Storm Financial Group

Solly · 3 November 2009

Harleyquin said:
I have no intention of not posting again. When I pay someone who advertises on TV as storm did to come in and see them and they would look after us financially, I expected just that and paid them darn good money for their so called 'expertise.' I have days when of course I blame myself and days when I don't and try to forgive myself for getting sucked in by a con artist and company. I'm well aware that it's possible to make good money on a falling market as our storm advisor told us they would take advantage of a falling market...another lie.... and I would expect that there are many of you who have taken advantage of this. I've never bought a share in my life and wouldn't know where to start. Now that storm has collapsed we are floundering as far as a financial plan for the future goes, we have none and little hope of ever having one again.

I am educating myself financially and now know a lot more than I did a couple of years ago. I believed that it was possible to go to a financial planner and they would look after our financial needs as that's what we were paying them for. Nowadays I wouldn't even pay a financial planner a visit. I will be seeking compensation from all of those who have helped to destroy us as destroy us they have. We like so many other retirees and near retirees will no longer own a home or be able to travel we will be totally reliant on all of you who are making a mint on a falling market to support us. Keep making the millions as our government is going to need all the money it can to support the thousands of us left destitute by this collapse.

Harleyquin, I'm interested to know how you were introduced to Storm. Was it a referral, media advertising, previous association to a Fin Adviser... ?

Julia · 3 November 2009

From one of the articles above:

"The feedback that we're getting is that they [resolution interview process] are proving to be quite painless, there was some debate initially whether or not our members should demand a face-to-face but as it unrolls we're determined that they are fairly innoxiously," Investors Consumer Action Group (SICAG) joint chairman Mark Weir said.

Can anyone translate Mr Weir's comment? Innoxiously?

Solly · 3 November 2009

Julia said:
From one of the articles above:

Can anyone translate Mr Weir's comment? Innoxiously?

Julia, I can only speculate but my (non-SICAG) Stormer mate was initially a bit concerned about a phone interview with the bank regarding his personal position but the interview went ahead well. I believe he has received no further news or progress yet.

Solly · 3 November 2009

Garpal Gumnut said:
Its there in black and blue, mate for all to see.

I doubt if any bank could be held responsible on that one paragraph alone, which was printed when Storm tried to list, detailing their alleged active management of clients LVR's.

Then I'm not a lawyer.

gg

gg, I believe that this is why my Stormer mate placed so much faith in the Storm model. He had confidence that all the back end systems were in place to monitor and take appropriate action to protect his investment. He did send his money off for the IPO but luckily it was returned.

I wish I had read his copy of the prospectus before he got involved. In hindsight there are a few details in it I would have sort further professional advice on and I also would have given it to some of my non-professional mates for a smell test.

I'm always questioning of so called software systems that monitor the markets.

Solly · 3 November 2009

" 'Clients were hysterical, we were hysterical' "

"Mrs Cassimatis yesterday used a public inquiry into Storm's spectacular failure to tip a bucket on the bank, accusing it of providing "useless" financial data, orchestrating a damaging media campaign and refusing to throw floundering clients a lifeline when it became clear the value of their investments had dived."

More by Christine Kellett on brisbanetimes.com.au;

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/clients-were-hysterical-we-were-hysterical-20091102-htib.html

Solly · 3 November 2009

"Slaters settles Storm claims"

http://www.thenewlawyer.com.au/article/Slaters-settles-Storm-claims/504091.aspx

shibby · 3 November 2009

Solly said:
"Storm head Julie Cassimatis denies getting email about $2m transfer"

"STORM Financial principal Julie Cassimatis claimed yesterday she never received an email sent by the company's chief financial officer which said she and her husband were not entitled to the $2 million they took out of the company as it faced insolvency."

Isn’t Julie a little gem, she would sell any one down the river wouldn’t she,
I will never know why the Storm staff have been so loyal to this couple when obviously it could never be returned. They will only ever save their own necks, if that means lying, or feigning memory loss, well so be it.

Is there anyone out there who reads this forum that knows anything about the relationship between Storm Financial and Macquarie Bank? Would it be possible to please post it on the web or contact me directly?

For instance why did Mr. Shepherd from Macquarie assume that Macquarie must notify Storm in cases of margin call over notifying their clients directly?

The sweetheart deal that Storm had with Macquarie was governed by the amount of money that Storm had brokered for Macquarie. Does anyone know anything about the finer points of that arrangement?

All we need is just any little bit of information that you are aware of so that it can point us in the right direction no matter how small, that information might just lead to a much larger bit of information.
There were over 1000 Storm Financial clients with Macquarie who have been decimated over that arrangement of not being contacted directly by Macquarie when the LVR reached 80%.

Some clients were completely sold out at the bottom of the market, even when their LVR’s were only 60%. Who made that decision was that a Storm decision or a Macquarie decision? As you know Macquarie was selling the margin loan side of the business.

Does anyone have any ideas on what actually took place?

Any information would be gratefully received.

Solly · 3 November 2009

"Storm email not received"

More in The Townsville Bulletin here;

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2009/11/03/91141_news.html

Judd · 3 November 2009

shibby said:
Does anyone have any ideas on what actually took place?

Any information would be gratefully received.

I assume you have not followed the link in Post #4196. Other than that I have no knowledge of the matter.

Judd · 3 November 2009

The one thing I haven't raised as I thought it was obvious is the issue of what happens to a margin loan, eg provided by Macquarie, when a product provider, eg Challaneger/CGI, decide to wind-up a product, eg, Storm-badged indexed fund.

Steve Borden · 3 November 2009

Judd said:
The one thing I haven't raised as I thought it was obvious is the issue of what happens to a margin loan, eg provided by Macquarie, when a product provider, eg Challaneger/CGI, decide to wind-up a product, eg, Storm-badged indexed fund.

Judd

The same as if the client or the margin lender had sold them, the funds are kept as cash cover for the loan until either the loan is repaid or if there was enough cash, the client re-entered the market.

Judd · 3 November 2009

Thank you. It is as I thought in that it would be relatively easy in those circumstances to go from say 60% gearing to 100% debt.

shibby · 3 November 2009

Judd said:
I assume you have not followed the link in Post #4196. Other than that I have no knowledge of the matter.

Well you assumed incorrectly.Thank you for that link I did download it at the time and I actually watched the direct telecast for the whole hour on my computer as well.
I wanted a little bit more background information than what has been diclosed publically.
To be frank I don't believe Macquarie, I think there is more to the relationship than has been disclosed so far.

Monario · 3 November 2009

Has anyone heard anymore on the Unregistered MIS front? This is a big one for E&J Cassimatis, I would love to hear anyones info on it. Would be hard to prove but if it is, someone is going to be in a depth of Poo in which I would not like to be placed.

specialed · 3 November 2009

Julia said:
From one of the articles above:

Can anyone translate Mr Weir's comment? Innoxiously?

I think you'll find the journo cant spell...innocuous (adjective) innocuously (adverb) ........having little or no adverse or harmful effect; harmless

specialed · 3 November 2009

Julia said:
Harleyquin, you have said all the above many, many times before.
I'm curious as to why you are determined to keep posting this on ASF?
It can't be unknown to you that several ASF members are becoming irritated by your repetitive protestations.

It's surely clear to you that ASF is not a support group for disaffected Storm clients. You have SICAG for your emotional support and you have long extolled the virtues of that organisation.

Human beings repeat behaviour that they find rewarding.
What then do you actually get out of posting on here?

Tad harsh Juila...I can assure you harleyquin is not the only one repeating themselves on this forum, and as for ASF members becoming irritated by her procrastinations, They can always leave. I can also be sure that many other ASF members, including myself get irritated by the many inaccurate, often malicious comments that are made which appear to be posted for no other reason then to stir people up. Nevertheless we accept peoples right to contribute and voice their opinions regardless of how ridiculous the statement is and ihow silly it makes them appear.........

Julia · 3 November 2009

specialed said:
I think you'll find the journo cant spell...innocuous (adjective) innocuously (adverb) ........having little or no adverse or harmful effect; harmless

Ah, thank you, specialed. Yes that would be it.

specialed said:
Tad harsh Juila...I can assure you harleyquin is not the only one repeating themselves on this forum, and as for ASF members becoming irritated by her procrastinations, They can always leave. I can also be sure that many other ASF members, including myself get irritated by the many inaccurate, often malicious comments that are made which appear to be posted for no other reason then to stir people up. Nevertheless we accept peoples right to contribute and voice their opinions regardless of how ridiculous the statement is and ihow silly it makes them appear.........

You have missed my point. This was that ASF is NOT a support group.
It's a forum, i.e. a place where people have a frank exchange of views.

Various Stormers, Harleyquin very much included, have sung the praises of SICAG and suggested that they have had wonderful emotional support from that source.

So I'm genuinely puzzled as to why anyone would want to be apparently masochistic enough to continue posting on a Forum where there is obviously a considerable volume of criticism in response.

I think most of us have at various times expressed sympathy for the predicament in which Stormers find themselves, and some of us have contacted some Stormers privately in an effort to be helpful.

But it's not our role to blindly agree and offer comfort when someone is, in our opinions, simply not making objective sense.

DocK · 4 November 2009

Julia said:
Ah, thank you, specialed. Yes that would be it.

You have missed my point. This was that ASF is NOT a support group.
It's a forum, i.e. a place where people have a frank exchange of views.

Various Stormers, Harleyquin very much included, have sung the praises of SICAG and suggested that they have had wonderful emotional support from that source.

So I'm genuinely puzzled as to why anyone would want to be apparently masochistic enough to continue posting on a Forum where there is obviously a considerable volume of criticism in response.

I think most of us have at various times expressed sympathy for the predicament in which Stormers find themselves, and some of us have contacted some Stormers privately in an effort to be helpful.

But it's not our role to blindly agree and offer comfort when someone is, in our opinions, simply not making objective sense.

Seems to me there's a good bit of difference between blindly agreeing with someone and requesting that they stop posting because they irritate you. I thought a forum was a place where all could voice their views, not just those that you approve of, or who share your viewpoint. Whatever Harlequin's reasons for posting are is irrelevant in my view (and I seriously doubt it would be looking for a support group!), the simple fact is he/she has every right to express a viewpoint, no matter whether you, or Bunyip, or indeed I, think it makes objective sense or not. The "considerable volume of criticism" seems to be coming from only a few posters, and there are no doubt others who agree with Harelquin at least to some extent, and yet others who share your views but don't feel the need to express them quite as forcefully.

I know I've found several posters to be quite "irritating" especially those with a warped view of the whole storm model, and ex-stormers in general. I ignore those posts, instead of seeking to correct them at every opportunity. If you find Harlequins posts so irritating, perhaps you should do likewise.

I don't believe long-term membership of ASF gives anyone the right to invite those they disdain to leave. Very bad manners in my view. Someone questioned Harlequin's motives for posting - frankly I don't care, but I'm beginning to questions others motives also. It does nobody any credit to stroke their own ego at the expense of another - particulary one who is obviously suffering emotionally at present.

Perhaps I've no right to be sticking my oar in here, but the tone of recent posts towards Harlequin offends my views of "fair play". So post away Harly, I don't care if you make a scrap of sense or not. Don't be bullied off this forum by anyone!

DocK · 4 November 2009

Solly said:
Julia, I can only speculate but my (non-SICAG) Stormer mate was initially a bit concerned about a phone interview with the bank regarding his personal position but the interview went ahead well. I believe he has received no further news or progress yet.

I'd also confirm that the interview process as part of the current resolution scheme was much less stressful than I had anticipated it would be. There was a very marked difference in the tone and general courtesy shown as compared to initial communications with the original "hardship team" several months ago. It does appear (at least superficially) that the CBA has changed its attitude markedly over the past year. I found the gentlemen I spoke with to be most professional.

Solly · 4 November 2009

"Storm examination cost passes $100K
Creditors still await millions"

"Worrells's public examination into the collapse of Storm Financial begins to rack up large price tag."

More by Kate Kachor in Investor Daily here;

http://www.investordaily.com/cps/rde/xchg/id/style/7777.htm

Storm Financial Group

Solly

Julia

In Memoriam

Solly

Solly

Solly

Solly

shibby

Solly

Judd

Judd

Steve Borden

Judd

shibby

Monario

specialed

specialed

Julia

In Memoriam

DocK

DocK

Solly

Similar threads

Storm Financial Group

In Memoriam

In Memoriam

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency