Could it be that some of the SICAG leaders received money from Storm's piggy bank/war chest to get them out of bother, and are now worried they may have to cough it back up as Storm were clearly insolvent at the time?? I seem to recall reading a court transcript which mentioned "unsecured loans made to selected clients" in Dec 2008. Jelich seemed confused as to where the money had gone - I suspect several unsecured "loans" were made to Manny & Julie's nearest and dearest at the expense of the client base and general and their creditors in particulat. This is something that no doubt Worrells would be keen to uncover and those who received the money keen to keep under wraps!
Storm Financial Group
- Thread starter Garpal Gumnut
- Start date
Could it be that some of the SICAG leaders received money from Storm's piggy bank/war chest to get them out of bother, and are now worried they may have to cough it back up as Storm were clearly insolvent at the time?? I seem to recall reading a court transcript which mentioned "unsecured loans made to selected clients" in Dec 2008. Jelich seemed confused as to where the money had gone - I suspect several unsecured "loans" were made to Manny & Julie's nearest and dearest at the expense of the client base and general and their creditors in particulat. This is something that no doubt Worrells would be keen to uncover and those who received the money keen to keep under wraps!
Bunyip,
Through what mechanism has SICAG deflected heat from EC?
We are only able to work with information and facts. To date, we have uncovered wrongdoing by banks and their cronies and employees ...
We have not been able (except for anecdotal evidence) to discover significant facts or information regarding criminal wrong doing.
You assert /imply significant criminal culpability for EC and his hencemen, you must clearly be in possession of some damming documentary evidence if you can assert such heat deflection. If so, please forward same to the appropriate authority asap so that they can and will be brought to account.
If you cant backup what you say, then you should remain respectfully mute.
Prime.
No.
- Joined
- 20 January 2009
- Posts
- 151
- Reactions
- 0
Prime, it could be said that SICAG hasn't exactly looked too hard for any wrongdoing on Storm's behalf, the website is a clear example of that.
Why don't we ask all the ex-employees who were told not to sell their clients out in Oct 08 and save them from financial devastation? I have heard it anecdotally from a number of sources now (and Ron Jelich has alluded to it in his parliament submission) that ex-Storm principals and staff knew that what they were doing wasn't in the best interests of their clients, and yet no one did anything about it.
We are happy to see SICAG take it to the banks, but answer us this, once the banks are sorted, will SICAG be seeking justice for their members against EC?
I also find it odd that over the past few days, that ever since people started questioning the motives of SICAG, a lot of SICAG posters have suddenly leapt back out of the woodwork in this thread.
Will be interesting to see what transpires over the next few weeks at any rate. Solly, thanks for the links, the AFR sounds like it could be an interesting read today!
Why don't we ask all the ex-employees who were told not to sell their clients out in Oct 08 and save them from financial devastation? I have heard it anecdotally from a number of sources now (and Ron Jelich has alluded to it in his parliament submission) that ex-Storm principals and staff knew that what they were doing wasn't in the best interests of their clients, and yet no one did anything about it.
We are happy to see SICAG take it to the banks, but answer us this, once the banks are sorted, will SICAG be seeking justice for their members against EC?
I also find it odd that over the past few days, that ever since people started questioning the motives of SICAG, a lot of SICAG posters have suddenly leapt back out of the woodwork in this thread.
Will be interesting to see what transpires over the next few weeks at any rate. Solly, thanks for the links, the AFR sounds like it could be an interesting read today!
Your comment is non sequitur.
SICAG are seeking truth and justice ... why would we not want more inquisition to and exposure of the facts surrounding the collapse?
There are too many arm chair experts in this forum making uneducated and ill-informed comments about matters they clearly don't understand.
Ironhalo,
Perhaps you could elucidate on how we might find incriminating hard evidence to support your assertions? I've said it before and I'll say it again ... we can only deal with information and facts (not heresay like is common in this forum). If you think we've missed some important facts, please let us know and more importantly provide the direction on how we go about uncovering those facts so that we can forward same to ASIC and other authorities.
You seemed to have lost sight of SICAGs major mission ... we are here for our members ... to give them back some of their lives. and seek compensation from whereever wrong doing was found. Not to put too fine a point on it, EC & Storm are dead ducks and PI insurance companies are scrambling for cover .... even if we could uncover details of criminality then the best we could expect is custodial sentences and the like ... none of which is likely to put food on the tables of any and all victims.
Justice against EC and Storm is being investigated by ASIC, Worrells and JPC. SICAG welcomes the findings and subsequent actions ... but we're not in a position to provide much if any hard evidence towards these results.
- Joined
- 20 January 2009
- Posts
- 151
- Reactions
- 0
Not meaning to be rude mate, but I'm only stating reported fact from SICAG from what is published in the media:
"Frankly, I cannot possibly see what this inquiry will achieve that the parliamentary inquiry or ASIC's inquiry aren't achieving," Investors Consumer Action Group joint chairman Mark Weir said.
"I hesitate to make any expression of conjecture here but there seems to be something going on.
"[Almost] half a million dollars is not an insignificant sum of money, but in the scheme of what has been wasted in this whole exercise it's not that much."
The Worrell inquiry will seek comment from more than 40 potential witnesses, a company statement said.
I am champing at the bit as much as SICAG members to see CBA brought to task for what they have done, but anything that might shed light on the potentially negligent actions of EC and his employees should be welcomed with open arms.
As for incriminating evidence on Storm's inaction, my brother got it out of one of the ex-Redcliffe Storm employees in passing at the local shops. I am sure there are some disgruntled Storm employees still waiting for their redundancy/termination payments that would quite happily spill the beans. Although, some of the ex-advisors are now waving the flag for SICAG, so maybe that might not be the best idea eh?
You are not reading my posts, I have said time and time again that I applaud the work SICAg has done in terms of saving devastated people from doing something incredibly stupid, only a heartless person would state otherwise.
But the fact remains, and as many people on this forum have stated, that SICAG's strategy seems based around blaming the banks for 100% of the problem, when in actuality it is clear that Storm/EC/former advisors should be held equally accountable.
The disturbing thing is, that even if in your opinion there is a lack of evidence or an unwillingness by SICAG to look into this fact, one would still reasonably expect that there would be an acknowledgment of the failure of Manny/Julie/Storm somewhere on the SICAG website. There is no mention of this, and never has been. And this very reason is why members of my family, and others we know affected by this refuse to attend a SICAG meeting.
I am not someone sitting on my high horse poking the downtrodden with a stick, myself and my entire family got stung by Storm/CBA and their negligence. WHY aren't SICAG demanding answers from ex-employees and Storm principals? Why isn't there public outcry demanding EC/Julie to be taken to task for what they have done? Noting that some ex-employees/family members of those who stood back and let it all happen are now members of SICAG, you only have to ask them at your next meeting surely?
You mention that criminal charges won't put food on the table of people affected. No it won't, but it will sure take food off the people responsible, which is how justice should work.
"Frankly, I cannot possibly see what this inquiry will achieve that the parliamentary inquiry or ASIC's inquiry aren't achieving," Investors Consumer Action Group joint chairman Mark Weir said.
"I hesitate to make any expression of conjecture here but there seems to be something going on.
"[Almost] half a million dollars is not an insignificant sum of money, but in the scheme of what has been wasted in this whole exercise it's not that much."
The Worrell inquiry will seek comment from more than 40 potential witnesses, a company statement said.
I am champing at the bit as much as SICAG members to see CBA brought to task for what they have done, but anything that might shed light on the potentially negligent actions of EC and his employees should be welcomed with open arms.
As for incriminating evidence on Storm's inaction, my brother got it out of one of the ex-Redcliffe Storm employees in passing at the local shops. I am sure there are some disgruntled Storm employees still waiting for their redundancy/termination payments that would quite happily spill the beans. Although, some of the ex-advisors are now waving the flag for SICAG, so maybe that might not be the best idea eh?
You are not reading my posts, I have said time and time again that I applaud the work SICAg has done in terms of saving devastated people from doing something incredibly stupid, only a heartless person would state otherwise.
But the fact remains, and as many people on this forum have stated, that SICAG's strategy seems based around blaming the banks for 100% of the problem, when in actuality it is clear that Storm/EC/former advisors should be held equally accountable.
The disturbing thing is, that even if in your opinion there is a lack of evidence or an unwillingness by SICAG to look into this fact, one would still reasonably expect that there would be an acknowledgment of the failure of Manny/Julie/Storm somewhere on the SICAG website. There is no mention of this, and never has been. And this very reason is why members of my family, and others we know affected by this refuse to attend a SICAG meeting.
I am not someone sitting on my high horse poking the downtrodden with a stick, myself and my entire family got stung by Storm/CBA and their negligence. WHY aren't SICAG demanding answers from ex-employees and Storm principals? Why isn't there public outcry demanding EC/Julie to be taken to task for what they have done? Noting that some ex-employees/family members of those who stood back and let it all happen are now members of SICAG, you only have to ask them at your next meeting surely?
You mention that criminal charges won't put food on the table of people affected. No it won't, but it will sure take food off the people responsible, which is how justice should work.
- Joined
- 27 February 2009
- Posts
- 152
- Reactions
- 0
I think you will find documentary evidence of some serious negligence on the part of storm in their SOAs, before the collapse other financial planning firms were passing storm SOAs around in forward emails as a joke they were that bad...
Found it - from Justice Logan, Federal Court, in ruling re ASIC vs Cassimatis re DOCA: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2009/269.html
"As regards the sum of $3.525 million described as “Loans to Clients” the Administrators advise that this represents advances to, or security provided for, Storm clients who were unable to “correct their positions” or “in situations where the clients LVR were high”. The Administrators have been advised that these advances were unsecured, interest free and repayable “in due course”, that is without a fixed repayment date, and that they relate to at least 117 separate clients. Internal documents of Storm record that “As the market recovers Storm will recoup these funds in full”.
Given that the advances are unsecured, were made to clients who were apparently suffering some degree of financial difficulty, and may have relied upon the market recovering for repayment, the collectability of much of the advances sum must be in doubt."
I have personally been told by an ex-storm client that "Manny & Julie helped us out" - not surprisingly, their submission to the Senate enquiry laid all the blame for their losses squarely on CBA and none on their good mates!
- Joined
- 30 June 2009
- Posts
- 8
- Reactions
- 0
I somehow don't think Luke, sorry I mean Prime, is going to bag his special friends given the content of the only submission from a SICAG operative so far published.
The argument that they have found wrongdoing by the Banks and nothing criminal by Storm is a matter of semantics, they have found nothing criminal done by the Banks either. This furphy about no money, why pursee them, etc is as hollow as the Cassimatis claim to fight this to his last breath.
I'm not sure what you mean by "special friends" ... perhaps you'd like to clarify?
Oh contraire ... there is significant evidence to demonstrate criminality on the part of the banks or at the very least some of their staff. We know for a fact that Senator Williams has provided at least a couple of "briefs" to ASIC for further action. This is a matter of public record in hansard. You'll have to stay tuned for the outcomes of those cases.
Furphy about no money? ... another unsupported opinion. Again, our (SICAGs) brief is clear. EC, Storm ARE being pursued by the appropriate authorities ... SICAGs input is minimal because we don't have the capacity to investigate the company records in the same way as ASIC, Worrells and JPC can and will do.
I would urge anyone who makes comment in this forum (or any other forum for that matter) to stick to the facts and not try to push their hidden agenda through unsubstaniated or unsupported opinions.
So in two short paragraphs you have implied some sort of sinister alegance, and declared as factual two points that either inaccurate or unsupported.
So, what is your "Hidden Agenda"? You clearly have a barrow to push? Perhaps you are the one with special friends in the banks?
I have no doubt that these loans may well have been made, but you are inferring that the SICAG leadership is involved. The loans to some clients, and SICAGs leadship and their relationship to EC/Storm are separate issues and should not, through conjecture, be sewn into the same piece of fabric. It is plainly wrong.
If you have proof that the SICAG leadship are anything but straight up and down you need to provide this evidence to the authorities. I challenge you.
- Joined
- 20 January 2009
- Posts
- 151
- Reactions
- 0
Prime you are right in terms of the fact that no one should be pointing fingers at individuals at this stage without a lack of hard facts.
But I am very confident that the ASIC/Worrell's investigations will tell us exactly who is at fault in due course.
What I can confidently say is that I think the following will transpire:
1. CBA (maybe BoQ) will settle with Storm clients owing to forged loan docs, and unsavoury lending practices, in an effort to stave off the Slater and Gordon class action.
2. EC/Julie will be hauled over the coals over the sudden depletion of funds late last year from Storm's working funds. Some recipients of these mystery loans might be named, as well as negligent advisors complicit to the fraudulent Storm model will also be named.
3. A raft of civil/criminal suits may follow.
Justice will be done.
But I am very confident that the ASIC/Worrell's investigations will tell us exactly who is at fault in due course.
What I can confidently say is that I think the following will transpire:
1. CBA (maybe BoQ) will settle with Storm clients owing to forged loan docs, and unsavoury lending practices, in an effort to stave off the Slater and Gordon class action.
2. EC/Julie will be hauled over the coals over the sudden depletion of funds late last year from Storm's working funds. Some recipients of these mystery loans might be named, as well as negligent advisors complicit to the fraudulent Storm model will also be named.
3. A raft of civil/criminal suits may follow.
Justice will be done.
You think? or you know?
If you know, then you need to bring the evidence to the table. ASIC investigated Storm (as a result of complaints) only months before the collapse and apparently found nothing. By law ALL fin planning companies undergo regular compliance audits ... so now after the collapse there are suddenly all these issues of "serious negligence" that appear to be systemic?
I guess like the regulators in the US, everyone was asleep at the wheel ... APRA, ASIC, both internal and external compliance auditors ... the lot ... everyone!
I'm sure I could look at any SOA and find issues with the template software that created them. The fact (if it is fact) that the SOAs were being emailed around as a joke does not prove nor support "serious negligence".
Again, bring it to the table as a document for evidence. I'd love to see an example on this forum for "peer" review.
Kez180, Lets get away from the heresay rumour mongering and stick to cold hard facts.
Agree 100%
That, Ironhalo, is the brief of the authorities to pursue (from a legal point of view).
SICAG is on the "Victim Support" side of the equation and we make no apology for that.
Perhaps if there were more transparency regarding these transactions, those left in the dark, such as I, would be less suspicious and cynical when the head of SICAG is openly against an enquiry which may very well bring some of these dealings out in the open for all to be aware of. I don't know if the SICAG leadership are involved - I also don't know for sure that they're not! What I do know is that funds were "lent" to some, and not others...
I challenge you to make public on SICAG's site a list of the fortunate benificiaries - but of course this would not come under SICAG's purview, would it
I'm not sure that you're "getting" the fact that there are many ex-storm clients, such as myself, who would happily have joined SICAG if they were at least seen to be impartial. Criminal actions may yet to be proven, but I've yet to see/hear an admission from SICAG that the actions taken by EC/JC were ill-advised at best, and morally bankrupt at worst.
- Joined
- 12 September 2004
- Posts
- 1,714
- Reactions
- 1
I was working for a risk planning firm for a short while who often had Storm SOAs pass our desks (or at the very least a personal balance sheet) - we'd regularly read in amazement at how the "planning" was almost identical for every client they passed us - equity lend to the hit then leverage over the borrowing via margin loans.
SICAG is not against any enquiry that brings any relevant details into sharp focus. What were not sure about is why ASIC have provided Worrells with the funding to undertake such an enquiry when you'd have thought ASIC was in the box seat to carry out same as part of its own continuing investigations
I challenge you to make public on SICAG's site a list of the fortunate benificiaries - but of course this would not come under SICAG's purview, would it
I accept the challenge. Who are they and or where do I get the names? Of course I would need to make sure that in so publishing their names that I am not leaving myself open to defamation suites.
Another undercurrent that you're implying here, is that all recipients of those funds did so with sinister intent. Have you got any real information?
I do get the fact that SICAG have been around for over 6 months now and you're judging SICAG over the whole of that time based on one observation by its leadship in recent times. To be fair, I don't think it would matter what the excuse, you'd find something else to complain about. It goes to prove you cant keep everyone happy.
You are also asking the SICAG leadership to make a judgement call about the ethicacy or other of the advice. How can you expect that when the membership are themselves polarised on the issue? We represent ALL members and it is not in anyones interest to label the advice good bad or indifferent.
Also quite frankly, none of us are qualified to cast such judgement on the quality of advice. Even ASIC gave Storm a clean bill of health just months earlier and you would have to think that they were better qualified than any other to pass that judgement.
