Politics & Stocks Nut. Views are my own and do not represent any financial advice. Please do your own due diligence.

Joined November 2024
1/ $GRUSF: The takeaway from today's results—IF they didn't add back $1.9M of magical "other income" to EBITDA, their EBITDA is down a whopping 72% vs the 9M avg. For 9MFY24, other income was $51K. In Q4'24, it jumps to $1.9M. What exactly is this other income? (1/n)
4
3
3
26
8,970
10
17
3
68
6,580
Replying to @cupofcoffeecap
To be clear, $GRUSF trades at 25x EBITDA today and at >11x EBITDA INCLUDING full build out of NJ, full sell-through of NJ at a $2k wholesale price per pound. None of those things are true today. Dividing their NJ revenue by pounds produced shows a ~$1,800/pound realization.
1
1
6
246
Who is this guy? He constantly DMs me and then makes up stuff trying to mock me. Please get your facts straight or maybe just keep it quiet when you're faced with the task of being honest about a highly illiquid holding that is your entire fund, I don't expect anything unbiased.
Replying to @PoliticoStocker
A Flower pricing was flat QoQ, not all pricing. Pre roll and other pricing was down, which explains the rev/aEBITDA reduction. No "massaging" or "reallocation" tin foil hat required, just take a quick look at the financials.
5
11
1,972
Just open the filings of your holding once in a while: 1. Pre-rolls is <15% of their business so its wtd avg cannot mathematically impact MI as you describe and 2. Hilariously, they disclose pre-roll pounds sold and revenue so you can calculate ASP, which INCREASED QoQ by + 3.2%
1
3
206
To help you further, it is page 15 of the MD&A filed on Sedar.
2
3
207
Last point $GRUSF. Bulls never talk of valuation or impending dilution. Co. trades at >11x EBITDA if i assume full build out & sell through of NJ & 70% allocation to GRUSF (~$9M EBITDA) and annualize base-business EBITDA ($2M with corp o/h). Also has no 280E benefit from resched.
1
2
12
3,509
The flywheel was super exaggerated and the stock is back to trading at a nosebleed valuation.
1
6
323
I would argue that the "flywheel" was entirely made up slop to help fundraise and it seems the goalposts keep being moved to "new states" when the company cannot realistically fund those on the timelines stated.
1
9
341
The fundamental issue is three fold: 1. With $9M in cash, they cannot afford to build out these states without an addiitonal fundraise, so need to keep pitching the future to raise current $'s. $GRUSF
Great news today from $GRUSF. The company through its director of cultivation won a license in Minnesota! This market alone with $GRUSF's cost structure could be worth more than the entire market cap. How do I come up with that?
2
2
16
5,679
2. NJ, arguably least competitive state in the US, has had an extremely slow ramp, poor sell-through (they don't disclose sale data only production) and much worse than expected realizations. Expect worse in other states. Also, pls adjust for them owning only 70% at best of NJ.
3
9
482
3. COGS numbers seem massaged. Costs are being reallocated to corporate to show better state numbers. Here's a clue: despite QoQ flat pricing in Michigan. +15% higher production and -14% stated "costs". EBITDA in the state declined -14.5% and revenue -9%. How is that possible?
1
10
419
Are these results even worth reviewing? $GRUSF
3
7
1,208
One person single handedly holding up this name. Exit liquidity is there till it lasts. Used to be $MSOS for the smaller MSOs and now its this one fund for $GRUSF
3
5
1,290
$GRUSF results prove I was right last quarter, the base business is in a bad shape. The two biggest owners downplayed Q4, but their illiquid stakes mean they’re not leveling with us.
3
2
25
3,205
NJ started construction in middle of 2023 and we're just seeing first sales from just 25% utilization. IL construction hasn't even started yet. I've always maintained they do a good job on a small scale but the valuation has never made sense.
1
3
411
I should end with saying that I did like mgmt's increased transparency though.
2
379