This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Storm Financial Group

Jump to new

I would bet that they didn't know that they didn't need it. From the comments from a number of the ex-Storm clients and the contents of the submissions to Parliament, EC and crew put the fear of running out of money in retirement in front of anything else. Convince people that they do not and will not have sufficient funds, whatever their assets levels, to be able to retire, convince them that the age pension will disappear, convince them that they will not be self-funded retires, convince them that you are the expert and they know little about investing. Play on the emotions and you have got them.

And, boy, did these people get taken for a ride. Just think about it. $100,000 borrowed at 10% is $10,000. $7,000 fee taken from the $100k. The remaining $93k would have to return $17k (18.3%) in the first year (before tax considerations) just to break even. That's credit card territory but bamboozle tyro's with numbers and those "small" issues disappear.
 
bunyip said:
Why would you do that, when you already had a net worth of a couple of million dollars and a reliable income of probably 50 grand plus? Why??
Click to expand...

After reading most of the submissions, I haven't come to the conclusion that this is the position of most Storm investors. Many of them appeared to own their home outright but a number of others stated that they were just encouraged by Storm to leverage the additional equity in their property that they had gained over 10, 20, 30 years. This didn't mean that they owned the house outright. $400,000 - $500,000 in equity could have borrowed as much as $800,000 through margin.

I certainly didn't get the idea that most had the number of rental properties necessary to gross $50,000 a year.
 
I know there may be some or many ex stormies who only blame the banks but there are hopefully many more who realise that EC was the big boy with the big ideas.
 
I know that there were some who 'apparently' can be said to have had enough assets (of whatever kind) already.

But what of those who were not that lucky?

How many of the Storm clients were already 'asset rich'? and how many were people who were, as they are saying, investing for 'self-funded retirement'?

Much will be made of the 'millionaires' who were Storm investors, but what about all of the 'small' investors, the people who have lost $25K to $450K, (just about the amount of negative equity to have lost their savings or their home?).

If you are 25/30 years old, $25K is a huge amount that you were saving for your 'future'.

If you are 45/50 years old, $450K is enough to lose to the home that you have worked to pay off your whole working life.

Not everyone who invested with the banks, via Storm, were in there with huge portfolios worth millions.

Do not believe everything you read in the media. The media makes its money from sensationalism and a bit of truth.
 

I'll see if I can book the redeye from TSV to BNE in the morning.

Thanks Solly

gg
 

I realise that not every Storm investor was already wealthy enough to be set up for life before they joined Storm.
But I know for a fact that some of them were.
 
gg, my sources advise that Plaza Rooms P3&4 are prepped and ready to go.
Take the Merivale & Glenelg Sts entrance, take escalators to the plaza level, the rooms are on the right.
It appears that limited refreshments will be provided.

You might have to take Y Class at such short notice
 

Attachments

  • solinq.jpg
    21.2 KB · Views: 252
bunyip said:
I realise that not every Storm investor was already wealthy enough to be set up for life before they joined Storm.
But I know for a fact that some of them were.
Click to expand...

"some" ?


So, how many of the (approximate number) 13,500 clients fall into your "some" bracket?

135? 1%?

1,350? 10%?

How many does your "some" equate to?
 
I know there may be some or many ex stormies who only blame the banks but there are hopefully many more who realise that EC was the big boy with the big ideas.I know that I'm probably going over old ground here but just have to have my two bobs worth. Each and every one of us are entitled to our own opinion it's what makes a forum like this so interesting, and I see you all having a 'go' at each other and enjoying every minute of it.

EC was the ultimate salesman / conman and his sidekick Julie was his aider / abettor and slept with him occasionally!. I want to see EC and JC up there and tried for their part in this - and then given a little cell somewhere special to live out the rest of their days- should come as quite a shock after all the gilt edged everything he's been used to at our expense. His biggest mistake was that he hasn't tailored investment strategies for the individual - not news to anyone anymore. Rumours have abounded for some time that EC even hand picked his advisors, none of us know for sure but it could be true? I also happen to agree that the planners themselves have to take their share of the blame for this they were supposedly trained professionals and nobody can tell me that they didn't know how dangerous/risky this type of same size fits all investment could be. It was the planners who we dealt with, it was the planners who gave us the same old spiel that is repeated often on here and in the submissions. They were the mongrels who lied to us, promised the earth and delivered stuff all...and I know that many of you also blame us for getting sucked in and sucked in we did - big time. We even filled out paperwork at Storm so they knew what type of investment we wanted and then ignored it. I've asked for my storm paperwork months ago - why hasn't it arrived yet?

Someone said on here the other day that their advice was crap and we swallowed it and I was just a bit put out and let fly. Then I looked at it again and thought he's right we did swallow it and darn well choked to death on it as well. I blame myself everyday for trusting these mongrels and their promises. They didn't promise to make us rich and we never asked to be rich but we all/most asked for a safe and conservative financial plan. We all know the stock market goes up and down. Storm played on this 'we will sell when it's high and buy when it's low / we'll take advantage of those dips', what a load of bulls..t, it never happened. They bought up big time when they knew the market was falling throughout 08 and I see no evidence in any of my paperwork where they sold off when it was high. I'm a newbie and there is no way I'd put my money in on a falling market esp when you could see every day what was happening overseas. Common sense tells you to wait until the bottom drops out of it and then go for your life.

Every financial person in this country was aware, or should have been aware, of the problems in the US/Iceland and wherever else they plied their rotten trade for nearly two years before the market crashed and if they say they weren't they should have been because even us newbies' knew something was happening, we didn't know exactly what or when, but the signs were there long before the crash. Storm experts if they exist had to know - did they ignore it? There has been much criticism on their decisions leading up to the crash so I won't go over old ground but nearly all or all of it is spot on.

There is much I don't understand about this whole sorry saga and someone also said the other day 'banks lend money that's what they do' and you're right they do. When we went for our first home loan we had to provide evidence that we could service not only the the interest but the repayments as well. All banks employ thousands of financially astute employees who are well aware of the correct lending procedures. Why didn't they apply these same procedures to us this time instead of lending the huge loans recommended by storm. Storm may have falsified income and other income or the banks may have done it, this will need to be proved one way or the other, and until all the documents are examined we have no way of knowing who has done any of the falsifying, that is why this inquiry needs to get to the bottom of what really happened so that we are all no longer left wondering, who did it??? Smacks big time of white collar crime.

I don't remember giving storm permission to do anything on our behalf but then they have done a lot of underhand things did they get us to all sign something under false pretences. Storm never once asked us 'to sign this and we'll fill in the details'. SICAG is there for all who have been affected by storm as far as I'm aware, and someone will correct me in the next five minutes if I'm wrong, but for most of us SICAG has been our lifeline and I shall continue to sing their praises. I'm entitled to my opinion and if yours if different for your own reasons I shall respect that too. There is no one to talk to who understands what we are going through and the SICAG site offers us all sorts of information. If you disagree with some of that information that's fine it's hard to fine tune it to meet everyones' needs. Storm clients consisted of those who had been in the market for a long long time and knew exactly what the storm model was and agreed with it to those who knew nothing and just went along with their advisor because they believed what he was saying and everyone else in between. It is my understanding that SICAG doesn't have the funds to employ anyone it is only a volunteer group to help those affected by this disaster.
 
SICAG makes me feel ill. To use vulnerable people to further the Storm cause is despicable. If the comments attributed to Mark Weir earlier on i this thread are true then this is exactly whats happening.

Harlequin you are happy with an organisation who's leader makes the statement: "there was no point now blaming Storm because it had been totally obliterated by the Commonwealth Bank".
 
Storm investors group co-chairman Mark Weir, who founded the action group, said there was no point now blaming Storm because it had been totally obliterated by the Commonwealth Bank.

An extraordinary statement from Mark Weir.
Seems to me that this bloke is a real Cassamatis fan who is intent on deflecting the heat away from EC.
Even without the prospect of getting any money out of Storm, I would have thought that Weir and his SICAG committee would have Storm squarely in their sights for all the lousy things they've done.

What's also intriguing is that Mark Weir thinks it was the CBA who obliterated Storm. I believe that Weir needs to open his eyes and realise that Storms income had all but dried up due to a lack of new clients signing on.
Even if CBA hadn't lowered the boom on them, does he really think Storm could have continued to operate without a healthy supply of new customers to fleece to the tune of 7%?

Big Max - your comments, please?
 
I only quoted that part because the rest of the article doesn't relate particularly to SICAG and I just about fell off my chair when I read that quote from Mr Weir.

Have now found the whole article:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26013817-3122,00.html
 
Mindstorm said:
"some" ?


So, how many of the (approximate number) 13,500 clients fall into your "some" bracket?

135? 1%?

1,350? 10%?

How many does your "some" equate to?
Click to expand...

The numbers don't interest me. What interests me is why wealthy people who were set up for life would risk it all by signing up with Storm and taking on absurd levels of gearing to invest in the stock market.
I know for a fact that there were wealthy people, albeit a minority, who did exactly that.
 
I agree SICAG has been good for the victims Harley, and I am sure people have benefitted from having a focus, and being around other people in the same situation.

What frustrates most of us in here to no end, and as soon as this whole thing started we suspected it, is that SICAG refuses to place any blame on the Storm model, and has not at any stage stood up to it's members and said officially 'Emmanuel/Julie Cassimatis and the other Storm directors are just as guilty as the banks.' Instead, we have the father of one of the key advisors as a committee member, as well as people like Ron Jelich (who aided and abetted the whole thing....although I did hear he was in a poor way after the whole thing, I'm not entirely heartless) who now use SICAG as their own speaking post.

People can make their own minds up, but it is evidently clear that in light of Mark Weir's comments recently, SICAG has no desire to bring the Cassmatis's to account, nor condemn their flawed model and modus operandi publicly. What screwed Storm was Cassimatis' greed. If anyone doesn't think so, then can anyone explain the following:

a. Why did Storm manage over a billion in funds, had a company private jet, luxurious offices, yet have next to no 'war reserves' of cash in the company accounts? Why did they fold over what is reported to be a $20 million loan? And why after they made a $26 million dollar profit at the end of Jun 08, did the Cassimatis's award themselves a $24 million dividend??? What financial adviser would do that?

b. Why were they still signing clients up in Dec 08 after allegedly insolvent? Why did they then 'fight for justice for their clients' by awarding themselves a $2 million payment by appointing a random family member to the board in a failed attempt to make it legal?

c. Why there is so much anecdotal evidence of high-value clients who when after ringing Storm to demand to be sold down, were called back by Emmanuel and told to 'stick with the plan, this is what we talked about', while their livelihoods and savings were disappearing down the toilet?

Call it a tin-foil hat theory (and this might seem out there), but this is my suspicion of the main driving factor behind SICAG:

1. SOME (not all) members of the SICAG committee don't want to upset their dinner party/drinking buddy Emmanuel by declaring his rightful guilt/negligence in public and drawing possible legal/civil action to him or his employees....of which many of the committee members are either related to, or friendly with.

The fact that they have made people feel better by doing so and peopling the air with a legal target (the banks) is by and by, and merely a nice by-product. Either SICAG committee members are 1. naive but well meaning, or 2. cunning and taking advantage of vulnerable people to best further their 'Manny is innocent, it's the evil banks!' cause.

I will dedicate my time to ensure this doesn't happen. Even if I have to show up to the SICAG meetings and ensure vulnerable people don't get taken for another ride, I'll bloody do it. My rellies all live in Redcliffe, and they have seen SICAG for what it really is....a bunch of Storm alumni pushing the Cassimatis creed of innocence, which is why they left in disgust after the first few weeks of it being established.
 

I was equally upset by the comment and wanted to know why such a comment was made. I have since been informed (from a very reliable source) that Mark Weir was misquoted. What he actually said was: "there was no point now chasing Storm financially because it had been totally obliterated by the Commonwealth Bank".

Hence the reason SICAG are chasing the banks. All their energies have been put into helping the ex-stormies seek financial restitution as far as is possible so that we can move on with our lives. This is also the intentions of the lawyers such as Slater and Gordon. Chasing Storm for all criminal intention purposes is at the centre of ASIC, Worrels etc.....another battle to be played out.
 
I have heard that the "Big Day" in Brisbane tomorrow is being telecast direct by Austar ....now who do I know that has Austar!!!
 
donteventryit said:
I

So, what's the agenda of SICAG again?

Yes, agreed they have helped support and console etc. However, their agenda to steer the blame to the banks and away from EC & JC and the adviser's is becoming crystal clear.
Click to expand...
If you want to persuade people to your point of view, you first lay the groundwork by offering them sympathy, understanding and all that warm fuzzy stuff.

You have the ideal base to work from - a lot of people who are shocked, hurt and bewildered. A shoulder to cry on is just what they seek, and are then so grateful for.

I am quite carefully not accusing SICAG here, just making a quite general observation.

I'm mystified as to what SICAG's real agenda is.

Oh phooey!!! What utter and obvious window dressing: a last ditch attempt to save face by Manny. Pathetic, really.
 

You may like to get in touch with the journalist who wrote the article.
I don't doubt he would have recorded or written verbatim the comment by Mr Weir. If it is incorrect, then he will no doubt be requested to publish a retraction.
 

Facts? Well, okay, let us in on your FACTS!

Yes, exactly................. a minority, that YOU know about?

But what about the majority? do you know anyone in the majority?

The numbers don't bother you?

What about the people? the majority of people? are they just NUMBERS to you?

Were you involved with Storm? Were your parents? Your family? Friends? Do you not have any compassion for the people who have been duped here?

Or, are you just a 'blow hard' who likes to see your name in print no matter what rubbish you are spouting?

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The dynamics of money and TIME: crimping cashflow for a period
Replies
3
Views
860
TiminOz
The planning of a portfolio
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
Value Collector
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
2K
sptrawler
February 2025
2 3
Replies
59
Views
5K
ducati916
Mayfair 101/Mayfair Platinum
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
Dona Ferentes
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...