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 agree, Manny will probably get away with it, and the underlings will go to gaol.

The lower orders need to spit out all they know, as their chances for doing so are receding by the day.

I have the names of 11 of the Secret 60 by the way.

gg
 
"Storm Financial investors to fight Commonwealth Bank"

"HUNDREDS of former Storm Financial investors are preparing to launch individual action against the Commonwealth Bank to recoup their life savings.

Others are also considering suing law firm Slater and Gordon, which has been facilitating a resolution scheme for clients, if investors do not win back adequate compensation."

More by Mitch Gaynor in The Courier Mail here;

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26381241-3102,00.html
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
I'm not worried about defamation as naming them would not defame them, I just wouldn't feel comfortable publicising the names.

gg
Click to expand...

Yeh , but it will if you have one name wrong or one fact wrong...

If you have any wealth accumulated its not worth the risk....

And the moderators of this forum would be implicated if they left it up..... So not here not now eyyy

Yep let it go public.
 

Now this is what I call making good and proper preparation for a lawyers' picnic.

If this is true, they really need to cast off the moniker of "victim" and assume that of "investor possibly done over by big bank/law frm" and be upfront and go for what they can get.

In this situation in the past the only people who win are the lawyers and the banks rarely suffer. Just look at Opes Prime where some really smart people were done over. Not saying the Stormers aren't smart by the way.

I wonder if this is part of the SICAG Model?

gg
 
Grey Ghost said:
GG When and how do you expect it to become public knowledge?
Click to expand...

Soon.

Very soon.

I heard it in the Great Northern Hotel last week from an estate agent, who also mentioned that Manny's mansion has had a fair few interested buyers who on closer inspection decided not to go any further.

Its been bloody hot up here this week so we haven't been talking much just drinking.

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
I'd prefer to wait until its public knowledge.




I'm not worried about defamation as naming them would not defame them, I just wouldn't feel comfortable publicising the names.

gg
Click to expand...

So if I understand this right you have been stating all week that SICAG should name the secret 60 but you are not willing to ?

And now

"HUNDREDS of former Storm Financial investors are preparing to launch individual action against the Commonwealth Bank to recoup their life savings."

Storm Financial investors to fight Commonwealth Bank at http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26381241-3102,00.html

Does anyone know who the "Secret hundreds are", I'm sure SICAG do and I'm sure they should name all of them straight away.......
 

Yes mate, you've got it in one.

I think SICAG should name them. It will go a long way towards helping the SICAG Model, as most posters on this thread understand that model.

Its the least SICAG can do.

And the victims don't need your flippant attitude.

Let them sue individually, but they don't have as much dosh squirreled out last December or January of this year as some.

gg
 

LOL......Maybe they should sue themselves for risking their family homes in such a highly adventurous escapade as heavily gearing into the stockmarket!

I can just imagine the thinking of some of the law firms who have their noses out of joint because Slater & Gordon won the Storm business.
These firms now see a second chance to have a bite of the pie by suing S & G on behalf of unhappy Storm clients.
Win lose or draw, there will be big dollars in it for them.

Don't you just love the hungry, greedy, dog eat dog mentality of lawyers!
 
GG,

This smacks of hypocrisy.

How is it you could be so critical of SICAG for not naming the secret 60, when now you refuse to do so yourself?
 
"Former Storm Financial planners face industry probe"

"ABOUT a third of the planners who promoted investments in failed Storm Financial face scrutiny from the nation's peak financial planning body.

The Financial Planning Association has launched an investigation of 11 members who comprised part of the 34-strong advisory team that worked for the Townsville-based firm."

More by Anthony Marx in The Courier Mail here;

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26384693-3122,00.html
 
"Shattered by Storm"

"Townsville single father Steve Reynolds is one of 14,000 former Storm Financial clients anxiously waiting for a politician in Canberra to start talking tonight.

Shattered dad just wants to keep his house."

Read more by Peter Michael on the front page of today's Courier Mail.
 
Ferret said:
GG,

This smacks of hypocrisy.

How is it you could be so critical of SICAG for not naming the secret 60, when now you refuse to do so yourself?
Click to expand...

Thats a fair call I suppose.

One I know of has suffered huge financial losses in other ways and I didn't want to add to his pain.

They have sixty names, I only have 11, that would be my mitigation.

No its a fair call, on reflection. It is hypocritical of me.

gg
 


Just to make everyone feel sick I was speaking to a partner from a Firm(not S and G)only yesterday, who's making a presentation this week with regards Storm. Whether this figure applies to this brief I could only speculate, But with regard to their specialty, the firm books them out at $800/hr, this was a pre GFC rate. And life as a partner is all about billable hours.
 
Storm clients wanting to sue S&G for not getting them their life-savings back, or not as much as they thought?

The greedy pricks should be thankful for what they get back, I know my mother sure is.

Sorry, I got done over by Storm as well, but this 'sloped shoulders' (as we like to call it in the military) whereby it's everyone's fault but theirs, really gets on my goat. People need to take SOME responsibility for their own apathy and misplaced faith.
 
Hi Everyone,

The report is out. Go to :

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/report/report.pdf

One of the points raised
" This points the committee towards the
inescapable conclusion that there was something about Storm”” be it their staffing and
resourcing levels, their computing systems, the degree of leverage in their model, their
understanding of their responsibility in relation to margin calls, or a combination of
these and other factors””which led to an inability to receive, handle and resolve
margin calls during the critical period before their customers went into negative equity
and were sold out of the market. The committee does recognise that the rate at which
market conditions were changing, taken together with the number of client accounts
that would have been going into margin call at the same time, would create a
formidable administrative burden. However, Storm is alone among the advisory
groups in having ended up in a situation characterised by such catastrophic losses for its clients."
 
Ironhalo said:
Storm clients wanting to sue S&G for not getting them their life-savings back, or not as much as they thought?

The greedy pricks should be thankful for what they get back, I know my mother sure is.
Click to expand...

Ironhalo how much did your mother actually get back?
If you don't want to put a dollar figure on it a percentage of her losses will do.
And how much did she have to pay S & G as well?
 
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
866
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
61
Views
6K
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...