Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Storm Financial Group

Jump to new
Solly mate,

I did not get an invite, but being the gentleman, I was not upset.

I have offered the Bentley as a wedding car , gratis, but thus far have received no reply.

From what a newspaper I read last evening in a shabby Qantas Business Class Lounge said, there is no lack of dosh being lavished on the proceedings.

Its called the trickle down effect, so beloved of Ronnie Reagan and Maggie Thatcher.

"everyone is a winner"

gg
 
Lone Wolf said:
The figure you chose to use in your post was 3000 or so people who would have been self funded retirees had storm not collapsed. 3000 people who, if they had the chance to meet their margin calls would have survived the market crash. I understand that you may not have thought too hard about that figure, but I personally feel that only a small fraction of those 3000 people would have actually survived the crash. Most of the comments I've seen from stormers complain that they lost everything, the banks let them borrow too much money, they couldn't afford the repayments, they lost their homes because they couldn't pay the bank what they owed. Of course this is just from the more vocal stormers, but most of the people doing the complaining didn't seem to have large piles of cash handy to meet margin calls. Most it seems, had everything riding on it. These people bet everything on the market continuing to go up and lost it all when it didn't.


My problem has always been with the people to clearly never would have survived the market crash, yet blame everyone else for allowing them to invest so much borrowed money. Of all the people signing the petition to get their hands on government handouts, I'd like to see how many had the cash set aside to meet margin calls.
Click to expand...

I agree that many probably would not have the funds to meet the first of further calls. However, this is part of the reason their is 5 day period to respond, rather than a requirement say, to say have an equivalent amount in cash attached in another account. The bank is right to assume after that 5 days that the owner is not willing or able to meet the call. Up untill that time however they need to assume the investor can.

A simple analogy is buying ahouse. I and the seller sign a 30 day contract. I have untill that time to get the funds. If at, of after that date then the seller has not received the settlement then he can rightly walk away, keeping my deposit. Up until that date he cant just walk away simply because he "believes" I cant afford the house. Due process must occur. Liquidating the portfolio was not done because of a fear that no one could meet the call, it was done for various other reasons.

This is why the CBA can not afford for this to go to court. If found in breach then YES they would have to reinstate to value of the portfolios before they sold them down, and pay compensation for the damage caused in doing so. Thus alot of people who could not have met calls and maybe should have lost their investments will actually be rewarded. For me the matter of whether or not it was a risky investment, whether the advice from storm was bad, whether they could meet the call is all irrelevant. That is for the FPA or ASIC to decide. The CBA was required by Law to give the client the opportunity to meet the call and did not, anything after this is speculation and heresay....a matter for opinion and debate...but not the matter that needs to be resolved in the courts.....
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Solly mate,

I did not get an invite, but being the gentleman, I was not upset.

I have offered the Bentley as a wedding car , gratis, but thus far have received no reply...
Click to expand...

That's a very kind gesture gg, maybe you could replace the "B" hood ornament with this one, in noir would be fitting.
Would also make it easier to thread the silk ribbon. ;)
 

Attachments

  • 1941_Packard_Swan2.jpg
    1941_Packard_Swan2.jpg
    20.9 KB · Views: 98
specialed said:
No Julia, I haven't had any losses, was not an investor with storm, and I certainly do not need any compensation.
Click to expand...
My apologies, then, for assuming you were an investor. I'm curious as to why you appear to be such a passionate advocate for Storm investors if you have no personal stake in the matter?

In answer to your second question I'm pretty sure it was cleared up in the senate inquiry. The CBA was responsible for communicating the margin call to the client.
Click to expand...
What I was looking for was a direct quote from the paperwork of any Storm investor which would surely have clearly stated who was responsible for communicating any margin call.

Julia, Can you please answer for me this simple question. Why is the CBA paying compensation to storm investors through the resolution process ?
Click to expand...
I'm not in a position to know that, and it's immaterial to me. I'm not a CBA shareholder. There was presumably a clear contract (well, one would hope so) between Storm, the investor, and the CBA.

It's a quite different matter, though, to suggest the Australian taxpayer should compensate Stormers for their losses. Storm investors had no contract with the Australian taxpayer.
You still haven't responded to my question as to why you think this should happen.
 
Julia said:
My apologies, then, for assuming you were an investor. I'm curious as to why you appear to be such a passionate advocate for Storm investors if you have no personal stake in the matter?


What I was looking for was a direct quote from the paperwork of any Storm investor which would surely have clearly stated who was responsible for communicating any margin call.


I'm not in a position to know that, and it's immaterial to me. I'm not a CBA shareholder. There was presumably a clear contract (well, one would hope so) between Storm, the investor, and the CBA.

It's a quite different matter, though, to suggest the Australian taxpayer should compensate Stormers for their losses. Storm investors had no contract with the Australian taxpayer.
You still haven't responded to my question as to why you think this should happen.
Click to expand...

Julia,

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I have a personnal stake in this matter. As I have stated previously as I have very close family and friends who have been affected by this.

I have never stated the Australian Taxpayer should compensate, but rather noted the irony that they will be helping to fund the retirement of some of the investors. I do believe the CBA should be compensating storm investors, not the taxpayer, who will be because of the failure of the resolution process...
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Solly mate,

I did not get an invite, but being the gentleman, I was not upset.

I have offered the Bentley as a wedding car , gratis, but thus far have received no reply.

From what a newspaper I read last evening in a shabby Qantas Business Class Lounge said, there is no lack of dosh being lavished on the proceedings.

Its called the trickle down effect, so beloved of Ronnie Reagan and Maggie Thatcher.

"everyone is a winner"

gg
Click to expand...

gg, looks like the Arnage wont be required after all.

"..wedding scaled back after 'toxic' claims"
 
Solly said:
gg, looks like the Arnage wont be required after all.

"..wedding scaled back after 'toxic' claims"
Click to expand...

Yes Solly,

I spoke to some movers n shakers at the Waterfront this afternoon.

They said that the hue and cry following the publicity surrounding the lavish bash had led to the the possibility of some Ingham and Ayr, Storm victims of southern Mediterranean descent visiting the celebrations with loving intent to congratulate ole Manny in the customary manner.

Manny said today that he is now broke, and has decided to have a low key bash for the wedding.

I do hope he hasn't booked the Ross Island Hotel, as there is a strict ban on biff of any type within its hallowed walls.

So if the ole Manny can go from being rich to being broke in 4 weeks what hope is there for the rest of us.

I do hope the SICAG committee are given a special pew close to the front, as they have been sterling supporters of the Storm model thus far.

Then again, they have been broke for longer than Manny, and they are not living in mansions.

The Bentley is still available and I've told Manny's next door neighbour on the Terrace that my offer still stands.

gg
 
specialed said:
Julia,

I have never stated the Australian Taxpayer should compensate, but rather noted the irony that they will be helping to fund the retirement of some of the investors. I do believe the CBA should be compensating storm investors, not the taxpayer, who will be because of the failure of the resolution process...
Click to expand...
Thanks, specialed. Obviously we have been at cross purposes. Glad to have your clarification as above.
 
Julia said:
My apologies, then, for assuming you were an investor. I'm curious as to why you appear to be such a passionate advocate for Storm investors if you have no personal stake in the matter?
Click to expand...

I got nothing to do with storms or their investors but I feel a lot of these investors was deceived..some are greedy who knows but some of the stories that came out of this are pretty heart breaking stuff.

They could be greedy, they could be naive but the price they paid for it is too high and I think they need a bit of support from the government to get them back on their track...

“We can’t help everyone, but everyone can help someone.”

I wonder if people think these people have greed written over their head if that was to happen to their parents or someone they love :)
 
gg, I was wondering if you have been able to run your eye over the Worrells report yet? I haven't sighted it yet but one of my friends is perusing it tonight.

I'm also hoping that my mate 'Murph', the Emeritus Silk, has got a copy, I'd like to get his views on what sections of the Corporations Act may have had the possibility of being breached.

Murph usually has an early morning caffè latte with his raisin toast at the coffee shop by the marina and I hope to catch up with him in the AM. Although Thursday night's not a good night for him as two footy shows are aired and he is known to sip cab sauv in front of his plasma, which sometimes results in impaired judgement the following morning. :eek:
 
Solly said:
gg, I was wondering if you have been able to run your eye over the Worrells report yet? I haven't sighted it yet but one of my friends is perusing it tonight.

I'm also hoping that my mate 'Murph', the Emeritus Silk, has got a copy, I'd like to get his views on what sections of the Corporations Act may have had the possibility of being breached.

Murph usually has an early morning caffè latte with his raisin toast at the coffee shop by the marina and I hope to catch up with him in the AM. Although Thursday night's not a good night for him as two footy shows are aired and he is known to sip cab sauv in front of his plasma, which sometimes results in impaired judgement the following morning. :eek:
Click to expand...

I am not one for reading legal documents although minimegumnutkid6 is a lawyer and has promised to peruse it for me.

Solly said:
"Founder may face criminal charges"

"A long list of suspected breaches of the Corporations Act, including possible criminal charges against Storm Financial's founder, Emmanuel Cassimatis, has been sent to the corporate regulator."

More by Stuart Washington in the SMH here;

http://www.smh.com.au/business/founder-may-face-criminal-charges-20100527-whtl.html
Click to expand...

This post Solly may be the most significant since I first started this thread.

If it is true and the Cassimatises are charged and convicted it will have five consequences.

1. An out for the banks

2. Some closure for the victims of the Storm "model".

3. The end of the amateurish perambulations of SICAG.

4. Justification for Damo Scattini's approach.

5. Some time inside for those convicted.

gg
 
ROE said:
I got nothing to do with storms or their investors but I feel a lot of these investors was deceived..some are greedy who knows but some of the stories that came out of this are pretty heart breaking stuff.

They could be greedy, they could be naive but the price they paid for it is too high and I think they need a bit of support from the government to get them back on their track...

“We can’t help everyone, but everyone can help someone.”

I wonder if people think these people have greed written over their head if that was to happen to their parents or someone they love :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for your support. Seems like some people who contribute to this thread are just plain heartless. I suppose they'd blame Victorian Bushfire victims who lost everything, that it was their own fault too - for wanting to live in the country - or Tsunami survivors they should geat real - hey that's what happens if you live near a beach! And duh! all my fault I trusted a registered Financial Planner and ended up broke. It's all very well to sit back and banter about it, but unless you're living it, it's not real. It's harder than you think, to be a survivor.
 
Rainbow said:
Thanks for your support. Seems like some people who contribute to this thread are just plain heartless. I suppose they'd blame Victorian Bushfire victims who lost everything, that it was their own fault too - for wanting to live in the country - or Tsunami survivors they should geat real - hey that's what happens if you live near a beach! And duh! all my fault I trusted a registered Financial Planner and ended up broke. It's all very well to sit back and banter about it, but unless you're living it, it's not real. It's harder than you think, to be a survivor.
Click to expand...

Should the role of government be to use taxpayer-provided revenue to responsibly manage the country and provide essential services?
Or should the role of government be to act as some sort of rescue agency for people whose investments have run aground?
Do you think the government should compensate only Stormers? Or should they compensate everyone whose lost money through bad investments?

Victims of tsunamis, bushfires, floods, cyclones, earthquakes etc have little or no control over what happens to them. Their situation is very different to Storm investors who could have saved the bulk of their net worth by converting to cash.
It's not as if the market collapsed suddenly like it did in 1987 - this time around there was plenty of time to take defensive action before the damage became catastrophic.
If your manager wouldn't take defensive action for you, then it was up to you to take control of your business by doing it yourself.
Your failure to do so when the stockmarket turned bearish is the major contributing factor to you losing your money.

Sorry, not trying to be heartless here, just realistic.
 
bunyip said:
Their situation is very different to Storm investors who could have saved the bulk of their net worth by converting to cash.
It's not as if the market collapsed suddenly like it did in 1987 - this time around there was plenty of time to take defensive action before the damage became catastrophic.
If your manager wouldn't take defensive action for you, then it was up to you to take control of your business by doing it yourself.
Your failure to do so when the stockmarket turned bearish is the major contributing factor to you losing your money.

Sorry, not trying to be heartless here, just realistic.
Click to expand...

Hi Bunyip,

Your statement appears to be based on the assumption that it was actually possible for the clients to convert to cash. That in turn, appears to be based on the assumption that the banks and agencies/companies involved had enough staff to physically cope with the number of requests to convert to cash.

If that is the case, then perhaps your statement is realistic.

However what if the two assumptions are not correct?

Cheers
Maccka
 
maccka said:
Hi Bunyip,

Your statement appears to be based on the assumption that it was actually possible for the clients to convert to cash. That in turn, appears to be based on the assumption that the banks and agencies/companies involved had enough staff to physically cope with the number of requests to convert to cash.

If that is the case, then perhaps your statement is realistic.

However what if the two assumptions are not correct?

Cheers
Maccka
Click to expand...

Macca

If they'd all tried to convert to cash at the same time when the market was in free fall, then yes, the banks may have struggled to cope with the workload.
But they should have been out long before then. The market took eight months to lose the first 25% of it's value. By comparison, in October 1987 it fell 25% in one day.
In terms of the speed of the fall, this slump was mild compared to 1987, allowing investors plenty of time to take defensive action.

Amidst all this talk and argument about who was responsible for notifying clients when they were in margin call, one pertinent fact that's rarely mentioned is that investors with margin loans, whether they're Storm investors or anyone else, should be out of the market long before they get anywhere near margin call.
Once your investment has fallen far enough to trigger a margin call, you've already lost most of your money.

I don't think any less of Stormers for the mistakes they made. I've made mistakes myself that have cost me money, probably most of us have.
I won't claim the banks are squeaky clean - I've stated on here more than once that I dislike banks and they should pay compensation if they can be proven to have done anything illegal.
What I take issue with is the people who try to say it was the banks that wiped them out. That's just nonsense in most cases - the banks may have contributed, but the primary reason for Stormers losing their wealth was that they were heavily geared into margin loans at a time when the stockmarket slumped, and they sat through more than 12 months of one of the most severe market slumps in history without taking defensive action to minimise the damage to their wealth.

They made a huge mistake, and now they want Australian taxpayers to pay them for that mistake. It's just not on. They made the mistake, not us. The loss belongs to them, not to us, the Australian taxpayers.
It's not heartless, it's just being realistic.
 

Similar threads

TiminOz
The dynamics of money and TIME: crimping cashflow for a period
Replies
3
Views
874
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 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
ducati916
ducati916
Garpal Gumnut
Mayfair 101/Mayfair Platinum
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
Top