Under the dress nothing

In the HdP's 1997 balance report , dated on April 20th 1998 as regard do the results of the GFT there was written: “It is to underline the increase of sales in the North-American market, to be attributed mainly to the Emanuel line sales“. At page 34 of the same report, in the paragraph “Management trend, meaningful events and perspectives of the 1998 fiscal year” it was pointed out: “The orders confirmed for the 1998 Spring/Summer season, at the light of the advance state of deliveries, make it possible to foresee a billing trend on line with the previous management..., the substantial confirmation of market quota... makes it possible to reasonably foresee a positive result for the 1998 fiscal year. In the “six-months” (dated September 25th) it is annotated: “The first six-months economic trend is remarkably influenced by the negative result of the Emanuel division”. “The division management, in contrast with the group's directives, has pursued a strategy mainly directed to expand quantities...in spite of the fact that the market had already shown in the course of the second six-months of last year signals of troubles “. But, in September the Board of Directors itself ingenuously asserts that the Emanuel Division management “in contrast with the directives of the Group has taken decisions bringing to a 60 billions negative result in the six-months “. If already “in the second six-months of 1997, the market had shown signals of difficulty “, having omitted in the report this information has been an unacceptable lapse.If in May “the responsible for the division “ has been replaced that means that on April 20th (date of the report), the 'flaw' was already known and this fact make more serious, since evidently deliberate, the omission of information. So it is dutiful that the HdP communicates who represents the group leader at the GFT's board of directors, and which activity he carries out inside it; the deepening level concerning the management trend the GFT's board of directors carries out; controls put into effect by the group leader over a controlled company where even the Responsible of a division (third of fourth hierarchical and operative level) can allow himself to take and put into action important decisions “contrasting the Group directives “. In these days, following the negative results issued by the HdP, the Ferragamo group (owner of the Parisian maison “Emanuel Ungaro”) will break the relationship and will revoke the licence to HdP of the Emanuel line. In these days it seems that it will be cancelled also the licence of the “Hands woman” collection applied for by Armani, that has contribute to the 1998 GFT's billing with 190 billions. In the GFT it seems they are become aware (it was the time) of superimposing “brands” and “trademarks”. Maurizio Romiti does not fail to underline the programming and control role of the group leader over the controlled companies. His seem more theoretical propositions that concrete managing acts. Borrowing a famous title it could be said:...”under the dress nothing “...

Monte dei Paschi di Siena- Banca Agricola Mantovana

Strangelove

The match is over: the MPS won. More than the 96% of shares have been given to the Opa. In favour of the transformation into a joint-stock company has voted the 58% of partners. It will be possible to conclude that the 58% of the partners own the e 96% of the Capital but it would be a wrong evaluation since at least the 90% of the Capital is owned by the numerical minority of the shares-holders.It has been asserted that the 'climbing' of the MPS to the BAM has marked an important moment since it has been made a breach in the 'impermeability' of the 'populars', into their vulnerability. Perhaps! The “Strangelove” between MPS and BAM ended as it were expected. The support (other but discrete) the BAM's board of directors has deserved to the Opa, has been a determining support to the pressure (over singles and structures) put into act by the MPS. Fabrizi (MPS's president) drinking to the victory has underlined that it was “ an operation proving all the out of common force of the MPS bank, a force founded over professionalism, determination and courage “. Substantially the MPS - to make it - has put in field a “war machine “ engaging the General Manager Gronchi personally. At the shareholders meeting it has been asserted that a very high number of partners have been contacted by telephone by the MPS. Somebody wonders how the MPS could have names, second names, directions and telephone numbers and if that constituted a privacy violation. Rhetoric question to which no answer has been given! Some “of the no” pointed out that the so called 'congruous' price, offered by the MPS, corresponds to the 2,1 of the content in terms of net assets of the BAM share, while all the transactions regarding bank's title have reached valorisations more than three times their value (showing peaks of more than 5 ).Other “of the no “ has asserted that the BAM's President owns 600.000 shares of the Bank and that the Mercegaglia owns millions of them, the favour they have supported the Opa is justified at all since their personal interest but not in the BAM's interest. An advocate demanded the directors to confirm they had not assets relationship placing them in a conflict of interests situation. Substantially the “no” supporters have developed articulated items beside the unfailing 'affection motions', about the role of the Bank in the province of Mantua, the loyalty of the partners etc. etc. At the shareholders meeting, obviously, it alternated also many supporters “of the yes.” Their thesis spaced from globalization to the mergers inevitability, from the “falls” of money constituted by the three thousand billions of the Opa to the warranties quoted in the agreement protocols about the future of the BAM, of its staff, his clients and the town. In conclusion a public bank where accounts does not shine as those of other equal size banks, has “conquered “ and “purchased “ a private Bank that “stands well the comparison” with alike realities. About the public bank topic, Fabrizi has pointed out that “we are ready to enter the stock exchange and place the 28% of our shares on market“. Fabrizi is a Tuscan and he has, as all Tuscans, a remarkable dose of sense of humour: how to explain otherwise how he can deem as “privatized “ a Bank where the 'public' still keeps the 72%?

Leadership Medica^®