Storm Financial Group

[Harleyquin]

Thanks gg I didn't pick up on those. Judd and Bunyip I agree with you re the questioning and we did ask lots of questions, I'm far from perfect as you can see by missing those spelling errors and missed the margin loan issue altogether and to this day we don't know how or why we missed it, though I have my suspicions.

I had no problem with not receiving any income from our storm investment for a couple of years until retirement, none at all. The idea was that the investment was supposed to grow with the help of the storm people who knew what they were doing,,,,supposedly. Then when the time came to retire we would have an investment which we could then live off. Perfect wasn't it....not!!!

Having read every post on this thread, and some more than once, I've gleaned a lot of information that I didn't know before, and also I was an extremely trusting person. Not so these days, today I question everything. I come from a generation that were trustworthy and trusting, that has now been destroyed. So if this debacle has taught most of us anything it's DON'T TRUST ANYONE and I don't. I think that you'll find almost without exception that this now applies to all those affected by this mess.

Anyway what's done is done, we've learnt a very expensive lesson, and our trust in anything financial has been blown well and truly out of the water. Burnt and learnt!!!

 

[Solly]

"Storm mansion up for auction

THE ostentatious mansion of Storm Financial founders Emmanuel and Julie Cassimatis will go under the hammer next month."

More by Jessica Johnston @ www.townsvillebulletin.com.au

 

[Judd]

In my opinion, there is only one word for it - Gauche

 

[DocK]

Nice timber floors and decent kitchen & pool(s) - stripped of the garish & OTT window treatments and most of the furniture, and with a repaint over the "feature walls", it would suffice as a weekender I suppose : Of course, I'd need the jet as well to fly me there and back at my whim........

 

[Harleyquin]

Unbelievable what this couple got up to behind closed doors. They want to sell the new Brisbane one as well. Where do the proceeds of the sale go to I wonder. Gauche yep I'll agree with you on that one Judd

 

[DocK]

Unbelievable what this couple got up to behind closed doors. They want to sell the new Brisbane one as well. Where do the proceeds of the sale go to I wonder. Gauche yep I'll agree with you on that one Judd

They owe the CBA and various other creditors so much that I daresay all proceeds should be directed towards repaying their debts - unless they've escaped giving any personal guarantees (as directors) for any of Storm's many debts. Hard to believe they should be able to pocket any of the proceeds - but I wouldn't be at all surprised with that pair if that should prove to be the case.

 

[bunyip]

In my opinion, there is only one word for it - Gauche

And hideously ugly on the outside - but then so many mansions are.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

"Storm mansion up for auction

THE ostentatious mansion of Storm Financial founders Emmanuel and Julie Cassimatis will go under the hammer next month."

More by Jessica Johnston @ www.townsvillebulletin.com.au

I reckon they will be lucky to get more than $1.4m for it, the market for high end property is woeful atm in Townsville, and it is, how shall I say it, a bit too Mediterranean for many people's taste.

I would be willing to tip in $140 dollars if I could find 9999 other punters, to bid on it.

We could set up a trust, and use it as a headquarters to warn investors about scams, ponzis, margin loans, muppet advisors, and schemes.

We could call it Storm Warning.

gg

 

[Solly]

I reckon they will be lucky to get more than $1.4m for it, the market for high end property is woeful atm in Townsville, and it is, how shall I say it, a bit too Mediterranean for many people's taste.

I would be willing to tip in $140 dollars if I could find 9999 other punters, to bid on it.

We could set up a trust, and use it as a headquarters to warn investors about scams, ponzis, margin loans, muppet advisors, and schemes.

We could call it Storm Warning.

gg

GG

I didn't realise the high end market was so depressed up there. Looks like it may be a bargain, if the vendors accept the current market valuation.

There's a few high flyers down here that have been burnt along the foreshores at Mermaid and Nobbys. There's been a few tears around The Cove as well.

I'm still chuckling over your above post, "bit too Mediterranean" was what cracked me up.

Mate, I hope all is going well in your neck of the woods.

S

 

[bunyip]

Harleyquin

A couple of questions......

First question...As a point of interest, when did you sign on with Storm?


Second question...How did you come up with the name Harleyquin?
It’s an unusual name for a woman, even for a cyber nickname - quite a few of us thought you were a bloke when you first came on here!

No pressure to answer - I'm just curious.

 

[Smiley]

Unbelievable what this couple got up to behind closed doors. They want to sell the new Brisbane one as well. Where do the proceeds of the sale go to I wonder. Gauche yep I'll agree with you on that one Judd

Brisbane mansion in Belmont already sold for about $3 million - source has it that it was in the mother-in-law's name.
Claims they can't even pay $20 thou FPA fine so how will they go with 5 breaches of the Corporation Act each - at $200 thou a breach, if/when ASIC wins. . . .
I think money is not really a problem however, and am sure ASIC is chasing the paper trail of their financial investements.
2008 article put Cassimatis as amongst Qld's richest at $450 million - before Parliamentary Inquiry he claimed he had lost 90% of wealth - that still leaves quite a bit of money to pay fines and live the 'good life'.

 

[Frank Ainslie]

No risk at all?

None of those four options offers ‘no risk’ – not even No. 4

I’d be extremely surprised to find any financial planning firm using the words ‘no risk’....not even a bunch of sharks like Storm.

Whatever made you think there is such a thing as a risk-free investment? I can assure you there is not.
And whatever made you think that the strategy proposed by Storm, i.e. borrowing heavily for stock market investment, was ‘no risk’, or even low risk? How could you possibly think such a thing?

Hi Harleyquin and others!

Like most people caught up in Storm I'm tired so I do not want to expend what energy I have left endlessly justifying our position to people that haven’t been there themselves and therefore haven’t shared our experience.

I say to all those that were caught up in the Storm debacle, “Let others believe what they want if it makes them feel any better!”. It’s too easy to take the wrong things to heart, especially from those that have misplaced their own. As Rhett Butler said in GWTW, "Frankly my Dear, I don't give a damn." And nor should you!

If you, my friends want to escape for a while from your troubles, I invite you to join me on a journey where good and evil are clearly defined – unlike that which has befallen us these last 3 years: https://sites.google.com/site/thethirdsecret/

For those that have judged us, I have only this to say and it will be my final word on this subject:

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

 

[Harleyquin]

Hi Bunyip I'm happy to answer your questions. We signed with storm in 2007. As for the name Harleyquin we have a friend with a Harley motorbike and I like the name, so when I was looking for an avatar Harley it was and I didn't even think too hard about it Harleyquin just came to mind. The mask behind the person if you will. Sorry to confuse you but I'm very feminine...a real girl as my son would say....I come from a family of males and used to arguing with them so this forum brings out the argumentive side of me. Quite frankly I enjoy it. Cheers

 

[bunyip]

Hi Bunyip I'm happy to answer your questions. We signed with storm in 2007. As for the name Harleyquin we have a friend with a Harley motorbike and I like the name, so when I was looking for an avatar Harley it was and I didn't even think too hard about it Harleyquin just came to mind. The mask behind the person if you will. Sorry to confuse you but I'm very feminine...a real girl as my son would say....I come from a family of males and used to arguing with them so this forum brings out the argumentive side of me. Quite frankly I enjoy it. Cheers

Hi Harleyquin

Thanks for your answers – it can be quite interesting to learn how or why forum members chose their nicknames.
I chose ‘Bunyip’ because of my interest in aboriginal mythology and stories of the dreamtime. Bunyips feature in some of these stories as the man-eating creatures that lived at the bottom of waterholes and devoured anyone foolish enough to swim after dark.
Ion Idriess wrote some fascinating stories about his experiences travelling by horseback among the wild and remote aboriginal tribes of northern Australia during the early 1900’s.
One night he and his travelling companion were camped with a group of aborigines about half a mile from a waterhole. No way would the aborigines camp beside the waterhole because of their fear of the bunyip that lived there.
During the night there was a weird moaning, grating sound coming from the direction of the waterhole. The aborigines huddled together in terror, rolled their eyes and whispered ‘bunyip’ over and over again.
Next day the two white men and the aborigines were at the waterhole hunting and gathering bush tucker. The branches of two trees near the waters edge were rubbing together as the trees swayed in the wind, creating the moaning, grating sound of the previous night.
The aborigines took no notice. By day it was just two branches rubbing together that made the noise. By night it was the dreaded bunyip.
The women and kids were swimming in the waterhole, gathering water lily bulbs and catching fish and turtles. Idriess asked them why they weren’t scared of the bunyip. They explained that the bunyip slept all day at the bottom of the waterhole, and only woke up after dark to eat anyone who made the mistake of venturing into the water.

So what has this story got to do with Storm Financial? Well nothing, and I admit to being completely off topic. It’s just that we do tend to get a little intense in here at times, so I thought I’d toss this story in to lighten the mood a little.

OK - back on topic to Storm Financial. My question about when you singed up with Storm was because I’m still rather intrigued that their strategy projected zero return for the first 5 to 7 years. I accept your explanation of why that was acceptable to you.
But I would have thougt that they'd be projecting positive returns from your investment practically right from the outset, given that there was a bull market in progress at the time.

 

[bunyip]

Hi Harleyquin and others!

Like most people caught up in Storm I'm tired so I do not want to expend what energy I have left endlessly justifying our position to people that haven’t been there themselves and therefore haven’t shared our experience.

Frank – I understand that all this Storm business has been emotionally exhausting for you, and that you wish to conserve your energy for the battle ahead rather than expend it on endless discussion on this forum.
In your situation I’d feel the same way.

I haven’t agreed with all your opinons but I respect your right to voice them. I hope you equally respect my right to disagree with some of them.

Below in bold print are three opinions that you expressed in some of your earlier posts. Under each one is my response in italics.

1. Some have called us ‘gullible’ for going to Storm for financial advice.
The reason we think you’re gullible is not because you sought advice from a Financial Planner, but rather, because you accepted that advice at face value without thoroughly checking into it to look for any pitfalls.

2. We are not ashamed of what has occurred because it was not our fault in any way.
You accepted Storm’s advice at face value, you failed to adequately research that advice, consequently you believed their claim that it was a safe and conservative strategy, when in fact it was aggressive and highly risky.
You should accept your share of the fault in getting duped by Storm.

3. We were sold a financial plan that we had no way of knowing was flawed.
Of course you had a way of knowing it was flawed - it’s called ‘research’.
When you bought or developed your shopping center you would have conducted meticulous research to uncover anything and everything that could affect the success of your enterprise.
You could have used those same research skills to thoroughly check out Storm’s plan. Had you done so, I believe you’d have uncovered serious flaws that would have warned you to steer clear.

Frank, I’m not looking for any response to this post, unless you want to give it. Save your energy for your coming battle with the banks. If you can prove any illegality on their part that contributed to your losses, then I hope they’re ordered to make an appropriate level of restitution.

I wish you all the best.

 

[Solly]

Bunyip

I too have asked why my Stormer mate agreed to the strategy that was presented. After the collapse, when eventually the Storm methodology of borrowing and gearing was fully shown to me, I was horrified. I remember thinking why would anybody agree to such a high risk approach, riding up a Bull market.

I possesses a rather forceful, no nonsense, very direct disposition and I remember saying to my mate how in the world could he have agreed to such a deadly high risk strategy. It wasn't probably the most comforting thing to say to a life long friend who had no job, an ill missus and appeared to soon be living on the street out of a VN Commodore. His answer was quite simple. He told me that his adviser had told him that Storm had all the mechanisms in place to monitor his investments and the market and that there would need to be a complete world financial collapse for him to lose his home. If this did happen then everybody would be in the same boat.

He comes from a background where trust and a person's handshake and word means everything. I believe he trusted Storm implicitly to do the right thing by him with his life's savings. He was just looking for a better life for himself and his family and the dream that Storm sold him he truly believed in. I now know the complete financials of what he invested and what he was hoping to live on in retirement and what I would call a meager drawdown from the strategy.

I have been around many of the Stormers since this collapse happened, especially at Inquiry and the various hearings and one thing I have observed is that they are from a very varied background. Ranging levels of age, life experience and education. I still don't know what the common denominator is in why they all chose Storm but I now fully understand that the methods used to sell the strategy were very persuasive. I suppose all of us on this forum are looking for a manner and method to secure us financially, I believe the Storm concept was that nirvāna for many.

S

 

[Frank Ainslie]

Frank – I understand that all this Storm business has been emotionally exhausting for you, and that you wish to conserve your energy for the battle ahead rather than expend it on endless discussion on this forum.
In your situation I’d feel the same way.

I haven’t agreed with all your opinons but I respect your right to voice them. I hope you equally respect my right to disagree with some of them.

Below in bold print are three opinions that you expressed in some of your earlier posts. Under each one is my response in italics.

1. Some have called us ‘gullible’ for going to Storm for financial advice.
The reason we think you’re gullible is not because you sought advice from a Financial Planner, but rather, because you accepted that advice at face value without thoroughly checking into it to look for any pitfalls.

2. We are not ashamed of what has occurred because it was not our fault in any way.
You accepted Storm’s advice at face value, you failed to adequately research that advice, consequently you believed their claim that it was a safe and conservative strategy, when in fact it was aggressive and highly risky.
You should accept your share of the fault in getting duped by Storm.

3. We were sold a financial plan that we had no way of knowing was flawed.
Of course you had a way of knowing it was flawed - it’s called ‘research’.
When you bought or developed your shopping center you would have conducted meticulous research to uncover anything and everything that could affect the success of your enterprise.
You could have used those same research skills to thoroughly check out Storm’s plan. Had you done so, I believe you’d have uncovered serious flaws that would have warned you to steer clear.

Frank, I’m not looking for any response to this post, unless you want to give it. Save your energy for your coming battle with the banks. If you can prove any illegality on their part that contributed to your losses, then I hope they’re ordered to make an appropriate level of restitution.

I wish you all the best.

Hi Bunyip,

The reason we think you’re gullible is not because you sought advice from a Financial Planner, but rather, because you accepted that advice at face value without thoroughly checking into it to look for any pitfalls.


Storm didn't tell us at the time that their software systems could not monitor our portfolios and warn us if the "trigger-points" had been reached. Storm didn't tell us that they had secret agreements with the Banks that increased our margin loan ratios, Storm didn't tell us that they and the banks had an agreement that margin calls would not be made on us, Storm didn't tell us that our our money was invested in shares that took at least 10 days to sell-down. It didn't matter anyway because the Banks never made margin calls to us full-stop. Even with Storm's over-leveraging policy, we could still have saved some of our money if we had BEEN TOLD IN TIME!

How then could we find the pitfalls if they were hidden from us?

You accepted Storm’s advice at face value, you failed to adequately research that advice, consequently you believed their claim that it was a safe and conservative strategy, when in fact it was aggressive and highly risky.
You should accept your share of the fault in getting duped by Storm.

When people steal from you, should one blame the victim or the thief. If the victim is defenceless (75% elderly) does that mitigate the crime? If the victim walks down a certain unsavoury street in town totally unaware of the dangers of doing so, does that excuse the person that seizes on that opportunity to rob him or her? Yet, it seems that everyone want to blame the victims in this case rather than the thieves. Perhaps it's just a sad commentary on the world we live in today or has its perhaps always been this way?

Should we accept out share of the blame because Storm hit us over the head and took our money? No! We accept no blame whatsoever! The perpetrators are Storm and the Banks that dealt with that company. Our state of mind at the time has nothing to do with it!

Of course you had a way of knowing it was flawed - it’s called ‘research’.
When you bought or developed your shopping center you would have conducted meticulous research to uncover anything and everything that could affect the success of your enterprise.
You could have used those same research skills to thoroughly check out Storm’s plan. Had you done so, I believe you’d have uncovered serious flaws that would have warned you to steer clear.

Why should we have any reason to suspect that Storm's financial plan was anything but what it claimed to be? ASIC, the FPA, the Financial Sector, the Banks involved (some of the biggest in the country), Storm's insurers, and Uncle Tom Cobbly found nothing wrong with it! How do you expect unsophisticated investors to do so! Storm had 13,500 clients. It was also one of the biggest financial advisory companies in Australia. Therefore, we, the people that invested in Storm had no reason to suspect them of anything. No one else did at the time although they are all now crying, "I told you so".

The Storm plan sold to us at the time was not the plan Storm adopted! That's the whole crux of our argument today! Before you condemn the people that invested in Storm as gulllible and greedy, examine the roles of ASIC, this Government, and the Banks involved. How greedy and gullible were they?

We, ordinary Australians, shouldn't have to live in a society where people can run off with one's money and get away with it. That's Nazi Germany before the Second World War. As I've said, we don't expect everyone to understand. We come from a different generation where people could be trusted a lot more. Today, it's dog eat dog! Well, we've had enough! We are going to do some biting now! If we lose, so be it but it's time people stood up against these rogues. That's exactly what we intend to do.

 

[doobsy]

Hey Frank. To be honest that is your best post. I will jump in an comment hopefully to further extend some of the understanding.

In the defense of the planners of Far North Queensland, the first reports to the FPA and ASIC that we felt there were massive issues with the Storm strategies were lodged in 2005. As Storm was ultra compliant (getting clients to sign every page of SOAs etc) and through the good times when markets were on the way up no Storm client was complaining it was very hard to get anywhere on this. We all saw Storm plans from time to time for second opinion work etc but as mentioned previously it was very hard to counteract as we couldn't promise the same "returns" and the sales process was sooooooo slick. It used to make me laugh that it took almost 100 pages to get anywhere near the acual advice and another 50 pages to find the fees. So much for "clear and concise" advice documents.

I for one am all for Storm clients receiving some level of compensation. I feel that the blame is 95% Storm and 5% banks and that has been skewed over the last 3 years. This was completely and only the brainchild of Cassimatis, no one else. This was obvious through the way he was the only one allowed to take credit for it during the good times and the obsession that all advice be written up at the head office. The other offices were merely data collection and sales centres.

My exception to the compensation comment above are the following:

1. Clients who had the asset base or income to service the loans. In this case there has been no rogue lending occur and the margin calls were the advisers responsibility.

2. Clients who were retired and had been on the syatem for 3+ years. They lived beyond their means on borrowed money (Greece anyone? Is that ironic or WHAT?) and any compensation should be offset by the fact most were drawing incomes twice what they should have for their asset base and claiming tax deductions etc etc.

As for the warnings, they were out there but they were few and far between. My ex boss was writing in the local press telling everyone with a margin loan to review it and ensure it could handle significant drops in 2006/07. He was virtually ostracised from the industry for daring to fill the minds of clients and potential clients with any doubts about markets. He was also amongst the first to talk locally about the potential issues subprime presented.

There are those of us who have always felt that margin loans add no long term value to a client but do increase the volatility of a portfolio. This unfortunately is not very sexy when it comes to comparing to those who use "past" returns to project the future.

As I mentioned and I would encourage any reader of this forum to consider, your planner should be adding value through strategy and technical expertise. They should be about ensuing your asset base is protected at all times. If the only thing they bring to the table is "promised" returns then I think the next 10 year will see some very disappointed clients and I would be already seeking out a second opinion.

 

[Solly]

How is this for a scenario.... ?

All this happened under Sir Ralph's & Big Dave's reign. The Kings are now gone.

There now are new regimes taking over, putting a new caring vision in place.

Let's talk compromise before the indiscretions of the past erupt in full view in the public arena.

Just a thought.

 

[sailteam30]

"95% Storm, 5% Banks"

If it were not for the support of the banks then Storm would be a small corner store in the suburbs of Townsville - I had retired, had nil income yet a bank, thanks to Storm, loaned me $140 large on my house because

"several houses have been sold recently in your area so we can lend you $140K"

this happened without me stepping into a bank to produce/sign any paperwork and the bank had not laid eyes on my house (it may have been a tin shed for all they knew) - I would tend to reconsider those percentages