- Joined
- 14 March 2006
- Posts
- 3,630
- Reactions
- 5
Too right Julia!
Yeah that sounds nuts. I give you my home, you give me the promise of more!
But still the predatory forces of deceit do need investigation. The average punter has no idea.
Storm Financial Group
- Thread starter Garpal Gumnut
- Start date
Too right Julia!
Yeah that sounds nuts. I give you my home, you give me the promise of more!
But still the predatory forces of deceit do need investigation. The average punter has no idea.
- Joined
- 21 December 2008
- Posts
- 4,532
- Reactions
- 1
"Storm boss asked for extra funds"
"STORM Financial boss Emmanuel Cassimatis instructed one of his senior managers to increase the size of a proposed dividend payout as the teetering firm contemplated liquidation, a court has heard."
More by Daniel Hurst in The Age;
http://www.theage.com.au/business/storm-boss-asked-for-extra-funds-20091013-gvop.html
"STORM Financial boss Emmanuel Cassimatis instructed one of his senior managers to increase the size of a proposed dividend payout as the teetering firm contemplated liquidation, a court has heard."
More by Daniel Hurst in The Age;
http://www.theage.com.au/business/storm-boss-asked-for-extra-funds-20091013-gvop.html
- Joined
- 21 December 2008
- Posts
- 4,532
- Reactions
- 1
"Storm boss cash grab despite tax debt"
"STORM Financial co-founder Emmanuel Cassimatis bumped up by half a million dollars the dividend paid to he and his wife from the beleaguered company's accounts, all the while knowing Storm owed the tax office $11 million."
More by Sarah Elks in The Australian here;
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26206236-2702,00.html
"STORM Financial co-founder Emmanuel Cassimatis bumped up by half a million dollars the dividend paid to he and his wife from the beleaguered company's accounts, all the while knowing Storm owed the tax office $11 million."
More by Sarah Elks in The Australian here;
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26206236-2702,00.html
- Joined
- 21 December 2008
- Posts
- 4,532
- Reactions
- 1
"Storm duo's $2m dividend"
"Directors of the failed advisory firm Storm Financial requested their dividend payment be increased from $1.5 million to $2 million despite dismissing staff and non-executive directors and delaying bill payments to protect the company's cash flow."
Read more by Michelle Singer in The Australian Financial Review of 14 October 2009.
"Directors of the failed advisory firm Storm Financial requested their dividend payment be increased from $1.5 million to $2 million despite dismissing staff and non-executive directors and delaying bill payments to protect the company's cash flow."
Read more by Michelle Singer in The Australian Financial Review of 14 October 2009.
- Joined
- 21 December 2008
- Posts
- 4,532
- Reactions
- 1
"$2M Storm `instruction' "
"FORMER Storm Financial joint chief financial officer Lauren Davies yesterday used the`Nuremberg defence' when asked about a why she arranged for a $2 million dividend transfer she arranged from the insolvent company Storm Financial into the founders' private account.
Ms Davies said she was just following 'instructions'."
More in the Townsville Bulletin here;
http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2009/10/14/86421_news.html
"FORMER Storm Financial joint chief financial officer Lauren Davies yesterday used the`Nuremberg defence' when asked about a why she arranged for a $2 million dividend transfer she arranged from the insolvent company Storm Financial into the founders' private account.
Ms Davies said she was just following 'instructions'."
More in the Townsville Bulletin here;
http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2009/10/14/86421_news.html
- Joined
- 21 December 2008
- Posts
- 4,532
- Reactions
- 1
"Storm boss offered client $50k compensation: court"
"A former Storm Financial client has recounted how the company's managing director Emmanuel Cassimatis offered to pay her $50,000 to make up for her eroded superannuation savings."
More by Daniel Hurst on brisbanetimes.com.au;
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/storm-boss-offered-client-50k-compensation-court-20091013-gvna.html
"A former Storm Financial client has recounted how the company's managing director Emmanuel Cassimatis offered to pay her $50,000 to make up for her eroded superannuation savings."
More by Daniel Hurst on brisbanetimes.com.au;
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/storm-boss-offered-client-50k-compensation-court-20091013-gvna.html
- Joined
- 21 December 2008
- Posts
- 4,532
- Reactions
- 1
gg, a movie or mini series would sure be interesting, something to boost the ratings of the free-to-airers and it might even pry the iGeneration away from their pods and torrents. I'm losing interest in reality cooking shows and soap celebrities pirouetting on screen as well. I can't believe how popular Underbelly is.
I've got a mate who wrote a screenplay once, may be he can help. It was a story about a young wizard and his friends but he set it in Burp'n gary, I think that's what sank it. He never heard back from Ivan Reichman.
I wonder which actors or young hopefuls could play the leading protagonists. ?
Any suggestions ?
- Joined
- 22 August 2009
- Posts
- 274
- Reactions
- 0
The Financial Planning Association may only be a union body for financial planners and obviously don't carry any real weight, however you do expect them to accept financial planners only as members. They would have been well aware of storms model and whether or not they had the qualifications to be financial planners.
The 'lovely financial planner' who I met yesterday was a guest speaker for an hour duration at a superannuation seminar. I didn't go looking for his services Julia as you're right I have no money and therefore will not be seeking his services on a professional level. He also had a lot of negative words re storms model so yes that makes him very 'lovely' in my opinion!!!
We all know the stock market goes up and down and we're all happy when it goes up and obviously not so happy when it comes down. Storms strategy was to take advantage of these 'ups' and 'downs' to 'grow' their clients investments. This was the one aspect that they considered their strength. I don't have a problem with the ups and downs I have a problem with the fact that our LVR was allowed to blow out of all proportion. Others had margin calls when their LVR's reached an appropriate level. This was the one aspect that destroyed our investments and we need to find out exactly why and how.
I know that it's the banks 'job' to lend money to businesses such as storm, however, the bank also has an obligation to lend responsibily to individuals seeking a loan. I know this because we've had a home mortgage from the bank and were put through the third degree and could only borrow x amount of dollars. When storm applied for a loan on our behalf there were no restrictions to the amount of money borrowed. What changed?
Our wages, when we applied for a home loan years ago, were relatively high. When storm applied for a loan, our wages were extremely low. Does that add up? I would have thought that all banks have a 'responsibility' to shareholders and clients alike to lend responsibily, after all it's their money. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this...
Where we concerned having a mortgage on own home and a debt? Of course we were but we were also paying a financial planner and therefore a team of financial 'experts' to look after our investment in the long term. We didn't go into this in the short term as the experts all tell us that this is a long term strategy and investment. I was reading a financial report today and this strategy is still being employed by financial planners, however, storm took it to the extreme for their own selfish reasons it would appear. If this strategy is still 'acceptable' in financial planning circles we need to know what fraudulent activity took place between the partners in crime in this scenario, namely the banks and the financial planning company, as it's no secret they were working together.
Margin loans may be a useful tool if you have the money and know how to use them well. Storm over geared using margin loans for retirees on the old age pension and the banks involved approved these loans. I don't call that responsible lending. Storm should never have done it and the banks should never have worked with them to lend these obscene amounts of debt.
The 'lovely financial planner' who I met yesterday was a guest speaker for an hour duration at a superannuation seminar. I didn't go looking for his services Julia as you're right I have no money and therefore will not be seeking his services on a professional level. He also had a lot of negative words re storms model so yes that makes him very 'lovely' in my opinion!!!
We all know the stock market goes up and down and we're all happy when it goes up and obviously not so happy when it comes down. Storms strategy was to take advantage of these 'ups' and 'downs' to 'grow' their clients investments. This was the one aspect that they considered their strength. I don't have a problem with the ups and downs I have a problem with the fact that our LVR was allowed to blow out of all proportion. Others had margin calls when their LVR's reached an appropriate level. This was the one aspect that destroyed our investments and we need to find out exactly why and how.
I know that it's the banks 'job' to lend money to businesses such as storm, however, the bank also has an obligation to lend responsibily to individuals seeking a loan. I know this because we've had a home mortgage from the bank and were put through the third degree and could only borrow x amount of dollars. When storm applied for a loan on our behalf there were no restrictions to the amount of money borrowed. What changed?
Our wages, when we applied for a home loan years ago, were relatively high. When storm applied for a loan, our wages were extremely low. Does that add up? I would have thought that all banks have a 'responsibility' to shareholders and clients alike to lend responsibily, after all it's their money. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this...
Where we concerned having a mortgage on own home and a debt? Of course we were but we were also paying a financial planner and therefore a team of financial 'experts' to look after our investment in the long term. We didn't go into this in the short term as the experts all tell us that this is a long term strategy and investment. I was reading a financial report today and this strategy is still being employed by financial planners, however, storm took it to the extreme for their own selfish reasons it would appear. If this strategy is still 'acceptable' in financial planning circles we need to know what fraudulent activity took place between the partners in crime in this scenario, namely the banks and the financial planning company, as it's no secret they were working together.
Margin loans may be a useful tool if you have the money and know how to use them well. Storm over geared using margin loans for retirees on the old age pension and the banks involved approved these loans. I don't call that responsible lending. Storm should never have done it and the banks should never have worked with them to lend these obscene amounts of debt.
"Storm over geared using margin loans for retirees on the old age pension and the banks involved approved these loans."
You dont know what has been fed to the banks...
Its highly unlikely that a bank would lend a retiree money who is on an old age pension..They need to show how to service the debt and I dont think a fortnightly pension would cut it..
On top of that the client would need to have completed a risk tolerance test.
Giving that they are pensioners they would probably fail.
You dont know what has been fed to the banks...
Its highly unlikely that a bank would lend a retiree money who is on an old age pension..They need to show how to service the debt and I dont think a fortnightly pension would cut it..
On top of that the client would need to have completed a risk tolerance test.
Giving that they are pensioners they would probably fail.
"It's highly unlikely that a bank would lend a retiree money who is on an old age pension."
Well they did - read the submissions to the parliamentary inquiry - have seen the loan applications myself - these aged pensioners were listed as having incomes of $100,000 and bankers have admitted at inquiry they took that amount as not being their pension but proposed earnings from investments through storm.
It all stinks . . . .
Well they did - read the submissions to the parliamentary inquiry - have seen the loan applications myself - these aged pensioners were listed as having incomes of $100,000 and bankers have admitted at inquiry they took that amount as not being their pension but proposed earnings from investments through storm.
It all stinks . . . .
- Joined
- 22 August 2009
- Posts
- 274
- Reactions
- 0
That's right Lasty I don't know what was fed to the banks.
I do know and have paperwork to prove what we had written down regarding our income / expenditure and the low level of risk that we were prepared to take, and the comments made by our local storm advisor.
I know what is on some of the banks paperwork and the two don't relate at all.
What we need to find out is where the information 'changed.' It is possible / highly likely that this was a storm headquarters decision. Nothing has been proved here that I'm aware of. I'm not 'blaming' the banks but I want to know what their involvement was as without their complicity none of this could have occurred could it?
There are retirees only on the old age pension who were given hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans. Their 'earnings' have been over-inflated and the bank may not be responsible for this information, but are they responsible to checking to make sure it's true? or do they just accept what a financial planner has told them? I don't know how this has occurred and we're all hoping the inquiry will throw some light on this.
Julia I do have my moments when I am anything but strong emotionally and I also have my moments when I am so angry and feel extremely strong so it's a bit of an emotional roller coaster ride really. I know I'm still at the crawling stage but have little choice but to go on and succeed or go under and it would be so easy to go under. I try desperately to cope and to look forward and this is my way of coping is to try and understand what happened here.
We made a huge huge mistake. We went to a registered financial planner who had an excellent sales pitch and they 'convinced' us that this was the way for us to invest for our future. Result utter financial destruction. I know that we were not savvy investors that's why we did it. Our biggest mistake was trusting them to do the right thing by us. Do others trust their financial advisors?
What have I learnt from this? -
Do your own research - educate yourself financially / learn how to invest yourself and don't use a financial planner.
Don't trust anyone else with your money - nobody cares for it as much as you do.
Don't borrow money for investment purposes / in the stock market / unless you can afford to lose it and/or pay it back.
Don't mortgage your property. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. I knew this one prior to going to storm but they had an excellent sales pitch and we realised very early in the peace that we should never have allowed ourselves to be conned into this one.
Other financial planners don't and can't 'put all your eggs into one basket'. Why and how were storm able to recommend this as a wonderful financial strategy and to implement it for all of their clients?
I'd like some genuine answers that's all I want and to date I haven't got them. Everyone has their opinions but no one knows for sure. That's why this inquiry is so very important and so far storm and the banks are both smelling more than a bit 'off'. I'm questioning everyone's 'code of conduct' who are involved in this human tragedy.
I do know and have paperwork to prove what we had written down regarding our income / expenditure and the low level of risk that we were prepared to take, and the comments made by our local storm advisor.
I know what is on some of the banks paperwork and the two don't relate at all.
What we need to find out is where the information 'changed.' It is possible / highly likely that this was a storm headquarters decision. Nothing has been proved here that I'm aware of. I'm not 'blaming' the banks but I want to know what their involvement was as without their complicity none of this could have occurred could it?
There are retirees only on the old age pension who were given hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans. Their 'earnings' have been over-inflated and the bank may not be responsible for this information, but are they responsible to checking to make sure it's true? or do they just accept what a financial planner has told them? I don't know how this has occurred and we're all hoping the inquiry will throw some light on this.
Julia I do have my moments when I am anything but strong emotionally and I also have my moments when I am so angry and feel extremely strong so it's a bit of an emotional roller coaster ride really. I know I'm still at the crawling stage but have little choice but to go on and succeed or go under and it would be so easy to go under. I try desperately to cope and to look forward and this is my way of coping is to try and understand what happened here.
We made a huge huge mistake. We went to a registered financial planner who had an excellent sales pitch and they 'convinced' us that this was the way for us to invest for our future. Result utter financial destruction. I know that we were not savvy investors that's why we did it. Our biggest mistake was trusting them to do the right thing by us. Do others trust their financial advisors?
What have I learnt from this? -
Do your own research - educate yourself financially / learn how to invest yourself and don't use a financial planner.
Don't trust anyone else with your money - nobody cares for it as much as you do.
Don't borrow money for investment purposes / in the stock market / unless you can afford to lose it and/or pay it back.
Don't mortgage your property. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. I knew this one prior to going to storm but they had an excellent sales pitch and we realised very early in the peace that we should never have allowed ourselves to be conned into this one.
Other financial planners don't and can't 'put all your eggs into one basket'. Why and how were storm able to recommend this as a wonderful financial strategy and to implement it for all of their clients?
I'd like some genuine answers that's all I want and to date I haven't got them. Everyone has their opinions but no one knows for sure. That's why this inquiry is so very important and so far storm and the banks are both smelling more than a bit 'off'. I'm questioning everyone's 'code of conduct' who are involved in this human tragedy.
Harleyquin,
I recognise that you are in a fragile state both emotionally and financially but Gad! from what you have written above, while you may not realise it, you have taken HUGH strides.:star:
- Joined
- 22 August 2009
- Posts
- 274
- Reactions
- 0
I realise from reading through the posts that I perhaps need to correct myself on one point ,not that's its a major concern but I have said somewhere that we didn't borrow for a home, we did borrow for our first home.
If the information which came out at yesterday's hearing is anything to go by there will no doubt be more of the same today. All a bit grubby really isn't it. So who is surprised? There is a lot more information to come out and its not going to look good for storm or the banks.
If the information which came out at yesterday's hearing is anything to go by there will no doubt be more of the same today. All a bit grubby really isn't it. So who is surprised? There is a lot more information to come out and its not going to look good for storm or the banks.
Harleyquin,
Slightly off topic, but thought I'd share one of my methods of coping with "the fallout".
I tend to be an "emotional eater" and find I often reach for the chocolate/pizza/pastries/wine etc when feeling depressed, stressed or just plain sorry for myself. Not surprisingly, my waistline has bloomed as my wealth has dwindled - to the point where I now find it increasingly difficult to squeeze myself into my clothes - but can't afford to buy new ones!
I've also found a bit more free time in the day now that there isn't quite as much bad news to discover each morning, most of the paperwork to banks/solicitors etc is done etc and have reluctantly come to the conclusion that there is sadly no alternative open to me but to exercise. Not my favourite thing.
It makes you feel better. The experts will tell you about endorphins etc, and it's true. I find once I make myself make the effort, I really do feel much better. When you're walking in the early morning with the sun on your face, the birds chirping away madly, some music in your ears etc, it's easier to remember that being broke needn't be the end of the world, and you still have something to be grateful for - even if it's only the fact that you're still upright and breathing.
My pants are still too tight, but I plan to haul out my son's old punching bag and tape a photo of a certain couple from up north on it - no telling how skinny I'll wind up before I'm sick of belting it!!
Slightly off topic, but thought I'd share one of my methods of coping with "the fallout".
I tend to be an "emotional eater" and find I often reach for the chocolate/pizza/pastries/wine etc when feeling depressed, stressed or just plain sorry for myself. Not surprisingly, my waistline has bloomed as my wealth has dwindled - to the point where I now find it increasingly difficult to squeeze myself into my clothes - but can't afford to buy new ones!
I've also found a bit more free time in the day now that there isn't quite as much bad news to discover each morning, most of the paperwork to banks/solicitors etc is done etc and have reluctantly come to the conclusion that there is sadly no alternative open to me but to exercise. Not my favourite thing.
It makes you feel better. The experts will tell you about endorphins etc, and it's true. I find once I make myself make the effort, I really do feel much better. When you're walking in the early morning with the sun on your face, the birds chirping away madly, some music in your ears etc, it's easier to remember that being broke needn't be the end of the world, and you still have something to be grateful for - even if it's only the fact that you're still upright and breathing.
My pants are still too tight, but I plan to haul out my son's old punching bag and tape a photo of a certain couple from up north on it - no telling how skinny I'll wind up before I'm sick of belting it!!
So now I understand. It has to be right even though it turned out wrong - or something like that.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26209237-952,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26209237-952,00.html
At any storm "education seminar" it was always emphasised that investing in property was always a poor choice and many charts were displayed to "prove" the superiority of shares vs property as an investment choice. Property was viewed as a "lazy asset" that had to be made to work by borrowing against it to invest in - you guessed it - a storm index fund.
I guess it's hard to collect a trailing commission on a property investment....
This is another reason I'd welcome a change to the way financial planners are paid - there's no incentive for them to recommend property investment, no matter how appropriate it may be for the client, whilst they are paid via commissions. If a flat fee were charged it would make no difference to the adviser where the funds were invested, and think this would lead to much less biased "advice".
Just my
I guess it's hard to collect a trailing commission on a property investment....
This is another reason I'd welcome a change to the way financial planners are paid - there's no incentive for them to recommend property investment, no matter how appropriate it may be for the client, whilst they are paid via commissions. If a flat fee were charged it would make no difference to the adviser where the funds were invested, and think this would lead to much less biased "advice".
Just my
can anyone actually tell me what the Storm Missions Staement is?
Garpel you Stated...
Don't wait however for the Cassimatises to get their "just deserts" as described above.
Through a number of factors, mostly lack of street smarts and blind allegiance to a failed model, SICAG have set a scenario for them to get off with very little penalty, possibly a suspended sentence or a few months in a low security facility.
Exactly how is SICAG setting up a scenario for "them" to get off lightly ? I understand your problem with SICAG as you have articulated this a lot. But please explain how SICAG is going to influence the findings of a Senate inquiry, an ASIC inquiry and the Worrells Inquiry in such way that any penalties against the Cassimatises are minimised. I failI to see how the points you listed after the above quote can have any influence on penalties when they are handed out. It is absurd to suggest that this group is attempting to reduce any penalty against the Cassimatises. How and Why exactly would they do this ?
SICAG is "based in Redcliffe or the Sunshine Coast" because this is where the founders live. Whether you live in Redcliffe, Townsville , Sydney or wherever you are still able to participate with the Group. Hence their visits to Rocky, Cairns, Townsville, Mackay etc. It is a shame that in your contributions to this forum Garpel, which are often very insightful and provide interesting analysis usually also contain a "shot" at SICAG which appears to be included for no other reason than to be a malicious attempt to discredit what they are attempting to do to support those who have chosen to join the group.
Don't wait however for the Cassimatises to get their "just deserts" as described above.
Through a number of factors, mostly lack of street smarts and blind allegiance to a failed model, SICAG have set a scenario for them to get off with very little penalty, possibly a suspended sentence or a few months in a low security facility.
Exactly how is SICAG setting up a scenario for "them" to get off lightly ? I understand your problem with SICAG as you have articulated this a lot. But please explain how SICAG is going to influence the findings of a Senate inquiry, an ASIC inquiry and the Worrells Inquiry in such way that any penalties against the Cassimatises are minimised. I failI to see how the points you listed after the above quote can have any influence on penalties when they are handed out. It is absurd to suggest that this group is attempting to reduce any penalty against the Cassimatises. How and Why exactly would they do this ?
SICAG is "based in Redcliffe or the Sunshine Coast" because this is where the founders live. Whether you live in Redcliffe, Townsville , Sydney or wherever you are still able to participate with the Group. Hence their visits to Rocky, Cairns, Townsville, Mackay etc. It is a shame that in your contributions to this forum Garpel, which are often very insightful and provide interesting analysis usually also contain a "shot" at SICAG which appears to be included for no other reason than to be a malicious attempt to discredit what they are attempting to do to support those who have chosen to join the group.
- Joined
- 22 August 2009
- Posts
- 274
- Reactions
- 0
That's right Specialed SICAG was started near Brisbane but those of us who have joined SICAG and live elsewhere can contact all of the Committee at any time by email or phone and they are amazingly patient people despite being in the same position as we all are. The Committee are to be congratulated for their work and SICAG members are able to support each other emotionally. We don't need the ASF for emotional support as we have all the support we need elsewhere.
- Joined
- 27 April 2009
- Posts
- 347
- Reactions
- 0
At any storm "education seminar" it was always emphasised that investing in property was always a poor choice and many charts were displayed to "prove" the superiority of shares vs property as an investment choice. Property was viewed as a "lazy asset" that had to be made to work by borrowing against it to invest in - you guessed it - a storm index fund.
I guess it's hard to collect a trailing commission on a property investment....
This is another reason I'd welcome a change to the way financial planners are paid - there's no incentive for them to recommend property investment, no matter how appropriate it may be for the client, whilst they are paid via commissions. If a flat fee were charged it would make no difference to the adviser where the funds were invested, and think this would lead to much less biased "advice".
Just my
Probably because it is more efficient to invest in the stockmarket than have investment properties. Their strategy was sound, up to the point where the gearing ratios became too high and therefore too risky.
Red flags should have been ringing in peoples minds when they looked at theories such as "the dam"
I mean why would I willingly have eg
$1000000 loan at 8%
$100000 "dam" at 3.5%
instead of
$900000 loan.
and hence a lower gearing ratio
and save $$ per year in interest.
?????
Oh that's right, storm got a trailing commission off BOTH your dam AND your margin loan, and hence in the above example are making commissions on 1.1 million instead of 900k... I told many storm investors about ripoffs such as this, but of course they said that they were making x% and how this was their buffer.
PLUS
Financial advisors should be able to charge what they like, it is the people who should make the decision to invest. Storm charged massive upfront fees for pathetically simple "advice" ( you have $x borrow $y and invest in an index fund ) and people were prepared to pay for it.
This is almost the same as people who pay full fee realestate agent ripoff commissions when they could get flat fee service.
