Thanks damAcon1. Nice rollup. I've had difficulty obtaining that info with lackluster results. When we start looking at dispensaries counts from what are dual licensed entities...perhaps the growth in the total number of dispensaries isn't quite as dramatic as it appears because of dual locations (situs) for "a" store with two unit doors on a Statewide basis? Do you also see this as a more probable explanation?
As examples...Some of these (I believe) of the R Greenleaf sites are revised locations or essentially duplicates where a store was to have been and has or is in the process of moving (Las Cruces for example all three is a move hence the big drop) and another store that was relocated earlier this year but don't recall specifically where a license is still current until revoked/admin closed out. Likewise, some of these are simply two entrances one for Med the other Rec as in dual units when a license is issued for each - individually? I believe that's mostly correct.
Earnings. Based on last year's timing this year could be announced on July 27th with earnings to be released on August 10th if they follow the past formula.
Meanwhile the real disservice by running silent and dated with inactive IR, lacking a current presentation, a static investor deck, a current tear sheet, indicates a tone change is needed by marketing the set up for their growth, by keeping the investment community involved with their latest actions which I've previously enumerated above as the missing brands and incorporated in their woefully neglected website which looks like any of two-three different companies from a temporal standpoint --60 where?, 45 or (19+6+18) or 43 as the website has the dispensary count the latter two in three places and in a Q1 PR had 60 as the count.
Positives? It doesn't look like they'll be paying an additional earn out to anyone with the pretty pink boxes you've displayed if this is a longer term trend. Another is perhaps the decreased sales and a good terrain trap modeling will allow for greater rollup of independent or smaller chains of distressed sites as this shakeout continues barring any meaningful govt policy assistance which as I write appears dimmer. That same scenario has an application as to larger companies as well that may need to shed ops. I'll confess I'm truly surprised some zombie companies in the "Tier II and Tier III and IV" are still around after the mid-point this year where the legal minefield has proven more an obstacle than I gave speedily appointed receiverships credit which have been largely frustrated because of conflicted State and Federal policies! As a result, the sector has been left with a raft of mostly junk, non-investment grade companies trading sub a dollar, let alone a few cents. That too hurts those that won't actively differentiate themselves.
Related. NM CCD made a big deal on the example they made with revoking Paradise Distro and I noticed another couple in the hopper with out-of-State cannabis prominently listed in the filings. I won't be surprised to see quite a few more of these sorts of actions shortly. A bunch actually. I believe that letter was effective and the counts seem to bear that as well. It appears this "illicit IC" supply chain route isn't from South of the border at all for cannabis. Not a LEO secret. California can and does screw everything up, lol.
