It just kind of surprised me that given all of the issues Wall...

It just kind of surprised me that given all of the issues Wall St has with conflict of interest that significant MS ownership of Moly has not been disclosed.

The monopolist nature of the industry means they may need to hedge their bets on suppliers so sure have ownership of both, they can invest where they want however the question of "why short Lynas?" has had me pondering for a while.

Now you have a huge focus in the US on RE vis a vis Obama's challenge of China in the international courts over anti competitive practice in the RE space.

This has opened the eyes of a lot of investors in the US to the potentials of this industry and they may very well decide to invest in companies that are ready to challenge that monopoly.

So there is the strong case that investment will flow towards the industry.

If an investor is deciding between LYC and Moly and they look at the SP history of LYC vs Moly the latter may seem the better investment.

LYC IMO has not been given its rightful place in this discussion particularly of late whilst Moly has been in the press as undervalued, "too cheap" etc.

This is IMO to direct the significant investment flow into RE into Moly, and who stand to gain the most as a shareholder. MS by a long shot.

Now we also have the case of Moly partnering in China which is unusual given Obama's discussion of the strategic nature of RE to the US and the need to ensure US supply.

It would be really interesting to understand this.

Is Moly trying to gain access for the US to supply infrastructure that guarantees there is not a 2 tiered price structure with China receiving a discount for its industries?

How much influence has MS had on the US administrations decision to wade into the RE debate?

We can only speculate.

As soon as LYC get into production the whole debate changes though does't it?

I just wonder what we are going to see happen between now and then.

Should be an interesting couple of months I reckon.