Storm Financial Group

[Solly]

Hi Solly,

Let me clarify by saying that I do not begrudge Stormers for taking legal avenues to recover whatever they can. I would be doing the same. While I haven't seen evidence, it seems the banks have a case to answer, and if they were at fault, then they should pay. Unfortunately Storm, being no longer, won't pay the hefty price it should for having sold clients a dream that was infact a ticking timebomb. In my eyes, they are the main party in all of this.

My view is more from a fairness point of view (in my eyes). Investors have lost money throughout the world during the GFC. People who took any sort of risk have been hit, and the recovery is still a long, long way away.

............................................


If it can be proven that the sudden winding up of the index funds and the forced selling of the units caused loss, then they should be compensated.

I know people have suffered. I know the devastation that has occurred. I have read so much about this, and despite how some of my posts may have been interpreted, I feel for these people. I wouldn't wish this upon anyone.

But the fact remains they chose to take on the risk- does it mean they deserved to be completely wiped out and lose their homes? No, they didn't deserve it, but they should have known that it was a possibility.

Still what I think doesn't really mean much. It is what the court thinks that is what is most important.

Very long winded, and not to the point, but I hope the answer to your question lies somewhere in there!!

Thanks SJG1974 for your detailed reply. I now have a fuller understanding of your position. I too agree on seeking multiple opinions before proceeding with major decisions. As they say, measure twice and cut once. Although with all the best pre-planning and research things can sometimes still go awry but at least you've given things your best effort.

Yes I agree that some good people can be too trusting and the (fiscal) world can a dangerous place.

This is why one of my tenets is reflected in one of Roosevelt's sayings,

"Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far".

S

 

[bunyip]

Consider this for a moment. How can people litigate if the culprits have taken all their money?

Culprits did not ‘take all your money’.
Many people lost money when the market plunged in 2008, but most of them were not borrowed to the hilt through a ludicrous double gearing strategy, nor were they invested solely in the stockmarket. Therefore they were not financially destroyed.
These people are in stark contrast to you, Frank, who ‘went for broke’, so to speak, by mortgaging your previously unencumbered home, and using it as the cornerstone of an aggressive borrowing campaign that saw you heavily geared, then double geared on top of that, with 100% of these funds sunk into just one very risky basket called the stock market.
It was a strategy designed to massively magnify your income and wealth, but it ensured that your losses would be immense once the market inevitably turned bearish.
THAT is the primary reason you were wiped out – not because ‘culprits took all your money’.
Sure, the gravity of your situation was exacerbated by the incompetence and greed of other parties – no argument from me on that score. And I don’t blame you for seeking reasonable recompense – I’d do the same.
In fact I even hope you'll receive some compensation.
But it was your choice to accept and implement the strategy, your choice not to look into it thoroughly, your choice to trust implicitly the word of salesmen.
Remember that you had absolutely no need to do any of this – your money could have easily provided the retirement income and lifestyle you were looking for if it was invested sensibly and conservatively without any borrowing whatsoever.

I agree that the banks are unlikely to be ordered to pay 100% of your losses. Nor should they be. Indeed, it would be a travesty of justice if they were, since they didn’t cause 100% of your losses. A number of parties contributed to the situation you now find yourself in, one of which was YOU.

 

[Frank Ainslie]

Hi SJG 1974,

It seems that should the UMIS claim get up all contributions made by individuals to the scheme - including prepayment of interest - and all earnings generated as a result of investing in the scheme (dividends, distributions and capital growth), will be refundable to the individual investor. That is to say, the aim is to put the individual in the position they would have been in had they been investing in a RMIS (they would not, therefore, be required to refund any earnings, as those earnings will be treated as the earnings they would have received had the Investment Scheme been registered and legal). The value will be calculated from the date the Scheme is deemed to have come into effect - variously reported at 2001, 2005 and 2007; with a further calculation to be made for lost opportunity as a result of being denied access to the markets since Nov, Dec 2008 to the present.

You are correct, SJG, the worm can is beginning to shake. The payout to the investor, will of course be fair, as it will reflect their position had they been invested in a legal scheme. No more, no less.

Hi Igetit!

We agree on most things but your take on this one is, I believe, incorrect.

The first thing to bear in mind is that unregistered managed investment schemes are illegal. Therefore, if such are found to have existed between Storm and the Banks ‘Stormies’ will be compensated for their losses, not any gains made when being involved in such schemes. The date when investors joined Storm or the date when UMIS affected any long-term 'Stormies' arrangements will determine such compensation.

It should be borne in mind that Storm and the Banks are not charged with operating UMIS from Storm's early days. Rather, the charge of UMIS in relation to all three Banks came later and is based on secret agreements between Storm and the Banks which led to pooling in a common enterprise.

Some have been scornful about UMIS being applied to Banks in their dealings with Storm. Further, they have expressed an opinion that UMIS has little chance of success. Indeed, in the early days David Porter, a partner with law firm Deacons, was doubtful of ASIC's argument about Storm Financial. ''I struggle to see that there is a common enterprise among the members or there is a pooling of the members' interests ' Such comments stem from people (despite their standing in the community), that are not aware of all the facts. David Porter certainly isn't!

Nothing where Storm and the Banks are concerned should be taken at face value.

Nothing is therefore clear cut about UMIS.

Some argue that:

* in order to constitute a "common enterprise" there must be a joint participation in all the elements and activities that constitute the enterprise.

Others argue that:

* an enterprise may be described as common if it consists of two or more closely connected operations on the footing that one part is to be carried out by A and the other by B, each deriving a separate profit from what he does, even though there is no pooling or sharing of receipts of profits. It will be enough that the two operations constituting the enterprise contribute to the overall purpose that unites them. There is then an enterprise common to both participants and, accordingly, a common enterprise."

These issues are, to say the least, complex. That’s why we have courts and judges (not forums) to decide these issues in law.

I believe that the agreement between CBA/Storm dated 18th May 2007 will be the starting point for any UMIS existing between the two. The Macquarie Bank’s arrangements are somewhat more cloudy but I have it on good authority that they had a similar agreement with Storm that predates the CBA/Storm agreement. The BOQ had no secret agreements with Storm to my knowledge but the evidence is overwhelming that the BOQ North Ward in particular participated in a common enterprise with Storm from 2006 onwards.

So, I believe, those that signed up with Storm and were involved with the CBA, the Macquarie Bank or the BOQ after the unregistered managed investment schemes came into existence, will be put back in the position financially that they were in before these schemes came into being.

Therefore, your assertion “That is to say, the aim is to put the individual in the position they would have been in had they been investing in a RMIS (they would not, therefore, be required to refund any earnings, as those earnings will be treated as the earnings they would have received had the Investment Scheme been registered and legal.” is incorrect. Naturally, if you can state some precedents to back this up, I will be more than happy to concede that I am wrong.

This is not the first time this suggestion has surfaced but I do not believe it is sustainable. The law will not allow something that is deemed illegal to be considered in any capacity. Therefore, any increase in portfolio values after the UMIS came into effect is irrelevant. Losses will be based on portfolio values at the time of UMIS and any refund of monies they contributed after the scheme came into being. There may be some adjustment decided by the Court to arrive at a fair and equitable position for both the investors and the Banks but I have no idea what that will be.

The maxim is a simple one. People cannot make money on something that is deemed illegal under the law. This then begs the question. Can Banks enforce any agreements that were entered into when these schemes existed such as loans for investment purposes or margin loans? Further, can the CBA enforce the agreements it reached with various participants under the CBA resolution scheme if such agreements are based on earlier agreements in respect of investment loans and margin loans that may be deemed void because UMIS is upheld?

A contract is an agreement entered into by two parties or more with the intention of creating a legal obligation, which may have elements in writing. Courts will not enforce an illegal contract. Money paid or property transferred under an illegal contract cannot normally be recovered. There are exceptions however. For example, where a contract is made illegal by a statute passed for the protection of a class of people, a member of that class can get back money paid or property transferred by her or him under the contract.

An illegal agreement, under the common law of contract, is one that the courts will not enforce because the purpose of the agreement is to achieve an illegal end.

 

[Frank Ainslie]

Culprits did not ‘take all your money’.
Many people lost money when the market plunged in 2008, but most of them were not borrowed to the hilt through a ludicrous double gearing strategy, nor were they invested solely in the stockmarket. Therefore they were not financially destroyed.
These people are in stark contrast to you, Frank, who ‘went for broke’, so to speak, by mortgaging your previously unencumbered home, and using it as the cornerstone of an aggressive borrowing campaign that saw you heavily geared, then double geared on top of that, with 100% of these funds sunk into just one very risky basket called the stock market.
It was a strategy designed to massively magnify your income and wealth, but it ensured that your losses would be immense once the market inevitably turned bearish.
THAT is the primary reason you were wiped out – not because ‘culprits took all your money’.
Sure, the gravity of your situation was exacerbated by the incompetence and greed of other parties – no argument from me on that score. And I don’t blame you for seeking reasonable recompense – I’d do the same.
In fact I even hope you'll receive some compensation.
But it was your choice to accept and implement the strategy, your choice not to look into it thoroughly, your choice to trust implicitly the word of salesmen.
Remember that you had absolutely no need to do any of this – your money could have easily provided the retirement income and lifestyle you were looking for if it was invested sensibly and conservatively without any borrowing whatsoever.

I agree that the banks are unlikely to be ordered to pay 100% of your losses. Nor should they be. Indeed, it would be a travesty of justice if they were, since they didn’t cause 100% of your losses. A number of parties contributed to the situation you now find yourself in, one of which was YOU.

You've got a problem fellow! I think you are in worse shape than we are! Get some anger management. They tell me it helps in times like these!

 

[Solly]

Civil penalty proceedings against the Cassimatises

Proceedings are being held in public so anyone interested may attend.

25 November 2011
ASIC civil penalty proceedings
Federal Court, Brisbane
Justice Reeves
Level 7, Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Courts Building
119 North Quay
Brisbane QLD 4000

From https://storm.asic.gov.au/storm/storm.nsf/byheadline/Next%20Court%20Dates?opendocument

Now scheduled to;
30 November 2011

 

[Igetit]

You've got a problem fellow! I think you are in worse shape than we are! Get some anger management. They tell me it helps in times like these!

Yes, he and a few others.

The "logic" that continues to be applied to some of these "streams of consciousness" in the face of evidence readily available in the public domain, is extraordinary. Idon'tgetit. Will these folks ever move on? Will that penny ever hit the ground?

It was the BANK, it was STORM, it was YOU, it was Mother Theresa. Everybody tune in - "IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO IT WAS"; all that matters is that there is an accusation that whatever this thing being sold to the public was, it was illegal. Once proven, money then needs to find its way back to the damaged parties. That's it. Kinda simple. Really - I mean it.

 

[Solly]

Hi Igetit,

In your learned opinion, do you believe that there will be any criminal charges eventually laid, as a result of investigations into the collapse ?

S

 

[Igetit]

Hi Igetit,

In your learned opinion, do you believe that there will be any criminal charges eventually laid, as a result of investigations into the collapse ?

S

Yes! A tricky road to travel. But it has been the subject of many a late night discussion for several months now.

One thing at a time. Have a win with the UMIS first and then we should be able to start isolating relevant individuals.

 

[Solly]

Yes! A tricky road to travel. But it has been the subject of many a late night discussion for several months now.

One thing at a time. Have a win with the UMIS first and then we should be able to start isolating relevant individuals.

Thanks Igetit,

Looks like that there will be some very, very interesting times ahead. I've have to crank up the bandwidth at this end, to keep up with all the action.

S

 

[SJG1974]

Culprits did not ‘take all your money’.
Many people lost money when the market plunged in 2008, but most of them were not borrowed to the hilt through a ludicrous double gearing strategy, nor were they invested solely in the stockmarket. Therefore they were not financially destroyed.
These people are in stark contrast to you, Frank, who ‘went for broke’, so to speak, by mortgaging your previously unencumbered home, and using it as the cornerstone of an aggressive borrowing campaign that saw you heavily geared, then double geared on top of that, with 100% of these funds sunk into just one very risky basket called the stock market.
It was a strategy designed to massively magnify your income and wealth, but it ensured that your losses would be immense once the market inevitably turned bearish.
THAT is the primary reason you were wiped out – not because ‘culprits took all your money’.
Sure, the gravity of your situation was exacerbated by the incompetence and greed of other parties – no argument from me on that score. And I don’t blame you for seeking reasonable recompense – I’d do the same.
In fact I even hope you'll receive some compensation.
But it was your choice to accept and implement the strategy, your choice not to look into it thoroughly, your choice to trust implicitly the word of salesmen.
Remember that you had absolutely no need to do any of this – your money could have easily provided the retirement income and lifestyle you were looking for if it was invested sensibly and conservatively without any borrowing whatsoever.

I agree that the banks are unlikely to be ordered to pay 100% of your losses. Nor should they be. Indeed, it would be a travesty of justice if they were, since they didn’t cause 100% of your losses. A number of parties contributed to the situation you now find yourself in, one of which was YOU.

You won't get through to Frank and some others Bunyip. You just won't. They are focussed on one thing and one thing only- compensation.

We know that the cosy relationship between Storm and the Banks isn't the ONLY thing that wiped Frank and others out. The strategy itself did that. And the strategy was clearly spelled out to them, even if the risks weren't. Some people judged the risks to be too severe...in fact it seems 80% of clients who walked through the door did. Perhaps this 80% didn't just believe everything their Storm salesman told them? Perhaps the $$ in Frank's eyes clouded his judgment?

Whether it was a registered or unregistered MIS isn't the reason they lost their life savings, and they know this. Same strategy (a very simple, if extremely risky strategy)- just one is legal and the other not.

Would having the relationship between the banks and Storm clarified to people like Frank have made a difference? Unlikely- we know he just took his adviser's advice without questioning it thoroughly enough, otherwise he wouldn't be in this position.

But thats the law, and this fact that it may have been unregistered and therefore illegal gives them the opening to pursue damages. And thats their focus and I guess thats fair enough. And admitting any fault on their part probably won't help their cause.

They can carry on with silly name calling, and comparing their plight to that of a rape victim, or comparing choosing to invest in a high risk strategy with being operated on by a dodgy doctor, but that says much more about the types of people they are than it does anyone else.

However, I am concerned that if they fail their legal fight, and therefore they can't blame the bank anymore, then where do they direct their anger?? Who is to blame then???

 

[bunyip]

You've got a problem fellow! I think you are in worse shape than we are! Get some anger management. They tell me it helps in times like these!

It’s clearly you who’s angry, Frank – it shows in post after post as you rant about how hard done by you are and all the people who (according to you) conspired to bring you down.
Me – I’m just an interested and sometimes quite amused observer who has the same right to express his opinions as you have.

Not that I blame you for being angry – I’d be angry too if some Greek bushranger took advantage of me by charging 7% to lead me down the path to ruin, and I was gullible and naïve enough to allow myself to be led.
So rant all you want – to some extent you’re justified in doing so, but someone will challenge and correct you every time your rantings are punctuated by yet another outrageous statement.

 

[Solly]

bunyip

What's your opinion of the (double) leverage strategy that Storm was pushing ?
Do you have a position on whether it is an acceptable method to use ?

S

 

[Frank Ainslie]

Culprits did not ‘take all your money’.
Many people lost money when the market plunged in 2008, but most of them were not borrowed to the hilt through a ludicrous double gearing strategy, nor were they invested solely in the stockmarket. Therefore they were not financially destroyed.
These people are in stark contrast to you, Frank, who ‘went for broke’, so to speak, by mortgaging your previously unencumbered home, and using it as the cornerstone of an aggressive borrowing campaign that saw you heavily geared, then double geared on top of that, with 100% of these funds sunk into just one very risky basket called the stock market.
It was a strategy designed to massively magnify your income and wealth, but it ensured that your losses would be immense once the market inevitably turned bearish.
THAT is the primary reason you were wiped out – not because ‘culprits took all your money’.
Sure, the gravity of your situation was exacerbated by the incompetence and greed of other parties – no argument from me on that score. And I don’t blame you for seeking reasonable recompense – I’d do the same.
In fact I even hope you'll receive some compensation.
But it was your choice to accept and implement the strategy, your choice not to look into it thoroughly, your choice to trust implicitly the word of salesmen.
Remember that you had absolutely no need to do any of this – your money could have easily provided the retirement income and lifestyle you were looking for if it was invested sensibly and conservatively without any borrowing whatsoever.

I agree that the banks are unlikely to be ordered to pay 100% of your losses. Nor should they be. Indeed, it would be a travesty of justice if they were, since they didn’t cause 100% of your losses. A number of parties contributed to the situation you now find yourself in, one of which was YOU.

Bunnyip,

I am not really sure what you are trying to prove by continuing with your personal attacks on me. For one, you know nothing about me personally and yet you are making outlandish assumptions.

Let me take you through this slowly addressing the various points you have made.

“Culprits did not ‘take all your money’.”

A culprit is defined as 1. In Law a person awaiting trial, esp one who has pleaded not guilty. 2. the person responsible for a particular offence, misdeed, etc.[/I]

What part of “offence, misdeed etc.,” don’t you understand?

Our financial adviser has already been found guilty by ASIC of giving us among others the wrong financial advice using misleading and deceptive conduct. In our particular case, he was also condemned in a Court of law (Worrells enquiry).

The Banks now stand accused of aiding and abetting Storm, yet you still want to label us (Helen and me) as culprits?

”Many people lost money when the market plunged in 2008, but most of them were not borrowed to the hilt through a ludicrous double gearing strategy, nor were they invested solely in the stockmarket. Therefore they were not financially destroyed.”

Again you have chosen to miss the point. Many people did lose money when the market plunged in 2008 but they were pulled out of the market in time by responsible people that were paid to act in their interests. The Banks and Storm DID NOT act in a responsible way by pulling Storm’s investors out of the market in time which is what this is really all about. Why did they fail to do so? Because they had manufactured deals between them that led all parties concerned to gamble with our investments by failing to take the appropriate action. We are not talking days here but weeks and months! That’s the reason we were financially destroyed. Is it now sinking in?

”These people are in stark contrast to you, Frank, who ‘went for broke’, so to speak, by mortgaging your previously unencumbered home, and using it as the cornerstone of an aggressive borrowing campaign that saw you heavily geared, then double geared on top of that, with 100% of these funds sunk into just one very risky basket called the stock market.It was a strategy designed to massively magnify your income and wealth, but it ensured that your losses would be immense once the market inevitably turned bearish.”

These are outrageous remarks that are not based on the facts. I have already given you details of part of our Storm SOA. Nowhere does it indicate a strategy for magnifying our wealth or our adopting a “high risk” strategy. Yet, you have again chosen to ignore this!

”…it was your choice to accept and implement the strategy, your choice not to look into it thoroughly, your choice to trust implicitly the word of salesmen.”

Again, you are using words to suit your purpose. We didn’t trust the word of a saleman! We trusted the word of a qualified financial adviser that worked for a reputable financial advisory firm.

“ A number of parties contributed to the situation you now find yourself in, one of which was YOU."

Your arrogance is beyond belief. We went to a financial advisory firm for FINANCIAL ADVICE and paid that advisory firm a considerable sum of money for that advice. Today, that advisory firm and the Banks involved stand accused of doing the wrong thing by Storm’s investors.

The charges against the parties involved: Misleading and deceptive financial advice, breaches of banking codes, breaches of contracts, imprudent lending, unconscionability, breaches of the Corporations Act, breaches of the Trade Practices Act, possible charges of criminality under the Crimes Act, and, operating unregistered managed investment schemes.

Yet you now want us to admit that we were one of the culprits? What planet are you on? For that matter, what is your problem?

The Storm Financial collapse resulted in the biggest loss to investors in the financial history of Australia – 3 billion dollars and counting. Thousands of investors are involved and it has resulted in major changes to the financial sector. These changes have come about because of the loopholes in the regulations and the financial incentives then existing in the market place that made many financial advisers lose sight of their clients' interests by focussing instead on their bottom line.

We’ve had a ‘Worrells enquiry, a Parliamentary Joint-Committee enquiry and a massive investigation launched by ASIC and yet you have the audacity to inform the people that invested in Storm that investors wouldn’t have lost money if they weren’t so greedy! For goodness sake, get real!

People were greedy alright but they weren’t the Storm investors. Rather, they were Storm’s financial advisers selling us down the river with the blessings of the Banks that aided and abetted them. Storm supplied the gun and the Banks supplied the ammunition.

It is obvious to me that you have never taken the trouble to investigate the facts for yourself but rather have chosen to promote your personal opinions that are blatantly at odds with what occurred. I suggest that before you voice any more unsubstantiated opinions you review what has been said about Storm and the Banks. There are enough articles out there and a few websites (mine included) that will fill you in what really happened. Not what happened according to Bunnyip!

Whatever, I think I speak for many when I say that your continuing to beat the same tune has become more than a little monotonous. Give it a rest before you drive us all insane.

 

[Harleyquin]

The effects of the GFC on everyone has been well documented but what so many of you arm chair experts won't accept, no matter how hard any of the stormies tell you, is that we all had a registered (we thought), educated (we thought), honest and ethical (we also thought) financial planner!!! tell us just the opposite to what you and others forum members are saying. Our 'crime' was that we believed them.

Bet most of us now accept that we should have done all the things that you're now telling us that we should have done, we just didn't know that we couldn't trust a financial planner who was financially backed by the largest bank in Australia...'crime number two' for the stormies.

Pre-hindsight, we were just going to go in tell them what we wanted, what our risk tolerence was, and they were going to be nice, honest little financial planners who were going to give us a suitable plan!!!

Post-hindsight we know differently.

Why do so many of you think that compensation, if any, is so important? These people have used their considerable financial talents to lie and cheat their way in creating this disaster. and destroying so many lives. Compensation is 'only money', I want all who knowingly contributed to this scheme, to pay for their crime, and not just in any compensation. I'm not interested in 'only going after the banks because storm is broke or non existent OR not going after storm for the same reasons'. I want justice, for those who are destroyed and those who are no longer with us because of this debacle.

Many of you, the ACE's, aka Arm Chair Experts, just accept that a certain percentage of people are rotten and we should 'get over it and get on with it'. Well we can and we will but it still doesn't mean that's it's right or we have to entirely accept it without a fight.

I want to see a more transparent financial system, and believe that the present system can be improved for Mr and Mrs Average prospective financial plan seeker; even if Mr and Mrs ACE doesn't believe it.

There was an interesting talk on TV earlier in the week by a UK author, Mr Alexander McCall Smith who is out here for the 'Festival of Dangerous Minds' in Sydney. His 'talk' was entitled 'Society is Broken', and very basically he believes among other things that we've become desensitised to many of the problems in our society. Personally I believe him.

Some interesting stats from people who were surveyed were-

1. - 37% lied about their driving history

2. - 74% of students admitted to regularly cheating and

3. - 58% believed it was OK to break the stems off broccoli before weighing and paying.

In light of the above 'broccoli crime' it never ceases to amaze me that an anagram of 'TEACH' is 'CHEAT', is it really 'just human nature' and should we just accept it as 'normal'???

 

[Solly]

Harleyquin & Frank,

Does this look familiar ?

It appears that there are quite a few claims being made here.

 

[Julia]

The effects of the GFC on everyone has been well documented but what so many of you arm chair experts won't accept, no matter how hard any of the stormies tell you, is that we all had a registered (we thought), educated (we thought), honest and ethical (we also thought) financial planner!!! tell us just the opposite to what you and others forum members are saying. Our 'crime' was that we believed them.

And round and round we go. Not just you HQ.

I want to see a more transparent financial system,

What exactly do you mean by a "more transparent financial system?
That's a very vague phrase. Perhaps you could be specific about what you believe you want.

"Transparent" is a currently fashionable word. I've yet to see anyone actually define what it means.

There was an interesting talk on TV earlier in the week by a UK author, Mr Alexander McCall Smith who is out here for the 'Festival of Dangerous Minds' in Sydney. His 'talk' was entitled 'Society is Broken', and very basically he believes among other things that we've become desensitised to many of the problems in our society. Personally I believe him.

OK, so why do you believe Mr McCall Smith, HQ??? On what basis do you believe he knows what he's talking about?
Are you aware that what he's essentially known for is his very boring (imo of course) fiction series "The No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency". If you've not had the misfortune to read any of this stuff, it's about a woman from Botswana who decides to set up a detective agency. Your local library will, sadly, have wasted some taxpayer dollars on buying these books.
I think he also has training in law.

Why on earth would you give credence to someone with no financial expertise and decide to believe what he says? It's this sort of naivete that will get you into even more trouble all over again.
(The above is meant not as a criticism but simply to point out that you have apparently still not come to terms with understanding what is credible and what is not.)Mr MCall Smith may have imparted some amazing insights, but if so, it's not going to be on the basis of long experience and expertise in the financial sector.

Some interesting stats from people who were surveyed were-

Hang on, there, HQ. "stats from people who were surveyed"????

What was the research?
Who conducted it?
What were the protocols?
What was the sample size?
From what sectors was the sample derived?
Who reviewed the results of the survey and where was it published?

1. - 37% lied about their driving history

2. - 74% of students admitted to regularly cheating and

3. - 58% believed it was OK to break the stems off broccoli before weighing and paying.

What a peculiar set of conclusions!

In light of the above 'broccoli crime' it never ceases to amaze me that an anagram of 'TEACH' is 'CHEAT', is it really 'just human nature' and should we just accept it as 'normal'???

Oh dear, HQ, when you get down to looking for hidden meanings in words, it might be time to consider a different approach.

That said, I'm laughing because I was buying mushrooms at Woolworths today and became aware of a woman sort of hunched over beside me who seemed to be taking an extraordinary amount of time putting each mushroom into the bag. I realised she was surreptitiously removing the stems off the mushrooms. I said mildly "don't you like the stems" and she said "no, and I'm not going to pay for them. Woolworths make enough profit. Times are hard and I only care about myself".

I think she's in a minority, but the mindset is perhaps not so unusual.

 

[SJG1974]

Frank,

Ignoring the UMIS stuff, ignoring what the bank did and didn't do and all that. i know you and others think they are the only things that matter, and I guess to you they are- they are your avenue to make the culprits pay. Fair enough.

But indulge us, like we have indulged you your rants and reams of repetitive information.

Again, some of your explanations are sugar coated and do not make any rational sense. Two such examples from your latest rant include...

Many people did lose money when the market plunged in 2008 but they were pulled out of the market in time by responsible people that were paid to act in their interests.

I know for a fact that many people weren't pulled out of the market when it plunged. I know that many people remained invested throughout. I know that many people have portfolios that are worth a fraction of their former value as a result. So your comment above, while it may be true for some, would not be true for the majority. A generalisation Frank, designed to suit your agenda.

The reason why these people weren't decimated by the same market conditions you experienced is that they did not take the risk you did. Think about it- people who didn't borrow to invest didn't end up losing everything. The market fell 50%- not 150%.

These are outrageous remarks that are not based on the facts. I have already given you details of part of our Storm SOA. Nowhere does it indicate a strategy for magnifying our wealth or our adopting a “high risk” strategy. Yet, you have again chosen to ignore this!

So you expect us to believe, that a worldly businessman such as you, a man who has reeled off his credentials to support his level of sophistication, did not understand that borrowing against his house, investing the borrowed money into shares, and then gearing it up again, was risky?

So because the SoA didn't say it was risky, that means it wasn't? As you have told us, you have worked in a variety of businesses over time. You didn't realise that borrowing is a risky business? Come on Frank, don't insult us.

We went to a financial advisory firm for FINANCIAL ADVICE and paid that advisory firm a considerable sum of money for that advice. Today, that advisory firm and the Banks involved stand accused of doing the wrong thing by Storm’s investors.

I can't argue with that. But, many people who walked through Storm's doors decided against proceeding with them. Why I wonder? If the strategy was so foolproof, if it was going to give you better returns than the bank or an allocated pension, why did so many CHOOSE to go elsewhere, whilst you CHOSE to go with them? What did you do, or more specifically, not do, that made you different to these people who walked away from this high risk strategy?

Yet you now want us to admit that we were one of the culprits? What planet are you on? For that matter, what is your problem?

We arent trying to put you on the stand Frank. Thats ridiculous. Yes you have been wronged, yes you were screwed, yes yes yes. Noone is saying otherwise. Noone is dancing on your grave telling you to suck eggs Frank. You know that. Despite what some may think, I for one want to see justice served.

But some people take responsibility for the CHOICES they make. Thats all. If you aren't one of those people, and you can't see some of the errors you made in all of this, then you are ripe for the picking again I am afraid.

 

[Judd]

Harleyquin & Frank,

Does this look familiar ?

It appears that there are quite a few claims being made here.

View attachment 45295

Interesting read Solly. Not sure what an exceptional research team does if all the investment is via in index funds. All they would probably have to do would be google "Index Funds" and go from there. Exceptional.

Love the bit about the 75% of business coming from client referrals. Phew, "Their in it therefore so must I." That is probably one of the factors why many of Storm's clients were confident they were doing the right thing.

By the way, does anybody want to buy some tulips?

 

[Solly]

Interesting read Solly. Not sure what an exceptional research team does if all the investment is via in index funds. All they would probably have to do would be google "Index Funds" and go from there. Exceptional.

Love the bit about the 75% of business coming from client referrals. Phew, "Their in it therefore so must I." That is probably one of the factors why many of Storm's clients were confident they were doing the right thing.

By the way, does anybody want to buy some tulips?

Tulips, ah yes, I always tiptoe lightly through them. Also reminds me of Charlie the postal worker. Want to buy some postal reply coupons ?

I suppose the referral factor was a type of collective intelligence, there appears to be an innate tendency to share good news and experiences. If experiences have been positive there seems to be a biological predisposition to want to assist others in your immediate circle. Which to me is a noble trait.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Tulips, ah yes, I always tiptoe lightly through them. Also reminds me of Charlie the postal worker. Want to buy some postal reply coupons ?

I suppose the referral factor was a type of collective intelligence, there appears to be an innate tendency to share good news and experiences. If experiences have been positive there seems to be a biological predisposition to want to assist others in your immediate circle. Which to me is a noble trait.

Thanks Solly, as ever a bastion of sensibility.

The Church of the Coral Sea ( Inc ) has as it happens the Tulip and the Ukelele as two of it's treasured icons.

It has a 95% referral rate during life and a 100% in the hereafter.

We are looking to franchise in to the Gold Coast, we do a rather fine Japanese Wedding, and you don't have to be Japanese to buy it. In the meantime I await Byrnsie's reply on Casa Cassimatis, and will tabernacle you by the usual means.

gg