I'd love to apologise, but I have nothing to apologise about. As long as you keep trying to paint GG, Bunyip and myself as some kind of SICAG-haters who take delight in seeing Stormer's pain, when all we have done is illustrate concerns a lot of people have with some of the members of SICAG and some of the unsavoury Storm employees who have leapt onto the SICAG bandwagon, then you will continue to get forum posts you don't like. Trust me mate, I'm pretty sure I can speak for the others and say that we aren't the enemy, we're on your side.
And for someone who really is on the periphery of the Storm experience, i.e. not an ex-employee, not a Storm investor, you certainly get apoplectic about anyone being dark over the whole affair and raising even the most basic questions about your 'employer', whom while they have done some excellent work, have sullied themselves to a small degree by allowing the ex-Storm bottomfeeders to board their ship.
If no one in SICAG has a love for Manny, then why hasn't there been ONE post, paragraph or article pertaining to Storm's negligence in all of this on the website? Instead we have a disclaimer practically supporting Storm's bonkers fee structure and vitriol/quotes about the evil of banks. The very banks who ensured that Storm (and vicariously it's clients) did very well for themselves during the good years. People ask why CBA shut the door on Storm practically overnight. Do you really think that Manny was an innocent bystander who was trying to save his clients from financial ruin first and foremost? I don't believe he meant any harm to his clients initially, but when it all went pear-shaped, it very quickly became about 'how many treasure chests we can offload off the sinking ship'. In short, it would appear that the wheels were coming off long before the company imploded as spectacularly as it did.
There is NO mention of Storm's negligence, Manny/Julie's greed or incompetence ANYWHERE on the SICAG website. As an analytical man (and I am sure I am not the lone ranger), I look at that say 'hmmm why would they do that?', as a first impression. It might not be the right impression, but because no one can give me an answer on it, and noting my brother who after receiving some explosive evidence from his bank showing that Emmanuel Cassimiatis ignored a large printed client list of people who had demanded to be sold down, was told by a key SICAG committee member 'that's not going to help our cause', my impression/perception becomes my reality. I won't mention names, because as we say, no names-no court-martials.
Sorry mate, but my family got screwed by Storm, and to see some of the architects of this (and some of the most vocal are the very same people who ignored their phone calls last year when it was all going down) waving the SICAG 'justice' banner and screaming for compensation and 'what's best for the clients', it boils my blood. The banks are 1/3 of this drama, with the other 1/3 resting on the morally corrupt advisers who against their own morals continued to peddle their trusting clients into further financial ruin (ask anyone at your SICAG meetings who got their house mysteriously revalued and their margin loan step-increased right as the GFC had hit); and the other 1/3 rests with a certain couple in Belmont who have barely made a comment since they attempted to take their millions from the business and leave their clients high and dry with nothing but empty promises and platitudes for warmth.
Maxy, I'm sure if this wasn't an anonymous Internet forum you and I would probably have a beer over it and sit there and mull it together like two adults.
*shrugs*
Still waiting for you and darkside to retract your incorrect claims about SICAG allegedly cleaning out its executive ranks. If you make the claim, you have to take the blame . . .
"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?
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".
Cuttlefish, I have just caught up with your posting. Mr Weir was misquoted. Below is part of the text of my email exchange with the journo concerned:
Hi Peter.
Attached email trail for your information.
Mark informs me he was caught off guard amid the media flurry. He does not recall making the statement attributed to him but, if so, he did not intend to infer that Storm were above BLAME. He says he intended to convey the message that it was a waste of time chasing Storm for compensation because there’s nothing left in the Greek’s cupboard.
Cheers,
Max
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.
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Queensland Registry
Thursday, 24 September 2009
Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Courts Building
Level 6, 119 North Quay
BRISBANE, 4000
Deputy District Registrar Baldwin Court No. 1, Level 7
9:30 AM Examination
1 QUD75/2009 STORM FINANCIAL LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED)
Google is your friend
I will be brief as I am quite tired from travelling coach to and from Brisbane, attending the Inquiry and other brief activities not suitable to expand upon on this forum.
The Inquiry restored my faith in democracy in Australia.
Manny Cassimatis looked older than when I last saw him at Peppers Hidden Vale tucking in to a Waigu steak, just five moths ago.
Manny Cassimatis was unconvincing and repetitive in his evidence to the Inquiry much as a McDonald's executive would be in denying that a lifetime of big Macs in no way contributed to his terminal bowel cancer.
His lawyer bobbed up briefly to earn his $5000 for the day but was swatted by Sen. John Williams and thereafter attended to his hose.
The Inquiry members in particular Bernie Ripoll and John Williams were magnificent. They cut to the chase in a forensic manner and let Manny tighten the rope, challenging his bizarre take on financial planning appropriately.
The public , media and Storm victims were scathing about the Storm model and the SICAG model.
I was greatly surprised that nearly all Stormers had heard of Aussiestockforums and were now getting their information and advice from ASF rather from the SICAG site.
Some expressed disgust at the former Storm Logo on the SICAG site, the connection of committee members to Storm and Storm advisers, the advice on the SICAG site to seek out financial advisers who followed Storm principles and the failure of SICAG to in any way attribute blame to Storm or the Cassimatis.
I doubt if next January SICAG will have enough people renew their membership to afford a candle to shine a light on a moneyspider.
The victims were scathing about the banks and look forward to Norris of CBA fronting the Inquiry.
The Storm victims were one and all good people, battlers, hard workers, the backbone of our country.
They have been let down by Storm, SICAG and the Banks.
The only shining light for them are their Lawyers, Scattini et al, and the Inquiry.
gg
Big Max
In view of the information that's come to light over the last couple of days, both at the Enquiry and through this forum, I think it's time you favoured us with another of your posts.
In particular, I'd be interested in hearing your reponses to Posts 3251 & 3254 from Ironhalo, Post 3248 from GG, and Post 3266 from Smiley.
Come on Max - it's not like you to be short of words. We look forward to hearing from you.
The comments that attack SICAG and its motives or the role it should play astound me. They, like everyone, are interested in finding out the cause of this nightmare, and in time who is responsible and where the blame lies, be it with the banks, Storm, ASIC. Hopefully this will help to ensure it doesn’t happen again. However, SICAG was originally set up by storm clients to support each other. Many of these retired people are fighting to stop their lives sinking further into despair, if that is possible, with many having already been forced by the bank to sell everything they own. Most have been financially destroyed, and so if going after the CBA and CGI , rather than STORM for financial recompense seems suspicious to you, try existing under the permanent threat of losing your house, with no prospect of gaining employment because of your age.
The CBA have admitted problems with their loans, discrepancies in their systems (presumably the accuracy of their market monitoring software). Their submission appears to contain statements that are inaccurate in the least and possibly deliberately dishonest or deceitful at worst. The CBA has already begun a process of limited compensation, and has already admitted “some” fault. All this and there are still (at least) three investigations into this debacle to be completed. What more has to happen before some of the contributors to this forum eat humble pie, and admit that these people are victims and that SICAG, whatever its committee make up is should be doing nothing but seeking compensation for it members. Personally I don’t care who is on the committee if the end result is a better payout for those who have lost everything. STORM financial is a dead horse, the CBA took care of that and they have ensured that there is no compensation within that area that can help the victims.
Surely SICAG’s primary role should be to help its members gain some form of financial security from this debacle, and this stage that means the CBA and CGI for their role in this margin call disaster. Nothing else is going to help these people rebuild what’s left of their lives.
It is the role of the senate inquiry, the ASIC investigation and the inquiry by the liquidators to establish how this happened and who is at fault. Those contributors who continue with discussions regarding the composition of SICAG, its “model”, its purpose and all the other rubbish I read shows little in the way of an intelligent understanding of this whole affair. They also seem to have a very juvenile and naïve understanding of how people operate and the extent to which companies show scant regard for its customers, not to mention a very naive understanding of the way the media reports much of this.
Keep up the great work SICAG, and just go for the money !
specialed,
What is your relationship to
1. SICAG
2. SICAG committee members
3. Storm Financial
4. Manny and Julie Cassimatis
5. Ex Financial Advisers of Storm Financial
6. Ex owners of Storm Franchises in Queensland, NSW and Victoria.
7. The financial advising industry.
gg
Why would anyone in their right mind try to blame someone who might ??? have information that would help them when they try to sue a third party. Even someone of average intelligence can work why you would not want to do that....at this stage. The CBA is the only avenue for the storm investors to recoupe some of the money that this has cost them. Let ASIC identify the blame....
I agree that the bank appears to have failed in some of its duties in relation to responsible lending and possibly bears partial responsibility in some of the situations that occurred. But they certainly weren't the primary cause of the situation that led to people losing their investments and wealth.
What annoys me is that SICAG doesn't appear care about where the responsibility lies - all they care about is getting as much money out of the bank as possible because the banks have the money.
Surely no one would believe that the banks efforts so far are anything more than harm and payout minimisation. Once this part is done with then sure, continue to go after whoever. Which at the same time the three investigations will also be doing. SICAG is a volunteer committee attempting to support investors while also trying to salvage their own lives. Surely Its not SICAG's role to seek criminal charges at this point. Criminal charges will do nothing to help those investors currently living out of caravans on their children’s back yard. Are you for real ! I'm sure they have enough to do already. If ASIC, the senate etc cant work out whether criminal charges should be laid, what chance have a SICAG got. This has already been to court once and the judge could only make a limited determination. Of course you wouldn’t let a drunk driver get away with it....but first you need to get yourself out of hospital and recover from the injuries you have suffered. For many investors, their focus needs to be on saving themselves before they worry about the criminality of the perpetrators.
In my humble opinion, SICAG originated with the sole aim of gaining compensation for its members. This compensation was most likely to come from the banks, as presumably Cassimatis will have signed a personal guarantee for Storm's debts (I certainly hope this is the case) and will be cleaned out by the bank in due course.
In my humble opinion, SICAG could not care less who is to blame, but is focussed purely on who can/will pay compensation for their portion of the blame. I think most of SICAG's members would agree that the majority of the blame lies with Storm, but as there is no monetary value in pursuing E & J etc they are focussed purely on their case against the banks involved at present. This is their charter, their goal, so it's understandable that they will not wish to focus on anything that may detract from the level of responsibility that can be attributed to the banks. I can understand their stance, as it is probably the best course of action for them to take in order to acheive their goal - compensation.
Do I agree with it? Well, I didn't join SICAG because I just can't stomach not laying the blame where I feel it justly lies - mostly with me, followed by storm, then bank. But I may indeed benefit in the long run from SICAG's unswerving determination to bring the banks to account for their part in the whole affair - and I do feel just a little hypocritical in that I'll gladly take whatever scaps the bank may send my way.
While I can appreciate why SICAG have taken the stance that they have, it is my fervent desire that the Cassimatisii be pursued with equal fervour by them once they are done with the resolution process underway with CBA and whatever other banks they can nail down. Same goes for advisers if it can be proven they were acting contrary to their advice to clients (in my case my adviser was a Cassimatis offspring - I wonder if he blindly followed his father's directions to clients)
As far as whether the banks involved bore responsibility to customers or shareholders, I think they were so involved and entangled in the whole storm process that they ceased to be a third party acting at arm's length.
Ordinarily I would agree that it is not the bank's responsibility to care whether you are going to use their loan funds to invest wisely or fly to the moon - but in this case they were so enmeshed in the process, and indeed approvals were all but automatic, that the bank's endorsement of storm's strategy was implicit - if not written into their loan approval docs. They worked hand-in-glove with storm to ramp up borrowings by providing inflated valuations for that express purpose, set up a distinct BSB no for storm borrowings etc. To apply the same criteria in this case to an individual applying for a loan off their own bat is misplaced imo. As the old saying goes "If you lie down with dogs, you'll wake up with fleas"!
I'm still itchy:bonk:
It would appear that from what has gone down in the evidence to the Inquiry that Manny should have kept to flogging MLC products from an old Ford Cortina around the Tablelands.
Surely with the answers he has given he was not in charge of millions of hardworking battlers money over the last 15 or 20 years.
Sadly he was.
And the moneyspidercentral aka SICAG.INFO still have not a peep out of themselves about Storm's culpability.
I wonder how many of them were invited in to the Cave for the "Secret Meeting".
gg
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?