This is an interesting topic to discuss while we wait for some...

This is an interesting topic to discuss while we wait for some SP movement.

All good points about some conglomerates being more successful spinning of subsidiaries. A quick look at some examples though indicates that most of these conglomerates who benefited had subsidiaries in completely different industries and markets without synergy’s or interdependence.

I know JAT is hard to pigeonhole for some explanation to potential investors. JAT describes themselves as a China-Australia cross border specialist in Fast Moving Consumer Goods. (FMCG) What is wrong with that as a pigeonhole? Maybe it is a new pigeonhole that JAT has created.

IMO as long as they don’t deviate from this focus with subsidiary’s there should be no need to consider spinning out anything, even in the distant future. It’s not like JAT is doing a Harvey Norman and buying dairy farms.

JAT outlined its transition strategy in there investor presentation update December 2017

“Stage 1 Market penetration: build expertise and generate a critical mass of business flows.”
“Stage 2 utilise the expertise, business network and scale to transition from growth to profitability.”

JAT achieved stage 1. Stage 2 had these relevant details.

2 JAT owned and controlled brands –avoiding supply bottlenecks.
3 JAT owned infant Milk Formula brand

JAT has also achieved stage 2 including dealing with supply bottlenecks.

We are due for a new investor presentation update describing JATS future goals and strategy’s to achieve this. I look forward to this.

GLTAH DYOR