The absolute proof is in the Audit Report that the BOQ does not want to reveal and furthermore there is substantiated proof on each individual application form. I too am disappointed that Ms Fanning did not show to the camera the copy of email from the Head of Group Risk or some other leaked emails. I have heard Mr Auty is no longer with the bank (wonder why???) Storm were dodgy, however, a prudent banker had the right the reject the loan application rather than breach the Trade Practices Act.To be honest, I didn't really feel much enlightened by the program which was typical "60 Minutes" stuff, including Ms Fanning chasing Mr Liddy into lifts, around car parks etc in real tabloid journalism style.
Unless I'm being obtuse, there was an implication, rather than proof, that it was BOQ who had misrepresented figures on the loan applications, not Storm.
Maybe it was definitely BOQ, but I was disappointed at how absolutely Cassimatis was left out when it came to doling out responsibility for the clients' failed positions.
Also, there was not a mention of any responsibility to be attributed to the clients in borrowing amounts they could not hope to service. Imo both these factors make the program unbalanced.
Does the fact that BOQ branches are individually owned make any difference in the Head Office's reluctance to take responsibility for at least some of what went wrong? What has happened to the Branch Managers concerned?
Are they still in their jobs? If so, then that's clearly poor judgement on the part of BOQ management.
What would be interesting (but will never happen) would be a panel discussion, chaired by e.g. Kerry O'Brien with Manny and the variously implicated bank personnel.
The lady featured in the program was a great choice - hard working typical Australian who didn't question the financial 'advice' given by Manny.
Thought maybe I was having a deja vu experience because I was also sure I'd seen that before.I'm pretty sure the footage of the large group on the back veranda was used in the last 60 minutes expose on Storm / CBA which was done some 12 plus months ago.
So essentially what you'd expect from Channel 9 and this particular program.This was typically 60 minutes rubbish...Big statements, fuzzy animations of lines of text but no real substance.
......My contacts at the Ross Island Hotel, recently out of the "Creek", tell me that accommodation is at a premium, and it is often first in least dressed. Some doubling up occurs and there has been of late an unfortunate mixing of white collar criminals with the dangerous. The latter's complaints about this have fallen on deaf ears and they often have to, in their frustration, resort to their habitual forms of response.
gg
The answer is both have left - not by their own volution. What happened was very interesting...When they had to testify at the public hearing they were both on 'leave'. So when asked where they worked they could honestly say CGI/CBA. Everything looked above board and The Bank was standing by their employees. Clothier and Kamal were visibly agitated. The CBA Barristers were sitting at the benches like Vultures watching and listening to every word. Of course if Clothier or Kamal said anything agianst the Bank their entitlements would be at risk - so they toed the corporate line. Once the examination was over Clothier and Kamal left their employment quietly and the Bank slipped away like the serpents they are.
Extract from the above:BOQ's response to the 60 Minutes Report.
A statement from BOQ Chairman, Neil Summerson is here;
In fact, BOQ did provide as much information to 60 Minutes as we were able, given the constraints outlined above but they chose not to provide both sides of this story.
So here are the facts:
The story questioned the way we calculate how much people can borrow. Without getting in to the complex detail of how various loan serviceability figures are arrived at, let me make one thing clear. We would never settle a loan unless the customer had signed the loan contract. And we would never settle a loan that we thought a customer couldn’t service. It simply isn’t good business sense.
Extract from the above:
Of course it's not good business sense.
Any further comment from BOQ Storm clients?
Hi Jifromoz, Who do they believe made the errors? The BOQ or Storm?Hi Julia,
My in-laws received their loan from BOQ in North Ward. They live '000's of K's from Townsville. Never had contact from that BOQ branch. I have seen their application. Not in their handwriting, riddled with errors. It may take a bit of time but in the end the truth will come out.
Hi Jifromoz, Who do they believe made the errors? The BOQ or Storm?
When they received the copy of the application and found it to be incorrect, what did they do then?
I don't know who filled it out. It is in the hands of their solicitor & ASIC. In my opinion, giving pensioners a large loan with no regular income should have rung some alarm bells with someone in the bank............. but it didn't.
As I said, the truth will come out in the end and those that have done wrong will feel the full weight of the law.
Re: BOQFair comment. But shouldn't the alarm bells have also rung for the pensioners concerned?
They must have signed the loan application documents.
They must have known the loan amount they were applying for.
They surely would have done some simple calculations to know if they could afford to service the loan.
Once the loan was approved, they would have received further documentation outlining the terms and conditions of the loan.
And before the loan was actually granted and made available to them, they would have signed a document stating that they'd read, understood, and accepted the terms and conditions of the loan.
The amount of the loan would have been clearly stated in the documents they received before they finally signed off to put the loan in motion.
At least, that's how it's been done whenever I've taken out a loan.
If someone had doctored the figures and inflated the loan amount that they applied for, surely the loan applicants had ample opportunity to discover this before they accepted the loan.
The loan acceptance form would have been signed in duplicate, with the client keeping a copy for their records.
I just don't see how anyone could get away with doctoring the figures without it being picked up by the loan applicants, IF they properly scrutinised the loan documents.
If they failed to scrutinise the loan documents before singing them, then they themselves, not just the bank, were negligent in their responsibilities, and therefore are partly responsible for what happened.
That doesn't excuse any unscrupulous or illegal conduct by the bank. But it does illustrate that everyone involved in a loan transaction has responsibilities, and if any of them neglect those responsibilities, then they must bear part of the blame if things go wrong.
Re: BOQ
What if the loan was altered even after being scrutinised, no original signed copy is in the loan file, no terms and conditions were given, no borrowers copy was given and the type of loan was changed after the fact.
What we need to ask is was every page of the loan application initialled?
Was the borrower contacted to verify their information?
Does the bank just have a bunch of photocopies faxed by Storm?
Was the borrower given a terms and conditions, copy of the interest rates, borrowers copy, and or any other documentation relating to the type of account that was opened on their behalf.
When a person gets a job in a bank they are taught that the customer is always correct. They are also taught to verify all information with the customer directly prior to opening an account, they are also obliged to to provide necessary documentation when opening the account. They are taught compliance and the penalties for breaching the TPA. Obviously the risk and commission was worth it for the North Ward branch!
If the bank were to deduct the fraudulent dollar values listed on peoples assets and credit it against the loan there would be no Storm loans left!
Remember the old saying if you can't get a loan in any other bank go to the BOQ (North Ward) and you can have it by the afternoon!
The bank should have made the appropriate documentation available. And before going ahead with the loan, the client should have ensured that they had the necessary documentation to rule out fraudulent play. Obviously, this should have included a copy of the documents they signed.
And before anyone says "But these were unsophisticated investors - how were they supposed to know all this"?......In any business dealing, the onus is on you, the person involved in the deal, to have sufficient knowledge to conduct the deal properly and safely. Ignorance is no excuse for making wrong decisions in business or business borrowings. The immutable rule of business and investment is that you should know what you're doing, or get burnt.
Go after the banks and Storm Financial is you believe they've been negligent or have done anything illegal. But don't forget that borrowers have certain responsibilities too.
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?