Titoli da seguire

A questo proposito vorrei porre l'attenzione sulle banche popolari italiane che come accennava anche F&M sembrano ora improvvisamente meno proteggibili da possibili future scalate dato che la UE sta affilando le armi per renderele simili alle spa. dopo una prima fiammata nazionalistica del sempreverde LA MALFA che sembrava il DONCHISCIOTTE della situazione ora la ns. classe politica da destra a sinistra potrebbe vedere in questa trasformazione "europea" una sorta si beneficio sia di immagine (sempre più sbiadita) sia di "vaini" come dicono a PISA. Quindi un bel portafoglino di popolari?????

Quello che l'^OCA#^ toglie la ^Vicuron#^ Pharma restituisce oggi grazie all'OPA appena annunciata di Pfizer che è così gentile da pagarla un +75% rispetto al prezzo di mercato corrente (un balzo da 13 a 23 euro), non male no ? Questo è veramente l'anno delle acquisizione e fusioni. I tassi di interesse dono bassi, il credito abbondante, le aziende gonfie di cassa e con margini di profitto ai livelli massimi, ma con poche prospettive di crescita interna. Per cui quello che fanno per crescere è andarsi a comprare altre aziende. Anche in questo senso è meglio avere parecchi titoli in portafoglio medio-piccoli (in settori in consolidamento) perchè sono le grandi che vanno a comprare (con le eccezioni italiane tipo Unipol e Popolare Lodi che vogliono comprare Antonveneta senza che sia chiaro se hanno i soldi)

e questi erano i conti economici di OCA è evidente che per essere scesa da 40 a 4 dollari con conti economici del genere c'erano dei pasticci contabili, questa era la spiegazione sia dello "sconto" che del fatto che il 40% delle azioni erano a prestito per i ribassisti, ma succede che titoli che sembrano avviati alla bancarotta come K-Mart o Delta o PHSY o Calpine poi dopo aver perso il 90% rimbalzino violentemente

Come si può vedere qui sotto nei post precedenti che abbiamo copiato il giorno che OCA ha annunciato di avere "accounting errors", il 7 giugno, almeno sei dei maggiori studi legali americani tra cui il famoso Lerach hanno annunciato azioni collettive di risarcimento civile contro il management. (chi vuole invia una mail per aderire, non costa niente e ogni tanto ti informano di cosa fanno) (per la cronaca questo mese nel caso Enron le cause collettive di risarcimento civile contro Citigroup hanno vinto 2 miliardi di dollari per cui l'appetito è elevato al momento) Guardando il FORM 8-K June 7, 2005 (May 31, 2005) che OCA ha riportato alla SEC emerge che non sono in grado di fornire il bilancio 2004 entro i 120 giorni indispensabili per cui rischiano il de-listing e le banche hanno limitato a 90 milioni la linea di credito esistente per questo motivo. Con la legge Sarban Hoxley un CEO che firmi un bilancio in cui ci sono errori contabili rischia la galera e qui ci sono da mesi rumor di errori sulle fatture per cui questo non sarebbe di per sè la fine della società OCA già da mesi era nei guai, costava 6-8 volte gli utili quando i concorrenti nel settore della gestione degli studi dentistici costano dai 20 ai 30 volte gli utili Sul titolo ci sono da mesi i ribassisti, a fine marzo il 43% delle azioni erano vendute short e al momento il 50% probabilmente sono azioni short. Negli ultimi cinque giorni dopo il 7 giugno sono passate di mano circa 25 milioni di pezzi su un totale di 50 milioni di pezzi di flottante totale e non so bene cosa voglia dire, non capisco a chi siano passate di mano Il CEO Palmisano aveva messo il figlio Palmisano Junior come COO e poi lo hanno fatto dimettere un mese fa. Hanno tagliato l'aereo in affitto aziendale e Palmisano ha prestato 2 milioni alla società e per quello che vedo non hanno venduto azioni. Nel 2004 hanno aperto circa 40 uffici nuovi e questo gli costava sui 370mila l'uno per cui stavano espandendosi. Se si tratta di una frode, qualcosa di criminale in cui sono spariti i soldi allora i ribassisti hanno ragione anche ora di stare short fino a quando il titolo va a 25 centesimi Io avevo visto i numeri di bilancio 2003 (perchè appunto quello 2004 era in ritardo e questo lo si sapeva e spiegava l'accanimento contro la società e il fatto che costasse 1/4 delle altre) e non mi sembrava ci fossero cose strane. Il settore è uno di quelli che vanno (assistenza sanitaria) e guadagnava sempre: nel 1999 45 milioni, nel 2000 -2 mil, poi nel 2001 +61 mil, nel 2002 +58 mil, nel 2003 +39 milioni Diciamo che quando l'ho suggerita costava 4 dollari e rotti e guadagnava sul dollaro per azione, con pochi debiti, circa 110 milioni e mezzi propri di 490, quindi addirittura 8 dollari di libro per azione. Ad ogni modo quando i ribassisti sono short il 40% delle azioni a volte vuole dire che sanno loro meglio come stanno le cose

HARTFORD, Conn., June 7 /PRNewswire/ -- The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of OCA, Inc. (NYSE: OCA) ("OCA") between May 18, 2004 and June 7, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that OCA, Bartholomew Palmisano, Sr., and David Verret violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that certain of defendants' public statements during the Class Period were materially false and misleading because (i) defendants engaged in improper accounting practices (OCA, which has not yet filed its annual report for 2004, has announced that it will restate its financial results for the first three quarters of 2004); (ii) certain journal entries in OCA's general ledger were improperly recorded; (iii) certain data provided to OCA's accounting firm had been improperly changed; and (iv) OCA could not ascertain its true financial condition because it lacked adequate internal controls. As a result, OCA's patient receivables and patient revenue from its affiliated orthodontic and pediatric dental practices were materially overstated. On June 7, 2005, OCA announced that (i) it was further delaying the filing of its annual report; (ii) it intends to restate its financial results for the first three quarters of 2004; and (iii) Chief Operating Officer Bartholomew Palmisano, Jr. had been placed on administrative leave. After this announcement, the stock plummeted over 38%. If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than August 8, 2005, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Although your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important decisions which could affect the overall recovery for class members, including decisions concerning settlement. The securities laws require the Court to consider the class member(s) with the largest financial interest as presumptively the most adequate lead plaintiff(s). For more information about the case, its claims, and your rights, please contact Schatz & Nobel toll-free at (800) 797-5499, or by e-mail at sn06106@aol.com. To view a copy of the Complaint initiating the class action, which was not filed by Schatz & Nobel, or for more information about this case, class action cases in general, or Schatz & Nobel, please visit our website: http://www.snlaw.net.

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 7, 2005 Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") (http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/oca/) today announced that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of purchasers of OCA, Inc. ("OCA" or "the Company") (NYSE:OCA) common stock during the period between May 18, 2004 and June 7, 2005 (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Lerach Coughlin at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at wsl@lerachlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/OCA/. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges OCA and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company provides business services to orthodontic and pediatric dental practices in the United States. The company provides affiliated practices with a range of operational, purchasing, financial, marketing, administrative, and other business services, as well as capital and proprietary information systems. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued numerous positive statements and filed quarterly reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission which described the Company's financial performance. As alleged in the Complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (a) that defendants had engaged in improper accounting practices. OCA has now admitted that its prior financial reports are materially false and misleading as it announced that it is going to restate its results for the first three quarters of 2004 and potentially prior periods; (b) that certain journal entries in the Company's general ledger were improperly recorded; (c) that certain data provided to the Company's independent accounting firm had been improperly changed; (d) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial condition; and (e) that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the Company's patient receivables and patient revenue were materially overstated at all relevant times. On June 7, 2005, the Company shocked the market when it issued a press release announcing that it was further delaying the filing of its annual report, that it intended to restate its quarterly financial statements for 2004 and that it had placed the Company's Chief Operating Officer, Bartholomew E. Palmisano Jr., on administrative leave. Specifically, the Company admitted that, among other things, it had materially overstated its patient receivables and patient revenue for the first three quarters of 2004. Following this announcement, shares of the Company's stock fell $1.53 per share, or almost 38%, to close at $2.50 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of OCA common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Lerach Coughlin, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. Lerach Coughlin, a 150-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Houston, Philadelphia and Seattle, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations. Lerach Coughlin lawyers have been responsible for more than $20 billion in aggregate recoveries. The Lerach Coughlin Web site (http://www.lerachlaw.com) has more information about the firm. CONTACT: Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP William Lerach/Samuel H. Rudman/David A. Rosenfeld, 800-449-4900 wsl@lerachlaw.com

Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. Announces Class Action Lawsuit Against OCA, Inc. -- OCA PHILADELPHIA, PA -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 06/08/05 -- Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. announces that a securities class action has been commenced on behalf of shareholders who acquired OCA, Inc. (NYSE: OCA) securities between May 18, 2004, and June 7, 2005, inclusive (the Class Period). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, against the company and certain key officers and directors. The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased the stock listed above during the class period, you have certain rights. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice. If you were a purchaser of a stock listed above during the period indicated and want to discuss your legal rights, you may e-mail or call Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. who will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your questions. Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. has extensive experience in the field of class action. You may contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esquire at 261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046, by e-mail at FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net or by calling (215) 886-1900.

DENVER, CO -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 06/08/05 -- The law firm of Dyer & Shuman, LLP today encouraged persons who purchased the common stock of OCA, Inc. (NYSE: OCA) between May 18, 2004 and June 7, 2005 ("Class Members") to contact Kip B. Shuman of Dyer & Shuman, LLP at 1-800-711-6483 or via email at KShuman@DyerShuman.com, or their counsel of choice, concerning their rights and interests as potential class members in the shareholder class action recently filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against OCA, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors. If you are a Class Member, you may have the legal right to petition the Court to be appointed a "lead plaintiff." Any such request must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before August 8, 2005. In the alternative, you may (i) do nothing at this time and remain an absent Class Member or (ii) file an individual lawsuit. In making your decision, you should take into account that the federal securities laws are specifically designed to encourage persons with large financial losses as a result of the alleged securities violations to seek lead plaintiff appointment. If you are a Class Member you may join the class action online at www.dyershuman.com. For a free consultation regarding your rights and interests with respect to the OCA, Inc. class action, you may contact Kip B. Shuman of Dyer & Shuman, LLP at 1-800-711-6483, or via email at KShuman@DyerShuman.com.

(N.B. Plaintiff dovrebbe significare attore) Ma chi come me ha seguito lo sciagurato consiglio che deve fare? Scrivere (e pagare) questi avvocati qui o cosa? ----- Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. The firm has considerable experience... If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than June 23, ... If you have any questions about the lawsuit or how you may be able to recover losses, please call or write: *T Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq. (gmfishbein@locklaw.com) Robert J. Linsmier (rjlinsmier@locklaw.com) Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 339-6900

Oggi lanciano una causa civile collettiva di risarcimento per conto di tutti gli azionisti --------------------------------- Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. Announces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit Against OCA, Inc. -- OCA *T MINNEAPOLIS, June 13, 2005 (PRIMEZONE) -- The law firm of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P. announces that it filed a class action lawsuit Friday, June 10 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Orthodontic Centers of America, Inc. ("OCA" or the "Company") (NYSE:OCA) from November 14, 2002 through March 18, 2003, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges OCA and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the complaint alleges that on May 17, 2001, OCA and OrthAlliance, Inc. ("OrthAlliance") announced that the parties had entered into a definitive merger agreement, whereby a wholly owned subsidiary of OCA would merge into OrthAlliance in a stock-for-stock transaction, with OrthAlliance becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of OCA. Following the May 17, 2001, announcement, a number of OrthAlliance's affiliated practices filed lawsuits against OrthAlliance and/or notified OrthAlliance that it was in default under their service, management service, and consulting agreements, in response to which OrthAlliance engaged outside counsel to represent its interests. The complaint also alleges that after the announcement of the completed merger on November 9, 2001, OCA set forth an integration plan with respect to OrthAlliance affiliated practices. The integration plan, however, was not proceeding "very, very well" as articulated by defendants. In fact, several other OrthAlliance affiliated practices, in addition to the practices that filed lawsuits, discontinued paying their services fees under their service, management service, and consulting agreements; while at the same time, OCA continued to recognize revenue it allegedly received from such fees. The complaint further alleges that the statements disseminated by defendants during the Class Period and with respect to the financial well-being of the Company were each materially false and misleading because OCA failed to disclose and indicate that the integration of OrthAlliance practices was not proceeding as had indicated by the defendants, which, in turn, caused the Company to experience less profit generation because (1) not only had some OrthAlliance practices sued but other OrthAlliance practices had discontinued paying their services fees; (2) because the Company continued to recognize revenue from the services from OrthAlliance practices that were in litigation and from those that had stopped paying their service fees; (3) because the defendants mischaracterized that only "some doctors" had stopped paying their service fees, which only created "a little noise" for the Company when in fact the magnitude of the problem, which OCA was required to report, was greater than reported; (4) because the Company was recognizing revenue in violation of the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); and (5) because the defendants were actively concealing these facts in order to manipulate the Company's earnings outlooks in order to maintain its favorable stock prices. The complaint additionally alleges that following the close of the markets on March 18, 2003, OCA issued a press release announcing its year-end earnings for 2002 wherein the Company reported that earnings and fee revenue were down from the previous year. The decline in fee revenue resulted from numerous OrthAlliance affiliated practices that discontinued paying fees required under their service, management service, and consulting agreements in 2002. Market reaction to these revelations was swift. Immediately following the announcement on March 19, 2003, shares of the Company fell $3.93, or 41 percent, to close at $5.64, from a closing price of $9.57 per share on March 18, 2003. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. The firm has considerable experience in prosecuting securities class actions, has extensive experience representing shareholders in class actions, and has successfully recovered millions of dollars for defrauded investors and shareholders. The reputation and expertise of the firm in shareholder and other class action litigation have been repeatedly recognized by courts, which have appointed the firm to major positions in complex multi-district and consolidated litigations. Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. has offices in Minneapolis and Washington, D.C. If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than June 23, 2003, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose. In order to serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements. If you have any questions about the lawsuit or how you may be able to recover losses, please call or write: *T Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq. (gmfishbein@locklaw.com) Robert J. Linsmier (rjlinsmier@locklaw.com) Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 339-6900

....ehhm allora l'OCA non è proprio morta!!!!!

Per riprendere il filo del discorso intrapreso più volte visto che comunque l'energia è e rimarrà ancora cara nonostante il rallentamento economico....volevo porre all'attenzione di GZ e degli altri operatori un articolino in ultima pagina su F&M di oggi relativo ai costi che devono sostenere i produttori di grano in relazione appunto agli alti costi della benzina o gasolio, non solo ma anche relativamente al costo dei pezzi di ricambio (metallo) delle lame delle trebbiatrici....DOMANDONA: Sarà il caso di comprare ora un pò di grano (non so future o certificates...non so quale sia lo strumento migliore) in previsione degli aumenti entro fine anno della materia prima?????

ERRATA CORRIGE...Occorrerebbe fare un punto della situazione dato il rallentamento dell'economia e nella prospettiva di un possibile blocco nell'aumento dei tassi da parte di Alan. Quindi scegliere titoli scorrelati dall'andamento dell'economia (come diceva GZ luce,gas,acqua,sigarette&saponette). Ma non disdegnerei il settore farmaceutico tradizionale, l'alimentare grande distribuzione, le banche e le assicurazioni. Quindi via dalle auto, telefonici e industriali in genere.

Aanche oggi l'indice cinese e indiano sono su quasi di un +1% a dispetto degli indici americani in perdita, quindi forse qualcosa c'è sotto. In sintesi penso che ci sia da comprare titoli cinesi in blocco per la prima volta. Per l'India in effetti ci sono alcune società tecnologiche quotate a NY liquide e trasparenti con management di tipo occidentale, ma in realtà l'India Fund o altri simili sono meglio perchè contengono anche società nel settore bancario o beni di consumo che sono quotate SOLO a Bombay Quindi qua se vuoi comprare le società indiane quotate in dollari e euro a NY o Londra ti devi limitare a quelle del software e invece mi sembra di capire che c'è più spazio in quelle che ofrono servizi e beni anche in India al pubblico indiano perchè costano molto meno. Queste però le compri solo indirettamente tramite fondi quotati. Per la Cina non vorrei ripetermi ma da quello che leggo sono più pericolose da scegliere le varie società cinesi quotate in America, sono più piccole, più recenti e hanno meno storia che consenta di misurare se ci sono pasticci. Da noi se ne è parlato poco ma una linea aerea indiana quotata in Asia da 3 miliardi di dollari è scomparsa di colpo un anno fa. In ogni caso le varie Utstarcom o anche la povera ^COMS#^ che deriva il suo potenziale da una patnership cinese sono tutte in fermento, anche la ^JOBS#^ e quelle che lei indica, può essere un idea comprarne cinque o sei per suddividere il rischio qui sul fondo perchè sono sui minimi degli ultimi due anni. Non è però comodo per tutti moltiplicare il numero di titoli, già ce ne sono molti di americani perchè essendo in buona parte società non del Dow Jones o S&P 100 per diversificare il rischio fraziono su 15-20 titoli Se poi vai su delle cinesi quotate a NY devi frazionare ancora di più e non a tutti risulta facile

Visto che comunque negli ETF albergano quasi tutti titoli che hanno gli ADR o come diavolo si chiamano a NY non sarebbe più costruttivo comprarsi direttamente un PETROCHINA o un CNOOC o ancora una CHINAMOBILE o CHINALIFE nel settore assicurativo????