Thanks for your response Mark, I appreciate your taking time to explain/ justify the SCL commentary. I'm afraid I've no idea what you mean by 'on discord' but see no need to talk further, we've both made our point.
SUP. Do you want to justify your assertion that "management have proven themselves to be of questionable judgement and character"? I agree the increasing share of Supreme trade attributable to the vape category increases company risk, but the company has recognised this in their most recent presentation, and support for vaping is government policy, and won't go away unless made illegal, after all smoking hasn't. Manufacturing and selling vapes is a trade subject to political risk, but so then is tobacco, oil, armaments, banking, housebuilding, utilities and so on, do all the management teams of all the listed companies in these sectors therefore have questionable judgement and poor character? I accept your right to make the assertion and am genuinely interested to know more about your allegation, but for you to make such a personal critique which borders on defamation without justifying it suggests questionable judgement and poor character on your part. Gutter journalism. For clarity, I hold SUP, without emotion.
Here isn't really the place to debate these things. Happy to have a more in depth conversation on discord as the point of these summaries is to encourage a wide variety of people to contribute varying opinions on discord. But as you make a serious acusation, let me add some clarity: to us it seems that pursuing a growth strategy in a market that has subsequently faced a government ban, where we at least foresaw this problem, represents questionable judgment. Of course, we don't have evidence that the company knew that disposbles were being used by children (but again this is something we were aware of on SCL), but if they did this would represent a lapse in character to pursue a growth strategy in this area, in our opinion. Other reasonable people may think that this is not a matter of character or judgement. As I say, happy to debate this further on discord.
supreme is not a risky stock. what is risky? If disposables are banned, they will sell more of some other stuff. This is not even including recovery in light division and also new acquisitions in health division.
Thanks for your response Mark, I appreciate your taking time to explain/ justify the SCL commentary. I'm afraid I've no idea what you mean by 'on discord' but see no need to talk further, we've both made our point.
SUP. Do you want to justify your assertion that "management have proven themselves to be of questionable judgement and character"? I agree the increasing share of Supreme trade attributable to the vape category increases company risk, but the company has recognised this in their most recent presentation, and support for vaping is government policy, and won't go away unless made illegal, after all smoking hasn't. Manufacturing and selling vapes is a trade subject to political risk, but so then is tobacco, oil, armaments, banking, housebuilding, utilities and so on, do all the management teams of all the listed companies in these sectors therefore have questionable judgement and poor character? I accept your right to make the assertion and am genuinely interested to know more about your allegation, but for you to make such a personal critique which borders on defamation without justifying it suggests questionable judgement and poor character on your part. Gutter journalism. For clarity, I hold SUP, without emotion.
Here isn't really the place to debate these things. Happy to have a more in depth conversation on discord as the point of these summaries is to encourage a wide variety of people to contribute varying opinions on discord. But as you make a serious acusation, let me add some clarity: to us it seems that pursuing a growth strategy in a market that has subsequently faced a government ban, where we at least foresaw this problem, represents questionable judgment. Of course, we don't have evidence that the company knew that disposbles were being used by children (but again this is something we were aware of on SCL), but if they did this would represent a lapse in character to pursue a growth strategy in this area, in our opinion. Other reasonable people may think that this is not a matter of character or judgement. As I say, happy to debate this further on discord.
supreme is not a risky stock. what is risky? If disposables are banned, they will sell more of some other stuff. This is not even including recovery in light division and also new acquisitions in health division.