ATM - A2 Milk Corporation Limited

[babymonster]

Yes, it's all about marketing but also if the Chinese govt allows you to do that. Google and Facebook are examples. Chinese govt want them to do business in China but only under its control. It's good that Chinese dairy market is very framented and atm does not threaten any state own assets and the party's image.

[Leftfield]

Another step....

20 April 2016
NZX/ASX Market Release
China Market Developments

The a2 Milk Company Limited has previously commented that the infant formula
regulatory environment in China continues to evolve and the Company considers
itself well placed to respond to announced changes in regulation in
conjunction with its manufacturing partner.
Recent changes have been announced by Chinese regulators concerning taxation
of Cross-Border E-Commerce (CBEC) Traded Commodities, and the publication of
product lists ("Positive Lists") for CBEC traded commodities through China
free trade zones.
The Company welcomes the increasing level of clarity around changes for this
channel recently announced, including that infant formula and whole milk
powder products are included on the "Positive Lists" and that infant formula
products sold in China have until 1 January 2018 to complete formulation
registration with CFDA (China Food and Drug Administration).

[NT001]

Yep, anyone who has the slightest comprehension of a proper scientific study would laugh at a 45 person trial in order to make sweeping statements. Wait until the 600 person trial comes out before getting excited. Better if it was in the 1000's and run by a reputable, independent, Western science team....

I would not trust anything they published as they will simply find whatever the company who is paying for the study wants them to find. As fonterror has deeper pockets, they could fund much bigger "trials".

I think you are overlooking three points: Firstly this is a preliminary trial, secondly it has been thoroughly peer reviewed and accepted for publication by a reputable international (not Chinese) specialist journal, and thirdly the company is not in the habit of making "sweeping statements". It is pretty careful about ensuring it doesn't go beyond what can be backed up scientifically, in fact it tends to be over-cautious if anything.

The journal's review panel which approved the study for publication were not Chinese, and had no connection with the trial research team which was mixed Chinese and foreign. And in fact one of the reviewers went further than just approving it, she congratulated the authors on an excellent study well done.

The study obviously had to be done in China by an institution with the necessary research laboratory facilities and ability to get Chinese ethical and regulatory authorisations because it was intended to show what happens when Chinese subjects drink A1 and A2 milk - a subject that has generated considerable discussion and is important for the development of the Chinese market.

Scientific research often involves relatively small cohorts of subjects (like the Curtin University A1/A2 digestive study), especially when they are to be followed up by larger and more refined studies later. And they commonly receive funding help from parties interested in the results, as otherwise they wouldn't get done at all. That's not a reason for ignoring or dismissing the results, and contrary to your assertion, if such trials are well run they are accepted and valued in the scientific community.

In fact, I have already seen the findings of the Curtin University trial, which was of a similar size to this Chinese one and had a2M company funding, used to support the argument in the published findings of at least one other international research team working in the same field.

Of course we all want to see larger trials, but big trials involving human subjects are vastly expensive. Yes, I guess Fonterra could run them, but it ain't gonna do so because it knows what the results will be. They will confirm the results of the a2M funded trials. Anyway, if Fonterra did run a huge expensive trial, would you not raise the same questions regarding credibility?

In some ways it's a lose-lose scenario - people who don't like the results of a trial but don't actually know enough about the subject to make valid and informed criticisms of it tend to fall back on the argument that it wasn't big enough to be scientifically credible and it was tainted by support from a party interested in the outcome. The media always love to run a negative angle willingly supplied on a plate by a critic, rather than tracking down someone who knows the subject and asks them for sensible informed comment. Those criticisms may get a media headline and carry some weight with some of the public, but actually they don't carry much weight in the scientific community if the trials are well run and peer-reviewed by respected independent experts.

[NT001]

And here's the news release we've been waiting for. Very interesting, and obviously the work of a pretty reputable bunch of researchers.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...300254313.html

[Gunny]

So previously diagnosed lactose intolerance people may now be hunting down A2 suppliers.

And the US has 1 in 4 with digestive problems, wow.

Not a bad market to launch into.

Gunny

[see weed]

Has any STers been buying a2 shares lately?

[Lewylewylewy]

I would happily buy some, if they paid dividends.

[macduffy]

Good coverage on BBC World News Business Live programme this evening. Interview with Scott Wotherspoon, A2 CEO for UK and China, explaining A2 "story" and business.

[RGR367]

Has any STers been buying a2 shares lately?

Yes, just about 2 weeks ago. After selling them at happy prices late last year, I intend to reacquire those same number of shares as long as they're priced no more than $1.88. Gut feel says they'll be worth a lot more pretty soon.

[Ginger_steps_]

Has any STers been buying a2 shares lately?

Goodbye Xero shares = hello a2!!