Storm Financial Group

[specialed]

I think this discussion sometimes moves in circles. I certainly agree that all the blame should not be levelled at the banks. However, Personally I don’t believe all the blame has been directed towards them, merely they are the only ones left standing with the money. This point was recently reiterated in the Goodridge letter. I eagerly await the ASIC report and to see if and where they perceive blame lies. Although don’t actually hold out much hope of either. I suspect if it does go so far then blame will be placed at the same place the original judge placed it in making his determination in Dec 08. That blame lies either with the banks, with storm, with the clients or in a combination of two or three of the parties.

It is unfortunate and a little ironic that we may end up in a situation whereby it is decided in the courts in the exact manner that it was indicated it needed to be, back in Dec 08. However, although this case was thwarted by the CBA back then, I suspect they will not have as much luck in thwarting future attempts to get this before the courts.

Whether people feel the banks have any responsibility for this mess or not the reality is that the resolution process has now increased the resolve of many to see this go to trial.

Further I get the feeling that what little good will they may gained through the resolution process initially has well and truly gone. There appears to be two distinct groups; Firstly, those who have had no choice but to accept the offer, and whilst you cannot say they have been coerced, they are certainly in no position, either financially or mentally to do anything but to accept. And secondly, those who are now very angry, feel that the compensation offer will do nothing to secure them anything of a future and therefore nothing is to be lost in pursuing this in the courts.

There are some who will pursue the CBA through the courts now if for no other reason to ensure the CBA are dragged through the process irrespective of the outcome. Sooner or later Ralph Norris will realise this and again step in.

 

[Julia]

However, Personally I don’t believe all the blame has been directed towards them, merely they are the only ones left standing with the money.

At least you're honest enough to admit this is why Stormers (and the lawyers) are so fervently pursuing the banks, whilst essentially ignoring the role of the author of the whole failed proposition, Cassimatis. The fairness or otherwise of such a strategy seems to be entirely irrelevant.

Much advantage can be taken of the bank's need to avoid a public relations disaster. Better to appear to be the good guys concerned for the poor investors who claim to be unable to work out that they couldn't possibly service their borrowings if the market were to turn.

There appears to be two distinct groups; Firstly, those who have had no choice but to accept the offer, and whilst you cannot say they have been coerced, they are certainly in no position, either financially or mentally to do anything but to accept.

That's a very realistic assessment. I can only slightly imagine the mental and psychological exhaustion some Storm investors will be feeling, even to the point that they no longer have the energy to be part of making any decisions.

There are some who will pursue the CBA through the courts now if for no other reason to ensure the CBA are dragged through the process irrespective of the outcome. Sooner or later Ralph Norris will realise this and again step in.

Well, I guess if people are so determined to maintain their stress levels through anger and the need for vengeance (and unable to exact revenge from the actual perpetrator in the form of Cassimatis) a wealthy bank will do just fine.
To hell with the shareholders or any actual sense of the real weighting of blame.

 

[specialed]

Well, I guess if people are so determined to maintain their stress levels through anger and the need for vengeance (and unable to exact revenge from the actual perpetrator in the form of Cassimatis) a wealthy bank will do just fine.
To hell with the shareholders or any actual sense of the real weighting of blame.

I dont know if peoples stress levels and anger is being maintained through a need for vengeance or more the fact that they have lost everything, and many now have no way to fund their future. I'm sure many actually fell a real sense of frustration with not being able to go after manny however lets face it, no Lawyer is going to chase him for them pro bono, with little chance of any gain. This job is left to ASIC to decide whether or not to prosecute. I'm not actually sure what some expect the Stormers to do with respect to Manny other then to publicly shame / blame him etc. Surely this will also "maintain their stress levels through anger and the need for vengeance". As you mention many have little fight left in them let alone trying to fight two battles. I may be wrong but I dont believe civil actions can lead to criminal convictions ?

Can anyone tell me what actually become of the Worrels inquiry. My understanding is that this was funded to the tune of some 500 million by ASIC (public money) and was running alongside the ASIC inquiry. Yet there has been no public report has there or did I miss it ?

 

[Solly]

I dont know if peoples stress levels and anger is being maintained through a need for vengeance or more the fact that they have lost everything, and many now have no way to fund their future. I'm sure many actually fell a real sense of frustration with not being able to go after manny however lets face it, no Lawyer is going to chase him for them pro bono, with little chance of any gain. This job is left to ASIC to decide whether or not to prosecute. I'm not actually sure what some expect the Stormers to do with respect to Manny other then to publicly shame / blame him etc. Surely this will also "maintain their stress levels through anger and the need for vengeance". As you mention many have little fight left in them let alone trying to fight two battles. I may be wrong but I dont believe civil actions can lead to criminal convictions ?

Can anyone tell me what actually become of the Worrels inquiry. My understanding is that this was funded to the tune of some 500 million by ASIC (public money) and was running alongside the ASIC inquiry. Yet there has been no public report has there or did I miss it ?

specialed, not that much !

http://www.investordaily.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/id/style/8091.htm

Wait for around the end of May for ASIC to make further comment.

 

[Smiley]

"Can anyone tell me what actually become of the Worrels inquiry. My understanding is that this was funded to the tune of some 500 million by ASIC (public money) and was running alongside the ASIC inquiry. Yet there has been no public report has there or did I miss it?"

In answer to that query - it has reported to ASIC and that report is not a public report. My understanding is that there are numerous reasons, such as advice to prosecute and confidential ongoing investigations.

 

[Solly]

"ASIC launches Storm Financial website"

"The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has launched a website to assist victims of collapsed Queensland-based advisory firm Storm Financial."

More in Business Spectator here;

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/ASIC-launches-Storm-website-pd20100414-4H8UL?OpenDocument&src=hp7

Here's the link to the ASIC site regarding the announcement;

http://www.asic.gov.au/ASIC/asic.nsf/byHeadline/10-79AD%20ASIC%20launches%20Storm%20investor%20website?opendocument

 

[Solly]

"CBA asked to rethink Storm deal"

"Former investors in collapsed Storm Financial have asked Commonwealth Bank of Australia to renegotiate the resolution scheme previously hailed as a landmark settlement."

Read more by Duncan Hughes in the AFR of April 16, 2010.

 

[Solly]

As the Resolution Scheme progresses, why do I sense a 'Change in Mood' with some of the Stormers ?​

​

 

[Mash]

Solly
What do you mean by change in mood........ It has been a rollercoaster...... now there is much more anger and resolve.... We won't go down without a fight... that has never changed !!!!:nono::nono:

 

[Solly]

Solly
What do you mean by change in mood........ It has been a rollercoaster...... now there is much more anger and resolve.... We won't go down without a fight... that has never changed !!!!:nono::nono:

Mash, 'much more', that is the change that I have noticed......

 

[bunyip]

Solly
What do you mean by change in mood........ It has been a rollercoaster...... now there is much more anger and resolve.... We won't go down without a fight... that has never changed !!!!:nono::nono:

Mash

What exactly do you Stormers want?

Justice?
Money - irrespective of justice?
Or something else?

You tell me.
Think very carefully before you answer - we've seen too many emotional, angry, rude and ill-considered outbursts from you already.
I've asked you fair questions and I've asked them courteously. I expect you to answer in the same manner - otherwise don't bother answering at all.

 

[Mindstorm]

Mash

What exactly do you Stormers want?

Justice?
Money - irrespective of justice?
Or something else?

You tell me.
Think very carefully before you answer - we've seen too many emotional, angry, rude and ill-considered outbursts from you already.
I've asked you fair questions and I've asked them courteously. I expect you to answer in the same manner - otherwise don't bother answering at all.

Bunyip,

I can only speak for my own family, and we would like to see justice, and only justice.

I also believe that justice is what many of the former storm clients we've met, who've had dealings with some of the biggest, and who we thought were the most trustworthy, banks in Australia.

We've never expected anyone to pay our way through life. Like many former storm clients we've met since this all went down the tube, we were all just trying to make sure that we could retire with no monetary worries, and at no burden to the Australian taxpayers of the future.

I am being very careful of what I say here. I have to be that way because one of the biggest banks in Australia is holding my family to ransom right now, and I have a further fight with another of their ilk in the future.

We have to do exactly what they say, or suffer their full wrath.

They have more money than us, (their shareholders, so they are not gambling with their own money!), they are more powerful than us, what would you advise us to do?

We 'stormers' as you call us, have been taken to the wall, financially, emotionally, physically, (health wise), and not neccessarily in that order. We live on a rollercoaster, we never know from one day to the next what will be asked or expected of us.

Do you really believe that the majority of us would have put ourselves through of all this anguish if we had not been duped by storm and the banks, and that we felt that we had not been TRULY represented by those who we trusted?

Sure, even I have to admit that there were Storm clients who were already financially secure, and yes, they were greedy to want more than they needed to fund a secure retirement.

But, Bunyip, those clients are a very small minority in the scheme of things.

Please try to look at the bigger picture.

I don't want, and never expected, to find myself in the position where YOU were funding MY retirement. I thought I had that base covered.

In fighting for my family to get justice from the banks, I am also fighting for YOU so that you don't have to pay for my/our retirement.

MS

 

[Solly]

"Reform of investment advice system not a fair cop"

"SEAN McArdle, a Sunshine Coast police officer stung by the Storm Financial collapse, has no confidence in the Rudd government's plans to abolish the commissions paid to financial advisers as a cure for unethical or unlawful conduct."

More by Hedley Thomas in The Australain here;

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/reform-of-investment-advice-system-not-a-fair-cop/story-e6frgczf-1225858120131

 

[Solly]

"Financial advisers to lose kickbacks"

"More than a year since the multibillion-dollar collapse of Storm spotlighted the fast edge of practices in the industry, the Minister for Financial Services, Chris Bowen, will reveal a package of measures today to reduce fees and remove perverse conflicts of interest."

More by Jacob Saulwick in the SMH here;

http://www.smh.com.au/business/financial-advisers-to-lose-kickbacks-20100425-tlo8.html

 

[Solly]

"Storm negative equity recovery futile: liquidator
Report to creditors imminent"

"The liquidator of Storm Financial (Storm) has labelled attempts to recover $1.8 million worth of negative equity lost in the collapse of the advice firm as a futile exercise."

More by Kate Kachor in In Investor Daily here;

http://www.investordaily.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/id/style/9025.htm

 

[Solly]

"Retirees to gain $50,000 in post-Storm collapse reforms"

"Townsville retiree Helen Rubin said the changes would make a "great difference". Ms Rubin, who cannot discuss her personal Storm losses because of legal action, said the recommendations went further than last year's federal parliamentary inquiry into the collapse."

More by Stefanie Balogh in The Courier Mail here;

http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/retirees-to-gain-50000-in-post-storm-collapse-reforms/story-e6freqmx-1225858099042

 

[gav]

"Retirees to gain $50,000 in post-Storm collapse reforms"

"Townsville retiree Helen Rubin said the changes would make a "great difference". Ms Rubin, who cannot discuss her personal Storm losses because of legal action, said the recommendations went further than last year's federal parliamentary inquiry into the collapse."

More by Stefanie Balogh in The Courier Mail here;

http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/retirees-to-gain-50000-in-post-storm-collapse-reforms/story-e6freqmx-1225858099042

This from the same article:

"The Rudd Government will also change the law to force financial advisers to always act in the best interests of their clients."

Ummm.. Does this mean advisors don't have to act in the best interest of their clients at the moment?

 

[Julia]

This from the same article:

"The Rudd Government will also change the law to force financial advisers to always act in the best interests of their clients."

Ummm.. Does this mean advisors don't have to act in the best interest of their clients at the moment?

Amazing, isn't it! Obviously it's idealistic to suggest that this should go without saying, and certainly not require legislation.

 

[Julia]

"Retirees to gain $50,000 in post-Storm collapse reforms"

"Townsville retiree Helen Rubin said the changes would make a "great difference". Ms Rubin, who cannot discuss her personal Storm losses because of legal action, said the recommendations went further than last year's federal parliamentary inquiry into the collapse."

More by Stefanie Balogh in The Courier Mail here;

The article doesn't make clear how 'retirees are going to gain $50.000'.

A quote from the article:

"I welcome expanding the availability of low-cost basic advice, which is so important, especially advice through superannuation funds," she said.

Where is it stated that advice - charged for to replace the trail commissions - will necessarily be low cost?

I suspect a few heralding these changes as being the end of any shonky advice, and certain to see clients better off, might be disappointed.
And they may not be so enthusiastic when faced with a charge of several thousand dollars for a very basic financial plan.

The Opposition's suggestion seems to me to be more sensible: i.e. that clients may choose to pay upfront, or have the option of investing in commission bearing investments, given these are fully disclosed.
(I've actually been under the impression that FA's have been disclosing this to clients for a few years now, but perhaps I'm wrong?)

 

[Julia]

I wonder where this new ruling (if it gets through the Senate which isn't looking likely at present) would leave full service Stockbrokers? Their high rates of brokerage include commission for advice.