Storm Financial Group

[Julia]

Some stormified think that they should get back their portfolio, which was mainly margin and home loan/s because of high LVRs.

Just a reminder to those who are still to commit funds to lawyers in an attempt to recoup their Storm losses, posted in January 2009.

gg

there have been many posters on this thread who unequivocally stated that nobody would ever see any compensation from a bank, and neither should they.

Did anyone unequivocally state this? I think many of us, probably on the basis of only ever being ethically treated by banks, felt it was more the responsibility of Cassimatis to make compensation, given it was his advice that was so unprofessional. There were posts by Stormers which agreed with this but nonetheless thought the banks should be the main targets because clearly they could afford to pay. Some of us felt that such reasoning was somewhat lacking in morality. But hey, they're the banks, who cares?

CBA have admitted some fault, and made some reparation which is quite as it should be. It does not, however, address the role of Cassimatis.

Many felt that any compensation wasn't "deserved" even though they clearly could not possibly be aware of each person's circumstances. Some even appeared to be personally affronted that compensation could be granted. Some seem to find it difficult to swallow that compensation could be granted to ex-stormers, who clearly have only themselves to blame , when they've had to bear the cost of their own past mistakes uncompensated.

A question for you, Dock: do you really think CBA would have been forthcoming with compensation if Storm hadn't collapsed, if such large numbers had not been involved both in terms of clients and dollars borrowed, and these two factors had not combined to entice Slater and Gordon to become involved?

Obviously it was going to be a public relations nightmare for CBA anyway, and the only way this could be ameliorated even slightly, was for Mr Norris to issue his mea culpa and compensation offered.

Do you really think if a lone Stormer had had exactly the outcome he/she did, without all the publicity and legal assistance, the CBA would have been so "honourable"?

And, on the basis of that question, is it therefore fair that thousands of people in thousands of situations where they have been dudded by criminal behaviour but unable to access the same level of publicity, should not be compensated?

Pilots, you certainly haven't been alone on this thread in voicing the opinion that ex-stormers had it coming and shouldn't expect to receive any compensation for their own stupidity (although you have been one of the most derogatory).

Dock, as has been noted before, this is a stock forum, not a support group and members are fully entitled to express their view that the sort of double gearing that some Stormers engaged in was extremely risky. Usually it follows that if one engages in extremely risky behaviour, one should be prepared for the outcome to be less than happy. That is quite different from saying that any Stormer as a person is stupid.

You, yourself have clearly stated that you'd never be involved in any similar arrangement again, so obviously you now think it was foolish, or at best naive. That is all most ASF members who have been critical have been saying.

However, it all seems to have turned out quite well for you, and that's good.
I'm not sure, though, that gloating doesn't rather sour the victory, and neither does it address the lack of attention to the responsibility of Cassimatis in the whole matter.

 

[DocK]

Did anyone unequivocally state this? I think many of us, probably on the basis of only ever being ethically treated by banks, felt it was more the responsibility of Cassimatis to make compensation, given it was his advice that was so unprofessional. There were posts by Stormers which agreed with this but nonetheless thought the banks should be the main targets because clearly they could afford to pay. Some of us felt that such reasoning was somewhat lacking in morality. But hey, they're the banks, who cares?

CBA have admitted some fault, and made some reparation which is quite as it should be. It does not, however, address the role of Cassimatis.

CBA have admitted some blame, so yes, they should compensate where necessary. Cassimatis should be responsible for compensation, but if he is unable/unwilling/not made to does it make any sense that every other body at fault is let off the hook also? Seems like very flawed logic to me. Surely you're not suggesting that because Cassimatis has not paid any compensation that all ex-stormers should "take the moral high road" and absolve the CBA of the blame they themselves have admitted to??? I'm quite sure that ASIC will address the role of Cassimatis (to the best of their questionable ability) and he will no doubt be the subject of a few civil suits in the future as well.

A question for you, Dock: do you really think CBA would have been forthcoming with compensation if Storm hadn't collapsed, if such large numbers had not been involved both in terms of clients and dollars borrowed, and these two factors had not combined to entice Slater and Gordon to become involved?

Obviously it was going to be a public relations nightmare for CBA anyway, and the only way this could be ameliorated even slightly, was for Mr Norris to issue his mea culpa and compensation offered.

Do you really think if a lone Stormer had had exactly the outcome he/she did, without all the publicity and legal assistance, the CBA would have been so "honourable"?

And, on the basis of that question, is it therefore fair that thousands of people in thousands of situations where they have been dudded by criminal behaviour but unable to access the same level of publicity, should not be compensated?

This appears to be what annoys you most Julia, the fact that ex-stormers have succeeded in gaining some compensation through their sheer weight of numbers, and the media attention given to storm's collapse, where others (including yourself I recall) have not been compensated. I definitely agree that if I were a lone storm investor I would have had no chance of winning a fight against a giant such as the CBA. To put my opinion into perspective for you: several years ago my husband was made redundant from a job he had performed very well in for 15 years, due to the financial mismanagement of his employer. He arrived at work one morning to find the receivers in charge, and found he had no job, no redundancy pay, no long service leave, his superannuation had not been paid to his fund for several years and he was owed approx 10 weeks holiday pay. He received a tiny fraction of what he was owed. About the same time Ansett went belly up and there was a huge media outcry about the employees who had lost their jobs - the public consequently paid extra to fly so that Ansett ex-staff could receive their benefits - lucky them! I guess I could have got all bitter and twisted because they were getting what they were owed and my husband was not. Sour grapes only leave a bitter taste in your own mouth, and sometimes you just have to accept that all in life is not fair. Yes ex-stormers are going to be compensated because there are a lot of them and they wouldn't shut up and go away. No, you didn't get any compensation because you lost your money in a smaller profile situation and no lawyers were fighting over the chance to represent you. I guess you have the choice of thinking "half your luck" as I did with the Ansett employees who got lucky where my husband did not, or sticking with the sour grapes. Sometimes life is just not fair....

Dock, as has been noted before, this is a stock forum, not a support group and members are fully entitled to express their view that the sort of double gearing that some Stormers engaged in was extremely risky. Usually it follows that if one engages in extremely risky behaviour, one should be prepared for the outcome to be less than happy. That is quite different from saying that any Stormer as a person is stupid.

You, yourself have clearly stated that you'd never be involved in any similar arrangement again, so obviously you now think it was foolish, or at best naive. That is all most ASF members who have been critical have been saying.

However, it all seems to have turned out quite well for you, and that's good.
I'm not sure, though, that gloating doesn't rather sour the victory, and neither does it address the lack of attention to the responsibility of Cassimatis in the whole matter.

Julia, I'm quite sure any ex-stormer would have been quite aware that this is a stock forum and not a support group within reading the first few pages of this thread. Saying that does not give a person the right, in my opinion, to be downright rude, disparaging and insensitive. Those traits have applied to posters on both sides of the situation, and do nobody any credit. Some have only questioned strategies that don't fit their own ideas and a lively debate has ensued, which is fair enough, but others certainly have been nothing but inflamatory and insulting. If it gives a person pleasure to spew venom on a forum I guess that's their business, but I for one wonder what they gain from it? Some perverse pleasure from causing distress to a person totally unknown to them? I have noticed lately on other threads that you feel no hesitation in chastising posters who you feel have shown poor taste or a lack of courtesy - should this thread be a free-for-all?

Interesting that you should read my post as gloating, as it was certainly not intended that way and I doubt many ex-stormers feel they have much left to gloat over. I posted as a reaction to the post Pilots made, as this sort of drivel makes me angry. This may be a stock forum, but posts such as Pilots' are not a discussion, they don't add any worthwhile content to the thread, they serve only to insult, inflame, deride and belittle. I cannot understand what motivates such posts, and get sick to death of reading such tripe. So I posted a response. When challenged to provide evidence of "just one person who has got something back yet", I did. Not gloating, just stating the facts.

 

[pilots]

Dock, You have not got back what you have lost:bang head:, sure you got some back, if it was a good amount the banks would let to talk, you got back dam all. Remember this was MOSTLY your fault NOT THE BANKS. Whats that old saying, if you do poo poo in your nest YOU MUST live with the smell.

 

[Julia]

Dock, I'm sorry to hear about your husband.
Of course life is not necessarily fair.

I was simply making the point that you have received compensation on the basis of all the noise surrounding the Storm collapse.

In so doing I mentioned something that had happened to me many years ago, a situation where I'd borrowed nothing, or taken obvious risks. This was in contrast to Stormers. The amount involved I would now consider peanuts but it did matter at the time. I am sincerely wishing I'd never mentioned it as it has allowed you to (quite wrongly) suggest I am motivated by "sour grapes", rather than simply using it as a comparison with the media fuss surrounding Storm.

There are thousands of people who have been misused by criminal actions of others who have had no chance of redress or compensation. My own situation was merely an example of this and intended to point up the advantage enjoyed by Stormers in contrast.


You are essentially accusing me of harshness and insensitivity. Maybe ask a few Stormers with whom I've had considerable PM contact.

Yes, I have drawn attention to the insensitivity of some posters who mocked a new member about his/her disability.
That is imo a completely different situation from being critical of a double gearing financial strategy that had no exit plan. I have no idea why you think it appropriate to compare the two situations.
I have at no stage mocked or made fun of you.


Yes, I was, am and always will be critical of the double gearing particularly for those in or nearing retirement. So you won't get any apology from me for that.

I suggest we leave the exchange here. Further acrimony is not useful.
I wish you all the best for the rest of your life. I gather from posts elsewhere that you have a happy and healthy family. That is probably worth more than a bunch of money.

 

[Solly]

"Alarm bells ring over Storm offers"

"There are growing concerns former Storm Financial clients are being coerced into accepting compensation offers made by Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA)."

More by Kate Kachor in Investor Daily here;

http://www.investordaily.com/cps/rde/xchg/id/style/8842.htm

 

[DocK]

snip,

Julia, I'm quite sure any ex-stormer would have been quite aware that this is a stock forum and not a support group within reading the first few pages of this thread. Saying that does not give a person the right, in my opinion, to be downright rude, disparaging and insensitive. Those traits have applied to posters on both sides of the situation, and do nobody any credit. Some have only questioned strategies that don't fit their own ideas and a lively debate has ensued, which is fair enough, but others certainly have been nothing but inflamatory and insulting. If it gives a person pleasure to spew venom on a forum I guess that's their business, but I for one wonder what they gain from it? Some perverse pleasure from causing distress to a person totally unknown to them? I have noticed lately on other threads that you feel no hesitation in chastising posters who you feel have shown poor taste or a lack of courtesy - should this thread be a free-for-all?

Interesting that you should read my post as gloating, as it was certainly not intended that way and I doubt many ex-stormers feel they have much left to gloat over. I posted as a reaction to the post Pilots made, as this sort of drivel makes me angry. This may be a stock forum, but posts such as Pilots' are not a discussion, they don't add any worthwhile content to the thread, they serve only to insult, inflame, deride and belittle. I cannot understand what motivates such posts, and get sick to death of reading such tripe. So I posted a response. When challenged to provide evidence of "just one person who has got something back yet", I did. Not gloating, just stating the facts.

Dock, I'm sorry to hear about your husband.
Of course life is not necessarily fair.

I was simply making the point that you have received compensation on the basis of all the noise surrounding the Storm collapse.

In so doing I mentioned something that had happened to me many years ago, a situation where I'd borrowed nothing, or taken obvious risks. This was in contrast to Stormers. The amount involved I would now consider peanuts but it did matter at the time. I am sincerely wishing I'd never mentioned it as it has allowed you to (quite wrongly) suggest I am motivated by "sour grapes", rather than simply using it as a comparison with the media fuss surrounding Storm.

There are thousands of people who have been misused by criminal actions of others who have had no chance of redress or compensation. My own situation was merely an example of this and intended to point up the advantage enjoyed by Stormers in contrast.


You are essentially accusing me of harshness and insensitivity. Maybe ask a few Stormers with whom I've had considerable PM contact.

Naturally I am not privy to your private contacts via PM with others, I have commented on how I perceive your attitude to be, based on those comments that you have made publicly on this thread. To me, their overall tone has been a reluctance to accept that the banks have a case to answer and a certain annoyance with the fact that people who indulged in what you see as risky behaviour should be compensated, regardless of who was actually at fault. You have mentioned several times, on this thread, the fact that you had lost money in the past and not been compensated, and the tenor of your posts regarding any compensation payable to ex-stormers has given me the distinct impression that it irks you to see "people who don't deserve to be compensated" receive some funds where those more deserving (perhaps yourself?) have not. Others are of course able to form their own views - those are mine and I stand by them. If I have misread you, so be it.

Yes, I have drawn attention to the insensitivity of some posters who mocked a new member about his/her disability.
That is imo a completely different situation from being critical of a double gearing financial strategy that had no exit plan. I have no idea why you think it appropriate to compare the two situations.
I have at no stage mocked or made fun of you.

If you re-read my post you will see that I was responding to Pilots. I am still confused at why you felt the need to respond to it in the first place. Your choice. I have stated quite clearly that being critical is fair enough, but being outright rude is not. Again, I was clear that I was referring to posts such as those made by Pilots. My reference to your habit of chastising others was made as I have noticed you are often quite quick to chastise insensitive posters, such as in the thread you refer to, but for some reason feel the need to remind me that this is a forum and not a support group when I choose to do likewise! At no time have I accused you of mocking or making fun of me, simply questioning why you should feel it OK for others to do so, or question my choice to respond to them.

Yes, I was, am and always will be critical of the double gearing particularly for those in or nearing retirement. So you won't get any apology from me for that.

I wouldn't be stupid enough to expect or want one. I am neither in, or particularly near retirement, and am wondering why you have raised this issue yet again. You clearly feel that any gearing is a bad thing, and you are entitled to your opinion. No doubt a conservative approach has served you well. I feel that a moderate level of gearing can be a useful tool for me - and I gather that my circumstances are quite different from yours. I have been quite clear on this thread as to my agreement that the levels of double gearing used by some of those in retirement were quite extreme and fraught with danger. However, to use an analogy - if a racing car driver were to crash during a race due to a flaw with his tyres, should the maker of the tyres be exempt from any responsibility because the driver was indulging in risky behaviour in the first place? My opinion is that if the tyres were faulty and exacerbated the injury to the driver then yes, they bear some blame. Your opinion appears to be that the driver shouldn't be asking for compensation as he was indulging in risky behaviour and shouldn't have been in the race in the first place. I don't think we're likely to agree on this issue, and am happy to agree to disagree.

I suggest we leave the exchange here. Further acrimony is not useful.
I wish you all the best for the rest of your life. I gather from posts elsewhere that you have a happy and healthy family. That is probably worth more than a bunch of money.

Fine with me - again, my exchange was with Pilots and not you in the first place, and my acrimony was directed at him/her. The response from Pilots (although barely intelligible) speaks for itself

I do indeed have a (mostly) happy and healthy family that I value beyond any amount of money. Finally, we agree on something

 

[specialed]

Naturally I am not privy to your private contacts via PM with others, I have commented on how I perceive your attitude to be, based on those comments that you have made publicly on this thread. To me, their overall tone has been a reluctance to accept that the banks have a case to answer and a certain annoyance with the fact that people who indulged in what you see as risky behaviour should be compensated, regardless of who was actually at fault. You have mentioned several times, on this thread, the fact that you had lost money in the past and not been compensated, and the tenor of your posts regarding any compensation payable to ex-stormers has given me the distinct impression that it irks you to see "people who don't deserve to be compensated" receive some funds where those more deserving (perhaps yourself?) have not. Others are of course able to form their own views - those are mine and I stand by them. If I have misread you, so be it.

Tread carefully DocK, last time I went down this path and made a similiar observation I was red flagged...and trust me..dont what ever you do spell anyones name incorrectly !!

 

[bunyip]

Tread carefully DocK, last time I went down this path and made a similiar observation I was red flagged...and trust me..dont what ever you do spell anyones name incorrectly !!

You might get some respect on this thread if you posted something of substance, instead of trying to be half smart and making failed attempts to be funny.

 

[Joe Blow]

An important message to all thread participants:

Please be careful not to mess up your

tags. I have just had to edit three posts with messed up quote tags, all due to one post with an extra

in it.

After you have submitted your post please take a moment to review it and ensure that it is correctly formatted and that there are no extra

tags, as all it takes is one to mess up a whole series of posts.

If you are not familiar with how the

tags work, please take a few minutes to review this thread: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2737

Henceforth, posts that do not use the

tags correctly will be deleted. What happens is quotes end up being attributed to the wrong people and it becomes extremely confusing trying to figure out who is saying what.

 

[Julia]

Agreed. The account I read of the settlement was in today's "The Australian". No longer have the paper but was rather surprised at the implication in the way the article was written that it was the CBA who inflated the property values and borrowers' incomes.
Throughout this thread, no one has actually been able to say where this inflating of values occurred, and I guess most of us assumed it would have been by Cassimatis.

If that's wrong, and the bank has indeed exaggerated dollar amounts, then for sure they do need to provide compensation, although I still can't understand how the client didn't - when reading the loan paperwork - see the figures involved in servicing the loan (surely these were provided???) and understand that the amounts involved did not represent either the value of their home or their income.

Maybe I'm quite misunderstanding this situation.

Well, obviously I am naive in imagining no borrower would engage in a loan when they had not seen the valuation attributed to the property by the lender or the income attributed to the borrower.



Clearly, you yourself would never do anything similar again. My comment was not directed personally toward you, DocK. I have, however, read many comments from Stormers who still believe there was nothing wrong with the double gearing strategy, and that their demise is entirely the fault of the banks. That is what I was referring to and I stand by my comment.

I have commented on how I perceive your attitude to be, based on those comments that you have made publicly on this thread. To me, their overall tone has been a reluctance to accept that the banks have a case to answer and a certain annoyance with the fact that people who indulged in what you see as risky behaviour should be compensated, regardless of who was actually at fault.

This exchange is becoming farcical but my last part of it will be to correct you here.
Above are the two posts where I expressed my reaction to the question of compensation.
Surprised? Yes. I'm very surprised and disappointed that banks have behaved inappropriately. Annoyed? No. Makes no difference to me.

You have mentioned several times, on this thread, the fact that you had lost money in the past and not been compensated,

No. That is a complete misrepresentation. I described just once what had happened to me. I further referred to thousands of other instances which occur every day along the same lines.

and the tenor of your posts regarding any compensation payable to ex-stormers has given me the distinct impression that it irks you to see "people who don't deserve to be compensated" receive some funds where those more deserving (perhaps yourself?) have not. Others are of course able to form their own views - those are mine and I stand by them. If I have misread you, so be it.

You have indeed misread me and I find it pretty insulting that you can't see I was describing the wider principle of injustice compared with the media circus that has surrounded Storm with its PR implications for the banks.
The amount I lost I'd make in a week these days, so I'm hardly likely to be nursing 'sour grapes' over something which happened half a lifetime ago!

If you re-read my post you will see that I was responding to Pilots. I am still confused at why you felt the need to respond to it in the first place.

Fairly obviously because your remarks were contained in a post to me.

If your comments were directed toward Pilots, I'd have thought it more logical to make them in a direct post to him, rather than contained in a post to me.

 

[Solly]

I've just been re-reading some old posts and am wondering what has happened to Big Max.

Does anybody know if Big Max is still around ?

 

[Solly]

"Storm clients chase better compo deal"

"MANY of the victims of the Storm Financial disaster are swapping law firms to chase better compensation arrangements from the banks."

More by Tony Raggatt in the Townsville Bulletin here;

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2010/03/30/126385_news.html

 

[Solly]

"Storm clients chase better compo deal"

"MANY of the victims of the Storm Financial disaster are swapping law firms to chase better compensation arrangements from the banks."

More by Tony Raggatt in the Townsville Bulletin here;

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2010/03/30/126385_news.html

There is an interesting reader comment following this article by a former Storm client.

 

[Solly]

"Law firm's warning over Storm alternative"

"LAW firm Slater and Gordon has rejected suggestions many of the victims of the Storm Financial disaster are moving to rival law firms to chase better compensation arrangements from the banks."

More by Tony Raggatt in the Townsville Bulletin here;

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2010/03/31/126875_news.html

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I've just been re-reading some old posts and am wondering what has happened to Big Max.

Does anybody know if Big Max is still around ?

He got a job training moneyspiders down at the Coast. He's planning to start a circus, with them as star attraction.,

gg

 

[I am Sparticus]

Hi All,
I have been a long time watcher and now 1st time poster. Just thought I would throw in my 2 cents worth.
So let’s get this out in the open:
Yes, I am a financial planner
NO, I have never worked for Storm
Yes, I did work at the CBA for a long period
NO, I had nothing to do with the Storm ‘Cell’ that handled their applications
Yes, I do have a similar strategy in place for some of my current clients
Yes, I do believe that in the right circumstances, this type of plan can be very effective
Yes, I do know some ex-Storm advisors

This whole saga has been a very sad one. As already stated many times on this website by other posters, you can’t paint everyone with the same brush. Greed, naivety, and some stupidity have played a part in this drama from nearly everyone involved.

I am not going to go on with ‘well I do this, and I do that, and my strategy is better!!’ but this strategy can be very effective for the clients IN THE CORRECT CIRCUMSTANCES!!!!! Gearing pensioners and those who do not have ample cash-flow to support it, is nothing short of simply breath-taking in its audacity!! And, I have to include this, those of you who paid these absolutely gob-smacking, extravagant fees…..well, enough said

I do believe that the bank has done something good here. Regardless of how much the compensation is, it is still something. To be honest, I never thought any compensation from the bank would happen.

However, I do not believe in any way, shape, or form that they are 100% responsible for this mess, not even 20%. I do believe that this lies squarely at the feet of the Heralded Leader of Storm. I have a large number of clients and when the GFC hit we were informed constantly of their position and we then acted on the info and made moves to avoid margin calls. The companies that we deal with are no different to the companies that storm dealt with. For this reason the vast majority of my clients avoid the dreaded call.

I do hope that with the compensation and cases going through the courts, that the issue of incorrect advice given by Storm to certain clients, and the negligence that they showed in not acting, does not get lost on the public and those involved.

I know there is nothing ground breaking in my little rant, but my last paragraph is really a concern for me. Even though they won’t get one red nickel from EC, I can only hope that his hand in this is not forgotten or goes unpunished.
Cheers

 

[Julia]

Spartacus, thanks for your comments. Your combined position of being a FP and having worked with CBA obviously lend weight to your views.

 

[Solly]

....I have a large number of clients and when the GFC hit we were informed constantly of their position and we then acted on the info and made moves to avoid margin calls. The companies that we deal with are no different to the companies that storm dealt with. For this reason the vast majority of my clients avoid the dreaded call........

This is an interesting point you raise, at the hearing at Harry's there was quite some discussion regarding CBA's interactions with Storm and the information flow between them.

 

[bunyip]

Hi All,
I have been a long time watcher and now 1st time poster. Just thought I would throw in my 2 cents worth.
So let’s get this out in the open:
Yes, I am a financial planner
NO, I have never worked for Storm
Yes, I did work at the CBA for a long period
NO, I had nothing to do with the Storm ‘Cell’ that handled their applications
Yes, I do have a similar strategy in place for some of my current clients
Yes, I do believe that in the right circumstances, this type of plan can be very effective
Yes, I do know some ex-Storm advisors

This whole saga has been a very sad one. As already stated many times on this website by other posters, you can’t paint everyone with the same brush. Greed, naivety, and some stupidity have played a part in this drama from nearly everyone involved.

I am not going to go on with ‘well I do this, and I do that, and my strategy is better!!’ but this strategy can be very effective for the clients IN THE CORRECT CIRCUMSTANCES!!!!! Gearing pensioners and those who do not have ample cash-flow to support it, is nothing short of simply breath-taking in its audacity!! And, I have to include this, those of you who paid these absolutely gob-smacking, extravagant fees…..well, enough said

I do believe that the bank has done something good here. Regardless of how much the compensation is, it is still something. To be honest, I never thought any compensation from the bank would happen.

However, I do not believe in any way, shape, or form that they are 100% responsible for this mess, not even 20%. I do believe that this lies squarely at the feet of the Heralded Leader of Storm. I have a large number of clients and when the GFC hit we were informed constantly of their position and we then acted on the info and made moves to avoid margin calls. The companies that we deal with are no different to the companies that storm dealt with. For this reason the vast majority of my clients avoid the dreaded call.

I do hope that with the compensation and cases going through the courts, that the issue of incorrect advice given by Storm to certain clients, and the negligence that they showed in not acting, does not get lost on the public and those involved.

I know there is nothing ground breaking in my little rant, but my last paragraph is really a concern for me. Even though they won’t get one red nickel from EC, I can only hope that his hand in this is not forgotten or goes unpunished.
Cheers

Sparticus

I really enjoyed reading your views, perhaps because they pretty much mirror the views I've been expressing on here all along.

The Storm boss and his actions, and in particular his non-actions when decisive action was needed, are the primary cause of the wipeout of so many Storm clients.

Among all the blame being levelled at the banks for faulty data and for selling clients investments out from under them, one point is continually overlooked.....Storm clients should have been out of the market long before they came anywhere near margin call. The market was in free fall for almost 12 months before the faulty data allegedly occurred, before any accounts went into margin call, and before the banks started pulling the plug on the managed funds.
Nobody has any excuse for sitting through 12 months of one of the worst bear markets in history when they had big dollars invested in the stockmarket via margin loans.

It's oh so convenient to shovel the blame on to the banks because they're the ones with the resources to pay compensation. Not that the banks are blameless - clearly they're not, and they should make at least some recompense where they screwed up.
But it's wrong to see the banks copping pretty much all the blame, while Cassamatis and most (not all) of the clients seem largely unwilling to accept that they themselves made a significant contribution to the situation they now find themselves in.

The more heat put on the banks, the less heat that's put on Cassamatis for his pathetically incompetent handling of his clients investments. And that's just the way Cassamatis likes it.

 

[Solly]

"ASIC chairman Tony D'Aloisio takes firm grip of Storm"

"AUSTRALIAN Securities & Investments Commission chairman Tony D'Aloisio is taking a hands-on role in the critical Storm Financial investigation, as the watchdog wrestles with the fallout from a string of recent high-profile court failures in a federal election year.

One ASIC insider said of Mr D'Aloisio and Storm: "He just doesn't want any more screw-ups." "

Tony D'Aloisio meets with Slater & Gordon & SICAG

More by Richard Gluyas in The Australian here;

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/daloisio-takes-firm-grip-of-storm/story-e6frg8zx-1225849062636