Storm Financial Group

[Steve Borden]

I have no such agreement and my loan agreement was in 2000. No notifications or changes advised. Also the bank stated their maximum LVR was 62% in my case. Funny how they let that blow out of the water!!! I think when Paul Johnston (original head of ML) left and Clothier things changed. My original agreement never changed!

Pindibog

I think the Bank will try to rely on the following with regard to changing LVRs:

(c) We may also, at any time, in our absolute discretion and
without notice to you, increase, decrease, add to, delete or
otherwise vary the borrowing limit applying to any securities.

 

[bunyip]

My loan agreement does not state any such thing. If they changed the rules at some stage they did not notify or obtain authorisation from clients to do so. Lender is to contact me as per Original financial plan and loan agreements.

We posted at exactly the same time, so I missed your post.

So then, it looks like CGI is trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes with their claim that clients authorised them to deal direct with Storm.

Sooner or later one or the other party is going to produce proof that they're being truthful and the other is a liar.

 

[Farencue]

I asked you many posts ago Pindibog, whether you signed an authority for Storm to act on your behalf, are you saying you did not?

 

[Harleyquin]

I have no such agreement and my loan agreement was in 2000. No notifications or changes advised. Also the bank stated their maximum LVR was 62% in my case. Funny how they let that blow out of the water!!! I think when Paul Johnston (original head of ML) left and Clothier things changed. My original agreement never changed!

Pindibog a lot of ex stormies are saying exactly the same thing that you have just said.

 

[Harleyquin]

We posted at exactly the same time, so I missed your post.

So then, it looks like CGI is trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes with their claim that clients authorised them to deal direct with Storm.

Sooner or later one or the other party is going to produce proof that they're being truthful and the other is a liar.

In the paper today it says that the CBA were contacting up to 2000 clients a day to let them know they were in margin call but no calls were given to storm clients. The last time storm clients went into margin call the CBA sent them out letter advising them they were in margin call and giving them five days to correct their LVR's.

There were a lot of very astute investors who are ex storm -just as there are a lot of totally inexperienced ones - and the experienced among us say 'if the bank had given us a 30 cent phone call we could have corrected our LVR and none of this would have happened.' That's why we are all asking 'why didn't the bank give us all a call' They have made a fortune from storm and it's clients why couldn't they afford to give us all a 30 cent phone call. Some of the people you have 'bashed' on this site have repeatedly said this and they have lots of supporters who agree with them. This is the primary reason they are blaming the banks and want compensation. I think it's unfortunate that the media have reported SICAG members as saying 'we are only going after the banks because they are the only ones with any money' because this is certainly not the primary reason.

The CBA/CGI helped to fund the overseas trips which were organised by storm, those who went had to pay their own way but the CBA/CGI provided the funds to make sure that the people who went got three times what they had paid for.

Neither the banks or storm have sent out any paperwork to say that their rules have changed. So why didn't they send out these same notices this time? If they had sent them out no storm client may not be any worse off than the many other investors out there who have margin loans and they certainly wouldn't be in negative equity. If you read Gus Dalle Corts submission he obviously believed this, he asks 'WHY DIDN'T THEY DO IT THIS TIME.' It's my guess that the other advisors also believed that this would happen.

If you read the ANZ banks submission they say they were approached by storm and they disagreed with storms requirements saying that it contravened their lending practices. Many of the other banks and the CBA in particular have closely aligned themselves with storm and the only way they could do this is to break their own lending practices and to break their own margin call rules. This has been the very aspect of this case which has got so many of us into negative equity and ruined us.

I've made my thoughts on storm central very clear and there is mounting evidence that this man EC and close cohorts should be jailed for life, and there appears to be many who would agree with this. Just reading his responses to yesterday's questioning is enough to realise that this man is a self centered, self serving, egotistical individual who would be far better off residing in a jail cell than his present mansion. The banks who closely aligned themselves with him all knew his strategy, knew it was flawed and still agreed to support him and us financially despite knowing that it was morally, ethically and legally wrong.

There are many ex stormies who have been investing very succesfully for a long long time using margin loans and they are now so busy they put this responsibility into storms hands because they had seen how succesful it could be. Storm and the banks haven't played by the rules and now these people find themselves ruined as well when they can prove that this strategy has been succesful as long as it was managed correctly. That's probably why the advisors believed in what they were doing/selling but most have have lied to us / certainly haven't told us the truth.

Let's hope the truth does all come out and we all find out exactly what did happen. At the moment we can only look at the information which is being presented.

 

[Rainbow]

I've been watching this, as a member of SICAG, and you have raised my suspicions. When we first heard about the Parliamentary Inquiry, SICAG did not want us to post our individual stories - they wanted to put across the one voice and told us not to send in information... else we'd choke it up on non-relevant sob stories. They seem most insistent on pushing the CGI/Commonwealth bandwagon, yet offer little in the way of comment regarding other institutions and their theory as to why we ended up broke too. Maybe now they've heard Manny lie through his teeth, they'll see the light.

 

[Monario]

Thanks for your report, Schumy. Confirms the impression to date.

Carey, many thanks for the copy of CBA's comments to 60 Minutes.

This extract is telling:



Seems to confirm that Storm dropped the ball, rather than CGI.
Why am I not surprised!

Julia, I dont think it is a case of Strom dropped the Ball, in no way am I defending Storm or Manny, but I think mulitple parties DROPPED THE BALL..

CGI and Macquarie are not without blame here!!

 

[Monario]

Another PR excercise perhaps ?

Quote:
As he walked out of the inquiry, The Courier-Mail asked how his health was coping with the Storm collapse. He stopped on the spot.

"Many years ago I had to haul a little girl out of a car that had been in a head-on collision," he said. "In that experience you don't have the luxury of worrying about how you feel.

" In times of stress, one does not have the luxury of self-remorse."

Now it was Mr Cassimatis with tears in his eyes. They welled, but they didn't run.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...05-952,00.html


Oh Manny please, is this some sort of analogy for some adive you gave people in earlier life a pulled them out of the crap you dumped them in perhaps?

I wonder why Julie was really not there? Perhaps some marital stress as she has finally seen the conman he is, likely the reason Manny's first wife left him...

I just cant wait to see him stripped of his personal wealth!!! Surely this slime ball will not be let to get away with holding onto personal assets he gained while giving false and negligent advice!!! Jail in Australia would be to good for this man..

 

[Farencue]

Thanks for posting Rainbow and welcome.
Some of us have thought SICAG was a little off from its inception.

 

[Judd]

Julia, I dont think it is a case of Strom dropped the Ball, in no way am I defending Storm or Manny, but I think mulitple parties DROPPED THE BALL..

CGI and Macquarie are not without blame here!!

It just seems to get stranger and stranger.

At the Cairns session it was reported in a news article that Mr Dalle Cort "blamed the collapse on the ''product failure'' of margin loans. We couldn't possibly know,'' he said. ''The data coming through from the banks was bizarre.''

Yet in the same report another planner from a separate group stated that ''We did have CGI (Colonial Geared Investments) loans, and we did have managed trusts and in November, as with a lot of planners, we were really very, very actively managing our margin loans."

The implication being that the data coming from CGI to other planner groups was "clean" and able to be acted upon to manage margin loans. The other implication is that those margin loans where the planner had the authority to act, while busier than a one-armed paper hanger, did but Storm didn't.

That other planner is also reported to have said "It's not that the product failed at the end of the day, it's that the strategy failed.''

Go figure. It's beyond me but certainly blame, at varying degrees, rests at levels in this fiasco.

The main thing is, however, if and where the financial providers are at fault those affected should be set right. Irrespective of that, those Storm advisers still need to be pilloried and where possible taken to the cleaners. Make them do the washing, cleaning and cooking for those they have shafted and then toss them a dollar coin every week as a donation for their labour. A dream I know but it would be nice.

 

[darkside]

I’ve only followed this saga from time to time so I’m not well qualified to comment on any of the details. But I did attend the afternoon session of the Senate Inquiry in Brisbane yesterday in the capacity of an interested bystander (I’m not connected with Storm in any way) and was astonished listening to the submission of the 3 representatives of SICAG. They made a long winded introduction in which they wasted valuable submission time praising this nation, democracy, blah, blah, blah and then chose to limit what they did say to fanning the flames regarding a terrible conspiracy between the CBA and Storm but when it soured CBA pulled the plug.

So they seem to think the outcome was all a vindictive plot hatched by the CBA to grab their money and run. They don’t seem to understand the concept of personal responsibility, said they still trusted their Storm advisers implicitly and when one of them gave an explanation about their margin loan, they demonstrated to me at least, a poor understanding of it and seemed confused. At the end of their submission they got a standing ovation from most of those present. I was left shaking my head in disbelief. If these people are representing the interests of the ex-clients of Storm, I would be worried.

Thanks schumy,

welcome to our side of the world, if you had said anything against SIGAC in the last few weeks you would have been banished to the corner with the others who chose to speak out against their agenda.

Now all of a sudden the "money Spiders" have dissapeared from the thread and will probably go into hiding till well after the inquiry, then we will see them re emerge like a phoenix from the ashes to once again take advantage of the unfortunates that were taken down by storm .

It's akin to letting "jack the ripper" loose in "The Razor Shop".

 

[darkside]

I've been watching this, as a member of SICAG, and you have raised my suspicions. When we first heard about the Parliamentary Inquiry, SICAG did not want us to post our individual stories - they wanted to put across the one voice and told us not to send in information... else we'd choke it up on non-relevant sob stories. They seem most insistent on pushing the CGI/Commonwealth bandwagon, yet offer little in the way of comment regarding other institutions and their theory as to why we ended up broke too. Maybe now they've heard Manny lie through his teeth, they'll see the light.

Rainbow , welcome

I would like you to meet Max , where is he , so many unanswered questions.

He promised so much , took everyone to task and delivered, well 2 handfulls of fresh air.

Max my new mantra. Do the right thing :shake::shake::shake::shake:

 

[Pindibog]

I've been watching this, as a member of SICAG, and you have raised my suspicions. When we first heard about the Parliamentary Inquiry, SICAG did not want us to post our individual stories - they wanted to put across the one voice and told us not to send in information... else we'd choke it up on non-relevant sob stories. They seem most insistent on pushing the CGI/Commonwealth bandwagon, yet offer little in the way of comment regarding other institutions and their theory as to why we ended up broke too. Maybe now they've heard Manny lie through his teeth, they'll see the light.

The submissions were going to the inquiry not SICAG. I have only ever read encouragement from SICAG to submit whatever story. Mine bashes all!!
If you had something different it should be out there.

 

[Pindibog]

I asked you many posts ago Pindibog, whether you signed an authority for Storm to act on your behalf, are you saying you did not?

Did I not answer you?? I can't work this sites search engine out???

Anyway I did not. I am not a professional in the area of contractual law and by the looks when you believe one thing to be true there is another clause stating they can do whatever they want (LVR's for eg).

Whenever I redeemed/moved/puchased shares or moved money around it had to be signed by me. They were unable to do it on my behalf. I have lots of evidence to show this.

 

[manorleas]

"The implication being that the data coming from CGI to other planner groups was "clean" and able to be acted upon to manage margin loans. The other implication is that those margin loans where the planner had the authority to act, while busier than a one-armed paper hanger, did but Storm didn't."


The reality is that Storm didn't need to rely on data from CGI. When monies are invested in an index fund, it's a very simple matter to calculate an estimated current value (by the minute if needed) and hence the LVR - it's not rocket science, and they supposedly had very sophisticated software.

I think you will find that the authority to take instruction from Storm was on the original margin loan application. The older CGI applications also had a section to complete for who to contact when a margin call occurred.

Manorleas

 

[Trevor_S]

Has Mr Weir ever heard of the concept of 'justice'? Blame should be levelled at the parties responsible for causing this mess, irrespective of whether victims can receive money out of them.

That presupposes you wish to assign "guilt" to other parties ? It seems patiently obvious to me that if you didn't invest with Storm, you would not have lost money through Storm.

While some "investors" continue to maintain a naivety, to my mind this should be no defence. If it is, CBA, Storm et al should be able to, rightly or wrongly, use the same defence. (EC seems to be doing that very thing)

Just because someone proposes a system for you to get rich/live comfortably/make a squllion doesn't mean you should pay any heed. They can dress up a charlatans advice in whatever clothes they want, at the end of the day YOU need to sign the cheque. The buck stops with YOU... a soon as you abrogate that responsibility, don't be surprised when it comes back to bite you in the ar$e, as in this case and many others.

There were many that could smell the stink of it all from driving past their office, you just had to open your eyes. I find it incredibly hard to believe everyone is that financially naive. While Storm investors were all selling in Nov 08 - Mar 09 I was buying. While you guys were all buying in 07 and 08, I was holding, while I have never been tested I am sure I fall somewhere in the middle of the IQ bell curve, so I am not particularly mentally adroit. It's not that hard and if it is, stick it in the Bank.

Once the Politicians get involved you know it's a sideshow, as was pointed out before this even started.

The only difference between Madhoff and EC is that he genuinely believed his own bullsh*t, while Madhoff new it was a con and that's why he'll be "ok" and Madhoff is in jail. Same con, different clientele.

 

[Ironhalo]

While some "investors" continue to maintain a naivety, to my mind this should be no defence. If it is, CBA, Storm et al should be able to, rightly or wrongly, use the same defence. (EC seems to be doing that very thing)

Just because someone proposes a system for you to get rich/live comfortably/make a squllion doesn't mean you should pay any heed. They can dress up a charlatans advice in whatever clothes they want, at the end of the day YOU need to sign the cheque. The buck stops with YOU... a soon as you abrogate that responsibility, don't be surprised when it comes back to bite you in the ar$e, as in this case and many others.

No one is saying that Storm clients aren't to blame, but when you are paying fees to someone to manage your investment who had a very good reputation (at the time), boasted of advanced software that tracked investments, were given the tick of approval from ASIC, had a licence to operate under the FPA, and had good working relationships with the big margin lenders, you'd assume that a simple thing such as monitoring an LVR and advising clients of a potential margin call wouldn't be hard between Storm and a major lender. You'd also expect them to have a large war kitty of cash in the company reserves to see through rough patches too...turns out that cash was all in private jets and mansions. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Most of us had no access to our LVR's, and any calls to CBA/CGI/Storm trying to sell before people went into negative equity were ignored. I got granted a margin loan 4 weeks prior to being sold down without a phonecall at the bottom of the market slump....and I was 35% off margin call. No explanation, no nothing.

I find it incredibly hard to believe everyone is that financially naive. While Storm investors were all selling in Nov 08 - Mar 09 I was buying. While you guys were all buying in 07 and 08, I was holding, while I have never been tested I am sure I fall somewhere in the middle of the IQ bell curve, so I am not particularly mentally adroit. It's not that hard and if it is, stick it in the Bank.

Stick it in the bank and earn less interest than the rate of inflation? This isn't a thread for boasting of success on the share market. I've made most of my losses back since Dec 08 by doing my own thing, but managed to lose five figures in Storm/Colonial due to their incompetence in Oct 08.

As a Naval Officer, I think people who drive their boats up the wrong side of a waterway to be idiots for putting themselves in danger. But not everyone knows the intricacies of the regulations pertaining to avoiding collision at sea, so I can't look down my nose at a father taking his kids fishing in a runabout when I am trying to berth a patrol boat, and they are unwittingly in my way.

What would you do if one of your relatives went into Rockhampton hospital for a routine operation and died, because your qualified doctor turned out to be Jayant Patel? Would you throw your hands in the air and say 'well serves us right, we should have personally checked his qualifications and not taken the regulatory authorites word for it that he was qualified to provide us with medical advice?' You'd be out for blood wouldn't you?

No one here claims that they don't share blame for what happened, but coming into a thread and shooting from the hip saying 'well I made cash, you guys didn't, therefore vicariously you lose' is stupid and unwelcome. There is more at play here then a simple used car saleman, hence the 140+ pages in here, and a massive class action by lawyers. Again, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

[Ironhalo]

That presupposes you wish to assign "guilt" to other parties ? It seems patiently obvious to me that if you didn't invest with Storm, you would not have lost money through Storm.

Captain Obvious, you have been awarded the Distinguished Service Medal for services to stating the obvious.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

269139 hits on this thread since it started.

266,919 hits, less than 24 hours ago.

I wonder if the SICAG Model has the same number.

Remember Storm victims , membership of ASF is free and as well as giving you up to date INDEPENDENT advice, it may give you education on financial matters so that it won't happen again.

Oh and no moneyspiders, Storm logos or advice to collate your submissions to the Inquiry into a one fits all model.

No advice to get into further financial advice with financial advisers following the Storm fee model.

And I don't think that any ex Storm advisers or their relatives would be game to poke their heads up on the forum.

And we don't make deals with banks.

gg

 

[DocK]

That presupposes you wish to assign "guilt" to other parties ? It seems patiently obvious to me that if you didn't invest with Storm, you would not have lost money through Storm.

Gosh you're clever, aren't you? This sort of holier-than-thou attitude serves only to plump up your own sense of smug self-righteousness in my opinion. Does it contribute in any way to the thread? - only if having a kick at people who have had plenty of practice at kicking themselves makes you feel good. It seems patently obvious to me that you're the sort of person who loves to look down his nose at people if at all possible.

While some "investors" continue to maintain a naivety, to my mind this should be no defence. If it is, CBA, Storm et al should be able to, rightly or wrongly, use the same defence. (EC seems to be doing that very thing)

Unlike CBA, Storm et al - I don't charge anyone a penny for my naivety. Seems to me that if you're going to charge a fee for a service, naivety ceases to become an acceptable excuse for negligence.

Just because someone proposes a system for you to get rich/live comfortably/make a squllion doesn't mean you should pay any heed. They can dress up a charlatans advice in whatever clothes they want, at the end of the day YOU need to sign the cheque. The buck stops with YOU... a soon as you abrogate that responsibility, don't be surprised when it comes back to bite you in the ar$e, as in this case and many others.

There were many that could smell the stink of it all from driving past their office, you just had to open your eyes. I find it incredibly hard to believe everyone is that financially naive. While Storm investors were all selling in Nov 08 - Mar 09 I was buying. While you guys were all buying in 07 and 08, I was holding, while I have never been tested I am sure I fall somewhere in the middle of the IQ bell curve, so I am not particularly mentally adroit. It's not that hard and if it is, stick it in the Bank.

I am so, so, so sick of being labelled as a greedy, gullible, fool by people like yourself who quite likely has become an expert-via-media. You don't know me. You probably know very few ex-storm clients, if any. To label us all as greedy simply because we were trying to make the most of what we had is grossly unjust and small-minded. I could call you ignorant, self-important, judgemental and just plain mean - but since I don't know you I shall refrain and keep my opinion to myself