheap relative to revenues, but reasonable in my opinion.

    Directors get fees of $9,800 to $20,000 in cash, and another $12K to $82K in options. This is totally excessive in my opinion. Yet, the amount is not material enough to cause a non-investment.

    51 full-time employees, 32 of which were in sales and marketing and 19 of which were in management, finance and administration.

    As of June 12, 2015 officers, directors and principal shareholders owned 44% of the common stock.

    4800 Square foot lease in NYC expires in April 2016.

    Surprisingly, an unqualified audit opinion was issued.

    Debt has increased substantially since on or before March 31, 2014.

  • bengrahamman bengrahamman Mar 2, 2016 8:45 PM Flag

    I tried posting a link, but Yahoo doesn't seem to allow. If you look at form4oracledotcom website, and look for Frost. Seems to have plenty of losers. Not saying ROX will be a loser, but seems he has lost before. ROX cash drain is huge. I have been looking at, but survival seems difficult. Revenues increasing rapidly, yet cash is burning rapidly too.

206.00-0.70(-0.34%)3:23 PMEDT