- Joined
- 21 December 2008
- Posts
- 4,532
- Reactions
- 1
It's Julia.
Apologies !!
It just seems to me that there is one remedy for those involved in the big failures, and none for those whose loss has been only as part of a much smaller operation.
It's Julia.
I have no 'animosity' toward any Storm clients. Just disbelief that so many people would engage in such risky investing at such a late stage in their lives, e.g. double gearing.
Much has been lamented about the possibility of people losing their homes.
Well, why put them at risk in the first place? Not to mention then borrowing further against that loan to buy more shares!!
If the banks have been less than professional in their lending criteria, then of course they should make amends.
I was simply making the point that there are thousands of other people over decades who, despite not taking the obvious risks that Storm clients took, have been victims of criminal behaviour, and who did not have the benefit of a huge media interest to spur class action and taxpayer funded investigations.
It just seems to me that there is one remedy for those involved in the big failures, and none for those whose loss has been only as part of a much smaller operation.
Julia, You make all of your comments based on the benefit of hind sight. One thing I have learnt over time is hind sight creates a new reality and opinions. Being in a situation is different to reflecting back and forming an outside opinion.
Just that it would be much appreciated if you learned to use the QUOTE Tags properly so that it didn't appear that I was the one offering apologies..any thoughts ???
I don't wish to be rude, Pegasus, but that's complete nonsense.Julia, You make all of your comments based on the benefit of hind sight. One thing I have learnt over time is hind sight creates a new reality and opinions. Being in a situation is different to reflecting back and forming an outside opinion.
Thanks for that link, Solly. Most interesting, especially this extract with respect to the need for margin calls:"The Liquidation of Storm Financial "
"Salutory lessons for investors.
Tucker & Cowen Solicitors have been recently engaged by the liquidators of Storm Financial Limited, one of the largest financial services companies in Australia. "
http://www.prwire.com.au/pr/16762/the-liquidation-of-storm-financial
Salutory lessons for investors
Tucker & Cowen Solicitors have been recently engaged by the liquidators of Storm Financial Limited, one of the largest financial services companies in Australia.
The Lessons
Of particular interest was the rapidity of the collapse in this particular case. As noted above, the company had an extensive client base and considerable net profits at 30 June 2008, and yet six months and nine days later was insolvent, in administration with many of its clients financially ruined for the rest of their lives. It was particularly distressing in that a number of the clients of Storm who took financial advice were elderly or retired persons, who quite literally lost all of their life savings, and more in the collapse.
The lessons seem to be:-
1. Storm had a consistent model of advice whereby substantially the same advice was given to most of their clients. Storm’s directors argue that this is because the advice was only given to the sort of clients that the advice suited. Nevertheless, the losses suffered by many clients demonstrate that there were serious risks involved with the advice.
2. Although it is perhaps a lesson that has been learned many times before, everyone needs to be aware of the dangers of gearing. Gearing or leverage can certainly rapidly increase returns when times are good and markets are rising. It has an equal and opposite effect when markets are falling.
3. The rate of the fall in stock markets in late 2008 around the world was such that margin calls and stop losses did not operate as they ought to have, and clients who thought they had reserve or protected positions because of stop losses or margin calls, found that they in fact lost everything and those did not work.
4. Terms and conditions need to be read carefully. Most of Storm’s clients had margin loans through the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. The Commonwealth Bank’s terms and conditions provide the bank is not actually obliged to make any margin calls at all, and it is up to clients to monitor their own investments. Therefore, as always, be aware of the fine print.
Jifromoz, that's just a dreadful story. I'm so glad to see your raising the need for the focus to turn to the Cassimatises. I'm so far astonished by the few Stormers (or others) who have attributed an appropriate proportion of blame to them. I'm no apologist for any bank, but it seems that the banks have been the focus of all the anger simply because they have the capacity to pay, where the so called advisers may appear not to.Now if any storm financial supporters can tell me how my in-laws were going to get back into the market when it eventually turned around then let me know. The silence will be deafening I think.
Anyway, whilst their has been a lot of blame going around I can only hope that the blow torch soon turns onto Mr & Mrs C and their bunch of aiders and abetters. I know my in-laws are hurting in ways that I can only imagine but they are proud people and I know they will get through it. We help all we can, but damn it, it hurts and I'm not sure what to do now but I will continue to fight the good fight though.
First point - show enough respect for Julia to address her by her correct name.Julie,
This comment appears on face value to indicate that much of what seemed like a general animosity towards the storm clients (victims) by you is based more on the fact that you were unable to get compensation for your failed investment decisions, rather then a genuine understanding of the role a number of the parties and in particular the role of the CBA played in this affair.
The basis for the compensation is an admission of some culpability in this affair. Further, as the compensation is based on 6 “test cases” bought before some highly respected legal experts, The decision to offer compensation is a reflection of the CBA's belief that the legal interpretation in these test cases is correct. This is after the CBA would have also gotten their own legal advice. Surely they therefore believe that if it were to go to court they risk losing substantially more than the current estimate of $ 300 million. A few cases here and there will ultimately cost them a lot less then a class action involving 2000 odd people, should they lose.
I hope some do “take it to the courts”, and some have indicated they will be. Although there is a risk it may well be locked in the legal system for some time I believe this needs to be tested in actual court, not just in a hypothetical one....
However, I doubt even this will change your opinion, that unfortunately appears to be quite dogmatic and not always based on an objective analysis...
Just that it would be much appreciated if you learned to use the QUOTE Tags properly so that it didn't appear that I was the one offering apologies.
With thanks.
I don't wish to be rude, but that's complete nonsense.
.
So forgive my view that Stormers are being quite fortunate in receiving compensation from anyone.
Julie,
This comment appears on face value to indicate that much of what seemed like a general animosity towards the storm clients (victims) by you is based more on the fact that you were unable to get compensation for your failed investment decisions, rather then a genuine understanding of the role a number of the parties and in particular the role of the CBA played in this affair.
First point - show enough respect for Julia to address her by her correct name.
It's absurd of you to accuse her of animosity towards Stormers just because she points out that they employed reckless borrowing practices including dangerous levels of gearing, and consequently should not be entitled to massive compensation payouts.
Disagree with her all you want, but leave the personal accusations out of it.
Just that it would be much appreciated if you learned to use the QUOTE Tags properly so that it didn't appear that I was the one offering apologies.
With thanks.
I don't wish to be rude, Pegasus, but that's complete nonsense.
If any of the Stormers had - before engaging in Storm's 'plan' - asked me if it was a good idea to (in or close to retirement) mortgage their homes to buy shares, especially when they didn't intend to check what valuation had been put on these homes, or to check what income had been stated as available to service the loan, I would have without question have suggested they stay away.
Moreover, if they had further suggested they were then going to once again borrow for a margin loan on those shares bought with borrowed money, I'd have been in a state of disbelief.
So hindsight has nothing to do with it.
The one fortunate fact is that with hindsight most of the Stormers now realise how risky the 'strategy' was and thankfully will not repeat the process.
There will always be the Cassimatises out there, just waiting to take advantage of naivete and blind trust. To imagine that such 'advisers' are primarily motivated by the welfare of their clients is to attribute to them a decency and humanity foreign to their conniving natures.
Agreed, I should have been more carefull with my typing and spelt her name correctly. Also it appears that I also have alot to learn about multiquote.
Julia did not state that stormers were not entitled to massive compensation payouts. As quoted above, she stated they are fortunate to recieve a payout from anyone.
The basis for the pay out is not restricted to the levels of grearing the customer had, but Im sure is in part a reflection of the poor banking practices that enabled such a high level of gearing to be taken by some who were in no position to support it, and with little understanding of what they were doing. As we are aware there a plenty of stormers who were not highly geared at all. Even these with very low levels of gearing will still recieve payouts as the payout is based on a range of factors.
I agree, Julie is welcome to her opinion and so am I. I clearly stated a personal comment where I FEEL she has shown an amimosity towards storm clients seeking compensation, or more specifically a frustration with the fact that they are recieving payouts where she could not. Further, it was Julia who drew the link between her not getting compensated in seemingly small collapse versus those in larger collapses who do seek out and recieve compensation..
Finally, I didnt know I had a comment withdrawn by the moderator. It surprises me that I did not receive an email so at least I know when I crossed a line. Can you tell me what specifically I wrote that was removed ?
specialed,
You are a very annoying person, spelling someone's name persistently wrong.
It shows a certain lack of respect, manners and is a reflection on your upbringing, education or environment.
You do not deserve to be a rich Aussiestock person and your misfortune with Storm is to me not a surprise.
Are you a Financial Adviser?
gg
Agreed, I should have been more carefull with my typing and spelt her name correctly. Also it appears that I also have alot to learn about multiquote.
I agree, Julie is welcome to her opinion
Obviously. Hence your determination to use my name incorrectly again.I pride myself on my ability to annoy
WOW, are you serious ?
Finally, I didnt know I had a comment withdrawn by the moderator. It surprises me that I did not receive an email so at least I know when I crossed a line. Can you tell me what specifically I wrote that was removed ?
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?