Logistics Development Share Discussion Threads

[Abuse team] 04/11/2006 17:42

Post removed by ADVFN

[Abuse team] 04/10/2006 20:05

Post removed by ADVFN

[Abuse team] 04/10/2006 14:22

Post removed by ADVFN

[Abuse team] 04/10/2006 13:17

Post removed by ADVFN

[Abuse team] 04/10/2006 12:43

Post removed by ADVFN

[Abuse team] 04/10/2006 11:58

Post removed by ADVFN

[Abuse team] 04/10/2006 11:38

Post removed by ADVFN

[meerzaf] 03/10/2006 15:42

this is tanking. Whats going on here?

[meerzaf] 27/9/2006 21:41

Apparently this has been tipped in tomorrows IC so we should expect to see some positive price movement

[moggey1970] 21/8/2006 15:10

I bought ldg from pc and in profit also bought paro whos results are out in sep so we shall see how they do.

[nickthomson01] 03/8/2006 11:17

Decent Crit in this weeks Shares magazine about Legacy. Mentions increasing market share, acquisitions and improved logistics. Should boost gross margins from 5.5% to high single digit range, although costs are an issue esp. fuel but plans to tackle with diesel truck leasing arrangements

[tel6] 23/6/2006 12:16

Is anyone aware of the reason for the recent increase in the price?

[rossstar3] 27/4/2006 23:13

pxx will happily buy stock and then stab u in the back next time.dyor

[dave-w] 27/4/2006 22:54

Thanks, Crosstalk. Good analysis. I'm staying well clear.
Just one point on NAV. The $1.54m placing was pre-float. I haven't seen the admission document but do we know how many shares (or what shares) were floated at 12p? Might that not have raised a sigificant sum? But if they were issued shares, the money wouldn't have gone to company, of course and your analysis still holds true.
Puzzled.

[crosstalk] 24/4/2006 23:47

To dave-w, mr_chaps and anyone else who's interested.

Pacific Continental Securities (PCS) are simply not telling the truth (see post 25).

dave-w reports " The broker said "they have always been Legacy but private up to now"! ".
No they haven't. An extract from the auditors report on page 21 of the "Admission to trading on AIM" document in relation to Legacy Distribution Group Inc reads:

"2.2 Income statement
The Company has not traded since its incorporation on 25 January 2006 other than in relation to the arrangements for the admission of the Company's shares to trading on AIM, hence no income statement has been presented."

On the same page the Balance sheet statement as at 31 January 2006 shows NIL for:
Cash at bank, Total assets, Total Shareholders' equity.

The company previously traded under the names Best Candy & Tobacco Co. (up to 31/7/2004) and Best Holdings Acquisition Company, LLC (from 1/8/2004). My post number 8 includes some internet references to these companies.

The auditors reports for these companies are included in the AIM Admission document.


dave-w reports "He [PCS salesman] also professed to know nothing about the pre-float share issue" and "They [PCS] met the [Legacy] management immediately pre-float and apparently acquired their shares directly". The PCS salesman is being inconsistent (that's my kindest interpretation!).


Total profits for the 3.5 years from 1 Jan 2002 to 30 June 2005 = $833,026. In total it is nowhere near PCS's figure of $1.3m. The individual figures come from the AIM Admission document. There are no other published figures. No RNS update has been issued.


As at 30/6/2005 Total members' equity (assets less liabilities) = $1,038,018 and that includes $1,502,378 of goodwill! There were effectively 39,061,269 shares in issue then.
NAV = 2.66c/share or about 1.5p/share.

There are now 73,446,328 shares in issue. If PCS are suggesting a NAV of 13p/share the implied net assets = £9.5m or $16.7m (at $1.75/£). How on earth has net assets gone up by $15m since 30 June 2005? The share placing only raised $1.54m. Elsewhere the Admission document says Elite paid $2m for a 12% stake (page 64) but page 53 says Elite holds 3%. It is still a long way short.

Pacific Continental seem to be living in Wonderland.

Ask Corporate Synergy for a copy of the "Admission to trading on AIM" document and read it then ask PCS for the source and a justification for their information.

[dave-w] 24/4/2006 15:52

Just been offered these for 12p by PCS. (Immediate profit of 0.25p!!) "Trading below NAV of 13p per share." they said. Profit last year $1.3m. Estimated profit next $2.3m. Quite adamant on this. Q2 2005 must have been pretty impressive for an unchanged company then! Clearly a yawning gap somewhere here.

I queried the NAV and they said these are the company's latest figures. Suggestion was that the increase in NAV is solely due to the float proceeds and that they now have the resources to proceed with the ambitious acquisition strategy of the new management, "who have been previously associated with successful company expansions".

I also queried the history of the company. The broker said "they have always been Legacy but private up to now"! He also professed to know nothing about the pre-float share issue. (not that it didn't happen but that his notes start with the AIM float, which is pretty obvious.)

He wasn't pushy but is trying to get me on board as a new client. "We want to offer you this to gain your confidence"

They met the management immediately pre-float and apparently acquired their shares directly, which is consistent with "paid to sell" comments above. No mentionof Corporate Synergy.

I cannot see how in the cut-throat US distribution business (even with Phillip Morris and an up-coming Wal=Mart competitor contracts "nationwide...not just Arizona") that the aggressive strategy is a forgone conclusion by any means. Coupled with adverse PCS reputation and inconsistencies in data, I don't think this one is for me.

[crosstalk] 24/4/2006 11:57

I was first offered RC Group (RCG) by First Cape Securities (FCS). FCS are based in South Africa and are not regulated by the FSA, but neither are they on the FSA list of unauthorised foreign firms, yet. FCS funnelled all the paperwork through Pacific Continental Securities (PCS) perhaps this was how PCS became more aware of it. Later PCS themselves recommended RCG. RCG does not appear to be the normal type of PCS recommendation.

Had I taken PCS's recommendations in the past I would probably have been bankrupted long ago and never been able to partake of the 50% rise in RCG. There is no PCS recommendation, given to me, that would have resulted in a gain after a period of about 6 months. There have been short term gains as stock prices has been pumped up, but beyond 3-6 months everything has gone down. RCG may be the first PCS recommendation I know of to achieve a gain after any period of initial euphoria.

Look at The Motley Fool website under the "Financial Scams?" thread for more details about the activities of boiler rooms and a few FSA regulated companies that have many of the attributes of boiler rooms and lose a lot of money for their clients:

In particular look at the FAQ:


I believe PCS are paid substantial fees (in addition to the normal brokerage fee that the private investor pays) to sell some of their recommendations. They also have opportunites to get stock cheaply through placings which they then sell on to private clients.

[mr_chaps] 24/4/2006 11:13

thanks crosstalk,

>meerzaf - I mentioned that Pac Con had 'done me right' with RC but, IMO, that Pac COn are pushy and that I don't think all their recommendations should be taken with out some of your own analysis. See post 11,

[crosstalk] 23/4/2006 16:52

from mr_chaps - 12 Apr'06 - 10:41 - 14 of 21

"Incidentally Pac Con came back to me and I queried that I had seen it seemed to have falling income and made a loss last year as per Crosstalk's post 8. the guys said it made profits of GBP 900k lsat year, I asked if he had a copy of this report to forward to me and he said it wasn't worth his time".

The reason it wasn't worth his time is because he was lying. Lying is a characteristic of a 'boiler room', but I do accept that Pacific Continental Securities is FSA regulated and therefore cannot be called a 'boiler room'. I have checked my post 8 and the profit figures quoted are correct. The source is given. I will also quote from page 10 of the Admission document:

"PART I
INFORMATION ON THE GROUP
...
7. Financial Information
The following information, has been extracted without adjustment, from the financial information on the Group set out in Parts III, IV and V of this document. Investors should read the whole of this document and not rely solely
upon the information summarised below:
...
.....................................................Six months ended
.....................................................30 June 2005
.....................................................$ '000
...
Profit/(loss) of ordinary activities before tax (133)

The Directors believe 2005 has been a year of transition for the Group. ..."

Pac Con Sec sent me this document. They did NOT make a profit last year of £900k. I rest my case.

The document in question is:
"Legacy Distribution Group Inc.
Admission to trading on AIM
Nominated Advisor and Broker:
Corporate Synergy Plc"

Corporate Synergy's telephone number is 020 7920 9641. Please call them and ask them to send you a copy. Having checked you could always write to the FSA and tell them Pacific Continental gave you incorrect and misleading information.

If anyone thinks I have got this wrong then please quote the evidence and source. If substantiated I will apologise most humbly and issue a correction.