Storm Financial Group

[bunyip]

Julia and Bunyip
I am sure you have been told this answer many times ...... Our original margin loan docs signed in 2002 States:
2.MARGIN CALLS ( I'm not shouting that's how it is typed in the contract)
If the margin loan equals or exceeds a certain percentage of the overall security value (see page 7) you will receive a margin call. You cannot just wait out any downturns in the market. You will have limited time to deal with any margin call, by either repaying to us enough of your facility or giving us more securities on our list. If you fail to act within the time periods specified in the terms and conditions then some of your securities may be sold so as to reduce the amount owing to an amount that does not exceed the base security value..


Note it does not say we will contact your financial planner it says "you" and that is the crux of the whole matter... I was not given a margin call.... they have not met the conditions of their contract... I did not get a margin call...... I don't know how that can be made any clearer to you all. They have failed to uphold their legal responsiblilty to issue a Margin Call to me!!!!!Everything else hinges on that fact.... simple contract law.....
Note: it also says "some of your securities MAY be sold" not WILL be sold without your knowledge!

I also believe the lawfulness of the scheme which was allegedly operated by CBA with Storm is the basis of the lawsuit which is ready to be filed by Levitts.

No, I don't believe we 'have been told this answer many times'. If we have, then I've missed it. Thank you Mash, for posting it here.

I note that the document says 'you will receive a margin call'. It doesn't say 'we will give you a margin call'.
At first glance it appears that the banks are putting the responsibility on themselves to contact you to let you know when you're in margin call. Nevertheless, it doesn't actually say that.
I'm not a legal person, but I'm guessing that this wouldn't hold much weight as evidence against the bank in a law court. A lawyer for the bank would argue that the bank made no claim that they would give you a margin call. Which in fact, they did not, if I interpret that document correctly. I suspect that the wording is sufficiently vague and ambiguous to let them off the hook.
Also, a smart lawyer might argue that the responsibility of the bank was to let your financial planner know of the margin call, since they were acting on your behalf. And that the bank fulfilled that responsibility, even though Storm Financial denies it.
Or the bank may simply say they phoned you and advised that you were in margin call.
I don't know if banks are legally bound to put margin calls in writing, or whether a phone call is enough.
I once got a phone call from my Futures broker to say I was in margin call on some Gold Futures contracts. It turned out that he had the wrong client - I'd never bought any Gold contracts. The point I'm making is that a phone call was their method of contacting me. Banks may or may not use the same methods of contact as Futures brokers - I don't really know.

I'm sure someone else posted a copy of the margin loan conditions of one of the banks on here many months ago. The document stated clearly, as I recall, that the bank had no responsibility to advise clients when they were in margin call - the responsibility lay with the client to monitor their positions to see when they were in margin call.
I'd welcome anyone else posting the terms and conditions of their margin loan, particularly what the document says about margin calls. It would be interesting to see if there's any difference between the various banks in how they word their documents.

I'm no apologist for the banks - I've repeatedly stated on here that I don't like them, I doubt if they're squeaky clean in the Storm saga, and they should have legal action brought against them if they can be proven to have done anything illegal.
If an investor was sold out of his investments without being given the opportunity of meeting a margin call, and if it can be proven that the bank failed in its duty to personally contact the client to advise they were in margin call, and if it can be proven that the client had the financial means of meeting the margin call and any subsequent margin calls that would have been made before the market started recovering, then the investor may have a case to sue the bank for compensation.
And if they do have a case, then it's perfectly understandable and reasonable that they would have a crack at the bank concerned. I'd probably do the same in their situation.
However, there's a number of 'if's' in there, and most of them won't be easily proved.

I suspect that most Storm clients would not have had the financial means to meet a margin call even if they received one, let alone meet a second or third margin call. Being sold out when they did may have saved many of them from even heavier losses if they'd been allowed to stay in the market longer.

It's oh so easy for Stormers to say it's all the banks fault for lending us so much money, and for not letting us know when we were in margin call. What's conveniently forgotten is that the losses to their net worth were already significant, indeed catastrophic for many of them, by the time their accounts went into margin call. What also seems to be forgotten is that these big losses to their net worth were a result of Storm Financial selling them into a highly risky strategy that was an accident waiting to happen as soon as the stockmarket ran out of steam. And further that they, the clients, accepted this strategy without thoroughly assessing the pros and cons of it.

For these reasons, it's completely unrealistic to swallow the Cassamatis line that it's all the banks fault. He, of course, will be delighted with anyone who is gullible enough to believe him.

 

[specialed]

I'm not a legal person, but I'm guessing that this wouldn't hold much weight as evidence against the bank in a law court. A lawyer for the bank would argue that the bank made no claim that they would give you a margin call. Which in fact, they did not, if I interpret that document correctly. I suspect that the wording is sufficiently vague and ambiguous to let them off the hook.
Also, a smart lawyer might argue that the responsibility of the bank was to let your financial planner know of the margin call, since they were acting on your behalf. And that the bank fulfilled that responsibility, even though Storm Financial denies it.
Or the bank may simply say they phoned you and advised that you were in margin call.
I don't know if banks are legally bound to put margin calls in writing, or whether a phone call is enough.

Bunyip, I agree with your analysis of the vagueness of the line in the margin loan document noted earlier.

However, isnt the contract between the bank and the client (storm investor). The financial planner is merely advising the investor and not party to the contract. Regardless of whether this is a "storm badged" fund or not, the client is the investor. Therefore why would the "you" be anyone but the client. Does this mean "you" could also be my local branch manager, my accountant etc. I am not sure whether anywhere in the rest of the contract it refers to the FP being a party to the contract. However, if it does not, then wouldnt this mean the only parties to the contract are the client and the bank and therefore the "you" can only mean, ( despite what may be "industry standard") the client...Storm is not the client, the investor is.

Any thoughts ?

 

[specialed]

If an investor was sold out of his investments without being given the opportunity of meeting a margin call, and if it can be proven that the bank failed in its duty to personally contact the client to advise they were in margin call, and if it can be proven that the client had the financial means of meeting the margin call and any subsequent margin calls that would have been made before the market started recovering, then the investor may have a case to sue the bank for compensation.
And if they do have a case, then it's perfectly understandable and reasonable that they would have a crack at the bank concerned. I'd probably do the same in their situation.
However, there's a number of 'if's' in there, and most of them won't be easily proved.

I suspect that most Storm clients would not have had the financial means to meet a margin call even if they received one, let alone meet a second or third margin call. Being sold out when they did may have saved many of them from even heavier losses if they'd been allowed to stay in the market longer.

Sorry, Also,

why should the client now have to prove they had the funds to meet the call. Isnt this part of the claim regarding the banks illegal behaviour "not acting as a prudent banker" - In granting the margin loan they made the determination that this client could meet their obligations. This is the "risk" that the bank takes, and the client pays for in fees etc . Surely the determination should be based around whether the bank met its obligations, not whether, hyperthetically the client could have. I certainly had the funds to help out some of the people I know if given the opportunity. But how "wide" should the client be allowed to secure the funds, there own money, relatives, family friends etc etc......

 

[bunyip]

Bunyip, I agree with your analysis of the vagueness of the line in the margin loan document noted earlier.

However, isnt the contract between the bank and the client (storm investor). The financial planner is merely advising the investor and not party to the contract. Regardless of whether this is a "storm badged" fund or not, the client is the investor. Therefore why would the "you" be anyone but the client. Does this mean "you" could also be my local branch manager, my accountant etc. I am not sure whether anywhere in the rest of the contract it refers to the FP being a party to the contract. However, if it does not, then wouldnt this mean the only parties to the contract are the client and the bank and therefore the "you" can only mean, ( despite what may be "industry standard") the client...Storm is not the client, the investor is.

Any thoughts ?

specialed - I can see you've given this a lot of thought. I'm not in a position to say whether you're right or wrong. I'm sure there are people far better qualified than me to comment on the correctness or otherwise of what you've said.

I simply repeat what I've stated all along....

* If Storm clients can prove that the banks have cost them money by acting illegally, then they should sue the banks.

* If Storm clients are honest and are looking for justice, rather than simply making a grab for as much cash as they can get from anyone they think they may have a chance of getting it from, then they must let go of this ridiculous Cassamatis-inspired nonsense that the banks are solely to blame.
They must accept that a significant part of the responsibility lies firstly with Storm Financial, and secondly, with the clients themselves for accepting such a risky investment strategy without adequately identifying and assessing the risks involved.

* If Storm clients have any integrity at all, they won't persist with their ludicrous campaign to get Australian taxpayers to compensate them for their losses.

I don't think any less of Stormers for making mistakes. From time to time I too have made bad investment decisions that have cost me money. There's no question that many of them, probably most of them, are decent people who thought they were doing something positive for their future.
I have great admiration for those who have faced reality by saying 'Yeh, we made mistakes, we're partly responsible for what happened to us, let's move on and make the most of our lives from here on.'
Smiley is one such person who comes to mind for his positive and realistic attitude in this regard.

What disappoints me is the Stormers who want to put all the blame on others, while accepting none themselves. And worse still, demanding compensation from innocent people (Australian taxpayers) who are not in any way responsible for the disaster that befell Storm Financial clients.

 

[bunyip]

Sorry, Also,

why should the client now have to prove they had the funds to meet the call. Isnt this part of the claim regarding the banks illegal behaviour "not acting as a prudent banker" - In granting the margin loan they made the determination that this client could meet their obligations. This is the "risk" that the bank takes, and the client pays for in fees etc . Surely the determination should be based around whether the bank met its obligations, not whether, hyperthetically the client could have. I certainly had the funds to help out some of the people I know if given the opportunity. But how "wide" should the client be allowed to secure the funds, there own money, relatives, family friends etc etc......

If anyone was to claim in court that they could have met any margin calls, had they actually received any, thereby enabling them to stay in the market and ride out the slump, then I assume they'd be required to substantiate their claim by presenting solid evidence to support it.
But I'm not a legal eagle - a lawyer would be your best bet to give you an opinion on this.

 

[Solly]

From the ASIC Website

https://storm.asic.gov.au/storm/storm.nsf

Update 1 June 2010
On 19 March 2010 ASIC announced that, in relation to recovery of compensation for Storm investors, it would enter into confidential discussions with entities which had been the subject of its investigations to see if a commercial resolution could be reached which would be acceptable to ASIC and which ASIC would be prepared to recommend to investors.
Confidentiality agreements have been put in place with a number of entities and pursuant to those agreements confidential discussions are proceeding. These discussions involve complex commercial and legal issues and are likely to continue during June.
ASIC will provide a further update in respect of the discussions at the end of June.

 

[specialed]

From the ASIC Website

https://storm.asic.gov.au/storm/storm.nsf

Update 1 June 2010
On 19 March 2010 ASIC announced that, in relation to recovery of compensation for Storm investors, it would enter into confidential discussions with entities which had been the subject of its investigations to see if a commercial resolution could be reached which would be acceptable to ASIC and which ASIC would be prepared to recommend to investors.
Confidentiality agreements have been put in place with a number of entities and pursuant to those agreements confidential discussions are proceeding. These discussions involve complex commercial and legal issues and are likely to continue during June.
ASIC will provide a further update in respect of the discussions at the end of June.

It perplexes me why ASIC, which has consumed so much public money in this affair has decided that confidentiality agreements are acceptable. Quite obviously Storm Financial is not one of the entities involved in these agreements as it is insolvent. Therefore who are these entities and what have they done that discussions are proceeding only as a result of these agreements.

Are shareholders, or customers of these entities being misled by the absence of information concerning the behaviours of these entities with respect to the Storm Financial mess.

If the CBA, BOQ, or any other "entities" have been found to have engaged in something that requires a commercial resolution then I feel I need to know about this. As a shareholder I would like to know if I am investing in a company that has engaged in illegal activities, and may again do the same which may affect my dividends etc into the future. If I am a customer of an entity that has done the same, I want to be informed so I can make an informed decision about whether to continue using this comapany, or risk becoming a victim myself..

 

[specialed]

It would appear to me that at this stage ASIC is more concerned with protecting the entities rather than protecting the consumer or investor..

This is troubling....

 

[Lone Wolf]

However, isnt the contract between the bank and the client (storm investor). The financial planner is merely advising the investor and not party to the contract. Regardless of whether this is a "storm badged" fund or not, the client is the investor. Therefore why would the "you" be anyone but the client. Does this mean "you" could also be my local branch manager, my accountant etc. I am not sure whether anywhere in the rest of the contract it refers to the FP being a party to the contract. However, if it does not, then wouldnt this mean the only parties to the contract are the client and the bank and therefore the "you" can only mean, ( despite what may be "industry standard") the client...Storm is not the client, the investor is.

Any thoughts ?

The problem isn't with the definition of "you". Yes, the contract is between the bank and the client. And it is made quite clear that "you" in this case is the client. But the problem is that the contract doesn't actually state who will inform the client. It simply states that the client will be informed. As I said earlier, most people would immediately assume this means the bank will contact them directly. But in hindsight it was never made clear.

I think it would be perfectly reasonable for a bank to communicate directly with the FP rather than the client. If you have informed the bank that you have a FP managing your investments, then I wouldn't be surprised if it was preferred that the FP receives all communications. For various reasons the bank may have trouble contacting a client, they've changed their phone number and the letter from the bank sits unopened on the table for a week because "I'll read that later". Or the client may be so unaware of financial matters that they don't fully comprehend the seriousness of the situation. But the FP should always be there to receive the call from the bank, explain the process and available options to the client and assist with the paperwork. That is their job after all. Ideally both would be informed, and certainly it should all be put in writing.

 

[Lone Wolf]

why should the client now have to prove they had the funds to meet the call.

This is where people differ in their approach to the subject. You seem to be focused purely on compensation for those affected. I believe you also need to ensure that people only receive compensation if they are entitled to it. I don't mean to answer for Bunyip, but the reason clients should need to prove that they had the capacity to meet the call(s) is because this is part of what determines if they are entitled to compensation. If you could never have met the call then you would have been sold out at an LVR of 90%, leaving you with 10% of your total investment. That's what your chosen investment strategy left you with and that's all you are entitled to. If however you could have met the call but didn't get the chance that you were legally entitled to, then the banks actions have caused you financial loss and you deserve to be compensated by the bank.

In granting the margin loan they made the determination that this client could meet their obligations. This is the "risk" that the bank takes, and the client pays for in fees etc.

I may be reading this wrong, but it sounds like you're saying the bank wouldn't have given you the loan in the first place if they didn't think you could meet the margin call. In granting the margin loan the bank did not determine that the client can meet the margin call. The margin call is just there ensure the client doesn't end up owing the bank more than they can pay. The bank has no idea, and probably doesn't care if you can meet a margin call if required.

Surely the determination should be based around whether the bank met its obligations, not whether, hyperthetically the client could have. I certainly had the funds to help out some of the people I know if given the opportunity. But how "wide" should the client be allowed to secure the funds, there own money, relatives, family friends etc etc......

How can you discuss compensation without determining how much damage was actually done to the client? Although it is a bit of a joke. It wouldn't be hard to get a rich friend to testify that they would have given you all the funds you need. Even if in reality they never would have given you anything at the time. In the middle of the GFC, the market is crashing, who knows where the bottom is. How many people would loan you money for a margin call, then another... then another...

 

[Julia]

I may be reading this wrong, but it sounds like you're saying the bank wouldn't have given you the loan in the first place if they didn't think you could meet the margin call. In granting the margin loan the bank did not determine that the client can meet the margin call. The margin call is just there ensure the client doesn't end up owing the bank more than they can pay. The bank has no idea, and probably doesn't care if you can meet a margin call if required.

Agree. There is throughout this thread the naive assumption that the bank has some moral obligation to look out for the total welfare of the client.
All the bank really cares about is its own protection, i.e. that it holds sufficient security against the client loan to ensure it does not lose money.
The rest is up to the client and/or their financial adviser.
No, it's not an ideal situation. I'm sure we'd all like to think our friendly banker exists to ensure our personal and financial security, but it just ain't so.

How can you discuss compensation without determining how much damage was actually done to the client? Although it is a bit of a joke. It wouldn't be hard to get a rich friend to testify that they would have given you all the funds you need. Even if in reality they never would have given you anything at the time. In the middle of the GFC, the market is crashing, who knows where the bottom is. How many people would loan you money for a margin call, then another... then another...

Exactly.

Still, I feel for you, specialed, in wanting the best possible outcome for the people close to you who have lost money.
Have they decided whether to accept the CBA offer, or go for the pending class action? Must be a really difficult choice.

 

[Solly]

"SICAG chair hits back over scheme sacking
ASIC enters Storm compo discussions"


The co-chair of SICAG has hit back at public statements made by Slater & Gordon over his removal from the CBA resolution scheme.

More by Kate Kachor in Investor Daily here;

http://www.investordaily.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/id/style/9346.htm

 

[Solly]

"Storm victim in new stoush"

"ONE of the high-profile victims of the Storm Financial disaster, action group co-chairman
Mark Weir, is claiming he is now being victimised by lawyers supposed to be representing him."

More by Tony Raggatt in the Townsville Bulletin here;

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2010/06/03/143371_news.html

 

[specialed]

My comment is in regards to the loans that were given that were not servicable. ie, Pension whose sole income is the pension getting 500,000 loans. In granting the margin loan the bank has determined that the client is able to meet their obligations. The margin call is just one element of this loan. The bank is right to make the call and cash it in the stock, but only after it has afforded the customer the 5 days. I cant believe, ASIC have been unable to make a determination one way or the other with regards to this.

Surely at some point either thay or the court is able to determine who was responsible fo rthe call, and communicating the call. Once this is determined then if it is the banks then compensate those who could have met the call. If it is storms, then free the bank form any responsibility for this aspect. The resoultion scheme appears muddy, with clients not actually knowing what they are being comensated for. The banks compensating them, but denying any responsibility. If the bank does not agree that it did anything wrong in terms of the margin call, then surely this is outside the terms of the settlement. Therefore, if it does end up in court and they are found to have acted outside of the law, then despite any confideniality agreements the client should be able to persue the banks......if they have acted outside the law

 

[Solly]

"Last-ditch action in Storm fight"

"A Lawyer threatening a class action against the Commonwealth Bank on behalf of more than 300 wiped-out Storm Financial clients has started a last-ditch bid to avoid a court battle."

Read more by Anthony Marx in The Courier Mail of June 2, 2010 on page 49.

Article mentions Stewart Levitt's 2.5 hour meeting with bank officials on June 1.

 

[bunyip]

"SICAG chair hits back over scheme sacking
ASIC enters Storm compo discussions"


The co-chair of SICAG has hit back at public statements made by Slater & Gordon over his removal from the CBA resolution scheme.

More by Kate Kachor in Investor Daily here;

http://www.investordaily.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/id/style/9346.htm

Interesting comment here from Mark Weir about the Storm case being likely to drag on in the courts for years.

''We were hopeful the scheme would deliver an outcome that would settle this matter, enabling our members to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives and allow the bank to get on with its business,'' he said.

''Instead it would now seem inevitable that it will drag on in the courts for years.''

There were a number of us here on this thread who expressed a similar opinion at the outset - that this Storm business would drag on for years, and that the big winners would be the law firms.

I wonder though, if Mark Weir and some other Stormers have unrealistic expectations in regard to compensation.
From what I read, more than half of those who were offered a compensation deal with the bank have accepted the offer, and moved on with their lives.
While they probably received less than they were hoping for, they apparently considered the offer attractive enough to accept.
I don't know what sort of deal Mark Weir is hoping for, but maybe he needs to lower his sights a little, put less blame on the banks, and more blame on Storm Financial who are primarily responsible for the mess.
Also, Mr Weir may need to start accepting some of the blame himself, if he's not already doing so.
If he's swallowed the unrealistic Cassamatis-generated propaganda that the banks are entirely to blame for what happened to Storm clients, then he's likely to hold a very unrealistic view of what compensation the banks should pay. If this is in fact the case, then I daresay he'll be disappointed with the final outcome.

 

[Mindstorm]

Interesting comment here from Mark Weir about the Storm case being likely to drag on in the courts for years.

''We were hopeful the scheme would deliver an outcome that would settle this matter, enabling our members to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives and allow the bank to get on with its business,'' he said.

''Instead it would now seem inevitable that it will drag on in the courts for years.''

There were a number of us here on this thread who expressed a similar opinion at the outset - that this Storm business would drag on for years, and that the big winners would be the law firms.

I wonder though, if Mark Weir and some other Stormers have unrealistic expectations in regard to compensation.
From what I read, more than half of those who were offered a compensation deal with the bank have accepted the offer, and moved on with their lives.
While they probably received less than they were hoping for, they apparently considered the offer attractive enough to accept.
I don't know what sort of deal Mark Weir is hoping for, but maybe he needs to lower his sights a little, put less blame on the banks, and more blame on Storm Financial who are primarily responsible for the mess.
Also, Mr Weir may need to start accepting some of the blame himself, if he's not already doing so.
If he's swallowed the unrealistic Cassamatis-generated propaganda that the banks are entirely to blame for what happened to Storm clients, then he's likely to hold a very unrealistic view of what compensation the banks should pay. If this is in fact the case, then I daresay he'll be disappointed with the final outcome.

Bunyip,

I've come back again and again to respond to your post,and deleted every response till now. Why? Because I am frightened that I will be seen as breaking the 'non-disclosure' clause in our offer from CBA.

Please don't believe everything you read in the media. Just because it's in black and white it doesn't mean that it's the truth.

MW has not been 'fully' quoted, so what you've posted is not quite what he said. As always, the media have artistic license.

Please note also that the media rely heavily on advertising fees. Not that I would make any disparaging remarks about media correspondents, but their bread and butter is in advertising, is it not?

How many web pages do you open up that don't have an advertisement for one bank or another?

Again, from what you've read, you form an opinion on how many clients are accepting offers. If over half the clients have accepted offers how can I know of so many who haven't? I only know one client who has accepted. They accepted because they could not afford, health-wise, mental well-being wise, or financially, to continue. They were not happy with their offer. They just couldn't go on any longer.

For now, only CBA clients are tied by their 'secrecy clause'. We can't discuss our dealings with the bank with our families let alone anyone else. Can you please ask yourself why, if the banks are being so magnanimous, so generous, that they are gagging us from disclosing their offers?

Going to court will allow the truth to finally come out. There are many clients who will be very happy to go to court to do just that. The truth, the whole truth, under oath.

I would love to be able to be totally truthful with you and the forum right now, but unfortunately I've been gagged, bound to secrecy, by a bank that promised 'transparency' in their resolution scheme.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Bunyip,

I've come back again and again to respond to your post,and deleted every response till now. Why? Because I am frightened that I will be seen as breaking the 'non-disclosure' clause in our offer from CBA.

Please don't believe everything you read in the media. Just because it's in black and white it doesn't mean that it's the truth.

MW has not been 'fully' quoted, so what you've posted is not quite what he said. As always, the media have artistic license.

Please note also that the media rely heavily on advertising fees. Not that I would make any disparaging remarks about media correspondents, but their bread and butter is in advertising, is it not?

How many web pages do you open up that don't have an advertisement for one bank or another?

Again, from what you've read, you form an opinion on how many clients are accepting offers. If over half the clients have accepted offers how can I know of so many who haven't? I only know one client who has accepted. They accepted because they could not afford, health-wise, mental well-being wise, or financially, to continue. They were not happy with their offer. They just couldn't go on any longer.

For now, only CBA clients are tied by their 'secrecy clause'. We can't discuss our dealings with the bank with our families let alone anyone else. Can you please ask yourself why, if the banks are being so magnanimous, so generous, that they are gagging us from disclosing their offers?

Going to court will allow the truth to finally come out. There are many clients who will be very happy to go to court to do just that. The truth, the whole truth, under oath.

I would love to be able to be totally truthful with you and the forum right now, but unfortunately I've been gagged, bound to secrecy, by a bank that promised 'transparency' in their resolution scheme.

Mate, this a full of it post.

As many posters on this thread sussed from the beginning ,SICAG has been close to and involved with and in what is left of "Storm" as a concept and with its former advisers.

Their agenda is in some way to resurrect Storm as a going concern and restore all funds to the poor unfortunate bastards who lost their money through the Storm spin that markets only go up, and that leverage is without risk.

You sound like Mossad, James Bond or perhaps Maxwell Smart, in relation to secrecy. Every man and his dog at the Ross Island Hotel knows the terms of the CBA agreement with the clients who have decided to call it quits and get on with their life.

It is related daily by victims to their families and friends.

So don't go on with this line of so called secrecy obliterating debate.

gg

 

[specialed]

.

Their agenda is in some way to resurrect Storm as a going concern and restore all funds to the poor unfortunate bastards who lost their money through the Storm spin that markets only go up, and that leverage is without risk.

Garpal,

Your opinion in regard to SICAG is well known and I suppose the great thing about this forum is you are free to continue bashing it. But the comment above is so ridiculous it beggars belief that anyone could come up with this one and feel comfortable publicly stating it.

I believe there is another forum on this site for conspiracy theories, this comment may be better there I believe.

Could you please offer some support for this claim. Could you please also elaborate on what evidence you have discovered that indicates anyone within SICAG or any of its members want storm resurrected. Further, how this could be achieved.

I eagerly await your answers.

 

[Ironhalo]

I have 3 family members who have accepted the CBA's offer with relish, and one serving ADF member mate of mine who has also done that same thing.

My personal argument with the CBA is that they sold my 2-month old investment out at the bottom of the market without ANY confirmation/phonecall, and now claim that they owe me nothing as we weren't in a margin call position when this all went down. My counter claim to that is, if we weren't in margin call, then why were we sold down in the first place? We had plenty of cash to cover any contingency, yet we were sold out at a $16k loss at the bottom of the market, for no reason. A long story short, Colonial decided to repay our margin loan when we weren't in margin call with our investment, without authorisation, and left us the pittance and loss that was left....with not even a statement received in Oct-Nov 08 to show what had happened.

Now what really gets up my goat is that there seems to be a portion of the Storm customer base who aren't satisfied with what they have been offered, and seem to be under the impression that the bank (or the Australian taxpayer) must return them to square one as if the GFC never happened. That's just bollocks. People need to take some responsibility for this themselves.

Now let's use some common sense, when you start signing documents in triplicate for 1 million dollar margin loans, you must realise that some basic due diligence is in order. But no, the same people that are no moaning about how cut throat the banks are, are the same ones who were sported all over the Storm brochures gushing about their profits in 2007 and the overseas trips Storm was inviting them on. I didn't see any of these people raising questions when they were rolling in profits for FY 2007/08 no?

I'm not one for kicking people while they are down (I've been in the situation) but some people really need a reality check. It's irresponsible of SICAG to keep pushing this 'we must be fully compensated!' line. It's not going to happen.