Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 13,611
- Reactions
- 10,091
Judd, good sensible post, well said , good words of wisdom and yet blatently obvious and simple logic....
I'd agree with darkside , a good post Judd.
gg
Storm Financial Group
- Thread starter Garpal Gumnut
- Start date
I'd agree with darkside , a good post Judd.
gg
- Joined
- 21 December 2008
- Posts
- 4,532
- Reactions
- 1
Another submission of interest to the
Inquiry into Financial Products and Services in Australia;
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sub137.pdf
Inquiry into Financial Products and Services in Australia;
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sub137.pdf
- Joined
- 21 December 2008
- Posts
- 4,532
- Reactions
- 1
"Ex-BoQ auditor a witness in Storm case"
"A former senior Bank of Queensland auditor is expected to become a star witness in legal action to be brought on behalf of about 1300 former clients who were involved in Storm Financial, the collapsed financial adviser."
More on page 22 in The Australian Financial Review by Duncan Hughes
"A former senior Bank of Queensland auditor is expected to become a star witness in legal action to be brought on behalf of about 1300 former clients who were involved in Storm Financial, the collapsed financial adviser."
More on page 22 in The Australian Financial Review by Duncan Hughes
- Joined
- 21 January 2009
- Posts
- 58
- Reactions
- 0
Thought i would drop by and catch up on everything and geez there has been some ground covered.
Farencue - i have come accross a number of people whose sell orders were ignored by storm - in one instance there was 5 different excuses on why it didnt happen ranging from we lost the forms, etc... the only excuse these people didnt hear was "the dog ate your forms"!!! in another case storm ignored a federal court order for 6 months that was part of divorce proceedings - unfortunately for this person this 6 months was march 2008 to dec 2008 so they lost the lot.
Solly - the AFR article today is important for those storm BoQ victims. There is a range of stuff that has surfaced in the last few months that really is quite damning and this is one of them - i bet there is a very very good story there...when it comes out in the fullness of time. It will be interesting to see what APRA say about this as it is a prudential requirement for banks to disclose to the regulator when auditors leave. I am sure there is much much more that will come out on BoQ in the court process. Surely BoQ shareholders must be questioning the board on the storm and franchise fiascos.
SICAG - whilst i have no official involvement with SICAG i have worked with them on several issues and can say that they are working in the interests of the storm clients. we recently helped them collate a SICAG survey for use in the parliamentary enquiry. yes i am aware of the background of all the people involved and their former links with EC and co (the first thing i did was research them thoroughly) - but i have noticed that as all the truth has come out on Storm their position towards EC and the Storm directors has changed dramatically - particularly since march 09. we are now at the point in this campaign that what SICAG and people like me say about Storm publicly doesnt really matter as the ball is very much in the court of the ASIC regulators. this may change depending on the actions of ASIC. yes there are still true died in the wool Storm supporters out there and whilst i find it amazing no matter what they hear they wont change their stance - but these arent the people running SICAG. its a horribly draining job handling the emotional torment of many of these victims and SICAG are doing a good job on this (especially when u consider that these guys are going through this as well personally) - the lawyers dont have the time or resources to do this. also bear in mind that these guys arent professionals and they will be the first to admit this. the real challenge for SICAG will be how they handle any conflict of interest should ASIC decide to prosecute any of the people working with SICAG such as Jellich - he has come out publicly and said if he is found to have done anything wrong he will take his medicine but in the meantime he is one of the few people who was part of the storm mess who is actually trying to clean it up and help the affected people - if only EC and JC took the same view.
On a final note to all the cba stormers - the resolution process is starting and holds strong promise that a fair and equitable solution can be reached - just remember the words you were told at the start of this process by Slater and Gordon.
Farencue - i have come accross a number of people whose sell orders were ignored by storm - in one instance there was 5 different excuses on why it didnt happen ranging from we lost the forms, etc... the only excuse these people didnt hear was "the dog ate your forms"!!! in another case storm ignored a federal court order for 6 months that was part of divorce proceedings - unfortunately for this person this 6 months was march 2008 to dec 2008 so they lost the lot.
Solly - the AFR article today is important for those storm BoQ victims. There is a range of stuff that has surfaced in the last few months that really is quite damning and this is one of them - i bet there is a very very good story there...when it comes out in the fullness of time. It will be interesting to see what APRA say about this as it is a prudential requirement for banks to disclose to the regulator when auditors leave. I am sure there is much much more that will come out on BoQ in the court process. Surely BoQ shareholders must be questioning the board on the storm and franchise fiascos.
SICAG - whilst i have no official involvement with SICAG i have worked with them on several issues and can say that they are working in the interests of the storm clients. we recently helped them collate a SICAG survey for use in the parliamentary enquiry. yes i am aware of the background of all the people involved and their former links with EC and co (the first thing i did was research them thoroughly) - but i have noticed that as all the truth has come out on Storm their position towards EC and the Storm directors has changed dramatically - particularly since march 09. we are now at the point in this campaign that what SICAG and people like me say about Storm publicly doesnt really matter as the ball is very much in the court of the ASIC regulators. this may change depending on the actions of ASIC. yes there are still true died in the wool Storm supporters out there and whilst i find it amazing no matter what they hear they wont change their stance - but these arent the people running SICAG. its a horribly draining job handling the emotional torment of many of these victims and SICAG are doing a good job on this (especially when u consider that these guys are going through this as well personally) - the lawyers dont have the time or resources to do this. also bear in mind that these guys arent professionals and they will be the first to admit this. the real challenge for SICAG will be how they handle any conflict of interest should ASIC decide to prosecute any of the people working with SICAG such as Jellich - he has come out publicly and said if he is found to have done anything wrong he will take his medicine but in the meantime he is one of the few people who was part of the storm mess who is actually trying to clean it up and help the affected people - if only EC and JC took the same view.
On a final note to all the cba stormers - the resolution process is starting and holds strong promise that a fair and equitable solution can be reached - just remember the words you were told at the start of this process by Slater and Gordon.
- Joined
- 25 September 2007
- Posts
- 1,712
- Reactions
- 13
A question,
If one has proof/evidence that sell orders were not acted on
Can a lawsuit be mounted to make the persons responsible for that (non)action personally liable?
I would think the answer is yes.
I have very limited knowledge of the various laws in relation to this matter.
However, I always kept email of every instruction I issued.
On two occasions, my sell orders were not acted on correctly.
In both cases, I was compensated, once fully, no questions asked, the other occasion, I had to fight for partial compo, both major brokers.
If one has proof/evidence that sell orders were not acted on
Can a lawsuit be mounted to make the persons responsible for that (non)action personally liable?
I would think the answer is yes.
I have very limited knowledge of the various laws in relation to this matter.
However, I always kept email of every instruction I issued.
On two occasions, my sell orders were not acted on correctly.
In both cases, I was compensated, once fully, no questions asked, the other occasion, I had to fight for partial compo, both major brokers.
Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 13,611
- Reactions
- 10,091
Thanks Carey.
An opportune post.
There is more afoot which a contact in Canberra has advised me of, which should bring all the jigsaw together.
You may not be aware of this, but it will become clearer as events unfold.
I do believe you about SICAG, a good bunch of people by and large, some misguided MC believers, and Jelly babies on the shelf. But who cares, its moving along.
I have booked 2 months in to Lennons in October 2011, which is when I reckon, the Criminal Trials will be on. I got a special deal at $85 a night.
A short walk up to the Courts.
It will be a Nuttall type event with Manouri me Frouta for dessert.
gg
- Joined
- 21 December 2008
- Posts
- 4,532
- Reactions
- 1
gg, I'm sure that Lennons will not have such a distinguished guest in their presence since LBJ camped over in their old digs in 1966...
Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 13,611
- Reactions
- 10,091
gg, I'm sure that Lennons will not have such a distinguished guest in their presence since LBJ camped over in their old digs in 1966...
lolololololololololol
gg
I appreciate Carey's voice of reason and having talked at length with the SICAG founders I am utterly convinced of their sincerity and motivation to improve things for the stormified.
A word with someone in the know from ASIC this week convinced me we should possibly book a few hotels in Brisbane for the trial event - hard to pin down dates; though applaud your intuitive knowing GG in being able to specify the date as Oct 2010.
Some great stuff in recent submissions and hoping all 'advisers' will be called to account and not just EC and JC and board of directors (though the latter changed quite a bit in the final days of storm). . . .
A word with someone in the know from ASIC this week convinced me we should possibly book a few hotels in Brisbane for the trial event - hard to pin down dates; though applaud your intuitive knowing GG in being able to specify the date as Oct 2010.
Some great stuff in recent submissions and hoping all 'advisers' will be called to account and not just EC and JC and board of directors (though the latter changed quite a bit in the final days of storm). . . .
Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 13,611
- Reactions
- 10,091
I appreciate Carey's voice of reason and having talked at length with the SICAG founders I am utterly convinced of their sincerity and motivation to improve things for the stormified.
A word with someone in the know from ASIC this week convinced me we should possibly book a few hotels in Brisbane for the trial event - hard to pin down dates; though applaud your intuitive knowing GG in being able to specify the date as Oct 2010.
Some great stuff in recent submissions and hoping all 'advisers' will be called to account and not just EC and JC and board of directors (though the latter changed quite a bit in the final days of storm). . . .
Sorry mate, you got the date wrong.
Oct 2011.
Some time has been pencilled in by the Registrar according to my contacts.
Also there is more to come as I indicated in my reply yesterday to Carey Ramm,
The pond will be subject to Ripolls.
gg
well i hope you are all correct about people going to court ovrer all of this-its about time we saw some action- so maybe there are some breaches of laws-as i said before people and companies cannot act in a way the causes damages to people and expect to get a way with it-if people have been dishonest then they need to pay the price-how can people take your money say they will look after you -say your future is ok- and then have it all fall over-people want thier money back, thier house back and thirer lives back the way it was before all of this happened-ive been very angry about all of this and very upset- if only people could see what some have gone through and are going thru - i dont care where the money comes from but people need to be given thier lives back- who is really wrong ? banks ? government ? storm ? what are they going to do about it -we need to see some strong leadership from all of these- they need the guts to say who is wrong. im off on a trip out west for a few days maybe things will be better when the bus comes back into town- i hope so- i really hope so-
chrisgee (and others affected)
While you want everything to be put back as before, you may wish to take heed of this from Slater & Gordon's Frequently Asked Questions in respect of Storm:
And that is before S&G takes its cut.
I wish people well in this matter and those bodies who have wronged Storm clients be brought to heel but I'd be tempering my expectations.
And, unlike Smiley, I found the submissions to the Parliamentary Committee disturbing at a number of levels. Not only in regard to the losses that individuals and families have suffered but also from statements such as, "We didn't know anything about investing/margin loans/gearing/debt."
What is it like not knowing and making no effort to find out? And as for the argument that "I'm paying good money for them to look after my wealth," if some mongrel was taking $7,000 of every $100,000 I put up and leaving me to pay the interest on the $100,000, where it was borrowed money, I'd be sleeping at the base of his bed every night to make sure the dastard did his job properly.
I have, as you can gather, as slightly different view of the definition of responsibility.
By the way, just like the rest of the population, including Storm clients, I am greedy. It is one of the strongest emotions in investing. Otherwise there would be no point as the objective is to improve on your current and/or future financial position.
Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 13,611
- Reactions
- 10,091
Agree mate, one of the big problems you have got is that some SICAG folk still believe the Storm bull****.
On their site they even advise against seeing financial planners who charge by the hour "Unlike Storm".
gg
On their site they even advise against seeing financial planners who charge by the hour "Unlike Storm".
gg
So true GG - go figure and it may take years for them to see the light.
Well, as the saying goes, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
Some stormified fall into the former category and others of us admit we were fooled and won't be again . . .
Only a small difference between EC and a ponzi schemer like Madoff - you had to know investors were going to lose out when the market fell but if you were a gambler like EC the thrill of the game meant it did not matter who got hurt and just keep telling clients "it's safe, we know what we are doing". . . .
And I don't think the submissions are wonderful and most don't address the terms of reference but they are revealing of the above.
GG, i really don't care what they believe on their site, or what they tell people, the main thing is, the "money spiders" are gone, and the people who visit the site can now do so without being accosted by the "crawlies".
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
Completely agree, Judd. I suspect some Stormers are going to be disappointed all over again.
Even worse is that co-chairman of SICAG, Noel O'Brien, is one of those who are still swallowing the Storm lies. Or at least he was until recently anyway - don't know if that's still the case or whether he's finally opened his eyes and started seeing through all the lies.
A couple of weeks back I on this thread I gave Noel a spray for his absurd acceptance of the Cassamatis line that the financial meltdown and market crash were unprecedented. I posted a couple of charts showing both the 1987 crash and the 2008 crash, and in another post I included some info I pulled off the internet, showing the market crashes that have occurred since the early part of last century.
I hope someone in SICAG referred Noel to these posts so he could get some much needed enlightenment.
SICAG was formed primarily to seek justice for Storm victims - this process will be expedited if those at the helm of SICAG stop believing the lies being bandied around by the main culprit in the whole sorry affair.
Quincy
Jack of all trades master of 0
- Joined
- 28 June 2008
- Posts
- 173
- Reactions
- 0
