Bruce Macdonald

@FlyEaglesFly529 @AlderLaneEggs @aaronvalue Interesting. Thx!

@AlderLaneEggs @aaronvalue I swear they launch them solely as shorting weapons then when they need out they get the admin to just cxl it

This Asshat blames everyone but himself.. Dont listen to a word of what this Asshat ever says, he is simply a plague on the market and to his Investors..Listen to this Fool at your own peril.

@ErichP …offers value to those who look for it. Maybe turn your comments in that direction.

@ErichP You are the only guy I know who cheers for a derivative. Time to turn the lens to the fundamentals. Just maybe the liquidation of $TOKE is a relevant fact impacting market prices. Indiscriminate selling.

$MSOS baby let's break $3.50 and take out $3.00 S3 delays keep growing, no new money, busted bulls and 3x market on the 👇🏼and 0.5x market 👆🏼

@ErichP @epicpassclub @VailResorts Piss poor planning...

Fuck your Vail and fuck uph Epic monopoly 13yr old 5 day $1,750 fucking scum bad shits @epicpassclub @VailResorts

OPTIONS IMPACT VISUALIZED Let’s put some numbers to the concept. Here is the rebalance impact at various MSOS levels based on current Jan 16 open interest. The assumption here is that options are “delta hedged” and that those deltas will be zero or one at expiry depending on the then MSOS level. In simpler terms, market makers will be required to buy a significant number of shares should MSOS rally. Conversely, a MSOS sell-off will be met with market maker share liquidations as we witnessed on Dec 18th. (not the only force we saw impacting the 18th) The gun is loaded!

Nice work. Keep peeling the onion! In this piece I feel you underplayed an important component that you raised in an earlier post. Silencing social media goes well beyond closing the channel for investors. It turns off the oxygen for social/sentiment based algos to play and forces them to the sidelines. That is not a small impact.

Great data mining! Short Exempt rule is there to offer supply when there is none. Who needs it in a freefall? The market was forced into heavy sell programs thru the crash. That means Market Makers would (should) be a buyer of MSOS and a seller of underlyings. Again, in that environment, who needs short exempt unless it is being used as a weapon?

@misssmisato This Google snippet seems to support your thesis. It is just one platform but don't know how to pull broader data... trends.google.com/trends/explore…

@misssmisato Interesting. I assume the perpetrator's algos are set up to ignore the silence (or watch for it to end)? Does muting thru a DDOS style attack leave footprints that are still visible?

@Zephyr_hg SCRAPE

Competitor research takes me 2 minutes now. Built a scraper that monitors websites, tracks price changes, and extracts product data automatically. Claude AI pulls contact info, pricing, and company details straight into Google Sheets. Used to spend 10-15 hours monthly doing this manually. Now it updates every hour while I focus on closing deals. Comment "SCRAPE" and I'll DM it to you (must be following)

Dank, not sure you are asking the right guys but that never stops me from having a view. I went back and pulled $MSOS cash position over the last 2 months which aligns with the last time the ETF was cash flat. As the chart shows, cash flooded in on Trump rescheduling rumors faster than it was deployed. Over the last month, about half of the excess cash has been deployed. At the end of the day, cash is just the 20th name in @InvestinginCan1’s discretionary portfolio. Obviously, there are a range of views on the portfolio’s construct. Looking at the effect of holding cash on $MSOS shareholders, the maximum impact was 5.1 cents which has now recovered to 2.9 cents. This of course assumes that the ~$23M of cash could have been deployed with no market impact. But I think this mechanical assessment misses the real effect of cash holdings. One thing we do know is that, in our current custody confined world, $MSOS remains the most significant buyer in the sector. Just like you know that Dan holds cash, so do the predatory algos. The average price movement in the portfolio over the last two months is +60%. Having a cash buffer likely holds those algos at bay rather than giving them a free reign to force further retracement and mark prices lower in an otherwise bidless world. Bottom line – I am not saying it is a good or bad thing, but I do believe if it had all been spent at the highs, we would now be lower – all at the whims of the predatory algos that play in our (and every) sector.

@bmacd36 @sammyj_19 Care to comment on why the ETF has been sitting on $12M of cash for weeks? Cause it ain’t making sense to no one…

$MSOS 2025-09-15 UPDATE INFLOWS/OUTFLOWS: $0.00 CASH POSITION: $ 11,878,057.79 NAV: $4.11 Change: -$0.14 Shares Outstanding: 177,825,000 AUM: $730,599,972.96 #MSOGang

Dan, I will give you my cut on @HammanShares message and how we should interpret it. Today $MSOS traded with solid buy programs throughout the day. This means that a number of the roughly dozen AP’s on this ETF would have been buying underlying names and selling $MSOS (and clipping a few cents along the way). While $MSOS can have no direct “in kind” creation mechanism, AdvisorShares has facilitated an arrangement such that AP’s can sell their shares to swap providers, swap providers enter into additional swaps with $MSOS, and $MSOS creates ETF units for the AP covering their short. This 3-legged transaction is a defacto in kind creation and has been good for markets as there is no price impact from the AP unwind. AP’s however are not obliged to participate in this mechanism. They can simply do a cash subscription with the ETF to cover their short $MSOS position and sell out their hedge portfolio of underlyings into the close. This is what used to cause the big end of day sell offs on big rally days that everyone used to (and obviously still do) scream about. AP’s actually make additional profits from an aggressive sell-off into the close. I interpreted Noah’s comment to say we have naked cash subscriptions inbound which means those AP’s will be market sellers into the close. That is exactly what we saw. I think people are confusing cause and effect. I appreciate knowing when EOD market selling is coming. At least people can position to absorb it. Frankly, I wish there was a formal mechanism to be more aware of these flows rather than just getting pummeled in the last 5 minutes. Hope this helps...

@HammanShares What an odd thing to post while markets are still trading.

could be a difficult close....

I was posed an interesting question around potential alternative solutions to the cannabis custody crisis (@tZERO). Unfortunately as you can see below, there is no easy way out without reform. I was reminded of things that I think we take for granted in how our sector functions in US public markets…

The cannabis sector’s echo chamber seems slow to learn. As a $GTBIF shareholder, I invested based on its strong fundamentals. But fundamentals alone don’t drive price action - especially when key players thwart liquidity inflows into the name. Fact: Since June, $MSOS has boosted its $GTBIF position by 14% (+2.5M shares, with over half since Aug 1), compared to $CURLF (+26%) and $TCNNF (+21%). These inflows have directly impacted performance: $CURLF surged 200%, $TCNNF gained 75%, while $GTBIF lagged at +37%. As a result, $GTBIF’s weight in $MSOS has dropped by a third, meaning market makers need 33% less $GTBIF to hedge ETF flows, eroding its historical edge. Conspiracy theories about $GTBIF being suppressed don’t hold up. Why cap the company with the strongest fundamentals at +37% while the next 11 names in the sector average 95% gains - including $PLNH and $GLASF, despite their recent struggles? Fundamentals matter, but positive price action requires more buyers than sellers - every time. If management thinks $MSOS is a “bad” investor, it’s their job to attract others. In a sector with limited liquidity and compromised custody, that’s easier said than done. Good luck.

Ben, you are now worried that $MSOS can't buy more $GTBIF? I thought you didn't want that. Maybe you've seen the light! Anything could be true but I doubt this is. If it was, $MSOS would trade more like a closed end fund and not track its underlying assets within a penny or two. We aren't seeing this. Time will tell.

@junglejava1 @AdvisorShares Thank you Jungle 🙏 If $MSOS was having issues w its swap providers, these inflows couldn't be used to increase the positions & instead cash would grow & Dan would buy lots of shares of the names on the TSX. Oh wait... What do you think?

There have now been 19 consecutive days of inflows for the @AdvisorShares $MSOS ETF! Today there were 1,500,000 share creates valued at $6,600,000. Here are the changes made to the holdings for August 19, 2025. 💰 position $22.39M vs $19.33M Current NAV $4.40 Closing Price $4.34 $MSOX NAV $7.14 Closing Price $7.36 $MSOX also had an inflow today consisting of 150,000 share creates valued at $1,071,000 $108,495,000 in inflows to $MSOS in the last 19 days Night night #MSOGang! 😊🥂💚 $SNDL 400,000 🍁New position added $GTBIF (104,091) $CURLF 794,672 🌿 $TCNNF (7,392) $VRNOF 338,814 👀 $CRLBF (8,729) $GLASF 52,917 🏡 $TSNDF 465,404 🌪️ $CBSTF 425,181 ☄️ $CXXIF 130,994 🌻 $JUSHF (2,563) $PLNH 176,324 🪐 $VREOF 70,803 🪴 $AAWH 24,865 🚀 $VFF 115,600 🧑‍🌾

The three lead names within $MSOS traded rank with $TCNNF becoming the top holding at 23.6%, $CURLF remaining in second at 23.0% and $GTBIF dropping to third at 22.9%. Below is the updated scorecard. Whether you believe in correlation or causation, today we saw $MSOS pour $3.0M into $TCNNF which in turn rallied 20%, $2.7M into $CURLF which rallied 13%, and $0.3M into $GTBIF which managed a +10% performance. This compares to a relative value shift between #1 & #3 holdings of $18M as price was again the primary driver of rank. These names maintained in aggregate, 70% of the $MSOS portfolio.

The recent shifts in $MSOS weightings are worth a closer look. On August 1, $GTBIF dominated with a 30.5% weighting, leading second-place $TCNNF by over 9 points. Just seven trading days later, the picture is quite different. $GTBIF's weighting has plunged by 22% to 23.8%, while $CURLF’s weighting has rocketed by 25% from its third-place spot of 18.2% to 22.8%. $TCNNF remained relatively flat – up slightly to a 22% weight. Overall, these three heavyweights now represent 69% of $MSOS down from 70% on Aug 1st. This has been mostly driven by price action. $GTBIF experienced a 21% price gain as MSOS’ share position in $GTBIF grew by 7.1%. $CURLF's price performance had a massive 92% rally over the same period alongside an 8.7% increase in $MSOS holdings in the name. $TCNNF held its weighting with a 60% price gain and a 8.5% share holding increase by $MSOS. It shows that its not just your horse's speed but the entire field's pace that determines the winner. As to why, rescheduling could have an amplified impact on $CURLF's leveraged balance sheet, or custody restrictions (hitting $GTBIF and $TCNNF but not $CURLF) might be fueling the $CURA buying spree. It's still early in the race but definitely a fun one to watch.

No real way to know but here are my thoughts. Nothing to do with exchange - that is just the utility. Sometimes we see big tick downs across multiple names in the ETF when someone is liquidating against a cash sub - maybe here as GTI, TRUL & VRNO also got tagged a bit on the close. Also can be algo wanting a level, or just a random print. Tape shows the race of the 15:59:59 100 lots with a print at both 1.32 & 1.43. Looks like a missed high sale. Based on the last 10 seconds, 1.32 looks like the fairer price. You choose.

@bmacd36 Question: would a $crlbf trading down 10% on its last trade of the day (on the cse) be more of a mm or exchange issue, or neither? Thx

Today highlighted the impact of custody challenges in the U.S. cannabis sector. Within the MSOS ETF, three companies - $CURLF, $TSNDF, and $VFF – have been able to structure to avoid custody issues, which has also enabled their listing on the TSX or Nasdaq. Their trading performance today starkly contrasted with the rest of the sector. These three names recorded a combined trading value of $74M, compared to $59M for the 14 $MSOS constituents still facing custody restrictions (based on the highest volume exchange). The disparity is even clearer when comparing MSOS's "Explained Value”. CSE-listed stocks showed three times the notional value within trades of MSOS compared to their direct trading volume, while MSOS trades reflected just 92% of the direct volume for the three custody-compliant names. This isn’t about “bucket shop exchanges” - it’s about the ability to custody and trade. You can’t trade what you can’t hold. Rescheduling cannabis and implementing SAFE banking will level the custody playing field, unlocking broader trading opportunities in all names.

@mikemicmy Got me on a technicality! It is CBOE Canada listed but no real difference from CSE. They are willing to sign off on legality of business activities while TSX is not. They are stuck without clean custody.

@bmacd36 How about verano?