Storm Financial Group

[Garpal Gumnut]

More from Tony Raggatt @ townsvillebulletin.com.au

Thanks Solly,

A comment posted on that link.

I don't know "Storm clients have last laugh" is a relevant title, given that Emmanuel and his missus are still flying around in their private jet!

I doubt if that is true, Manny passed me as I relaxed in to a Business Class seat on a departing Cairns flight last year and he was very much in coach. With your aviation links I would expect that you can confirm that he does now not own a jet.

Not that he should.

gg

 

[Solly]

Thanks Solly,

A comment posted on that link.



I doubt if that is true, Manny passed me as I relaxed in to a Business Class seat on a departing Cairns flight last year and he was very much in coach. With your aviation links I would expect that you can confirm that he does now not own a jet.

Not that he should.

gg

That's correct GG, the FJ44-2As have spooled up and departed 01/19 under a different command...

S

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

That's correct GG, the FJ44-2As have spooled up and departed 01/19 under a different command...

S

How much did the FJ go for, or is that a secret only known to aviation insiders.

I myself am a Qantas Platinum and when with appropriate ALP or LP, ACTU or AICD contacts sup in the Chairmans Lounge.

So your secret is safe with me.

gg

 

[Solly]

How much did the FJ go for, or is that a secret only known to aviation insiders.

I myself am a Qantas Platinum and when with appropriate ALP or LP, ACTU or AICD contacts sup in the Chairmans Lounge.

So your secret is safe with me.

gg

GG

Good question, I'll see if the guys in research can shed some light. I guess the Red Book would have had $2-3 Mill on it. I wonder how the ownership was structured.

The 1A is a nice tidy airframe not a bad little taxi, it is wider and has more cabin space than the Citation CJ2+. I suppose that's handy for larger people or for carrying around money sacks. Although I'm not personally fussed with the Collins avionics, I'm more of a Garmin guy myself.

S

 

[bunyip]

We get it already! You don't get it, you can't believe it, you can't comprehend it, etc etc etc.

You've been posting more or less the same comments for a couple of years now - I think we all know your views, although I do wonder about your agenda? Whenever some decorum starts to appear in this thread, or some genuine discussion, along comes one of your repetitive, inflammatory posts. Seems you joined ASF only to post the same comments endlessly on one thread. Personally, I'm getting bored by your posts - by all means continue to beat the same drum, but in the interests of entertainment - could you try some variety? Please??? Otherwise, maybe save yourself some time and just copy and paste your prior posts

Nobody forces you to read SJG's posts if you find them so off-putting. I believe this forum has an ‘ignore’ function that you can activate to block any poster who upsets you. Or simply skip over his posts without reading them.

Personally I think SJG has done a great job in bringing some perspective to this discussion. At least he shows some balance in his views rather than putting all the blame on any one party. At no time have I ever seen him attempt to excuse the actions of anyone who was involved in the Storm debacle. I find his posts make far more interesting reading than the interminable ranting of one or two others with their repetitive blaming of everyone else while refusing to accept any responsibility for their own decisions and actions.
Those of you who blundered into Storm’s trap could learn a lot from SJG’s knowledge and insights into the world of finance and investment.

Keep up the good work, SJG!

 

[Frank Ainslie]

Doobsy,

“What I am not willing to accept is that any client can wipe their hands of all responsibility.”

By making such a statement you obviously believe that some of the responsibility should be shared by Storm’s clients for agreeing to sign up with Storm in the first place. Okay, let’s look at what these clients agreed to and what they actually got:

(1) They were told that Storm had software systems in place that could monitor their portfolios at all times. Clients had every right to assume that this system was a comprehensive one that gave a complete picture of clients’ loans including housing and margin loans. We now know that Storm’s software did nothing of the sort.

(2) They were told by Storm that their system had built in “trigger-points” that would alert them when certain agreed ratios had been exceeded so measures could be taken to stabilize clients’ portfolios. We now know that Storm’s systems could not produce meaningful “trigger-points” because its software was incomplete.

(3) They were told that there was little or no risk because their investments would be made on a broad front with safeguards in place to insure that their assets would be safe. Storm then put them in a high-risk plan when it was not necessary to do so simply because Storm wanted to make more money out of them.

(4) Storm never told its clients that it had entered into agreements with certain Banks that would affect its clients separate contractual arrangements with those Banks.

(5) Storm gave them a “one fit all plan” tailored to dovetail into the Storm system rather than cater to their individual needs.

(6) Storm’s standard SOA or template contained information that was years out of date and was included to persuade people that investing in shares was preferably and more profitable than putting their capital into real estate. Much of the data was untrue.

I could go on but I think you will catch my drift. These factors played an important part in persuading people to sign up with Storm.

You will note that I haven’t yet mentioned anything about any INAPPROPRIATE ADVICE Storm gave. Why? Because once Storm had misled its clients with regard to these critical issues, the case for misrepresentation had already been made. In fact, the "advice factor" becomes totally irrelevant because Storm had already misrepresented the services it professed to offer. In so doing, it was in breach of the provisions in the Australian Consumer Law that prohibits conduct by a corporation that is misleading or deceptive, or would be likely to mislead or deceive.

Remember what I said earlier. "If the overall impression left by a statement or other representation made by a business creates a misleading impression in one’s mind, such as to the price, value or the quality of any goods and services, then the conduct will breach the law."

The protections provided by the regulatory framework include misleading and deceptive conduct and you can throw in unconscionable behaviour into the mix as well because the regulatory framework also includes such.

It should also be mentioned that because we entered into an agreement with Storm, it had contractual implications. Therefore contractual breaches come into play as well. [/I] A misrepresentation in contract Law occurs in circumstances where statements made in the course of negotiations leading up to a contract turn out to be false.

In such circumstances, how can you expect any Storm client to accept any degree of responsibility when they were deceived into signing with Storm based on misleading information. You can’t because they are not at fault. For anyone to maintain otherwise is just plain foolish.

What you or anyone else personally thinks about Stormies mindset when agreeing to any advice Storm gave has no bearing on this case whatsoever. Think about it for a moment! By stating “What I am not willing to accept is that any client can wipe their hands of all responsibility.” you are basically stating that the Storm clients involved should have known they were being deceived in the first place. How, may I ask? ASIC doesn’t agree with you and neither does the Law. Therefore, such a contention has no substance. Storm’s clients relied on information they were given at the outset and they signed up with Storm because they had no reason to doubt that what they were told was true.

There are "wind up merchants" on this forum that want to cloud the issues because they have nothing better to offer. Fortunately, we also have discerning members that can see that all these WUMs are trying to do is be controversial. They are blinded by their own personal prejudices and they refuse to accept evidence that is irrefutable. Their postings are based on their own personal opinions that cannot be supported by the circumstances or what actually occurred. Neither can such opinions be supported by consumer laws. Therefore, nothing they say can be taken seriously because their arguments are specious. Their postings strive to make others with different opinions appear foolish by introducing inflammatory words such as "ranting". In so doing, they only succeed in making themselves appear foolish.

 

[SJG1974]

Nobody forces you to read SJG's posts if you find them so off-putting. I believe this forum has an ‘ignore’ function that you can activate to block any poster who upsets you. Or simply skip over his posts without reading them.

Personally I think SJG has done a great job in bringing some perspective to this discussion. At least he shows some balance in his views rather than putting all the blame on any one party. At no time have I ever seen him attempt to excuse the actions of anyone who was involved in the Storm debacle. I find his posts make far more interesting reading than the interminable ranting of one or two others with their repetitive blaming of everyone else while refusing to accept any responsibility for their own decisions and actions.
Those of you who blundered into Storm’s trap could learn a lot from SJG’s knowledge and insights into the world of finance and investment.

Keep up the good work, SJG!

Cheers Bunyip. Like you, when I make decisions I take responsibility for them. We, seem to be a rare breed around these parts!

 

[SJG1974]

Okay, let’s look at what these clients agreed to and what they actually got:

You conveniently forgot the most obvious one frank...

You agreed to borrow against your home, invest it all in the sharemarket, and then gear it up more when you didn't have to. That seems to be exactly what Storm did for you.

Yes you were misled. But so was everyone who sat through a seminar, who met with an adviser, who had an SoA written up for them. Why did 8 out of every 10 of these people not get sucked in like you did and walked away?

If their con job was so irresistable as you seem to imply it was, then how did so many potential victims slip through their net, while you eagerly signed your life away?

Quite frankly Frank, more fool you if you didn't think that the strategy was risky.

 

[DocK]

Nobody forces you to read SJG's posts if you find them so off-putting. I believe this forum has an ‘ignore’ function that you can activate to block any poster who upsets you. Or simply skip over his posts without reading them.

Personally I think SJG has done a great job in bringing some perspective to this discussion. At least he shows some balance in his views rather than putting all the blame on any one party. At no time have I ever seen him attempt to excuse the actions of anyone who was involved in the Storm debacle. I find his posts make far more interesting reading than the interminable ranting of one or two others with their repetitive blaming of everyone else while refusing to accept any responsibility for their own decisions and actions.
Those of you who blundered into Storm’s trap could learn a lot from SJG’s knowledge and insights into the world of finance and investment.

Keep up the good work, SJG!

Cheers Bunyip. Like you, when I make decisions I take responsibility for them. We, seem to be a rare breed around these parts!

Dear Bunyip & SJG,

Ok gents, if you read my posts you'll find I'm quite happy to accept responsibility for my actions. I'm also well aware of the ignore function. I'm not upset by SJG's posts, merely frutrated at the lack of new content. Not sure why you felt the need to respond on his behalf Bunyip, as he'd already done so himself? I'm sure SJG is more than capable of giving me a serve himself if he wants, no need to trouble yourself to intervene I'm not quite sure what insights into the world of finance have been offered - must have escaped my notice - but I'd certainly appreciate reading some more of these gems rather than the usual "how could they, I can't believe it, you were responsible" etc, etc. This point has been made over and over, and then made again. I'm sure there isn't a single ex-storm client that reads this thread who could possibly be unaware of the posters who remain adamant in their views re the apportionment of responsibility. You're certainly entitled to your views, and you're entitled to air them. And you have, at great length and frequency. I would simply request that unless you derive some sort of pleasure from playing the blame game endlessly, please move on. Pretty please?? I'm actually finding the discussion of legal points quite interesting, and GG adds some light amusement as usual. I enjoy reading differing views, but find it much more interesting to read new content, rather than a rehash of prior posts. It would be nice to be able to have a grown-up discussion without the nasty/aggressive overtones that some posts contain, don't you think? Maybe not.

Up to you, of course. I do have the option of the ignore button, or skipping your posts, as you've said.

 

[Frank Ainslie]

You conveniently forgot the most obvious one frank...

You agreed to borrow against your home, invest it all in the sharemarket, and then gear it up more when you didn't have to. That seems to be exactly what Storm did for you.

Yes you were misled. But so was everyone who sat through a seminar, who met with an adviser, who had an SoA written up for them. Why did 8 out of every 10 of these people not get sucked in like you did and walked away?

If their con job was so irresistable as you seem to imply it was, then how did so many potential victims slip through their net, while you eagerly signed your life away?

Quite frankly Frank, more fool you if you didn't think that the strategy was risky.

Thank you for agreeing with me when you state, "Yes you were misled. But so was everyone who sat through a seminar, who met with an adviser, who had an SoA written up for them." Case closed!

 

[Igetit]

Nobody forces you to read SJG's posts if you find them so off-putting. I believe this forum has an ‘ignore’ function that you can activate to block any poster who upsets you. Or simply skip over his posts without reading them.

Personally I think SJG has done a great job in bringing some perspective to this discussion. At least he shows some balance in his views rather than putting all the blame on any one party. At no time have I ever seen him attempt to excuse the actions of anyone who was involved in the Storm debacle. I find his posts make far more interesting reading than the interminable ranting of one or two others with their repetitive blaming of everyone else while refusing to accept any responsibility for their own decisions and actions.
Those of you who blundered into Storm’s trap could learn a lot from SJG’s knowledge and insights into the world of finance and investment.

Keep up the good work, SJG!

Hi Bunyip,

At the risk of being a little presumptious, I feel I speak for many - not all mind you -
when I say my favourite part of SJG's "good work", almost always relates to the
apology that follows in many of his subsequent threads as he seeks to "clarify his position". Yes - that's my favourite part.

We all love an apologist. Three cheers. Equally, please feel free to either "not read" or "opt to ignore" this post. Either will be fine.

 

[bunyip]

Dear Bunyip & SJG,

Ok gents, if you read my posts you'll find I'm quite happy to accept responsibility for my actions. I'm also well aware of the ignore function. I'm not upset by SJG's posts, merely frutrated at the lack of new content. Not sure why you felt the need to respond on his behalf Bunyip, as he'd already done so himself? I'm sure SJG is more than capable of giving me a serve himself if he wants, no need to trouble yourself to intervene I'm not quite sure what insights into the world of finance have been offered - must have escaped my notice - but I'd certainly appreciate reading some more of these gems rather than the usual "how could they, I can't believe it, you were responsible" etc, etc. This point has been made over and over, and then made again. I'm sure there isn't a single ex-storm client that reads this thread who could possibly be unaware of the posters who remain adamant in their views re the apportionment of responsibility. You're certainly entitled to your views, and you're entitled to air them. And you have, at great length and frequency. I would simply request that unless you derive some sort of pleasure from playing the blame game endlessly, please move on. Pretty please?? I'm actually finding the discussion of legal points quite interesting, and GG adds some light amusement as usual. I enjoy reading differing views, but find it much more interesting to read new content, rather than a rehash of prior posts. It would be nice to be able to have a grown-up discussion without the nasty/aggressive overtones that some posts contain, don't you think? Maybe not.

Up to you, of course. I do have the option of the ignore button, or skipping your posts, as you've said.

If ‘playing the blame game endlessly’ is what gets up your nose, then there are a few others on here who show considerable talent in that department – you might want to give them a serve as well.
If you don’t find any insights in some of SJG’s posts, I’d suggest you read more closely, focus less on the posts where you think he’s being repetitive, and more on those that deal with the ins and outs of finance and investment. Apart from Doobsy, SJG appears to have more knowledge and experience in these areas than perhaps any other poster.
Sure, SJG is more than capable of speaking for himself. However, if I believe that you or anyone else is making unfair comment about him or any member of this forum, then I’ll be letting you know about it. Feel free to put me on your ‘ignore’ list as well if I’m ‘getting to you’ too much.

As for you taking responsibility for your actions – yes, I’m well aware of that, you may recall that a number of people, myself included, have commended you for doing so on a number of occasions. I’ve also commended you for taking control of your business by bailing out of the market rather than follow Storm's example by sitting on your hands and doing nothing while your investments went down the tube.
If these other Stormers had done the same thing then their situation would be much better than it currently is.

 

[bunyip]

Hi Bunyip,

At the risk of being a little presumptious, I feel I speak for many - not all mind you -
when I say my favourite part of SJG's "good work", almost always relates to the
apology that follows in many of his subsequent threads as he seeks to "clarify his position". Yes - that's my favourite part.

We all love an apologist. Three cheers. Equally, please feel free to either "not read" or "opt to ignore" this post. Either will be fine.

Well then, I’m pleased you’ve found something to enjoy in his posts. Although I’d have to say that the vast majority of his posts contain no apology of any kind, and those that did contain an apology for an off the cuff remark, I feel that he really had no need to apologize for anyway.

 

[Frank Ainslie]

You conveniently forgot the most obvious one frank...

You agreed to borrow against your home, invest it all in the sharemarket, and then gear it up more when you didn't have to. That seems to be exactly what Storm did for you.

Yes you were misled. But so was everyone who sat through a seminar, who met with an adviser, who had an SoA written up for them. Why did 8 out of every 10 of these people not get sucked in like you did and walked away?

If their con job was so irresistable as you seem to imply it was, then how did so many potential victims slip through their net, while you eagerly signed your life away?

Quite frankly Frank, more fool you if you didn't think that the strategy was risky.

I’ll spell it out for you and Bunnyip because you both seem a little slow on the uptake. An agreement in law is just that. There needs to be a “meeting of the minds” and all relevant matters must be declared in such an agreement or it can become subject to litigation. In contracts there are prime conditions that either parties relies on and subsidiary conditions that may not necessarily incur “breach”. People cannot mislead (as you both seem to think) in a contract and expect that there will be no legal repercussions. Once such a contract is in breach, anything that follows from that point is immaterial.

The UMIS issue is a case in point. If UMIS is proven people will be put back in a position before the UMIS took place. So everything you are saying is irrelevant to the case at hand. What advice Stormies were given was already tainted by the deception used to get them to agree to sign with Storm. The conditions of contract that were breached were ‘prime conditions’ that ultimately led to Stormies losing their money because Stormiers relied on these conditions to protect them against market forces- no real safeguards, a high-risk plan that was contrary to their wishes and so on.

Statutory regulations also exist to protect investors and financial advisers need to be mindful of and follow the guidelines set down in this respect. ASIC is suing Storm and the Banks because these guidelines were not followed.

You cannot see this because you don’t want to do so! You get your jollies off lambasting the Stormies because it amuses you. Personally, I feel that you have little else to offer so you cannot contribute anything meaningful to these discussions other than “your to blame and you should accept the consequences of your action". In taking such a position, you are at odds with ASIC , the Worells Report” and the PJ-C hearings and findings. It doesn’t seem to matter to you two though because you have chosen to ignore everything that refutes your point of view. "You are right and the rest of the world must therefore be wrong!"

I echo ‘Dock’s sentiments. If you can’t contribute something constructive to this debate or find some new material, you are going to remain empty vessels who will be listening to the sound of your own voices echoing around the vacuum in which you currently reside. Step back for a moment and try to find a little objectivity. Without it, you will find anything meaningful to say somewhat difficult.

Have a good day!

 

[Solly]

I wonder what is up ?

An unexpected hearing next Wednesday.

14 December 2011
ASIC unregistered managed investment scheme 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

 

[SJG1974]

No need to explain Frank, I think I get it now.

You were forced into this whole thing against your will. You were not acting of your own free will when you signed on with Storm, when you signed the loan documents, the margin loan documents, the additional borrowing documents. When you signed every page of the SoA. This was all done under duress.

I can now see why you compared the whole saga to the holocaust. Eerie similarities of people being marched to their demise against their own free will, guns held to their heads. Of looting of Jewish riches. Who would have thought that could happen in this day and age?

This Stuart Drummond fellow would give Lex Luthor a run for his money…not much point sending him to jail…that won’t hold someone as devious as that. Amazing that 8 out of 10 people who saw him were able to get away from his evil clutches. You? Just unlucky I guess. Terribly so.

I now understand that before Storm took your life savings, they took away your ability to think independently, your common sense and your logic. Like Nazi Germany, they took away your freedom to make your own decisions. This crime is far greater than a simple UMIS…for the UMIS would never have gotten off the ground if you weren’t forced to participate in it.

As someone who has always been fortunate enough to be able to act of my own free will when making investment decisions, I can only imagine what this must have been like for you.

You just wanted a conservative strategy and to protect your hard earned wealth. And these criminals then forced you to do the complete opposite. You didn’t have $$ in your eyes as you imagined a more prosperous life than you ever thought possible, you just wanted to protect your money through gearing over and over and over and over again into the stockmarket. Yep that makes a whole lot of sense. I get it now…I really do.

It has taken a while, but I finally see the light. Hallelujah!!

And to remain consistent, and for idontgetit’s benefit (seeing as he takes great delight in reading my posts), I will make my standard apology, like I have in the majority of my previous posts…Frank, I am truly sorry I didn’t see this earlier.

And while I am making yet another apology (gee I do this a lot) I should probably apologise to DocK too for going over the same old ground. From now on I will try to present a more balanced argument and bring new things to the table, and not get drawn into childish name calling and repeating the same sort of stuff over and over. And playing the blame game is out. I will take a leaf out of Frank’s book and follow his lead from now on when posting around here.

 

[DocK]

No need to explain Frank, I think I get it now.
(snip)
And while I am making yet another apology (gee I do this a lot) I should probably apologise to DocK too for going over the same old ground. From now on I will try to present a more balanced argument and bring new things to the table, and not get drawn into childish name calling and repeating the same sort of stuff over and over. And playing the blame game is out. I will take a leaf out of Frank’s book and follow his lead from now on when posting around here.

Oh no need to apolgise to me SJG, I actually got a bit of a giggle out of that one. It may have lacked new content, but I did appreciate the tongue-in-cheek tone. At least I assume you were typing in a humorous fashion? I read it that way. I don't think I actually suggested mimicking Frank, did I??? If so, please ignore that bit, brevity is to be admired, even if I generally lack it myself

 

[Solly]

"Bank of Queensland Storm Financial threat builds

A LAWYER for hundreds of investors caught up in the Storm Financial collapse plans to launch court action against the Bank of Queensland before Christmas.

In the latest chapter, lawyer Stewart Levitt is finalising a lawsuit against BoQ, one of the banks which approved margin loans to Storm clients.

"We should be able to announce our case before Christmas," he told The Sunday Mail.

More by Daryl Passmore @ The Sunday Mail

 

[Frank Ainslie]

This really is the last time I will discuss the issue of responsibility!

I have dealt with the issue of “responsibility” as far as the law is concerned. I would now like to finish by dealing with the human side of all this. In order to do so, I will draw another analogy.

Let’s say we have an airline called 'Storm Airways' and they are the envy of the industry because they can offer package holidays along with air travel that few can match. This, of course, builds up a certain amount of resentment in their competitors who see 'Storm Airways' getting a lion’s share of the business.

There are people in the airline industry that have had reservations over the years about the maintenance of 'Storm Airline's aircraft and have complained on and off to the Civil Aviation Board who has chosen to ignore these claims.

Eventually, one of S/A’s planes crashes and it is found that this crash was due to poor maintenance because S/A was cutting corners.

At the Board of Enquiry the Chairman of S/A stands up and states, “The passengers should have known we could only have given them these type of deals if we cut costs. Therefore, they knew that stepping aboard any of our aircraft was highly risky!”

He is then asked, “So you don’t think full compensation is in order because your company jeopardised the safety of the passengers?”

“Certainly not! They knew what they were getting into!”

The Board of Enquiry subsequently found that S/A and the firm it sub-let its maintenance to were culpable because they were bound under the Civil Board of Aviation rulings to ensure that passengers’ safety was paramount.

S/A, of course, went out of business but the maintenance firm ‘Fixed On The Cheap’ fought this finding and it took the survivors of the crash and the parents of those that perished many years before they obtained justice.

We Stormies are very much in the same boat. Some did not survive the Storm crash
And those that did will be scarred for life. If we therefore get a little angry at times at people that say, “They knew what they were getting into!” you will understand. We cannot treat this lightly or as some sort of game. Our lives are on the line and we are going to fight with everything we have to obtain justice.

If people still think we should be held partly responsible for stepping on board, so be it! Your viewpoint is at odds with what occurred but we do live in a democracy and you are entitled to it. Just don’t keep shoving your views down our necks. We have explained our position and that should be an end to it. You have yours! We know what it is by now so you don't have to keep repeating it.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

This really is the last time I will discuss the issue of responsibility!



Let’s say we have an airline called 'Storm Airways' and they are the envy of the industry because they can offer package holidays along with air travel that few can match. This, of course, builds up a certain amount of resentment in their competitors who see 'Storm Airways' getting a lion’s share of the business.

Sorry Frank for butting in to this stimulating conversation of the deaf.

"Storm Airways" was characterised by having 90% of the passengers who turned up at the airport, **** scared to fly with them, and taking a bus.

gg