RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:John Folwer - TIME FOR AN UPDATE!!!Supreme is different than most of the other LPs given the B2B model. They can build their operation and management team but unfortunately it's difficult to build SP value because they really can't create a projection as other LPs who manufacture and distribute to the end-user.
Supreme is dependant on the supply agreements of other LPs to either suppliment a strain/quality that they do not offer or to simply provide additional capacity for common strains.
There are several notable LPs listed as customer/partners on their website but until those companies start signing supply agreements (including monetary value) it's only then that Supreme can start to provide to their Shareholders what their revenue projection is.
B2B is a double-edge sword; you save the cost for end user infrastucture but you are dependant on the LP (and their demand).
I mentioned my thoughts about B2B a couple months back (and just got hammered on the board) - but I will restate, if Canopy/Aurora become the house hold name; then retail investors may purchase their shares because it's the name they know. Regardless of the fact that Supreme is suppling Aurora, the retail investor may not be aware. So given the removal of 'brand' to the investor, Supreme is signficantly reliant on their financial reports to solely drive the SP.
Obivously that may sound like a stupid statement, all companies rely on their financial statments to drive SP, but the point is, Supreme may not have the 'hype and brand' factor.
You buy Nike Shoes? Tell me the name of the company in India that makes them (and the name is not Nike)
And to be clear, I like the B2B model; it has it's pros but you can't negate the cons.