This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Storm Financial Group

Jump to new

Yep, Grrrr, from me also, Judd. I'm fed up with the need to legislate for the lowest common denominator. Just hate the nanny state stuff.
 

Perhaps Maccka, you can explain the following from the SICAG site.

It is advice on the left lower border of the site which reasonably advises victims of the Cassimates and the Banks to avoid predatory financial advisers. Then it gets interesting.


The last sentence advises people not to pay for advice but rather to pay as they go for financial products, as they did with Storm. I've emboldened the relevant advice. It seems like a vote of confidence in the Storm model.

I believe the industry is totally against this, as the fees charged induce the planners to rope in more mugs into products the advisers profit from.


gg
 
From the SICAG site.

They have taken down the Storm advertisement.



A Storm is Coming! …



And still no mention on SICAG of Manny or Storm stuffing up.
Maybe it never happened.

gg
 
I would bet London to a brick that Manny will be back, as large as life, with his old mates pushing away for him in the background, in prominent positions in the new Storm.

He's smarter than anyone, smarter than SICAG, smarter than the Inquiry, and smarter than anyone on ASF.

He'll survive.

gg
 
Tin hat firmly in place lads, why is that after this last few days of 'conversation' on this forum regarding SICAG's priorities, and the appropriateness of having the Storm logo on its website, that it is now inexplicably removed?

Coincidence non, tout le monde?
 
And if the continued reluctance to blame Manny as evidenced on this thread persists, he'll have no trouble in acquiring new clients for the new firm.

That interview (though it's noted he wouldn't agree to actual interview but just provided written answers to questions) is pathetic.

The comments which followed were interesting, and I especially noticed this:

(4) If the CBA would have come to the rescue this time. How long would this have taken to repay, on top of the other outstanding loans. As a CBA shareholder I say well done CBA.
Click to expand...

Very good point, huh.
 
Excellent point Mr gg - why would you even say ANYTHING positive about Storm at all on the SICAG site?

I wonder if anyone thinks that SICAG is just a front, setting the stage so to speak for the next chapter in Manny's adventures. Are the genuine wood ducks being set up to be, what is known in scamspeak, "reloaded"?

And Mash, I find it hilarious that you come on here and say without SICAG this thread wouldnt exist. I dont think you and a few others here who act as apologists are the wood ducks at all.

Ironhalo, yes I do think the SICAG people who troll this site probably thought the Storm logo was a tad obvious, wonder if they will act upon gg's sharp eyed observation?

Yes, it stunk from the beginning and the sharks are using the clownfish to further their own purposes.
Are you paying attention Chrisgee?

One last thing, the submission that mentioned this forum - you have got to be kidding, what sort of credibility does this person think that lends him?
I note the same submission mentions also "the gagging of storm".
What a load of bollocks!
 
The sole reason this thread exists is due the high risk, one size fits all advice model of Storm. In the middle of that is the lenders and the fund managers who got swept up in the fee factory that was Storm.

It begins and ends with EC & JC and their sales people.

The positioning of the model as being low risk was a nonsense and the way they sold it as being a lesser risk than not doing anything was a con.

I have a great deal of sympathy for those who have lost it all and now face an uphill battle to live in retirement, I can't subscribe to a need for the use of pejoratives to describe them though. A great majority of these people thought they were doing the best for themselves and their families and they deserved better.

To be sold a strategy that saw an 18 year old student get the same as a 75 year old can't be called advice and breaks every fundamental of Financial Planning.

To be clear, Storm and its sales people were not planners, they made no assessment of an investor's situation other than how much debt their properties could bear and structured the investment around that. For that they charged 7%.

This whole debacle was a timebomb waiting to happen and its about time people understood that unless the market grew every year at at least 10% they were getting nowhere, sure the gross assets were increasing but so was the debt. Anything less and the model was cannibalising their net equity.

With regard to the 'gagging of storm', of course ASIC told the sales people not to provide 'advice'. In light the absolute garbage they had been telling clients to that point who knows what they would have said.

Stuff like we do the worrying for you or you won't lose your house or EC has a 'special' relationship with the Banks or its all a big mistake and Storm are suing the CBA and they will win or there are people much worse off than you or I am in the same boat. Not sure how that would have done anything but make the position worse.

Not Black swan, Wayne Swan, The New World Order or any other conspiracy, just mums and dads getting dudded by a pea and thimble merchant and his acolytes.
 
Steve Borden
I would be very interested in your opinion on why SICAG have not said a peep about "the Manny method" if you are so inclined.
 
In a previous post sometime ago I believe it was asked if the Storm principals followed the same strategy of investment as the clients.

In an article by Tony Raggatt in the Townsville Bulletin on January 7 2009, the questioned is asked;

"Is your house mortgaged and the funds secured against it invested and leveraged with margin loans?"

The answer is, "Yes."

The link to the full story is here;

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2009/01/07/31725_hpnews.html
 
Farencue said:
Steve Borden
I would be very interested in your opinion on why SICAG have not said a peep about "the Manny method" if you are so inclined.
Click to expand...

Farencue

I and many others have likened Storm to a 'cult'. There are several similarities such as a supreme leader who was all-knowing, a group of very unsuspecting followers who were separated from the rest of the community by being told they were special and we (the rest) were the herd. They fostered inclusive, group activities which reinforced their 'specialness' to the point the belief was so strong in the model who were trying to remove funds in late 2008 were actually convinced to put more in.

That being the case there is a significant proportion of the clients who would rather believe that is was all the Banks fault and not that of the model because of the belief and faith in EC and less so JC (she is not the messiah just a millionaire hunter).

Don't get me wrong the Banks and the Margin Lenders contributed to this in a large way but they didn't start the timer without an exit strategy.

In answer to your question though I think there are a few reasons why SICAG are not going 'hard' on EC and the rest:

1. This aforementioned belief in the model and EC;
2. If EC said it was so then it must be so;
3. A view that there is little point in pursuing EC & Storm given they have no real money while the Banks have very deep pockets;
4. Some very deep and complex relationships, which should be placed on the record for the purposes of transparency; and
5. A lack of understanding why it all failed, ie if your house burned down that is easy to explain, with this issue there are many known unkowns and unknown unknowns, which then lead to conspiracy theories.

Do I think EC will make a comeback the answer is yes, do I think the SICAG guys are protecting shielding him from criticism my view changes quite regularly.

The guys from SICAG are good hearted people who have donated a lot of time to helping others but they are now not the main game, now that S&G and the politicians are involved this will be taken down a path that SICAG can't control. SICAG did however create the enviroment for these parties to become involved.
 

I meant ...exclusive, group activities....

Too late to edit.
 
With all the judgments and moralising it is good to read Steve Borden's balanced assessment.

RE SICAG, it has kept the issue of Storm alive, there is not contact and there has been no financing of it by EC and JC (I sought reassurances before I joined and I do believe Mark and Noel - they are perhaps naive at times but well meaning and they have a focus on justice for the stormified). And as Steve has explained, more eloquently than I can at the moment, there are many layers to this whole debacle and relationships are complex.

I do not believe EC will arise from the ashes of storm and if he does, myself and my friends will make sure he is picketed, shamed in the media and kept under our spotlight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The dynamics of money and TIME: crimping cashflow for a period
Replies
3
Views
862
TiminOz
The planning of a portfolio
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
Value Collector
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
2K
sptrawler
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
5K
ducati916
Mayfair 101/Mayfair Platinum
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
Dona Ferentes
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...