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

Agreed !!!! The only problem is the government would again prop them up...nothing like a false capitalist economy....
 

How would the strategy have changed if the data was up to date? The market had been falling heavily for many months already by that stage yet Storm still didn't advise clients to reduce their excessive debt levels in order to protect important assets like the family home. I also suspect that due to the heavy falls that had already occurred many clients were probably already well and truly underwater on paper anyway and so no margin call was likely to help them. Storm doesn't appear to have had a strategy for properly mitigating client risk here - they were relying on markets to recover by the looks of it and hoping the investors 'cash buffer' would last long enough for that to happen. There was never any guarantee that would happen.
 
Specialed, trust me mate, I was a Storm 'victim', as well as most of my family. I place blame on my own shoulders, the banks for giving me a margin loan and then selling it at rock bottom three and a half weeks later, but mostly to the schmucks at Storm who ignored my phone-calls when I was trying to find out what was going on; and to Emmanuel/Julie Cassimatis for forcing their staff not to sell anyone's positions up, when some of the Storm advisers were doing the very same with their own investments.

As it was said in the parliamentary hearing, thousands of people around Australia were getting margin calls in the thick of the GFC. Why was it that it seemed only Storm clients were the ones who were only getting told by their advisers they were in margin call when they were 20-30% into negative equity? It the banks were solely to blame, then we would be hearing about the other thousands of non-Storm customers who were screwed by the CBA/Colonial/BoQ/Mac Bank. You know why we haven't? Because they all had advisers who did the job they were paid and entrusted with, which was monitoring THEIR client's investments. Sure they may have lost some money when they converted to cash, but I can guarantee a fair majority of them would be back in the market, and not many of them would have had their houses sold from under them.

What really offends me, is that the perpetrators of this neglect are sitting in a palatial mansion barely over the other side of Moreton Bay in Brisbane, and yet no one seems to begrudge this. What is wrong with you people? Of course Manny took your money! He's probably online right now, checking his Swiss/Cayman Island balance and breathing a sigh of relief that he was able to offload it all offshore before it all hit the fan! And yet they both talk of 'seeking justice for their clients'. Here's the calibre of the people who were the architects of your downfall:
- They depleted a company that was managing billions of dollars worth of investments of over $20+ million dollars in the space of a few months. No one knows where this money went to this day, and yet the fact a company so large can go under due to a bank asking for about $20 million to be repaid is truly laughable. But it's the banks fault that Storm were insolvent due to the Cassimatis' addiction to extracting the majority of the company's revenue into their own personal bank accounts, obviously.
- They bullied clients who tried to forcibly sell out and told them to 'stick with their plan'.
- They gave 'private loans' to some customers....who knows, did this money recycle its way back in to their hands a few months later?
- When it all went downhill they fired their 110-120+ staff without pay or entitlements....but not before trying to backdoor another $3+ million into their own coffers by signing a family member to their now depleted board.
- It appears they had inadequate insurance.
- They made no submission to parliament to explain their actions.
- When asked to explain what went wrong in person, they throw sickies.
- They try and admit evidence to a parliamentary hearing so that they can't be held accountable for the same evidence in a legal setting.

The SICAG website says 'we're angry as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!'. You bloody well should be. No one expects SICAG to do detective work to bring Manny down for his crimes and neglect. But it would be sure as hell nice to see a little bit of responsibility thrown on the Cassimatis shoulders on the website. Why is it that the name Cassimatis has not been used in vain ONCE on that website? I understand going after the banks for compensation, hell take what you can get, power to you. But would it hurt to blame Storm too? Apparently, that's a no go area, and no one can tell us why. Does a child in Ethiopia die if the name 'Cassimatis' appears on the SICAG site in the form of some news update? I am sure there are a lot of SICAG members who are wondering the same thing. Tell me, were these members contacted by Redcliffe ex-Storm personnel like my family were; pompously seeking trail commissions on the pre-paid interest refunds from the failed margin loans these same people marketed so fiercely?

And yet you hardcore SICAG members wonder why some people looking at this objectively and with a small sense of renewed pessimism/caution, may wonder what the underlying SICAG agenda is; or more accurately, why some SICAG affiliates/relatives are swooping over the vulnerable SICAG congregation like carrion birds? But no, don't ask questions, because like the US Patriot Act, 'you're either with us, or against us.' You refer to our comments as 'idiotic', 'un-informed' and goad us to renounce our views using your fanatical, chest-beating zealotry.

Seriously, some of you need to wake up. It's that same blind faith that got you into this situation.
 


Your conspiracy theories about cupboards sits well in this forum as much of what I have read here is based on rumour, uninformed beliefs and ridiculous lies. I must have missed your submission to the senate inquiry detailing the 20 cupboards of Manny's that you refer to. Having obviously not detailed this information in a senate submission, I'm sure you have bought to light the detailed insider knowledge you espouse to have in a letter to either ASIC or to the Worrells inquiry. In which case I thank you because I'm sure your detailed knowledge of this matter and apparently the finances and motives of everyone involved will help bring those at fault to justice..
 

Something tells me Ironhalo will not show up. The fear of being shown exactly how ridiculous and uninformed so many of the contributions to this forum have been will be enough to keep those who continue to espouse ridiculous conspiracy theories away...but they do make entertaining reading, I have never been so interested in reading fiction.
 

It would never beat Stalingrad? Wholesale asset stripping and shaming was done away with when the likes of Alan Bond, Christopher Skase, Stan Howard (John Howard's Brother ) and the HIH crew etc...

As if anything will change now!

Give me a Saatchi & ditto exec to gloss it up anyday! But that's just me.
 


Lets see what three inquiry's have to offer....I'm sure wherever blame lies it will be found......In the meantime the "privately run institutions owned by shareholders" ie the CBA, are already admitting some responsibility. If you were or are a shareholder would you want them to admit all their responsibility straight away, or hold back just in case they can escape some of the blame, and minimise the impact on their share price . I agree, there are many people that are victims of circumstance in life that lose their jobs, houses and assets and the banks aren't expected to bail them out either. However the evidence is continuing to show that these people were not victims of circumstance, but rather it seems their losses are a direct result of the practices of the CBA…and storm. To which the CBA has already admitted some fault, albeit an attempt to mitigate their culpability and overall losses…..
 

The CBA didn't actually say what you claim but putting that aside I would appreciate your view on these aspects:

Was the data only inaccurate when the market was sinking or was it always inaccurate from say 2002?

If the data being supplied to Storm was inaccurate during the market downturn, especially over the period October-November, why was it sufficiently accurate enough for the other 7,000 dealer groups with CGI margin loans to be able to deal effectively with their client's funds?

To put it another way, why couldn't Storm do the same as the other dealer groups in managing their clients funds when they were, presumably, receiving the same inaccurate information as Storm was?
 
I would be interested to know, in 12 months time, the exact number of contributors (Storm investors) to this forum who, while continuning to do their utmost to discredit the motives of SICAG, stand to benefit from the thousands of hours of work they have put in. Ask yoursleves, would we even be discussing a senate inquiry, ASIC and worrells if not for their labor....
 

That's the whole point right!

There are people here who are more the happy to join in the hungi!
 

That is an interesting proposition. If they were indeed recieving the same inaccurate data that it appears (or is proposed) that storm clients were able to access, then maybe they should also be asking of their advisors, "Was the data accurate".

I see Commsec on TV every night, and if the CBA they couldn't ensure that the CGI data was always acurate, how can i be sure about other CBA owned entities. And secondly, were the other dealer groups, all 7000, dealing with a specific "Storm badged or branded" fund that was sold up, after clients were pushed significantly beyond the LVR that they had agreed, or thought they had, with the CBA. Who i might add the CBA had a contractual agreement with.....
 

Look the PM is a Queenslander

The Treasurer is a Queenslander

Where's Bill Ludwig?

The key is people have been ripped off and deserve a better deal.

Hayden got rolled by Bob Hawke nee Renouf.

It's about time to sow the seeds where they count!!
 
Specialed, your quickfire number of posts in quick succession only really serve to vindicate the opinion of a number of people here that you are a zealot, like your good pal Maxy.

You can attempt to discredit and scoff at anything I say all you like. But it doesn't change the fact that one of my family members rang me here in Sydney earlier in the year seething with rage because an ex-Storm employee related to one of the SICAG board members rang them up and asked them to nominate them as 'their financial adviser' for the sake of getting a cut of a failed margin loan pre-paid interest refund. How many vulnerable people has this snake tried to take a further financial gain from their misery?

Here's why I won't go to one of your SICAG meetings, in no particular order:
1. I live in Sydney. My family lives in Redcliffe.
2. They refuse to publicaly lay any blame on Manny's shoulders.
3. The SICAG website practically endorses Storm's outrageous fee model.
4. Ron Jelich now waves the SICAG flag. He pretty much stood back and watched as my single mother's last 30 years of blood, sweat and tears in raising us in her own home went up in smoke because the company he erroneously sold out to neglected their clients when they needed them most....despite taking millions of dollars in fees.
5. A relative of a SICAG committee member tried to elicit business from my family after the fact, despite having a hand in their financial downfall.
6. I don't feel the need to have someone hold my hand and tell me it will be OK, my family is doing enough of that on their own.

SICAG has done some great work, I don't dispute that (and I have repeatedly said that), and I know there are many people there with hearts of gold who are providing a great shoulder for those who need it. By the power of Greyskull, how many more times do I have to say this?

I just don't understand why they refuse to say one bad word about Manny's actions, one update on how Manny is trying to justify this to his ex-clients, or publically blame the flawed Storm model and staff which directly led to SICAG members being in the situation they are now in.

Until I/we see a member of SICAG publicaly attribute some portion of blame to the Cassmiatis', the principals and directors, or the staff that were earning trailing bonuses on step-investments as they drove their clients into inescapable and catastrophic debt, we have every right to be suspicious. It doesn't mean I don't look at the good things SICAG does, it means that I am being cautious and objective given the circumstances.

Someone here presents a train of thought, or a view that differs to your own, and you and Maxy start rapidly name calling and chest beating like a pack of 15 year old schoolboys. Seriously?
 

Problem is that most of you blokes hate the ALP and have been subject to financial rip-offs because of previous torie governments! Allowing financially speculative institutions to market to your weaknesses! I feel for you!
 
"BoQ chief David Liddy defends Storm Financial dealings"

"I APPEARED before the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Corporations and Financial Services in Canberra last week to give evidence about the bank's dealings with former customers of Storm Financial."

Article by David Liddy Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Bank of Queensland, in the Courier Mail is here;

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26119591-3122,00.html
 

A neat way of avoiding an answer to the actual questions. As Ironhalo wrote in a post:


By implication there was no need for client's of other dealer groups to raise the question "Was the data accurate" as they were seemingly being properly managed.

Again, I pose the very simple issue:

Why couldn't Storm do the same as the other dealer groups in managing their clients funds when they were, presumably, receiving the same inaccurate information as Storm was?

Naturally, the question does assume that there was any equity left to manage given that, according to evidence provided to the Parliamentary Inquiry, the four CBA/Storm indexed funds, over a period of some six weeks, went from a value of around $700M to $46M due to redemptions, on instructions from Storm, and the market downturn. No need to respond if you wish to use that aspect as an "out" in avoiding any criticism of the business model Storm and its advisers sold to you. It will be taken as a given.
 
By the way, in the matter of redemptions, it does raise some thoughts. It was mentioned by one poster, and I believe Carey Ramm expressed an interest in the matter, that when contacting his/her adviser to sell out, the poster was informed "I've sold out but I've been told not to sell you out" or words to that effect.

When redemptions occur, unless there is new money going in, it tends to reduce the equity in the funds and leave remaining investors with a reduced stake and, in Storm's case, supported by a bucket load of debt. So there is a little bell starting to ring in the back of my cynical mind. Who were the fortunate ones to get out? General clients or certain others with specific knowledge? Were the unactioned requests for redemptions effectively pointless as the value of those requests exceeded the equity left in the funds before they were closed?

Machiavellian? Nah, would never happen, would it?
 
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
862
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 4
Replies
60
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...