For the record
I personally have no loans in any capacity, however, I do understand the Financial Services Industry.
For the recordThe 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.
Bunyip,
Not withstanding the fact that yes the borrower may need to take some responsibility. Some of these borrowers were not just retired but quite elderly. Had little or no financial knowledge hence seeing the advisor and may not have had any understanding of what to do with the documents, even if they were given to them, and they could understand them. If the lawyers and asic are now having trouble determining responsibility from these same documents what chance did many of those who received them. Particularly if they were then completed by someone else. Laws, codes of conducts, regulations etc are put in place in many enviroments, business and otherwise to protect the vunerable from exactly this type of behaviour. They are also put in place to protect people from themselves. Assuming you have or know someone who is close that is elderly, I would like you to think about at what age they may not be able to understand something they are doing, yet maybe pride will prevent them from seeking assistance. The driving licence age comes to my mind. Laws had to be put in place to protect people from themselves.....and to protect others....
Also From Trading Markets;
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/stock-alert/bkqnf_franchisees-add-to-boq-s-woes-972610.html
Franchisees add to BOQ's woes
Jun 08, 2010 (The Australian Financial Review - ABIX via COMTEX) --
Bank
of Queensland (BOQ) is likely to face an increasing number of legal cases concerning its operations. Many of the actions will stem from the lending policies of its subsidiary, Storm Financial. BOQ is also dealing with a January 2009 risk report that specifically warned about Storm Financial's practices.
Bunyip,
Not withstanding the fact that yes the borrower may need to take some responsibility. Some of these borrowers were not just retired but quite elderly. Had little or no financial knowledge hence seeing the advisor and may not have had any understanding of what to do with the documents, even if they were given to them, and they could understand them. If the lawyers and asic are now having trouble determining responsibility from these same documents what chance did many of those who received them. Particularly if they were then completed by someone else. Laws, codes of conducts, regulations etc are put in place in many enviroments, business and otherwise to protect the vunerable from exactly this type of behaviour. They are also put in place to protect people from themselves. Assuming you have or know someone who is close that is elderly, I would like you to think about at what age they may not be able to understand something they are doing, yet maybe pride will prevent them from seeking assistance. The driving licence age comes to my mind. Laws had to be put in place to protect people from themselves.....and to protect others....
A friend of mine went to the Levitt (lawyer) meeting in Townsville and was stunned with what occurred and that people would buy into what was 'on offer' (read his notes):
- Levitt was introduced by former storm adviser jelich
- "storm was not such a bad model - you just drank too much of it" - Levitt
- he wants people to pay $5,000-$25,000 up front for a class action against various banks ("It won't be free but it won't be expensive"; pretty vague calculation in that he said, "people who lost least will pay $5,000 and those who lost most will pay $25,000")
- he has less than 2 dozen lawyers to handle the hoped for 100s of ex-storm clients
- also, claimed he will get 3X to 5X more than resolution scheme for people in 6-12 months
Friend said he waffled a lot and was had to follow except for the part of $ for his law firm
Those who still believe in Manny and his model will possibly be sold another fiction by this new saviour
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?