Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 13,797
- Reactions
- 10,574
Where was this reported? I haven't seen it.
The following would seem to indicate that SICAG are backing Manny in this.
Who are the Secret 60?
gg
Storm Financial Group
- Thread starter Garpal Gumnut
- Start date
Where was this reported? I haven't seen it.
The following would seem to indicate that SICAG are backing Manny in this.
Who are the Secret 60?
gg
- Joined
- 21 December 2008
- Posts
- 4,532
- Reactions
- 1
"Call for ban on commissions for financial advisers"
"A joint parliamentary committee, set up after the collapse of Opes Prime and Storm Financial, will tonight complete its final report, to be tabled in Parliament on Monday."
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/call-for-ban-on-commissions-for-financial-advisers-20091117-ikds.html
"A joint parliamentary committee, set up after the collapse of Opes Prime and Storm Financial, will tonight complete its final report, to be tabled in Parliament on Monday."
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/call-for-ban-on-commissions-for-financial-advisers-20091117-ikds.html
- Joined
- 21 December 2008
- Posts
- 4,532
- Reactions
- 1
"Ex-Storm clients mull over litigation options
Storm exec calls for Ripoll's resignation"
Former Storm clients are considering forming a class action as advice firm founders launch new proceedings
More by Kate Kachor in Investor Daily here;
http://www.investordaily.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/id/style/7877.htm
Storm exec calls for Ripoll's resignation"
Former Storm clients are considering forming a class action as advice firm founders launch new proceedings
More by Kate Kachor in Investor Daily here;
http://www.investordaily.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/id/style/7877.htm
- Joined
- 21 December 2008
- Posts
- 4,532
- Reactions
- 1
gg, that is a good question, my Stormer mate is definitely not one, he's checked his messagebank 101, had a thorough look in his letter box and even double checked the spam folder in his Hotmail account just in case they were trying to contact him. He's heard nothing, zip, zilch.
He's starting to get some real perspective about what's going on now. I wonder how you can join this select group, is it by special invitation only ?
Are there secret handshakes, winks, nods, body twitches and is there a goat involved?
If anybody knows or has any info please let us know, I'll pass the info on so my mate can consider that option.
Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 13,797
- Reactions
- 10,574
The answer may lie in the little disclaimer box at the bottom of the SICAG web site, http://sicag.info
gg
Attachments
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/storm-clients-back-negligence-lawsuit-against-bank-20091116-ihxs.html
"Storm Investors Consumer Action Group (SICAG) co-chairman Noel O'Brien said if the couple were successful it would set a precedent for future legal action by affected clients.
"It will set a precedent for the rest of the members," he said.
"If the principals of Storm couldn't understand the information they were being given on a daily basis what chance did the rest of the advisers and clients have?
"We wish them all the luck in the world."
However, he said support for the legal action didn't amount to support for the Cassimatises themselves.
"Storm Investors Consumer Action Group (SICAG) co-chairman Noel O'Brien said if the couple were successful it would set a precedent for future legal action by affected clients.
"It will set a precedent for the rest of the members," he said.
"If the principals of Storm couldn't understand the information they were being given on a daily basis what chance did the rest of the advisers and clients have?
"We wish them all the luck in the world."
However, he said support for the legal action didn't amount to support for the Cassimatises themselves.
Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 13,797
- Reactions
- 10,574
specialed mate, you are like one of the earlier Mrs Gumnuts who always turned up at odd times to peddle her grievances.
Now answer this mate, seeing as you are a SICAG Model insider.
Who are the Secret 60?
Name them.
And take that silly disclaimer about the Cassimatises off your website.
After all the evidence so far in the Inquiry and hearings it is in extremely bad taste. It is not couth.
SICAG's involvement with the Cassimatises is a reasonable concern for many victims.
gg
gg
- Joined
- 21 December 2008
- Posts
- 4,532
- Reactions
- 1
gg
I spoke with my mate's misses this morning, another friend had sent her the links to Anthony's article about the Secret 60. I can't repeat in a public forum what she said, they are living rough at the moment but not as rough as some others.
I admire her renewed strength and her courage, my mate is not so good at the moment. Another Christmas time is almost here, it will be another time of uncertainty, they are wondering where they will be living this time next year and what their future holds.
Hang in there Stormers........
Mr gumnut...
I am not sure, and I may be being very stupid, I have already been proved to have been stupid many times, but I can't find what it is that you are so concerned about on the SICAG website.
I've been to all of the social meetings in my area, and not heard one good word about E&J C. I've met five of the six members of the Committee.
I apologise to you, in advance, if I am wrong, which I often am. But, not one of these men have even mentioned the Cassimatis to me.
They have certainly not asked me to support the Cassimatis.
Please tell me what I should be looking for, so that I can tell these five men that I do not want or need their help to try to find a way for me to try to get my family to get out of this godawful mess that I have put them in.
As for the 'secret' 60. Would it not be a matter of public knowledge when they 'stake their claim' that their names would be public?
Like we storm clients, you will need to learn to be patient. You have been very vocal on a number of issues regarding Storm. I am wondering if you are a Storm victim in denial.
MS
GG, I continue to find your almost narcissistic obsession with SICAG quite amusing, but I must also admit a little disturbing.
After all, much of the evidence presented in the inquiries is only being presented thanks to the hard work of SICAG who chased the politicians, ASIC and Slater and Gordan on behalf of everyone, members of SICAG or not who have been screwed by Manny, inorder to get these inquiries underway.
Who put pressure on the CBA to take responsibility for their role in this mess when they were quite happy to accept none and demand payments in December and January. Of all the strange accusations and tenuous links you have made I find this one the most perplexing. Exactly what has SICAG got to do with the 60 people who have decided to go it alone. If your so keen to know who they are, than surely it is Manny who you should be asking ? I’d be surprised if SICAG would even know who they are, particularly if they are not members of SICAG. Given your vast knowledge about investing and the fact that you did not invest in Storm, why are you so focused on this group which does not affect you in any way ? And presumably, given your opposition to them you would obviously have convinced any storm victims you do know not to become members, so again why so much concern with them and what they do, as when this is over they will have had no impact on your life what so ever……But there work will have and has already had a great impact on so many others.......Maybe you need to just let it go man....
After all, much of the evidence presented in the inquiries is only being presented thanks to the hard work of SICAG who chased the politicians, ASIC and Slater and Gordan on behalf of everyone, members of SICAG or not who have been screwed by Manny, inorder to get these inquiries underway.
Who put pressure on the CBA to take responsibility for their role in this mess when they were quite happy to accept none and demand payments in December and January. Of all the strange accusations and tenuous links you have made I find this one the most perplexing. Exactly what has SICAG got to do with the 60 people who have decided to go it alone. If your so keen to know who they are, than surely it is Manny who you should be asking ? I’d be surprised if SICAG would even know who they are, particularly if they are not members of SICAG. Given your vast knowledge about investing and the fact that you did not invest in Storm, why are you so focused on this group which does not affect you in any way ? And presumably, given your opposition to them you would obviously have convinced any storm victims you do know not to become members, so again why so much concern with them and what they do, as when this is over they will have had no impact on your life what so ever……But there work will have and has already had a great impact on so many others.......Maybe you need to just let it go man....
- Joined
- 21 December 2008
- Posts
- 4,532
- Reactions
- 1
I've gone back through the threads to try and work why gg has this view of SICAG. He has been completely consistent with his comments. I hold the view that gg finds something of interest concerning the association of some members and the principals. I'm sure SICAG offers great support for those affected by this terrible episode, although my friends aren't members I can fully understand the benefit of a group like this and the positive work it has done. I still need a bit more time to think about this...
- Joined
- 10 February 2009
- Posts
- 67
- Reactions
- 0
Without the benefit of any inside knowledge of what is driving the so-called secret 60 I think the limitations of the CBA Storm resolution scheme will have a lot to do with it.
We all now that EC & JC were specifically excluded however the scheme is effectively limited to clients to clients with investment home loans and margin loans. This means that many clients with commercial borrowings against a cane farm, a commercial property or a cattle property can only obtain resolution (aside from the margin loan) via external legal action.
So if you think about it clients with these types of borrowings will be the larger ones, have lost more and probably still have a reasonable level of cashflow available to fund the action. If you then think about about where EC started then we will get some idea of where a significant proportion of these people are from.
We all now that EC & JC were specifically excluded however the scheme is effectively limited to clients to clients with investment home loans and margin loans. This means that many clients with commercial borrowings against a cane farm, a commercial property or a cattle property can only obtain resolution (aside from the margin loan) via external legal action.
So if you think about it clients with these types of borrowings will be the larger ones, have lost more and probably still have a reasonable level of cashflow available to fund the action. If you then think about about where EC started then we will get some idea of where a significant proportion of these people are from.
- Joined
- 21 December 2008
- Posts
- 4,532
- Reactions
- 1
Thank's Steve for that perspective, I've only had close exposure to the Mum & Dad punter in this saga.
- Joined
- 31 May 2006
- Posts
- 1,941
- Reactions
- 2
SICAG appears well versed in the tactics used by Storm.
Instead of making assertions against GG, it would be far easier for those that support SICAG to actually offer some sort of reason that SICAG endorses the Storm fees model on its web site if it really is so 'opposed' to Storm and the Cassimatis. And now SICAG has come out and openly voiced their support for the Cassimatis suit against the CBA. The simple and logical conclusion from this is that SICAG endorses the Cassimatis. That is the logical and rational conclusion that any independant outside observer would make.
But when you are caught up inside an organisation, the logical and rational can easily get distorted. That is what happened to people caught up in Storm - the logical viewpoint that it is highly risky to mortgage every asset an individual owns, to take on debt levels beyond the level that can be serviced by that individual, became warped into being the only sensible way for astute investors to fund their retirement.
Instead of making assertions against GG, it would be far easier for those that support SICAG to actually offer some sort of reason that SICAG endorses the Storm fees model on its web site if it really is so 'opposed' to Storm and the Cassimatis. And now SICAG has come out and openly voiced their support for the Cassimatis suit against the CBA. The simple and logical conclusion from this is that SICAG endorses the Cassimatis. That is the logical and rational conclusion that any independant outside observer would make.
But when you are caught up inside an organisation, the logical and rational can easily get distorted. That is what happened to people caught up in Storm - the logical viewpoint that it is highly risky to mortgage every asset an individual owns, to take on debt levels beyond the level that can be serviced by that individual, became warped into being the only sensible way for astute investors to fund their retirement.
In no way, shape or form can anyone using any type of logic make the connection that by agreeing with EC and the 60 others attemps to go after the CBA also means an endorsement of the Cassimatis's themselves. Obviously any forum that brings all the parties to account will serve the members of SICAG....
- Joined
- 31 May 2006
- Posts
- 1,941
- Reactions
- 2
So SICAG don't support Cassimatis they'd just like him to win a court case that grants him his money back. Excuse my illogical thought processes.
I'm not a member of SICAG so have no insider info, however for what it's worth my thoughts are:
Cannot understand why they still have support for commission-based fees model with a reference to Storm, as this does give the impression of tacit approval for the storm fee model, and they're really not qualified to comment. I understand the motives were to try to protect members from being further exploited, but feel it could have been done without any reference to storm and worded as a general warning.
I have had my doubts about the impartiality of the founders of SICAG, and would not be surprised to find out that some do indeed still support manny & jules, however I'm sure this is not the case for the vast majority of members.
Can completely appreciate why SICAG would support manny & jules' court case against CBA. The enemy of my enemy is my friend - at least until one of them is defeated! Any successful case against CBA almost assures SICAG members with the same circumstances a much better chance of a good outcome - no matter who the case is brought by. Why not let manny pay for the "test case" as such - and if he wins - sue him for all his winnings! Noel O'Brien has stated for the record that he supports the court case, but this should not be taken as support for manny & jules - I don't see how this is open for misinterpretation. I have nothing but contempt for manny & jules, but wish them every success with the court case as a win for them will mean a win for the numerous ex-clients in the same boat, once a legal precedent has been set. I would assume that the ATO, CBA and many other creditors would have recourse to any personal gains by the Cassimatii under director's guarantees and the like, and that any funds paid to them would be quickly claimed by creditors, not to mention the many ex-clients ready to sue them personally. I'm sure Damian Scattini would be happy to lead a class action against them
Cannot understand why they still have support for commission-based fees model with a reference to Storm, as this does give the impression of tacit approval for the storm fee model, and they're really not qualified to comment. I understand the motives were to try to protect members from being further exploited, but feel it could have been done without any reference to storm and worded as a general warning.
I have had my doubts about the impartiality of the founders of SICAG, and would not be surprised to find out that some do indeed still support manny & jules, however I'm sure this is not the case for the vast majority of members.
Can completely appreciate why SICAG would support manny & jules' court case against CBA. The enemy of my enemy is my friend - at least until one of them is defeated! Any successful case against CBA almost assures SICAG members with the same circumstances a much better chance of a good outcome - no matter who the case is brought by. Why not let manny pay for the "test case" as such - and if he wins - sue him for all his winnings! Noel O'Brien has stated for the record that he supports the court case, but this should not be taken as support for manny & jules - I don't see how this is open for misinterpretation. I have nothing but contempt for manny & jules, but wish them every success with the court case as a win for them will mean a win for the numerous ex-clients in the same boat, once a legal precedent has been set. I would assume that the ATO, CBA and many other creditors would have recourse to any personal gains by the Cassimatii under director's guarantees and the like, and that any funds paid to them would be quickly claimed by creditors, not to mention the many ex-clients ready to sue them personally. I'm sure Damian Scattini would be happy to lead a class action against them
Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 13,797
- Reactions
- 10,574
As many others have pointed out on this thread, the SICAG Model is a concern to many who became concerned about Storm, especially those ASF members who were well informed before it officially went belly up.
This thread was started because of concern about Storm Financial and its dubious practices, not by SICAG, which did not even exist then, but by ASF members who delved into Storm.
The concerns that ASF members have are numerous and are as follows.
The fact that the SICAG Model on their site endorse the Storm Model of fees, I have linked to this before and will not waste bandwith again. It is on the left hand side of the site across from the moneyspider. It advises that victims not pay for advice, directly in contradiction of current best advice from ASF, Government and even the Financial Planning Industry ( muppets that the last are )
The fact that SICAG is based in the Sunshine Coast and not in Townsville or the North, where the majority of victims live.
The connection of a committee member of SICAG to a family member who was a financial adviser employed by Storm Financial.
The presence in SICAG central of a former financial adviser who held a high executive office with Storm.
There is no doubt that SICAG have done some work, but one would hope that members of SICAG will not use their positions on SICAG to start off anew in Finanacial Advisory Practices.
SICAG in no way have been the major contributors to holding the banks to account. ASF, Bernie Ripoll and his committee, the liquidators and mostly Scattini via Slater and Gordon have exposed the banks and their practices repeatedly.
The lack of publication of any adverse appearances by the Cassimatis at hearings and inquiries, leads people to believe that there is some tacit support of the Cassimatis by SICAG, or some of its members, particularly as the website states that is so in any case. So it is understandable that ASF members would ask questions of insiders as to the plans and cohorts of Manny.
Lastly, with the intimate knowledge that SICAG central have from former Storm insiders, it is incredible that they do not know the names of the Secret 60
These are simple modest intelligible concerns that you, specialed, seem not only unable to grasp, but also unable to answer.
Your answers further are personalised and not in the spirit of ASF which is to advance the knowledge and expertise of traders and investors, Storm victims included.
gg
Let him get all the money back he wants, then he too will be worth going after for more than just the jail time he deserves...
Well Said...
I have lost count of the amount of times the reasons why SICAG is based on the Sunshine Coast and not Townsville has been have been explained on this forum!!
It has been widely reported that many of the storm victims were family and friends of Storm FA's and therefore a connection between some of them is hardly surprising...a victim is a victim regardless of who their relatives worked for.....
I am not aware of any committe members who held High office on storm financial....
It has already been widely published that many if not most Storm FA's are now working for other financial companies which has nothing to do with SICAG, and given the committee members are storm victims, retired, with no prior Financial Planning experience it would seem strange that they would choose to begin a life in Financial planning or advice...but then again what the inquiries have shown is that any man and his dog can claim to be financial advisors...
Surely you do not believe that ASF is holding manny to account...and who do you think it was who chased Bennie and Co in order to get the inquiry, and then to get the terms of reference changed to include the banking industry.
The website clearly states that SICAG is neutral but, in the interests of transparency notes the possibility of relatioships, which all members are aware...as you are not a member....why the interest...
Why does it matter who knows who the 60 is...it will be a matter or public record at some point...the 60 is really none of SICAG's business yet any outcomes form their efforts will be....
and yes I will crawl back under my rock and wait for the next round of ridiculous claims...they are never far away......
After seeing the result of the enquiry into OneTel do any of you seriously believe that any of these enquiries will result in any remedy for Storm Investors or punitive action against the Cassimatis'?.
If perchance you do (and the Cassie's have not cleaned you out totally)I have a lazy "Greg Chappell" in my pocket that says they will "walk".
The same again that the so called regulators will not do what is really needed and legislate a "fiduciary" relationship between advisor and client.
Landy
If perchance you do (and the Cassie's have not cleaned you out totally)I have a lazy "Greg Chappell" in my pocket that says they will "walk".
The same again that the so called regulators will not do what is really needed and legislate a "fiduciary" relationship between advisor and client.
Landy
