Storm Financial Group

[Solly]

"ASIC probes Storm Financial collapse"

"THE Australian Securities & Investments Commission's investigation into the collapse of Storm Financial includes Macquarie Group and Challenger, along with the two key banks, Commonwealth Bank of Australia and Bank of Queensland.

".......suggests ASIC is pushing...to ensure full restitution for those wrongfully hurt by the affair."

"CBA ...has suspended the North Queensland area manager in charge of the Townsville branch."

More by Martin Collins & John Durie in The Australian is here;

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25724805-5013408,00.html

 

[Solly]

"Waging the war of independence"

"Law firm Slater & Gordon says financial institutions must shoulder a lot of the blame for the Storm Financial mess, and the deeper the authorities dig, the worse these organisations look."

More in AFR - Asset magazine by Leng Yeow.

 

[Farencue]

Gee isnt it coincidental that after 100 odd pages - quite a few of them discussing SICAG up pops Big Max the media director.
Is your name and position listed on the website Big Max for public record?

Wake up and smell the coffee yourself Big Max (looking at this kind of language in one of your first posts I doubt you are a media professional - I really do)
This is an internet forum where people who are interested in stocks, property and yes even the failure of the Storm model have gathered to discuss it.

Yet so many apologists have turned up here once posters started asking why there is no peep of Manny's SCAM, now why would that be Big Max? What directed you to this forum to defend SICAG when a media professional should know that anonymous internet forums dont really cut it as a reputable source of anything? Where were all the SICAG people in the opening pages of this thread?

We can discuss our suspicions of SICAG as members of the public looking from the outside in - and Big Max because you are the media director I will give you a tip: SICAG looks very very suss and the disclaimer about EC serves to make SICAG look even more suss. Have you smelt the coffee yet - do you understand what we are saying?

Do you understand that some us believe that SICAG is a huge conflict of interest? Do you understand that some of us feel that the gullible, financially ignorant people who were scammed by Storm are merely being set up to be reloaded by the scummy financial advisers who got them into this mess in the first place, that these scummy financial advisers have no business advocating for their victims until they are scrutinised?

A big bunch of bully boys who have been busted and called for what they really are - greedy, self interested "financial advisers" - are now collectively waving a big stick to get people who have their own brains (ie non Storm/non SICAG posters here) to fall into line with their personal agenda? Sorry Big Max, but some of us believe that it was people like O'Brien and Jelich, Cassimatis et al who actually got these people into the mess they find themselves in the first instance
Blind Freddie can see that it could be for these same greedy, self interested financial advisers' personal agendas that they stick together and point the finger at the banks.

I read Ron Jelich's submission to parliament, I didnt see where he admitted his own part in "stomifying" the wood ducks or how much he personally gained out of what he was doing. In fact Ron Jelich's submission seemed to be about how he and EC weren't really on speaking terms for a time and about the relationship between Storm and the banks.
Now my reading comprehension could be under par so do you care to point out where Ron Jelich publicly disclosed exactly what his part in all this was Big Max, you know the nitty gritty details?

So, Big Max, if you are a media professional perhaps you should take on board that some members of the public think that your media direction is rather odd.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

It is incumbent on SICAG to come clean about any conflicts the higherups have in this affair.

It is incumbent that they discuss Emmanuel Cassimatis role in this affair.

I would guess that most Stormers now come to this forum rather than SICAG for information.

Googling "Storm Financial" put ASF 5th on the list, I didn't see any mention of SICAG.

There have been over 200,000 visitors to this thread.

That is because viewers of posts can be assured of fearless correct and true comment.

SICAG, get the old Storm advisors out in the open.

Give us a money spider paragraph on Manny.

gg

 

[Big Max]

Gee isnt it coincidental that after 100 odd pages - quite a few of them discussing SICAG up pops Big Max the media director.
Is your name and position listed on the website Big Max for public record?

Wake up and smell the coffee yourself Big Max (looking at this kind of language in one of your first posts I doubt you are a media professional - I really do)
This is an internet forum where people who are interested in stocks, property and yes even the failure of the Storm model have gathered to discuss it.

Yet so many apologists have turned up here once posters started asking why there is no peep of Manny's SCAM, now why would that be Big Max? What directed you to this forum to defend SICAG when a media professional should know that anonymous internet forums dont really cut it as a reputable source of anything? Where were all the SICAG people in the opening pages of this thread?

We can discuss our suspicions of SICAG as members of the public looking from the outside in - and Big Max because you are the media director I will give you a tip: SICAG looks very very suss and the disclaimer about EC serves to make SICAG look even more suss. Have you smelt the coffee yet - do you understand what we are saying?

Do you understand that some us believe that SICAG is a huge conflict of interest? Do you understand that some of us feel that the gullible, financially ignorant people who were scammed by Storm are merely being set up to be reloaded by the scummy financial advisers who got them into this mess in the first place, that these scummy financial advisers have no business advocating for their victims until they are scrutinised?

A big bunch of bully boys who have been busted and called for what they really are - greedy, self interested "financial advisers" - are now collectively waving a big stick to get people who have their own brains (ie non Storm/non SICAG posters here) to fall into line with their personal agenda? Sorry Big Max, but some of us believe that it was people like O'Brien and Jelich, Cassimatis et al who actually got these people into the mess they find themselves in the first instance
Blind Freddie can see that it could be for these same greedy, self interested financial advisers' personal agendas that they stick together and point the finger at the banks.

I read Ron Jelich's submission to parliament, I didnt see where he admitted his own part in "stomifying" the wood ducks or how much he personally gained out of what he was doing. In fact Ron Jelich's submission seemed to be about how he and EC weren't really on speaking terms for a time and about the relationship between Storm and the banks.
Now my reading comprehension could be under par so do you care to point out where Ron Jelich publicly disclosed exactly what his part in all this was Big Max, you know the nitty gritty details?

So, Big Max, if you are a media professional perhaps you should take on board that some members of the public think that your media direction is rather odd.

Farencue, Garpal Gumnut.
Yes, I am listed on the website. You ask: Where was SICAG during the early days of this forum? Simple. No time for musing back then. We were busy doing practical and necessary tasks such as organising and conducting information road shows (Margate, Mackay, Rocky, Townsville and Cairns), providing much-needed support for distressed and sometimes suicidal Storm victims, answering thousands of phone and email messages, driving a media campaign that has been critical in bringing the CBA (and soon the other banks) to the negotiating table . . . do you want me to go on? As for Jelich, O'Brien and Cassimatis - pick up the phone and ask THEM the questions you want answers. Cassimatis won't take your calls, but I can assure you Jelich and O'Brien will. Both are on the record as ready to accept whatever penalty comes their way for their part in the Stormification process.

 

[maccka]

Apologies for the length of this post. There are lots of quotes to support my points.

I would guess that most Stormers now come to this forum rather than SICAG for information.

Opinion only not fact. There is no evidence that can either support or disprove this statement. The statement is not one of definitive fact which is why the addition of the words "I would guess" are important. People reading it need to read the whole sentence (not just the end) to see the opinion and then try to make a judgement as to how much value they should place on your statements. (This is true of any statement one reads anywhere.)

There have been over 200,000 visitors to this thread.

That does not equate to 200000 individual people. It is views. Since one person can view the thread more than once in a day it doesn't necessarily mean it is being viewed by hundreds of thousands of people.

That is because viewers of posts can be assured of fearless correct and true comment.

Sorry GG but that is not correct. If it was true, it would mean that all of the information on the thread is true and correct. That cannot possibly be given the wide variety of opinions that are exhibited on the thread.

There are posts on this thread are correct and there are others which are hugely inaccurate and full of comments which are so inaccurate that they border on defamation and libel. There are a number of posts here which would be viewed dimly by legal processes and it could be argued, appear to breach ASF Terms and Conditions (esp Dot point 3).

There are certainly many many comments that are hurtful and nasty and probably written to provoke others. Those posts probably breech the ASF forum Code of Conduct (particularly rule 2.)

There are some posts that are supportive and seek to help people learn from their experiences and the experiences others have had. This is one of the reasons the thread is valuable (when you discard the stuff that is of no value.)

It depends on why you come to this forum as to which posts you will value and which you will not. I would suggest that posts such as Solly's research on current media are considered very valuable to most people. I can happily state that they are one of the main reasons I keep coming back - despite the trashing that some members of this forum seem to love to dish out regularly. (That and the fact that I have pretty thick skin! )

Googling "Storm Financial" put ASF 5th on the list, I didn't see any mention of SICAG.

That is very easy to explain. SICAG and Storm Financial are not the same. It is like googling "banana" and expecting to see an audio file of a whale song appear. They aren't the same thing. Do a better google search and you will find them eg "Storm action group" comes up with pages of links where at least the first page is full of direct references that can be used to link to SICAG. Incidentally SICAG comes up as the 4th or 5th link (at this point in time.)

Gee isnt it coincidental that after 100 odd pages - quite a few of them discussing SICAG up pops Big Max the media director.
Is your name and position listed on the website Big Max for public record?

Yes it is. Have you looked?

What directed you to this forum to defend SICAG when a media professional should know that anonymous internet forums dont really cut it as a reputable source of anything?

I would guess that most Stormers now come to this forum rather than SICAG for information.
...
That is because viewers of posts can be assured of fearless correct and true comment.

So we can see here an example of the wide variety of views that I was discussing earlier on this thread. Farencue thinks the forum doesn't cut it as a reputable source however GG has been agitating for some time now to try to get someone from SICAG to talk here.

Where were all the SICAG people in the opening pages of this thread?

Are people only allowed to be involved if they were here at the start of the thread?

Your first post to this thread was 17th-March-2009, 02:50 PM. You weren't here then (at the start of the thread either). Mine was 24th-January-2009, 09:57 PM (I wasn't here at start either). If I was here before you does that make my right to communicate on the forum stronger than yours? Of course it does not.

The important point is that Big Max is here now.

Um, Big Max, first you suggest to Bunyip that he needs to get with it or something, then you suggest you agree with Ironhalo who has strongly supported what Bunyip said!

Either you don't know what you want to say or you're trying to have a foot in both camps.

Julia, There is another explanation (many actually). One of the most obvious ones is that people don't read posts properly and in detail and tend to read only the bits they want to see. Then when they process the information and comment about it they communicate misunderstanding and misinformation.

When you read the information again carefully, you will see that Big Max agrees with particular points that Ironhalo has made not with his (Ironhalo's) whole post.

Ironhalo has on a couple of occasions communicated that he sees good in some of the work that SICAG does. Bunyip has also expressed that view at least once.

Iron Halo, you are right on the money. the ASIC and Joint Parliamentary Inquiries will answer all these and many more questions. Bring it on!

Bunyip, when are you going to smell the coffee. SICAG has done a power of work - much of it behind the scenes - for its 1500+ members. To suggest that it is some sort of front to EC/JC has got to be a joke.

I agree with most of your comments, Iron Halo.

Well said Maccka. I can't knock SICAG's efforts in keeping Stormers sane and giving them some comfort and relief, I think they have a great thing going in terms of moral support.

I have no doubt that from a social perspective, SICAG have done a world of good for the Storm investors who rallied to their flag and trumpet calls. I will never take away from the fact that I am sure there are a number of Stormers who have taken solace in the group. If that saves them from doing something rash, then it has served its purpose.

Personally I think SICAG is a great idea and I'd certainly be a member myself if I was a Storm casualty. Even without being a Stormer, I'd go to a meeting if I lived anywhere near one of the venues.
I don't doubt you for a moment when you say SICAG has done a power of work behind the scenes for its members. Not only that, but it must be of immense value in providing moral support and a social network for a group of people who are clearly under a lot of emotional and financial stress.
But what SICAG needs to do to enhance its credibility ...

Julia, there is another explanation (many actually). One of the most obvious ones is that people don't read posts properly and in detail and tend to read only the bits they want to see. Then when they process the information and comment about it they communicate misunderstanding and misinformation.

In my opinion, this confused reading and processing happens often and is seen regularly on this thread. (I have been guilty of miscommunication myself when I gave Julia the impression that I was underplaying the role of the financial media.)

People need to read and post with care. Buyer beware applies in opinion forums like this one just as it does when dealing with finances.

People have asked questions about SICAG - questions that people obviously want answers to. Big Max has come to answer them. What I would ask people in this forum to accept is that once you get the answers you have sought (from the source) perhaps you might need to open yourselves to the possibility that there may be truth in what they say. Find other reputable sources and then evidence to use to verify the answers you have been given (as either as true or untrue).

If you find it to be untrue (with credible evidence) then find a credible way to expose the information for everyone (outside this forum) to see - perhaps write to the Parliamentary inquiry (I have seen submissions go up within a couple of hours of receipt in Canberra) or talk to financial media with a good reputation.

If you decide it to be true please stop trying to damage the reputation of a very hard working group of people doing it tough. It is not Australian or fair.

cheers
Maccka

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

That does not equate to 200000 individual people. It is views. Since one person can view the thread more than once in a day it doesn't necessarily mean it is being viewed by hundreds of thousands of people.




There are posts on this thread are correct and there are others which are hugely inaccurate and full of comments which are so inaccurate that they border on defamation and libel. There are a number of posts here which would be viewed dimly by legal processes and it could be argued, appear to breach ASF Terms and Conditions (esp Dot point 3).

That is very easy to explain. SICAG and Storm Financial are not the same. It is like googling "banana" and expecting to see an audio file of a whale song appear. They aren't the same thing. Do a better google search and you will find them eg "Storm action group" comes up with pages of links where at least the first page is full of direct references that can be used to link to SICAG. Incidentally SICAG comes up as the 4th or 5th link (at this point in time.)


People need to read and post with care. Buyer beware applies in opinion forums like this one just as it does when dealing with finances.

People have asked questions about SICAG - questions that people obviously want answers to. Big Max has come to answer them. What I would ask people in this forum to accept is that once you get the answers you have sought (from the source) perhaps you might need to open yourselves to the possibility that there may be truth in what they say. Find other reputable sources and then evidence to use to verify the answers you have been given (as either as true or untrue).

Mate,

ASF has had about 1000 views to this thread in the last 24 hours.

They were not all from Pasadena or Almaty. !!!! How many has SICAG had in the past 24 hours, repeat or single views.

Veiled threats also mate, have the opposite effect on ASF, ask Octivar, or some of the other financial abortions that have occurred recently in Australia

You still refuse on your site to say boo about Manny, and you still have ex Storm people inside the tent without full disclosure.

That is what is the problem, and one which you and any of the other SICAG posters on ASF will not answer.

So in Summary

MANNY
THE TENT

gg

 

[Kez180]

Mate,

ASF has had about 1000 views to this thread in the last 24 hours.

They were not all from Pasadena or Almaty. !!!! How many has SICAG had in the past 24 hours, repeat or single views.

Veiled threats also mate, have the opposite effect on ASF, ask Octivar, or some of the other financial abortions that have occurred recently in Australia

You still refuse on your site to say boo about Manny, and you still have ex Storm people inside the tent without full disclosure.

That is what is the problem, and one which you and any of the other SICAG posters on ASF will not answer.

So in Summary

MANNY
THE TENT

gg

Aside from the 'my site is better than yours' epenis wars, I completely agree with gg.

SICAG should have a public opinion of EC, JC and Storm, be it good, bad or ugly so that the people looking to them for support can better understand the inherent conflicts of interest that must be present.

I also think that if any ex stormers want to come out and right what they have done they should be very clear what they have done, and what connections with storm they have had.

It also annoys the **** out of me when people say stuff like,'it will happen when the time is right' 'it is all going on behind the scenes'...

It was the same mumbo jumbo that conned many storm clients into massive leverage...

 

[maccka]

Mate,

ASF has had about 1000 views to this thread in the last 24 hours.

That's great. (BTW - the term "Mate" doesn't bother me at all. I see it as a sign of friendship. Will be pleased to know that you do also.)

They were not all from Pasadena or Almaty. !!!! How many has SICAG had in the past 24 hours, repeat or single views.

I have no idea. I am not privy to that information.

Veiled threats also mate, have the opposite effect on ASF, ask Octivar, or some of the other financial abortions that have occurred recently in Australia

Threats? What threats have I made? Veiled or otherwise?

You still refuse on your site to say boo about Manny, and you still have ex Storm people inside the tent without full disclosure.

That is what is the problem, and one which you and any of the other SICAG posters on ASF will not answer.

I don't answer on this question as I have no credible information to do so with. Not only that but I don't have any authorisation either as I am only a member of the organisation not a spokesperson. I would not be so presumptuous as to believe that I can speak authoritively for a group without the right to do so. (I suspect most of the other known SICAG members that post to this site don't have answers or authorisation either and that is probably why they don't answer.)

As for full disclosure I believe that you got your answer on their assistance to SICAG from Big Max yesterday. The advisors that he mentioned yesterday aren't committee members and they are giving valuable assistance on the inside dealings of SF.

Keep asking questions. Ask them all over the place. Be persistent. Send emails, post messages on forums such as these, make phone calls, visit people personally, make submissions to the Parliamentary inquiry, go to the public hearings, read anything of a credible nature you can get your hands/computers on.

People need to move beyond one or two places/spaces/forums and put active energy into uncovering the truth as there is very little chance that the answers will just come to us because we "will" it or are arrogant enough to believe that they should come to us where we happen to be asking the question.

If you really are interested in finding out the truth about what really happened you will do what it takes and not limit yourself to one place/space to ask your questions. Won't you? I know I do and I'm not a SF investor.

You may get the answers you want on this forum or you may get them in another forum (eg Parliamentary Inquiry, reputable newspaper, SICAG website etc).

Personally I think that it really doesn't matter who asks the questions or even who gets to the bottom of the truth so long as the information (all of it) comes out and people discover what happened and who (if it was a person/organisation) was responsible for each little bit that contributed to this disaster.

cheers
Maccka

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

That's great.

I don't answer on this question as I have no credible information to do so with. Not only that but I don't have any authorisation either as I am only a member of the organisation not a spokesperson. I would not be so presumptuous as to believe that I can speak authoritively for a group without the right to do so. (I suspect most of the other known SICAG members that post to this site don't have answers or authorisation either and that is probably why they don't answer.)


Maccka

Go to Sollys posts.

He has all the submissions to the Inquiry about Storm and Manny and the others.

Then publish them on SICAG.

The poor Stormers who rely just on SICAG are not being made aware of these.

They are safe to publish as they are parliamentary privelige.

Again I say to you publish and disclose

MANNY
THE TENT

gg

 

[maccka]

SICAG should have a public opinion of EC, JC and Storm, be it good, bad or ugly so that the people looking to them for support can better understand the inherent conflicts of interest that must be present.

I'm guessing that SICAG will be asked for their opinion when they give evidence to the Parliamentary Inquiry. I look forward to the answer. I also look forward to the evidence the EC and JC give as well as former staff (including advisors). I think that good questions and answers will come from everyone involved.

I would ask people to stop and think about how the general public and media react when people give an opinion and then change their mind when full evidence comes out later. With headlines such as "backflip" and "embarrassing change of position" regularly doing damage, who does it serve to give an opinion before the facts are all in?

I also think that if any ex stormers want to come out and right what they have done they should be very clear what they have done, and what connections with storm they have had.

I agree. I think you will find that process is occurring.

It also annoys the **** out of me when people say stuff like,'it will happen when the time is right' 'it is all going on behind the scenes'...

It was the same mumbo jumbo that conned many storm clients into massive leverage...

I can see how on one level you might believe that. The reality in most cases just because you don't see it doesn't mean that it isn't happening.

I couldn't see the wind in Cyclone Larry but I certainly saw its effects as it destroyed the houses in my street. I find it hard to see box jellyfish also but I certainly feel their effects when they sting me behind the scenes.

Kez180, everyone on this forum has different positions on this whole situation but I would like to think that we all want the same ultimate outcome - to see the truth (all of it) come out.

cheers
Maccka

 

[maccka]

Go to Sollys posts.

He has all the submissions to the Inquiry about Storm and Manny and the others.

Then publish them on SICAG.

The poor Stormers who rely just on SICAG are not being made aware of these.

They are safe to publish as they are parliamentary privelige.

Again I say to you publish and disclose

MANNY
THE TENT

gg

Why publish what is already published on a far more authoritative site (the parliamentary site http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sublist.htm) than the SICAG one? That would be a waste of bandwidth. Even though they are protected by Parliamentary Privilege.

I think you will find that people who are choosing the rely only on SICAG are very aware of these submissions. Remember there is more to the SICAG communication channels than the home website.

GG - You can tell me to publish and disclose as much as you like but it can't make the change you want as I do not have that power. I am one person - one member only. Surely you don't believe that I am posting anonymously as Manny do you? You don't think that I am a SICAG committee member do you? It would be a waste of time and energy if you thought either of those things as I am not.

cheers
Maccka

 

[Ironhalo]

We can coat **** in sugar all we like on this thread, and pontificate on who is doing good for whom etc etc.

The nuts and the bolts of it is, is that SICAG, for a group that has assisted the Stormers socially and morally, has an OBLIGATION to state what their stance is on Emmanuel Cassimatis and the Storm Empire. To date, NO ONE has done that, and in fact they have diverted ALL attention/blame onto the banks.

I hate the banks as much as the next person, but I find it very hard to swallow that there are ex-Storm advisors jumping on the SICAG bandwagon.

Where were all of these advisors over Nov 08 when the world was going to hell in a handbasket and people were being placated with Storm secretaries saying 'such and such will call you back, but don't worry' while their fortunes disappeared down the tube because Manny was trying to ride it out and keep his profits rolling in instead of doing what was asked, and selling everyone into cash?

Where was Ron Jelich and Andrew O'Brien in Redcliffe when 3 members of my family who paid them a shedload of money for financial advice got pretty much taken to the cleaners because none of them would stand up and do their job, or answer a phone?

Where were the advisors when Manny cleaned out the Storm coffers and paid himself and Julie a $2 million bonus for failing? That could have saved at least 10-12 families from being homeless, not to mention where the rest of the money went....(*cough* offshore *cough*)

Don't talk to me of the 'crusade' SICAG is running on the banks. And don't tell me that members of the SICAG chair aren't fraternising with the Cassimatisses out of hours either. I commend SICAG in their zeal, but you need to start spreading the blame to EC....blame that is rightfully deserved. A cursory glance at website logs shows some of the key SICAG members went on overseas jaunts with Storm, and were well involved with EC/JC on a social level. Therefore, SICAG is biased by default. It might not be true, but perception is the reality.

When I see articles appearing on SICAG attributing partial/half/majority blame to EC/JC and their greed and disclosing the links of key members to Storm, maybe then I might actually recommend that my family joins it. Until then (and I hate to use such a spiteful anaolgy, but I feel it's poignant), it'd be like the Japanese building war memorials for POWs six months after the war....the efforts are appreciated, but they still leave a very sour taste in one's mouth.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Why publish what is already published on a far more authoritative site (the parliamentary site http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sublist.htm) than the SICAG one? That would be a waste of bandwidth. Even though they are protected by Parliamentary Privilege.

I think you will find that people who are choosing the rely only on SICAG are very aware of these submissions. Remember there is more to the SICAG communication channels than the home website.

GG - You can tell me to publish and disclose as much as you like but it can't make the change you want as I do not have that power. I am one person - one member only. Surely you don't believe that I am posting anonymously as Manny do you? You don't think that I am a SICAG committee member do you? It would be a waste of time and energy if you thought either of those things as I am not.

cheers

Maccka

Mate,

I would bet London to a brick, that SICAG would have a printout of each and every post on this thread at their daily meetings, as would every main stream journalist with an interest in Storm.

If they didn't then they would be a real bunch of amateurs.

I just find it amazing the spin they put on their website and the advisors they have in the tent.

I know they are amateurs and the website is not the best I've ever visited, in fact its a pretty poor effort, but they leave the impression that Manny is a NO GO zone for them.

This affects peoples perceptions of them.

And it is now out that they are being advised by ex Storm advisors who possibly were parties to advising victims to invest in Storm.

Its not brain science mate.

MANNY
THE TENT

gg

 

[Julia]

I've just had a look at the SICAG website for the first time. Might have missed it, but I couldn't see any reference at all to the bad advice from Storm, just lots about the big bad banks.
Seems less than realistic.

 

[maccka]

Mate,

I would bet London to a brick, that SICAG would have a printout of each and every post on this thread at their daily meetings, as would every main stream journalist with an interest in Storm.

If they didn't then they would be a real bunch of amateurs.

You can bet they are learning fast.

I know they are amateurs and the website is not the best I've ever visited, in fact its a pretty poor effort, but they leave the impression that Manny is a NO GO zone for them.

I know what will come when I write this and so I will put my flame suit on now...

GG (and others) while that is your perception (which is your right to hold) and seems incredibly obvious to you that it is the only way it can be seen, it does not actually mean that it is the way that it is seen by other people. Other people (with as much intellect as you - or more - or less) may and do see the disclaimers and other information as reasonable and cautious given that not all the information is out yet.

This affects peoples perceptions of them.

GG - You are correct and one of the dangers with perceptions is that for some people perceptions equal reality.

And it is now out that they are being advised by ex Storm advisors who possibly were parties to advising victims to invest in Storm.

Its not brain science mate.

SICAG has made no secret of its connections with Ron Jelich and Andrew O'Brien (Noel's son) - they are "friends of SICAG" and are doing their best to redress the insufferable damage done to their former clients. Ron is on the public record as standing ready to accept whatever blame and penalties are sheeted home to him as a key member of the Storm Financial group. Andrew and Ron have willingly shared their inside knowledge of the Storm organisation with SICAG, ASIC, the Joint Parliamentary Inquiry and have also offered their services to Slater & Gordon to help effect a just outcome for their former clients.

Ron Jelich and Andrew O'Brien are sharing information with SICAG. That doesn't mean advising. And from my point of view, just because some one gives advice doesn't mean that the person being given the advice has to take it. You can bet London to a brick that this is a lesson the SICAG committee learned the hard way.

cheers
Maccka

 

[Ironhalo]

There are posts on this thread are correct and there are others which are hugely inaccurate and full of comments which are so inaccurate that they border on defamation and libel. There are a number of posts here which would be viewed dimly by legal processes and it could be argued, appear to breach ASF Terms and Conditions (esp Dot point 3).

Well I suppose that it is only fair and decent that SOMEONE goes to Court over all this.

Justice and all right?

 

[maccka]

Well I suppose that it is only fair and decent that SOMEONE goes to Court over all this.

Justice and all right?

Ah Ok - This might be what GG thought were threats. They weren't. My comment was meant to point out the people need to be careful what they post.

Yep - hopefully Justice will be brought down. I suspect it is more likely to be over the legal issues behind all of this rather than a few indiscreet posts on an internet forum.

Cheers
Maccka

 

[Ironhalo]

Too true mate.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your posts, it's good to see some level headed responses and some honest banter.

Makes this thread entertaining at any rate.

 

[DocK]

Just as a matter of interest Maccka, could you tell us a little of the general split of opinions amongst SICAG members? At the social gatherings I assume people would share "war stories" and compare who was told what, when. Do the majority of SICAG members still think Manny had their best interests at heart, or do the majority now blame him at least partially for their losses? Or is there an unspoken rule that to openly question the "model" would be inappropriate, at least in the presence of group heirarchy?

I think it is unrealistic to expect the "group" as a whole to share one point of view, as there will be those who will never be prepared to hear any criticism of Manny and Julie, but I'm wondering if those with contrary views feel free to voice them?

If so, and all members are aware that they don't all necessarily agree, I don't see a problem with an "every man in it for themselves" approach. Nothing to stop any member so inclined going after Manny (and ex-staff) outside of SICAG - or perhaps even forming an off-shoot once they're done with the banks. Transparancy is the key - and is what was missing with Storm all along. If there is transparency about the different motives at work within SICAG, then nobody is being "used" to further someone else's agenda and all is well

My