Storm Financial Group

DocK said:

Just as a matter of interest Macca, could you tell us a little of the general split of opinions amongst SICAG members? At the social gatherings I assume people would share "war stories" and compare who was told what, when. Do the majority of SICAG members still think Manny had their best interests at heart, or do the majority now blame him at least partially for their losses? Or is there an unspoken rule that to openly question the "model" would be inappropriate, at least in the presence of group heirarchy?

I think it is unrealistic to expect the "group" as a whole to share one point of view, as there will be those who will never be prepared to hear any criticism of Manny and Julie, but I'm wondering if those with contrary views feel free to voice them?

If so, and all members are aware that they don't all necessarily agree, I don't see a problem with an "every man in it for themselves" approach. Nothing to stop any member so inclined going after Manny (and ex-staff) outside of SICAG - or perhaps even forming an off-shoot once they're done with the banks. Transparancy is the key - and is what was missing with Storm all along. If there is transparency about the different motives at work within SICAG, then nobody is being "used" to further someone else's agenda and all is well

My

Click to expand...

Hi DocK,

Unfortunately with the exception of 1 SICAG meeting (the information session - wasn't social) held in Cairns I have not been able to attend a social function personally. So I cannot give first hand experience. Through my own networks I have heard about almost all of them though. As I said I have a wide number of family and friends involved all around Queensland. Take what I say here now as what it is - hearsay.

What I have heard about these social gatherings does seem to be close to what you have described...

People do tell their own war stories and voice opinions. People openly express their opinions and do so in front of the committee members (when they are present - obviously the committee members tend to attend gatherings in SE Qld mostly) and former Storm staff (including advisors). I have not heard of any big nasty arguments between people with different points of view. Nor have I heard of people being asked not to speak out against EC/JC or SF.

The committee members are very open and respond as quickly as possible to emails and phone calls and are happy to speak to people in person if it is possible.

I don't know the proportions (although Big Max indicated 90% to 10%) but from what I hear they are changing to more people are starting to think that perhaps things weren't as they had been led to believe.

As these social gatherings have been happening for quite a few months now I suspect that while they are still opportunities to voice concerns and share stories I think they are also now starting to become more personal "catch-ups" between friends where things other than SF and SICAG are discussed.

I agree with your point about expecting every member of the group to hold to one position. I think with a membership of 1500 it would be nearly impossible.

I also agree on the point of transparency. In my case, I am happy to support SICAG committee as from where I sit they have been extremely transparent. When I call or email to ask questions they answer them. They do not shirk hard questions. They have from time to time elected not to give direct answers to some of my questions at that point in time (for strategic reasons) but they have always answered them in the fullness of time. What's more the committee members I am in contact also provide the evidence to back their answers.

Cheers
Maccka

maccka said:

I don't know the proportions (although Big Max indicated 90% to 10%) but from what I hear they are changing to more people are starting to think that perhaps things weren't as they had been led to believe.


Maccka

Click to expand...

Mate,

Was that 90% still believe in the Cassimatis model. or 90% don't.

gg

Garpal Gumnut said:

Mate,

Was that 90% still believe in the Cassimatis model. or 90% don't.

gg

Click to expand...

Hi GG,

You'd have to check with Big Max since it was his figures I was quoting but I'd hazard a guess that it is 90% think things weren't as they believed they were and 10% believe that there wasn't a problem with SF or its model. The great majority of people I know that got caught up are no longer feeling warm and fuzzy about SF/EC or JC.

While there may be doubts about the SF aspect of it I would have to say that I see almost universal belief by members I talk to in the negative involvement of most of the banks involved particularly CBA. Even people who did not have home loans or margin loans with CBA have issues with CBA and its affiliates that closed down the Storm Funds and SF with what some consider to be indecent haste and without due process.

cheers
Maccka

maccka said:

Hi GG,

You'd have to check with Big Max since it was his figures I was quoting but I'd hazard a guess that it is 90% think things weren't as they believed they were and 10% believe that there wasn't a problem with SF or its model. The great majority of people I know that got caught up are no longer feeling warm and fuzzy about SF/EC or JC.

While there may be doubts about the SF aspect of it I would have to say that I see almost universal belief by members I talk to in the negative involvement of most of the banks involved particularly CBA. Even people who did not have home loans or margin loans with CBA have issues with CBA and its affiliates that closed down the Storm Funds and SF with what some consider to be indecent haste and without due process.

cheers
Maccka

Click to expand...

Yes, thats my estimation of it too in Townsville.

Thanks

gg

Another three submissions of interest to the

Inquiry into Financial Products and Services in Australia;


http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sub121.pdf


http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sub122.pdf


http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sub123.pdf

Solly said:

Another three submissions of interest to the

Inquiry into Financial Products and Services in Australia;


http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sub121.pdf


http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sub122.pdf


http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sub123.pdf

Click to expand...

Mate you need to publish these submissions not as attachments but in full blown text.

The alleged behaviour of Cassimatis and the Banks needs to be seen in black and white.

Many Stormers would not have the ability to view these, and they certainly would not be published on the SICAG site.

gg

Those last 3 submissions are particularly harrowing.

And people say 'the banks were to blame!'. It is becoming readily apparent that Storm and CBA/BoQ were in a symbiotic relationship. Despite the sheet naivety of the people involved, it would appear that loan docs were fudged all over the shop. Manny knew EXACTLY what he was doing, and that his final gamble would send many people recklessly over the edge. When that didn't work, he simply took millions and ran.

How EC/JC can sleep at night on their Egyptian Cotton sheets in the Belmont mansion is beyond me.

Suicide would be an honourable way out for these bastards.

Ironhalo said:

Those last 3 submissions are particularly harrowing.

And people say 'the banks were to blame!'. It is becoming readily apparent that Storm and CBA/BoQ were in a symbiotic relationship. Despite the sheet naivety of the people involved, it would appear that loan docs were fudged all over the shop. Manny knew EXACTLY what he was doing, and that his final gamble would send many people recklessly over the edge. When that didn't work, he simply took millions and ran.

How EC/JC can sleep at night on their Egyptian Cotton sheets in the Belmont mansion is beyond me.

Suicide would be an honourable way out for these bastards.

Click to expand...

Tell it to SICAG mate.

They have ex Storm Advisers in the tent, and only bag the banks.

Many of the Storm Clients are trusting fools who still believe in the Storm model.

SICAG in no way are advising them otherwise, so they are ripe for the picking by other so called Financial Advisers.

gg

Standing by for the re-emergence of Storm under one of the following self-grandiosing monikers...with help of course from some of the dodgier SICAG 'background advisors' and Manny's friends:

Tsunami Traders 'Like Thailand we strike best at Christmas'
Cyclone Securities 'Like Cyclone Tracy, we also strike best at Christmas'
Ignite Investments 'Watching your future ignite into flames!'
or....
Greedy-Pricks-With-Delusions-of-Grandeur-R-Us

I think even some of the honest SICAG members are being taken for a ride.

Ironhalo said:

Standing by for the re-emergence of Storm under one of the following self-grandiosing monikers...with help of course from some of the dodgier SICAG 'background advisors' and Manny's friends:

Tsunami Traders 'Like Thailand we strike best at Christmas'
Cyclone Securities 'Like Cyclone Tracy, we also strike best at Christmas'
Ignite Investments 'Watching your future ignite into flames!'
or....
Greedy-Pricks-With-Delusions-of-Grandeur-R-Us

I think even some of the honest SICAG members are being taken for a ride.

Click to expand...

You've got it in one mate.

The SICAG is a signifier for all that is wrong with Financial Management in Australia for the average person.

Even their site is a MLC clone, remeber MLC, gimme the money I'll pay when yer dead.

SICAG

A Quote from the SICAG site "We will finish Strong"

whos we?

A Quote from the SICAG site" A Storm is Coming"

They took the Storm logo down after I complained about its inapropriatness.

A Quote from the SICAG site "Remember, the Storm Fees model charged nothing for discussions until something was actually done. Most of the financial planning industry charge fees for each appointment regardless of outcome"...................

This is an undisguised endorsement of the Storm model and advice to stay away from reputable financial advisers who charge for advice and not for commission as Storm did. ASIC endorses time based advice and discourages the Storm based model of large commissons on products purchased.

Is SICAG aware of this ?


gg

"Some give advice, others only sell"

"LABELLING of financial planners could be split between "sales people" and "advisers" under options being considered by a parliamentary inquiry into the fallout from Storm Financial's collapse."

More by Stuart Washington in the SMH is here;

http://business.smh.com.au/business/some-give-advice-others-only-sell-20090703-d7qp.html

"Quick justice"
"Stuart Washington argues we could take a leaf from the US book on corporate failure"

"The chairman of ASIC, Tony D'Aloisio, argues that the regulator was not at fault in Storm Financial and other collapses because it was the business model that failed. And it's not his job to police business models..."

More here in the Sydney Morning Herald;


http://business.smh.com.au/business/quick-justice-20090703-d7qr.html?page=1

GG, Many of us spoke to SICAG founders about their intended inronic but inappropriate use of the symbol on the website and asked that it be removed; you do love taking credit . . .
Solly, Please do not post entire submissions. If people are accessing this site, they have the downloand ability to go to this link and open submissions themselves:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sublist.htm
I have been to SICAG meetings and found people very critical of EC and the Storm model; now seen to be product sales and not good advice. Hindsight i life is always fascinating, could have . . . but didn't . . . the important thing here is to have ways to move on . . . financially and emotionally, as the vast majority are doing.

Garpal Gumnut said:

Mate you need to publish these submissions not as attachments but in full blown text.

The alleged behaviour of Cassimatis and the Banks needs to be seen in black and white.

Many Stormers would not have the ability to view these, and they certainly would not be published on the SICAG site.

gg

Click to expand...

gg, I've been through and seen some very tough things in my life especially off shore, but reading a couple of those submissions left a bit of a lump in my throat..

I'm having lunch with a Stormer today, there's not much I can do but maybe a couple of cab sauvs will help temporarily deaden the pain. They are desperately trying to hold on to their house but probably don't have enough working life left in them to buy it back. But I really admire their shear guts and determination to keep on going and going and going...

Smiley said:

GG, Many of us spoke to SICAG founders about their intended inronic but inappropriate use of the symbol on the website and asked that it be removed; you do love taking credit . . .
Solly, Please do not post entire submissions. If people are accessing this site, they have the downloand ability to go to this link and open submissions themselves:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sublist.htm
I have been to SICAG meetings and found people very critical of EC and the Storm model; now seen to be product sales and not good advice. Hindsight i life is always fascinating, could have . . . but didn't . . . the important thing here is to have ways to move on . . . financially and emotionally, as the vast majority are doing.

Click to expand...

Smiley, I believe gg's request regarding posting the submissions was really to add emphasis to the content of those submissions. Although some selective quoting may well add clarity in discussion to the factual positions of those impacted.

Smiley said:

GG, Many of us spoke to SICAG founders about their intended inronic but inappropriate use of the symbol on the website and asked that it be removed; you do love taking credit . . .
Solly, Please do not post entire submissions. If people are accessing this site, they have the downloand ability to go to this link and open submissions themselves:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sublist.htm
I have been to SICAG meetings and found people very critical of EC and the Storm model; now seen to be product sales and not good advice. Hindsight i life is always fascinating, could have . . . but didn't . . . the important thing here is to have ways to move on . . . financially and emotionally, as the vast majority are doing.

Click to expand...

Mate, of course I take the credit, wouldn't you. The Storm advertisement is on a Storm Victims site for yonks, and 8 EIGHT hours after I give them a bollocking over it its down. Wouldn't you take credit.. The last time I was that lucky was with an SP bookie when Fine Cotton romped home. I still have the pot of paint to remind me.

In fact credit is not the point. The poor Stormers are, and if ASF can make Mr O'Brien and Mr.Jelly more accountable , then we don't want the credit. We are just happy.

I still think they should take the advice down to go to financial planners who rather than charge by the hour as recommended take a percentage of some dodgy product they sell to them. Perhaps you could have a word to Mr.O'Brien and Mr.Jelly. You can take the credit and I'll keep the paint.

The SICAG hierarchy may not be all that bright, may have ex storm advisers in the wings to pick over the carcass, but they are , I would agree, good people trying to do their best.

And can you ask them to get rid of the money spider.

its rule 101 in lecture 101 of web development...do not have distracting money spiders on a serious website,

You can take the credit when it comes down,

gg

Garpal Gumnut said:

I still think they should take the advice down to go to financial planners who rather than charge by the hour as recommended take a percentage of some dodgy product they sell to them.

gg

Click to expand...

gg

I think you will find the comments about the charging by advisors was in relation to some Townsville advisors charging hundreds of dollars to confirm that they (the client) we in a world of hurt and they would need to sell the family home.

All well intentioned and prudent but to then mix this up with the upfront model used by Storm (it was not a commission model) and suggest the latter was/is more effective reflects an illogical comparison.

In both instances the client was paying for bad advice.

The storm fee factory was able to sustain the upfront model only because the fees generated from old investors were subsidising the advice being provided to new investors pending the investment and so on. This is why storm eventually failed, no new fees coming in meant they could not sustain the sausage factory and EC's lifestyle.

Put simply storm's advice was bad, their fees astronomical and their exit strategy was EC's relationship with the CBA. It wasn't a matter of if but when it would all end in tears.

You, me and others can agree on this all we like but there remains many people wed to the belief that storm and EC did nothing wrong.

Unfortunately it seems their minds will not be changed and to this end have gone back to a former storm adviser in Townsville. Go figure.

well i cant belive what has been happening this week-theres a lot to read again- Im really starting to get grumpy with what im reading -im feeling grumpier than mr gg with his rumbling prostate I reckon i make mr gg look like gandhi with the way i am feeling at the moment. i read that mr & mrs c also borrowed against thier house/s to invest in storm--is this right? they dont seem to be stacking shelves at coles at night to make ends meet- they must have done some wise things with thier money-why has mr c gone quiet? -didnt his website site say he wouldnt rest until he got justice for everyone? is mr c ever going to say anything? why is he so so quiet ? he had plenty to say for years and now nothing -i read some of the subs to the enquiry-if what some people are saying is really true then some poeple are in really big trouble- i think the banks have a lot to answer for-why would they risk depositors funds lending to people to invest in this type of scheme?? maybe they knew they would win because they had the security of peoples homes-i remember when i got my first bank loan they almost wanted my first born as security- something smells really smells-theres not much that really can be said i suppose but its good to be able to vent a bit on forums like this-i know others are doing it worse but everyone has just got to hang in there until all this gets sorted out-i dont know what is the best way to go but everyone has to do what ever they can to make sure they dont get beaten by this- with mr norris saying hes not too proud of the way the comm bank has behaved in all of this gives some glimmer of hope that some will be helped out a bit-i remember carey wrote that most stormers really will do anything they can to hold on to ythe family home-yep carey thats right mate.

Steve Borden said:

gg

I think you will find the comments about the charging by advisors was in relation to some Townsville advisors charging hundreds of dollars to confirm that they (the client) we in a world of hurt and they would need to sell the family home.

All well intentioned and prudent but to then mix this up with the upfront model used by Storm (it was not a commission model) and suggest the latter was/is more effective reflects an illogical comparison.

In both instances the client was paying for bad advice.

The storm fee factory was able to sustain the upfront model only because the fees generated from old investors were subsidising the advice being provided to new investors pending the investment and so on. This is why storm eventually failed, no new fees coming in meant they could not sustain the sausage factory and EC's lifestyle.

Put simply storm's advice was bad, their fees astronomical and their exit strategy was EC's relationship with the CBA. It wasn't a matter of if but when it would all end in tears.

You, me and others can agree on this all we like but there remains many people wed to the belief that storm and EC did nothing wrong.

Unfortunately it seems their minds will not be changed and to this end have gone back to a former storm adviser in Townsville. Go figure.

Click to expand...

Steve I accept your points.

But lets try and put these wood ducks in to best practice.

The advice may have been moot on a certain date in DEC 08 or JAN 09, but it is crap advice, on the SICAG site, now ?Jul0409.

Nobody goes to a financial adviser for free advice " As Storm did" according to the SICAG website.

It is an endorsement of the Storm Model, from a mob who have ex Storm Advisers in the Tent.

I'm going to stop posting about this as its obvious to Blind Freddie that the Wood Ducks, Storm Clients are dim, and that SICAG will do them over as Manny did, that ex MAnny mates advise SICAG, and they will all be poorer but happy in their godbothering belief in Manny and SICAG.

gg

gg

it was some ride, taken with a likeable jockey , "qualified to australian standards" on a race track , "regulated under australian rules".

2004 retired from work, cashed in super est. $300,000 and owned house outright with no debts.

nov 2007 net equity in share investments of $1.1 million & owned house on which $250,000 mortgage owing

9 oct 2008 net equity in share investments of $100,000 & owned house on which $250,000 mortgage owing

feb 2009 share investments all sold, $105,000 owing in share sale washup, and owned house on which $250,000 mortgage owing

mar 2009 est. assets of $100,000 cash & no owned house & now renting.


in context - "non storm" investors in shares, who did not borrow as of mar 2009 have shares worth est. 50% of what the shares were worth in nov 2007.
if had not got involved with storm, would now probably own shares of est. value $150,000 and living in owned house with no mortgage.