Storm Financial Group

[Harleyquin]

Solly you've changed your avatar, have you bought a deserted island somewhere?

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Solly you've changed your avatar, have you bought a deserted island somewhere?

If he has, its got a bloody big Tsunami rolling over it. Maximise it.

gg

 

[Solly]

Solly you've changed your avatar, have you bought a deserted island somewhere?

If he has, its got a bloody big Tsunami rolling over it. Maximise it.

gg

Harleyquin, Just getting ready for a little hop away from home base for a few days.

gg, it's not a Tsunami just a gentle wave break over a coral cay were the happiest people on earth live.

 

[Solly]

"CGI executive allegedly sacked over Storm
Aftershocks continue"

"Storm rumour mill continues to churn amid speculation Colonial Geared Investment's head of investment lending has been sacked.

Colonial Geared Investments (CGI) head of investment lending John Clothier has allegedly been let go from the firm."

More by Kate Kachor in Investor Daily here;

http://www.investordaily.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/id/style/7581.htm

 

[cuttlefish]

Without the banks going after him its pretty likely that Manny will get off imo and be left a free man walking. It wasn't a public company and the banks are going to be scared to take him on because of their own duplicity. So once all the noise of 'inquiries' has died down(apart from the feelgod factor for the pollies what is the actual power of these inquiries to impact change?) ... that may be that. Its not like SICAG is going to go after Manny and they represent a good proportion of those that have been burnt by Storm ... so really who's left to go after him - no banks, no shareholders, no clients ... just ASIC LOLHAHALOL yes just ASIC.

No wonder the Cassimatis were smililng for the cameras in their court appearance the other week.

 

[Solly]

"CGI staff at risk in Storm aftermath"

"Commonwealth Bank of Australia's restructure following the collapse of Storm Financial is believed to be continuing, with another manager being placed on "extended leave"."

Read more by Duncan Hughes The Australian Financial Review of Friday, 09 October 2009.

 

[Solly]

Without the banks going after him its pretty likely that Manny will get off imo and be left a free man walking. It wasn't a public company and the banks are going to be scared to take him on because of their own duplicity. So once all the noise of 'inquiries' has died down(apart from the feelgod factor for the pollies what is the actual power of these inquiries to impact change?) ... that may be that. Its not like SICAG is going to go after Manny and they represent a good proportion of those that have been burnt by Storm ... so really who's left to go after him - no banks, no shareholders, no clients ... just ASIC LOLHAHALOL yes just ASIC.

No wonder the Cassimatis were smililng for the cameras in their court appearance the other week.

cuttlefish, I believe that there are many more chapters of this saga to come and I wouldn't dismiss ASIC's capabilities just yet........

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

"CGI staff at risk in Storm aftermath"

"Commonwealth Bank of Australia's restructure following the collapse of Storm Financial is believed to be continuing, with another manager being placed on "extended leave"."

Read more by Duncan Hughes The Australian Financial Review of Friday, 09 October 2009.

One of the more unfortunate collateral victims of this debacle have been the CBA and other bank employees.

A mate's son here in Townsville has taken it very personally as he feels he has let CBA clients of Storm, he helped with the paperwork down.

And the CBA have been dragging employees involved down south for interviews which sound more like **** covering and star chambers rather than trying to find the truth or provide support to staff.

The banks need to support their staff unless it can be proven they were negligent.

gg

 

[Macquack]

GG, can you please enlighten me as to why it is the lenders fault, when the borrower fails to repay the loan.

I still dont understand why the onus is on the lender to prove the borrower has the capacity to repay. Any paperwork is generally for the benefit of the lender because the borrower has the cash.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

GG, can you please enlighten me as to why it is the lenders fault, when the borrower fails to repay the loan.

I still dont understand why the onus is on the lender to prove the borrower has the capacity to repay. Any paperwork is generally for the benefit of the lender because the borrower has the cash.

I agree totally Mac.

The bank are leaning on their employees who were the bunnies who gave the muppets the loans.

I think we are in agreement, or am I missing something?

gg

 

[DocK]

I agree totally Mac.

The bank are leaning on their employees who were the bunnies who gave the muppets the loans.

I think we are in agreement, or am I missing something?

gg

Perhaps the bank employees who decided to provide an inflated valuation of my home to storm (done without inspection or request) in order for storm to advise me to invest further - to the benefit of both storm and bank - should have made at least a reasonable attempt to ensure they valued this "muppet's" house at an amount somewhere in the neighbourhood of market value. And perhaps they could have made me aware of the fact that my bankers and financial advisers were in bed with other while they were at it - although ultimately I'm the one who got ####ed.

You are entitled to think what you will, but I'm a little tired of being referred to as a "muppet" and similar by people who don't know me or my circumstances, and are "tarring all ex-storm clients with the same brush".

 

[bunyip]

Perhaps the bank employees who decided to provide an inflated valuation of my home to storm (done without inspection or request) in order for storm to advise me to invest further - to the benefit of both storm and bank - should have made at least a reasonable attempt to ensure they valued this "muppet's" house at an amount somewhere in the neighbourhood of market value. And perhaps they could have made me aware of the fact that my bankers and financial advisers were in bed with other while they were at it - although ultimately I'm the one who got ####ed.

You are entitled to think what you will, but I'm a little tired of being referred to as a "muppet" and similar by people who don't know me or my circumstances, and are "tarring all ex-storm clients with the same brush".

I agree.
It's not acceptable to call people unflattering names because they made some wrong choices and fell victim to con artists.
GG, pull your head in son - you should know better than to lower yourself to that standard.

 

[maccka]

I sincerely hope that we are not about to embark on the next round of name calling and abuse of Storm clients (and then back again in return) that seems to occur with regular monotony on this forum.

One thing that some members of the forum might like to keep in mind is that many of the Storm investors were shareholders of banks like the CBA until someone decided to sell them out and/or suspend and then close the funds. So it would seem that clients like this were done over at least twice - once as investors and clients and secondly as shareholders. Double the hurt perhaps???

I would also like to ask some questions of CBA shareholders who are unhappy about the damage that has been done to the bank through its alleged actions (that in some cases it is admitting publicly to so therefore not alleged).
Did you vote for your bank's board members?
Whether you did or didn't is possibly irrelevant if you have the ability to remove them at the next AGM?
Who appoints the CEO?
Is it the Board?
What powers do shareholders have to call for the CEO to be hauled into line, penalized or even sacked if it is appropriate to do so?

Whether the CEO did the dirty deeds or not is irrelevant as he is the one with the ultimate responsibility (which he accepted when he took up the position AND its multimillion dollar salary + bonuses) for staff in the organisation. Who does he report to? Who is he responsible for? Who sees copies of his position and role descriptions? It seems like fairly basic governance issues to me.

cheers
Maccka

 

[Julia]

Perhaps the bank employees who decided to provide an inflated valuation of my home to storm (done without inspection or request) in order for storm to advise me to invest further

DocK, do you know for sure that this inflation was done by the bank and not Storm?

I agree entirely about the use of derogatory terms when referring to Stormers.
They know they made mistakes. No need for insults.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

DocK, do you know for sure that this inflation was done by the bank and not Storm?

I agree entirely about the use of derogatory terms when referring to Stormers.
They know they made mistakes. No need for insults.

I fail to see where I've been derogatory.

Can you enlighten me.

gg

 

[DocK]

DocK, do you know for sure that this inflation was done by the bank and not Storm?

I agree entirely about the use of derogatory terms when referring to Stormers.
They know they made mistakes. No need for insults.

Julia, to the best of my knowledge, no bank would simply accept a valuation from a financial planner at face value - or I should certainly hope not. Storm were financial planners and had no qualifications as valuers. If the CBA accepted (and lent against) a valuation put forward by storm that would make them even more remiss in my view. I believe it may sometimes be common practice for a bank to accept the purchase price of a property as fair market value where the loan is for its purchase, but other than that I think the bank carries out its own valuations on properties offered as security, or pays a registered valuer for a written valuation report.

The desktop valuation system adopted by CBA clearly does not involve a physical inspection of the property. I'm not sure what method is used to arrive at a valuation, but history certainly seems to indicate they were rather inaccurate in several cases.

 

[clayton4115]

as a financial planner myself and at that time, we used to talk about how there was this firm up north who used to put clients money into shares and gear them em to the hilt,

we used to say to ourselves, we would never be able to do that as it would breach our licensee's policy about investing clients money,

well as we all know it all unravelled in a terrible way when the stockmarket crashed.

 

[bunyip]

as a financial planner myself and at that time, we used to talk about how there was this firm up north who used to put clients money into shares and gear them em to the hilt,

we used to say to ourselves, we would never be able to do that as it would breach our licensee's policy about investing clients money,

well as we all know it all unravelled in a terrible way when the stockmarket crashed.

So where does that leave Cassamatis - do you think he'll be refused a financial planners licence in future?
Or stripped of his licence if he still holds one?
Do FP's have to reapply for a licence every year or two years or whatever?
If so, I wonder if the powers that be will have the sense to refuse to renew his licence.
I don't doubt that he'll move to open another financial planning outfit if he's allowed to hold a licence. And it'd be a safe bet that some Storm victims would support such a venture.

 

[Soft Dough]

So where does that leave Cassamatis - do you think he'll be refused a financial planners licence in future?
Or stripped of his licence if he still holds one?
Do FP's have to reapply for a licence every year or two years or whatever?
If so, I wonder if the powers that be will have the sense to refuse to renew his licence.
I don't doubt that he'll move to open another financial planning outfit if he's allowed to hold a licence. And it'd be a safe bet that some Storm victims would support such a venture.

Of course he will be granted a new license,

otherwise all he has to do is get someone he trusts, perhaps his ex-director relative, and then get her to get a license, then he can "sell" her services, just like he was doing to Storm.

There are ways and means about it.

My gut feeling is he will get away with it, however I would give a few thousand to be able to read, in detail the documents he wanted to table, there is obviously something there he is scared of, or wants to use as a bargaining tool.

 

[Mindstorm]

So where does that leave Cassamatis - do you think he'll be refused a financial planners licence in future?
Or stripped of his licence if he still holds one?
Do FP's have to reapply for a licence every year or two years or whatever?
If so, I wonder if the powers that be will have the sense to refuse to renew his licence.
I don't doubt that he'll move to open another financial planning outfit if he's allowed to hold a licence. And it'd be a safe bet that some Storm victims would support such a venture.

I would hope that the storm debacle will preclude Cassimatis from ever holding an FP licence again. But, there may be no obstacles put in front of his wife holding one.

I'm sure that Manny will resurface, even from his (hopeful) prison cell. I just pray that he will never fool as many people as he has done to date.

Yes, I'm sure that there are still some storm clients who follow him blindly. Maybe they were amongst the lucky few 'greedy' storm clients who lived the high life, who went to Africa, Italy, etc.

Unfortunately, my family are amongst the ones who reinvested all gains, who never took anything out, who thought that we would have plently of time in our 'retirement' in twenty years or more, to take advantage of these wonderful trips, the ones who just funded Manny's lifestyle, and paid big time for that stupid mistake.

MS