Tantallon you made this statement:
"However since this is so up in the air and the company is so poor in communicating its plans I would not hold this stock until those plans are made public. "
If you are referring to holding this stock wrt the possible spin out, unless I am missing something, what is there to lose?
1) It goes through and you were in ISM before the record date, you end up with a share in ISM and a whatever is in store in terms of "distribution numbers" for Metal Mines given whatever they come up with as the ratio. You will have two companies, one is all about Langmuir, the other is all about the remaining properties.
2) It does not go through and you were also an ISM shareholder on record date, you still have a share in ISM. You have one company which is the compnay we are all familiar with
In either case and by the record date deadline, you still have a stake in Langmuir.
After record date (April 16) you will be able to buy one or the other company (or both)based on their individual prospects and that as each becomes a little less diversified in terms of exploration prospects. ISM less it's Langmuir asset will end up being the balance of ISM properties. The "pure play" focus may be attractive to some investors when deciding on who or what to buy.
The balance will be Cleaver, Desrosiers, Douglas, Barton and I believe that original we know as Jasper is in the mix somewhere...... and a decent chunk of cash on hand.
As Victor had pointed out on the other site, what about the meantime? After the record date and while the company sits waiting for approval. Those possible MM shares sit in LaLa land as they are not tradeable until such time as they are accepted and listed for the TSX. In the meantime, the value of ISM once the spin out is underway, will be somewhat less with Langmuir out of it's asset mix and BTW Langmuir's future speculative value is gone to the MM share.
Oh the details ........
PS it almost reminds me of the blue chips when they announce a split. The splits being done for the reason that it made the SP more affordable to the public when buying one board lot as shares got big and pricey.$100 bank stocks would split 2 for 1 and come back down to $50 again.(but you got 2 this time) We know that it is much better to buy those stocks pre-split as they tend to become affordable again. They also give the opportunity for leverage to work in one's favour as the post split stocks tend to start going up in value again.(in duplicate) The point I try to make is in the second paragraph below ( Leverage).... It definitely has NOTHING to do with the company's stock price getting too lofty.....LOL
Example:
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/113.asp
"A stock split is usually done by companies that have seen their share price increase to levels that are either too high or are beyond the price levels of similar companies in their sector. The primary motive is to make shares seem more affordable to small investors even though the underlying value of the company has not changed.
A stock split can also result in a stock price increase following the decrease immediately after the split. Since many small investors think the stock is now more affordable and buy the stock, they end up boosting demand and drive up prices. Another reason for the price increase is that a stock split provides a signal to the market that the company's share price has been increasing and people assume this growth will continue in the future, and again, lift demand and prices."
IMHO
