Storm Financial Group

[Judd]

...did you not consider the risk, or did you just blindly follow what was told to you?.....

Odd how those old saws generally turn out to be true: If think, or you're told, there is no risk then you do not understand the risk you are taking.

For any one who is scanning this thread, if you are able get your hands on a book titled "Where are the customers' yachts?" It was written about 80 years ago (no, I am not that old) and some of the things in that book are as true today as they were then.

 

[Mindstorm]

Mindstorm, I'm immensely touched by your post and thank you sincerely.

It was out of character for me to divulge anything so personal in a public forum and I've since very much regretted acting so impulsively out of intense anger.

Julia,

Please don't regret your posting. Whilst I agree that it's out of character for you, it's indicative of the response that Frank 'forces' by his 'shock tactic' diatribe(s) on this and other forums.

I'm sure, but am happy to be corrected on this point, that Frank has finally shared with ASF members in another post, the number of former storm clients he 'represents'. From memory, did Frank say that his 'forum' had 53 members? So, 53 members out of thousands of former storm clients who subscribe to SICAG?

I'm also saddened that the 'posts from his forum' are all by Sicagers I recognise. I wonder if he had their permission to do that, or if Frank is so blinded by his own needs that he's posted their comments, (from when I have to ask), to serve Frank's own 'purpose' on this forum now.

Backtracking on myself now, when I say that I cannot possibly speak for all former Storm clients or all current SICAG members, but it's own my belief that Frank is looking out for himself and trying to bring as many people as he can 'bluster into supporting him' to save his own 'skin/bacon'.

Frank's views are not the view of the majority of SICAG members that I've met to date.

MS

 

[Mindstorm]

Mindstorm

You shouldn’t feel guilty about responding to Frank as you did. Frank has had it coming for a long time – he comes on to this forum with the objective of shoving his personal agenda down everyone’s throat, and in spite of receiving a gentle rebuke from me for assuming to speak for others, he continued to assume that he speaks for everyone with his one sided and narrow minded views.
Then when he gets a more stern rebuke from you and DocK, he becomes aggressive, throws a tantrum, and behaves like a spoilt three year old brat.

You were not at fault, Frank was.
Prayers are not going to do him any good – the only thing that will do Frank any good is if he opens his mind, starts taking responsibility for his own actions and behaviors, and learns to conduct himself like a grown man instead of like a churlish teenager.

Bunyip,

Wth all due respect, Frank purports to be a Sicager, and has said that he speaks for 'all' Sicagers. I felt that I had to respond to that by saying that he couldn't possibly because I know that he does not speak for me, (or for many others that I know of).

I do know that I would be speaking on behalf of the Sicagers I've met, and those I've yet to meet, when I posted to say that we would never, ever, compare our monetary plight/loss to anyone who had suffered any form of abuse as a child.

I believe that I've already responded to Julia and said that I think that I read earlier today that Frank's 'website' has 53 followers. This is a very small number of former storm clients as against the thousands I believe are members of SICAG.

Speaking 'tittle tattle' now, or PURE rumour, but 'rumour' has it that Frank has never been denied membership of SICAG as he's posted on this forum, he just likes to perpetuate this 'fact'.

The 'popular' rumour is that he was finally forced to pay a SICAG subscription late in 2010, and that he paid one subscription ($50) for himself, his partner and their relatives who were also involved in the storm debacle.

So, while the other poor storm bastards were paying $50 per person per year to SICAG from January 2009 onwards to fight the good fight, Frank and his merry band/family got in by paying a measly $50. Buy one get ten free?

Why didn't Frank apply this particular business 'acumen' in his former dealings with his Storm advisor?

MS

 

[Frank Ainslie]

Bunyip,

Wth all due respect, Frank purports to be a Sicager, and has said that he speaks for 'all' Sicagers. I felt that I had to respond to that by saying that he couldn't possibly because I know that he does not speak for me, (or for many others that I know of).

I do know that I would be speaking on behalf of the Sicagers I've met, and those I've yet to meet, when I posted to say that we would never, ever, compare our monetary plight/loss to anyone who had suffered any form of abuse as a child.

I believe that I've already responded to Julia and said that I think that I read earlier today that Frank's 'website' has 53 followers. This is a very small number of former storm clients as against the thousands I believe are members of SICAG.

Speaking 'tittle tattle' now, or PURE rumour, but 'rumour' has it that Frank has never been denied membership of SICAG as he's posted on this forum, he just likes to perpetuate this 'fact'.

The 'popular' rumour is that he was finally forced to pay a SICAG subscription late in 2010, and that he paid one subscription ($50) for himself, his partner and their relatives who were also involved in the storm debacle.

So, while the other poor storm bastards were paying $50 per person per year to SICAG from January 2009 onwards to fight the good fight, Frank and his merry band/family got in by paying a measly $50. Buy one get ten free?

Why didn't Frank apply this particular business 'acumen' in his former dealings with his Storm advisor?

MS

Mindstorm

Another one, I see, that is determined to spread untruths!

”Purports to be a Sicager…” The last time I looked, I was still a member of SICAG!

"…and has said that he speaks for 'all' Sicagers." When have I ever claimed that I speak for all Sicaggers? For that matter, when have I said that I speak for all those that lost money in Storm?

“The 'popular' rumour is that he was finally forced to pay a SICAG subscription late in 2010, and that he paid one subscription ($50) for himself, his partner and their relatives who were also involved in the storm debacle.”

Helen and I have always paid our membership fees whenever we have been asked. We are fully paid up members. Check with the SICAG Committee if you don’t believe me! That the problem with rumours – they are just that, rumours! If you wish to make remarks about other people, I suggest that you check your facts first or are you just trying to be malicious?

“Why didn't Frank apply this particular business 'acumen' in his former dealings with his Storm advisor?”

We dealt with a qualified Storm adviser that has now been barred by ASIC because to us and others he:

* made false and misleading statements in breach of s1041E of the Corporations Act 2001,
* engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct under s1041H of the Corporations Act 2001,
* promoted the Storm strategy without considering the suitability of the strategy for individual clients,
* provided Statements of Advice and Statements of Additional Advice containing misleading and deceptive information in order to induce them to invest using the Storm strategy, and
* didn’t have an understanding of the nature and risks of financial products recommended on the basis of the Storm strategy.

People in Storm (like us that lost everything) were lied to from the very beginning. Why do you think ASIC have stated this about our financial adviser and barred him if this is not true? All the business acumen in the world can be sabotaged if someone that is a qualified financial adviser tells you one thing, presenting reasons and a strategy for doing so, and then proceeds to do something else.

What part of, ‘false’, ‘misleading’ and ‘deceptive’ are you and others on this forum having difficulty understanding?

How many people were deceived by Madoff in the States because he told them one thing and then did something else entirely?

I would ask you to get your facts right before spreading lies about us. As a person that has suffered like the rest of those that were deceived by Storm, I don’t think that is too much to ask! Do you? I certainly don't think the SICAG Committee would be too happy with one member trying to defame another!

 

[Solly]

Hi Frank

Did your Storm Adviser hold a "Master of Applied Finance" ?

S

 

[Solly]

Intriguing does not adequately describe it, mate.

Byrnsie has been very quiet about it and may know more than you or I.

http://www.realestate.com.au/property-house-qld-townsville-106401181


gg

GG

There's a nice little slideshow on this link.

http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/auctions/cassimatis-property-for-auction-three-years-after-storm-collapse/2011110952290

S

 

[SJG1974]

Frank,

Given your refusal to answer the most basic questions I have put to you, there can be no other explanation than you were GREEDY.

You had more than enough assets to support your desired income in a conservative manner, and you risked it all by placing your life in the hands of an adviser who promised you riches beyond what you imagined were possible.

If you had have taken the time to do a bit of your own research on the strategy you were presented with, a strategy you clearly did not understand, you would have realised that the risk you were taking was both incredibly high and most importantly, not needed to meet your objectives.

That failure to understand what you were doing, Frank, IS YOUR FAULT, noone elses.

All the other stuff you are wasting your time with on this forum is just fluff. Take some responsibility for goodness sake.

 

[DocK]

Your comment about not knowing what you didn't know is fundamental to this whole debacle. You had in your favour, obviously, that you were younger than many, and that you did not succumb to the extraordinary suggestion of selling your factory.

No obligation to answer, of course, but when the proposition of using the equity in your home was discussed with Storm, did they at that stage explain the next step in their strategy of the shares bought with that loan subsequently being used as collateral for a margin loan?

Others on this thread have said they had never heard of such a thing as a margin loan.
They have said they did not ask to have it explained.
This is where so many appear to have become unstuck.
What I'm interested in is whether the entire strategy, including the margin loan, was clearly outlined in the beginning, and if so, how it was justified.

With us the entire strategy was clear in the beginning. I cannot speak for the experience of others, but in our case it would have been clear to our adviser that we knew what a margin loan was, how they worked, when a margin call would occur etc, so there would have been no point in him trying to slip something by us. There was an attempt to "just sign where shown and I'll fill it all in later" which I refused - I took all paperwork home with me and completed it myself - I'm a bit of a control freak. We were already fairly familiar with the storm general strategy before going ahead with them as we knew people who had been with them for several years and had done very well. We started with only the funds borrowed against our equity, and later took out a margin loan. Our LVR was initially 20% and reached a peak of about 55% prior to the dramatic downturn in the market. I suspect that we may not have been pushed to be as aggressive with margin lending as some as our adviser knew he’d encounter resistance from us.

As to justification of the strategy - I know there are several on this thread who cannot consider borrowing against their home to invest under any circumstances. That's fair enough, but everyone has their own risk tolerance, and I don't think it's such an outrageous thing to do in certain circumstances. Having said that, I was astounded when I found out that storm had been pushing this strategy with all their clients, including those at or near retirement. We were in our early to mid-40's, and knew several people doing exactly the same thing. Some had achieved great results over several years - although in a bull market I agree that just about any fool could. I'm aware of several financial planning firms that used a very similar strategy (and some still do) with the difference that most pulled their clients partly or wholly out of the market in time to avoid total devastation. One major difference with storm was the plan to never pay down debt, but to build up both the investment and the debt continually. This was an aspect that we didn't intend to adhere to - our intention was to use margin lending to accelerate wealth building until the investment has grown to a point where debt could be progressively paid down and the remaining capital left to do its thing. What's that saying about "the best laid plans of mice and men often go astray"?... Needless to say, I've formed another opinion entirely since getting my fingers so badly burnt and will be more prudent in the future. I wouldn't rule out the use of any and all margin lending in the future however, but I'd certainly be much more prudent with the type of market I used it in and far more nimble to exit. I still find I have to dig a bit to find much sympathy for those who made excellent returns over a number of years but spent it all on holidays, boats and cars, home improvements or whatever, with no thought of reducing debt. But that’s my own personal bias showing through – to each their own, right?

Dollar cost averaging is a method that is still regarded my many as being perfectly valid. The old mantra that "it's not timing the market, but time in the market" is trumpeted by so very many FPs that it has become so very well-known by the general population that it is regarded as fact by many. Whenever our adviser recommended another "step" due to a market fall, it was portrayed as an excellent opportunity to take advantage of a lower entry into a market that would inevitably recover. Many charts, graphs and real-life examples were used to prove that many small bites on the way down would result in breaking even far sooner than just sitting on the original investment, once that inevitable recovery came to pass..... I don't subscribe to this way of thinking now - but it did seem valid to me back then.

What you needed to know about around this time was the sub prime debacle unfolding in the USA. This was discussed almost every day on much of the media, certainly ABC. It made pretty clear that, despite assurances by the 'dream on' , out of touch economists, the world was in for a shock.
This didn't require any financial understanding, just a willingness to listen to/watch the news and understand the global situation.

This is not a criticism. Many who should have known better were absolutely familiar with what was unfolding but still failed to predict the coming storm. I'm just attempting to correct your impression that some specific financial understanding was required to know that the clouds were gathering with exponential intensity.

Fair enough – but it’s not always that clear-cut. Again, I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but although I was certainly aware of the sub-prime debacle playing out in USA, there were also more than one so-called “experts” at the time of the opinion that what was happening in America wouldn’t/shouldn’t have a dramatic effect on Australia as our banking system was so much stronger, safer etc, and our companies were profitable and strong. Added to that were the weekly missives from storm HQ (which I now think of as Manny’s Propaganda Machine) that trumpeted about China, China, China, resources, resources etc. What long-lasting effect could the sub-prime mess over there possibly have in the long run so long as we had minerals we could dig up and sell to China! That’s probably an over-simplification, but as I remember it there were alternative points of view about the global economy and to what extent Australia would suffer from the mess that was USA. Unfortunately, Manny’s huge ego (and no doubt the fact that he & Jules needed clients to stay invested) refused to see the writing on the wall for far too long, and he completely failed to anticipate the extent of the decline to come, and his clients either believed him or were too ignorant themselves of global economics to know better. Or just didn’t watch enough ABC. I’ll freely admit that I had no idea how small a player Australia actually is on the world stage and to what extent we are at the mercy of the prevailing headwinds from overseas. I’ve since learnt better. I’ll also freely admit that I was too busy at the time raising a young family, helping to establish our own business, living life and placing my trust in the firm I believed to be professional and more knowledgeable than I, to spend as much time as perhaps I should have acquainting myself with all the pertinent facts. Again, a hard lesson learned – I won’t make that mistake again.
My only saving grace was that I eventually began to question storm’s viewpoint and sidestepped our adviser and pulled our investments and repaid our margin loan directly with Challenger and Macquarie myself – salvaging at least some of our original (borrowed) capital. I knew how to do this – many of storm’s clients perhaps did not have the first clue how to go about taking action for themselves, and were apparently stonewalled by their advisers at every turn or just unable to make contact with them at all.

A reasonable measure of cynicism is very protective. Consider it a plus.

Maybe so, but I think I used to be a nicer person than I am now, and dislike knowing that to survive in this world one must foster an element of distrust of others. I intensely dislike the tendency of some in the community to generalize about ex-stormers as if we were all alike. I daresay although there would be similarities, we’d be as diverse a group in our goals, dreams, greed, intelligence, outlooks etc as any other group. I try, in life generally, not to build myself up by tearing others down and I greatly dislike to see ex-stormers who are often already suffering mentally and emotionally subjected to harsh treatment. Whether we/they deserve it or not. Except, maybe, for Frank....

I’ve posted this in an attempt to give an honest account of one ex-stormers experience, but don’t intend to endlessly justify myself or my motives again – I need to move on. I hope that maybe some questions have been answered – but again, my experience is not necessarily typical of everyone’s.

 

[Frank Ainslie]

Hi Frank

Did your Storm Adviser hold a "Master of Applied Finance" ?

S

Hi Solly, Nice to hear from you.

His credential, listed on the web link below are shown as follows:

Education: Masters of Applied Finance - University of Western Sydney
Master of Applied Finance Degree

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Drummond_Stuart_576348547.aspx

What is perplexing for us (I speak for Helen and me now) is that Storm Financial advisers were allowed to continue working as advisers when the rogue ones had not been clearly identified.

“Former Storm Financial planners still giving advice” by:Anthony Marx From: The Courier-Mail - November 15, 2009

Extracts:

“AT least seven former Storm Financial franchisees and planners are still active across Queensland providing investment advice to the public.
And there is no legal requirement for them to disclose to new clients any details of their past association with the failed firm…
Storm investor Bruce Milburn, who was once worth nearly $7 million on paper and is now shackled with almost $300,000 in debt, said the advisers' ongoing work in the sector made him "very angry"…
The Mackay-based former sugarcane farmer denounced Storm for "leaving a trail of destruction behind it". Milburn's former Storm adviser, Stuart Drummond, is now an authorised representative in Brisbane for Dover Financial Advisers.”

Were all Storm Financial advisers bad people? Of course not but they cannot escape their share of the blame! “I only followed orders!” is no defence.

People say that we were ignorant investors and make it appear as though it were a crime. Storm’ former financial advisers cannot use this type of excuse. They had a “duty of care” to their clients and they failed to fulfil it. They were certainly brainwashed like us by the Casimatises but is that a mitigating factor? You tell me!

I was determined to pursue Stuart Drummond because I didn’t want him to be allowed to deceive others as he deceived us. It wasn’t a case of being vindictive. It was a case rather of getting him off the streets where he could do no more harm.

For me (and I know from feedback that others share my opinion) it is particularly galling that SICAG has former Storm advisers in its membership. This immediately creates a conflict of interests. How would a genuine victim of Storm (and the banks) know whether whatever he or she said was being treated impartially by the SICAG membership? Further, SICAG could be representing someone (Stuart Drummond for instance) that had created their circumstances to start with? Hence, there’s a dilemma right away! That is why I have my own group. Not for any other reason although I'm sure we will still have further postings claiming otherwise.

We’ve just had a posting from mindset in which he talks about my SICAG payments. How would he acquire such information anyway? “There is a rumour” doesn’t quite hold water somehow. Then he goes on to decry the number of people in my group as though it’s a matter of some importance. Why is he so persistent in this regard?

He also goes on to say, “I'm also saddened that the 'posts from his forum' are all by Sicagers I recognise. I wonder if he had their permission to do that, or if Frank is so blinded by his own needs that he's posted their comments, (from when I have to ask), to serve Frank's own 'purpose' on this forum now."

Why would he be saddened because people express appreciation for what I’ve done? He should be happy if anything that someone was able to do something for them?

Mindstorm might indeed be a victim like me but his attitude is somewhat bewildering to say the least! Is he or she saying that no one other than SICAG is allowed to help people and anyone that does so should be treated with suspicion? This seems to be a very narrow minded view to me. It's not a very generous one either!

The problem with this forum is that everyone is anonymous. People post things and we have to take what they say at face value. If the truth be known, they could be anyone! I, on the other hand, have never sought to hide my name because I do not feel the need to do so. Everything I have stated can be verified!

Solly! What has occurred has engendered in us (and I am generalising for those that cannot distinguish the difference) a deep mistrust where other people are concerned. Further, when people start attacking you for your opinions, you have to wonder at their motives for doing so! There’s that “suspicion” thing again. I could be totally wrong about 'Mindstorm' and a few others, but when one has been attacked since this sorry affair started (Storm) it makes you wonder what their agenda is for doing so.

 

[SJG1974]

DocK,

Can i ask whether you received pressure form your Storm adviser when you decided to pull out of the market as the market was falling.

I ask this because I am sure I have read somewhere that some people who were nervous in the middle to second half of 2008 spoke to their Storm adviser who persuaded them (to their detriment) to stick with the strategy that ultimately devastated them.

 

[DocK]

DocK,

Can i ask whether you received pressure form your Storm adviser when you decided to pull out of the market as the market was falling.

I ask this because I am sure I have read somewhere that some people who were nervous in the middle to second half of 2008 spoke to their Storm adviser who persuaded them (to their detriment) to stick with the strategy that ultimately devastated them.

My only saving grace was that I eventually began to question storm’s viewpoint and sidestepped our adviser and pulled our investments and repaid our margin loan directly with Challenger and Macquarie myself..

I cannot recall whether I tried to contact our advisor first, or whether I assumed I'd meet resistance and didn't bother speaking to him at all. I do know that he was unaware of my actions, and I had no further contact from him - but he no doubt was busy saving his own bacon at the time. I am in Gold Coast and he was based in Brisvegas, and always took a couple of days to return a call at the best of times. By the time I decided enough was enough, I had reached the point where I didn't wish to have to argue my case or be fobbed off, and the market was moving so quickly that I wanted out as quickly as possible. One of the things that frustrates me the most about managed funds is the time it takes to get any action on an exit order. The last thing I needed was to be delayed further by storm when the market began to freefall, so I took the fastest option of dealing directly with Challenger.

 

[Solly]

Hi Solly, Nice to hear from you.

His credential, listed on the web link below are shown as follows:

Education: Masters of Applied Finance - University of Western Sydney
Master of Applied Finance Degree

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Drummond_Stuart_576348547.aspx

What is perplexing for us (I speak for Helen and me now) is that Storm Financial advisers were allowed to continue working as advisers when the rogue ones had not been clearly identified.

“Former Storm Financial planners still giving advice” by:Anthony Marx From: The Courier-Mail - November 15, 2009

Extracts:

Were all Storm Financial advisers bad people? Of course not but they cannot escape their share of the blame! “I only followed orders!” is no defence.

People say that we were ignorant investors and make it appear as though it were a crime. Storm’ former financial advisers cannot use this type of excuse. They had a “duty of care” to their clients and they failed to fulfil it. They were certainly brainwashed like us by the Casimatises but is that a mitigating factor? You tell me!

I was determined to pursue Stuart Drummond because I didn’t want him to be allowed to deceive others as he deceived us. It wasn’t a case of being vindictive. It was a case rather of getting him off the streets where he could do no more harm.
.................................................

Solly! What has occurred has engendered in us (and I am generalising for those that cannot distinguish the difference) a deep mistrust where other people are concerned. Further, when people start attacking you for your opinions, you have to wonder at their motives for doing so! There’s that “suspicion” thing again. I could be totally wrong about 'Mindstorm' and a few others, but when one has been attacked since this sorry affair started (Storm) it makes you wonder what their agenda is for doing so.

Thanks Frank

So once again we had somebody with higher qualifications and experience in the industry which would suggest that when a person seeking advice and direction in financial matters, could reasonably expect to receive advice of a sound nature. I am pleased that eventually due process gave the required outcome.

I totally agree that the “I only followed orders!” is no defence for negligent and harmful advice. I've been looking over my notes, files and media about this saga and I believe that it is beneficial to revisit the financial climate of the time before the correction.

Most people I knew were doing very, very well with investments and speculations. Some had made millions in property and equities, there was a definite momentum for high returns on investments. I can fully understand why the Storm strategy looked attractive, especially to those who were sold the dream of a secure and hassle free retirement.

And then there were these words from the time by the "master"..

"Our focus has always been at the cutting edge of finance and technology but this is driven by our priority to serve clients. We planned our dress code, offices and attitude to feel homely and welcoming and we began with the philosophy of giving. Then and always whether on a financial or personal level if we can see a way to support of our clients we're there."

Also here's an article from the archives that may be of interest to you, in regard to the Masters course. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/storm-financial-found-fast-track-to-degrees/story-e6frg6oo-1225772096172

 

[Julia]

As to justification of the strategy - I know there are several on this thread who cannot consider borrowing against their home to invest under any circumstances. That's fair enough, but everyone has their own risk tolerance, and I don't think it's such an outrageous thing to do in certain circumstances. Having said that, I was astounded when I found out that storm had been pushing this strategy with all their clients, including those at or near retirement.

Yes, your risk tolerance would obviously be greater at your age. It's the use of this strategy for people already retired or close to retirement that's so inappropriate, exacerbated by the fact that many of those accepting such a strategy did not understand it or apparently have any appreciation of the high risk.

Dollar cost averaging is a method that is still regarded my many as being perfectly valid. The old mantra that "it's not timing the market, but time in the market" is trumpeted by so very many FPs that it has become so very well-known by the general population that it is regarded as fact by many.

True. It's recommended by some on this forum. Makes no sense to me.

Fair enough – but it’s not always that clear-cut. Again, I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but although I was certainly aware of the sub-prime debacle playing out in USA, there were also more than one so-called “experts” at the time of the opinion that what was happening in America wouldn’t/shouldn’t have a dramatic effect on Australia as our banking system was so much stronger, safer etc, and our companies were profitable and strong.

It was in fact the mantra from most economists. The fact that they ended up with egg all over their collective faces is of little comfort to those who believed them.

My only saving grace was that I eventually began to question storm’s viewpoint and sidestepped our adviser and pulled our investments and repaid our margin loan directly with Challenger and Macquarie myself – salvaging at least some of our original (borrowed) capital. I knew how to do this – many of storm’s clients perhaps did not have the first clue how to go about taking action for themselves, and were apparently stonewalled by their advisers at every turn or just unable to make contact with them at all.

Maybe so, but I think I used to be a nicer person than I am now, and dislike knowing that to survive in this world one must foster an element of distrust of others.

Agree. But we have to live in the real world.

I intensely dislike the tendency of some in the community to generalize about ex-stormers as if we were all alike.

Fair enough. However, I think most of us who have been critical have intended that criticism toward Storm for so immorally promoting an inappropriate strategy to people for whom it was totally wrong, and toward those who accepted a strategy that they didn't understand and about which they failed to ask questions.
That does not mean ASF members have lumped everyone together. You obviously knew what you were doing. Others obviously didn't.

I’ve posted this in an attempt to give an honest account of one ex-stormers experience, but don’t intend to endlessly justify myself or my motives again – I need to move on. I hope that maybe some questions have been answered – but again, my experience is not necessarily typical of everyone’s.

I thank you, DocK, for explaining your situation. The question was not asked in any way as a suggestion that you should 'justify yourself' to anyone. I was simply interested to know how much explanation was offered to potential clients.

 

[bunyip]

“A right of reply” (Part 1)

Bunnyip has taken a number of cheap shots at me since I left which, I believe, demand a reply.

He concedes now (that’s nice of him) that many in Storm were victims but I and a number of others were just plain greedy. He has no evidence for stating this but that doesn’t matter to ‘Bunnyip’ because that’s his view and it must be right?

No Frank, it’s not ‘now’ that I concede that some in Storm were victims – I’ve been saying it all along since this thread started years ago. And I don’t say that just ‘some’ are victims either – each and every one of you Storm clients are victims, not just some of you.
You’re victims of a shonky outfit called Storm Financial, you are perhaps victims of illegal activites by the banks (and I stress ‘perhaps’ simply because we’re still awaiting the outcome of a future court case to prove or disprove illegal bank dealings), you’re victims of ASIC and the FPA because both of them let you down by endorsing Storm.
And last but not least, you’re victims of yourselves. This is the one that you just can’t seem to accept – that you were a victim of yourself.
You were a victim of your own laziness because you just couldn’t be bothered to put a small amount of effort into simple research that would have warned you of the pitfalls of mortgaging your house and sinking all your saving and lots of borrowed money as well into the always risky stockmarket.
You were a victim of your own mental laziness because you let someone else do your thinking for you instead of thinking for yourself.
You were a victim of your own gullibility because you took Storm at face vale and believed everything they told you.
You were a victim of your own imprudence and follishness because you failed to apply a basic common sense test to the strategy that was proposed to you.
You were a victim of greed, particulary on the part of Storm who clearly had the objective of lining their pockets at your expence without giving you anything in return that you couuldn’t have got elsewhere at a fraction of the cost.

And I suspect that you were a victim of your own greed as well. I’ve asked you a number of times why you adopted Storms strategy when you had no need to. After all, you stated yourself that you were worth 1.7 million dollars and didn't need margin loans.
You've ignored me every time I queried why you felt the need to get involved with Storm.
Now you state that you only wanted 45 grand a year income to fund your retirement, implying that this modest sum doesn’t make you greedy. On that point at least, I’d agree with you. But it still doesn’t explain why you went to Storm and adopted a strategy that was obviously designed to produce a much higher income figure than a mere 45 grand.
The maths are pretty simple....1.7 million dollars in unencumbered assets, take out your 400 thousand dollar home, you’re left with 1.3 million dollars of investment money. Put the 1.3 mill into a term deposit earning 6% - you get a yearly income of 78 grand which is more than 1.7 times the 45 grand you were looking for.
Or put the money into something else, maybe a combination of high yielding blue chip shares and residential real estate. Whatever – there you had your desired 45 grand a year plus a lot more besides.
Now what did Storm say to you I wonder.....how about “Hell, don’t put your dough on term deposit or into real estate or directly into shares - we can get you a lot better return than that.”
So you swallowed it – they dangled a nice juicy carrot under your nose and dressed it up to sound so financially appealing that you grabbed it without giving it sufficient scrutiny to spot the obvious pitfalls.
And you wonder why I suggest that greed my have influenced you!
No, I don’t have any evidence to verify my view, neither have you presented any evidence to disprove it. This is not a criminal trial where hard evidence must be produced – it’s a forum for discussing our views and debating them if we wish with those who disagree with them.
The strategy in a debate is to put forward your views and back them with solid logic and sound reasoning. Then to refute the opposing views and again to produce logic and reason to back your argument.

You have failed to produce logical argument and solid reasoning to back many of the claims you’ve been making on this forum. You frequently put little clear thought into what you write.
All we keep getting from you, Frank, is the same old tripe about how you were duped into it, how it was everyone’s fault but yours, how you weren’t gullible, how you were astute and circumspect. You forget to mention that nobody held a gun on you and forced you to sign on the dotted line. Stuart Drummond has a point when he says ‘We gave advice, but clients could walk away if they didn’t like it.’

Finally Frank, I was an A student in English and I know very well the meaning of ‘circumspect’. But since you apparently don’t know the meaning of the word, I have, as a special favor to you, looked up the meaning on Google and have copied and pasted it into this post just for you. Here it is. Definition of CIRCUMSPECT. : careful to consider all circumstances and possible consequences : prudent ...

Now I ask you, Frank, do you really think you were circumspect in your dealings with Storm? Do you honestly believe you were ‘careful to consider all circumstances and possible consequences’? Do you really think you were prudent and astute?
Or are you just talking through your hat again, saying things without first thinking clearly about them, as usual?

 

[Solly]

bunyip have you spoken directly to any ex-clients of Storm?

The reason why I ask is that one recurring element that was mentioned to me early on was the, "Clayton's Debt".

I don't understand how a debt can be presented as debt that is not real.
I haven't seen it written in any official documentation. It appears to have been verbally regurgitated only.

The ethics of presenting investment debt or any debt as not real, to me defies belief
and there must have been some very persuasive sales techniques employed.

S

 

[bunyip]

bunyip have you spoken directly to any ex-clients of Storm?

The reason why I ask is that one recurring element that was mentioned to me early on was the, "Clayton's Debt".

I don't understand how a debt can be presented as debt that is not real.
I haven't seen it written in any official documentation. It appears to have been verbally regurgitated only.

The ethics of presenting investment debt or any debt as not real, to me defies belief
and there must have been some very persuasive sales techniques employed.

S

Yes Solly, I spoke to an ex-Storm client at a school reunion. He's one of the 'lucky' ones in that he has some years left before retirement and he has a mining job in Central QLD that pays him well over a hundred grand a year. He's wounded but certainly not down and out.

Also I've swapped PM's with a couple of Stormers on this thread.

Clayton's debt....the debt you have when you don't have a debt! It was just another gem dreamed up by that sneaky conniving bastard Cassamatis to pull the wool over his clients eyes.
One of the Stormers I spoke with mentioned something about it but I'm a little hazy now on how it was explained. Something about it not being real debt because it was investment debt that was earning its keep, as opposed to say a car loan that was just dead money that was earning nothing and was in fact deteriorating in value.
Not entirely sure I have that right but I think it was something along those lines.

 

[Solly]

Yes Solly, I spoke to an ex-Storm client at a school reunion. He's one of the 'lucky' ones in that he has some years left before retirement and he has a mining job in Central QLD that pays him well over a hundred grand a year. He's wounded but certainly not down and out.

Also I've swapped PM's with a couple of Stormers on this thread.

Clayton's debt....the debt you have when you don't have a debt! It was just another gem dreamed up by that sneaky conniving bastard Cassamatis to pull the wool over his clients eyes.
One of the Stormers I spoke with mentioned something about it but I'm a little hazy now on how it was explained. Something about it not being real debt because it was investment debt that was earning its keep, as opposed to say a car loan that was just dead money that was earning nothing and was in fact deteriorating in value.
Not entirely sure I have that right but I think it was something along those lines.

Thanks bunyip

yes that's how it was relayed back to me. There is no legal definition of "Clayton's Debt" so I suppose it doesn't exist under the FSR Act !

My Stormer mate isn't really travelling the best at the moment, the anniversary of the demise is imminent and with Christmas looming it's bringing back some unpleasant memories. He really doesn't have time on his side to effect a long term recovery without some type of remedy being applied. He's been going through a period of dark days but he's now more determined than ever to make that best of whatever is dished out.

I know he's been very hard on himself for what happened but has lately taken positive steps to change his thinking and reactions to this event. I'm sure he'll come good again soon. He's not a Sicager but trying to sort this with the help of friends, family and dogged determination.

I just hope when he reads this forum it gives him a bit of a boost to keep the fire burning and survive this debacle and get normality back in his life.

S

 

[DocK]

Thanks bunyip

yes that's how it was relayed back to me. There is no legal definition of "Clayton's Debt" so I suppose it doesn't exist under the FSR Act !

My Stormer mate isn't really travelling the best at the moment, the anniversary of the demise is imminent and with Christmas looming it's bringing back some unpleasant memories. He really doesn't have time on his side to effect a long term recovery without some type of remedy being applied. He's been going through a period of dark days but he's now more determined than ever to make that best of whatever is dished out.

I know he's been very hard on himself for what happened but has lately taken positive steps to change his thinking and reactions to this event. I'm sure he'll come good again soon. He's not a Sicager but trying to sort this with the help of friends, family and dogged determination.

I just hope when he reads this forum it gives him a bit of a boost to keep the fire burning and survive this debacle and get normality back in his life.

S

Solly, please let your friend know that there are people out there who can relate to the way he feels, and tell him to keep his chin up.

Just remind him there are more important things in life than money.

And if Solly's mate happens to read this - all the best to you! Keep hanging in there.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

GG

There's a nice little slideshow on this link.

http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/auctions/cassimatis-property-for-auction-three-years-after-storm-collapse/2011110952290

S

It is quite a windy property. Do you have a link with surround-sound mate?

gg

 

[Solly]

It is quite a windy property. Do you have a link with surround-sound mate?

gg

Mate, is the wind still coming from the inside or is it from the outside ?