- Joined
- 21 December 2008
- Posts
- 4,532
- Reactions
- 1
"Jostling for the money"
"SOME of the victims of the Storm Financial fiasco are in a dilemma over which way to jump for the best compensation to the losses they suffered at the hands of their so-called wealth advisers and the banks.
Law firms Levitt Robinson and Slater and Gordon are competing for custom or, as one lawyer put it, 'sniffing' money."
It seems absurd that financial advisers who were telling clients to sell up to 100 per cent of their portfolios amid the crash, are now joining clients, many of whom agreed to the sell recommendations, to go the banks for selling them out without approval.
RS - Resolution scheme....... S&G telling clients this is as good as it gets and don't think about a counter offer.... not gunna happen... sign your legal rights away now.... want as many settled before a case is launched in court.... all that under the table stuff will make for a very uncomfortable time for Ralphie and co. when he has to sit in a court room and not be able to bs under parliamentary privelage. Just what i've heard....Also understand that Brendan French (CBA) believes this is "his" scheme and ASIC will not tell him what to do....ever... his career depends on the "success" of the RS.
It appears Frenchie has shown his true colours..... then again his career does depend on keeping CBA as squeeky clean as possible..... very embarrassing and dare I say incriminating evidence is floating around just waiting for a court appearance......CBA may just regret chopping so many heads off...
I have followed and read this thread now since it commenced. As like Sparticus, I too worked for the CBA for a long time. I would like to make a few comments without bias regarding some information that I am not sure have been mentioned previously.
The CEO of the CBA has a significant bonus coming to him if the CBA achieve 1st place by 30 June 2010 in customer satisfaction, could this be the reason why the Bank is trying paint itself in such a good picture in the public eyes?
The Bank admitted to shortcomings in its lending practices even though the Home Loans that were written for Storm were all approved within the Bank’s policy at the time. In early 2009, the Bank audited a large majority of the loans that were written and were found to be compliant including the calculation of income. The shortcomings that they found were loopholes in their own policies that have since been changed across Australia. With the changes made, the Bank would no longer be able to lend money to Storm customers.
The argument that Storm clients should never have been lent the money is an interesting one. As at December 2008, I don’t think there were any loans that were in arrears or default as a result of Storm clients not being able to repay the loans therefore there would be a suggestion that they could afford the loans. That’s said though, when the CBA sold their shares they took away the source of income that the Bank relied on in the first place to approve these loans.
I will be interested to see who walks away from this benefiting from the whole ordeal, obviously some Solicitors will but who else, maybe Ralph?
"The CEO of the CBA has a significant bonus coming to him if the CBA achieve 1st place by 30 June 2010 in customer satisfaction, could this be the reason why the Bank is trying paint itself in such a good picture in the public eyes?" ......interesting info thanks Cascade ....
Should have known Ralph would have his finger in the pie .... or maybe a more apt description would be ....snout in the trough.....
and to Solly..... ASIC have been speaking to clients and tying up loose ends with gusto over the past few weeks..... the landscape is beginning to change..... we are led to believe certain advisors are in their sights in the next few weeks....
I trust they will then have EC, JC and the likes of Ralphie boy in their sights as well!!!! They all deserve to rot in hell together !! The truth is out there it just has to see the light of day! :chainsaw:
"Jostling for the money"
"SOME of the victims of the Storm Financial fiasco are in a dilemma over which way to jump for the best compensation to the losses they suffered at the hands of their so-called wealth advisers and the banks.
Law firms Levitt Robinson and Slater and Gordon are competing for custom or, as one lawyer put it, 'sniffing' money."
More by Tony Raggatt in the Townsville Bulletin here;
http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2010/04/07/128325_business_desk.html
Unfortunately many of the Storm victims are elderly and unwell, some illness a direct consequence of this debacle.
They are now being offered differing difficult options when they are in no mental state to be making appropriate decisions.
This has occurred due to the imbalance of power between the Banks/Cassimatises/Lawyers on the one hand and the Storm Clients on the other.
The legal system favours the rich and powerful and leaves the victims of financial scams at a tremendous disadvantage.
Now is the time for ASIC to show that it is fulfilling its mien, otherwise it needs to be dissolved.
gg
The argument that Storm clients should never have been lent the money is an interesting one. As at December 2008, I don’t think there were any loans that were in arrears or default as a result of Storm clients not being able to repay the loans therefore there would be a suggestion that they could afford the loans.
That's interesting, considering the numerous complaints from Stormers about banks advancing them loans that they couldn't afford to service.
Whether or not they could service their loans, it's the responsibility of every borrower - Stormers or otherwise - to ensure they'll be able to meet their loan commitments before they apply for a loan. Otherwise they shouldn't make the loan application in the first place.
If their loan application is successful, but they find themselves unable to meet the loan commitments, I think it's a bit rich if they then criticise the bank for lending them the money.
That's a bit like me asking a farmer to let me ride his horse. But then I blame the farmer when I fall off the horse and break my arm.
That's a bit like me asking a farmer to let me ride his horse. And lying to the farmer about your horse-riding experience. But then I blame the farmer when I fall off the horse and break my arm.
I think that's even closer...
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?