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
Good karma I support my tax going to help these guys out.

Hell they wasted a few billion on dodgy home installation and school building
another 100 millions wouldn't hurt and it would turn so many lives around.

after that go after the storm founders and their crooked army and make them work to pay off 100 million
 
The irony that I'm sure is clear to all is the Australian taxpayer will be paying for it.........
Click to expand...

Swings and roundabouts.


ROE,

I prefer my taxes going towards the poor and homeless, those that were never given a break, unfortunately that doesn't win votes.
 
cutz said:
Swings and roundabouts.


ROE,

I prefer my taxes going towards the poor and homeless, those that were never given a break, unfortunately that doesn't win votes.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you, cutz. Always happy to support those who have never had the choices the rest of us enjoy. That cannot be said of the Storm investors.
 
Specialed,

The CBA may be at some fault in cases where the margin calls were not triggered at the correct LVR. I believe there possibly is a case for these people. But Storm had margin call levels at an LVR of 90%. That's 90% of your total investment belongs to the bank. Anyone about to enter retirement who got margin called at 90% no longer has enough money to retire. Isn't that simply a result of a bad investment strategy rather than corrupt banks?

People talk as though receiving this compensation will prevent them from relying on the government. But as I said, anyone soon to retire who got a margin call at 90% (as the storm strategy dictated they should) can no longer afford to be a self funded retiree. So what kind of compensation levels are you talking about? To be supporting themselves, most will need to go back to pre crash levels. Are you suggesting the banks/government should put them back in the position they were in before they signed on with storm?


The cost of assistance in the future is obviously less than the cost of compensating them back to a position where they don't need assistance. So the argument still stands, or maybe it should be adjusted - Australian taxpayers shouldn't have to pay any more than is necessary to bail out an individuals failed investment.
 
If Storm investors were compensated there would be no end of claims from other investors whose investments had gone wrong, not only during the GFC but any other time as well.

The Government agency ABARE (Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics) once put out a forecast that cattle prices would rise 30 - 40% over the next three years. On the basis of that forecast, at considerable cost I swung a sizeable portion of my rural enterprise from cropping over to beef production.
The forecast turned out to be a dud - cattle prices lost about 30% instead of ABARE's forecast of 30 - 40% rise. It cost me a significant amount of money.
Maybe I should jump on the Storm bandwagon and petition the government to use taxpayers money to compensate me for my losses!! LOL
It is of course a silly suggestion, but no more silly that expecting Australian taxpayers to compensate Stormers for their losses.

Our government runs a country, not a damned charity organization for investors who get burned primarily through their own errors of judgement.
Anyone with any kind of intelligence and honesty will see that what happened to Storm investors was mostly a result of them being talked into a reckless and greedy investment strategy that was fraught with danger.
They made a mistake - a mistake that should not be paid for by Australian taxpayers who were in no way responsible for the Storm disaster.
 

Firstly, I obviously dont think that the Storm situation will have an effect on anyone taxes. However, Anyone who believes they will not now contribute to support what would have otherwise been self funded retirees doesnt understand the full scope of what the taxation system pays for. I know this is not the point you have made issue with.

With respect to the 90% LVR, the point is not what it was set at, 60%, 70 % 90 % whatever. The point is that they were never given the opportunity to meet the margin call because of the way it was handled. Individuals were not assessed in terms of their ability to make them, instead the fund was shut down.

Hence, maybe compensation should reflect the value of what the portfolio would be worth now, had the investor been given and acted on the first and any other further margin calls. This is one of the mechanisms built in to protect both banks and customers. Not just the banks as has been stated here.

What would the value of the storm investors portfolio be now, had margin calls been made and met, less of course the value of the loan. The banks have every right to call the loan, and the customer (thought they had five days to meet it) If the customer defaults then the bank does as it sees fit. If the call is met then the fund continues. As I have argued many times the central issue here is who is at fault in respect to the margin loan call, the cba or storm or both or the customer. This issue will only be resolved in the courts however my sources assure me this will NEVER get to court.......
 
Julia said:
I completely agree with you, cutz. Always happy to support those who have never had the choices the rest of us enjoy. That cannot be said of the Storm investors.
Click to expand...

Julia,

If you want to talk about choices I will state again......My argument has only ever been that the CBA (and possibly Storm) never gave the storm investors the choice they believed they were entitled to....to meet a margin call. Before I hear the same argument form others that the investors should have been monitoring their investment...I remind all again of the claim (and partial admission by the CBA) that their were problems with the accuracy of the CGI website data making it impossible for many to monitor. If the CBA are so sure of their legal position in all this why did they simply not just fight it in the courts... Many of the compensation packages presumably are not related at all to only the issue with inflated valuations. There are plenty being compensated who did not have inflated house valuations.

If they were not entitled to receive that call, then fine no compensation..

Finally I am not seeking revenge or anything of the like..simply pointing out the obvious that the Australian taxpayers, including those who contribute to this forum, will be contributing to the storm investors, it will just most likely be towards many of their pensions....... If the CBA pays, then their shareholders pay, then the CBA jacks up their fees, then the shareholders win, then the super funds win....etc etc.....
 
Lone Wolf said:
Specialed,
- Australian taxpayers shouldn't have to pay any more than is necessary to bail out an individuals failed investment.
Click to expand...
Lone Wolf, previously you have said Australian taxpayers should not have to compensate Stormers for their losses. Now you are saying "taxpayers shouldn't have to pay any more than is necessary to bail out an individual's failed investment".
Which is it? Why should they receive any payment from their fellow citizens at all?

You are completely contradicting yourself here.
Our taxes provide pension payments.
Just exactly why do you think your fellow Australians should compensate you for your losses?
If that were to happen (fat chance, I'd say) then why would not everyone who has received poor advice in any form, also be up for receiving compensation from the taxpayer?
Where would it end?
Obviously it's lunacy to even consider it.

Well, specialed, you were the investor here. Presumably you had all the terms and conditions clearly set out in writing, so you must know who was set down to be responsible for communicating the margin call to the client.
This question has been raised over and over and as far as I am aware, no Storm investor has offered a clear answer. Perhaps you can be the exception.
I'm sure we would all be very grateful.


Oh dear, you so misunderstand the point I was trying to make. I was thinking of the people who have simply never had enough money, because of illness, disability of other genuine disadvantage, to even consider the idea of having money to invest.
It's symptomatic of your self-absorption that you haven't considered this is what I, following the suggestion from Cutz, was thinking about.
Try getting some sympathy from someone with a mental illness who is homeless as a result of failed government policies.
 

No Julia, I haven't had any losses, was not an investor with storm, and I certainly do not need any compensation.

In answer to your second question I'm pretty sure it was cleared up in the senate inquiry. The CBA was responsible for communicating the margin call to the client. That was until, as the CBA put it......

"some time ago we changed our policy but um, er we dont have any record of when this happened, but some time ago we changed our policy and the planner now communicates this, this is industry standard, um but we cant recall letting the client know this, but it did happen, we just dont have any record of when it happened and we cant recall exactly when it happened".

I cant remember the exact quote, and certainly am not going to bother going through the hansard (I would encourage you to do so however) but you get the idea...

Julia, Can you please answer for me this simple question. Why is the CBA paying compensation to storm investors through the resolution process ?
 
specialed said:
Hence, maybe compensation should reflect the value of what the portfolio would be worth now, had the investor been given and acted on the first and any other further margin calls.
Click to expand...

The figure you chose to use in your post was 3000 or so people who would have been self funded retirees had storm not collapsed. 3000 people who, if they had the chance to meet their margin calls would have survived the market crash. I understand that you may not have thought too hard about that figure, but I personally feel that only a small fraction of those 3000 people would have actually survived the crash. Most of the comments I've seen from stormers complain that they lost everything, the banks let them borrow too much money, they couldn't afford the repayments, they lost their homes because they couldn't pay the bank what they owed. Of course this is just from the more vocal stormers, but most of the people doing the complaining didn't seem to have large piles of cash handy to meet margin calls. Most it seems, had everything riding on it. These people bet everything on the market continuing to go up and lost it all when it didn't.

If the bank really did sell out people without giving them a chance to meet their margin obligations and without a signed document saying they agreed to sell, or agreed to the bank selling them out without reason, then of course a case could be made against the banks for those people. And if that were true then I'm sure there are some true victims out there who didn't leverage too high, who had access to a large amount of cash which was set aside for margin calls. People who trusted that "someone" would advise them when it was time to make further payments, but instead had their investments sold without their approval. For those people I am truly sympathetic. But I'd say these people are few and far between.

My problem has always been with the people to clearly never would have survived the market crash, yet blame everyone else for allowing them to invest so much borrowed money. Of all the people signing the petition to get their hands on government handouts, I'd like to see how many had the cash set aside to meet margin calls.

Ok, so for those who had no spare cash to meet their margin obligations, no compensation from anyone. For those who you suggest had the cash but didn't get the chance and never agreed to ever be sold, how do you accurately judge in hindsight what action they would have taken at the time? Would they have continued to meet margin calls with extra cash? Or would they have taken the advice to sell up and at least protect what's left?
 

Unless I see some hard evidence I still say that not a cent of Australian taxpayer money should go towards compensation for failed investments.

Specialed said that we taxpayers would be indirectly supporting the stormers, like it or not, because they are now resorting to the public health system and pension payments. I agree that it's technically true that some of our tax dollars will now go to supporting the stormers who can no longer support themselves. So I changed the statement to be more correct. I said taxpayers shouldn't have to pay any more than is necessary, necessary being due to them now taking a pension. I never said anything about taxpayers compensating them as little as is necessary. We shouldn't compensate them at all. If the banks are legally at fault then take your hard evidence and go collect your compensation from the banks.
 
 
"Liquidator says client fee freefall brought perfect Storm"

"AN overwhelming reduction in upfront fees from clients as the sharemarket tanked was the reason infamous Townsville investment group Storm Financial failed, its liquidator Worrells has reported.

... confidential report to ASIC expected to include recommendations on the types of charges which could be levelled against the company's officers and other parties."

More by Tony Raggatt in the Townsville Bulletin here;
http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2010/05/27/141691_news.html
 

The poolside suite at Lennons is booked for 2011 Solly. I may even get a pair of shoes with pompoms on the toes so as to not look out of place walking up to the public gallery at the courts.

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
The poolside suite at Lennons is booked for 2011 Solly. I may even get a pair of shoes with pompoms on the toes so as to not look out of place walking up to the public gallery at the courts.

gg
Click to expand...

Indeed gg, it is quite a good view from the deck around the pool.
 

Attachments

  • lennup.jpg
    28.9 KB · Views: 40
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
873
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
64
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...