Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Storm Financial Group

Jump to new
Solly said:
Harleyquin, did your Statement of Advice mention the margin loan?
Click to expand...
Solly there was so much in the S of A that I didn't understand and don't remember reading anything about a margin loan, that's not to say it's not in there, I'm sure it is. Have you seen Storms Statement of Advice - it is an onerous 100 page document full of financial jargon which has not been designed to be read by the ordinary person. I tried reading it and ending up giving up as I found my comprehension level wavering. I took it back to the advisor and said 'I cannot understand all this can you explain it to me in layman's terms.' He must have laughed all the way to the bank!!! I'm sure now that the 'devil was in the detail' and there was plenty of detail. I don't have our statement of advice it's with our solicitor so I can't check but I'm sure it would be there.

This Statement of Advice is another bone of contention for me they should be simpler, to the point and aimed at the people who are reading them ie those who are starting off on their first financial planning experience. My husband and I are both readers and yet we both found this 'so called' document hard to read as it was full of garbage and the important bits including the margin loan would no doubt have been in there somewhere.

I certainly accept the critiicism which has been aimed at storm, the directors have a lot to answer for and EC and JC have a lot of explaining to do and I believe that their advisors / salespeople need to be explain their part in this as well. They have all played a major part in this human tragedy. They have preyed on the financially naive and swindled them out of their life savings and it has been a major crime and should be treated as such.

Most ex clients, including us asked for a conservative approach and said that we didn't want anything risky. How many times I sat there and said 'are you sure this is safe' and he said 'yes the whole Australian economy would have to collapse before you even begin to run into trouble as we have buffers in place to protect your investment.' I'm sure that every client would have asked the same questions and we were all told the same polished answers. This is now comming out in the submissions. There are a lot of problems which are now blaringly obvious to all of us which at the beginning we were unaware of.

We had become very disillusioned with storms advice and the whole investment long before it crashed and wished that we had never done it, we were starting to see the light well before the crash but were assured that they knew what they were doing. Read the submissions and you will see just how many clients did ask to be cashed up, did voice their concerns we all did this was our money and our homes on the line. The advisors were still telling us at the end of December that we had nothing to worry about.

I spoke to our advisor on his last day at work. He was on the phone assuring me that we wouldn't lose our home and we would be ok at the same time as he was packing up his office to leave. He was lying through his teeth.

Have spoken to a client who invested two days before they went into administration and fees were taken out mid January after they went into administration. How legal is this?

Storm and the bank did have a close relationship until the very end and they have both combined their 'talents' to scam the financially uneducated of everything they owned. We all blame ourselves for not educating ourselves enough to know what to do and for trusting who we all assumed to be a genuine financial planner. OK we've all made that mistake but the price we are all paying for this mistake is far far too high, most of us have been not only been financially destroyed but emotionally as well and are now surviving one day at a time on anti depressants and sleeping tablets.

We can now see what many of the problems have been but it's a high price to pay for a genuine mistake. We all make mistakes in life but we are paying a huge price. No wonder ex stormies are angry and upset our lives and lifestyles have been destroyed and many now have to somehow survive on an old age pension and the possibility of paying off a mortgage loan even after selling the family home. With inflation there is no way they are going to be able to do this.
 
A rant.

In someways it is a pity that stormers cannot sue parliament. From my understanding those Statements of Advice are required under the FSR Act passed by parliament because of concerns that investors, such as stormers and others, were not receiving proper advice they could understand. Of course, the financial planning industry got a touch concerned that if the SoAs did not cover all aspects they could get sued. So the legal compliance fellas stepped in and look at what we/you got. It's all parliament's fault.

Actually, it's a total joke. You have self-interested industry and Government organisations putting forward a view that "only" 30% of investors seek the advice of financial planners and the fiance (the word should read "finance" but whatever) world is so complicated, the inference being Armageddon unless that 70% seek advice. No body has asked that 70% how many of them actually want financial advice.

Maybe a number of them, such as myself, stay away from complicated investment products because they are and I wish to keep things simple. It is not, in my view, very complicated to buy any of the shares listed on the stock exchange be it Telstra or BHP or Wesfarmers or indeed STW which tracks the top 200 companies, ie an index fund and way, way cheaper than any storm product.

It is complicated if I wished to buy unlisted managed funds or structured capital protected stuff or use CFD's or trade. At least it is complicated to me so I stay away from the darn things.

And now proposals to warn people that you could lose your home if you borrow to buy shares and margin loans are an awfully dangerous product and possibly we should be licensing investors and only allow this certain class of investor to put money into this product but not others.

Jesus. Whatever happened to freedom of choice? Of course, I forgot. With freedom of choice comes responsibility but it seems that aspect is not such a grand concept.

End of rant. Amen
 
Judd said:
And now proposals to warn people that you could lose your home if you borrow to buy shares and margin loans are an awfully dangerous product and possibly we should be licensing investors and only allow this certain class of investor to put money into this product but not others
Click to expand...

Yes, I saw this submission on APAC. With the actuary suits talking to the senate suits. They agree with ASIC that we need education and warnings for protection in our various investments (mine with the FMF).

No mention of bad people out there - no mention that knowledge doesn't prevent bad people doing bad things.

There is no aspect of our life on this earth whereby law and education actually stops bad people doing bad things. It's convenient to blame consumers because we were left to 'rot' by those we trusted.

If our police took the same view that we might be protected against robbery by knowing its illegal (for example), then we really would be doomed.

Even such a disclaimer 'you may lose your house' can be overcome as easily as a smoker overcomes the picture of a rotting lung in order to buy a packet of cigarettes.
 
Harleyquin, mate I'm not having a go at you here, but I just pulled out one of my SOA's from Storm (it is sitting in my filing cabinet in pergatory awaiting judgement on Judgement Day!) and I'm going to be very blunt.

Page 1 - Introduction letter telling us when the recommendation would expire.
Page 2 - Summary of Recommendations. This listed everything in layman's terms as to what the recommendation was.
Pages 5-6 - Existing Assets and Liabilities
Pages 8-12 - Asset Distribution
Pasge 13-20+ - Year by Year breakdown of expected asset growth

In our case, the second page read: 'We suggest that you increase the size of your capital base by borrowing $x from the (insert bank) and an additional $x from your existing margin loan with (insert hated bank).

The paragraph underneath this then showed us the total amount of debt we would have, and the distribution of this cash in the investment.

It also listed the fees at the bottom of the page. I also note that our individual adviser was entitled to 10% of what Storm took in fees (taken out of the 7% Storm was charging). Certainly there was a lot of motivation for these advisers to get people further into debt.

At the bottom of every single page was a box that read, 'We have read and UNDERSTOOD this page', with room for a signature from both of us.

Storm may have been a lot of things (and in hindsight, had I not been so 'hands off' with my investment I wouldn't have done it...even noting we were pretty happy with the relatively small amount of debt in our case), but their paperwork was legitimate, even if the advice/plan ultimately wasn't.

At no stage were you hoodwinked, coerced or forced to sign or proceed with anything. If you signed it and didn't understand it, then sadly (and I don't want to kick you when you are down mate, my family is in your same situation), but it is your fault to some degree as well. My adviser even offered for us to take it away for a second opinion/legal if we wanted to.

Looking at our 'plan', I realised very quickly that Storm was an unnecessary middle man who took a lot of money to do very little but offer us a nice coffee when we came in....I could have done the same thing with a few hours of phonecalls after work to a bank to establish it, and a Comsec account.

And as for you Ron Jelich, don't preach to us about seeking justice. You and your fellow advisers aren't going to slink out of this by rallying to the SICAG flag and participating in circle-jerks with your victi....I mean ex-clients. SICAG's reputation is sadly and unfarily lessened by allowing ex-Storm employe...I mean, leeches attached. Manny wasn't so bad when you Storm employees were having beers in the Bullivant's Redcliffe mansion, and patting yourselves on the back on your continued 7% pillage of your elderly clients, now was he?

Oh that's right the Bullivants got screwed by the Redcliffe branch too. Oops!
 
Ironhalo said:
Harleyquin, mate I'm not having a go at you here, but I just pulled out one of my SOA's from Storm (it is sitting in my filing cabinet in pergatory awaiting judgement on Judgement Day!) and I'm going to be very blunt.

Page 1 - Introduction letter telling us when the recommendation would expire.
Page 2 - Summary of Recommendations. This listed everything in layman's terms as to what the recommendation was.
Pages 5-6 - Existing Assets and Liabilities
Pages 8-12 - Asset Distribution
Pasge 13-20+ - Year by Year breakdown of expected asset growth

In our case, the second page read: 'We suggest that you increase the size of your capital base by borrowing $x from the (insert bank) and an additional $x from your existing margin loan with (insert hated bank).

The paragraph underneath this then showed us the total amount of debt we would have, and the distribution of this cash in the investment.

It also listed the fees at the bottom of the page. I also note that our individual adviser was entitled to 10% of what Storm took in fees (taken out of the 7% Storm was charging). Certainly there was a lot of motivation for these advisers to get people further into debt.

At the bottom of every single page was a box that read, 'We have read and UNDERSTOOD this page', with room for a signature from both of us.

Storm may have been a lot of things (and in hindsight, had I not been so 'hands off' with my investment I wouldn't have done it...even noting we were pretty happy with the relatively small amount of debt in our case), but their paperwork was legitimate, even if the advice/plan ultimately wasn't.

At no stage were you hoodwinked, coerced or forced to sign or proceed with anything. If you signed it and didn't understand it, then sadly (and I don't want to kick you when you are down mate, my family is in your same situation), but it is your fault to some degree as well. My adviser even offered for us to take it away for a second opinion/legal if we wanted to.

Looking at our 'plan', I realised very quickly that Storm was an unnecessary middle man who took a lot of money to do very little but offer us a nice coffee when we came in....I could have done the same thing with a few hours of phonecalls after work to a bank to establish it, and a Comsec account.

And as for you Ron Jelich, don't preach to us about seeking justice. You and your fellow advisers aren't going to slink out of this by rallying to the SICAG flag and participating in circle-jerks with your victi....I mean ex-clients. SICAG's reputation is sadly and unfarily lessened by allowing ex-Storm employe...I mean, leeches attached. Manny wasn't so bad when you Storm employees were having beers in the Bullivant's Redcliffe mansion, and patting yourselves on the back on your continued 7% pillage of your elderly clients, now was he?

Oh that's right the Bullivants got screwed by the Redcliffe branch too. Oops!
Click to expand...

Have to agree here. I've always been bemused at the number of ex-stormers who seemed to be unaware of their level of debt. Although my SOAs are very lengthy, they are also quite clear about what was proposed as far as new borrowings went, as well as the source of the proposed loan. I doubt it is possible to obtain a margin loan anywhere without having to sign something and the simplest of questions such as "what am I signing this for" would have let you know it was for a margin loan.

I'm eagerly waiting to hear what all the various enquiries will eventually uncover over the whole "whose responsibility was it to inform clients of margin calls" million-dollar question. All I know is that my margin loan was with Macquarie, and although I didn't receive a margin call, if I had I would have expected to be contacted by the bank involved as I am absolutely certain I never authorised Macquarie to deal with Storm or anyone else when it came to the relationship between them and I. As far as I was/am concerned, the loan may have been applied for at the advice of Storm, but they were never appointed to act as my agent when it came to dealings with the loan once in place. CGI may however have had different procedures in place - I guess we'll find out eventually.....
 
That's exactly right DocK. My biggest bugbear wasn't with Storm admittedly (it was in terms of them not selling me down when I asked them to, and my hatred for them iis exacerbated by the way they have screwed over my other family members), but with the fact that Colonial sold down my shares and paid out their margin loan without informing me, causing us to make unnecessary losses when there was a significant dam of money available in a seperate Colonial account to pull us out of margin call if need be.

What completely spins me out, is that this is the SAME margin loan that they approved and serviced us with barely a month prior.
 
I don't want to sound critical of the stormies that didn't know they had a margin loan but I cannot understand how you could bet your house, savings and future by not reading or understanding the SoA.

It seems to me that they were caught in some magic spell that blinded them to real risks that could occur. Being sold a dream that they could have Nirvana by following the mystical piper.
 
darkside said:
Max

Who are you trying to convince, us, you , "Money spiders" clearly you have a glowing testimony from a happy person,( fantastic) but are you out there trying to help people through a difficult time or sell a product.????

Lets get it in perspective, we are not the enemy, all people have done is offered views or advice, not expect you to gloat over a joyous post ..
Click to expand...

With friends like you . . . you know the old saying.

What product am I and/or SICAG selling old mate, apart from a pie comprising healthy lashings of support, solace, fellowship and, hopefully, redress?

Fiddling while Rome burns or ingratiating yourself with GG and other SICAG bashers serves no objective purpose. It's all about the victims.

Max (0419 782729)
 
Ironhalo said:
Max,

How many times do you want me to say it (in six different languages) that I applaud the work of SICAG? Have you not read my previous posts?

My biggest bug bear is that there are still people in SICAG who are EC sycophants who still adamantly believe that they were screwed by the big, bad evil banks (and don't get me wrong, a seperate level of hell is reserved for those involved at CBA/Colonial) but it's time to look at the whole picture.

You have repeatedly said 'well the banks were the only ones we could target really, so hence that was out strategy.' Wrong.

Now that we have the banks out of the way, how about we hold Manny/Julie over the barrel for their part in all this including:
1. Manny moaning about the banks, but then happily taking clients on bank subsidised jaunts around the world.
2. Taking millions of dollars as the company went under under dodgy pretenses (and signing a relative to the board of directors to do so), and
3. Why Storm was still signing on clients in Dec while insolvent.

I say it's time we turn on the advisers now as well, who were happily skimming percentage commissions off the top of investor step-investments as they drove their elderly clients just before Storm folded into financial ruin.

Guess there's no chance of that there with so many of them lurking in the SICAG membership/fan club eh? Re: Ron Jelich, Andrew O'Brien et al....I could go on?

I applaud what you've done, I just think some of the individuals who have suddenly 'seen the light' and who have aligned themselves with SICAG to be offensive to all five senses.
Click to expand...

Name the Manny sycophants on the SICAG committee pleeeeeeeze.
 
Harleyquin said:
We never asked to go into the stock market, we asked for financial advice. When we were told how much we could borrow as a home loan we voiced our concerns to storm and to others, we were told 'this is how financial planners invest today and it is tax effective.' We were paying so much PAYE tax that I was virtually working for nothing.

Once we agreed to this financial advice we knew we were taking on a loan for a little over half a million and we only found out about the margin loan, for another half a million, after the collapse and were horrified that we had a second loan. In hindsight we should have been aware of it but we weren't. We can certainly accept our share of the blame for that but we were never made aware by storm that we had a second loan. I thought we may have been the only one but since asking other stormies I have found out that this in fact was a common occurrence. I would have asked about margin loans if I'd known what one was, I had never heard of them. Storm may have assumed we knew, we didn't, and I believe that they deliberately down played the margin loan issue.

As far as the loan commitments were concerned we were told not to worry about the debt, not to worry about anything associated with the debt just leave it all up to storm and we did. The common thread running through all the submissions to the parliamentary inquiry tell us the same thing was told to everyone irrespective of where they lived so the advisors were well drilled by their boss. They appeared to be a very successful company who knew what they were doing. We asked our advisor what qualifications he had, he was well qualified. I think I've said this before but Storm were members of the FPA and ASIC approved. The FPA and ASIC obviously supported storms strategy or both of them would have done something about it long before this collapse. What else do you ask?

I thought I had done enough research before investing with these people. I asked storm investors who had been with storm for some time, saw a lot of extremely clever people at the storm seminars they were very happy with their investment and recommended storm. I know other stormies who asked accountants and others who were recommended to storm by their banks. I was told that accountants couldn't give financial advice - is this right? Who would you have gone to, to find out more and what other research would you advise that we should have done?

I asked another financial planner after the collapse if we should have asked a lawyer and he said 'why there was nothing legally wrong with their paperwork it wouldn't have helped.' I do agree that we should have asked someone else to explain their strategy to us but I still don't know who we should have asked. It's time to clean up the financial planning industry if it's ever going to be viable, so many have become quite disillusioned with them. I now know others who have been through the same thing with other planners and said 'you should have asked me I would have told you never to trust one, don't trust anyone with your money' Wish I'd asked them before I went to storm.

I would never take on this level of debt again, for many of the reasons that you have all said, yet I know a couple who have repaid their debts and are now going back into the market doing the same thing and this couple were one of the people who I asked, they recommended it, are very astute business people and believe that storm did nothing wrong. They do believe that the Cassimatis' haven't done the right thing but say the advisors are not to blame for this, they honestly believe in storms strategy. They blame the CBA totally for this collapse and have explained to us why they believe the CBA are totally to blame and it makes sense to me. Who do you believe? They have done extremely well and knew the risks, accepted them and can afford to commit to this level of debt. They have told me that they should never have allowed those who cannot afford it to get so far into debt.

In the past when a client reached margin call the banks sent out a letter advising clients and storm that they were in margin call and giving them five days to correct their LVR's. Why didn't they do the same thing this time? The bank say they don't have to. Have the banks rules changed since 2003 and if they have why didn't they tell storm or their clients that they have changed their rules? Clients were never advised this time but the banks say that they did advise storm. Who do you believe. It is vital that this is sorted as the banks sold everyone down at the worst possible time and suddenly there was 72 million super cheap shares on the market. Who bought them? Many believe there is insider trading involved. What does everyone else think?

Why did the CBA lend Storm Financial so much money and why did they demand it back in 24 hours thus forcing Storm into receivership? Was there a good reason for doing this and if so what was it? Had they supported storm through this difficult down time none of this would have happened. The CBA stayed very close to Storm Financial when they were doing well but as soon as things started to get a little dicey they dropped storm like a hot potato and all it's clients with it leaving them all dead in the water. Something smells really badly there. What are your thoughts?

I hope this parliamentary inquiry gets to the bottom of exactly what did happen. The banks have been protected for far too long in this country and it's about time they were brought to task for their irresponsibility in lending anyone money if they cannot afford it, and as much as I hate to now admit it, you're right we have to accept our share of the blame as well I guess. My only comment there is we were told that we didn't have to worry as the experts would take care of everything and we would eventually be self supporting and we believed them - our biggest mistake. We were told we wouldn't make anything for about five years. If the bank hadn't foreclosed on storm when it did this prediction may very well have come true. Who knows, I certainly don't.

The margin loan issue is the big one here and there is very little legislation at present protecting those who cannot afford to have a margin loan but hopefully those who do understand the margin loan concept, want to continue to have one and can afford it can still apply for one as before. I don't know exactly what this legislation involves but something needs to be done to protect those who cannot protect themselves without affecting those who can.

You're right there were many many storm clients who wanted to be cashed up long before the crash and storm would not do it, why, because they would then be losing money, it was all about money in the end, when it should have been about the clients. Storm and the banks all knew this crash was a possibility, we could all see what was happening in the US early in 2008, and we all knew the market was dropping, it was never a matter of if but when. I know many who were told 'don't follow the herd' when they wanted to take their money out of the market. Storm should have been doing that anyway if they were doing their job properly. They weren't and we are all aware of it.

I have found it very hard to blame ourselves when we thought that we were paying storm to take good care of our finances for us. I blame myself every day for trusting them as they have destroyed so many of us financially and emotionally. They say what doesn't kill you makes you stronger and we might be dead financially but in other ways we have much to live for and if anyone out there in forum land has any great ideas on how thousands of ex stormies with no money and no home can get ahead and prosper don't keep that info to yourself....share it around a little.
Click to expand...

Harleyquin, you are right on the money and your aim is true. Your posting is sane, measured and to the point. Compulsory reading.
Big Max (0419 782729 anytime GG, Ironhalo, Bunyip et al)
 
Harleyquin said:
We never asked to go into the stock market, we asked for financial advice. When we were told how much we could borrow as a home loan we voiced our concerns to storm and to others, we were told 'this is how financial planners invest today and it is tax effective.' We were paying so much PAYE tax that I was virtually working for nothing.

Once we agreed to this financial advice we knew we were taking on a loan for a little over half a million and we only found out about the margin loan, for another half a million, after the collapse and were horrified that we had a second loan. In hindsight we should have been aware of it but we weren't.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering how you could have a margin loan without knowing about it.
I've never taken out a margin loan myself, but I assume that just like any other loan there's documentation to be signed by the client....loan application forms, loan acceptance forms, a form that you sign to say you've read the loan conditions and you understand and accept the risks.
 
Harleyquin said:
Solly there was so much in the S of A that I didn't understand and don't remember reading anything about a margin loan, that's not to say it's not in there, I'm sure it is. Have you seen Storms Statement of Advice - it is an onerous 100 page document full of financial jargon which has not been designed to be read by the ordinary person. I tried reading it and ending up giving up as I found my comprehension level wavering. I took it back to the advisor and said 'I cannot understand all this can you explain it to me in layman's terms.' He must have laughed all the way to the bank!!! I'm sure now that the 'devil was in the detail' and there was plenty of detail. I don't have our statement of advice it's with our solicitor so I can't check but I'm sure it would be there.

This Statement of Advice is another bone of contention for me they should be simpler, to the point and aimed at the people who are reading them ie those who are starting off on their first financial planning experience. My husband and I are both readers and yet we both found this 'so called' document hard to read as it was full of garbage and the important bits including the margin loan would no doubt have been in there somewhere.

I certainly accept the critiicism which has been aimed at storm, the directors have a lot to answer for and EC and JC have a lot of explaining to do and I believe that their advisors / salespeople need to be explain their part in this as well. They have all played a major part in this human tragedy. They have preyed on the financially naive and swindled them out of their life savings and it has been a major crime and should be treated as such.

Most ex clients, including us asked for a conservative approach and said that we didn't want anything risky. How many times I sat there and said 'are you sure this is safe' and he said 'yes the whole Australian economy would have to collapse before you even begin to run into trouble as we have buffers in place to protect your investment.' I'm sure that every client would have asked the same questions and we were all told the same polished answers. This is now comming out in the submissions. There are a lot of problems which are now blaringly obvious to all of us which at the beginning we were unaware of.

We had become very disillusioned with storms advice and the whole investment long before it crashed and wished that we had never done it, we were starting to see the light well before the crash but were assured that they knew what they were doing. Read the submissions and you will see just how many clients did ask to be cashed up, did voice their concerns we all did this was our money and our homes on the line. The advisors were still telling us at the end of December that we had nothing to worry about.

I spoke to our advisor on his last day at work. He was on the phone assuring me that we wouldn't lose our home and we would be ok at the same time as he was packing up his office to leave. He was lying through his teeth.

Have spoken to a client who invested two days before they went into administration and fees were taken out mid January after they went into administration. How legal is this?

Storm and the bank did have a close relationship until the very end and they have both combined their 'talents' to scam the financially uneducated of everything they owned. We all blame ourselves for not educating ourselves enough to know what to do and for trusting who we all assumed to be a genuine financial planner. OK we've all made that mistake but the price we are all paying for this mistake is far far too high, most of us have been not only been financially destroyed but emotionally as well and are now surviving one day at a time on anti depressants and sleeping tablets.

We can now see what many of the problems have been but it's a high price to pay for a genuine mistake. We all make mistakes in life but we are paying a huge price. No wonder ex stormies are angry and upset our lives and lifestyles have been destroyed and many now have to somehow survive on an old age pension and the possibility of paying off a mortgage loan even after selling the family home. With inflation there is no way they are going to be able to do this.
Click to expand...

Yes Harleyquin I am aware of the Storm SoA. I'm sure that there are many people in this forum who have signed agreements, legal docs etc without completely reading all the details & fine print. I know I have and these are measured risks I have knowingly taken. I've been lucky and in only one instance did I need some minor prodding from a friendly silk to extradite me from the mire.

With anything major or of high value/impact I now use a fine tooth comb and seek independent opinion.

I wish you good luck in your quest....
 
bunyip said:
Max

I'm happy to accept your invitation to comment.
Harleyquin's glowing endorsement of SICAG doesn't change the views that I've expressed on a number of occasions......

* SICAG are to be commended for the progress they've made towards getting justice for Storm clients.

* They should be going hard after Storm as well, rather than focusing solely on the banks.

* The endorsement of the Storm fees model should be removed from the SICAG home page- it's crazy to make favourable comment on a fees structure that belted clients with 7% up front fees.

* There's a conflict of interest in the SICAG committee being partly comprised of former Storm advisers and/or their relatives.
Click to expand...

Max , as you have been asked before, can you comment, on bunyip's reply to you.

If you are unable to comment to these points, just say so.

They appear valid criticisms of the SICAG model.

gg
 
Big Max said:
With friends like you . . . you know the old saying.

What product am I and/or SICAG selling old mate, apart from a pie comprising healthy lashings of support, solace, fellowship and, hopefully, redress?

Fiddling while Rome burns or ingratiating yourself with GG and other SICAG bashers serves no objective purpose. It's all about the victims.

Max (0419 782729)
Click to expand...

Don't you even read the posts before you reply to them , do you just glean over the title and then comprise a vitriolic redress??

"with friends like you" i acknowledged the fact you had a glowing testimony to the point of talking it up. (fantastic)

What product are you selling

It's a fair question , if i came on a site, sprouting slices of pie full of lashings of support with testimonys from satisfied clientele i am sure others would draw on the same conclusion.

Fiddling while Rome burns

As stated by myself and numerous others, this is a site for views and advice, not taking some form of Schadenfreude in others plight. (why all the anger , direct it at Storm ,the banks, the dodgy advisers that stole , lied and alledgedly falsified documents ,not us we didn't do this to the clients of storm)

As for calling you , i'm with Bunyip on this one, unless you can see other views and not just what you percieve them to be,,,,,Whats the point !!!!
 
Max,

I don't know how many more times you need it said to you. I indicated it in my last post, but evidently you just see the words 'SICAG, Ironhalo, Manny' and assume I am dumping a big truckload of manure onto SICAG's efforts.

So I will say it again, and hopefully you read this. 'I applaud SICAG for their work, HOWEVER, there are a number of people who have associated themselves with SICAG who were ex-Storm employees and relatives which only seeks to discredit and tarnish SICAG's good credibility.'

Can you not see why people might be a bit dodgy about the whole thing when Andrew O'Brien's father is on the committee, despite his best intentions? Or you yourself, who have been quoted in the media as being an 'ex-Storm employee?'. Why is this so hard to deny and why can't you answer questions? Why won't SICAG now turn on Manny? He's the one who bled his clients and company dry and left it open for CBA to practically shut down, so why is SICAG so scared of stating so?

Could it be, and hmmmm lets' all put our tinfoil hats on here, that some members of SICAG who worked for Storm are still in some way in contact or friends with Emmanuel Cassimatis?

And no I will not call you, attempting to discuss this matter with you would be as effective as booing at the Special Olympics. I am not discussing this matter with an ex-Storm employee...period.
 

Similar threads

TiminOz
The dynamics of money and TIME: crimping cashflow for a period
Replies
3
Views
862
TiminOz
TiminOz
BossMan.
The planning of a portfolio
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
Value Collector
Value Collector
basilio
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
2K
sptrawler
sptrawler
ducati916
February 2025
2 3
Replies
59
Views
5K
ducati916
ducati916
Garpal Gumnut
Mayfair 101/Mayfair Platinum
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
Top