Member Info for honestbob

You quite right they are prone to interchange them and to some one read an RNS etc free standing without visit website could easily cause confusion

To clarify - i did post an email from the company a little while ago

I thnk Gerald effectively could have pressed for their money and put company into liquidation and got relatively little. Or take shares in the subdiduary Labrador Iron Mines (LIM)
in the hope that one day there would be a recovery

This is what they did

I think they also received ownership of part ownership of already mined ore and are due to receive part of early proceeds of any subsequently producef ore.

I don't know if that same exercise as when a retaining underground dam had to be drained that was bit longer ago but like wise involved draining to sea.
On that occaision the water was mineral etc contaminated so it was steadily released so as to dilute it. The dam had become unsafe and i think there was great danger to Amlych if pressure not released

Brett

Thankyou - hopefully this has clarified that issue

As i posted some time ago I thought 5 p would be reached in the short term ( which it has been) and 10 achievable medium term - after that who knows

I still think this though the rise to double figures ( if it comes at all will hopefully be sooner than I thought originally)

I was working on these figures without LIMH and just drawing comfort from it being in the background.

But when the huge LIMH figures were being thrown about as you can imagine I took a much greater interest - although still discounted them . I spent some time on the LIM accounts trying to find the oft quoted Gerard investment.

For what its worth I think it is in the other 49 % of LIM and a 50 percent share of a certain amount of ore mined or to be mined .

Last line -

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any further information.

Best regards

Bill Hooley

Rampart further to our discussion this morning copy of email I sent to Bill below with copy of his helpful reply he has confirmed that I may share it

FAO Mr Hooley

Dear Mr Hooley

Several friends and I hold shares in Anglesey Mining and find current developments very encouraging.

As regards the Labrador investment an element of confusion has crept in -

One school of thought is that via its 12 % shareholding in Labrador Iron Mines holding Anglesey has ( in simple terms ) a 12 % share in the underlying mineral rights of the company

Which would seem to be supported by recent RNS

The other school of thought, believes that whilst Anglesey owns 12 % of Labrador Iron Mines Holdings , that this company does not own the mineral rights .But rather it owns 51 % of Labrador Iron Mines which actually own the mineral rights . In simple terms again this giving Anglesey 51 % of its 12 % i.e. approx. 6 % .

This second thought would appear supported by the Labrador website

I appreciate this is simplistic but the key question is does Anglesey’s 12% shareholding in fact equate to %6 % of potential shareholder return from the actual minerals

If you could clarify this would be very helpful

I communicate with my friends vis a share bulletin board so I would propose to put your reply there , if that meets with your approval

Robert

Thank you for your enquiry and indeed your detailed interest in this matter.

Anglesey Mining plc holds approximately 12% of the total stock of Labrador Iron Mines Holdings Limited (“LIMH”) and three of Anglesey’s directors, John Kearney, Danesh Varma and myself sit on the seven person board of LIMH.

LIMH has a number of subsidiaries but far and away the most important is Labrador Iron Mines Limited (“LIM”) in which LIMH has a direct 51% interest. LIM holds 100% of Schefferville Mines Inc (“SMI”). All of the mineral assets in Newfoundland & Labrador and Quebec are held by either LIM directly or by SMI. Therefore LIM controls 100% of the mineral assets. LIMH through its controlling interest in LIM therefore effectively controls and manages all these assets.

I apologise if there was some confusion regarding Anglesey’s interests but these are held as shown above. The confusion in the RNS may arise from the use of the words ‘holds direct shipping iron ore’. Direct here refers the type of iron ore known as Direct Shipping Ore (DSO) and not to the form of how they are held. To reiterate Anglesey holds 12% of LIMH and LIMH together with some minority shareholders hold 100% of LIM and the mineral assets. This therefore should not be read as if Anglesey holds 12% directly of the mineral assts.

For further reading may I redirect you back to the LIMH website and then to News Centre and Financial Results where the latest Quarterly Financial Results and the latest Management and Discussion Analysis are filed?

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any

Greg; "Sentiment killers are now costing people money here!"

I am more inclined to think that it is the realised warrants filtering through 200000 or 300000 as they are sold and the overhang that remains there .

In the finish value will out regardless chatroom conversation - which may influence to a limited extent

I have till now viewed LIm as icing on cake but there comes a point where it will be critical to mine and others decision as to when a good time to sell / profit take At which point would be helpful to understand what the position there is.

Up to last night I think I was wrong on my understanding and to my regret have had to rethink the calculations put forward by Boom

Personally i would prefer steadyy sustainable rise based on correct facts ( or as near as can get them) than quick rises in part fueled by very hopeful expectations

Hopefully this will help minimise dangers of investors who can ill afford it buying in on a spike and attendant dangers to them - if do not have time or means to ride out subsequent dip

SW - I understand and agree with your recent post re Lim - I would prefer not to but there we are

That said Rampart is quite correct the most recent RNS has interchanged LIM and LIMH which looked at in isolation could and has caused confusion

Rampant I find myself in the unusual position of arguing / discussing a point where I actually hope to be proved wrong

Rampant i have looked at wretched RNS again you are right there is one time where LIMH abbreviated to LIM

So not totally clear if I have time later will email AYM and ask them

Rampant i agree it is confusing LIM and LIMH are two separate companies.

They are not inter changeable (other than by mistake)

Looking at the RNS I don't think it actually says AYM own 12 per cent LIM any where but that it does own 12 % LIMH.

I view either as a bonus was disappointed to discover last night that as far as I can tell i was previously wrong

Rampant I would much rather you were totally right

Aym as they say own 12 % of LIMH

But LIMH in turn only own half of the mineral rights etc below is what it says on their website - ( straight cut and paste)

Labrador Iron Mines Limited
LIMH holds approximately 51% of the shares of LIM. LIM and its subsidiary SMI hold all of the group's mineral properties and assets.

Rampant the quote is cut and paste from the labrador website - I agree best look direct I read SW post this morning then checked

Labrador Iron Mines Limited
LIMH holds approximately 51% of the shares of LIM. LIM and its subsidiary SMI hold all of the group's mineral properties and assets.

Rampant quote from LIM website i. e AYM own 12 % of LIMH which owns half of the LIM which actually has the LIM rights. I didn't fully grasp this till last night

Either way what good for LIM is good g for us -

Rampant if have a look at SW post last night it explains if i renember correctly how the LIM and LIMH companies are structured with AYM own 12 % of holding company which in turn own s half of subdiduary which owns the mine.
It is on the LIM website but takes some following through(for me at least)

Whilst exchanges last night not particularly pleasant i found them very informative. I have taken view that anythingfrom LIM is a bonus but was still disappointment to see AYM share actually 6 % not 12 % it appeared. Am irritated with myself for not seeing that before

Me or Sw?

South Westerner - subject of brokers buy recommendations come up before and i highlighted similar named company.
Also LIM site itself says no brokers report on it. So am inclined agree with what you say that those recommendations apply to similarly named company.

In your defence you did predict 5p when share was 2 or 3p while ago. You also predicted possibly of ten pence in i thnk by turn of year.

It would be helpful if posters who disagree with your contents could constructively put forward a counter argument. This would let others form a balanced judgement.

For my part thankyou for the trouble you have taken with those posts.

As boom says there is detailed explanation on Google. In simple terms as i understand it - as you probably know sellers do not sell direct to buyers but to middlemen known as market makers. They then on sell the shares to the buyer taking a cut for themselves (the spread). If there are more buyers than sellers they will usually push price up until sellers emerge or if more sellers than buyers then push it down until buyers emerge. Sometimes when large volumes being traded it can be difficult to keep pace and a danger unrealistic movements up or down which would distort the market place. The unrealistic movements can then trigger automatic buys and sells and they on turn can trigger more. Consequently if it looks like getting out of hand they have the monitoring exercise which as I understand it briefly pauses the mainstream action until their books are in better order.

On separate note they can occasionally mark a share sharply down or up (allegedly) to trigger the auto sales or buys. Clue this may be happening when sudden movement does not correlate with what would be expected. This could be what happened early this morning.

Brent

The other effect I have noticed in the past in this and similar shares is that holders long and short term watch the rise with growing satisfaction and expectation. Then become alarmed justifiably or otherwise (especially if underwater having bought towards the top of the rise) so when recovers to previous high decide not to miss it in full or part second time round. Almost triggering a resistance point at the previous high. This relies on no significant news in the meantime. This is not a prediction merely an observation.

Converse can apply if course dip can trigger new buyers hopeful of previous high and previous holders buying back.

In the end in my opinion (at risk of starting the obvious) it comes down to ratio underlying buyers to sellers.

Brent i thnk sometimes MM can dip price to trigger stop loses or trailing stop losses to help balance their books.

Although must not overlook the obvious in that no doubt element profit taking and overhanging realised warrants.