when is this stock going to move, page-13

1) This comes down to a personal judgement and where you think the price of metals will be come 2,3,4,5 years etc etc.If one doesnt like how its shaping then there's the obvious alternative,which I believe you are taking.

"ZFX restructured because institutional shareholders wanted the smelter out of the equation. Also due to the low life ZFX assets, shareholders pushed for managemtn to look for something to buy. ZFX looked at AIM and chose Wolfden. ZFX has what AIM does not have, insto support."


http://www.wolfdenresources.com/s/Home.asp

"These advanced Canadian projects represent an excellent fit with Zinifex's strategy to GROW ITS MINING BUSINESS. They add to Zinifex's resource base and have the potential, if developed, to significantly extend Zinifex's mining profile"

The point being ZFX is looking to expand its zinc reserves.I wonder why?Aim has a small/medium high grade project which wouldnt fit their plans.I wasnt implying they would be a T/O target,simply that ZFX is looking to EXPAND their zinc ops and one would think that is because they see decent Zn demand years down the track.

2)The staff turnover is a purely subjective aspect and one can read into it what one likes.

3)You wouldnt give non-execs some kind of incentive espc if they have had the experience of Cash and Bradley?Not bad catches for 2 million shares ech imo,but then thats just my opinion and everyone will have there own on this.

I have said before,the votes been and gone,if one doesnt like how it turned out(for whatever reason) then one cant change that.If one sees this vote as a major negative in their investment strategy then its time to leave the building perhaps.

4)"And dont be sure about N.S. they could be selling and you would not know it."

Not "assuming" works both ways PR!

I STILL havnt heard an answer as to why these significant holders have taken their holdings whether you think its a weak mix of holders or not.

5)"Mumbwa? 2010 story. Maybe."

"AIM can not go at this project alone. Nor will BHP let them."

Why is this PR?

Much depends on how the drilling defines the ore body and just what any kind of BFS shows.What I am saying is that if the resource is too small(for BHP) BUT still relatively well defined(appropriate grade in a relatively small zone)then BHP may well not decide to claw back and Aim could then either go it alone or JV with Zambian operator.(First Quantum etc)

WHO KNOWS though until we see drill results.

6)I suppose those that are prepared to hold will find out if he can deliver value no matter what his abilities in what ever field.

Back to the staff turnover.Depends on whether you think the last two bozzo's(Reid and Innis) would have been any good at offtakes,capital raisings etc etc.

When it comes right down to it they dont fit where the company is headed,but then this is just as much a personal opinion as your opinion is that the staff turnover implies mismanagement,so I guess the punters will have to decifer this one for themselves too.

Bradley?Id say he might have had a little to do with the unit issue,which probably puts him in the bad boys club;-)

7)There's a lot of my logic thats flawed PR.Its why I invest in specs.LOL

8)FACT.They took it up.Aim got their dough.END OF STORY.Does that peeve you?I may not have a clue,but I hope for the sake of the people that invest in the significant holders funds,that they have a clue.LOL

Just how pedantic one wants to get in terms of how a share register is structured is up to the investor.If you, or others,dont like the way its structured then its only yet another reason not to be in the stock.

My speculation on a TSX listing(secondary;-)) only follows from the issue of the escrows,which MAY imply a TSX listing.I am assuming(well shoot me)that they will only be tradeable on the TSX.Perhaps someone can clarify.

BUT we live in a global economy so why the problem with another listing.Flawed logic again from d.LOL

"Is it to GIVE WW more fees about and beyond the $10m they received? Is it to give WW more warrants and options?"

African projects have never been done for free,just ask Bill Turner and the cut he had to give lenders for Anvils initial raisings.Holders were screeming at where the potential profits were going.Sure Im not happy about it but it is sometimes a necessary evil particularly when raising cash for such a project as Perkoa.

10)I'll post an apology if Aim isnt 70c+ by Jan 2009.

Appologies if I offended re the "market savvy" comment PR.

BUT perhaps I should be more specific as it referred to your comment on the sp.

"The share price of AIM last week was at 17c at one time. In Sep 2006 the share price of AIM also hit 17c.Sure the current price of AIM is 24c now but AIM is not exactly lighting the market on fire with positive news and on time milestones."

In the context of the market correction I find it difficult to comprehend this comparison.Most stocks were affected by the correction.

We have quite a while to go until production and Aims sp was NEVER going to hold its highs or continue its upward trend right through to production.

Your use of the "above people" is constructive if thats how one wishes to research a stock.There are certain elements that you use in your investment strategy that I will never use as it clouds what I consider the main elements of such an investment,particularly if investing to a strategy of staying in until production.

Each to their own.

d.