Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

DocK, point well made and point taken! In fact, your previous 'rant' is very rational and, for what it is worth, you ought to make it a submission to the Senate. That is, for what it is worth, because being the cynic that I am, I don't believe much will come of it. It's just another 'being seen to be doing something' exercise. In the end, maybe another layer of regulations which will ultimately be outwitted by another scheme.

It would be a pity that, after having learnt your lesson and paid for it so dearly, you turned your back completely on the capitalist system. We all more or less got there the same way as you are getting there right now: by trial and error!


Don't think for a moment that I personally wasn't tempted to take out a margin loan when things seemed to be going up and up and up - it just seemed all so easy! My online broker drowned me in promotional mail; every day as I opened the FinReview I was looking at full-page ads extolling the virtue of being geared up. Instinct told me not to! As you write, it's all about what you are comfortable with.

In response to the DocK #2188 post:

QUOTE
Twiceshy - I think you'll find that many regular posters on this forum have used borrowed money to invest in one form or another. Borrowing against home equity and margin lending are fairly common practices advocated by a plethora of financial planners - it's the level of gearing that can get you into trouble! I think you're a bit confused about what is short-term lending (presumably you mean margin lending by this?) and borrowing against the house - which was done on the same basis as any other home loan - we had a 25 year loan - hardly short-term.
UNQUOTE

Well, DocK, I AM confused: if you borrowed money against your house on a 25-year loan, how could you have been taken down? That would have been no margin loan!

If I had taken a mortgage against my house and then taken the stash of money to my sharebroker and told him to buy 10,000 BHP shares with it at the top of the market at $50, I would still be holding the shares today, despite the shares having gone as low as $20 in the meantime. Essentally, I could have spent the loan money on Iced Vovos and the lender couldn't have cared less because he was secured by the mortgage over my house.

So, please enlighten me, how did you get taken down? Was it because you didn't leave it at that but, having bought a Storm product (I refuse to call it an investment) with the proceeds from your house loan, you borrowed once again against the Storm product by way of margin loan?

Twiceshy - you seemed to have changed your mind overnight? Perhaps you need to re-read my original post? I have never claimed to have lost the lot and indeed I did retain part of my original investment. I use the word investment as units in a managed fund run by Challenger that invest exclusively in the All Ords 200 certainly qualifies as an investment in most people's opinion - if not yours. It has never been the nature of the investment that was questionable - and indeed it would have consisted of quite a few BHP shares, amongst other blue-chips that make up the top 200.

Your original post led me to believe you were confusing a home loan as being short-term, in comparison to a margin loan which certainly could be. I had both. I had a comfortable level of gearing prior to the market downfall and did not receive a margin call - all of this is in my original post.

As I have already stated (again in my original post) where I feel I was "taken down" - and I would prefer to use the words "misled" or perhaps even "deceived" was in the CBA re-valuing my home without my request using a highly questionable method and making that valuation available to Storm with the express intent to lend me more money - I relied on the valuation as being accurate and having been done on the same basis as prior valuations by a registered valuer in my area, who actually at least drove past my home. The hand-in-glove nature of the relationship between the branch of the CBA and Storm operating together as a sales force is what I object to, as I had been given no reason to suspect that my advisor and my banker had any other than the usual arms-length business relationship. The lending practices employed by some (if not all?) of the banks involved is where I feel let down.
 
Well, I just hope that after all these cataclysmic shake-outs, frugality will again become fashionable. I have been practising it for years. My wife has been badgering me about our trusty old TOYOTA Camry (model 1989, 380,000km). She wants to trade it in because it has no CD-player, no power steering, no automatic window winder. Well, have I a surprise for her when she comes home!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVcbZbOqMR4
 
In response to the DocK #2188 post:



Well, DocK, I AM confused: if you borrowed money against your house on a 25-year loan, how could you have been taken down? That would have been no margin loan!
Seems that you misunderstood what Dock was saying.

If I had taken a mortgage against my house and then taken the stash of money to my sharebroker and told him to buy 10,000 BHP shares with it at the top of the market at $50, I would still be holding the shares today, despite the shares having gone as low as $20 in the meantime. Essentally, I could have spent the loan money on Iced Vovos and the lender couldn't have cared less because he was secured by the mortgage over my house.

So, please enlighten me, how did you get taken down? Was it because you didn't leave it at that but, having bought a Storm product (I refuse to call it an investment) with the proceeds from your house loan, you borrowed once again against the Storm product by way of margin loan?

Dock has clarified his/her situation.
But what you describe in your second paragraph is exactly what many Stormers did, i.e. took out a margin loan on the shares bought with the borrowed money of the equity loan in the house.
 
But what you describe in your second paragraph is exactly what many Stormers did, i.e. took out a margin loan on the shares bought with the borrowed money of the equity loan in the house.

And all I can reply to that is "Boo-hoo."
 
I thought you might say that, DocK :)

Incidentally, an archeological team has just uncovered 10,000-year-old bones and fossil remains of what is believed to be the first financial adviser - see below:

image019.jpg
 
bunyip have u done anything to help any storm victims out? or have u just puffed around here making them feel like crap.



Have I puffed around making Storm victims feel like crap?
No.

Have I done anything to help Storm victims out?
Yes.

I've offered sound advice in answer to queries about how people can go about getting the knowledge and ability to mange their own investments.

I've been forthright in correcting your personal view that people would be fools to attempt to mange their own investments, and they should employ the services of a financial planner.

In various posts I've shown empathy towards Storm victims, by offering them sympathy and encouragement and attempting to make them aware that, wealth or no wealth, they can still lead decent and fulfilling lives.

I've attempted to bring some balance to a discussion in which many unbalanced views have been offered.

I've been forthright in correcting the view that it was pure greed that got Stormers into trouble.

I've been forthright in correcting the view that it was all the fault of the banks.

I've stated, quite correctly, that Stormers need to accept their share of the responsibility if they're to come to terms with what happened, get some form of closure, and move on with their lives.

I've commended Stormers who've shown the character to give a balanced and realistic synopsis of the various aspects of the Storm debacle, including accepting some of the responsibility themselves.

Some will see some value in what I've said. Others will not. That's up to them.
 
View attachment 31299

http://senatormacdonald.org/data/ASIC Statement re Storm Financial 25 Feb 09.pdf


Part of the above statement that reads "ASIC's powers are framed around a presumption of compliance by licencees . . . " basically sums up the problem (in my opinion) with the current system that is being administered by ASIC.


quincy this is exactly as i see it all happening -everybody is ducking and weaving around things- if the good senator sees that the current framework is designed around assuming that all are acting and complying with the current legislation and NOTHING could have been done to stop what has just happened. we need a complete overhaul of the whole financial sector- in my mind investing with storm should have been just as safe as investing with the comm bank directly. it really peaves me reading people bagging storm investors- i think the main blame lies with a system that allowed this to happened in the first place- i repeat i am no financial genius so i go somewhere i believe that all is ok , above board, approved and licenced to operate etc. i should have a reasonable expectation that i should have faith the fin adviser i choose- they all should be of a reputable character and be trustworthy - why should those who chose storm be villified because of thier choice- im sure there is more to the whole saga and more will come out- i just hope it all does. i reckon there are people that no much more but have yet to speak up
 

Did anybody read the rest of the thirteen pages?

QUOTE Margin loans are not regulated under the Corporations Act. ASIC's ability to deal with mortgage and loan issues is limited, because these matters are ordinarily determined by the general law of property and contracts UNQUOTE

Quite!

It then considers if it should have taken steps to stop Storm's aggressive gearing model but concluded:

QUOTE Consider the difficulty of ASIC trying to close down an advisory model during 2006 or 2007 which was producing high returns for its investors. UNQUOTE

Exactly! The same people who now bemoan their losses would have strongly objected to being shut out from such an obvious money-making scheme.
 
A new week, a new beginning! Let's start it positively by agreeing that from now on we won't use the word "victim" any longer. It imprisons us! Instead, let's call ex-Stormers "potential multi-millionaires whose timing went wrong."

The potential is still there! (or is it?) If there is nothing wrong with high gearing and the Storm-model, and it was only the big, bad Banks who stuffed things up, well, let's recover past losses by starting all over again, but this time with a different Bank! Go for it!
 
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed the similarities between Twiceshy and Onlooker it is uncanny.
Onlooker decided to take his marbles and run on the 26th June and Twiceshy began posting on the 27th June, he/she obviously just can’t resist.
Even the name could be a little clue.
I decided I would read all their posts in one sitting and the similarity is amazing.
Are we allowed to submit under two different names?
Does anyone know?.
Can you imagine having a discussion with yourself?
 
It certainly would appear that way.

'I am superior to all because I get up at 11am and review financial news from New York and London....suck that Stormers!'

What is this mythical 'New York' and a small town called 'London' he speaks of? :)
 
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed the similarities between Twiceshy and Onlooker it is uncanny.
Onlooker decided to take his marbles and run on the 26th June and Twiceshy began posting on the 27th June, he/she obviously just can’t resist.
Even the name could be a little clue.
I decided I would read all their posts in one sitting and the similarity is amazing.
Are we allowed to submit under two different names?
Does anyone know?.
Can you imagine having a discussion with yourself?
Joe uses stringent measures to ensure no poster can register two names.
If you feel you have a complaint, it would be more constructive to contact Joe directly about this than to post on the thread.
 
shibby, very flattering to think that you spent so much time researching my posts (and, I am sure, Onlooker, who- or wherever s/he is, thinks likewise, don't you, Onlooker?) It gives me hope that my words have sunk in.

Now here's a thought: wouldn't it have been nice if you had used those same analytical skills back then in 2008 to arrive at the conclusion that all easy-money schemes eventually come a cropper? They always have and they always will - except for those that set them up!

Anyway, I may imitate Onlooker and pick up my marbles and leave you to it as I begin to find all this quite, quite tiring and I am suffering from grievance fatigue.

P.S. If you do want to control what is written and by whom about this whole sorry affair, then you may wish to start your own website. Last time I looked, www.meaculpa.org was still available! However, while you are on a public forum, you simply have to accept that other people may have other opinions. That's what makes life so interesting! :)
 
shibby, very flattering to think that you spent so much time researching my posts (and, I am sure, Onlooker, who- or wherever s/he is, thinks likewise, don't you, Onlooker?)
Dont flatter yourself there appeared to be a trend
It gives me hope that my words have sunk in.

Now here's a thought: wouldn't it have been nice if you had used those same analytical skills back then in 2008 to arrive at the conclusion that all easy-money schemes eventually come a cropper? They always have and they always will - except for those that set them up!
Your unbelievably cruel your not constructive, just cruel.

Anyway, I may imitate Onlooker and pick up my marbles and leave you to it as I begin to find all this quite, quite tiring and I am suffering from grievance fatigue.
Maybe the fatigue is from 23 posts in 2 days, its unbelievable that you would assume that we would all be so interested in what you have to say.

P.S. If you do want to control what is written and by whom about this whole sorry affair, then you may wish to start your own website. Last time I looked, www.meaculpa.org was still available! However, while you are on a public forum, you simply have to accept that other people may have other opinions. That's what makes life so interesting!
What you don't understand is that you really are not that interesting, you have a need to make people, those who are already feeling dreadful worse, you have a need to turn that knife just a little more and that is pathetic.. :)

I do hope you leave this forum and never return but you won't your need an audience, and will take it anyway you can.
 
Twiceshy, I have no idea what you are think you are contributing to this thread except some rather comedy-desolate links and four consecutive posts talking to yourself. In any other forum that would be considered trolling.

People made mistakes trusting a licensed financial company to handle something as pedestrian as the monitoring of an indexed fund. However, these people weren't Gordan Gecko-esque Wall Street cocaine addicts, they were on the whole unsophisticated retirees who got taken for a ride by a very slick Emmanuel Cassimatis, who just happened to watch the usually modest ASX200 enjoy 4 or so bumper years in a row before the rather large global market collapsed. Remember that, and show a little bit of respect as there are people in this forum who have had the harrowing job of trying to talk rifles out of people's hands, or talk people down from suicide.

For all your swagger about these people blaming (partially at least) the banks, then explain why someone close to me has just been offered a six figure settlement outside of court from one of the banks involved pertaining to some rather nefarious actions on the bank's behalf? I will say no more.

GG: In regards to your previous posts pertaining to SICAG and what/who they are linked to, I'll put my nose to the ground and see if I can suss anything out. My family is from Redcliffe, and my brother hears things through the local business grapevine up there. I'll see what I can dig up.

An interesting anecdote, apparently for a few years there Storm used to have their annual party at the Bullivant's Redcliffe mansion....my brother went one year and distinctly remembers seeing Andrew Symonds etc all drinking beers with EC. Seems like he had no shame in who he ripped off. Not that Andrew Symonds seems to have shame anyway...ahem....
 
Joe uses stringent measures to ensure no poster can register two names.
If you feel you have a complaint, it would be more constructive to contact Joe directly about this than to post on the thread.


I dont think there is anything to stop you closing an account then opening another one.

A peek at the "members" list would suggest Onlooker is no longer a current member.

I could be wrong about that, of course
 
GG: In regards to your previous posts pertaining to SICAG and what/who they are linked to, I'll put my nose to the ground and see if I can suss anything out. My family is from Redcliffe, and my brother hears things through the local business grapevine up there. I'll see what I can dig up.
.

Thanks Ironhalo, I don't have anything against the Stormers, one of them is a mate, (see first post) , but SICAG seem to have ignored the salesmen who got these poor buggers in to this schamozzle in the first place. Salesmen = Manny and all who advised at Storm.

If it helps you can access old Ozdaq.com.au and Cassimatis.com.au pages at THEWAYBACKMACHINE. Just google it. It shows all the parties and trips.

gg
 
Top