THE ‘BILL CARA CANNABIS 50’ COMPANIES

This week we focus on 50 cannabis companies for which we, as portfolio managers, capture comprehensive investor-related data. We show how we capture the data and apply it to a proprietary algorithm to generate decision-support information.

We will let the data speak for itself. But new readers will first need an explanation.

Every week my partner Owen Williams and I compile a couple dozen data points for 5,100 listed companies. This information is assembled by Thomson Reuters, the premier Big Data company, from corporate filings and analyst reports. In addition to the components of the major indexes (Dow 30, S&P 500, Russell 3000, ACWI 500), we retrieve the same data for several hundred small cap companies to study them in detail in order for possibly trading them in client portfolios.

We also capture the same data now for a growing number of cannabis companies. A week ago, we had data on 21. This week the number is well over 50. To reduce the list to what we will be calling the Bill Cara Cannabis 50, we eliminated some of the biotech companies that are peripherally involved in cannabis as well as a few others.

As more of these companies meet their regulatory requirements and more industry analysts report on them, our database will expand.

Here is a sample of the fundamentals data that we obtain and massage every week.

• Y/Y Forecasted Next Year Sales
• Y/Y Forecasted Next Year EPS
• 3-month consensus EPS revision % change
• Consensus Est. Enterprise Value-to-EBITBA
• Estimated Net Income-to-Sales
• Net Debt-to-EBITDA
• Cash Flow-to-Total Liabilities
• Current Mkt Cap-to-Forecasted EBITDA
• Current P/BV relative 5-Year Mean P/BV

Once weekly, we run this data for all 5,100 companies to get relative rankings of any stock against the Universe or its sector or within any peer group that we choose such as a portfolio or a group of stocks in an industry like cannabis.

For illustrative purposes, we used the US stock market tickers for our 50 cannabis companies, but this list also contains the Canadian market tickers and the links to the company websites.

In fact, some of the assigned US tickers cannot be traded yet. We could not trade CURLF, CWBHF, NWKRF, HRVOF, KHRNF, NACNF, NDVAF, PHCEF, SNNVF, TCNNF and ZBISF. But the Canadian tickers can be traded.

On the fundamentals data we receive, we apply a proprietary algorithm to compute relative scores for categories like Growth, PEG, EPS and Revenue Revisions etc, some of which are displayed in this article as exhibits.

Here is a background explanation of the Williams Market Analytics Fundamental Scoring System and our Fundamentals algorithm.

Scores range from 0 (weakest) to 100 (strongest) and are centered around 50, like a diffusion index, as explained below. The number in parenthesis is the company’s percentile rank for the metric, either versus all listed companies (“Global”) or versus its peers (“Sector”). The 100th percentile is top of class.

NA = Fundamental data is not available for the company or there is a lack of analyst coverage.

So, without getting into technical (market price and volume) studies that are part of our decision-support trading process, you can see we have an investment process based on fundamentals.

Now let’s examine the detailed scoring results of the Bill Cara Cannabis 50.

The first illustration is of Growth.

From the description of the Fundamentals algorithm, you can see that our Growth score is based on both Revenue and Earnings calculations.

For statistical reasons, we apply a maximum score of 100 to all 5,000+ companies, for all calculations. This methodology resulted in 15 of the 50 cannabis companies having 100 scores for Growth and hence receiving a T1 (tied for #1) ranking.

That result reflects the explosive growth in the cannabis industry, particularly in the revenue part of the calculations, if not yet in earnings.

Of the 50 companies, there was insufficient data to calculate scores on 13. But of the 37 we scored, fully 34 of these companies scored more than 75.0, which is extraordinary, and is the reason so many investors are watching the cannabis industry closely.

The lowest Growth score that we would deem acceptable for investment was Organigram at 79.34, which stood at 242 out of 4,234 ranked companies this week (May 17 data). And yet Organigram ranked only #31 out of these 50 cannabis companies. Nothing further needs to be said.

Note that the database universe is 5100 companies but the scoring universe for each criterion is less because the reported data from the companies and/or the analysts was insufficient. In fact, for the emerging cannabis industry we were unable to analyze several criteria that we do every week for mature companies, such as Yield because there are no dividends paid by these companies.

The second illustration is for Price-Earnings Growth.

Here is where Earnings matter and the fact that only 24 of the 50 companies could be scored shows where investors need to focus. But these scores are based largely on analyst estimates, which are highly influenced by company guidance. When subsequent operating results fail to meet consensus estimates, the stock prices get hammered. Cannabis companies can either walk the talk investors expect, or they cannot.

Of the 24 scored companies for PEG scores, Eve & Co Inc (EEVVF), Sunniva Inc. (SNNVF) and Invictus MD Strategies Corp (IVITF) were best, followed by Green Thumb Industries Inc. (GTBIF), Green Growth Brand (GGBXF) and Zenabis Global Inc (ZBISF).

In the universe of 5,100 companies of which we were able to score 3595 for PEG, and we typically filter out the bottom 80%, Organigram Holdings Inc., with a universal ranking of 656, 17th best for cannabis, was the lowest one we deem acceptable on this basis.

To determine the best candidates for investment based on company fundamentals, we look at the scores of all these exhibits. Prior to investing, we then run different market price-based algorithms.

Interesting is that some of profit-generating companies are being acquired by larger companies, probably to learn the ropes on how to generate earnings.

The third illustration is for EPS Revisions.

Bear in mind that we are not referring to absolute earnings here. When companies guide from a major loss to a lesser loss, the analysts take note.

On this EPS Revisions basis, 31 of the 50 companies received a score, but only 12 were acceptable for additional study.

The best two were Flowr Corp (FLWPF) and Corbus Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc (CRBP), while the 12th best was Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. (CURLF). Next best, Innovative Industrial Properties Inc (IIPR) was close.

But the best of the rest scored only 2813 against the universe of 4,171 companies that received scores for this measure. That was CannTrust Holdings with a ranking of 2813. The others received very poor rankings.

The fourth illustration is for Revenue Revisions.

Of the 27 companies that we were able to score on this basis, from a universe of 4046 companies, there were seven, Flowr Corp (FLWPF), Corbus Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc (CRBP), MediPharm Labs Corp. (MEDIF), Kush Bottles Inc (KSHB), Zynerba Pharmaceuticals Inc (ZYNE), Emerald Health Therapeutics (EMHTF), and GW Pharmaceuticals PLC ( GWPH), that received a T1 (tied for the maximum of 100).

Of these 27 companies out of 50 we scored and could rank; investors would take note that maybe 17 received scores and rankings that would be acceptable on this basis.

The fifth illustration is for Valuation, which we based on the consensus analyst estimates of Enterprise Value (EV) to EBITDA and EV to Sales.

Three of the companies made the rankings cut based on Valuation as an investment factor. These were Insys Therapeutics Inc (INSY), Invictus MD Strategies Corp (IVITF), and Delta 9 Cannabis Inc (VRNDF).

Thirty-four of the 50 were scored and ranked, but most scores were very low and clearly unacceptable.

The sixth illustration is for the Price-to-Earnings Ratio (PER).

We were able to score and rank only 22 of the 50 companies and only two stood out. Invictus MD Strategies Corp (IVITF) and WeedMD Inc (WDDMF) received rankings of 170 and 904 out of the scored universe of 3384 companies.

For these leaders, the scores benefited from estimates of 2019 and 2020 earnings that are unlikely to come true.

The seventh illustration is for Market Cap to forecasted EBITDA.

Only 12 of the 50 cannabis companies received a score that was related to estimated EBITDA. Where are the earnings? Of the scores we received, none would be acceptable on an investment basis. Market prices are simply excessive.

At least the analysts have reported an estimated EBITDA for those 12 companies.

The eighth illustration is related to Book Value.

We scored 47 of the 50 cannabis companies based on Market Price to Book Value. Our analysis shows 29 would be acceptable for potential investment. Green Growth Brand (GGBXF) and Vivo Cannabis Inc (VVCIF) received a maximum score of 100 (T1 ranking) – but there so many other non-cannabis companies with this T1 ranking — in the universe of 5024 scored companies.

At 24th best, CannTrust received a universal ranking of 960, which out of a possible 5024 is very good, which means that almost half the cannabis companies have outstanding book value per share because their market valuations are excessive.

The ninth illustration is for Profitability.

Thirty-three of the 50 companies received a score based on estimated net income and estimated EBITDA to Sales. But of these, only one was deemed possibly acceptable for investment purposes based on this factor.

For Profitability, the best company is Innovative Industrial Properties Inc (IIPR), which reported strong earnings this month. The stock ranked #79 of the 4807 companies we monitor weekly.

While just one of the 50 companies received an acceptable Profitability score Charlotte’s Web (CWBHF) was close with a 1219 ranking (improved this week from 1221) out of the universe of 4807 that we were able to score.

Only six cannabis companies received Profitability scores in the top 50% of companies and most were very lowly ranked. Herein lies a problem with market perception tied to growing capacity for the companies that have cultivation and sales licenses.

I have written this before: growing cannabis is not like growing lettuce. These companies can employ all the PhD’s and agriculture scholars they want for marketing purposes; but almost none of them can compete with the grey market for product quality. Investors are wondering why their products, in many cases, are not selling? It is simply because knowledgeable clients will not accept poor quality no matter how beautiful the packaging.

In our last article, we referred to the lack of green (i.e. Net Income and EBITDA). None of these companies can walk the talk. They produce brown bud.

The tenth illustration relates to Financial Situation. There are four factors we considered: (i) Total Debt-to-Total Equity (ii) EBITDA-to-Interest Expense (iii) Net Debt-to-EBITDA, and (iv) Cash Flow-to-Total Liabilities.

There were 44 of the 50 companies that received a Financials Quality score: Five were acceptable.

MediPharm Labs Corp. (MEDIF), Canopy Rivers Inc (CNPOF), Charlotte’s Web (CWBHF) and GW Pharmaceuticals PLC (GWPH) received extremely good rankings of T1, 112, 161 and 200 respectively out of the universe of 5036 we scored. Excellent.

Many more of the Cannabis 50 were in the ‘comfortable’ range, which reflects their relatively strong capitalization as speculators rushed into private placements with their high-risk mindset. However; that situation may be short-lived if the industry’s extremely high burn rates are not appropriately managed.

Some of the big names, Aurora Cannabis (3968), Cronos Group Inc (3890), General Cannabis Corp (44497), Medmen Enterprises (4587) and Green Growth Brand (4891), received very low Financial Quality rankings. Too many liabilities and not enough earnings at this point.

The eleventh illustration is of the consensus scoring of all the <strong>Analysts</strong> who follow the almost 5100 companies that we score and rank on a relative basis each week based on data from Thomson Reuters.

There were 42 companies that received an Analyst Consensus score. As more analysts follow the remaining eight companies that were unranked, they too will be accorded a consensus score and our ranking.

Analyst ratings are not our scores or rankings. We are analyzing and reporting data based on what the industry analysts are reporting, so please don’t shoot the messenger.

The ranking out of a universe of 4327 ran from a best possible T1 for seven companies down to Cronos Group (CRON) at 4274 in the total universe, which was really bad. Tilray (TLRY) was also poorly rated by analysts with a consensus score that ranked just 3553 in our 4327 ranked universe.

On the other hand, the T1 top ranked cannabis companies were: Invictus MD Strategies Corp (IVITF), Tetra Bio Pharma Inc (TBPMF), Zenabis Global Inc (ZBISF), Sunniva Inc. (SNNVF), Green Growth Brand (GGBXF), Delta 9 Cannabis Inc (VRNDF), and Khiron Life Sciences Corp (KHRNF). Five more were ranked T188, which means 12 of 50 were ranked T188 or better out of 4327 companies. Moreover, a total of 26 of the 50 were ranked 892 or better.

The only interpretation is that many of these analysts are ignoring fundamentals and are probably too close to the investment banking side of the business where bad-mouthing a company results in zero investment banking work.

In time there will be more analysts covering these cannabis companies, and more companies will be covered. The data, scoring and ranking will continually change. If anything, these analysts, like their legal and accounting colleagues, are likely to become over time much more objective and less promotionally oriented in their assessments.

The 12th and final illustration in our study series is our proprietary composite score for Growth.

We were able to rank 46 of the 50 companies of a ranked universe that totaled 5091.

Using the raw data at hand, our studies showed that 14 of the 50 cannabis companies were ranked 396 or better out of 5091, which appears to be outstanding. We report them objectively as we rank all companies in our 5100 ranked company universe the same way; however, there is a caveat. We do know there is a sell-side analyst bias to the data, much like there was in 1999-2000 as the internet industry emerged.

Seasoned companies are also ranked for Composite Value and Yield, but such analysis is unnecessary for cannabis at this point.

We believe that as the industry is in the emerging growth phase, we must pay attention to our weekly Fundamental scoring and ranking system results; but we know that for many months to come our proprietary Technical algorithms will be more important for decision-support purposes.

Like our readers and clients, we are students of the market. Every week is a learning experience and we hope this one was for you as well.

As we broaden and deepen our research, we anticipate offering a cannabis portfolio as an option to clients.