Storm Financial Group

Solly · 5 August 2009

"CBA brings regulator into frame on Storm Financial collapse"

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) has named the corporate regulator, along with itself and Storm Financial, as one of the key stakeholders involved in the circumstances leading to the hardship suffered by some clients of the collapsed financial planning group."

More by Lucinda Beaman in Money Management here;

http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/article/CBA-brings-regulator-into-frame-on-Storm-Financial-collapse/493238.aspx

Garpal Gumnut · 5 August 2009

Again Solly and Carey, Thank you for all the updates.

The CBA submission is particularly useful.

I have no doubt that criminal charges will flow from this, on the evidence contained in all the submissions, and gaol time for some.

Unfortunately, the little guys, the advisers and the lowly financial foot soldiers will not be able to afford the lawyers to save themselves from gaol time.

The big fish like you know who will avoid this fate by the use of expensive silks, paid for by the dubious gains over many years.

I have spent some time in the Creek, Stuart Creek, for those not in the know, Townsvilles own correction centre. It is not a nice place and I believe some of the screws were Storm investors.

It may be worthwhile for the little guys in this saga to tell all they know to the Inquiry, ASIC or the Fraud Squad when they come a knocking on the door as they surely will.

This may shorten or eliminate time spent in a place which defies description.

So we move on to another stage in this saga. Loyalty may not be the best policy. Save yer skins mates.

gg

bunyip · 5 August 2009

Prime said:
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.

It's not up to me to provide hard evidence against Cassamatis and his Storm outfit, but you can bet that hard evidence will come to light as this little saga plays out in court.
Regardless, I would have thought that enough stories have come to light from disgusted Storm investors to at least invoke some negative sentiment towards Storm on the SICAG website.
But instead, not a word against Storm or EC - on the contrary, favourable comment on the SICAG home page about the Storm fees model.

Many former Storm clients have attested that Storm Financial was a shonky and incompetent outfit for the following reasons.....

*They charged abnormally high up front fees.
*They geared clients to extremely risky levels.
*They ignored instructions from clients.
*They made grab after grab for more cash by enticing clients to borrow increasing amounts of money, irrespective of their comfort levels and whether or not these extra borrowings were appropriate to individual circumstances, and then belting them with fees of 7% of the additional borrowings.
*They made no effort to put clients into balanced portfolios, but rather, put all the eggs in one basket by focusing on stock market investment.
*They employed a highly risky and flawed investment model that was doomed to implode unless the stock market kept rising.
*They sat on their hands and watched while the stock market collapsed, and their client's portfolios with it.
*They failed in their duties to protect the wealth of their clients by moving them to cash well before the value of their portfolios was decimated.

Will I go on?...there's no need to - many burnt Storm clients have attested that all the above is correct, and lots more besides.

The incompetence and dodgy practices of Storm were bad enough, but then when SICAG is formed to seek justice for Storm clients, we find that the committee is largely comprised of EC pals and former Storm advisers, and at least one relative of a former Storm adviser.
We hear highly misleading claims from at least one SICAG helmsman that the market crash and financial meltdown had no precedent.
We see repeated attempts to put the blame on the banks, but nothing at all about the unscrupulous practices and incompetence of Storm.

And you wonder why SICAG is copping some flak!!
You wonder why people are suggesting that SICAG appears to be deflecting the heat away from Cassamatis by directing the blame elsewhere!!
You wonder why people are saying there's a conflict of interest by having Manny pals, former Storm advisers, and a relative of an ex Storm adviser on the SICAG committee!

Nobody disputes that SICAG has done some good work for mauled Storm clients. But when their target seems to be almost entirely the banks, while there's no mention of the dodgy practices of Storm and its advisers, it's no wonder that people question whether SICAG really are the impartial seekers of justice that we're led to believe.

DocK · 5 August 2009

What he said!

Garpal Gumnut · 5 August 2009

bunyip said:
It's not up to me to provide hard evidence against Cassamatis and his Storm outfit, but you can bet that hard evidence will come to light as this little saga plays out in court.
Regardless, I would have thought that enough stories have come to light from disgusted Storm investors to at least invoke some negative sentiment towards Storm on the SICAG website.
But instead, not a word against Storm or EC - on the contrary, favourable comment on the SICAG home page about the Storm fees model.

Many former Storm clients have attested that Storm Financial was a shonky and incompetent outfit for the following reasons.....

*They charged abnormally high up front fees.
*They geared clients to extremely risky levels.
*They ignored instructions from clients.
*They made grab after grab for more cash by enticing clients to borrow increasing amounts of money, irrespective of their comfort levels and whether or not these extra borrowings were appropriate to individual circumstances, and then belting them with fees of 7% of the additional borrowings.
*They made no effort to put clients into balanced portfolios, but rather, put all the eggs in one basket by focusing on stock market investment.
*They employed a highly risky and flawed investment model that was doomed to implode unless the stock market kept rising.
*They sat on their hands and watched while the stock market collapsed, and their client's portfolios with it.
*They failed in their duties to protect the wealth of their clients by moving them to cash well before the value of their portfolios was decimated.

Will I go on?...there's no need to - many burnt Storm clients have attested that all the above is correct, and lots more besides.

The incompetence and dodgy practices of Storm were bad enough, but then when SICAG is formed to seek justice for Storm clients, we find that the committee is largely comprised of EC pals and former Storm advisers, and at least one relative of a former Storm adviser.
We hear highly misleading claims from at least one SICAG helmsman that the market crash and financial meltdown had no precedent.
We see repeated attempts to put the blame on the banks, but nothing at all about the unscrupulous practices and incompetence of Storm.

And you wonder why SICAG is copping some flak!!
You wonder why people are suggesting that SICAG appears to be deflecting the heat away from Cassamatis by directing the blame elsewhere!!
You wonder why people are saying there's a conflict of interest by having Manny pals, former Storm advisers, and a relative of an ex Storm adviser on the SICAG committee!

Nobody disputes that SICAG has done some good work for mauled Storm clients. But when their target seems to be almost entirely the banks, while there's no mention of the dodgy practices of Storm and its advisers, it's no wonder that people question whether SICAG really are the impartial seekers of justice that we're led to believe.

bunyip mate, I have posted many many posts on SICAG, or Moneyspidercentral as I call them.

They are now superfluous, with the recent submissions from the big players, except from Manny of course who is exempt from criticism by them.

I repeat their job, if they ever had one is finished, finito, dead parrot, dead moneyspider.

Do not waste energy on them

Garpal Gumnut said:
Again Solly and Carey, Thank you for all the updates.

The CBA submission is particularly useful.

I have no doubt that criminal charges will flow from this, on the evidence contained in all the submissions, and gaol time for some.

Unfortunately, the little guys, the advisers and the lowly financial foot soldiers will not be able to afford the lawyers to save themselves from gaol time.

The big fish like you know who will avoid this fate by the use of expensive silks, paid for by the dubious gains over many years.

I have spent some time in the Creek, Stuart Creek, for those not in the know, Townsvilles own correction centre. It is not a nice place and I believe some of the screws were Storm investors.

It may be worthwhile for the little guys in this saga to tell all they know to the Inquiry, ASIC or the Fraud Squad when they come a knocking on the door as they surely will.

This may shorten or eliminate time spent in a place which defies description.

So we move on to another stage in this saga. Loyalty may not be the best policy. Save yer skins mates.

gg

This is where the action comes from now on. Tell all, truthful evidence at the Inquiry, to ASIC, Worrells or the Fraud Squad will make a huge diifference to the small operators in junior positions at Storm and the Banks.

gg

darkside · 5 August 2009

What Bunyip said as well, but with interest and GST. Nice post.......

Monario · 5 August 2009

Garpal Gumnut said:
Again Solly and Carey, Thank you for all the updates.

The CBA submission is particularly useful.

I have no doubt that criminal charges will flow from this, on the evidence contained in all the submissions, and gaol time for some.

Unfortunately, the little guys, the advisers and the lowly financial foot soldiers will not be able to afford the lawyers to save themselves from gaol time.

The big fish like you know who will avoid this fate by the use of expensive silks, paid for by the dubious gains over many years.

I have spent some time in the Creek, Stuart Creek, for those not in the know, Townsvilles own correction centre. It is not a nice place and I believe some of the screws were Storm investors.

gg

GG

I am familiar with Stuart Prison, sometimes referred to as that farm or creek... I did some work there once on the security systems, lets hope the quality of my work will hold the little buggers nice and tight!!! LOL...

On a serious note though, do you really think that individual advisors could do time I asked the question a few pages back (133 I think) that if advisors new they were giving bad advise not in the clients best interests that would they liable and could be sued for Professional Misconduct? Can anyone shed some light?

I believe I have some damning evidence from my advisor in the form of email and phone message that would confirm this!!

Monario · 5 August 2009

I agree wholly with Bunyip in post #2724 ...

Hence the reason I have stated previously, whilst I follow SICAG's progress I do not support them..

E & JC plus a number of advisors in my opinion need to be brought to justice, but so do the poor practices of the banks involved..

I think one of the biggest things that needs to come out of this for the banks is a formula of client to staff ratio so they can better manage themselves!!! Whilst streamlining perfomance and costs is important for the shareholder, this is a very good example in my opinion where companies have not had suffecient ability to service and monitor their client base adequately... Thus adversly effecting the share holder...

Garpal Gumnut · 5 August 2009

Monario said:
GG

I am familiar with Stuart Prison, sometimes referred to as that farm or creek... I did some work there once on the security systems, lets hope the quality of my work will hold the little buggers nice and tight!!! LOL...

On a serious note though, do you really think that individual advisors could do time I asked the question a few pages back (133 I think) that if advisors new they were giving bad advise not in the clients best interests that would they liable and could be sued for Professional Misconduct? Can anyone shed some light?

I believe I have some damning evidence from my advisor in the form of email and phone message that would confirm this!!

looked

Yes getting out to the farm makes it easier than in the creek. Criminal charges are being looked at due to the consistency and alleged fraudulent advice given by the minnows.

The big guys will hide behind the defence of "we never authorised that". Yes the little guys will get to know the creek very well.

Their only way out as happened with Fitzgerald is to come clean, and spell out the whole truth. They won't be able to do a SICAG on the truth, and stay out of the creek.

gg.

cuttlefish · 5 August 2009

Monario said:
GG

I am familiar with Stuart Prison, sometimes referred to as that farm or creek... I did some work there once on the security systems, lets hope the quality of my work will hold the little buggers nice and tight!!! LOL...

On a serious note though, do you really think that individual advisors could do time I asked the question a few pages back (133 I think) that if advisors new they were giving bad advise not in the clients best interests that would they liable and could be sued for Professional Misconduct? Can anyone shed some light?

I believe I have some damning evidence from my advisor in the form of email and phone message that would confirm this!!

You don't typically go to jail for being bad at your job. Even if it can be shown that demonstrably erroneous advice was given its still not likely to attract criminal charges.

Jail is for criminal behaviour - fraud, insolvent trading if a director, missappropriation of funds etc. and it has to be proven beyond doubt in court. Prosecutions will only occur in situations where there is a strong case.

I suspect most individual advisors are unlikely to face charges except in the cases where there is clear evidence that they deliberately falsified documents.

Garpal Gumnut · 5 August 2009

cuttlefish said:
You don't typically go to jail for being bad at your job. Even if it can be shown that demonstrably erroneous advice was given its still not likely to attract criminal charges.

Jail is for criminal behaviour - fraud, insolvent trading if a director, missappropriation of funds etc. and it has to be proven beyond doubt in court. Prosecutions will only occur in situations where there is a strong case.

I suspect most individual advisors are unlikely to face charges except in the cases where there is clear evidence that they deliberately falsified documents.

Oh, do tell.

lol

gg

Monario · 5 August 2009

cuttlefish said:
You don't typically go to jail for being bad at your job. Even if it can be shown that demonstrably erroneous advice was given its still not likely to attract criminal charges.

Jail is for criminal behaviour - fraud, insolvent trading if a director, missappropriation of funds etc. and it has to be proven beyond doubt in court. Prosecutions will only occur in situations where there is a strong case.

I suspect most individual advisors are unlikely to face charges except in the cases where there is clear evidence that they deliberately falsified documents.

Sorry Cuttle,Perhaps my post was not clear... Hwta I was mainly asking is could they be individually liable for the advise, sued for the advise? Were they not professionals conducting themselves in the matter of advice in the clients best interest... I believe my advisor knew what he was doing was wrong but did not act, and did not allow me to act in a timely manner to stave off disaster!!

Garpal Gumnut · 5 August 2009

Unless the advisers fess up to any criminal behaviour and give evidence against the big folks, then they will go to gaol.

gg

Solly · 5 August 2009

Garpal Gumnut · 5 August 2009

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sub270.pdf

This submission alone would keep a State Prosecutor busy for a week or so on a Criminal writ.

gg

cuttlefish · 5 August 2009

So did CBA accept loan applications without a clients signature?

That seems truly remarkable.

Solly · 5 August 2009

Garpal Gumnut said:
looked

Yes getting out to the farm makes it easier than in the creek. Criminal charges are being looked at due to the consistency and alleged fraudulent advice given by the minnows.

The big guys will hide behind the defence of "we never authorised that". Yes the little guys will get to know the creek very well.

Their only way out as happened with Fitzgerald is to come clean, and spell out the whole truth. They won't be able to do a SICAG on the truth, and stay out of the creek.

gg.

gg, I don't know the creek but I knew a poor lost soul who had a hard up bringing, lost his way early on in life, got involved with the wrong crowd and notched up a few misdemeanors. Ended up doing porridge in No.2 Division in the old Boggo Rd.

It wasn't pretty, he never was the same after his release, even though he'd paid his dues, the limp was always was with him, I'm sure the scars remained. I'd also counsel those to do anything possible to avoid incarceration at any cost.

Monario · 5 August 2009

Garpal Gumnut said:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sub270.pdf

This submission alone would keep a State Prosecutor busy for a week or so on a Criminal writ.

gg

For those that have read this submission, I have wondered myself who purchase these large share parcels, at a time when the market was in free fall!! I wonder if they were simply passed to the banks.... I would assume that this is a question that will never be answered!!!

Steve Borden · 5 August 2009

cuttlefish said:
So did CBA accept loan applications without a clients signature?

That seems truly remarkable.

Not implausible but they will have signed the loan contract/schedule and the mortgage, that's all the Bank needs to enforce its rights.

Judd · 5 August 2009

Monario said:
For those that have read this submission, I have wondered myself who purchase these large share parcels, at a time when the market was in free fall!! I wonder if they were simply passed to the banks.... I would assume that this is a question that will never be answered!!!

They were more than likely sold to no one in particular Monario.

The fund simply ceased trading and the underlying assets liquidated, ie sold on the market, with the proceeds going towards reducing the margin loan debt of individual Storm clients. Despite the market being in free fall, there were still buyers out there. Some big insto may have bought some of the underlying shares of the indexed funds. To them it is just a tranche of individual shares on offer at a certain price. If attractive, they'll buy. Same as any person would. When shares are on offer on the market, I don't know if the seller is a distressed one or not - and I don't need to know. It is merely a transaction. Money does not have emotion. Only people do.

Storm Financial Group

Solly

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

bunyip

DocK

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

darkside

Monario

Monario

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

cuttlefish

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

Monario

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

Solly

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

cuttlefish

Solly

Monario

Steve Borden

Judd

Similar threads

Connect with us