Connect with us

General Other

Aurora Cannabis Stock Is Under the Hammer; Here’s What You Need to Know

mm

Published

on

Aurora Cannabis Stock Is Under the Hammer; Here’s What You Need to Know

If anyone is looking for a successful cannabis story in 2020… look away now. Aurora Cannabis (ACB) continues its relentless search for the bottom as the long-awaited shift in sentiment has failed to materialize. Shares are once again under pressure and lost close to 70% year-to-date.

The latest setback can probably be blamed on several pieces of underwhelming news. Last week, the Canadian cannabis producer provided investors with a business update and it is safe to say the news did not give long-term suffering ACB holders any cheer.

In tandem with now expecting fourth-quarter net revenue to be down from the C$78.4 million reported in Q3 to between C$70 million and C$72 million (also below the Street’s C$77 million estimate), the company also said it expects a record asset impairment charge of up to C$2.0 billion. Add into the mix the termination of a UFC partnership, which will include a one-off payment of US$30 million in 1Q21, and it all paints a familiar dispiriting picture.

For Jefferies analyst Owen Bennett, the disappointing update is further exacerbated by the choice of new CEO. The position has finally been filled with the appointment of Miguel Martin.

“One,” the analyst said, “Mr Martin was only just promoted to Chief Commercial Officer in July. The fact that he was given the CEO role so soon after would suggest limited availability of suitable (or indeed interested) parties externally. To this, there were arguably more expectations with ACB given the role of Nelson Peltz as a strategic advisor. Two, while we don’t assume Mr Martin is not capable, and he should be judged on results, it is easy to pick holes in his experience with regard to building international brands across a variety of distribution channels.”

To this end, Bennett rates ACB shares an Underperform (i.e. Sell). But Bennett might as well have said Buy — because he thinks the stock, currently at C$9.29 (US$7.01), could zoom ahead to C$14.00 (US$10.62) within a year, delivering 51% profits to new investors. (To watch Bennett’s track record, click here)

Aurora might not have the Street’s full confidence, but overall, Bennett’s colleagues are more positive. ACB’s Hold consensus rating is based on 2 Buys, 7 Holds and 1 Sell. At C$16.82 (US$12.76), the average price target suggest shares will appreciate by a strong 81% over the next 12 months. (See Aurora price targets and analyst ratings on TipRanks)

To find good ideas for cannabis stocks trading at attractive valuations, visit TipRanks’ Best Stocks to Buy, a newly launched tool that unites all of TipRanks’ equity insights.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the featured analyst. The content is intended to be used for informational purposes only. It is very important to do your own analysis before making any investment.

mm

Christine founded Sports Grind Entertainment with an aim to bring relevant and unaltered Sports news to the general public with a specific view point for each story catered by the team. She is a proficient journalist who holds a reputable portfolio with proficiency in content analysis and research.

Christine founded Sports Grind Entertainment with an aim to bring relevant and unaltered Sports news to the general public with a specific view point for each story catered by the team. She is a proficient journalist who holds a reputable portfolio with proficiency in content analysis and research.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

General Other

Senate Democrats Want to Wait until November 4 to Reveal Their Court-Packing Plan

mm

Published

on

Senate Democrats Want to Wait until November 4 to Reveal Their Court-Packing Plan

If Democrats control Congress and the White House in 2021, will they pack the Supreme Court with additional progressive justices?

Following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the efforts of the Senate GOP majority to fill the vacancy, it may be the most important question facing Democrats in 2020. But it’s a question only a few Senate Democrats are willing to answer.

Massachusetts senator Ed Markey tweeted on September 21: “This Republican hypocrisy is shameful but not surprising. If they violate their own precedent, we must expand the Supreme Court.” West Virginia senator Joe Manchin, the most conservative Democrat in the Senate, told CNN on Sunday that he “can’t support” court-packing.

But most Democratic senators have made it clear they don’t want to reveal their intentions on court-packing until after the election. “What we need to do before we talk about what happens in the next session of Congress is for Democrats to win the presidency and a majority in the Senate,” Connecticut senator Richard Blumenthal told National Review in the Capitol last week when asked about court-packing.

Before voters go to the polls, should they get to know whether court-packing is likely or even on the table? “There are so many reasons to vote for Democrats now — that we need to focus on the pandemic,” replied Blumenthal, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “You know, we just passed 200,000 deaths. The president’s failure to deal with the pandemic and the public-health and economic crises and his cruel and reckless indifference [are] costing lives.”

“I think we’ve got to wait to get through the election,” Pennsylvania Democratic senator Bob Casey said when asked about court-packing. “The key thing right now is people have to understand what’s at stake, especially on ACA and preexisting conditions.”

“No thoughts at the moment,” New Mexico Democratic senator Martin Heinrich replied when asked about adding justices to the Court. “We have a job to do before we have that conversation.”

California senator Kamala Harris, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, dodged the question during an appearance on MSNBC on Monday night.

“If Judge Barrett is confirmed and the Democrats have control of the Senate next year and the White House and the House of Representatives, should the Supreme Court be expanded?” MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell asked Harris.

“You know, let’s, I think that — first of all — Joe has been very clear that he is going to pay attention to the fact, and I’m with him on this 1,000 percent — pay attention to the fact that right now, Lawrence, people are voting,” Harris replied. She said that the winner of the November presidential election should fill the current vacancy, but she never said a word about what a Biden-Harris administration would do on court-packing.

It’s not clear how likely court-packing would be if Democrats have unified control of Congress and the White House in 2021. It’s obviously more likely in a Senate with 54 Democrats than a Senate with 51 Democrats. If they are unwilling to say before the election that they will pack the courts, they will not be able to say in 2021 they have a mandate to do so. And it’s worth remembering that Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried and failed to pack the Court when Democrats held 76 out of 96 Senate seats and 334 out of 435 House seats. (The pressure did famously result in one justice’s beginning to rule favorably on the New Deal — the “switch in time saves nine.”)

If Democrats do add justices to the Court, it guarantees that Republicans would do the same the next time they control Congress and the White House. In October 2019, Joe Biden said: “I would not get into court-packing. We add three justices; next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the Court has at all.”

But since the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Biden has repeatedly refused to state his position on court-packing. “It’s a legitimate question,” Biden said last week. “But let me tell you why I’m not going to answer that question. It will shift the focus. That’s what [Trump] wants. Let’s say I answer, then the whole debate’s gonna be about what Biden said or didn’t say. Biden said he would or wouldn’t.”

Asked again about court-packing on Sunday, Biden said: “I know you’re going to be upset with my answer. But what I’m not going to do is play the Trump game — which is a good game he plays — take your eye off the issue before us. If I were to say yes or no to that, that becomes a big issue.”

Given how transformative court-packing would be to our system of government, it’s not clear that Biden and Senate Democrats will be able to get away with that non-answer over the next month.

More from National Review

mm

Christine founded Sports Grind Entertainment with an aim to bring relevant and unaltered Sports news to the general public with a specific view point for each story catered by the team. She is a proficient journalist who holds a reputable portfolio with proficiency in content analysis and research.

Continue Reading

General Other

Meghan McCain Gives Birth to Daughter with Husband Ben Domenech

mm

Published

on

Meghan McCain Gives Birth to Daughter with Husband Ben Domenech

Meghan McCain Gives Birth to Daughter with Husband Ben Domenech | PEOPLE.com

























this link is to an external site that may or may not meet accessibility guidelines.

mm

Christine founded Sports Grind Entertainment with an aim to bring relevant and unaltered Sports news to the general public with a specific view point for each story catered by the team. She is a proficient journalist who holds a reputable portfolio with proficiency in content analysis and research.

Continue Reading

General Other

Elon Musk Promises to Make His Own Lithium; This Analyst Is Unimpressed

mm

Published

on

Yahoo Finance

Put one “Battery Day” in the books, folks. On Tuesday, Sept. 22, CEO Elon Musk finally held his long-awaited presentation running down everything Tesla (TSLA) plans to do over the next decade to cut the cost of batteries, and extend the range (and lower the price) of Tesla’s electric cars.

One of the key revelations: In an effort to accelerate the conversion of 300 million American cars from gasoline engines to electric, Tesla is pioneering a method of using “table salt (sodium chloride) to basically extract the lithium” … from 10,000 acres of Nevadan clay, ensuring plentiful supply of the metal for use in building more batteries. “Simply mix clay with salt, put it in water, the salt comes out with the lithium — done.”

“Nobody’s done this before,” avers Musk, but “it’s a very sustainable way of obtaining the lithium.”

And it certainly sounds like a bright idea. There’s just one problem: According to GLJ Research analyst James Bardowski, it probably won’t work.

In a firmly tongue-in-cheek report out Thursday titled “TSLA Claims to [Manufacture Lithium] ‘Simply’ w/ Salt … We See a Higher Chance of a $25K M3 Robo-Taxiing to Mars,” Bardowski calls Musk’s claim that Tesla can vertically integrate lithium production into its battery operations “eccentric,” and argues it’s liable to become just one in a long line of “broken promises” from the Tesla CEO.

Why is Bardowski throwing shade on Elon Musk this week? First off, as Tesla itself would probably admit (indeed, has admitted), this method of extracting lithium from clay “would be a first for the industry.”

That’s not to say there’s zero chance of success, of course, but Bardowski observes that “the details surrounding Tesla’s planned Li production were conspicuously light.” And viewed in light of past pie in the sky promises from Tesla (swappable batteries in 2012, for example, or fully-autonomous Teslas in 2014, or cars with 620 miles of driving range in 2015, or — most recently — 1 million robo-taxis driving folks around the U.S. “in 2019 or 2020”), Bardowski has his doubts that Tesla will deliver on this latest promise as well.

Even in the most optimistic scenario, the analyst notes that obtaining a permit to mine lithium in Nevada could take “years” for Tesla to secure, while obtaining the water needed to facilitate (what little we know of) the process — in the middle of the Nevada desert — could also prove problematic.

But what if Musk does end up delivering on this particular promise? Well, in that case, acknowledges Bardowski, Tesla’s move into lithium mining could pose serious competitive pressures on existing lithium producers such as Albemarle, Livent, Lithium Americas, and Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile.

As the analyst has previously warned, the global supply of lithium is on track to outpace demand into at least 2023. Combined with lower production targets for battery cathodes from Tesla itself, which will further depress demand for lithium without doing anything to slow supply coming online, Bardowski hypothesizes that Tesla becoming a lithium miner in its own right could accelerate the growth of lithium, and “quickly drag” down both lithium prices, and lithium profits for the incumbent producers.

That is to say, this could happen if Tesla’s promises bear fruit this time — it’s just that Bardowski thinks you’ll see robo-taxis on Mars before that happens.

All in all, Street-wide caution circles the electric car giant, as TipRanks analytics model TSLA as a Hold. This boils down to 6 Buy ratings, 14 Holds and 10 Sells issued in the past 3 months. Meanwhile, the 12-month average price target, $310.15, implies a 26% downside from current levels.

To find good ideas for stocks trading at attractive valuations, visit TipRanks’ Best Stocks to Buy, a newly launched tool that unites all of TipRanks’ equity insights.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the featured analyst. The content is intended to be used for informational purposes only. It is very important to do your own analysis before making any investment.

mm

Christine founded Sports Grind Entertainment with an aim to bring relevant and unaltered Sports news to the general public with a specific view point for each story catered by the team. She is a proficient journalist who holds a reputable portfolio with proficiency in content analysis and research.

Continue Reading

Trending