Storm Financial Group

Ferret · 31 July 2009

darkside said:
Anastasia, i agree, i would be more than happy whilst sitting on the international flight with you to have trust in the pilot, but then should'nt the hostie be able to fly the plane for a while, lets face it she is in the industry so that just goes without saying .

We are on the same flight are we not, i booked a seat on Asiana Airlines , i didn't know they had the worst safety record in the world , well i would have if i had done just a smidgeon of research on the airline. So here we are , the worst airline in the world with the hostie flying it, so who can i sue for putting me in this terrible predicament.

Darkside has it right. This is a good analogy.

Pindibog · 31 July 2009

How is it the clients fault that did not mortgage a house to invest?
Had been using the ML facility moderately for over 13yrs. Never received margin call. Let blow out to 107% and had cash in dam account for inevitable margin call. Lets not also forget the banks closed down the Storm badged index funds and made clients realise their losses when the market was so low. There are clients suffering that did not even have margin loans. But as per usual ASF puts all stromers in one basket.
Storm and Banks DO have alot to answer and they are both corrupt and negligent in their duties!

Solly · 31 July 2009

"Storm confusion surrounds CBA scheme"

"Clients harbour litigation concerns.
Former clients of Storm Financial wary of CBA's resolution process."

More by Kate Kachor in Investor Daily

http://www.investordaily.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/id/style/7068.htm

Farencue · 31 July 2009

Solly said:
"Storm confusion surrounds CBA scheme"

"Clients harbour litigation concerns.
Former clients of Storm Financial wary of CBA's resolution process."

More by Kate Kachor in Investor Daily

http://www.investordaily.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/id/style/7068.htm

From the article:
"SICAG lodged its submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee's inquiry into financial services collapses yesterday.

For SICAG, the key points they wished to highlight were not about the appropriateness of the Storm investment model but that CBA and Storm were both party to the collapse."

Smiley · 31 July 2009

I don't know how SICAG committee members can lodge a submission. Why not just do so in their own names? I know for a fact SICAG members were not surveyed for other than Carey Ramm's (AEC submission). The committe cannot represent themselves as speaking for the members. Does this seem strange to anyone else?

Garpal Gumnut · 31 July 2009

Smiley said:
I don't know how SICAG committee members can lodge a submission. Why not just do so in their own names? I know for a fact SICAG members were not surveyed for other than Carey Ramm's (AEC submission). The committe cannot represent themselves as speaking for the members. Does this seem strange to anyone else?

This is exactly the point I have been making over the last 6 months.

How can an organisation, with a significant percentage of the people on the committee either ex Storm managers or advisers, or relatives of them, represent in submissions to the Inquiry ordinary Storm victims.

It defies belief.

gg

Farencue · 31 July 2009

Surely SICAG members and the SICAG committee are in complete agreement about the "evil banks" and can be one voice to the inquiry?
As the article says, the submission is not about the inappropriateness of the Storm financial model.....

Hidden Agendas? · 31 July 2009

Smiley said:
I don't know how SICAG committee members can lodge a submission. Why not just do so in their own names? I know for a fact SICAG members were not surveyed for other than Carey Ramm's (AEC submission). The committe cannot represent themselves as speaking for the members. Does this seem strange to anyone else?

Still Implementing Cassimatis Agenda & Gospel

bunyip · 31 July 2009

Anastasia said:
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.

Anastasia

It seems to me that your trust was placed in Storm, more so than in the banks.
It was Storm who let you down.
The banks safeguarded themselves from massive losses by calling in margin loans once the market starting caving in. You or I would have done the same in their position.
Sure, we can come down on the banks now by saying they should never have lent you the money. But lending is their business. You ask them for money, they'll lend it to you if they believe they can do so with reasonable safety to themselves.
The banks only gave you what you asked for.

Storm were a different matter altogether - they were completely incompetent.
First, they gave you absolutely terrible advice by recommending that you risk all your assets by borrowing heavily for stock market investment. Such a strategy ensured that you'd be in trouble if the market fell by even a modest percentage.
Second, Storm sat on their hands and did nothing to protect the investments of their clients as the market caved in. Only when it was too late did they wake up and ask clients to sign authorisation for their investments to be converted to cash. Even then, Storm failed to act on those authorisations.

Cassamatis should hang his head in shame. The man is a disgrace. And to top it all off he claims his investment model wasn't flawed and he did nothing wrong.

Can I ask you a quick question here.......
You were aware your borrowings were very large and your income was small. You knew that your loans were for investment in the stock market via Storm.
Even if you'd had no previous experience with stocks, you would have heard many times in your life about the risks of the stock market.

Did it not occur to you that stock market investment via Storm or anyone else, using money raised through very large loans against a small income, was highly risky?

Please believe me when I say I'm not trying to rub salt into your wound here. I just fail to see how anyone, even if they were inexperienced investors, could fail to see significant risk in such a strategy.

Anastasia · 31 July 2009

Just read this report and once again am not surprised to see EC going to ground....
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/31/2641851.htm?section=business

bunyip · 31 July 2009

Garpal Gumnut said:
This is exactly the point I have been making over the last 6 months.

How can an organisation, with a significant percentage of the people on the committee either ex Storm managers or advisers, or relatives of them, represent in submissions to the Inquiry ordinary Storm victims.

It defies belief.

gg

It certainly does defy belief. It's a joke.

Storm victims are being duped.....again.

pilots · 31 July 2009

bunyip said:
Anastasia

It seems to me that your trust was placed in Storm, more so than in the banks.
It was Storm who let you down.
The banks safeguarded themselves from massive losses by calling in margin loans once the market starting caving in. You or I would have done the same in their position.
Sure, we can come down on the banks now by saying they should never have lent you the money. But lending is their business. You ask them for money, they'll lend it to you if they believe they can do so with reasonable safety to themselves.
The banks only gave you what you asked for.

Storm were a different matter altogether - they were completely incompetent.
First, they gave you absolutely terrible advice by recommending that you risk all your assets by borrowing heavily for stock market investment. Such a strategy ensured that you'd be in trouble if the market fell by even a modest percentage.
Second, Storm sat on their hands and did nothing to protect the investments of their clients as the market caved in. Only when it was too late did they wake up and ask clients to sign authorisation for their investments to be converted to cash. Even then, Storm failed to act on those authorisations.

Cassamatis should hang his head in shame. The man is a disgrace. And to top it all off he claims his investment model wasn't flawed and he did nothing wrong.

Can I ask you a quick question here.......
You were aware your borrowings were very large and your income was small. You knew that your loans were for investment in the stock market via Storm.
Even if you'd had no previous experience with stocks, you would have heard many times in your life about the risks of the stock market.

Did it not occur to you that stock market investment via Storm or anyone else, using money raised through very large loans against a small income, was highly risky?

Please believe me when I say I'm not trying to rub salt into your wound here. I just fail to see how anyone, even if they were inexperienced investors, could fail to see significant risk in such a strategy.

Bunyip, this post sum's it up perfect, Storm was a bunch of sales people who sold this flawed system to ANYONE they could, they was ONLY interested in what commission they could make. The banks have done nothing wrong.

Julia · 31 July 2009

pilots said:
The banks have done nothing wrong.

I'm not so sure about that. Will await the outcome of the enquiry on this aspect. At the very least, they appear not to have, in some cases, checked on the borrower's capacity to service the loan.

Anastasia · 31 July 2009

bunyip said:
Anastasia

...
Can I ask you a quick question here.......
You were aware your borrowings were very large and your income was small. You knew that your loans were for investment in the stock market via Storm.
Even if you'd had no previous experience with stocks, you would have heard many times in your life about the risks of the stock market.

Did it not occur to you that stock market investment via Storm or anyone else, using money raised through very large loans against a small income, was highly risky?....

Yes we were very aware of this huge risk. But we are not recent investors with Storm. We joined back in the 1990's with a max LVR of 40%. During this time we weathered quite a few market dips that to be honest scared the hell out of us. But each time we were assured by Storm (actually called Cassimatis Securities then) that all would be okay....we were in for the long haul, that markets dropped every now and then, but we were in for the long run and all would be okay. And it was....not one margin call ever.

So over the years our trust in the model and Storm grew. It was only in the last couple of years that our LVR started to creep up to 60% but always we were assured that all was okay. And with such a history of trust and all being okay, we overcame our fears and trusted them as was the norm.

Then they wanted to take another step in July/August last year that would take our LVR up over 70% (cashed in my husbands super). We raised our objections/ concerns about such a high LVR but were assured that the market would very soon correct its downward swing and our LVR would once again drop to more favourable figures.

So once again gullible/naive us trusted them....they had never steered us in the wrong direction before.....we had always recovered from market corrections intact before.

And for the record we never received a margin call this time or ever. The bank closed down the portfolio, most of the monies raised paying out the margin loan. But in the bank closing down the fund (and our margin loan), they also disposed of our assets that brough in enough income to pay our huge monthly home loan repayments.....and this is our position at the moment.

This is where we are at......

Garpal Gumnut · 31 July 2009

bunyip said:
It certainly does defy belief. It's a joke.

Storm victims are being duped.....again.

Agree Bunyip.

bunyip said:
Anastasia

It seems to me that your trust was placed in Storm, more so than in the banks.
It was Storm who let you down.
The banks safeguarded themselves from massive losses by calling in margin loans once the market starting caving in. You or I would have done the same in their position.
Sure, we can come down on the banks now by saying they should never have lent you the money. But lending is their business. You ask them for money, they'll lend it to you if they believe they can do so with reasonable safety to themselves.
The banks only gave you what you asked for.

Storm were a different matter altogether - they were completely incompetent.
First, they gave you absolutely terrible advice by recommending that you risk all your assets by borrowing heavily for stock market investment. Such a strategy ensured that you'd be in trouble if the market fell by even a modest percentage.
Second, Storm sat on their hands and did nothing to protect the investments of their clients as the market caved in. Only when it was too late did they wake up and ask clients to sign authorisation for their investments to be converted to cash. Even then, Storm failed to act on those authorisations.

Cassamatis should hang his head in shame. The man is a disgrace. And to top it all off he claims his investment model wasn't flawed and he did nothing wrong.

Can I ask you a quick question here.......
You were aware your borrowings were very large and your income was small. You knew that your loans were for investment in the stock market via Storm.
Even if you'd had no previous experience with stocks, you would have heard many times in your life about the risks of the stock market.

Did it not occur to you that stock market investment via Storm or anyone else, using money raised through very large loans against a small income, was highly risky?

Please believe me when I say I'm not trying to rub salt into your wound here. I just fail to see how anyone, even if they were inexperienced investors, could fail to see significant risk in such a strategy.

Agree Bunyip.

pilots said:
Bunyip, this post sum's it up perfect, Storm was a bunch of sales people who sold this flawed system to ANYONE they could, they was ONLY interested in what commission they could make. The banks have done nothing wrong.

I don't agree, the banks bear some responsibility, but most of the blame should be sheeted to Storm.

Julia said:
I'm not so sure about that. Will await the outcome of the enquiry on this aspect. At the very least, they appear not to have, in some cases, checked on the borrower's capacity to service the loan.

Agree Julia, the tragedy is that the Poor Stormers may be done over again by the inquiry.

SICAG seem to have the ear of the Inquiry officers.

gg

pilots · 31 July 2009

Julia said:
I'm not so sure about that. Will await the outcome of the enquiry on this aspect. At the very least, they appear not to have, in some cases, checked on the borrower's capacity to service the loan.

So Julia who's fault is that? if I ask the bank for one hell of a lot of money, it should be up to me to be able to pay it back, now if I cant do that, then the bank has Evey right to close me down. The banks are no different to a hock shop, if you don't pay the loan back they sell your goods, and thats how it should be.

Ferret · 31 July 2009

Julia said:
I'm not so sure about that. Will await the outcome of the enquiry on this aspect. At the very least, they appear not to have, in some cases, checked on the borrower's capacity to service the loan.

Probably right, but at the risk of sounding very pro-banks, these checks should be to protect the banks and their shareholders. The checks may provide protection for the borrower against themselves, but this is not the reason for them.

People have to take responsibility for borrowing money. The banks shouldn't have to shoulder this responsibility because they are the lenders.

Pindibog · 31 July 2009

pilots said:
So Julia who's fault is that? if I ask the bank for one hell of a lot of money, it should be up to me to be able to pay it back, now if I cant do that, then the bank has Evey right to close me down. The banks are no different to a hock shop, if you don't pay the loan back they sell your goods, and thats how it should be.

The banks are a 'party to the offence'. they enabled Storm's flawed model to run. They are just as much to blame.

Judd · 31 July 2009

Pilots,

From my meager (mis)understanding, quite a number of loans originated from the CBA or BoQ branches in Townsville. If you have an 'in" to friendly bank staff, system checks and balances can be overridden or ignored. The head office over 2,000 km away or even the regional manager, may just think, "Gees, they're doing good business. Hooray for my bonus" without even contemplating why the heck are they doing such good business given the demographics.

The Trust Company, based in Melbourne, had to compensate clients in Townsville to the tune of some $16m because of the activities, over some years, of its Townsville manager. Similar thing can happen with banks. So yeah, the CBA has some issues here as Ralph Norris, to his credit, has admitted.

But the initial element for disaster was Storm's model replete with lies and sold as an all dancing, all singing savior to financial woes. How could any financial planner with even a shred of decency or ethics, entice a disabled person to commute their lifetime indexed pension and invest the lump sum with Storm plus borrow more? And that ethos permeated the whole structure.

The trouble with conmen is that they are personable, you feel that they are your friend, you trust them and feel comfortable around them and wish to some extent to be like them. Sadly they do not have the word conman tattooed on their forehead from the day they were born.

And now the clients of these dastards are going through terrible trauma, in danger of losing their homes and potentially in debt for the rest of their lives. Positively awful situation. Losing money hurts. Losing a lot of money hurts big time. And you want to lash out at something or someone. As a result of that, it seems to me some are unable to take a deep breath, step back and ask themselves at what stage did I screw up?

Anyway, I'll say no more at all on this thread as I have no wish for Storm clients to feel any further angst as a consequence of my thoughts on the issue.

pilots · 31 July 2009

Pindibog said:
The banks are a 'party to the offence'. they enabled Storm's flawed model to run. They are just as much to blame.

The banks are not the police for all the wood ducks that get them self in trouble, the banks lend money to ANYONE, it is up to the borrower to pay it back its not the banks job to police this.

Storm Financial Group

Ferret

Pindibog

Solly

Farencue

Smiley

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

Farencue

Hidden Agendas?

bunyip

Anastasia

bunyip

pilots

Julia

In Memoriam

Anastasia

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

pilots

Ferret

Pindibog

Judd

pilots

Similar threads

Storm Financial Group

Ross Island Hotel

In Memoriam

Ross Island Hotel

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency