Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Storm Financial Group

Jump to new
So SICAG are going to 'choose' who they want to go before the probe eh?

None of their members who are against Manny or anti-Storm I would hazard a guess?
 
GG, Nice work, if ever CSI is looking for a detective you are the "go to" man , that is fantastic, Luke"s story now has about as much credibility as a "today tonight" hatchet job" on a dodgy time share resort .... Go you good thing !!!!!!
 
Ironhalo said:
Nice detective work GG.

Like Ron Jelich, these Redcliffe based Storm employees somehow now suddenly feel outraged that their clients (whom had they been doing their job properly wouldn't have let them get themselves into this level of risk) have been dealt the hand of 'injustice' from the banks.

I have some admiration for Ron Jelich (albeit small) in that he pretty much repented his sins in his submission stating 'I should have spoken up....I will carry this to my grave', but it doesn't negate the fact that these people DIDN'T speak up, and ultimately were happy to earn the big bucks and enjoy cavorting in the Cassmatis's court; yet when it went pear-shaped, they are now the 'voice of reason' to the banks. The very institutions that although responsible for shouldering some of the blame, were in a symbiotic, profit-making relationship with Storm, and vicariously, their employees.. And don't tell me 'we never saw any of that!', my advisor loved telling me about Manny shouting most of the employees on the world trip in 08....Mediterranean wasn't it?

Verily, the hypocrisy offends me. I will hand it to SICAG, your moral support for victims has been commendable, and I am sure you have talked people back from the edge. But these are desperate people who should never have been pushed to the edge to begin with.

51 page submissions from the media head of SICAG that completely fail to address the glaring failures of Storm to show any sense of responsibility, professionalism or competance in Oct-Dec last year leave me shaking my head in disbelief.

My mother, brother and sister (all Redcliffe locals), who were loyal clients of Jelich-Jones before they sold out refuse to attend any SICAG meetings for this very hypocrisy.

It's harsh, sure, but it's reality. Or at least a perception....and we all know that old saying...
Click to expand...

Ironhalo, good post, i agree with most of it, although, unlike yourself, i have no sympathy for Ron Jelich, he knew what he was doing was wrong, he had plenty of opportunities to say enough is enough, it's going to come crashing down and people are going to hurt.
When he was in the paper blaming the "Evil Banks" for the misery they had caused he could have been decent enough to say , i also did a deal with the devil and led the flock to the slaughter but no, it was everyone elses fault.
christ can't i sue someone for that, of course, "the evil banks"
 
Heheh thanks dark, don't get me wrong though, by stating I had some admiration, that level of admiration hovers somewhere between admiration towards my morning bowel movements, and a Japanese war criminal on ANZAC Day.
 
Ironhalo said:
Heheh thanks dark, don't get me wrong though, by stating I had some admiration, that level of admiration hovers somewhere between admiration towards my morning bowel movements, and a Japanese war criminal on ANZAC Day.
Click to expand...

HA ha, ok thats funny. Hey i love Lucas Vogel's , statements" Please be advised that I have never been an employee of Storm Financial Ltd" yet in the paper "Speaking after the meeting, Luke Vogel, a former Storm Financial adviser". Come on Lucas, your using just a little too much lattitude when it comes to the truth.

I'm sure the submission are not going to be that gulliable and stupid, well i hope not !!!!!!!
 
Ironhalo said:
So SICAG are going to 'choose' who they want to go before the probe eh?

None of their members who are against Manny or anti-Storm I would hazard a guess?
Click to expand...

The SICAG executive, which is comprised of a former Storm employee, the father of an adviser who should rightly be facing ASIC investigation and several close friends of Emmanuel & Julie, will decide how this is played out. More like a cheer squad for Storm.

Who are they representing, the group, themselves or others?

They have ingratiated themselves into the CBA dispute resolution process when Slater & Gordon is clearly more able to look after the interests of the litigants.

This extract from their website is telling:

"SICAG was formed out of a need to seek justice (and restitution) from a banking and financial services industry that has been able to get away with murder!

Hundreds if not thousands of mum and dad investors have lost their life savings and any possibility of a reasonable future in retirement as a direct result of poor banking industry practices and perhaps poor financial advice."

Yep, the Bank's fault and maybe, just maybe a little bit of poor advice.

Until they acknowledge what everyone else knows, that the advice was rubbish and that E&J and the advisers started this road to misery, they need to be treated with absolute suspicion as to their motivation and agenda.

Of course they won't because they can't as this would harm themselves, their families and their special friends.
 
Slater & Gordon signs an umbrella agreement with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) establishing the Storm Financial Resolution Scheme.

Key elements of the scheme include:
• An individual review by CBA of each client’s circumstances assessed against a framework
developed in consultation with S&G;
• Full and frank disclosure of documents and facts relevant to each client by CBA;
• The provision by S&G of independent legal and financial advice paid for by CBA;
• A commitment to good faith negotiations; and
• Former High Court Justice Ian Callinan to provide independent determinations where
agreement cannot be reached between CBA and the client.

See the full Slater and Gordon Media Release of 29 July 09 here;

http://www.slatergordon.com.au/pages/news_publications.aspxhttp://www.slatergordon.com.au/pages/news_publications.aspx
 
Hidden Agendas? said:
The SICAG executive, which is comprised of a former Storm employee, the father of an adviser who should rightly be facing ASIC investigation and several close friends of Emmanuel & Julie, will decide how this is played out. More like a cheer squad for Storm.

Who are they representing, the group, themselves or others?

They have ingratiated themselves into the CBA dispute resolution process when Slater & Gordon is clearly more able to look after the interests of the litigants.

This extract from their website is telling:

"SICAG was formed out of a need to seek justice (and restitution) from a banking and financial services industry that has been able to get away with murder!

Hundreds if not thousands of mum and dad investors have lost their life savings and any possibility of a reasonable future in retirement as a direct result of poor banking industry practices and perhaps poor financial advice."

Yep, the Bank's fault and maybe, just maybe a little bit of poor advice.

Until they acknowledge what everyone else knows, that the advice was rubbish and that E&J and the advisers started this road to misery, they need to be treated with absolute suspicion as to their motivation and agenda.

Of course they won't because they can't as this would harm themselves, their families and their special friends.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! This is exactly why I chose not to join this group, and resent the fact that they are seen to be representative of all "ex-storm clients". I acknowledge that there may not have been any "deal" for me to consider from CBA without the pressure that they have mounted, but I absolutely start frothing at the mouth and steaming at the ears whenever I read a submission like Vogel's where all the blame is placed squarely on the evil banks and none apparently attributed to a flawed model built largely around a massively inflated ego and predatory nature. The more information that comes to light about the way the Cassimatis' conducted themselves, the more unethical and immoral they appear imo - and I would be disappointed if they emerge from the whole affair unscathed.

I have read most of the submissions (thanks, Solly, for the excellent links) and while a lot of them bring tears to my eyes, I do find the "how could the bank have possibly lent me this much money on my income" line to be hard to swallow. I knew what my income was when I accepted my loans, and so would every other storm client. Regardless of whether the bank in question was acting on accurate information, and/or applying standard loan evaluation criteria or not (and that's a whole other can of worms) the person accepting an offer of finance knows what their own financial situation is and surely knows that loans have to be repaid one way or another.

The lack of transparency/disclosure about the true nature of the relationships between storm/cba/cgi/macquarie are another matter entirely in my view, as is the nature and methods of valuations used to solicit further borrowings.
 
There is more to come out about SICAG.

Keep reading ASF all you Storm victims for independent, financial adviser free, information on the true rogues in the wipeout of your savings.

SICAG is top heavy with former Storm employees, managers and family of Storm employees.

Remember it was Storm that got you into this in the first place and then they lined you up like wood ducks for the banks.

gg
 
DocK, so true. I was nearly apoplectic with rage reading Luke Vogel's submission. 51 pages of 'the banks are evil, and Storm did the best they could to save the mum and dad investors'.....rubbish. What is abundantly clear in all the mess is that the following happened:

1. Storm was doing very well leading up to the GFC, with many of their customers nevertheless in a risky situation should the market fall about half. Custoemrs were told that there were safety nets in place to ensure that they were sold down before this happened.
2. GFC hit, Storm started losing income from a lack of people investing. Step investments dried up and Storm started going backwards. It appeared for all their bluster and success, Storm had very little cash in reserve for the business should they hit a rough patch.
3. Storm sent letters in Oct advising all investors to sign release forms allowing Storm to sell their investments down and hold the cash in Cash Management accounts while the crisis 'blew' over. This didn't happen. In fact, sensing a quick cash grab, Storm investors were told to 're-value' their clients houses and take out further margin loans/increases as a way of skimming 6-7% off these step-investments to keep the Cassmatis' able to buy aviation fuel for the private jet for the next few months.
4. Storm in the meantime told ASIC they would stop speaking to clients out of 'good faith'. Storm then told their client base that ASIC has imposed this ban. Thousands of 'mum and dad investors' spend the next month and a half over Christmas desperately trying to get in contact with Storm, to no avail.
5. The Cassmatis's sensing the ship going down, approve the transfer of a few million dollars (all that is left) into their own accounts using a family member to 'smuggle' the money out of the company coffers under the guise of a 'normal business payment'.
6. By the end of Christmas, Colonial/CBA has sold all Storm clients down regardless of whether they are in margin call or not. Some clients have minimal losses, while heavily geared 'Stormified' investors are wiped out.
7. Cassmatis attempts to take up the clarion call for the 'mum and dad investors' he has leeched off stating that the banks (in conjunction with a 'black swan' event) are responsible for wiping out his clients. There is outcry against him. Manny rethinks his options and tries to further an agenda of blaming the banks.
8. SICAG, a group consisting of Cassmatis sycophants and ex-Storm employees and supporters of Storm (their heads filled with memories of the halcyon days of EOY parties and world trips) starts an active campaign de-crying the banks as being architects of the demise of Storm.

Predictions:
9. SICAG will hand pick a bunch of die-hard Storm victims from their pool of members who will dutifully recant the belief that the banks are responsible for this entire mess, with the hope that Manny/Julie are deflected from all/any repercussions. Not to mention the fact that SICAG is now populated by 'born again' ex-adviser's that are trying to protect themselves and their family members from any calls of negligence.

I can't believe the SICAG members don't see this.
 
Great posts and totally agree with your points Ironhalo - a good summary - a mark of a person is how one handles a crisis and EC/Storm did so in late 2008 by leaching what remained from clients.
Reminds me of the cult followings of many users (whether fascists/totalitarians, cult leaders; Madoff made people feel special too - eventually in all the wrong ways)
Love seeing storm advisers falling over each other to dob in shady practices of EC and there is much more to be revealed.
SICAG does not speak for the many stormified I have spoken to, counselled and committee should be careful with whom they align themselves at this time . . . could not even finish reading Vogel's tale - blah, blah; he worked in IT for storm . . . .
SICAG committee - time to distance yourself from all things storm :eek:
 
Ironhalo, I believe the stormified will have no choice but to see the truth once September rolls around.
The SICAG bluff will be revealed for what it is.
Kinda reminds me of when Clinton said he "did not have sexual relations with that woman" although the truth was outed eventually.

The Storm MO is to bluff your way until the end, by that time you would have hopefully lined all your ducks up in a row, that way when you are found to have acted improperly (as the advisers did) by ASIC, you will still have all the sheep bleating your innocence.

SICAG stunk like a rotten fish right from the start!!!

PS _ Smiley, I saw something in brief the other night where Madoff said he couldnt believe that he got away with what he did for so long!!
 
Solly said:
"God brought you to me"

"A financial planner who has interviewed dozens of former Storm Financial clients has revealed some of the strange practices employed by former Storm agents to get sales across the line."

More here by Lucinda Beaman in Money Management;

http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/article/God-brought-you-to-me/492413.aspx
Click to expand...

It was more like, I have a trip to Italy to pay for, $1m @ 7% @ 10% will cover part of this, thank you God for bringing them to me.
 
 
Solly said:
"God brought you to me"

"A financial planner who has interviewed dozens of former Storm Financial clients has revealed some of the strange practices employed by former Storm agents to get sales across the line."

More here by Lucinda Beaman in Money Management;

http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/article/God-brought-you-to-me/492413.aspx
Click to expand...


This is the link to the submission Lucinda refers to above, number 178;

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sub178.pdf
 
Solly said:
"God brought you to me"

"A financial planner who has interviewed dozens of former Storm Financial clients has revealed some of the strange practices employed by former Storm agents to get sales across the line."

More here by Lucinda Beaman in Money Management;

http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/article/God-brought-you-to-me/492413.aspx
Click to expand...


Part of that article reads

30 July 2009 | by Lucinda Beaman
Print this article Comments

David Price

A financial planner who has interviewed dozens of former Storm Financial clients has revealed some of the strange practices employed by former Storm agents to get sales across the line.

David Price is the managing director of fee-for-service group Strategy First Financial Planning. In a submission to the joint committee inquiry into financial services, Price said he and his business partners have met with at least 25 former Storm Financial clients to offer pro-bono advice. The Sydney-based group has also been in contact with two former Storm Financial employees.


Price pointed to a culture of greed within the group as one of its fundamental flaws. He pointed to what he called a bias within the Storm model to encourage clients to invest as much as possible, a strategy that “maximised fees for Storm and its advisers and maximised risk for their clients”.

“In the case of one particular Storm Financial office, we have consistent anecdotal evidence that suggests the financial planner there would say almost anything to clients get them to sign,” Price’s submission states.

“One such example involved the financial planner telling a priest that ‘God brought you to me’.”

Price is yet another member of the financial services industry to criticise the structure of the financial services industry in a submission to the Rippoll inquiry, saying “the nature of remuneration through commissions and third-party payments has, regrettably, created an industry that is built on a structurally corrupt foundation”
Click to expand...

Listen up SICAG and Storm advisers. This is what we have said all along. Your site still has the money spiders and advice to clients stung by Storm to seek financial advice from advisers who follow the Storm model, and don't ask for fees upfront until they are stung for the 7%.

At least you took the Storm logo down from the SICAG site, after much pushing from this forum.

Do the decent thing and save these poor bastards from being duped by Storm clones in the future.

Thankfully others apart from SICAG and the higher ups there, are putting submissions to the inquiry.

The truth will out.

gg
 
DocK said:
I have read most of the submissions (thanks, Solly, for the excellent links) and while a lot of them bring tears to my eyes, I do find the "how could the bank have possibly lent me this much money on my income" line to be hard to swallow. I knew what my income was when I accepted my loans, and so would every other storm client. Regardless of whether the bank in question was acting on accurate information, and/or applying standard loan evaluation criteria or not (and that's a whole other can of worms) the person accepting an offer of finance knows what their own financial situation is and surely knows that loans have to be repaid one way or another.
Click to expand...

I agree with you in that we knew what our income was (sad as it is), and acknowledge that one day the loan would have to be repaid. And that is where our trust built and we made a very bad "call"..... that is why we believed our investment was so solid. We thought that surely with such huge loans and a dismal income (and we are not "youngsters"), our investments through Storm Financial must be very solid/sound and going to produce favourable enough returns in the future otherwise the banks would not lend to us in the first place. In hindsight it was apparently very foolish to come to this conclusion and place so much trust in the banks.
Don't get me wrong. I also hold Storm Financial very responsible for our position...neither is an innocent party in this nightmare.
 

Similar threads

TiminOz
The dynamics of money and TIME: crimping cashflow for a period
Replies
3
Views
734
TiminOz
TiminOz
BossMan.
The planning of a portfolio
2
Replies
29
Views
821
Value Collector
Value Collector
basilio
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
2K
sptrawler
sptrawler
Garpal Gumnut
Mayfair 101/Mayfair Platinum
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
sptrawler
Competency and trying to maintain standards
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
sptrawler
sptrawler
Top