The Masters of Gambling are here! - MastersOfGambling.com
Calculating Return on Investment (ROI) in Sports Betting
Calculating Sports Betting ROI - Return on Investment
Calculate Gambling Roi - showbiztrends.info
MOG Betting ROI Calculator - Masters of Gambling
How to Calculate Sports Betting ROI, Yield & WPCT (With
Return on Investment [ROI] Sports Betting Odds Calculator
Calculate Gambling Roi - livebonuscasino.com
Calculate Gambling Roi - gogetbobus.co
calculate gambling roi
calculate gambling roi - win
GME Short Squeeze What Comes Next Part 3
GME Short Squeeze What Comes Next Part 3 Hello all, Before I begin I would like to address something I have been encountering on my posts in the comments section. I keep receiving some hate concerning my opinions and I want to be crystal clear that they are just that; opinions. I also want everyone to know that is is meant to be a dialog. I am not trying to pump this stock because truthfully, this goes far beyond us retail investors at this point. What I want is a dialog between all sides to examine this truly fascinating phenomenon that is occurring. I would also like to clarify something, I am not a bagholder. I do currently hold bags because I own 336 shares at a $194.34 cost basis, however, that total amount is house money that was used from my profits on the first go around. I also understand some people are tired of hearing about this because it's the same regurgitated form of someone else's post as it keeps circulating in an attempt to retain hype and drive future buying; this is not what this post is about. As investors and individuals involved in the world of finance, this situation should absolutely intrigue us whether or not we are involved. I am here to present my logic on the situation but encourage healthy discussion and debate. This brings me to my first claim. This is not over. Now, I am not claiming that a squeeze will still occur, I am simply claiming it is not over, for better or for worse. Several things need to take place for this to be completely over, at which point I will either post my gains or my losses from the adventure. When I say "it" I am referring to this entire phenomenon, not one short squeeze. I do not think these events, "it", is over. This is largely due to retail and institutional purchasing not really changing all that much since we found the bottom and established support at a staggering $60. This support was lost today and found new support at $50. There was very interesting ATH action and I'm not sure what to make of it. Millions of bag holders (not just WSB) are still holding and in fact, averaging down, thereby purchasing more. These same bag holders are absolutely refusing to sell for such massive losses and in turn are becoming long term investors on the stock if another squeeze isn't to occur. People are picking up speculative positions in the off-chance of another squeeze. Others are determining this as a fair value for the company, not fundamentally, but based on the future prospects of Ryan Cohen and team. Finally, it is nowhere near leaving the global stage with important upcoming dates that we will discuss later. To examine why it isn't over let's look at both sides of the argument:
Bulls claim it's not over for many reasons that you can find in the hundreds of other bullish posts, so I won't bore you with those details. My argument on the bull side is more along the lines of what I listed above.
Bears claim it is over because there was a 2250% price increase over the course of two weeks, therefore this must be a short squeeze.
I think we can all agree, bear or bull, that something happened. A 2250% increase certainly isn't nothing. The question is...what? I see several possibilities and would like to discuss them in the comments.
The shorts in fact covered and this was a short squeeze.
The shorts partially covered and this was a partial short squeeze, but the price increase was mainly hype and gamma squeezes.
The shorts didn't cover anything and this was a globally hyped price increase in conjunction with several gamma squeezes.
Some combination of the above 3.
First, the data: Based on morningstar the short interest is showing 78.46%. Now, I think the website is having some issues storing cookies because it will show the outdated 226% unless you open it up in incognito. Market watch is showing 41.95% This spread is interesting for sure, my thoughts are some of these calculations are including "synthetic longs" introduced by S3. It is extremely possible to manipulate these numbers via illegal methods and even legal methods using options. Please see this SEC document to explain how this would work. I am not trying to convince anyone to fit my narrative, but these things occur far more commonly than one would expect. The reasoning is because the fines for committing the crime are far less costly than letting the event take place. Please see FINRA's website for the long, and frequent list of fines being dealt out due to manipulation. A common culprit? Lying about short volume. Let's use the absolute worst case scenario being reported of 41.95%, which mind you is still extremely high for one stock: The shorts in fact covered and this was a short squeeze What's interesting here is even if the shorts 100% covered all of their positions, they very well could have shorted on the way back down. Why wouldn't you? It would be insane to not open a short position when this hit nearly $500 especially if you lost half of your companies money; what better way to get it back? For the remainder of this thesis, I will be assuming that some of the short positions that exist are newly opened positions at a higher price unless someone has a counter-claim as to why that wouldn't be possible/probable. That would mean 226% was covered on the way up and another 41.95% was reopened on the way back down. Based on the volume and price changes throughout the past two weeks this simply doesn't pass the math check. The shorts partially covered and this was a partial short squeeze. Again, using 41.95% this is highly likely and the most reasonable case. Some, probably the worst positions, were covered on the way up. I think this is precisely what happened, we had some partial shorts covering but for the most part it was gamma squeezes, hype, and FOMO whereby the price started climbing so rapidly it became smarter for the shorts to just wait out the bubble than to actually cover all of their positions. Again, we fall into a "what-if" scenario regarding shorting on the way back down. The shorts didn't cover anything and this was a globally hyped price increase in conjunction with several gamma squeezes. This scenario does not pass the math check using the 41.95% figure. If the data is being manipulated then this becomes very interesting because if some of the worst positions are still open then that means all of these HF's losses that were reported were strictly interest and they are simply waiting this out for as long as it takes making back their losses on their newly opened short positions in t $300-$400 range. Sadly, this puts us in the guessing range yet again. We can do the math and see it's possible this scenario exists, however, we would be comparing it against losses reported by the entities that were being squeezed. There are way to many what-if's for me to me consider this a possibility, but I can't write it off completely. Some combination of the above 3. Truthfully, this isn't worth examining just yet. There would be far to many "what-if's" to address, this is something that could be address at the later dates that we will get to shortly. Now, I've heard it a lot regarding the 02/09 data. "It's two weeks old". Well, that is always the case. The FINRA short data is always two weeks old and suggesting that we can't pull any information from it at all is asinine. Where it gets quite murky, is the data includes 01/27 information. This was a day unlike any other in this saga. I will take this moment to address the following upcoming catalysts and when I truly think this will be done; one way or the other. Today's data 02/09, was very important because if it showed an extremely low percentage then we know shorts have exited and did not re-enter and this is completely done. Given the data does not reflect that, we now must turn to several events that could act as catalysts for either a further squeeze or a complete shutdown. 02/19 - In my last post, I discussed the Failure To Deliver (FTD) conundrum. I do need some help figuring out the exact expiration date. From here "The close-out requirement states that a participant of a clearing agency needs to take immediate action to close 4 out a fail to deliver position in a threshold security that has persisted for 13 consecutive settlement days by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity." The exact date is slightly irrelevant because I highly doubt all of these FTD's are going to deliver on the same exact day. This site, while it isn't an official channel seems to be doing a good job of tracking data. If you want to learn more about FTD's and the implications there please visit that site or review my last post which has links to follow for further reading. 02/18 - Keith Gill aka u/DeepFuckingValue will testify before congress and RH CEO Vladimir will be attending. This can go several ways which can lead to an SEC trading halt on GameStop or with evidence that proves foul play occurred. Who knows? It will certainly be interesting and I don't even to speculate on the market reaction to this even because it could go a ton of different ways; it will be an important date nonetheless 02/24 - The next FINRA short interest information will be made readily available to the public. This will be far more interesting and helpful information because it won't include the insane volatility of January, but it will also highlight the newest short positions. This data will help further drive where I think this is all going to end. It's possible that shorts opened new positions at $50 thinking it was going back to $12. Let's not speculate too much here either, it's just another dataset that will bring light to the direction this is headed. 03/25 - GameStop ER. This is big too for several reasons. First, this will include the console sales cycle which historically has done well for GameStop. A typical buy the hype, sell the news event. It will be interesting to see how the market reacts leading up to this ER, maybe people won't even touch GME leading up to then due to the recent volatility, but if they do, and if there is still a lot of short interest, this too could force shorts to begin covering. Another critical part of this ER is Ryan Cohen. This will be the first time this new board addresses the public with their plans for the future and for the first time since this entire adventure began, the "dying brick and mortar" narrative will finally begin to change in the public eye. That is still the common misconception regarding GameStop, that it is a dying brick and mortar retailer where nothing has changed. This hasn't been the case for around 6 months now, but this will be the first time it is publicly address. The headlines surrounding GameStop's future plans will be very interesting to read and the markets reaction will be far more interesting. I have been asked a lot what my PT is and when I expect the squeeze to happen, but let me be clear. Very seldom do squeezes "just happen". In fact, short squeezes are far more common than one would think, they just typically happen over months, if not years and the shorts cover on dips so you don't even notice it's happening. In order to force a squeeze, you need to hold a decent amount of shorts underwater. Soon one will crack and start closing their position, this leads to a series of shorts closing their positions skyrocketing the price until more and more shorts need to cover. This is rare. I hope this narrative of purchasing heavily shorted companies comes to a close soon because a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money simply buying up companies because they are heavily bet against. Catalysts and massive changes need to occur like overhauling your entire business as is the case with GameStop. Normally, shorts will close their positions one at a time, covering on dips and you don't even notice it's happening. In times where you see a price rise of seemingly no news could very well be shorts closing their positions because their research led them to realize this company is on the road to recovery. I digress. Given the most recent data and the multiple upcoming catalysts I am still very bullish on a GME short squeeze. My post from quite some time ago illustrated the importance of catalysts regarding a short squeeze, this is still very much the case. The first run was interrupted and the second run won't happen with magic, it requires a catalyst. Another post was titled For those who do not understand the inevitable GME short squeeze, was at the time "inevitable" because math. That is no longer the case. It is no longer inevitable but it is still possible. I want to be clear: This is not nearly as close to a sure thing as it once was and it depends on a lot of different factors. One of the largest is the people. Granted, a lot of what's happening now is in the hands of institutions but millions of retailers holding their positions to the grave certainly helps the institutional buyers have more faith in their play to continue a squeeze. SO WHAT DO I THINK I think shorts certainly covered some of their positions, but not all. I also firmly believe a significant amount of short positions were opened on the way back down by both HF's and individuals. Some certainly positioned high, but based on sentiment, it appears a lot of people think GME is fairly valued around $20 (which I disagree with but let's use that for the time being). That would mean shorts would have no problem opening positions at 100,70,60, even $50. 42% is still very high which means a squeeze is inevitable so long as the company continues in a positive path. However, squeezes typically aren't as abrupt as people think. They are actually quite common, in fact another position I'm heavily invested in is SPCE and they have been going through a squeeze for several weeks and will continue to squeeze so long as news continues to be positive. How would we get an abrupt short squeeze? A massive bull run. The new shorts that entered at lower levels wouldn't be too hard to catch, however, they are probably low volume, so when they buy to close, it won't be large enough volumes for massive peaks, but a bull run very well could lead to these lower tiered shorts closing, triggering a gamma squeeze. If gamma squeezes are made week over week then shorts at the higher end would have two options:
Close early and take profits
Wait it out because they are positioned so well that interest means nothing and they don't think there is any hope of us rising to those levels.
In the first case, them closing early would be a nice short squeeze to probably several hundred dollars, but it wouldn't break $1000. To break $1000 we would need a big bull run to catch the shorts, trigger gamma squeezes, and keep momentum until they are caught and underwater. This is highly unlikely unless there is another global sentiment. NOTE: ALL OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS I AM MAKING ARE BASED ON THE 42% REPORTING. IF IT IS IN FACT 78% THEN THE POSSIBILITY IS TREMENDOUSLY INCREASED FOR THESE THINGS TO HAPPEN. SO WHEN DOES IT ALL END My though is if by the end of March these catalysts were not enough to reignite the hype and squeeze, then it will essentially be over except in the case of a few circumstances:
A VW/Porche moment occurs where a large buyer picks up a large portion of the company.
Some other currently unknown catalyst appears seemingly out of thin air
The data was in fact manipulated. Regardless of what the data says, if the shorts did in fact lie about their short int to take the fine over being squeezed, then they will be squeezed regardless.
It is quite possible, that these catalysts and moments aren't enough to force a squeeze anymore especially if the shorts have repositioned really well. I will retain the mindset that this fateful January 2021 was not a short squeeze. However, that does not mean it will ever actually happen. SO WHAT IS YOUR PLAY HOOMAN? Well, I am long on GME which is why I didn't mind hopping back in even at outrageous prices. I will continue averaging down and don't plan on selling for quite some time, probably several years. The reason for this is I believe in Cohen and his team to turn this into something unexpected and I imagine an eventual ROI. Once this is all said and done and I think either the shorts truly have covered or they simply got away with it (Beginning of April), I will be posting my DD for GME as a long play regardless of the squeeze mechanics. Thank you all for joining me on this wild journey. I hope we can discuss some of these points in the comments like adults and truly try to grasp this wild situation we are all in. There are extremes on both sides from "get over it, the squeeze happened" to a cult like mentality on the other extreme. I hope through discussion we can find the moderate approach and further understand the market mechanics at play. Thanks for your time WARNING: Until the squeeze business is over for good, this is a very volatile and risky play. Joining now for the hope of a potential round 2 squeeze should only be done in a speculative manner with money you are willing to lose. This is more akin to a gamble than it is investing. I think the current market price is fair given the future prospects of the company but do your own DD, I will not be releasing any until this squeeze is put to rest. TL;DR: I am still bullish on this scenario even at 42%, if it really is 78% then I am extremely bullish. There are a plethora of upcoming catalysts that could reignite the squeeze but even if none are powerful enough, with Cohen's new direction we could expect good news for quite some time forcing shorts to exit on a more spread out timeline. Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor. I do not wish to sway your opinion in either direction. I simply seek to examine this interesting and volatile situation via crowd sourcing. What you do with your money is entirely up to you.
For ALL THOSE WHO MISSED ON GME, LOST MONEY OR BAGHOLDING...THIS IS THE ENDGAME 🚀
ALL CREDIT GOES TO u/hooman_or_whatever GME Short Squeeze What Comes Next Part 3 Hello all, Before I begin I would like to address something I have been encountering on my posts in the comments section. I keep receiving some hate concerning my opinions and I want to be crystal clear that they are just that; opinions. I also want everyone to know that is is meant to be a dialog. I am not trying to pump this stock because truthfully, this goes far beyond us retail investors at this point. What I want is a dialog between all sides to examine this truly fascinating phenomenon that is occurring. I would also like to clarify something, I am not a bagholder. I do currently hold bags because I own 336 shares at a $194.34 cost basis, however, that total amount is house money that was used from my profits on the first go around. I also understand some people are tired of hearing about this because it's the same regurgitated form of someone else's post as it keeps circulating in an attempt to retain hype and drive future buying; this is not what this post is about. As investors and individuals involved in the world of finance, this situation should absolutely intrigue us whether or not we are involved. I am here to present my logic on the situation but encourage healthy discussion and debate. This brings me to my first claim. This is not over. Now, I am not claiming that a squeeze will still occur, I am simply claiming it is not over, for better or for worse. Several things need to take place for this to be completely over, at which point I will either post my gains or my losses from the adventure. When I say "it" I am referring to this entire phenomenon, not one short squeeze. I do not think these events, "it", is over. This is largely due to retail and institutional purchasing not really changing all that much since we found the bottom and established support at a staggering $60. This support was lost today and found new support at $50. There was very interesting ATH action and I'm not sure what to make of it. Millions of bag holders (not just WSB) are still holding and in fact, averaging down, thereby purchasing more. These same bag holders are absolutely refusing to sell for such massive losses and in turn are becoming long term investors on the stock if another squeeze isn't to occur. People are picking up speculative positions in the off-chance of another squeeze. Others are determining this as a fair value for the company, not fundamentally, but based on the future prospects of Ryan Cohen and team. Finally, it is nowhere near leaving the global stage with important upcoming dates that we will discuss later. To examine why it isn't over let's look at both sides of the argument:
Bulls claim it's not over for many reasons that you can find in the hundreds of other bullish posts, so I won't bore you with those details. My argument on the bull side is more along the lines of what I listed above.
Bears claim it is over because there was a 2250% price increase over the course of two weeks, therefore this must be a short squeeze.
I think we can all agree, bear or bull, that something happened. A 2250% increase certainly isn't nothing. The question is...what? I see several possibilities and would like to discuss them in the comments.
The shorts in fact covered and this was a short squeeze.
The shorts partially covered and this was a partial short squeeze, but the price increase was mainly hype and gamma squeezes.
The shorts didn't cover anything and this was a globally hyped price increase in conjunction with several gamma squeezes.
Some combination of the above 3.
First, the data: Based on morningstar the short interest is showing 78.46%. Now, I think the website is having some issues storing cookies because it will show the outdated 226% unless you open it up in incognito. Market watch is showing 41.95% This spread is interesting for sure, my thoughts are some of these calculations are including "synthetic longs" introduced by S3. It is extremely possible to manipulate these numbers via illegal methods and even legal methods using options. Please see this SEC document to explain how this would work. I am not trying to convince anyone to fit my narrative, but these things occur far more commonly than one would expect. The reasoning is because the fines for committing the crime are far less costly than letting the event take place. Please see FINRA's website for the long, and frequent list of fines being dealt out due to manipulation. A common culprit? Lying about short volume. Let's use the absolute worst case scenario being reported of 41.95%, which mind you is still extremely high for one stock: The shorts in fact covered and this was a short squeeze What's interesting here is even if the shorts 100% covered all of their positions, they very well could have shorted on the way back down. Why wouldn't you? It would be insane to not open a short position when this hit nearly $500 especially if you lost half of your companies money; what better way to get it back? For the remainder of this thesis, I will be assuming that some of the short positions that exist are newly opened positions at a higher price unless someone has a counter-claim as to why that wouldn't be possible/probable. That would mean 226% was covered on the way up and another 41.95% was reopened on the way back down. Based on the volume and price changes throughout the past two weeks this simply doesn't pass the math check. The shorts partially covered and this was a partial short squeeze. Again, using 41.95% this is highly likely and the most reasonable case. Some, probably the worst positions, were covered on the way up. I think this is precisely what happened, we had some partial shorts covering but for the most part it was gamma squeezes, hype, and FOMO whereby the price started climbing so rapidly it became smarter for the shorts to just wait out the bubble than to actually cover all of their positions. Again, we fall into a "what-if" scenario regarding shorting on the way back down. The shorts didn't cover anything and this was a globally hyped price increase in conjunction with several gamma squeezes. This scenario does not pass the math check using the 41.95% figure. If the data is being manipulated then this becomes very interesting because if some of the worst positions are still open then that means all of these HF's losses that were reported were strictly interest and they are simply waiting this out for as long as it takes making back their losses on their newly opened short positions in t $300-$400 range. Sadly, this puts us in the guessing range yet again. We can do the math and see it's possible this scenario exists, however, we would be comparing it against losses reported by the entities that were being squeezed. There are way to many what-if's for me to me consider this a possibility, but I can't write it off completely. Some combination of the above 3. Truthfully, this isn't worth examining just yet. There would be far to many "what-if's" to address, this is something that could be address at the later dates that we will get to shortly. Now, I've heard it a lot regarding the 02/09 data. "It's two weeks old". Well, that is always the case. The FINRA short data is always two weeks old and suggesting that we can't pull any information from it at all is asinine. Where it gets quite murky, is the data includes 01/27 information. This was a day unlike any other in this saga. I will take this moment to address the following upcoming catalysts and when I truly think this will be done; one way or the other. Today's data 02/09, was very important because if it showed an extremely low percentage then we know shorts have exited and did not re-enter and this is completely done. Given the data does not reflect that, we now must turn to several events that could act as catalysts for either a further squeeze or a complete shutdown. 02/19 - In my last post, I discussed the Failure To Deliver (FTD) conundrum. I do need some help figuring out the exact expiration date. From here "The close-out requirement states that a participant of a clearing agency needs to take immediate action to close 4 out a fail to deliver position in a threshold security that has persisted for 13 consecutive settlement days by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity." The exact date is slightly irrelevant because I highly doubt all of these FTD's are going to deliver on the same exact day. This site, while it isn't an official channel seems to be doing a good job of tracking data. If you want to learn more about FTD's and the implications there please visit that site or review my last post which has links to follow for further reading. 02/18 - Keith Gill aka u/DeepFuckingValue will testify before congress and RH CEO Vladimir will be attending. This can go several ways which can lead to an SEC trading halt on GameStop or with evidence that proves foul play occurred. Who knows? It will certainly be interesting and I don't even to speculate on the market reaction to this even because it could go a ton of different ways; it will be an important date nonetheless 02/24 - The next FINRA short interest information will be made readily available to the public. This will be far more interesting and helpful information because it won't include the insane volatility of January, but it will also highlight the newest short positions. This data will help further drive where I think this is all going to end. It's possible that shorts opened new positions at $50 thinking it was going back to $12. Let's not speculate too much here either, it's just another dataset that will bring light to the direction this is headed. 03/25 - GameStop ER. This is big too for several reasons. First, this will include the console sales cycle which historically has done well for GameStop. A typical buy the hype, sell the news event. It will be interesting to see how the market reacts leading up to this ER, maybe people won't even touch GME leading up to then due to the recent volatility, but if they do, and if there is still a lot of short interest, this too could force shorts to begin covering. Another critical part of this ER is Ryan Cohen. This will be the first time this new board addresses the public with their plans for the future and for the first time since this entire adventure began, the "dying brick and mortar" narrative will finally begin to change in the public eye. That is still the common misconception regarding GameStop, that it is a dying brick and mortar retailer where nothing has changed. This hasn't been the case for around 6 months now, but this will be the first time it is publicly address. The headlines surrounding GameStop's future plans will be very interesting to read and the markets reaction will be far more interesting. I have been asked a lot what my PT is and when I expect the squeeze to happen, but let me be clear. Very seldom do squeezes "just happen". In fact, short squeezes are far more common than one would think, they just typically happen over months, if not years and the shorts cover on dips so you don't even notice it's happening. In order to force a squeeze, you need to hold a decent amount of shorts underwater. Soon one will crack and start closing their position, this leads to a series of shorts closing their positions skyrocketing the price until more and more shorts need to cover. This is rare. I hope this narrative of purchasing heavily shorted companies comes to a close soon because a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money simply buying up companies because they are heavily bet against. Catalysts and massive changes need to occur like overhauling your entire business as is the case with GameStop. Normally, shorts will close their positions one at a time, covering on dips and you don't even notice it's happening. In times where you see a price rise of seemingly no news could very well be shorts closing their positions because their research led them to realize this company is on the road to recovery. I digress. Given the most recent data and the multiple upcoming catalysts I am still very bullish on a GME short squeeze. My post from quite some time ago illustrated the importance of catalysts regarding a short squeeze, this is still very much the case. The first run was interrupted and the second run won't happen with magic, it requires a catalyst. Another post was titled For those who do not understand the inevitable GME short squeeze, was at the time "inevitable" because math. That is no longer the case. It is no longer inevitable but it is still possible. I want to be clear: This is not nearly as close to a sure thing as it once was and it depends on a lot of different factors. One of the largest is the people. Granted, a lot of what's happening now is in the hands of institutions but millions of retailers holding their positions to the grave certainly helps the institutional buyers have more faith in their play to continue a squeeze. SO WHAT DO I THINK I think shorts certainly covered some of their positions, but not all. I also firmly believe a significant amount of short positions were opened on the way back down by both HF's and individuals. Some certainly positioned high, but based on sentiment, it appears a lot of people think GME is fairly valued around $20 (which I disagree with but let's use that for the time being). That would mean shorts would have no problem opening positions at 100,70,60, even $50. 42% is still very high which means a squeeze is inevitable so long as the company continues in a positive path. However, squeezes typically aren't as abrupt as people think. They are actually quite common, in fact another position I'm heavily invested in is SPCE and they have been going through a squeeze for several weeks and will continue to squeeze so long as news continues to be positive. How would we get an abrupt short squeeze? A massive bull run. The new shorts that entered at lower levels wouldn't be too hard to catch, however, they are probably low volume, so when they buy to close, it won't be large enough volumes for massive peaks, but a bull run very well could lead to these lower tiered shorts closing, triggering a gamma squeeze. If gamma squeezes are made week over week then shorts at the higher end would have two options:
Close early and take profits
Wait it out because they are positioned so well that interest means nothing and they don't think there is any hope of us rising to those levels.
In the first case, them closing early would be a nice short squeeze to probably several hundred dollars, but it wouldn't break $1000. To break $1000 we would need a big bull run to catch the shorts, trigger gamma squeezes, and keep momentum until they are caught and underwater. This is highly unlikely unless there is another global sentiment. NOTE: ALL OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS I AM MAKING ARE BASED ON THE 42% REPORTING. IF IT IS IN FACT 78% THEN THE POSSIBILITY IS TREMENDOUSLY INCREASED FOR THESE THINGS TO HAPPEN. SO WHEN DOES IT ALL END My though is if by the end of March these catalysts were not enough to reignite the hype and squeeze, then it will essentially be over except in the case of a few circumstances:
A VW/Porche moment occurs where a large buyer picks up a large portion of the company.
Some other currently unknown catalyst appears seemingly out of thin air
The data was in fact manipulated. Regardless of what the data says, if the shorts did in fact lie about their short int to take the fine over being squeezed, then they will be squeezed regardless.
It is quite possible, that these catalysts and moments aren't enough to force a squeeze anymore especially if the shorts have repositioned really well. I will retain the mindset that this fateful January 2021 was not a short squeeze. However, that does not mean it will ever actually happen. SO WHAT IS YOUR PLAY HOOMAN? Well, I am long on GME which is why I didn't mind hopping back in even at outrageous prices. I will continue averaging down and don't plan on selling for quite some time, probably several years. The reason for this is I believe in Cohen and his team to turn this into something unexpected and I imagine an eventual ROI. Once this is all said and done and I think either the shorts truly have covered or they simply got away with it (Beginning of April), I will be posting my DD for GME as a long play regardless of the squeeze mechanics. Thank you all for joining me on this wild journey. I hope we can discuss some of these points in the comments like adults and truly try to grasp this wild situation we are all in. There are extremes on both sides from "get over it, the squeeze happened" to a cult like mentality on the other extreme. I hope through discussion we can find the moderate approach and further understand the market mechanics at play. Thanks for your time WARNING: Until the squeeze business is over for good, this is a very volatile and risky play. Joining now for the hope of a potential round 2 squeeze should only be done in a speculative manner with money you are willing to lose. This is more akin to a gamble than it is investing. I think the current market price is fair given the future prospects of the company but do your own DD, I will not be releasing any until this squeeze is put to rest. TL;DR: I am still bullish on this scenario even at 42%, if it really is 78% then I am extremely bullish. There are a plethora of upcoming catalysts that could reignite the squeeze but even if none are powerful enough, with Cohen's new direction we could expect good news for quite some time forcing shorts to exit on a more spread out timeline. Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor. I do not wish to sway your opinion in either direction. I simply seek to examine this interesting and volatile situation via crowd sourcing. What you do with your money is entirely up to you.
Detailed DD post [re-post after r/pennystocks removed it]
I posted this yesterday morning (UK time) but after 5 hours or so, pennystocks deleted the original post. A few people messaged me asking for it to be shared in a few High Tide specific pages. So here it is! -- This is my first time posting a DD post – a friend of mine who moderates on SPACs has shared some analysis I have written previously, but I’m keen to share this here, and see if there is any appetite for sharing my own personal written DD I have on the 30 stocks I have across a number of different portfolios. I have modified this format, as it was originally a script for a video which I created on the stock. If you prefer to listen – check it out here: https://youtu.be/qsjwU7kkPsw Some of the market stats (market cap, current multiples, etc.) are correct as of Feb-06, and clearly a little outdated since the price movements. Not a financial advisor, do your own DD. I am long HITI and have an expectation of a long term hold on this stock. Overview
High Tide Canada-based cannabis retail company, operating under multiple brands. It operates under 3 core divisions:
Brick and mortar retail – 4 key brands with just under 70 locations in Canada. Brands include: Canna Cabana, New Leaf, Meta Cannabis and Kushbar. Forecast to have around 115 stores by end of 2021
Online retail – has 2 brands, both of which attract millions of viewers per month – Grasscity.com and CBDcity.com
Wholesale – manufacturer of paraphernalia in US and Canada. Number of products are branded with various celebrities, Snoop Dogg, Paramount Pictures, Trailer Park Boys and many more
Has good c-level execs and experienced executive board; hold significant stake in the business. CEO Raj Grover holds just over 21% of the shares
Currently has a market cap of around $280m. Still significant upside to the valuation – see analysis later in post
Investment Merits Very strong market growth:
Business has demonstrated growth both organically (through new store openings, more online sales and greater wholesale sales), as well as inorganically through M&A
Growth in markets which High Tide has a physical presence in is expected to be very strong. North American cannabis market (Canada and US) is forecast to grow by 30% a year to 2027 (source: research and markets)
Analysts covering High Tide are forecasting growth in excess of this, which is positive to see and implies capturing market share
New markets / geographies ‘opening up’, legalizing and regulating cannabis is also an exciting and realistic prospect for incremental growth:
The US federal legalization debate is on the table
Many other countries are considering this too and High Tide is well positioned for these; this is catalyzed by the fact that government debt has increased significantly as part of the response to the COVID-19 health crisis. This needs to be repaid somehow, and increasing tax rates on existing taxes is an unpopular political move. Finding new tax revenues is a more palatable way of increasing tax revenues for governments. This is especially important in countries where elections are upcoming.
Personally I do expect to see this accelerate the agenda for the regulation and legalization of cannabis in many new countries
Whilst predominantly Canada and US based, High Tide does have presence in some markets where cannabis is not regulated or legalized, the UK for example (~10% of Grasscity sales are made here) and so it is well positioned with a strong and established brand to capitalize on this opportunity, when / if the market ‘opens up’
Regulation
High Tide benefits from the regulatory focus and overhang on the cannabis retail sector as it represents a strong barrier to entry, making it more challenging for new competitors to enter market
Participants in the market need to have licenses and ensure consistent compliance with laws to continue operating – failure to comply can result in significant financial penalties
Personally I normally don’t like investing into retail. There are usually fairly limited barriers to entry, minimal differentiation and negligible customer loyalty, however the cannabis market does have different characteristics in this respect and makes it a more compelling proposition
Regulation also benefits those with scale, something High Tide has as the leading player in the market. It costs money to obtain and retain licences to operate and it costs money to ensure compliance with all the laws and regulations and that all staff are acting in accordance with these
Some parallels in this respect which can be drawn to casino gaming in casinos; you don’t see new casinos popping up at the same rate which you see new restaurants or apparel stores opening
Demand
There’s a lot to like about the demand dynamics for High Tide. It’s vice-nature means that demand is less correlated to disposable incomes. Given where we are in economic cycle, especially important consideration
For those doubting this, check alcohol, tobacco or gambling expenditure across economic cycles historically, for a proxy
Strong performance throughout COVID-19 crisis
Despite heavy weighting towards brick and mortar, (the most hard hit part of retail) it has effectively managed the shift to online, which is a positive
Has relied on government support and financial assistance in the form of job retention schemes (address in more detail later in post)
This demonstrates management are capable and have effectively navigated the challenging situation
Data
Massively summarized from the video, (and my video on KERN) so check that out if interested in this point, however, they have unique access to supply chain data which could be monetized effectively and generate strong levels of recurring revenues
Other established sectors have a trusted party with such unique access to data (e.g. alcohol, lithium, different foods, etc.) and the opportunity here is enormous
I would like to see High Tide capitalize on this
Forecasts financials & analysts
Currently 2 analysts covering High Tide, both have a buy rating on the business
Their coverage is slightly outdated (expect this being updated soon and a further catalyst for positive price action) and their price targets are 60c; at the time their reports were published, they were forecasting a 4x upside (HITI was trading at ~15c)
Same analysts also forecasting strong growth - 77% CAGR to 2022. They are forecasting revenues of around $250m and EBITDA of $46m. A reminder here, these are professional analysts, not YouTube students – these come from their financial models, the assumptions of which are discussed with management
Going to go quick here, its explained more slowly in the video but High Tide is currently valued at a significant discount to the other listed peers
Looking at EV / FY+1 Sales multiples – EBITDA not meaningful as some of the peer group are EBITDA negative and High Tide itself has only recently become EBITDA positive
Personally, I think Planet13 is the most comparable given its business model
Taking both Planet13 multiple and peer group average multiple, this is then applied to High Tide’s forecast FY+1 sales to calculate an enterprise value – this is adjusted for net debt to get to a market capitalization and then divided by the share count to get an implied share price
The table below shows the implied stock price valuations from this analysis
Net debt will change in coming year given the capital structure and a large number of convertible notes – this has been ignored given it will have small impact on the price
The share count will change as a result of dilution from various instruments – if this bothers you massively then look at the valuation discount on the basis of the enterprise value as it does not impact this (and only slightly on the market cap given minimal impacts to cash from instrument execution, etc.)
Not accounting for any stock split, consolidation or any other M&A deals
The FY21 financials are on the basis of the mean broker estimates from Thomson Reuters – Seeking Alpha has different and slightly outdated ones
US is only a small part of the market which High Tide addresses, while a change in regulation would have a big impact on the company, currently it is unlikely this would happen, given the discussions about potential federal legalization
Canada regulation is established and not going anywhere
Other countries likely to legalize and regulate cannabis, as outlined earlier
Dilution
No escaping that there will be some significant dilution for shareholders, as pointed out in the table below, but this should be already priced into the stock
Potential that new equity issuances could occur to help finance growth, but provided this growth is delivered, it should be accretive for the stock price
A risk that investors need to be aware with for all companies which have relied on government financial support during COVID-19 measures. Such support has resulted in the number of businesses going bankrupt decreasing massively – this is at a lower level than it ever normally is and is masking some real underlying issues within companies. As investors we need to be open eyed about this
As High Tide has benefited from support in the form of the Canada’s Emergency Wage Support scheme, there is the risk that once this is lifted it may become apparent that the cost base has not been effectively managed
Personally, I think this is mitigated by the synergy analysis conducted as part of the M&A. A full cost base analysis would have been conducted to calculate the potential $8.4m synergies so strong likelihood that this is under control, but should keep on our radar and reassess
Marketing expenses and celebrity licenses
Need more information to ascertain whether these are underpinned by a compelling ROI. Seen a lot of people suggest this is a great positive, but the impact on sales volumes from these is unknown, as is the terms of these license agreements (e.g. split between upfront fee vs. volume-based fee)
No escaping the fact that it is an increased cost and so need to understand the ROI this generates to determine whether it really is compelling
Is there really more demand to pay a premium for Snoop Dogg bongs, Guns n Roses papers, Cheech & Chong grinders, or whatever they may be?
So far management have suggested this has been helpful in driving new sales, but this is something to dig into more
EDIT: the post has been re-activated on stocks please comment there as it has the most traffic so I’m not jumping back and forth trying to respond. Appreciate everyone! GME Short Squeeze What Comes Next Part 3 Hello all, Before I begin I would like to address something I have been encountering on my posts in the comments section. I keep receiving some hate concerning my opinions and I want to be crystal clear that they are just that; opinions. I also want everyone to know that is is meant to be a dialog. I am not trying to pump this stock because truthfully, this goes far beyond us retail investors at this point. What I want is a dialog between all sides to examine this truly fascinating phenomenon that is occurring. I would also like to clarify something, I am not a bagholder. I do currently hold bags because I own 336 shares at a $194.34 cost basis, however, that total amount is house money that was used from my profits on the first go around. I also understand some people are tired of hearing about this because it's the same regurgitated form of someone else's post as it keeps circulating in an attempt to retain hype and drive future buying; this is not what this post is about. As investors and individuals involved in the world of finance, this situation should absolutely intrigue us whether or not we are involved. I am here to present my logic on the situation but encourage healthy discussion and debate. This brings me to my first claim. This is not over. Now, I am not claiming that a squeeze will still occur, I am simply claiming it is not over, for better or for worse. Several things need to take place for this to be completely over, at which point I will either post my gains or my losses from the adventure. When I say "it" I am referring to this entire phenomenon, not one short squeeze. I do not think these events, "it", is over. This is largely due to retail and institutional purchasing not really changing all that much since we found the bottom and established support at a staggering $60. This support was lost today and found new support at $50. There was very interesting ATH action and I'm not sure what to make of it. Millions of bag holders (not just WSB) are still holding and in fact, averaging down, thereby purchasing more. These same bag holders are absolutely refusing to sell for such massive losses and in turn are becoming long term investors on the stock if another squeeze isn't to occur. People are picking up speculative positions in the off-chance of another squeeze. Others are determining this as a fair value for the company, not fundamentally, but based on the future prospects of Ryan Cohen and team. Finally, it is nowhere near leaving the global stage with important upcoming dates that we will discuss later. To examine why it isn't over let's look at both sides of the argument:
Bulls claim it's not over for many reasons that you can find in the hundreds of other bullish posts, so I won't bore you with those details. My argument on the bull side is more along the lines of what I listed above.
Bears claim it is over because there was a 2250% price increase over the course of two weeks, therefore this must be a short squeeze.
I think we can all agree, bear or bull, that something happened. A 2250% increase certainly isn't nothing. The question is...what? I see several possibilities and would like to discuss them in the comments.
The shorts in fact covered and this was a short squeeze.
The shorts partially covered and this was a partial short squeeze, but the price increase was mainly hype and gamma squeezes.
The shorts didn't cover anything and this was a globally hyped price increase in conjunction with several gamma squeezes.
Some combination of the above 3.
First, the data: Based on morningstar the short interest is showing 78.46%. Now, I think the website is having some issues storing cookies because it will show the outdated 226% unless you open it up in incognito. Market watch is showing 41.95% This spread is interesting for sure, my thoughts are some of these calculations are including "synthetic longs" introduced by S3. It is extremely possible to manipulate these numbers via illegal methods and even legal methods using options. Please see this SEC document to explain how this would work. I am not trying to convince anyone to fit my narrative, but these things occur far more commonly than one would expect. The reasoning is because the fines for committing the crime are far less costly than letting the event take place. Please see FINRA's website for the long, and frequent list of fines being dealt out due to manipulation. A common culprit? Lying about short volume. Let's use the absolute worst case scenario being reported of 41.95%, which mind you is still extremely high for one stock: The shorts in fact covered and this was a short squeeze What's interesting here is even if the shorts 100% covered all of their positions, they very well could have shorted on the way back down. Why wouldn't you? It would be insane to not open a short position when this hit nearly $500 especially if you lost half of your companies money; what better way to get it back? For the remainder of this thesis, I will be assuming that some of the short positions that exist are newly opened positions at a higher price unless someone has a counter-claim as to why that wouldn't be possible/probable. That would mean 226% was covered on the way up and another 41.95% was reopened on the way back down. Based on the volume and price changes throughout the past two weeks this simply doesn't pass the math check. The shorts partially covered and this was a partial short squeeze. Again, using 41.95% this is highly likely and the most reasonable case. Some, probably the worst positions, were covered on the way up. I think this is precisely what happened, we had some partial shorts covering but for the most part it was gamma squeezes, hype, and FOMO whereby the price started climbing so rapidly it became smarter for the shorts to just wait out the bubble than to actually cover all of their positions. Again, we fall into a "what-if" scenario regarding shorting on the way back down. The shorts didn't cover anything and this was a globally hyped price increase in conjunction with several gamma squeezes. This scenario does not pass the math check using the 41.95% figure. If the data is being manipulated then this becomes very interesting because if some of the worst positions are still open then that means all of these HF's losses that were reported were strictly interest and they are simply waiting this out for as long as it takes making back their losses on their newly opened short positions in t $300-$400 range. Sadly, this puts us in the guessing range yet again. We can do the math and see it's possible this scenario exists, however, we would be comparing it against losses reported by the entities that were being squeezed. There are way to many what-if's for me to me consider this a possibility, but I can't write it off completely. Some combination of the above 3. Truthfully, this isn't worth examining just yet. There would be far to many "what-if's" to address, this is something that could be address at the later dates that we will get to shortly. Now, I've heard it a lot regarding the 02/09 data. "It's two weeks old". Well, that is always the case. The FINRA short data is always two weeks old and suggesting that we can't pull any information from it at all is asinine. Where it gets quite murky, is the data includes 01/27 information. This was a day unlike any other in this saga. I will take this moment to address the following upcoming catalysts and when I truly think this will be done; one way or the other. Today's data 02/09, was very important because if it showed an extremely low percentage then we know shorts have exited and did not re-enter and this is completely done. Given the data does not reflect that, we now must turn to several events that could act as catalysts for either a further squeeze or a complete shutdown. 02/15ish - In my last post, I discussed the Failure To Deliver (FTD) conundrum. I do need some help figuring out the exact expiration date. From here "The close-out requirement states that a participant of a clearing agency needs to take immediate action to close 4 out a fail to deliver position in a threshold security that has persisted for 13 consecutive settlement days by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity." I am missing two pieces of information to answer this.
Does the 13 day countdown begin after T+2, or are those two days counted in the total number?
Are settlement days business days only?
Depending on the above information, starting at 01/29 we are looking at these possibilities:
If T+2 is not included and weekends are: 02/15
If T+2 is not included and its business days only: 02/19
If T+2 is included and weekends are: 02/13 (Saturday)
If T+2 is included and its business days: 02/17
The exact date is slightly irrelevant because I highly doubt all of these FTD's are going to deliver on the same exact day. This site, while it isn't an official channel seems to be doing a good job of tracking data. If you want to learn more about FTD's and the implications there please visit that site or review my last post which has links to follow for further reading. 02/18 - Keith Gill aka u/DeepFuckingValue will testify before congress and Robinhood CEO Vladimir will be attending. This can go several ways which can lead to an SEC trading halt on GameStop or with evidence that proves foul play occurred. Who knows? It will certainly be interesting and I don't even to speculate on the market reaction to this even because it could go a ton of different ways; it will be an important date nonetheless 02/24 - The next FINRA short interest information will be made readily available to the public. This will be far more interesting and helpful information because it won't include the insane volatility of January, but it will also highlight the newest short positions. This data will help further drive where I think this is all going to end. It's possible that shorts opened new positions at $50 thinking it was going back to $12. Let's not speculate too much here either, it's just another dataset that will bring light to the direction this is headed. 03/25 - GameStop ER. This is big too for several reasons. First, this will include the console sales cycle which historically has done well for GameStop. A typical buy the hype, sell the news event. It will be interesting to see how the market reacts leading up to this ER, maybe people won't even touch GME leading up to then due to the recent volatility, but if they do, and if there is still a lot of short interest, this too could force shorts to begin covering. Another critical part of this ER is Ryan Cohen. This will be the first time this new board addresses the public with their plans for the future and for the first time since this entire adventure began, the "dying brick and mortar" narrative will finally begin to change in the public eye. That is still the common misconception regarding GameStop, that it is a dying brick and mortar retailer where nothing has changed. This hasn't been the case for around 6 months now, but this will be the first time it is publicly address. The headlines surrounding GameStop's future plans will be very interesting to read and the markets reaction will be far more interesting. I have been asked a lot what my PT is and when I expect the squeeze to happen, but let me be clear. Very seldom do squeezes "just happen". In fact, short squeezes are far more common than one would think, they just typically happen over months, if not years and the shorts cover on dips so you don't even notice it's happening. In order to force a squeeze, you need to hold a decent amount of shorts underwater. Soon one will crack and start closing their position, this leads to a series of shorts closing their positions skyrocketing the price until more and more shorts need to cover. This is rare. I hope this narrative of purchasing heavily shorted companies comes to a close soon because a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money simply buying up companies because they are heavily bet against. Catalysts and massive changes need to occur like overhauling your entire business as is the case with GameStop. Normally, shorts will close their positions one at a time, covering on dips and you don't even notice it's happening. In times where you see a price rise of seemingly no news could very well be shorts closing their positions because their research led them to realize this company is on the road to recovery. I digress. Given the most recent data and the multiple upcoming catalysts I am still very bullish on a GME short squeeze. My post from quite some time ago illustrated the importance of catalysts regarding a short squeeze, this is still very much the case. The first run was interrupted and the second run won't happen with magic, it requires a catalyst. Another post was titled For those who do not understand the inevitable GME short squeeze, was at the time "inevitable" because math. That is no longer the case. It is no longer inevitable but it is still possible. I want to be clear: This is not nearly as close to a sure thing as it once was and it depends on a lot of different factors. One of the largest is the people. Granted, a lot of what's happening now is in the hands of institutions but millions of retailers holding their positions to the grave certainly helps the institutional buyers have more faith in their play to continue a squeeze. SO WHAT DO I THINK I think shorts certainly covered some of their positions, but not all. I also firmly believe a significant amount of short positions were opened on the way back down by both HF's and individuals. Some certainly positioned high, but based on sentiment, it appears a lot of people think GME is fairly valued around $20 (which I disagree with but let's use that for the time being). That would mean shorts would have no problem opening positions at 100,70,60, even $50. 42% is still very high which means a squeeze is inevitable so long as the company continues in a positive path. However, squeezes typically aren't as abrupt as people think. They are actually quite common, in fact another position I'm heavily invested in is SPCE and they have been going through a squeeze for several weeks and will continue to squeeze so long as news continues to be positive. How would we get an abrupt short squeeze? A massive bull run. The new shorts that entered at lower levels wouldn't be too hard to catch, however, they are probably low volume, so when they buy to close, it won't be large enough volumes for massive peaks, but a bull run very well could lead to these lower tiered shorts closing, triggering a gamma squeeze. If gamma squeezes are made week over week then shorts at the higher end would have two options:
Close early and take profits
Wait it out because they are positioned so well that interest means nothing and they don't think there is any hope of us rising to those levels.
In the first case, them closing early would be a nice short squeeze to probably several hundred dollars, but it wouldn't break $1000. To break $1000 we would need a big bull run to catch the shorts, trigger gamma squeezes, and keep momentum until they are caught and underwater. This is highly unlikely unless there is another global sentiment. NOTE: ALL OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS I AM MAKING ARE BASED ON THE 42% REPORTING. IF IT IS IN FACT 78% THEN THE POSSIBILITY IS TREMENDOUSLY INCREASED FOR THESE THINGS TO HAPPEN. SO WHEN DOES IT ALL END My though is if by the end of March these catalysts were not enough to reignite the hype and squeeze, then it will essentially be over except in the case of a few circumstances:
A VW/Porche moment occurs where a large buyer picks up a large portion of the company.
Some other currently unknown catalyst appears seemingly out of thin air
The data was in fact manipulated. Regardless of what the data says, if the shorts did in fact lie about their short int to take the fine over being squeezed, then they will be squeezed regardless.
It is quite possible, that these catalysts and moments aren't enough to force a squeeze anymore especially if the shorts have repositioned really well. I will retain the mindset that this fateful January 2021 was not a short squeeze. However, that does not mean it will ever actually happen. SO WHAT IS YOUR PLAY HOOMAN? Well, I am long on GME which is why I didn't mind hopping back in even at outrageous prices. I will continue averaging down and don't plan on selling for quite some time, probably several years. The reason for this is I believe in Cohen and his team to turn this into something unexpected and I imagine an eventual ROI. Once this is all said and done and I think either the shorts truly have covered or they simply got away with it (Mid March-ish), I will be posting my DD for GME as a long play regardless of the squeeze mechanics. Thank you all for joining me on this wild journey. I hope we can discuss some of these points in the comments like adults and truly try to grasp this wild situation we are all in. There are extremes on both sides from "get over it, the squeeze happened" to a cult like mentality on the other extreme. I hope through discussion we can find the moderate approach and further understand the market mechanics at play. Thanks for your time WARNING: Until the squeeze business is over for good, this is a very volatile and risky play. Joining now for the hope of a potential round 2 squeeze should only be done in a speculative manner with money you are willing to lose. This is more akin to a gamble than it is investing. I think the current market price is fair given the future prospects of the company but do your own DD, I will not be releasing any until this squeeze is put to rest. TL;DR: I am still bullish on this scenario even at 42%, if it really is 78% then I am extremely bullish. There are a plethora of upcoming catalysts that could reignite the squeeze but even if none are powerful enough, with Cohen's new direction we could expect good news for quite some time forcing shorts to exit on a more spread out timeline. Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor. I do not wish to sway your opinion in either direction. I simply seek to examine this interesting and volatile situation via crowd sourcing. What you do with your money is entirely up to you.
Reposting because for whatever reason once this post started gaining traction in stocks it was removed. stocks reactivated the post, I posted this in several places please comment there as it has the most opinions to go around and I’m not jumping all over the place Hello all, Before I begin I would like to address something I have been encountering on my posts in the comments section. I keep receiving some hate concerning my opinions and I want to be crystal clear that they are just that; opinions. I also want everyone to know that is is meant to be a dialog. I am not trying to pump this stock because truthfully, this goes far beyond us retail investors at this point. What I want is a dialog between all sides to examine this truly fascinating phenomenon that is occurring. I would also like to clarify something, I am not a bagholder. I do currently hold bags because I own 336 shares at a $194.34 cost basis, however, that total amount is house money that was used from my profits on the first go around. I also understand some people are tired of hearing about this because it's the same regurgitated form of someone else's post as it keeps circulating in an attempt to retain hype and drive future buying; this is not what this post is about. As investors and individuals involved in the world of finance, this situation should absolutely intrigue us whether or not we are involved. I am here to present my logic on the situation but encourage healthy discussion and debate. This brings me to my first claim. This is not over. Now, I am not claiming that a squeeze will still occur, I am simply claiming it is not over, for better or for worse. Several things need to take place for this to be completely over, at which point I will either post my gains or my losses from the adventure. When I say "it" I am referring to this entire phenomenon, not one short squeeze. I do not think these events, "it", is over. This is largely due to retail and institutional purchasing not really changing all that much since we found the bottom and established support at a staggering $60. This support was lost today and found new support at $50. There was very interesting ATH action and I'm not sure what to make of it. Millions of bag holders (not just WSB) are still holding and in fact, averaging down, thereby purchasing more. These same bag holders are absolutely refusing to sell for such massive losses and in turn are becoming long term investors on the stock if another squeeze isn't to occur. People are picking up speculative positions in the off-chance of another squeeze. Others are determining this as a fair value for the company, not fundamentally, but based on the future prospects of Ryan Cohen and team. Finally, it is nowhere near leaving the global stage with important upcoming dates that we will discuss later. To examine why it isn't over let's look at both sides of the argument:
Bulls claim it's not over for many reasons that you can find in the hundreds of other bullish posts, so I won't bore you with those details. My argument on the bull side is more along the lines of what I listed above.
Bears claim it is over because there was a 2250% price increase over the course of two weeks, therefore this must be a short squeeze.
I think we can all agree, bear or bull, that something happened. A 2250% increase certainly isn't nothing. The question is...what? I see several possibilities and would like to discuss them in the comments.
The shorts in fact covered and this was a short squeeze.
The shorts partially covered and this was a partial short squeeze, but the price increase was mainly hype and gamma squeezes.
The shorts didn't cover anything and this was a globally hyped price increase in conjunction with several gamma squeezes.
Some combination of the above 3.
First, the data: Based on morningstar the short interest is showing 78.46%. Now, I think the website is having some issues storing cookies because it will show the outdated 226% unless you open it up in incognito. Market watch is showing 41.95% This spread is interesting for sure, my thoughts are some of these calculations are including "synthetic longs" introduced by S3. It is extremely possible to manipulate these numbers via illegal methods and even legal methods using options. Please see this SEC document to explain how this would work. I am not trying to convince anyone to fit my narrative, but these things occur far more commonly than one would expect. The reasoning is because the fines for committing the crime are far less costly than letting the event take place. Please see FINRA's website for the long, and frequent list of fines being dealt out due to manipulation. A common culprit? Lying about short volume. Let's use the absolute worst case scenario being reported of 41.95%, which mind you is still extremely high for one stock: The shorts in fact covered and this was a short squeeze What's interesting here is even if the shorts 100% covered all of their positions, they very well could have shorted on the way back down. Why wouldn't you? It would be insane to not open a short position when this hit nearly $500 especially if you lost half of your companies money; what better way to get it back? For the remainder of this thesis, I will be assuming that some of the short positions that exist are newly opened positions at a higher price unless someone has a counter-claim as to why that wouldn't be possible/probable. That would mean 226% was covered on the way up and another 41.95% was reopened on the way back down. Based on the volume and price changes throughout the past two weeks this simply doesn't pass the math check. The shorts partially covered and this was a partial short squeeze. Again, using 41.95% this is highly likely and the most reasonable case. Some, probably the worst positions, were covered on the way up. I think this is precisely what happened, we had some partial shorts covering but for the most part it was gamma squeezes, hype, and FOMO whereby the price started climbing so rapidly it became smarter for the shorts to just wait out the bubble than to actually cover all of their positions. Again, we fall into a "what-if" scenario regarding shorting on the way back down. The shorts didn't cover anything and this was a globally hyped price increase in conjunction with several gamma squeezes. This scenario does not pass the math check using the 41.95% figure. If the data is being manipulated then this becomes very interesting because if some of the worst positions are still open then that means all of these HF's losses that were reported were strictly interest and they are simply waiting this out for as long as it takes making back their losses on their newly opened short positions in t $300-$400 range. Sadly, this puts us in the guessing range yet again. We can do the math and see it's possible this scenario exists, however, we would be comparing it against losses reported by the entities that were being squeezed. There are way to many what-if's for me to me consider this a possibility, but I can't write it off completely. Some combination of the above 3. Truthfully, this isn't worth examining just yet. There would be far to many "what-if's" to address, this is something that could be address at the later dates that we will get to shortly. Now, I've heard it a lot regarding the 02/09 data. "It's two weeks old". Well, that is always the case. The FINRA short data is always two weeks old and suggesting that we can't pull any information from it at all is asinine. Where it gets quite murky, is the data includes 01/27 information. This was a day unlike any other in this saga. I will take this moment to address the following upcoming catalysts and when I truly think this will be done; one way or the other. Today's data 02/09, was very important because if it showed an extremely low percentage then we know shorts have exited and did not re-enter and this is completely done. Given the data does not reflect that, we now must turn to several events that could act as catalysts for either a further squeeze or a complete shutdown. 02/19 - In my last post, I discussed the Failure To Deliver (FTD) conundrum. I do need some help figuring out the exact expiration date. From here "The close-out requirement states that a participant of a clearing agency needs to take immediate action to close 4 out a fail to deliver position in a threshold security that has persisted for 13 consecutive settlement days by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity." The exact date is slightly irrelevant because I highly doubt all of these FTD's are going to deliver on the same exact day. This site, while it isn't an official channel seems to be doing a good job of tracking data. If you want to learn more about FTD's and the implications there please visit that site or review my last post which has links to follow for further reading. 02/18 - Keith Gill aka u/DeepFuckingValue will testify before congress and RH CEO Vladimir will be attending. This can go several ways which can lead to an SEC trading halt on GameStop or with evidence that proves foul play occurred. Who knows? It will certainly be interesting and I don't even to speculate on the market reaction to this even because it could go a ton of different ways; it will be an important date nonetheless 02/24 - The next FINRA short interest information will be made readily available to the public. This will be far more interesting and helpful information because it won't include the insane volatility of January, but it will also highlight the newest short positions. This data will help further drive where I think this is all going to end. It's possible that shorts opened new positions at $50 thinking it was going back to $12. Let's not speculate too much here either, it's just another dataset that will bring light to the direction this is headed. 03/05 - GameStop ER. This is big too for several reasons. First, this will include the console sales cycle which historically has done well for GameStop. A typical buy the hype, sell the news event. It will be interesting to see how the market reacts leading up to this ER, maybe people won't even touch GME leading up to then due to the recent volatility, but if they do, and if there is still a lot of short interest, this too could force shorts to begin covering. Another critical part of this ER is Ryan Cohen. This will be the first time this new board addresses the public with their plans for the future and for the first time since this entire adventure began, the "dying brick and mortar" narrative will finally begin to change in the public eye. That is still the common misconception regarding GameStop, that it is a dying brick and mortar retailer where nothing has changed. This hasn't been the case for around 6 months now, but this will be the first time it is publicly address. The headlines surrounding GameStop's future plans will be very interesting to read and the markets reaction will be far more interesting. I have been asked a lot what my PT is and when I expect the squeeze to happen, but let me be clear. Very seldom do squeezes "just happen". In fact, short squeezes are far more common than one would think, they just typically happen over months, if not years and the shorts cover on dips so you don't even notice it's happening. In order to force a squeeze, you need to hold a decent amount of shorts underwater. Soon one will crack and start closing their position, this leads to a series of shorts closing their positions skyrocketing the price until more and more shorts need to cover. This is rare. I hope this narrative of purchasing heavily shorted companies comes to a close soon because a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money simply buying up companies because they are heavily bet against. Catalysts and massive changes need to occur like overhauling your entire business as is the case with GameStop. Normally, shorts will close their positions one at a time, covering on dips and you don't even notice it's happening. In times where you see a price rise of seemingly no news could very well be shorts closing their positions because their research led them to realize this company is on the road to recovery. I digress. Given the most recent data and the multiple upcoming catalysts I am still very bullish on a GME short squeeze. My post from quite some time ago illustrated the importance of catalysts regarding a short squeeze, this is still very much the case. The first run was interrupted and the second run won't happen with magic, it requires a catalyst. Another post was titled For those who do not understand the inevitable GME short squeeze, was at the time "inevitable" because math. That is no longer the case. It is no longer inevitable but it is still possible. I want to be clear: This is not nearly as close to a sure thing as it once was and it depends on a lot of different factors. One of the largest is the people. Granted, a lot of what's happening now is in the hands of institutions but millions of retailers holding their positions to the grave certainly helps the institutional buyers have more faith in their play to continue a squeeze. SO WHAT DO I THINK I think shorts certainly covered some of their positions, but not all. I also firmly believe a significant amount of short positions were opened on the way back down by both HF's and individuals. Some certainly positioned high, but based on sentiment, it appears a lot of people think GME is fairly valued around $20 (which I disagree with but let's use that for the time being). That would mean shorts would have no problem opening positions at 100,70,60, even $50. 42% is still very high which means a squeeze is inevitable so long as the company continues in a positive path. However, squeezes typically aren't as abrupt as people think. They are actually quite common, in fact another position I'm heavily invested in is SPCE and they have been going through a squeeze for several weeks and will continue to squeeze so long as news continues to be positive. How would we get an abrupt short squeeze? A massive bull run. The new shorts that entered at lower levels wouldn't be too hard to catch, however, they are probably low volume, so when they buy to close, it won't be large enough volumes for massive peaks, but a bull run very well could lead to these lower tiered shorts closing, triggering a gamma squeeze. If gamma squeezes are made week over week then shorts at the higher end would have two options:
Close early and take profits
Wait it out because they are positioned so well that interest means nothing and they don't think there is any hope of us rising to those levels.
In the first case, them closing early would be a nice short squeeze to probably several hundred dollars, but it wouldn't break $1000. To break $1000 we would need a big bull run to catch the shorts, trigger gamma squeezes, and keep momentum until they are caught and underwater. This is highly unlikely unless there is another global sentiment. NOTE: ALL OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS I AM MAKING ARE BASED ON THE 42% REPORTING. IF IT IS IN FACT 78% THEN THE POSSIBILITY IS TREMENDOUSLY INCREASED FOR THESE THINGS TO HAPPEN. SO WHEN DOES IT ALL END My though is if by the end of March these catalysts were not enough to reignite the hype and squeeze, then it will essentially be over except in the case of a few circumstances:
A VW/Porche moment occurs where a large buyer picks up a large portion of the company.
Some other currently unknown catalyst appears seemingly out of thin air
The data was in fact manipulated. Regardless of what the data says, if the shorts did in fact lie about their short int to take the fine over being squeezed, then they will be squeezed regardless.
It is quite possible, that these catalysts and moments aren't enough to force a squeeze anymore especially if the shorts have repositioned really well. I will retain the mindset that this fateful January 2021 was not a short squeeze. However, that does not mean it will ever actually happen. SO WHAT IS YOUR PLAY HOOMAN? Well, I am long on GME which is why I didn't mind hopping back in even at outrageous prices. I will continue averaging down and don't plan on selling for quite some time, probably several years. The reason for this is I believe in Cohen and his team to turn this into something unexpected and I imagine an eventual ROI. Once this is all said and done and I think either the shorts truly have covered or they simply got away with it (Mid March-ish), I will be posting my DD for GME as a long play regardless of the squeeze mechanics. Thank you all for joining me on this wild journey. I hope we can discuss some of these points in the comments like adults and truly try to grasp this wild situation we are all in. There are extremes on both sides from "get over it, the squeeze happened" to a cult like mentality on the other extreme. I hope through discussion we can find the moderate approach and further understand the market mechanics at play. Thanks for your time WARNING: Until the squeeze business is over for good, this is a very volatile and risky play. Joining now for the hope of a potential round 2 squeeze should only be done in a speculative manner with money you are willing to lose. This is more akin to a gamble than it is investing. I think the current market price is fair given the future prospects of the company but do your own DD, I will not be releasing any until this squeeze is put to rest. TL;DR: I am still bullish on this scenario even at 42%, if it really is 78% then I am extremely bullish. There are a plethora of upcoming catalysts that could reignite the squeeze but even if none are powerful enough, with Cohen's new direction we could expect good news for quite some time forcing shorts to exit on a more spread out timeline. Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor. I do not wish to sway your opinion in either direction. I simply seek to examine this interesting and volatile situation via crowd sourcing. What you do with your money is entirely up to you.
Not just another HITI / HITIF post... Serious DD incl. valuation analysis
Reposting this DD after it was removed by mods first time around. Potential offending points have been removed. --- Some of the market stats are a little outdated (market cap, current multiples, etc.) but are correct as of Feb-06. This was originally written for another purpose. Not a financial advisor, do your own DD. I am long HITI and have an expectation of a long term hold on this stock. Overview
High Tide Canada-based cannabis retail company, operating under multiple brands. It operates under 3 core divisions:
Brick and mortar retail – 4 key brands with just under 70 locations in Canada. Brands include: Canna Cabana, New Leaf, Meta Cannabis and Kushbar. Forecast to have around 115 stores by end of 2021
Online retail – has 2 brands, both of which attract millions of viewers per month – Grasscity.com and CBDcity.com
Wholesale – manufacturer of paraphernalia in US and Canada. Number of products are branded with various celebrities, Snoop Dogg, Paramount Pictures, Trailer Park Boys and many more
Has good c-level execs and experienced executive board; hold significant stake in the business. CEO Raj Grover holds just over 21% of the shares
Currently has a market cap of around $280m. Still significant upside to the valuation – see analysis later in post
Investment Merits Very strong market growth:
Business has demonstrated growth both organically (through new store openings, more online sales and greater wholesale sales), as well as inorganically through M&A
Growth in markets which High Tide has a physical presence in is expected to be very strong. North American cannabis market (Canada and US) is forecast to grow by 30% a year to 2027 (source: research and markets)
Analysts covering High Tide are forecasting growth in excess of this, which is positive to see and implies capturing market share
New markets / geographies ‘opening up’, legalizing and regulating cannabis is also an exciting and realistic prospect for incremental growth:
The US federal legalization debate is on the table
Many other countries are considering this too and High Tide is well positioned for these; this is catalyzed by the fact that government debt has increased significantly as part of the response to the COVID-19 health crisis. This needs to be repaid somehow, and increasing tax rates on existing taxes is an unpopular political move. Finding new tax revenues is a more palatable way of increasing tax revenues for governments. This is especially important in countries where elections are upcoming.
Personally I do expect to see this accelerate the agenda for the regulation and legalization of cannabis in many new countries
Whilst predominantly Canada and US based, High Tide does have presence in some markets where cannabis is not regulated or legalized, the UK for example (~10% of Grasscity sales are made here) and so it is well positioned with a strong and established brand to capitalize on this opportunity, when / if the market ‘opens up’
Regulation
High Tide benefits from the regulatory focus and overhang on the cannabis retail sector as it represents a strong barrier to entry, making it more challenging for new competitors to enter market
Participants in the market need to have licenses and ensure consistent compliance with laws to continue operating – failure to comply can result in significant financial penalties
Personally I normally don’t like investing into retail. There are usually fairly limited barriers to entry, minimal differentiation and negligible customer loyalty, however the cannabis market does have different characteristics in this respect and makes it a more compelling proposition
Regulation also benefits those with scale, something High Tide has as the leading player in the market. It costs money to obtain and retain licences to operate and it costs money to ensure compliance with all the laws and regulations and that all staff are acting in accordance with these
Some parallels in this respect which can be drawn to casino gaming in casinos; you don’t see new casinos popping up at the same rate which you see new restaurants or apparel stores opening
Demand
There’s a lot to like about the demand dynamics for High Tide. It’s vice-nature means that demand is less correlated to disposable incomes. Given where we are in economic cycle, especially important consideration
For those doubting this, check alcohol, tobacco or gambling expenditure across economic cycles historically, for a proxy
Strong performance throughout COVID-19 crisis
Despite heavy weighting towards brick and mortar, (the most hard hit part of retail) it has effectively managed the shift to online, which is a positive
Has relied on government support and financial assistance in the form of job retention schemes (address in more detail later in post)
This demonstrates management are capable and have effectively navigated the challenging situation
Data
Massively summarized from the other purpose, however, they have unique access to supply chain data which could be monetized effectively and generate strong levels of recurring revenues
Other established sectors have a trusted party with such unique access to data (e.g. alcohol, lithium, different foods, etc.) and the opportunity here is enormous
I would like to see High Tide capitalize on this
Forecasts financials & analysts
Currently 2 analysts covering High Tide, both have a buy rating on the business
Their coverage is slightly outdated (expect this being updated soon and a further catalyst for positive price action) and their price targets are 60c; at the time their reports were published, they were forecasting a 4x upside (HITI was trading at ~15c)
Same analysts also forecasting strong growth - 77% CAGR to 2022. They are forecasting revenues of around $250m and EBITDA of $46m. A reminder here, these are professional analysts, not YouTube students – these come from their financial models, the assumptions of which are discussed with management
Going to go quick here, however, High Tide is currently valued at a significant discount to the other listed peers
Looking at EV / FY+1 Sales multiples – EBITDA not meaningful as some of the peer group are EBITDA negative and High Tide itself has only recently become EBITDA positive
Personally, I think Planet13 is the most comparable given its business model
Taking both Planet13 multiple and peer group average multiple, this is then applied to High Tide’s forecast FY+1 sales to calculate an enterprise value – this is adjusted for net debt to get to a market capitalization and then divided by the share count to get an implied share price
The table below shows the implied stock price valuations from this analysis
Net debt will change in coming year given the capital structure and a large number of convertible notes – this has been ignored given it will have small impact on the price
The share count will change as a result of dilution from various instruments – if this bothers you massively then look at the valuation discount on the basis of the enterprise value as it does not impact this (and only slightly on the market cap given minimal impacts to cash from instrument execution, etc.)
Not accounting for any stock split, consolidation or any other M&A deals
The FY21 financials are on the basis of the mean broker estimates from Thomson Reuters – Seeking Alpha has different and slightly outdated ones
US is only a small part of the market which High Tide addresses, while a change in regulation would have a big impact on the company, currently it is unlikely this would happen, given the discussions about potential federal legalization
Canada regulation is established and not going anywhere
Other countries likely to legalize and regulate cannabis, as outlined earlier
Dilution
No escaping that there will be some significant dilution for shareholders, as pointed out in the table below, but this should be already priced into the stock
Potential that new equity issuances could occur to help finance growth, but provided this growth is delivered, it should be accretive for the stock price
A risk that investors need to be aware with for all companies which have relied on government financial support during COVID-19 measures. Such support has resulted in the number of businesses going bankrupt decreasing massively – this is at a lower level than it ever normally is and is masking some real underlying issues within companies. As investors we need to be open eyed about this
As High Tide has benefited from support in the form of the Canada’s Emergency Wage Support scheme, there is the risk that once this is lifted it may become apparent that the cost base has not been effectively managed
Personally, I think this is mitigated by the synergy analysis conducted as part of the M&A. A full cost base analysis would have been conducted to calculate the potential $8.4m synergies so strong likelihood that this is under control, but should keep on our radar and reassess
Marketing expenses and celebrity licenses
Need more information to ascertain whether these are underpinned by a compelling ROI. Seen a lot of people suggest this is a great positive, but the impact on sales volumes from these is unknown, as is the terms of these license agreements (e.g. split between upfront fee vs. volume-based fee)
No escaping the fact that it is an increased cost and so need to understand the ROI this generates to determine whether it really is compelling
Is there really more demand to pay a premium for Snoop Dogg bongs, Guns n Roses papers, Cheech & Chong grinders, or whatever they may be?
So far management have suggested this has been helpful in driving new sales, but this is something to dig into more TLDR
Despite the recent rally in stock price, the business remains undervalued on a relative basis versus its peers (analysis in body of post). There is a compelling investment case for High Tide where in my opinion the merits of the investment outweigh the risks. Clearly given the small cap nature of the stock, this is inherently more volatile than larger blue chip stocks and carries with it a degree of risk.
Detailed DD post [re-post after r/pennystocks deleted it]
I posted this yesterday morning (UK time) but after 5 hours or so, pennystocks deleted the original post. A few people messaged me asking for it to be shared in a few High Tide specific pages. So here it is! Hope this is OK for the mods here? -- This is my first time posting a DD post – a friend of mine who moderates on SPACs has shared some analysis I have written previously, but I’m keen to share this here, and see if there is any appetite for sharing my own personal written DD I have on the 30 stocks I have across a number of different portfolios. I have modified this format, as it was originally a script for a video which I created on the stock. If you prefer to listen – check it out here: https://youtu.be/qsjwU7kkPsw Some of the market stats (market cap, current multiples, etc.) are correct as of Feb-06, and clearly a little outdated since the price movements. Not a financial advisor, do your own DD. I am long HITI and have an expectation of a long term hold on this stock. Overview
High Tide Canada-based cannabis retail company, operating under multiple brands. It operates under 3 core divisions:
Brick and mortar retail – 4 key brands with just under 70 locations in Canada. Brands include: Canna Cabana, New Leaf, Meta Cannabis and Kushbar. Forecast to have around 115 stores by end of 2021
Online retail – has 2 brands, both of which attract millions of viewers per month – Grasscity.com and CBDcity.com
Wholesale – manufacturer of paraphernalia in US and Canada. Number of products are branded with various celebrities, Snoop Dogg, Paramount Pictures, Trailer Park Boys and many more
Has good c-level execs and experienced executive board; hold significant stake in the business. CEO Raj Grover holds just over 21% of the shares
Currently has a market cap of around $280m. Still significant upside to the valuation – see analysis later in post
Investment Merits Very strong market growth:
Business has demonstrated growth both organically (through new store openings, more online sales and greater wholesale sales), as well as inorganically through M&A
Growth in markets which High Tide has a physical presence in is expected to be very strong. North American cannabis market (Canada and US) is forecast to grow by 30% a year to 2027 (source: research and markets)
Analysts covering High Tide are forecasting growth in excess of this, which is positive to see and implies capturing market share
New markets / geographies ‘opening up’, legalizing and regulating cannabis is also an exciting and realistic prospect for incremental growth:
The US federal legalization debate is on the table
Many other countries are considering this too and High Tide is well positioned for these; this is catalyzed by the fact that government debt has increased significantly as part of the response to the COVID-19 health crisis. This needs to be repaid somehow, and increasing tax rates on existing taxes is an unpopular political move. Finding new tax revenues is a more palatable way of increasing tax revenues for governments. This is especially important in countries where elections are upcoming.
Personally I do expect to see this accelerate the agenda for the regulation and legalization of cannabis in many new countries
Whilst predominantly Canada and US based, High Tide does have presence in some markets where cannabis is not regulated or legalized, the UK for example (~10% of Grasscity sales are made here) and so it is well positioned with a strong and established brand to capitalize on this opportunity, when / if the market ‘opens up’
Regulation
High Tide benefits from the regulatory focus and overhang on the cannabis retail sector as it represents a strong barrier to entry, making it more challenging for new competitors to enter market
Participants in the market need to have licenses and ensure consistent compliance with laws to continue operating – failure to comply can result in significant financial penalties
Personally I normally don’t like investing into retail. There are usually fairly limited barriers to entry, minimal differentiation and negligible customer loyalty, however the cannabis market does have different characteristics in this respect and makes it a more compelling proposition
Regulation also benefits those with scale, something High Tide has as the leading player in the market. It costs money to obtain and retain licences to operate and it costs money to ensure compliance with all the laws and regulations and that all staff are acting in accordance with these
Some parallels in this respect which can be drawn to casino gaming in casinos; you don’t see new casinos popping up at the same rate which you see new restaurants or apparel stores opening
Demand
There’s a lot to like about the demand dynamics for High Tide. It’s vice-nature means that demand is less correlated to disposable incomes. Given where we are in economic cycle, especially important consideration
For those doubting this, check alcohol, tobacco or gambling expenditure across economic cycles historically, for a proxy
Strong performance throughout COVID-19 crisis
Despite heavy weighting towards brick and mortar, (the most hard hit part of retail) it has effectively managed the shift to online, which is a positive
Has relied on government support and financial assistance in the form of job retention schemes (address in more detail later in post)
This demonstrates management are capable and have effectively navigated the challenging situation
Data
Massively summarized from the video, (and my video on KERN) so check that out if interested in this point, however, they have unique access to supply chain data which could be monetized effectively and generate strong levels of recurring revenues
Other established sectors have a trusted party with such unique access to data (e.g. alcohol, lithium, different foods, etc.) and the opportunity here is enormous
I would like to see High Tide capitalize on this
Forecasts financials & analysts
Currently 2 analysts covering High Tide, both have a buy rating on the business
Their coverage is slightly outdated (expect this being updated soon and a further catalyst for positive price action) and their price targets are 60c; at the time their reports were published, they were forecasting a 4x upside (HITI was trading at ~15c)
Same analysts also forecasting strong growth - 77% CAGR to 2022. They are forecasting revenues of around $250m and EBITDA of $46m. A reminder here, these are professional analysts, not YouTube students – these come from their financial models, the assumptions of which are discussed with management
Going to go quick here, its explained more slowly in the video but High Tide is currently valued at a significant discount to the other listed peers
Looking at EV / FY+1 Sales multiples – EBITDA not meaningful as some of the peer group are EBITDA negative and High Tide itself has only recently become EBITDA positive
Personally, I think Planet13 is the most comparable given its business model
Taking both Planet13 multiple and peer group average multiple, this is then applied to High Tide’s forecast FY+1 sales to calculate an enterprise value – this is adjusted for net debt to get to a market capitalization and then divided by the share count to get an implied share price
The table below shows the implied stock price valuations from this analysis
Net debt will change in coming year given the capital structure and a large number of convertible notes – this has been ignored given it will have small impact on the price
The share count will change as a result of dilution from various instruments – if this bothers you massively then look at the valuation discount on the basis of the enterprise value as it does not impact this (and only slightly on the market cap given minimal impacts to cash from instrument execution, etc.)
Not accounting for any stock split, consolidation or any other M&A deals
The FY21 financials are on the basis of the mean broker estimates from Thomson Reuters – Seeking Alpha has different and slightly outdated ones
US is only a small part of the market which High Tide addresses, while a change in regulation would have a big impact on the company, currently it is unlikely this would happen, given the discussions about potential federal legalization
Canada regulation is established and not going anywhere
Other countries likely to legalize and regulate cannabis, as outlined earlier
Dilution
No escaping that there will be some significant dilution for shareholders, as pointed out in the table below, but this should be already priced into the stock
Potential that new equity issuances could occur to help finance growth, but provided this growth is delivered, it should be accretive for the stock price
A risk that investors need to be aware with for all companies which have relied on government financial support during COVID-19 measures. Such support has resulted in the number of businesses going bankrupt decreasing massively – this is at a lower level than it ever normally is and is masking some real underlying issues within companies. As investors we need to be open eyed about this
As High Tide has benefited from support in the form of the Canada’s Emergency Wage Support scheme, there is the risk that once this is lifted it may become apparent that the cost base has not been effectively managed
Personally, I think this is mitigated by the synergy analysis conducted as part of the M&A. A full cost base analysis would have been conducted to calculate the potential $8.4m synergies so strong likelihood that this is under control, but should keep on our radar and reassess
Marketing expenses and celebrity licenses
Need more information to ascertain whether these are underpinned by a compelling ROI. Seen a lot of people suggest this is a great positive, but the impact on sales volumes from these is unknown, as is the terms of these license agreements (e.g. split between upfront fee vs. volume-based fee)
No escaping the fact that it is an increased cost and so need to understand the ROI this generates to determine whether it really is compelling
Is there really more demand to pay a premium for Snoop Dogg bongs, Guns n Roses papers, Cheech & Chong grinders, or whatever they may be?
So far management have suggested this has been helpful in driving new sales, but this is something to dig into more
Not another HITI / HITIF DD post... detailed analysis incl. valuation [re-post after it was deleted on r/pennystocks for some reason...]
I posted this yesterday morning (UK time) but after 5 hours or so, pennystocks deleted the original post. I had a message to share it on here too, so here it is! -- This is my first time posting a DD post – a friend of mine who moderates on SPACs has shared some analysis I have written previously, but I’m keen to share this here, and see if there is any appetite for sharing my own personal written DD I have on the 30 stocks I have across a number of different portfolios. I have modified this format, as it was originally a script for a video which I created on the stock. If you prefer to listen – check it out here: https://youtu.be/qsjwU7kkPsw Some of the market stats (market cap, current multiples, etc.) are correct as of Feb-06, and clearly a little outdated since the price movements. Not a financial advisor, do your own DD. I am long HITI and have an expectation of a long term hold on this stock. Overview
High Tide Canada-based cannabis retail company, operating under multiple brands. It operates under 3 core divisions:
Brick and mortar retail – 4 key brands with just under 70 locations in Canada. Brands include: Canna Cabana, New Leaf, Meta Cannabis and Kushbar. Forecast to have around 115 stores by end of 2021
Online retail – has 2 brands, both of which attract millions of viewers per month – Grasscity.com and CBDcity.com
Wholesale – manufacturer of paraphernalia in US and Canada. Number of products are branded with various celebrities, Snoop Dogg, Paramount Pictures, Trailer Park Boys and many more
Has good c-level execs and experienced executive board; hold significant stake in the business. CEO Raj Grover holds just over 21% of the shares
Currently has a market cap of around $280m. Still significant upside to the valuation – see analysis later in post
Investment Merits Very strong market growth:
Business has demonstrated growth both organically (through new store openings, more online sales and greater wholesale sales), as well as inorganically through M&A
Growth in markets which High Tide has a physical presence in is expected to be very strong. North American cannabis market (Canada and US) is forecast to grow by 30% a year to 2027 (source: research and markets)
Analysts covering High Tide are forecasting growth in excess of this, which is positive to see and implies capturing market share
New markets / geographies ‘opening up’, legalizing and regulating cannabis is also an exciting and realistic prospect for incremental growth:
The US federal legalization debate is on the table
Many other countries are considering this too and High Tide is well positioned for these; this is catalyzed by the fact that government debt has increased significantly as part of the response to the COVID-19 health crisis. This needs to be repaid somehow, and increasing tax rates on existing taxes is an unpopular political move. Finding new tax revenues is a more palatable way of increasing tax revenues for governments. This is especially important in countries where elections are upcoming.
Personally I do expect to see this accelerate the agenda for the regulation and legalization of cannabis in many new countries
Whilst predominantly Canada and US based, High Tide does have presence in some markets where cannabis is not regulated or legalized, the UK for example (~10% of Grasscity sales are made here) and so it is well positioned with a strong and established brand to capitalize on this opportunity, when / if the market ‘opens up’
Regulation
High Tide benefits from the regulatory focus and overhang on the cannabis retail sector as it represents a strong barrier to entry, making it more challenging for new competitors to enter market
Participants in the market need to have licenses and ensure consistent compliance with laws to continue operating – failure to comply can result in significant financial penalties
Personally I normally don’t like investing into retail. There are usually fairly limited barriers to entry, minimal differentiation and negligible customer loyalty, however the cannabis market does have different characteristics in this respect and makes it a more compelling proposition
Regulation also benefits those with scale, something High Tide has as the leading player in the market. It costs money to obtain and retain licences to operate and it costs money to ensure compliance with all the laws and regulations and that all staff are acting in accordance with these
Some parallels in this respect which can be drawn to casino gaming in casinos; you don’t see new casinos popping up at the same rate which you see new restaurants or apparel stores opening
Demand
There’s a lot to like about the demand dynamics for High Tide. It’s vice-nature means that demand is less correlated to disposable incomes. Given where we are in economic cycle, especially important consideration
For those doubting this, check alcohol, tobacco or gambling expenditure across economic cycles historically, for a proxy
Strong performance throughout COVID-19 crisis
Despite heavy weighting towards brick and mortar, (the most hard hit part of retail) it has effectively managed the shift to online, which is a positive
Has relied on government support and financial assistance in the form of job retention schemes (address in more detail later in post)
This demonstrates management are capable and have effectively navigated the challenging situation
Data
Massively summarized from the video, (and my video on KERN) so check that out if interested in this point, however, they have unique access to supply chain data which could be monetized effectively and generate strong levels of recurring revenues
Other established sectors have a trusted party with such unique access to data (e.g. alcohol, lithium, different foods, etc.) and the opportunity here is enormous
I would like to see High Tide capitalize on this
Forecasts financials & analysts
Currently 2 analysts covering High Tide, both have a buy rating on the business
Their coverage is slightly outdated (expect this being updated soon and a further catalyst for positive price action) and their price targets are 60c; at the time their reports were published, they were forecasting a 4x upside (HITI was trading at ~15c)
Same analysts also forecasting strong growth - 77% CAGR to 2022. They are forecasting revenues of around $250m and EBITDA of $46m. A reminder here, these are professional analysts, not YouTube students – these come from their financial models, the assumptions of which are discussed with management
Going to go quick here, its explained more slowly in the video but High Tide is currently valued at a significant discount to the other listed peers
Looking at EV / FY+1 Sales multiples – EBITDA not meaningful as some of the peer group are EBITDA negative and High Tide itself has only recently become EBITDA positive
Personally, I think Planet13 is the most comparable given its business model
Taking both Planet13 multiple and peer group average multiple, this is then applied to High Tide’s forecast FY+1 sales to calculate an enterprise value – this is adjusted for net debt to get to a market capitalization and then divided by the share count to get an implied share price
The table below shows the implied stock price valuations from this analysis
Net debt will change in coming year given the capital structure and a large number of convertible notes – this has been ignored given it will have small impact on the price
The share count will change as a result of dilution from various instruments – if this bothers you massively then look at the valuation discount on the basis of the enterprise value as it does not impact this (and only slightly on the market cap given minimal impacts to cash from instrument execution, etc.)
Not accounting for any stock split, consolidation or any other M&A deals
The FY21 financials are on the basis of the mean broker estimates from Thomson Reuters – Seeking Alpha has different and slightly outdated ones
US is only a small part of the market which High Tide addresses, while a change in regulation would have a big impact on the company, currently it is unlikely this would happen, given the discussions about potential federal legalization
Canada regulation is established and not going anywhere
Other countries likely to legalize and regulate cannabis, as outlined earlier
Dilution
No escaping that there will be some significant dilution for shareholders, as pointed out in the table below, but this should be already priced into the stock
Potential that new equity issuances could occur to help finance growth, but provided this growth is delivered, it should be accretive for the stock price
A risk that investors need to be aware with for all companies which have relied on government financial support during COVID-19 measures. Such support has resulted in the number of businesses going bankrupt decreasing massively – this is at a lower level than it ever normally is and is masking some real underlying issues within companies. As investors we need to be open eyed about this
As High Tide has benefited from support in the form of the Canada’s Emergency Wage Support scheme, there is the risk that once this is lifted it may become apparent that the cost base has not been effectively managed
Personally, I think this is mitigated by the synergy analysis conducted as part of the M&A. A full cost base analysis would have been conducted to calculate the potential $8.4m synergies so strong likelihood that this is under control, but should keep on our radar and reassess
Marketing expenses and celebrity licenses
Need more information to ascertain whether these are underpinned by a compelling ROI. Seen a lot of people suggest this is a great positive, but the impact on sales volumes from these is unknown, as is the terms of these license agreements (e.g. split between upfront fee vs. volume-based fee)
No escaping the fact that it is an increased cost and so need to understand the ROI this generates to determine whether it really is compelling
Is there really more demand to pay a premium for Snoop Dogg bongs, Guns n Roses papers, Cheech & Chong grinders, or whatever they may be?
So far management have suggested this has been helpful in driving new sales, but this is something to dig into more
I appreciate the comments would you mind bringing them up in the stocks post since that one has the most visibility other opinions could be factored in. Hello all, Before I begin I would like to address something I have been encountering on my posts in the comments section. I keep receiving some hate concerning my opinions and I want to be crystal clear that they are just that; opinions. I also want everyone to know that is is meant to be a dialog. I am not trying to pump this stock because truthfully, this goes far beyond us retail investors at this point. What I want is a dialog between all sides to examine this truly fascinating phenomenon that is occurring. I would also like to clarify something, I am not a bagholder. I do currently hold bags because I own 336 shares at a $194.34 cost basis, however, that total amount is house money that was used from my profits on the first go around. I also understand some people are tired of hearing about this because it's the same regurgitated form of someone else's post as it keeps circulating in an attempt to retain hype and drive future buying; this is not what this post is about. As investors and individuals involved in the world of finance, this situation should absolutely intrigue us whether or not we are involved. I am here to present my logic on the situation but encourage healthy discussion and debate. This brings me to my first claim. This is not over. Now, I am not claiming that a squeeze will still occur, I am simply claiming it is not over, for better or for worse. Several things need to take place for this to be completely over, at which point I will either post my gains or my losses from the adventure. When I say "it" I am referring to this entire phenomenon, not one short squeeze. I do not think these events, "it", is over. This is largely due to retail and institutional purchasing not really changing all that much since we found the bottom and established support at a staggering $60. This support was lost today and found new support at $50. There was very interesting ATH action and I'm not sure what to make of it. Millions of bag holders (not just WSB) are still holding and in fact, averaging down, thereby purchasing more. These same bag holders are absolutely refusing to sell for such massive losses and in turn are becoming long term investors on the stock if another squeeze isn't to occur. People are picking up speculative positions in the off-chance of another squeeze. Others are determining this as a fair value for the company, not fundamentally, but based on the future prospects of Ryan Cohen and team. Finally, it is nowhere near leaving the global stage with important upcoming dates that we will discuss later. To examine why it isn't over let's look at both sides of the argument:
Bulls claim it's not over for many reasons that you can find in the hundreds of other bullish posts, so I won't bore you with those details. My argument on the bull side is more along the lines of what I listed above.
Bears claim it is over because there was a 2250% price increase over the course of two weeks, therefore this must be a short squeeze.
I think we can all agree, bear or bull, that something happened. A 2250% increase certainly isn't nothing. The question is...what? I see several possibilities and would like to discuss them in the comments.
The shorts in fact covered and this was a short squeeze.
The shorts partially covered and this was a partial short squeeze, but the price increase was mainly hype and gamma squeezes.
The shorts didn't cover anything and this was a globally hyped price increase in conjunction with several gamma squeezes.
Some combination of the above 3.
First, the data: Based on morningstar the short interest is showing 78.46%. Now, I think the website is having some issues storing cookies because it will show the outdated 226% unless you open it up in incognito. Market watch is showing 41.95% This spread is interesting for sure, my thoughts are some of these calculations are including "synthetic longs" introduced by S3. It is extremely possible to manipulate these numbers via illegal methods and even legal methods using options. Please see this SEC document to explain how this would work. I am not trying to convince anyone to fit my narrative, but these things occur far more commonly than one would expect. The reasoning is because the fines for committing the crime are far less costly than letting the event take place. Please see FINRA's website for the long, and frequent list of fines being dealt out due to manipulation. A common culprit? Lying about short volume. Let's use the absolute worst case scenario being reported of 41.95%, which mind you is still extremely high for one stock: The shorts in fact covered and this was a short squeeze What's interesting here is even if the shorts 100% covered all of their positions, they very well could have shorted on the way back down. Why wouldn't you? It would be insane to not open a short position when this hit nearly $500 especially if you lost half of your companies money; what better way to get it back? For the remainder of this thesis, I will be assuming that some of the short positions that exist are newly opened positions at a higher price unless someone has a counter-claim as to why that wouldn't be possible/probable. That would mean 226% was covered on the way up and another 41.95% was reopened on the way back down. Based on the volume and price changes throughout the past two weeks this simply doesn't pass the math check. The shorts partially covered and this was a partial short squeeze. Again, using 41.95% this is highly likely and the most reasonable case. Some, probably the worst positions, were covered on the way up. I think this is precisely what happened, we had some partial shorts covering but for the most part it was gamma squeezes, hype, and FOMO whereby the price started climbing so rapidly it became smarter for the shorts to just wait out the bubble than to actually cover all of their positions. Again, we fall into a "what-if" scenario regarding shorting on the way back down. The shorts didn't cover anything and this was a globally hyped price increase in conjunction with several gamma squeezes. This scenario does not pass the math check using the 41.95% figure. If the data is being manipulated then this becomes very interesting because if some of the worst positions are still open then that means all of these HF's losses that were reported were strictly interest and they are simply waiting this out for as long as it takes making back their losses on their newly opened short positions in t $300-$400 range. Sadly, this puts us in the guessing range yet again. We can do the math and see it's possible this scenario exists, however, we would be comparing it against losses reported by the entities that were being squeezed. There are way to many what-if's for me to me consider this a possibility, but I can't write it off completely. Some combination of the above 3. Truthfully, this isn't worth examining just yet. There would be far to many "what-if's" to address, this is something that could be address at the later dates that we will get to shortly. Now, I've heard it a lot regarding the 02/09 data. "It's two weeks old". Well, that is always the case. The FINRA short data is always two weeks old and suggesting that we can't pull any information from it at all is asinine. Where it gets quite murky, is the data includes 01/27 information. This was a day unlike any other in this saga. I will take this moment to address the following upcoming catalysts and when I truly think this will be done; one way or the other. Today's data 02/09, was very important because if it showed an extremely low percentage then we know shorts have exited and did not re-enter and this is completely done. Given the data does not reflect that, we now must turn to several events that could act as catalysts for either a further squeeze or a complete shutdown. 02/15ish - In my last post, I discussed the Failure To Deliver (FTD) conundrum. I do need some help figuring out the exact expiration date. From here "The close-out requirement states that a participant of a clearing agency needs to take immediate action to close 4 out a fail to deliver position in a threshold security that has persisted for 13 consecutive settlement days by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity." I am missing two pieces of information to answer this.
Does the 13 day countdown begin after T+2, or are those two days counted in the total number?
Are settlement days business days only?
Depending on the above information, starting at 01/29 we are looking at these possibilities:
If T+2 is not included and weekends are: 02/15
If T+2 is not included and its business days only: 02/19
If T+2 is included and weekends are: 02/13 (Saturday)
If T+2 is included and its business days: 02/17
The exact date is slightly irrelevant because I highly doubt all of these FTD's are going to deliver on the same exact day. This site, while it isn't an official channel seems to be doing a good job of tracking data. If you want to learn more about FTD's and the implications there please visit that site or review my last post which has links to follow for further reading. 02/18 - Keith Gill aka u/DeepFuckingValue will testify before congress and Robinhood CEO Vladimir will be attending. This can go several ways which can lead to an SEC trading halt on GameStop or with evidence that proves foul play occurred. Who knows? It will certainly be interesting and I don't even to speculate on the market reaction to this even because it could go a ton of different ways; it will be an important date nonetheless 02/24 - The next FINRA short interest information will be made readily available to the public. This will be far more interesting and helpful information because it won't include the insane volatility of January, but it will also highlight the newest short positions. This data will help further drive where I think this is all going to end. It's possible that shorts opened new positions at $50 thinking it was going back to $12. Let's not speculate too much here either, it's just another dataset that will bring light to the direction this is headed. 03/05 - GameStop ER. This is big too for several reasons. First, this will include the console sales cycle which historically has done well for GameStop. A typical buy the hype, sell the news event. It will be interesting to see how the market reacts leading up to this ER, maybe people won't even touch GME leading up to then due to the recent volatility, but if they do, and if there is still a lot of short interest, this too could force shorts to begin covering. Another critical part of this ER is Ryan Cohen. This will be the first time this new board addresses the public with their plans for the future and for the first time since this entire adventure began, the "dying brick and mortar" narrative will finally begin to change in the public eye. That is still the common misconception regarding GameStop, that it is a dying brick and mortar retailer where nothing has changed. This hasn't been the case for around 6 months now, but this will be the first time it is publicly address. The headlines surrounding GameStop's future plans will be very interesting to read and the markets reaction will be far more interesting. I have been asked a lot what my PT is and when I expect the squeeze to happen, but let me be clear. Very seldom do squeezes "just happen". In fact, short squeezes are far more common than one would think, they just typically happen over months, if not years and the shorts cover on dips so you don't even notice it's happening. In order to force a squeeze, you need to hold a decent amount of shorts underwater. Soon one will crack and start closing their position, this leads to a series of shorts closing their positions skyrocketing the price until more and more shorts need to cover. This is rare. I hope this narrative of purchasing heavily shorted companies comes to a close soon because a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money simply buying up companies because they are heavily bet against. Catalysts and massive changes need to occur like overhauling your entire business as is the case with GameStop. Normally, shorts will close their positions one at a time, covering on dips and you don't even notice it's happening. In times where you see a price rise of seemingly no news could very well be shorts closing their positions because their research led them to realize this company is on the road to recovery. I digress. Given the most recent data and the multiple upcoming catalysts I am still very bullish on a GME short squeeze. My post from quite some time ago illustrated the importance of catalysts regarding a short squeeze, this is still very much the case. The first run was interrupted and the second run won't happen with magic, it requires a catalyst. Another post was titled For those who do not understand the inevitable GME short squeeze, was at the time "inevitable" because math. That is no longer the case. It is no longer inevitable but it is still possible. I want to be clear: This is not nearly as close to a sure thing as it once was and it depends on a lot of different factors. One of the largest is the people. Granted, a lot of what's happening now is in the hands of institutions but millions of retailers holding their positions to the grave certainly helps the institutional buyers have more faith in their play to continue a squeeze. SO WHAT DO I THINK I think shorts certainly covered some of their positions, but not all. I also firmly believe a significant amount of short positions were opened on the way back down by both HF's and individuals. Some certainly positioned high, but based on sentiment, it appears a lot of people think GME is fairly valued around $20 (which I disagree with but let's use that for the time being). That would mean shorts would have no problem opening positions at 100,70,60, even $50. 42% is still very high which means a squeeze is inevitable so long as the company continues in a positive path. However, squeezes typically aren't as abrupt as people think. They are actually quite common, in fact another position I'm heavily invested in is SPCE and they have been going through a squeeze for several weeks and will continue to squeeze so long as news continues to be positive. How would we get an abrupt short squeeze? A massive bull run. The new shorts that entered at lower levels wouldn't be too hard to catch, however, they are probably low volume, so when they buy to close, it won't be large enough volumes for massive peaks, but a bull run very well could lead to these lower tiered shorts closing, triggering a gamma squeeze. If gamma squeezes are made week over week then shorts at the higher end would have two options:
Close early and take profits
Wait it out because they are positioned so well that interest means nothing and they don't think there is any hope of us rising to those levels.
In the first case, them closing early would be a nice short squeeze to probably several hundred dollars, but it wouldn't break $1000. To break $1000 we would need a big bull run to catch the shorts, trigger gamma squeezes, and keep momentum until they are caught and underwater. This is highly unlikely unless there is another global sentiment. NOTE: ALL OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS I AM MAKING ARE BASED ON THE 42% REPORTING. IF IT IS IN FACT 78% THEN THE POSSIBILITY IS TREMENDOUSLY INCREASED FOR THESE THINGS TO HAPPEN. SO WHEN DOES IT ALL END My though is if by the end of March these catalysts were not enough to reignite the hype and squeeze, then it will essentially be over except in the case of a few circumstances:
A VW/Porche moment occurs where a large buyer picks up a large portion of the company.
Some other currently unknown catalyst appears seemingly out of thin air
The data was in fact manipulated. Regardless of what the data says, if the shorts did in fact lie about their short int to take the fine over being squeezed, then they will be squeezed regardless.
It is quite possible, that these catalysts and moments aren't enough to force a squeeze anymore especially if the shorts have repositioned really well. I will retain the mindset that this fateful January 2021 was not a short squeeze. However, that does not mean it will ever actually happen. SO WHAT IS YOUR PLAY HOOMAN? Well, I am long on GME which is why I didn't mind hopping back in even at outrageous prices. I will continue averaging down and don't plan on selling for quite some time, probably several years. The reason for this is I believe in Cohen and his team to turn this into something unexpected and I imagine an eventual ROI. Once this is all said and done and I think either the shorts truly have covered or they simply got away with it (Mid March-ish), I will be posting my DD for GME as a long play regardless of the squeeze mechanics. Thank you all for joining me on this wild journey. I hope we can discuss some of these points in the comments like adults and truly try to grasp this wild situation we are all in. There are extremes on both sides from "get over it, the squeeze happened" to a cult like mentality on the other extreme. I hope through discussion we can find the moderate approach and further understand the market mechanics at play. Thanks for your time WARNING: Until the squeeze business is over for good, this is a very volatile and risky play. Joining now for the hope of a potential round 2 squeeze should only be done in a speculative manner with money you are willing to lose. This is more akin to a gamble than it is investing. I think the current market price is fair given the future prospects of the company but do your own DD, I will not be releasing any until this squeeze is put to rest. Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor. I do not wish to sway your opinion in either direction. I simply seek to examine this interesting and volatile situation via crowd sourcing. What you do with your money is entirely up to you.
ACAC Spac (PlayStudios): A Solid Risk Reward Longer Term Play (Long)
Hey guys, I have a bit of a long DD on ACAC / Playstudios. You can read the text below. If you want to see the full post with all the nice pictures, you can check it out here. I was too lazy to upload each picture individually to Imgur. Apologies in advance. I've seen numerous people on Reddit compare the ACAC / Playstudios SPAC to Skillz, and some even to Draftkings. I think this is mainly because they're all in the online gaming / gambling industry, but aside from that, the companies themselves are quite different. I think a more apt comparison should be between Playstudios and Playtika (Ticker: PLTK), since they operate in the same vertical, compete against one another in mobile slots games, and Playtika has publicly available financial data in which I will be making comparisons against. Playtika Analysis You can find Playtika's prospectus here First and foremost, Playtika is one of the leaders in the mobile casino space. They have an assortment of games, and they themselves are diversifying into more casual games (similar to what Playstudios says they are trying to do), but their bread and butter are casino games, and the ones that make the most money for them are slots. Slotomania, House of Fun, and Caesars Slots are all mobile slots games, and as you can see from the above, they generate a significant portion of Playtika's revenues (roughly 50% of their 2020 revenues). OK, so why do I keep bringing up Playtika? Well, they had a very interesting graph that shows how much of their revenues come from different segments of their user base, based on when they acquired those users. What this chart is saying is that 45% of their revenues came from users acquired from 2013 and earlier! This is insane! They have such high user retention and user LTVs, that they're still monetizing a portion of their users that they acquired from 7 years ago. If we go up to 2017, then roughly 75% of their revenues come from users acquired 2017 and earlier! This is important because Playtika's oldest games are all slots games. So this is telling us that users that play mobile slots games, they tend to stay with those games for extremely long periods of time, and if they do stick with them, they spend a lot of money! This is great news since the vast majority of Playstudio's revenues come from mobile slots games. If you look at Playtika's financials, you'll notice pretty nice revenue growth. However, a lot of that is non-organic, and was accomplished through M&A. This was because in 2016, Playtika was acquired by a consortium of Chinese game companies for $4.4 billion (including Giant Network, a well known gaming company in China), and they need to make revenue numbers higher to have a better story to sell for the IPO. And part of their strategy was to diversify into casual games, and they did so by acquiring about 15 companies since 2016, including Wooga (developer of June's Journey, a very profitable find hidden objects mobile game) and Supertreat (developer of Solitaire Grand Harvest, a profitable card game). However, one of the caveats of casual games is that the ARPPU (average revenue per paying user) is lower, and retention is lower than casino games. I did my own calculations on Playtika's ARPPU for 2018, 2019, and 2020, and you can see the noticeable downtrend. This was obviously not disclosed in the prospectus. Only ARPDAU (average revenue per daily active user) was disclosed. My belief is that even though ARPPU and retention are lower, maybe the market is giving a higher multiple to casual games. I believe that even though online gambling is beginning to see legalization in many states, and more and more people are starting to be open to it, there is still a bit of a social stigma associated with it, and certain investors may be wary to investing in a pure "casino" play. That's why Playtika is making such a concerted effort to move away from purely casino games, and positioning itself as an mobile entertainment company. Another reason is also the immense competition and high user acquisition costs, but Playtika has shown that they are more than able to execute on a long term strategy here. Playstudios Analysis Before jumping into anything else, I want to go straight to Playstudio's financials. The reason is because I think there's a lot of fluff here, and I want people to know the bullshit. But even when you see through the bullshit, the downside is still mitigated enough to warrant this play. So first off, take any numbers you see from 2022 with a grain of salt. No one knows what's going to happen this year, let alone two years in the future, and in my eyes, those 2022 numbers look extremely unrealistic. Revenue growth will probably not be that high, unless they make some big acquisitions, and EBITDA margin expansion probably won't be that fast. Revenue Growth Playstudios is planning on launching a Bingo and an RPG game, and their plan is to aggressively spend on UA (User Acqusition) in 2021. Their hope is that revenues will scale up with their UA, and by 2022, they can lower their UA spend a bit, and continue to monetize the new games exceptionally well, maybe at an even better rate than 2021. I think this is a bit farfetched, especially in such a competitive space as Bingo. I've done analysis on Bingo games before, and some of those games have also been around for 8 to 10 years, and they can't expect to just launch a game and have it ramped up to their expected revenue in a year's time. Development for those games requires game designers, people who are very good at math, product designers, and a many other people, which can make the development timeline quite long (at least a few months, for a more finished product, I think at least half a year for these guys). I think a more plausible scenario is that they acquire a smaller Bingo player, and then begin optimizing that game, and add in their own loyalty rewards, as that's the quickest way to ramp up revenues post IPO. My guess is revenues are not going to ramp up as quickly as they expect, and they'll see limited revenue growth here, and still mainly see some growth from better monetizing their slots players. I think by 2022, somewhere between $350 million to $400 million in revenues is more reasonable, and I'd probably lean towards the lower end of that range. Margin Expansion In terms of margin expansion, I think the decrease in cost of sales is doable. It seems like there is some extra fat there that they can trim as they scale. The cost of sales is mainly the tax that Apple and Google charges when users make a purchase through their respective stores, and this is a flat 30%. I doubt they'll get it less than 30% any time soon, but that will probably be through getting their whales to make purchases outside of the Google Play Store or App Store, and using a much cheaper payment processor. I think a long term goal of 20 - 25% for UA spend is reasonable. I'm OK with these numbers, though they may need to spend more initially to ramp up new games. One of the benefits of their loyalty rewards program is that they can have higher retention, and this might be a way for them to lower their UA spend, since people may be more willing to tell their friends about a free trip or prize they won through a mobile game. Another reason I'm OK with the UA spend is because it seems like they have a pretty knowledgeable UA team. I have access to App Annie, a data analytics company that tracks mobile apps, and I checked out the download history for POP! Slots, one of Playstudio's mobile games. You'll notice that US downloads spiked quite a bit in March. This is right when COVID-19 was beginning to spike in the US, and people began working from home. In the mobile app world, many apps had spikes in downloads in March and April 2020 because there was a much larger pool of users looking to download apps. CPAs came down, and companies that had strong UA teams were able to capture a lot of these new users. Thus, this tells me that Playstudios UA team was at least aware of ongoing trends in the mobile app space, and they were able to capitalize by gaining more users during that period of time. The biggest issue I have is with the "All Other Expenses." I don't know why it's this high (R&D and G&A shouldn't be that high), and Playstudios definitely needs to do some expense cutting here. While this has the most room to cut, it may be the hardest since I'm guessing a lot of that cost is from legacy employees. But if they can get this to around 30% by 2022, I'll be happy. Playstudios Has No Daily Active Users (DAU) Growth This is a common issue I see raised on Reddit and I want to address it here. Below is another chart from App Annie, which has DAU estimates. As you can see, DAU has remained pretty flat for the past 2 years, roughly between 150K and 200K users. But have you considered that revenues were actually increasing during this time? This means that Playstudios is becoming more efficient at monetizing their current users (getting more money out of older players), or their user acquisition team is targeting more profitable users. And this is just how the game is played in the mobile apps world. Users will eventually get sick of a game and stop playing. Not many games can count on users organically finding their game, and continuing to play indefinitely. To maintain a certain DAU, companies generally have to spend money on UA to maintain that user base. It becomes a business where you are calculating how much you are spending on UA, and whether the LTV and retention are good enough that you can make money in the long run from those users. You can think of it as an ROI on your marketing spend. And this is especially true for mobile game apps. If it were a social app, then yes, something like the network effect can come into play, and UA spend would be much lower. But for Playstudios, maintaining a steady DAU is actually a sign that their UA team knows what they're doing, and they're able to maintain a profitable and highly efficient business. It's actually a positive that they can maintain their DAU, and even INCREASE their revenues during that period. End Game? I don't actually know how this will end up. I don't give price targets cause I have no idea how the markets will value this company. But I can provide a few data points so that you can make your own decisions. From a multiples standpoint, Playstudios is cheap on a revenue multiple basis compared to Playtika, and is about the same from an EBITDA multiple basis. I personally don't think that Playstudios is a play that's going to 5X. Hell, even 3X I think will be a stretch. But, they do have a loyalty program that will help lower their UA costs, and extend the lifespan of their users. And they are moving into more types of games to diversify their revenue source. The reason I like this play is because I think the downside is heavily limited. The lifespan of casino slots players are so long, and the revenues are pretty stable (even growing), that there isn't an immediate risk that revenues will all of a sudden drop 30%, as is the case with lots of other mobile game companies. Add on top of this the potential for new revenue growth drivers from Bingo and RPG games, and the potential for margin expansion, that this is an easy 30-50% upside from current prices with almost minimal downside. One last minor bit, is that I'm sure lots of people missed out on the hype surrounding Draftkings and Skillz, and I'm sure there are some retail investors that will look for any type of casino / mobile gaming / gambling deals, and may jump on this as well. My feeling is that there is also a potential upside from the hype or FOMO factor. Anyway, this is my analysis on Playstudios / ACAC, hope you guys enjoy. Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor. These are my personal views and analysis on Playstudios. Please do your own due diligence. Disclosure: I own 400 shares of ACAC.
Calculate Gambling Roi, languagems locmy free play casino bonus, slots - pharaoh's way itunes, hp microserver expansion slots. 18+, T&C Apply,, New Customers Only. Wager. June 6, 2019. 56. Percentage. August 15, 2019. 100% * T&C. 18+, T&C Apply,, New Customers Only. Expekt. 100% . permanent Wager: 30x deposit + bonus Min deposit: €20. Play Now. LocoWin. Scorching Slots Casino - Welcome Bonus Calculate the wagering amount, total bets required and the expected cashout based on your ROI %. CALCULATE Calculate the net profit and the Return On Investment based on your online sports or casino betting activity. Calculate Gambling Roi Min buy-in €20. Bonus wagering 35x on eligible games. Spins available day after bonus is lost/redeemed, 10 per day for 10 days, no wagering. Full T&Cs apply. Bonus wagering 35x on eligible games. Calculate Gambling Roi, do slot machines have to pay out, casino demo, casino ft 21 savage deal. Gamble Responsibly BeGambleAware.org. Wager. Bonus. 3. €100. 100%. SlotsMillion Casino Review 0. Wager. Settings. Prize pool: up to €1500. Prize pool: free spins. 100% up to £50 + 50 freespins 🇲🇹How long does it take to get a gaming license for a casino in Malta? * T&C. January 7, 2018 ROI = $114.60 / 100 – 1 ROI = 0.146 or 14.6% The advice that ROI is giving you, is if you should place a wager based on your estimated winning percentage. If your winning percentage is too low,... ROI Calculation Example #2: We start from the premise that your initial bankroll was composed of 100 units, and you lost 10 units during the first year. Your ROI would be (-10 / 100) x 100 = -10%. That’s how easy it is to calculate return on investment in horse racing, football betting, NBA betting and whatnot. Calculate Gambling Roi, play blackjack wizard of odds, casino elitist pickups, zynga poker security alert message code ca3. Read our full review. March 7, 2019. Free Spins. January 7, 2018. Over 2000 Casino Games; Mobile Casino; Fast Payouts; Prize pool: 100% up to $100 or €100 + 100 free spins* 18+, T&C Apply,, New Customers Only. every Wednesday Min deposit: €25. €140. Thank you for We will start by taking your net profit and dividing it by the total risk. For example, if you created a system that had 500 games played and you won 25 units off of it, your sports betting ROI would be calculated thusly: (25 units X $100) / (500 games X $100) = .05. This number is typically viewed as a percentage, so this system would have a return on investment of 5%. Essentially we have taken the gains from our bets and then divided that by the total cost of investment — or the amount Using the Betting ROI Calculator you can calculate almost instantly if your betting activity from a specific period has the results that you’re targeting. 🟢 If the betting ROI % you get is positive, then it means you’re having a profit from betting and what you can do is to keep on working for increasing it. In our opinion, a good ROI % for long-term betting is somewhere between 10% and ROI is perhaps the best way to analyze the success of a betting system and, for this example, we will assume a risk of $100 on each bet. We will start by taking your net profit and dividing it by the total risk. For example, if you created a system that had 500 games played and you won 25 units off of it, your ROI would be calculated thusly: (25 units X $100) / (500 games X $100) = .05. This number is typically viewed as a percentage, so this system would have a return on investment of 5%
Easily calculate your betting ROI with BetQL! Head into a game card, select your bet amount and calculate your return on investment. You can easily track you... Warren Buffett said that if he managed under $1 Million he would be able to make a 50% return. In this video we'll discuss some of the likely strategies that... MIT 15.S50 Poker Theory and Analysis, IAP 2015View the complete course: http://ocw.mit.edu/15-S50IAP15Instructor: Kevin DesmondAn overview of the course requ... How to calculate ROI in Excel using formula. dollar return on investment excel spreadsheet, how to calculate roi in excel percentage Excel File:http://www.up... MIT 18.S096 Topics in Mathematics with Applications in Finance, Fall 2013View the complete course: http://ocw.mit.edu/18-S096F13Instructor: Jake XiaThis lect... The Strategic Art of Successful Soccer Betting Learn the exact system I built to achieve 40-50% ROI from soccer betting... even if you don't know anything about soccer! Category Embed or download the original HD video on your website or blog for free via http://www.explania.com/en/channels/work/detail/what-is-marketing-roi or watch e...
![Detailed DD post [re-post after pennystocks removed it]](https://a.thumbs.redditmedia.com/-u8f_3KNR4C4xszR_qNH3GzIEi4iY0UWG9PLnkrOHt8.jpg "Detailed DD post [re-post after pennystocks removed it]")
![Detailed DD post [re-post after pennystocks deleted it]](https://b.thumbs.redditmedia.com/_a5fFxhQplfVCy70iqdhYPRHj7Ccgy-m4AUAf9dFMCI.jpg "Detailed DD post [re-post after pennystocks deleted it]")
