Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Storm Financial Group

Jump to new
Julia said:
To be honest, I didn't really feel much enlightened by the program which was typical "60 Minutes" stuff, including Ms Fanning chasing Mr Liddy into lifts, around car parks etc in real tabloid journalism style.

Unless I'm being obtuse, there was an implication, rather than proof, that it was BOQ who had misrepresented figures on the loan applications, not Storm.
Maybe it was definitely BOQ, but I was disappointed at how absolutely Cassimatis was left out when it came to doling out responsibility for the clients' failed positions.
Also, there was not a mention of any responsibility to be attributed to the clients in borrowing amounts they could not hope to service. Imo both these factors make the program unbalanced.

Does the fact that BOQ branches are individually owned make any difference in the Head Office's reluctance to take responsibility for at least some of what went wrong? What has happened to the Branch Managers concerned?
Are they still in their jobs? If so, then that's clearly poor judgement on the part of BOQ management.

What would be interesting (but will never happen) would be a panel discussion, chaired by e.g. Kerry O'Brien with Manny and the variously implicated bank personnel.

The lady featured in the program was a great choice - hard working typical Australian who didn't question the financial 'advice' given by Manny.
Click to expand...
The absolute proof is in the Audit Report that the BOQ does not want to reveal and furthermore there is substantiated proof on each individual application form. I too am disappointed that Ms Fanning did not show to the camera the copy of email from the Head of Group Risk or some other leaked emails. I have heard Mr Auty is no longer with the bank (wonder why???) Storm were dodgy, however, a prudent banker had the right the reject the loan application rather than breach the Trade Practices Act.
 
I'm pretty sure the footage of the large group on the back veranda was used in the last 60 minutes expose on Storm / CBA which was done some 12 plus months ago. This was typically 60 minutes rubbish...Big statements, fuzzy animations of lines of text but no real substance. Even the slightest amount of investigative journalism could have provided some interesting information and insight into what had happened. I suspect most would not be interested in talking untill after any chance of a settlement had been finalised. Instead we saw Liddy being chased around a carpark and in a coffee shop. 15 minutes of my life I will never get back.........
 
specialed said:
I'm pretty sure the footage of the large group on the back veranda was used in the last 60 minutes expose on Storm / CBA which was done some 12 plus months ago.
Click to expand...
Thought maybe I was having a deja vu experience because I was also sure I'd seen that before.
This was typically 60 minutes rubbish...Big statements, fuzzy animations of lines of text but no real substance.
Click to expand...
So essentially what you'd expect from Channel 9 and this particular program.
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
......My contacts at the Ross Island Hotel, recently out of the "Creek", tell me that accommodation is at a premium, and it is often first in least dressed. Some doubling up occurs and there has been of late an unfortunate mixing of white collar criminals with the dangerous. The latter's complaints about this have fallen on deaf ears and they often have to, in their frustration, resort to their habitual forms of response.

gg
Click to expand...


gg, in the 60 Minutes story looks like Aussie John is of the opinion that if fraud is proven, then incarceration is a possible outcome.

Any single sitters available yet? Or is it still head to tail?
 
Thought this might interest some folks re compensation:
While Rares J. did find that Mr Goodridge had access to borrowings of $400,000.00 from a friend and that the friend was likely to honour a commitment to lend him $400,000.00, His Honour nevertheless ruled that:

“Any damage which results from a breach of contract and was reasonably in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made, is recoverable, even thought he claimant’s impecuniosity contributed to it: Burns v MAN Automotive (Aust) Pty Limited (1986) 161 CLR 653 at 658 to 659 per Gibbs, CJ. The Chief Justice held that a wrongdoer is liable for the consequences flowing from his wrongful act, notwithstanding that the victim was unable, because of lack of funds, to take the steps to mitigate his loss: Burns 161 CLR at 659, see too at 674 to 675 per: Brennan J. (para. 228 at page 73 in Goodridge’s case).”
 
pegasus said:
The answer is both have left - not by their own volution. What happened was very interesting...When they had to testify at the public hearing they were both on 'leave'. So when asked where they worked they could honestly say CGI/CBA. Everything looked above board and The Bank was standing by their employees. Clothier and Kamal were visibly agitated. The CBA Barristers were sitting at the benches like Vultures watching and listening to every word. Of course if Clothier or Kamal said anything agianst the Bank their entitlements would be at risk - so they toed the corporate line. Once the examination was over Clothier and Kamal left their employment quietly and the Bank slipped away like the serpents they are.
Click to expand...

Why would you want to contact them anyway?
 
Solly said:
BOQ's response to the 60 Minutes Report.

A statement from BOQ Chairman, Neil Summerson is here;
Click to expand...
Extract from the above:
In fact, BOQ did provide as much information to 60 Minutes as we were able, given the constraints outlined above but they chose not to provide both sides of this story.



So here are the facts:

The story questioned the way we calculate how much people can borrow. Without getting in to the complex detail of how various loan serviceability figures are arrived at, let me make one thing clear. We would never settle a loan unless the customer had signed the loan contract. And we would never settle a loan that we thought a customer couldn’t service. It simply isn’t good business sense.
Click to expand...

Of course it's not good business sense.

Any further comment from BOQ Storm clients?
 
Julia said:
Extract from the above:


Of course it's not good business sense.

Any further comment from BOQ Storm clients?
Click to expand...

Hi Julia,
My in-laws received their loan from BOQ in North Ward. They live '000's of K's from Townsville. Never had contact from that BOQ branch. I have seen their application. Not in their handwriting, riddled with errors. It may take a bit of time but in the end the truth will come out.
 
Jifromoz said:
Hi Julia,
My in-laws received their loan from BOQ in North Ward. They live '000's of K's from Townsville. Never had contact from that BOQ branch. I have seen their application. Not in their handwriting, riddled with errors. It may take a bit of time but in the end the truth will come out.
Click to expand...
Hi Jifromoz, Who do they believe made the errors? The BOQ or Storm?
When they received the copy of the application and found it to be incorrect, what did they do then?
 
Julia said:
Hi Jifromoz, Who do they believe made the errors? The BOQ or Storm?
When they received the copy of the application and found it to be incorrect, what did they do then?
Click to expand...

I don't know who filled it out. It is in the hands of their solicitor & ASIC. In my opinion, giving pensioners a large loan with no regular income should have rung some alarm bells with someone in the bank............. but it didn't.

As I said, the truth will come out in the end and those that have done wrong will feel the full weight of the law.
 
Jifromoz said:
I don't know who filled it out. It is in the hands of their solicitor & ASIC. In my opinion, giving pensioners a large loan with no regular income should have rung some alarm bells with someone in the bank............. but it didn't.

As I said, the truth will come out in the end and those that have done wrong will feel the full weight of the law.
Click to expand...

Fair comment. But shouldn't the alarm bells have also rung for the pensioners concerned?
They must have signed the loan application documents.
They must have known the loan amount they were applying for.
They surely would have done some simple calculations to know if they could afford to service the loan.
Once the loan was approved, they would have received further documentation outlining the terms and conditions of the loan.
And before the loan was actually granted and made available to them, they would have signed a document stating that they'd read, understood, and accepted the terms and conditions of the loan.
The amount of the loan would have been clearly stated in the documents they received before they finally signed off to put the loan in motion.
At least, that's how it's been done whenever I've taken out a loan.

If someone had doctored the figures and inflated the loan amount that they applied for, surely the loan applicants had ample opportunity to discover this before they accepted the loan.
The loan acceptance form would have been signed in duplicate, with the client keeping a copy for their records.

I just don't see how anyone could get away with doctoring the figures without it being picked up by the loan applicants, IF they properly scrutinised the loan documents.

If they failed to scrutinise the loan documents before singing them, then they themselves, not just the bank, were negligent in their responsibilities, and therefore are partly responsible for what happened.
That doesn't excuse any unscrupulous or illegal conduct by the bank. But it does illustrate that everyone involved in a loan transaction has responsibilities, and if any of them neglect those responsibilities, then they must bear part of the blame if things go wrong.
 
bunyip said:
Fair comment. But shouldn't the alarm bells have also rung for the pensioners concerned?
They must have signed the loan application documents.
They must have known the loan amount they were applying for.
They surely would have done some simple calculations to know if they could afford to service the loan.
Once the loan was approved, they would have received further documentation outlining the terms and conditions of the loan.
And before the loan was actually granted and made available to them, they would have signed a document stating that they'd read, understood, and accepted the terms and conditions of the loan.
The amount of the loan would have been clearly stated in the documents they received before they finally signed off to put the loan in motion.
At least, that's how it's been done whenever I've taken out a loan.

If someone had doctored the figures and inflated the loan amount that they applied for, surely the loan applicants had ample opportunity to discover this before they accepted the loan.
The loan acceptance form would have been signed in duplicate, with the client keeping a copy for their records.

I just don't see how anyone could get away with doctoring the figures without it being picked up by the loan applicants, IF they properly scrutinised the loan documents.

If they failed to scrutinise the loan documents before singing them, then they themselves, not just the bank, were negligent in their responsibilities, and therefore are partly responsible for what happened.
That doesn't excuse any unscrupulous or illegal conduct by the bank. But it does illustrate that everyone involved in a loan transaction has responsibilities, and if any of them neglect those responsibilities, then they must bear part of the blame if things go wrong.
Click to expand...
Re: BOQ
What if the loan was altered even after being scrutinised, no original signed copy is in the loan file, no terms and conditions were given, no borrowers copy was given and the type of loan was changed after the fact.
What we need to ask is was every page of the loan application initialled?
Was the borrower contacted to verify their information?
Does the bank just have a bunch of photocopies faxed by Storm?
Was the borrower given a terms and conditions, copy of the interest rates, borrowers copy, and or any other documentation relating to the type of account that was opened on their behalf.
When a person gets a job in a bank they are taught that the customer is always correct. They are also taught to verify all information with the customer directly prior to opening an account, they are also obliged to to provide necessary documentation when opening the account. They are taught compliance and the penalties for breaching the TPA. Obviously the risk and commission was worth it for the North Ward branch!

If the bank were to deduct the fraudulent dollar values listed on peoples assets and credit it against the loan there would be no Storm loans left!

Remember the old saying if you can't get a loan in any other bank go to the BOQ (North Ward) and you can have it by the afternoon!
 
zzz, if the client was not assured of all the points you raise above, then surely they would have followed it up?
If they didn't ensure they had complete copy of all documentation, which they had read, checked and understood, then - as Bunyip points out - they are at best being careless.

However, perhaps you are suggesting all the clients signed off on correctly prepared documentation, ensured they had a copy, then subsequently either BOQ or Storm completely altered the content of the contract?

Presumably that would bring criminal charges if proved.

But even if that happened, wouldn't the client question the value of shares they had been able to buy, i.e. the value of the loan clearly being greater than they had signed off on?
 
zzz said:
Re: BOQ
What if the loan was altered even after being scrutinised, no original signed copy is in the loan file, no terms and conditions were given, no borrowers copy was given and the type of loan was changed after the fact.
What we need to ask is was every page of the loan application initialled?
Was the borrower contacted to verify their information?
Does the bank just have a bunch of photocopies faxed by Storm?
Was the borrower given a terms and conditions, copy of the interest rates, borrowers copy, and or any other documentation relating to the type of account that was opened on their behalf.
When a person gets a job in a bank they are taught that the customer is always correct. They are also taught to verify all information with the customer directly prior to opening an account, they are also obliged to to provide necessary documentation when opening the account. They are taught compliance and the penalties for breaching the TPA. Obviously the risk and commission was worth it for the North Ward branch!

If the bank were to deduct the fraudulent dollar values listed on peoples assets and credit it against the loan there would be no Storm loans left!

Remember the old saying if you can't get a loan in any other bank go to the BOQ (North Ward) and you can have it by the afternoon!
Click to expand...

The bank should have made the appropriate documentation available. And before going ahead with the loan, the client should have ensured that they had the necessary documentation to rule out fraudulent play. Obviously, this should have included a copy of the documents they signed.
And before anyone says "But these were unsophisticated investors - how were they supposed to know all this"?......In any business dealing, the onus is on you, the person involved in the deal, to have sufficient knowledge to conduct the deal properly and safely. Ignorance is no excuse for making wrong decisions in business or business borrowings. The immutable rule of business and investment is that you should know what you're doing, or get burnt.

Go after the banks and Storm Financial is you believe they've been negligent or have done anything illegal. But don't forget that borrowers have certain responsibilities too.
 
bunyip said:
The bank should have made the appropriate documentation available. And before going ahead with the loan, the client should have ensured that they had the necessary documentation to rule out fraudulent play. Obviously, this should have included a copy of the documents they signed.
And before anyone says "But these were unsophisticated investors - how were they supposed to know all this"?......In any business dealing, the onus is on you, the person involved in the deal, to have sufficient knowledge to conduct the deal properly and safely. Ignorance is no excuse for making wrong decisions in business or business borrowings. The immutable rule of business and investment is that you should know what you're doing, or get burnt.

Go after the banks and Storm Financial is you believe they've been negligent or have done anything illegal. But don't forget that borrowers have certain responsibilities too.
Click to expand...

Bunyip,

Not withstanding the fact that yes the borrower may need to take some responsibility. Some of these borrowers were not just retired but quite elderly. Had little or no financial knowledge hence seeing the advisor and may not have had any understanding of what to do with the documents, even if they were given to them, and they could understand them. If the lawyers and asic are now having trouble determining responsibility from these same documents what chance did many of those who received them. Particularly if they were then completed by someone else. Laws, codes of conducts, regulations etc are put in place in many enviroments, business and otherwise to protect the vunerable from exactly this type of behaviour. They are also put in place to protect people from themselves. Assuming you have or know someone who is close that is elderly, I would like you to think about at what age they may not be able to understand something they are doing, yet maybe pride will prevent them from seeking assistance. The driving licence age comes to my mind. Laws had to be put in place to protect people from themselves.....and to protect others....
 

Similar threads

TiminOz
The dynamics of money and TIME: crimping cashflow for a period
Replies
3
Views
873
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