"Choice slams Lion's new A2 protein labelling on its Pura and Dairy Farmers milk as marketing spin"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-0...n-lion/5641542
Printable View
"Choice slams Lion's new A2 protein labelling on its Pura and Dairy Farmers milk as marketing spin"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-0...n-lion/5641542
Has anyone a feel for how UK sales may report in a few week’s time ?
There seemed to be a lull created by Muller Wiseman prior to the buyout. The HY report though told us;
“Momentum within the UK business continued to build during the half with sales and distribution increasing progressively particularly during the second quarter”
“During the half the business achieved increased distribution within the Tesco chain, achieved growth through the online Ocado business and grew rate of sale faster than at any time since launch”
“The Company is committed to the successful development of what is currently a small but growing UK fresh milk business and is encouraged by the progress of recent initiatives”
“Given the UK business is now established and showing growth from a small base, the Board considers an entry plan for the USA should now be developed”
There are 28 certified A2 dairy farms producing in Australia which provided $52M in revenues at HY14. http://a2milk.com.au/farm/a2-farms/
There are now 20 certified A2 dairy farms producing in the UK. The UK farms may be smaller and are probably still ramping up. http://a2milk.co.uk/our-farmers/
There does seem to be a lot more activity now though if one googles for A2 in the UK ?
Heard no mention of A2 been in UK 3 weeks.
Next time im in Tesco/Asda/Sainsburys and give a report
Hardly surprising, it’s a big place and ATM’s goal seems quite humble at 1.8% market share by 2016. Probably not much yet to see at random just yet if one looks, but apparently some of the Tesco and Sainsbury stores do stock A2.
Ratkin, ATM tell us the objective is;
“ to focus on building distribution in the south east of England”, “with ranging now extending to around 250 grocery stores within the M25 motorway region “
It would be interesting to hear if you can find a store that has A2 along the M25 if you are touring in that direction, and whether they have more than 1.8% of the shelf space.
And if you’re really keen, though I’m not sure I would be;
“We are thrilled to announce that we will be at the Big Feastival this year hosted by Jamie Oliver and Alex James on Alex’s own farm in the ldyllic Cotswolds. It’s going to be a jam packed weekend of food, music and family fun. Pop by our stand for a refreshing smoothie made with a2 Milk, plus why not try your luck on our spin to win!”
http://a2milk.co.uk/
Has anybody seen A2 light blue milk on the shelves in NZ yet?
My wife and I have been trying A2 standard and although my wife has noticed quite a reduction with a throat irritation after drinking milky coffee, I find it too creamy to stomach.
Would love to try light blue as I'm sure it will help my stomach issues.
My problem exactly.....full milk bit to rich but have always had bloat after meals but always put it down to the bread but since trying a2 no more problems and also suffer from dry skin between fingers but this has also gone but this problem does come and go so not 100% if a2 cured this...time will tell....but im convinced there is something to this A2 milk
I see the divvy for fonterra,s product part of the buisiness will rise because of lower input cost,s so is this the same for atm
why; curious re side effects etc?
Silver plate contains silver, consumers just know ………..
http://fedup.com.au/news/blog/when-is-a2-not-really-a2
http://fedup.com.au/factsheets/addit...sheets/a2-milk
Thanks for that MAC. Those two pages of information are extremely well researched and accurate, and make the important point that A1 is the problem, and milk with "some" A2 in it is not a solution.
These pages can be recommended to anyone inquiring about A1/A2, as opposed to some sites obviously sponsored by vested interests, which make lots of assertions that there is "no scientific evidence" supporting A2 over A1, but don't produce a single research paper to back them up. Consumer experience in Australia is backing up the A2 hypothesis.
I think it's going to be very interesting when Chinese consumers, who are relatively new to dairy products and have lower natural tolerances to milk, discover that A2 is an answer to their problems. Apparently many of them have been buying goats milk formula up till now because it's A2-only.
http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/tria...12611000740998
Hopefully Curtin A2 study can give some positive result.
I don't think so - that would defeat the whole purpose of skimming milk, which is to take the creamy milksolids off and use them. In the old days what was left (the skimmed milk) was often thrown away, but then came the theory that it was good for you if you want to lose or control weight. That's now a somewhat controversial theory in itself, partly because in the old days when everyone thought the creamier and richer the milk the better it was for you, not as many people were being killed by heart disease. But skimmed milk does have its uses and its followers.
I know I'm early cause i don't wanna be late
The chart doesn't say buy yet, KW neither,
But i have; easy as letting the cows out the gate
Not waiting for scientific proof either
But an announcement from Synlait.
Exchange rate turning in our favour
Cost of milk dropping too
And for those on share trader
Some are early some will be late, i hope thats not you
Another good explanatory piece about the milk wars in Australia, from a nutrition expert.
http://a2milk.com.au/is-some-a2-prot...ll-a2-protein/
Whatsup ATM? Up 4.8% today according to ANZ. My Intel tells me there's no official news yet however today it appears to be a Winner. Have they managed to jump through another Hoop? Hopefully they've Snapped the downtrend and helped it Skid to a stop. Maybe a few new guys providing some balance to the market after the rodgering it has had. Could be the next big thing.
Couple more useful recent reports I haven't seen noted on this site. One is about the Australian dairy war and the other is a long one about ATM's overall plans and why A2 milk hasn't taken off in NZ like in Australia and UK:
http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com...n/2706939.aspx
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/new...-but-not-in-NZ
Apologies, I didn't notice that the second article I referred to in item 1532 above is actually two years old. Still interesting though.
Strongly recommend anyone wanting to keep tabs on developments for a company, brand, product etc set up Google Alerts. You can get daily or weekly emails with content related to your search terms sent to you via email for free. Just Google "Google alerts" and you're away.
Excellent advice, Longhaul. Which I actually follow. Can't work out why Google has just sent me that old item. Sometimes happens.
Yes that death cross at just under 80 was the signal to stay out until things stabilised
MA lines are beginning to flatten out a bit so maybe the end of the down period is nigh. Pushing the imagination to say long term support level is close though.
I keep watching ...the believers might be right so could make heaps. After all there is 50% upside if it gets back to previous highs
Nice to see buys outnumbering sells atm.
Ok who read that and increased their sell, own up :sneaky2:
Director David Mair bought 142,531 shares for 63c at the end of July. So I suppose they must be worth at least about 63c.
That is about 100K of his own money. Encouraging.
Well, i have been looking around Asda and a few other supermarkets have seen no A2 milk at all.
What i did see a lot of was alpro lactose free milk
I may be wrong but those with lactose intolerence or think they are , will be buying the alpro stuff. I would say they would be a big competitor to A2 in the uk
I may also be wrong, but my understanding is that A2 is not promoting the idea that it is lactose free, rather that it is bcm-7 free which has yet to be scientifically proven "beyond doubt" to have health downsides. (not enough anyway to make it into a public health warning).
Whilst not undeniably proved, there is a large body of anecdotal evidence supporting the health benefits of A2.
In addition no one has actually proven either, that the bcm-7 found in A1 beta casein is not associated with any detrimental health issues!
I see that there are a number of contributors from Christchurch. Wonder why?
Would be interested to see where everyone comes from.
easy enough to do: my profile/about me/location
There is also Off market discussions?
A/S/L....plse explain.
An advance online abstract has just been published indicating the results of the Curtin University research trial testing the differences in gastrointestinal reaction by humans to A1 and A2 milk. This trial is particularly important because it used 40-odd human subjects (not rats or mice), was very rigorous in its methodology, specifically compared human digestive reactions to A1 and A2, was carried out at a university whose reputation would not be questioned, and its findings have been accepted for publication in a top peer-reviewed journal.
I haven't seen the whole paper, nor would I understand it technically, but what is made clear in the abstract is that although this trial involved a relatively small number of subjects, it showed a marked difference in human gastrointestinal reaction to A1 and A2 milk. This would seem absolutely crucial, because if verified by a larger-scale trial it would demolish the assertions often put forward by many critics of the A2 hypothesis that there is no scientifically proven difference between how the human body reacts to A1 and A2.
The questions now are, how big are the differences, are they important healthwise, and do they clearly show that consumers (or at least SOME consumers) are better off drinking A2?
The abstract of the trial results notes "a significant positive association between abdominal pain and stool consistency on the A1 diet (r=0.520, P=0.001), but not the A2 diet (r=-0.13, P=0.43). The difference between these two correlations (0.52 versus -0.13) was highly significant (P<0.001). Furthermore, some individuals may be susceptible to A1 beta-casein, as evidenced by higher faecal calprotectin values and associated intolerance measures.”
In its conclusions, the abstract states: “These preliminary results suggest differences in gastrointestinal responses in some adult humans consuming milk containing beta-casein of either the A1 or the A2 beta-casein type, but require confirmation in a larger study of participants with perceived intolerance to ordinary A1 beta-casein-containing milk."
The research paper will appear in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition and I hope a layman’s explanation will be made available by Professor Keith Woodford (author of “Devil in the Milk”) who was involved in the trial, possibly via his blogsite. The abstract can be read at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24986816
Good point.ATM being a first mover would get taken out in the stampede by a bigger player.
There are 100's of products in the pharmacy ,supermarket that sell on the "feel good" beliefs of customers; don't need proof just good marketing the best being word of mouth. Talkback hosts are a good example spruking the good oil with endorsements/ paid ads.
What happens to the A2 business if every dairy company in the world starts producing milk from A2 cows and it becomes the norm? A small provider does much better in a niche market than in a mainstream one.
I think that would be unlikely to happen if ATM can keep its IP well protected. It's illegal to sell milk as "A2 Milk" because that trademark is protected, at least in the markets ATM is targeting. You can of course say that your milk has A2 protein in it, which is what some of ATM's rivals in Australia are doing, but their bluff is now being called - it's the absence of A1 (pure A2) that matters, not the mere presence of some A2. You might be able to market milk as "A1-free", but to do that you'd still have to have the cows individually tested, paying a royalty to ATM for each test, and even then there'd probably be legal and commercial fishhooks.
Simple excellent solution.
True but the average hypercondriac isnt going to worry about the scientific ins and out theyw will just go for the more prevelant lactose free stuff or switch to soy milk
I use soy myself now, so much easier than cows milk, keeps for ages and there lots of choice so it easy to find one with taaste you like
Lactose free milk such as anchors lacto free use lactase to convert the lactose to glucose and galactose making the milk taste sweet, not to everyone's tastes. As for soy milk there is plenty of information around soy and estrogen so certain health conscious groups like the fitness types avoid it not to mention the stigma of soy being associated with vegetarians.
Ok, I guess there are two different markets appealing to two different consumers.
One is the lactose intolerant market, fine, stick to the lactose free stuff, and the other is those who are not lactose intolerant but believe in the benefits of avoiding bcm-7 for an array of other health benefits, or diminishing the odds of attracting diseases associated with it.
I don't think that I have ever read that A2 milk purports to be beneficial for those who are lactose intolerant
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...305571&ref=rss
Might be a need for milk to be sent over there now, someone should tell A2(but don't tell fonterra)
An extra link with more detail
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...305572&ref=rss
He's at it again
Ongoing Disclosure Notice - David William Mair
1:27pm, 8 Aug 2014 | RELINT
Form 2
Ongoing disclosure notice
Section 19T(2), Securities Markets Act 1988
A Details of director or officer
Name of director or officer of public issuer: David William Mair
Name of public issuer: The a2 Milk Company Limited (ATM)
Name of related body corporate (if applicable): N/A
Position held in public issuer: Director
B. Securities in public issuer or any related body corporate to which this disclosure relates
Number, class, and type of securities: 180,000 fully paid ordinary shares
C. Nature of relevant interest and name of registered holder
Nature of relevant interest in those securities: Non-beneficial interest as shareholder of fund manager
Name of registered holder of those securities: Public Trust Forte Nominees Limited
D. Details of acquisitions and disposals
Date of acquisition: 6 August 2014
Consideration paid for acquisition: $117,000
Describe the arrangement pursuant to which, or the circumstances in which, the acquisition took place: On-market trade
E. Total number of transactions this notice relates to: One
F. Date of last disclosure notice (whether in form 1 or form 2) by director or officer: 6 August 2014
E. Signature
Signature of director or officer: See Attached.
Date of signature: See Attached.
Like Milford also, David Mair is purchasing (albeit on behalf of) just weeks before the FY announcement, they could have waited until after the FY, but purchasing just before must then represent good value to them, and/or perhaps it may also be a little expectant one may think.
My DCF provides $1.09 but will rerun again after the FY.
Yes a good sign you would assume he has some inside info and even if buying on behalf of wouldn't encourage purchasing if he didn't think it was worth it. My hunch announcement on US is getting close. We really are lacking alot of info from ATM right now. A nice announcement about uk sales would be nice.
From today's Herald
RISK REDUCTION
Despite National's strong position in the polls, Lister says investors should "hedge their bets". He says Craigs favours companies with solid prospects under the status quo and minimal downside if there is a change of government.
They include those with low regulatory risk such as Port of Tauranga and Freightways and companies with overseas earnings, such as Fisher & Paykel Healthcare and A2 Milk.
I suppose that they have been pretty consistent with their announcements in that we didn't hear much from them while the price was going up, so can't really criticize them for not making announcements on the way down.
They need to be pretty careful about what they leave out in the market place when they are working in a fairly volatile and unpredictable market where prices can vary substantially based on perceptions around either bullish or bearish comments made. Best to shut up and let the facts speak for themselves and keep your nose clean.
Having said that, I would have to agree that with both Milford and Mair buying at this point is a positive sign....picked up a small 20 @0.64 to add to holdings
Yep, funds buying, directors buying, Chinese regulatory approvals as expected, farm gate milk prices peaked and dropping, several new products in the last year, currency stabilising, full control now over UK marketing, recent media exposure in Australia, a possible M&A or takeover target, a pending US market entry announcement, and a possible rights issue to fund a US market entry.
Seems to be one of those classic wealth transfers from short to long, let’s see what the FY brings, I’m looking for +20% revenue growth. Strategically minimised NPAT, profits sacrificed for growth, per previous three years.
Like others, I guess David Mair knows what he's doing. Don't think I'll keep chasing ATM down any further so just topped up with another 25K and will now await developments.
I dare someone to take out that 30,000 at 64c and see how long it takes for another 30,000 to appear.
We do have a lot of believers and obviously a number of non believers, question is who knows more. I think I would put my bet with Mair and Milford.
Thanks MAC for your insights, you have obviously done a fair bit of research, and I suspect as a result you are donkey deep in this stock! (no answer required)
I probably do not necessarily share you FY projections, and we may even have a fairly lack lustre result, however that would not IMHO have any bearing on the long term prospects for the company. I like the brand and I like the recent research done on Humans albeit a small sample and the divergent correlation outcomes between the two types of beta casein. This does prove quite a lot and in due course this will be a topic sure to be discussed through the different media outlets. Its the same old free range vs Caged scenario. You pay more to get a healthier product.
When I picked up a small 25k I got that in two parcels. One was $20 plus some, the other was $4 plus some
It could have been the left over from one seller dropping a parcel of 30k or it could have been a completely different seller, or it may have been a seller dividing it up into uneven lots to fudge it.
I see that there is a hangover now of 16k @0.64....who knows maybe we are the ducks being fed!
I don't think David Mair is purchasing on his own account. It is Forte-Funds that is buying, and David Mair is an adviser to, and non-executive director of, this fund manager. He may or may not have his own cash in the fund. I still take it as a very positive endorsement of ATM.
Here We Go:
A2 strengthens health claims with first human study
http://www.smh.com.au/business/a2-st...10-102h2w.html
I've recently started buying A2 milk and I'm feeling pretty good. Mind you, I was feeling quite well before, but it does taste nice, so I am sticking with it. If only the share-price would start advancing again, I'm sure that would be even better for my general state of well-being.
I haven't found A2 milk at local countdown today, will try tomorrow.
Good on you for posting that, M98. I think we are witnessing a real turning point. The so-called experts who have been saying there's "no scientific proof" about the advantages of A2 will now have to come up with scientific facts to try and disprove the Curtin results - and they won't be able to. And obviously there's more to come including the full report on the Curtin research, plus a growing body of international research that absolutely correlates with this.
It now looks like the nutritionists who understand this issue (as opposed to those who don't) are willing to come out in a much more forthright manner on ATM's side. I think the enemy is on the run. Possibly ATM's lawyers are also finally getting into the act behind the scenes. It was great to see the extraordinary backdown a few days ago by the PR agency for A2's Australian rival Lion-Pura:
A public relations firm engaged by Lion was forced to back down from a claim in an email, seen by Fairfax Media, to nutritionists, saying that its new test meant that people “can enjoy A2 milk at an everyday price”.After attracting the attention of a prominent nutritionist, the PR firm, F4 Consulting, said it was "not authorised to make that claim".
“As will no doubt be clear to you, Pura milk does not only contain A2 protein and does not claim to be the same as milk products that contain only A2 protein,” F4 Consulting wrote.
What we're now seeing is a public re-defining of the A1-A2 issue. It's not just that A2 is good, the claim that has been widely dismissed as dubious marketing hype. It's that A1 is bad, at least for some consumers. It's a delicious irony that ATM's Australian rivals have made A1/A2 a big public issue just at the very moment when the Curtin team was coming out with decisive research results involving human subjects. Love it!
Being published by a European journal too must always be satisfying for the good folk at ATM.
With all the recent debate and media attention Lion have kicked up, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a wee boost in market share in Australia from it, shouldn’t expect to see it up to 30th June reporting of course but perhaps at HY15, let’s see.
I feel like an A2 coming on, looks like A2 on porridge tomorrow. May even take out that 16,000 at 64c, if nobody else wants it.:)
You're so right, MAC, and therein lies another nice irony. The same journal was the vehicle used some years ago by Professor Stewart Truswell of Sydney University in a rare attempt to discredit the A2 hypothesis with scientific argument. Truswell is about the only scientific authority of any note to have tried to do this, but it needs to be borne in mind that he had been a hired consultant for the NZ Dairy Board in litigation against A2 Corporation. Truswell's article in the journal was absolutely riddled with factual errors and inconsistencies, which were duly exposed in letters of reply. So it's a nice touch that the coup de grace to some of his arguments is now being delivered in the same journal.
SP up only 1c to 65c so far, on very moderate trading. NZ media evidently haven't picked up the story about the Curtin research even though it ran in the Sydney Morning Herald, owned by Fairfax which also owns several NZ papers including the Dom Post. Maybe the Christchurch Press will get on to it - their science man has written well-informed stories about the A1-A2 debate in the past, and Prof Woodford is Christchurch based.
It'll be interesting to see the reaction (if any) from the mainstream dairy sector. Fonterra pretty much has a policy of not commenting on the A2 scientific evidence because it knows which way the research is pointing and just wants to keep quiet about it. I guess the critics might try to discredit the research by pointing out it was funded by ATM. Well so what? It's the results that count. If Fonterra felt it was advantageous to fund research on the issue, it would do the same. The critics can hardly question the findings, except by innuendo. Maybe by saying: "This is no big deal. A small sample of subjects, and a few of them got a bit of a tummy problem, so what? No one died." As others onthis thread have noted, the game is far from over, and entrenched interests won't just lie down. But this is an important development, and a far better result than the possible alternative outcome, that no real clinical difference was found/experienced between those who drank A1 and those who drank A2.
Here's another report from the Australian media - from ABC which has good credibility, and it has some interesting additional detail.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-1...search/5658502
Sorry if I appear to be hogging this thread at the moment - where's everyone else disappeared to?
Im still here :) All unfolding nicely... Interestingly, those little cards that were hung around the necks of the a2 bottles here in aussie ("naturally contains no A1") only seemed to be on one shipment of a2 - they came and went very quickly... I wonder if its related to the release of this study?
It has now made it into NZ media (www.stuff.co.nz)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farm...st-human-study
Yeah, but I wonder how many investors and consumers read the farming section of the stuff website.
Wow this stuff is really good for me:t_up:. I will spare you the details but I've had health probs in that area as well as Gerd like symptoms in the stomach. A win /win for me atp. Buy it when i see it(countdown NZ mainly). Vol of shares evenly matched at the mo..
If David Mair was purchasing on his own account within weeks of the announcement of the ATM result he would be done for insider trading! I am surprised there are some on this forum who think he would be that stupid. IIRC corectly there is only a very limited period as an officer or director of a company where you can buy or sell shares in it. Something like six weeks from the announcement of the annual or half year result.
In fact the announcement specifically states that Mair is not purchasing the shares on his own account if you read it carefully. Granted you have to be diligent reading these announcements because of the somewhat clumsy formatting in theway the NZX presents these announcements.
SNOOPY
Breakout @66c hope she holds.:)
I wouldn't market myself as a statistician. But back in the dim dark past I did study some of this stuff so I will put my 2c worth into answering these questions.
In a test like this ideally you want an 'r' value of 1 as a result (where r can vary between -1 and 1). An r value of 1 means straight line predictability. In this example, feed someone a measured quantity of A1 milk and you can predict exactly the associated abdominal pain and stool consistency as a result. Of course peoples' colons are complex biological systems with all sorts of digestive system contents interactions to contend with. And different people may have naturally different tolerances to different foods. Given this, an 'r' value of 1 was never going to happen as a result in a test like this. However, I would have liked to have seen an "r" of up to 0.7 or at least 0.6.
An "r" value of 0.52 is not a particularly compelling result. Especially considering the test participants were made to consume 750ml of milk per day for two weeks on end (that is way above 'normal' consumption for most people). Do an internet search for images and 'r-value 0.5' and you will see what I mean. Squint hard and you can draw a line through an r=0.5 'dot storm'. But for r=0.5 or thereabouts, it really isn't convincing. Keith Woodford is right when he says that he needs to redo this test with a larger sample. The test is positive enough to continue the research, but is no game changing result IMO.
SNOOPY
Hi latest 100 s/holders Security IssuerName ATM.NZ The a2 Milk Company Limited
Rank Cur: 04-Aug-2014 Prev: 21-Jul-2014 Difference Cur Prv Shareholders Shares Held(%) Shares Held(%) Shares Simple(%) Relative(%) 1 1 NEW ZEALAND CENTRAL SECURITIES DEPOSITORY LIMITED 309370381 48.8685 309779306 48.9331 -408925 -0.0646 -0.132 2 2 FREEDOM FOODS GROUP LIMITED 116936129 18.4714 116936129 18.4714 0 0 0 3 3 MOUNTAIN ROAD INVESTMENTS LIMITED 57558701 9.092 57558701 9.092 0 0 0 4 4 ULRIKE MCLACHLAN 7135163 1.1271 7135163 1.1271 0 0 0 5 5 JBWERE (NZ) NOMINEES LIMITED 5865962 0.9266 5865962 0.9266 0 0 0 6 6 DAVID MAIR 5000000 0.7898 5000000 0.7898 0 0 0 7 7 GREGORY HINTON & ROSSLYN HINTON 5000000 0.7898 5000000 0.7898 0 0 0 8 8 SUPERLIFE TRUSTEE NOMINEES LIMITED 4571641 0.7221 4571641 0.7221 0 0 0 9 9 FORSYTH BARR CUSTODIANS LIMITED 4128940 0.6522 4065190 0.6421 63750 0.0101 1.5682 10 10 TP TRUSTEE BENDEMEER LIMITED 4000000 0.6318 4000000 0.6318 0 0 0 11 11 CUSTODIAL SERVICES LIMITED 3301494 0.5215 3621494 0.5721 -320000 -0.0505 -8.8361 12 12 GREGORY HINTON 3000000 0.4739 3000000 0.4739 0 0 0 13 13 HOLEM PTY LIMITED 2750000 0.4344 2750000 0.4344 0 0 0 14 14 NEW ZEALAND DEPOSITORY NOMINEE LIMITED 2535518 0.4005 2392136 0.3779 143382 0.0226 5.9939 15 15 FNZ CUSTODIANS LIMITED 2306245 0.3643 2227083 0.3518 79162 0.0125 3.5545 16 16 PETER HINTON 2193064 0.3464 2193064 0.3464 0 0 0 17 17 INVESTMENT CUSTODIAL SERVICES LIMITED 2098949 0.3316 2098949 0.3316 0 0 0 18 18 RESOLUTION INVESTMENTS LIMITED 1710000 0.2701 1710000 0.2701 0 0 0 19 19 LEVERAGED EQUITIES FINANCE LIMITED 1692061 0.2673 1659561 0.2621 32500 0.0051 1.9583 20 21 FORSYTH BARR CUSTODIANS LIMITED 1628052 0.2572 1480616 0.2339 147436 0.0233 9.9577 21 20 MARINT LIMITED 1500000 0.2369 1500000 0.2369 0 0 0 22 23 CIRCADA LIMITED 1400000 0.2211 1400000 0.2211 0 0 0 23 24 PHABEN HOLDINGS LIMITED 1200000 0.1896 1200000 0.1896 0 0 0 24 25 FORSYTH BARR CUSTODIANS LIMITED 1166800 0.1843 1166800 0.1843 0 0 0 25 26 ROTORUATRUST PERPETUAL CAPITAL FUND LIMITED 1000000 0.158 1000000 0.158 0 0 0 26 27 FORSYTH BARR CUSTODIANS LIMITED 968519 0.153 954519 0.1508 14000 0.0022 1.4667 27 29 CUSTODIAL SERVICES LIMITED 900599 0.1423 894599 0.1413 6000 0.0009 0.6707 28 28 ROSSLYN HINTON 900000 0.1422 900000 0.1422 0 0 0 29 30 MARTYN REESBY 800000 0.1264 800000 0.1264 0 0 0 30 31 FORSYTH BARR CUSTODIANS LIMITED 790950 0.1249 790950 0.1249 0 0 0 31 32 CUSTODIAL SERVICES LIMITED 723900 0.1143 721900 0.114 2000 0.0003 0.277 32 33 ARTHUR YOUNG & PETER WILSON 700000 0.1106 700000 0.1106 0 0 0 33 35 RICHARD PATERSON & LEE PATERSON & PETER GOWING 644972 0.1019 644972 0.1019 0 0 0 34 36 RICHARD PATERSON & LEE PATERSON & PETER GOWING 644972 0.1019 644972 0.1019 0 0 0 35 38 CUSTODIAL SERVICES LIMITED 639894 0.1011 629434 0.0994 10460 0.0017 1.6618 36 37 JAMES MCLAUGHLIN 635595 0.1004 635595 0.1004 0 0 0 37 34 MICHAEL HARE 600000 0.0948 650000 0.1027 -50000 -0.0079 -7.6923 38 39 JBWERE (NZ) NOMINEES LIMITED 535000 0.0845 535000 0.0845 0 0 0 39 40 WARREN LONG 525000 0.0829 525000 0.0829 0 0 0 40 46 ASB NOMINEES LIMITED 512500 0.081 497500 0.0786 15000 0.0024 3.0151 41 41 HYLTON LEGRICE & ANGELA LINDSAY 500000 0.079 500000 0.079 0 0 0 42 42 LUCY HINTON 500000 0.079 500000 0.079 0 0 0 43 43 EMILY HINTON 500000 0.079 500000 0.079 0 0 0 44 44 MM MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS LIMITED 500000 0.079 500000 0.079 0 0 0 45 45 TROUBADOUR HOLDINGS LIMITED 500000 0.079 500000 0.079 0 0 0 46 48 ADAM RYALL & JUDITH RYALL & CHRISTOPHER PATRICK MOORE 450000 0.0711 450000 0.0711 0 0 0 47 49 INVESTMENT CUSTODIAL SERVICES LIMITED 416465 0.0658 416465 0.0658 0 0 0 48 50 NICHOLAS LAUTZ 395703 0.0625 395703 0.0625 0 0 0 49 51 CUSTODIAL SERVICES LIMITED 362547 0.0573 354547 0.056 8000 0.0013 2.2564 50 52 CHRISTOPHER JOHNSTON & KOKILA PATEL 353855 0.0559 353855 0.0559 0 0 0 51 53 BRYAN HUTCHINS 350000 0.0553 350000 0.0553 0 0 0 52 54 PENELOPE HUTCHINS 350000 0.0553 350000 0.0553 0 0 0 53 55 FNZ CUSTODIANS LIMITED 345511 0.0546 345511 0.0546 0 0 0 54 22 FIRST NZ CAPITAL SECURITIES LIMITED 340204 0.0537 1400324 0.2212 -1060120 -0.1675 -75.7053 55 56 PHILLIP HARRIS & PRUNELLA HARRIS 320000 0.0505 320000 0.0505 0 0 0 56 57 JOHN ELLIOT & TONI ELLIOT 315000 0.0498 315000 0.0498 0 0 0 57 58 HARROGATE TRUSTEE LIMITED 304000 0.048 304000 0.048 0 0 0 58 59 MICHAEL LOOKMAN & 187 BRIDGE TRUSTEES 53 LIMITED 300000 0.0474 300000 0.0474 0 0 0 59 0 JOHN LEAHY & SHARYN LEAHY & SARAH LEAHY 300000 0.0474 0 0 0 0 0 60 60 STEPHEN PRYOR & CITYLAW TRUSTEES LIMITED 300000 0.0474 300000 0.0474 0 0 0 61 61 LINDA SIMMONS & FARRY AND CO. TRUSTEES LIMITED 300000 0.0474 300000 0.0474 0 0 0 62 62 ROBERT STEWART & LEONIE STEWART & IMPACT LEGAL TRUSTEE LIMITED 300000 0.0474 300000 0.0474 0 0 0 63 63 CUSTODIAL SERVICES LIMITED 271750 0.0429 271750 0.0429 0 0 0 64 64 FORSYTH BARR CUSTODIANS LIMITED 264390 0.0418 264390 0.0418 0 0 0 65 65 ANTHONY COOMBE 255125 0.0403 255125 0.0403 0 0 0 66 66 ALLAN SOLLY 250800 0.0396 250800 0.0396 0 0 0 67 67 THE NEW ZEALAND ANGLICAN CHURCH PENSION BOARD INCORPORATED 250000 0.0395 250000 0.0395 0 0 0 68 68 CONSTELLATION CAPITAL LIMITED 250000 0.0395 250000 0.0395 0 0 0 69 69 4 EYES LIMITED 249150 0.0394 249150 0.0394 0 0 0 70 70 PLUTEUS (NO 164) PTY LIMITED 243480 0.0385 243480 0.0385 0 0 0 71 71 NEVILLE SAWYER & JANICE SAWYER 240000 0.0379 240000 0.0379 0 0 0 72 72 INVESTMENT CUSTODIAL SERVICES LIMITED 240000 0.0379 240000 0.0379 0 0 0 73 73 JAGUAR NOMINEES LIMITED 240000 0.0379 240000 0.0379 0 0 0 74 74 ROSALINDE TRINNEAR 238020 0.0376 238020 0.0376 0 0 0 75 75 GREGORY KEEN & PATRICIA KEEN 232156 0.0367 232156 0.0367 0 0 0 76 76 DAVID STEVENSON & NICHOLAS GRANT & DONALD MOCHAN 225455 0.0356 230000 0.0363 -4545 -0.0007 -1.9761 77 77 RICHARD TURNER 225000 0.0355 225000 0.0355 0 0 0 78 78 ROSS MEAR & DEIDRE MEAR 225000 0.0355 225000 0.0355 0 0 0 79 79 EUAN BIDWILL & ANNA BIDWILL & JAMES WALLACE 225000 0.0355 225000 0.0355 0 0 0 80 80 EUAN BIDWILL & ANNA BIDWILL & JAMES WALLACE 225000 0.0355 225000 0.0355 0 0 0 81 81 BARBARA KEDGLEY 221000 0.0349 221000 0.0349 0 0 0 82 82 CRAIG PERCY 220258 0.0348 220258 0.0348 0 0 0 83 0 CUSTODIAL SERVICES LIMITED 220000 0.0348 0 0 0 0 0 84 83 STEVEN LAWRIE 201000 0.0318 201000 0.0318 0 0 0 85 84 MICHAEL GUTHRIE & SUSAN LECKIE & ALBERT ALLOO 200340 0.0316 200340 0.0316 0 0 0 86 85 JOHN EDWARDS 200000 0.0316 200000 0.0316 0 0 0 87 86 WAYNE BOOCOCK 200000 0.0316 200000 0.0316 0 0 0 88 88 PUBLIC TRUST 200000 0.0316 200000 0.0316 0 0 0 89 89 LOUISE WRIGHT 200000 0.0316 200000 0.0316 0 0 0 90 90 HENRY DODS 200000 0.0316 200000 0.0316 0 0 0 91 91 SOMSMITH NOMINEES LIMITED 200000 0.0316 200000 0.0316 0 0 0 92 92 NZ METHODIST TRUST ASSOCIATION 200000 0.0316 200000 0.0316 0 0 0 93 93 NICOLAI SCHUPBACH 200000 0.0316 200000 0.0316 0 0 0 94 94 PARNELL HOLDINGS LIMITED 200000 0.0316 200000 0.0316 0 0 0 95 95 PETER BRADFIELD 200000 0.0316 200000 0.0316 0 0 0 96 96 PETER DE CLIFFORD & GWENDOLINE DE CLIFFORD 200000 0.0316 200000 0.0316 0 0 0 97 97 SALLY CLATWORTHY 200000 0.0316 200000 0.0316 0 0 0 98 98 AMALGAMATED DAIRIES LIMITED 200000 0.0316 200000 0.0316 0 0 0 99 99 PHILLIP LINDBERG 195000 0.0308 195000 0.0308 0 0 0 100 100 TITMOTU HOLDINGS LIMITED 188550 0.0298 188550 0.0298 0 0 0 0 0 0 Top 100 total 576270760 91.0284 577072660 91.1551 -1321900 -0.2088 -0.2291
I wonder which of those entities is Milford Asset Management.
A2 Milk about to get a mention on 3 news!
What's Forsyth Barr's track record like when it comes to forecasting earnings?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/mone...th-in-earnings
Quote:
Analysis by Forsyth Barr widens the net to include 48 companies reporting up to October 23. Of those, 11 were expected to report second half earnings up more than 15 per cent on the first half, including Meridian, Mighty River Power, Air New Zealand and PGG Wrightson.
Meanwhile, 13 were expected to report earnings down at least 20 per cent over the same period.
"That's quite a large number, certainly a larger number than we would have anticipated," said Mercer.
The decliners included A2 Milk, the Fonterra Shareholders Fund, Warehouse Group, Kathmandu and Pumpkin Patch.
I think that's both fair and unsurprising, I'm expecting earnings to be lower too, but whether NPAT is an insignificant $4M or an insignificant $0M, there's no real difference in the big picture when revenues are growing nicely toward the $280M target by 2016.
Sacrificing earnings for growth is something ATM have down to a fine art IMO, or at least have done so for the last three years, optimising close to zero, investing every skerick into new joint venture establishment. I find this approach preferable to some growth companies that run at a continual loss for years.
There’s been a few big investments in the last year, buying out Muller Wiseman, Western Australian JV establishment, ramp up of infant formula into the Chinese, Australian and New Zealand markets, all funded largely from gross margins.
Revenues should be +20%, it’s revenue growth that’s important for the next few years.
Well put Mac. They have a relatively conservative growth plan relying a lot on profit from australia. We hope that the uk is growing well and china is getting back on track. The day they have a second market to fund growth the day we all retire early on our gains otherwise we keep working.
Here's the news item from TV3
http://www.3news.co.nz/A2-milk-easie...1/Default.aspx
A certain amount of skepticism is healthy and was addressed by the research team leader. Cynicism is something else. There will be those in the public, the media and the dairy industry who will be cynical, but I would suggest it is best that members of this thread have a slightly higher and better informed analytical threshold.
Peer-reviewed journals, especially one with such a high reputation as the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, havereview panels of experts who are always very ready to tear a research report to pieces and deny it publication if it has weaknesses. A report will get a special going-over if there is any suspicion, as there could have been in this case, that its results have been bought and paid for by its funder.
The report on A1/A2 by Professor Boyd Swinburn that was commissioned by the NZ Food Safety Authority some years ago said this subject urgently needs more research, in the interests of milk consumers and of the NZ dairy industry. You would think NZ would be a good place to do it, but nope. Fonterra wasn't going to fund or carry out such research because it knows the results will be unwelcome to the mainstream dairy industry. And likewise, the government wasn't forking out funds. So what else is ATM to do, other than fund the research itself, under an arms-length arrangement that ensures credibility? In my experience, the academic researchers who do the job would be far more interested in maintaining their own reputations for scientific credibility than in saving ATM's skin.
Not everyone on this thread will want to be reading the minutiae of all the various media reports coming out now about the Curtin University research on A1/A2, but some of the reports in Australian media are of interest because they’re going to affect the debate going on in A2’s most profitable market.
The first is from a farming publication in Western Australia which of course will be read by dairy farmers there, but more significantly for us it includes some fascinating comments from the A2 processor in WA about the way ATM is running its campaign in Australia, and also refers to ATM’s future market plans in Australia and Asia.
http://www.farmweekly.com.au/news/ag...px?storypage=0
And then this item is also interesting. It’s the same initial report by reporter Jared Lynch that was published in the Sydney Morning Herald a couple of days ago, but here it is again in the farmers’ online mag Australian Dairy Farmer under a much more direct headline that pulls no punches: “Research backs A2 claims”. That will be uncomfortable reading for Dairy Australia, which takes a very hard line against A2.
http://adf.farmonline.com.au/news/ma...px?storypage=0
It was probably unfair of me to put my own milk consumption under the 'normal' banner and imply that anyone ouside of that was abnormal. But try this. I remember extended family christmas gatherings made up of three generations (3 grandparents, 5 parents, 5 kids) . There were thirteen of us assembled. It was my job to bring the milk in that the delivery man dropped off in the wee hours of the morning (yes it was a few years ago). I remember being staggered that we all got through as a collective nine bottles (600ml glass things for the newcomers). Over a day that was 5.4l. Over a week 38l. Divide that by 13 people and I get 2.9l per week per person.
Of course that was only an average and the youngsters I am sure slurped down more than the oldies.
Master, I salute you consuming 6l of milk per week. You must have very good bones and very good teeth! My experience suggests that your consumption is on the high side, and I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that.
SNOOPY
Interesting point Harrie.
This comes back to the marketing dilemma for A2 milk. A2 milk is the product. But really the important thing is that the milk does not contain the A1 protein. Selling a product called "Not A1 Milk" suggests it has been left out in the sun for a few hours. So you can see why the marketing guys went for "A2". But the fact of the matter is that "Not A1 milk" is in reality the marketing message A2 milk are pushing.
To me then, the important thing to show is that A1 has some likely detrimental effect that can be avoided by consuming A2. If in reality there is no real scientific evidence that A1 milk is a problem, then the neeed for A2 as an alternative disappears. Thus as I see it, the main thrust of potential research is to
1/ First prove that there really is a problem with A1. Once that is proved, the next step is to
2/ Prove that A2 will not cause the same problem.
This is what Keith Woodford et al have tried to do with their latest research. By my way of thoinking the most important part of this research was to prove step number 1/ above. Sadly for Woodford et al this part of their research was less convincing than the fact that A1 and A2 milk proteins did initiate a different response in trial protagonists. The study's evidence on this point was much more convincing.
Just proving that A1 and A2 have different responses, as you suggest Harrie, is IMO not important until you can prove that there really is an issue with A1 to start with. It is not marketinng death for A2 if Woodford cannot quickly prove 1. Because as one person, if you are having digestive issues and in your personal experience switching to A2 'solves' your issues, then for you as a single consumer this will be enough to make you an A2 convert. But anecdotal evidence like this does not cut it as scientific proof.
SNOOPY
Maybe their next ads should be "Zero A1"
A minus "r" indicates the two things you are trying to correlate together are affecting each other but in the opposite way to what you originally proposed.
For example if your hypothesis was that if you increased 'A', then 'B' would increase as a result (you are assuming that A and B have a +r relationship), but then if you plotted your results and found that by increasing A then B actually decreased then you would find that A and B had a "-r" relationship of some kind.
But if instead you had originally assumed that inceasing A woudl decrease B and you did the test and found this so, then this relationship between A and B woudl be a "+r" kind. Plus or minus are only significant in relation to your original assumption.
SNOOPY
Yes all that makes sense snoopy, but the "r" in this analysis relates to the assumption that A1 has a detrimental impact on the digestive issues in terms of certain measurements/observations they have devised etc.
If you apply the assumption that A1 beta casein has a positive correlation (or mildly positive 0.52) with problematic digestive issues, then all you can say is that at -0.13, A2 beta casein has no, if not a slightly negative, correlation with digestive issues.
I can understand no correlation, but a negative one is a bit harder to get your head around!
It sort of suggests on the basis of the assumption above, that there are digestive "benefits" in A2 milk?