Storm Financial Group

[Garpal Gumnut]

"Storm probe drags on"

"THE corporate regulator investigating the collapse of failed wealth adviser Storm Financial is resisting putting a time limit to its long-running probe.

...liquidators.....report is understood to recommend up to 57 charges against parties involved in the company."

More by Tony Raggatt in the Townsville Bulletin here;

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2010/07/03/151071_news.html

ASIC are muppets. The perpetrators will get away with it imho.
They are taking way too long, trying to cover every tiny little issue.
If they were fishermen the tide would have come in and gone out again and they'd be tossing their malodorous bait on dry sand.

gg

 

[specialed]

How much is it costing each client do you know Solly?

gg

I think it ranges depending on each clients losses

 

[Solly]

ASIC are muppets. The perpetrators will get away with it imho.
They are taking way too long, trying to cover every tiny little issue.
If they were fishermen the tide would have come in and gone out again and they'd be tossing their malodorous bait on dry sand.

gg

gg, to get things moving it might just be time to attach the crevicing tool on the yabbie pump. :

 

[specialed]

ASIC are muppets. The perpetrators will get away with it imho.
They are taking way too long, trying to cover every tiny little issue.
If they were fishermen the tide would have come in and gone out again and they'd be tossing their malodorous bait on dry sand.

gg

Agreed...

"The report is understood to recommend up to 57 charges against parties involved in the company"

Does anyone know if "parties" extends beyond Storm itself or simply a number of parties working within storm ?

 

[Solly]

"Storm Financial victims target Commonwealth Bank"

"STORM Financial victims Les and Julianne Sherwood lost almost all their life savings two years ago and now they are using what remains to help fund a class action against the Commonwealth Bank.

Sunshine Coast police officer Sean McArdle and his wife, Paula, have also joined the class action, vowing to spend whatever it takes to get justice."

More by Anthony Marx in The Courier Mail here;

http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/bank-firmly-in-victims-sights/story-e6freqmx-1225887302994

 

[irish joe]

Irish Joe,

Thanks for adding your perpsective and analysis of this affair. Given your experience as a FP what is your belief on the following.

1. What is the difference between industry standard practice and legal responsibility with regards to margin calls. Within this, who is the contrat between; the client, the bank and the advisor or just the client and the bank.

2. Why have the CBA been involved in the resolution process given it is not just those who recieved dubious loans who are being compensated.

3. What is your understanding of the recent high profile margin loans court case where the client was awarded full restitution for not receieving a margin call directly.

What love an "insiders " perspective.

Hi Specialed,

1.
You are right in that the contract is essentially between the client and the bank and the FP is the intermediary. If the FP does not notify the client of the impending Margin call then the lender contacts the client ( standard practice). In the storm situation,CGI should have contacted the clients when it was clear that Storm were not going to. There is no doubt here. I have been told that through the resiolution scheme, those who had margin loans with CBA are having any indebtedness above the point where the Margin call should have occurred completely forgiven

2. I am not aware of any compensation being given for people through the resoution scheme that does not relate to either a standard bank loan or a margin loan. Certainly the clients I have worked with have all had a loan of some nature with CBA group of companies

3. The case with Macquarie was essentially won on the basis that the client had the means to provide cash or security had he been contacted. I was of the understanding his relationship was direct with Macquarie and not through a broker or FP. I could be wrong though.

 

[specialed]

Hi Specialed,

1.
You are right in that the contract is essentially between the client and the bank and the FP is the intermediary. If the FP does not notify the client of the impending Margin call then the lender contacts the client ( standard practice). In the storm situation,CGI should have contacted the clients when it was clear that Storm were not going to. There is no doubt here. I have been told that through the resiolution scheme, those who had margin loans with CBA are having any indebtedness above the point where the Margin call should have occurred completely forgiven

2. I am not aware of any compensation being given for people through the resoution scheme that does not relate to either a standard bank loan or a margin loan. Certainly the clients I have worked with have all had a loan of some nature with CBA group of companies

3. The case with Macquarie was essentially won on the basis that the client had the means to provide cash or security had he been contacted. I was of the understanding his relationship was direct with Macquarie and not through a broker or FP. I could be wrong though.

I believe your right about the lack of broker, but given the client is in contract with the bank itself I wonder if this is relevant, hence my initial question. The courts might take into account previous practice within the storm organisation in the event of the margin call, however I believe in all previous sitauations involving margin calls for storm investors, they were contacted directly by the banks. This was the focus of some discussion during the senate inquiry where the cba was unable to identify when it changes its practice of notifying the clients directly. This is the first point of contention for many investors. I stand to be corrected but in common law cases regarding the execution of contractual obligations, the case is between the parties to the contract. I am unaware the degree to which storm may be a party in the contract between investor and CGI.

In terms of the loan I mentt that not all clients were being compensated as a result of questionable loans, in particular the use of the VAS valuation system. Sorry about not being clear with that.

When reading the court docs for the Mac case the judge actually pointed out that the clients ability to service the call was not relevant as it was at the point that the call was not made that the law was broken. The direct quote is located in this forum somewhere I just cant find it. Maybe someone else can idenify where it is.

Having said all that, the Levitts case (or the first one anyway) does not concern the margin call it is dealing with the nature of the fund and how it was registered.

Do you feel the CBA is conceeding some fault be participating in the resolution process ? and if so, what do you think they might be the area of fault that they are compensating clients for ?

 

[Smiley]

Friends went to Levitt's last meeting in Townsville and he is asking for big $ up front. He said that those who lost the most would be expected to give $25,000 and those who lost least $5,000. Someone evidently asked what if you can't afford such fees and they got no direct answer.

He did mention getting $350,000 up front from some doctors in Sydney who'd been storm clients and a number of $1,200 "donations", as he termed them . . . .

My friends lost faith in him as Levitt waffled for a couple hours and then stated a very Manny sounding comment to the effect that debt was their greatest asset. . .

 

[irish joe]

Hi specialed,

I think there are two primary areas that the CBA has conceded that they have not done the right thing by their clients.

Fisrtly, when it was clear to them that Storm were not communicating margin calls to clients they should have started calling clients. They have not said why they didn't act promptly and one can only assume it was becasue Storm accounted for an enormous part of their overall book and by proxy,profit.

The second is with the lines of credit extended against homes to people that clearly shouldn't have had a loan and associated with that the inflated values used to extend further credit.

In both cases I am aware of them 'setting things right"

I am a little confused about the levitt argument that an illegal managed investment scheme was in place. The funds used were fairly vanilla managed funds that Colonial first state operated and were badged for storm.

 

[Solly]

"The Commonwealth Bank says it will fight a class action lodged against them in the Federal Court
today by investors who lost their savings in the collapse of Storm Financial."

As reported on;

http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Business/2010/07/02/Storm_clients_act_against_bank_480128.html

 

[Solly]

.......
I am a little confused about the levitt argument that an illegal managed investment scheme was in place. The funds used were fairly vanilla managed funds that Colonial first state operated and were badged for storm.

irish joe, I believe the Levitt approach is based on the Federal Court ruling in the case of Brookfield Multiplex Limited v International Litigation Funding Partners P/L in Oct 09.
Maybe others could add more clarity.

 

[Solly]

"Bank accused of failing its clients"

"The argument about an unregistered investment scheme mirrors the focus of investigations by ASIC, which were revealed by BusinessDay in October last year."

More by Stuart Washington in The Age here;

http://www.theage.com.au/business/bank-accused-of-failing-its-clients-20100702-zu89.html

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

"Storm Financial victims target Commonwealth Bank"


Sunshine Coast police officer Sean McArdle and his wife, Paula, have also joined the class action, vowing to spend whatever it takes to get justice."

While having great respect and sympathy for the McArdles, sometimes the quest for justice does not result in a return of money.

That is the crux of all of these fp, lawyers, banks and others, dealings with the victims of Manny's scheme.

Like Manny, they care not about justice, they are only concerned with keeping the money.

By my estimate, in order of precedence the money now lies with

The Banks
Manny
The Lawyers
Other Financial Planners
The Victims.



The very best outcome I see for the victims, realistically occurring is a redistribution.

The Banks
The Lawyers
Other Financial Planners
Manny
The Victims.


Not a good outcome really, even if you want justice, and especially if you want the money.


gg

 

[specialed]

While having great respect and sympathy for the McArdles, sometimes the quest for justice does not result in a return of money.

That is the crux of all of these fp, lawyers, banks and others, dealings with the victims of Manny's scheme.

Like Manny, they care not about justice, they are only concerned with keeping the money.

By my estimate, in order of precedence the money now lies with

The Banks
Manny
The Lawyers
Other Financial Planners
The Victims.



The very best outcome I see for the victims, realistically occurring is a redistribution.

The Banks
The Lawyers
Other Financial Planners
Manny
The Victims.


Not a good outcome really, even if you want justice, and especially if you want the money.


gg

It would appear to me that the lack of justice for clients (victims) is a result of the inaction or apparent inaction of ASIC and the senate inquiry. ASIC and to a lesser extent the senate inquiry has a public interest in bringing to account any parties (banks, storm or otherwise) who have been involved in this and if there is no fault then making this public. In "seeking a commercial resolution" ASIC have failed to carry out there duty effectively.

From their website...

"The Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 requires us to:
maintain, facilitate and improve the performance of the financial system and entities in it
promote confident and informed participation by investors and consumers in the financial system
administer the law effectively and with minimal procedural requirements
enforce and give effect to the law receive, process and store, efficiently and quickly, information that is given to us
make information about companies and other bodies available to the public as soon as practicable.

If their is fault that requires commercial resolution then this MUST be made at the same time as the administration of the LAW, not instead of it. ASIC have done nothing (as yet) to make clients understand who is at fault for their losses. For most this is as important as any financial restitution.......

 

[specialed]

Further to my posting above..

If ASIC were clear regarding what this "commercial resolution" is then those participating in the resolution process would be able to make a more informed decision with regard to accepting the CBA offers or otherwise.. Investors are leaving the scheme as it fails to secure them any type of future, something that the commercial resolution ASIC refers to in their public commentary may help to recify....

Is the payout going to be "topped up" by the ASIC findings ? ASIC are as responsible for anyone in this mess for investors choosing an all or nothing approach through Levitt and co. Its a shame ASIC has become so gun shy as a result of their repeated and very public failures...Maybe after all this some scrutiny on their actions may occur...

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

It would appear to me that the lack of justice for clients (victims) is a result of the inaction or apparent inaction of ASIC and the senate inquiry. ASIC and to a lesser extent the senate inquiry has a public interest in bringing to account any parties (banks, storm or otherwise) who have been involved in this and if there is no fault then making this public. In "seeking a commercial resolution" ASIC have failed to carry out there duty effectively.

From their website...

"The Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 requires us to:
maintain, facilitate and improve the performance of the financial system and entities in it
promote confident and informed participation by investors and consumers in the financial system
administer the law effectively and with minimal procedural requirements
enforce and give effect to the law receive, process and store, efficiently and quickly, information that is given to us
make information about companies and other bodies available to the public as soon as practicable.

If their is fault that requires commercial resolution then this MUST be made at the same time as the administration of the LAW, not instead of it. ASIC have done nothing (as yet) to make clients understand who is at fault for their losses. For most this is as important as any financial restitution.......

Further to my posting above..

If ASIC were clear regarding what this "commercial resolution" is then those participating in the resolution process would be able to make a more informed decision with regard to accepting the CBA offers or otherwise.. Investors are leaving the scheme as it fails to secure them any type of future, something that the commercial resolution ASIC refers to in their public commentary may help to recify....

Is the payout going to be "topped up" by the ASIC findings ? ASIC are as responsible for anyone in this mess for investors choosing an all or nothing approach through Levitt and co. Its a shame ASIC has become so gun shy as a result of their repeated and very public failures...Maybe after all this some scrutiny on their actions may occur...

Excellent points specialed, excellent.

The banks, Manny and the Financial Planners can afford legal advice, the victims needed some guidance well before this from ASIC.

gg

 

[Solly]

Further to my posting above..

If ASIC were clear regarding what this "commercial resolution" is then those participating in the resolution process would be able to make a more informed decision with regard to accepting the CBA offers or otherwise.. Investors are leaving the scheme as it fails to secure them any type of future, something that the commercial resolution ASIC refers to in their public commentary may help to recify....

Is the payout going to be "topped up" by the ASIC findings ? ASIC are as responsible for anyone in this mess for investors choosing an all or nothing approach through Levitt and co. Its a shame ASIC has become so gun shy as a result of their repeated and very public failures...Maybe after all this some scrutiny on their actions may occur...

specialed, I spent some time talking with my Stormer mate again today, he is still standing bewildered by this whole saga, I can tell you he is still mystified by what ASIC can really do for him.

As time is progressing his look of bewilderment is changing into a state of amazement and trending towards despair. I believe he is blaming himself for not gaining a deeper understanding of the methods of financial investment which may have averted the predicament he is now facing.

But he again said to me he believed that his money was being looked after by very reputable organisations and overseen by a strong regulatory framework. I'm sure there are many Stormers who are just still as unsettled and anxious as my mate.

I am eagerly awaiting the next Media Release from ASIC.

 

[irish joe]

Specialed, I couldn't agree more. One of the most frustrating things for the victims I have been dealing with is the silence by ASIC and as you point out has been a source of confusion as to whether to accept the resolution scheme offerings.

I can only hope that their quest for a commercial resolution is based on the fact that their investigations have found that Whilst the Storm team are the most culpable ( Manny,Julie and all the representatives), there is no hope of any restitution to clients other than the satisfaction of seeing them grace the corridors at the creek and other like establishments.
They have no doubt got evidence that the banks are also not entirely blameless and that the others like the CBA have done ,will acknowledge same and "where we have done wrong we will fix it"

If this is the case ASIC should publicly say so rather than keeping us all in the dark

The problem is that this could drag on for a time yet and Victims continue to have no closure.

I would like to see all of the banks who are involved go through a resloution process like the CBA one AND then a jountly funded compensation scheme, not unlike the ANZ/OPES prime be established to assist those stormers who were genuinely duped. There are examples out there of highly intelligent people who have been seduced by greed and greed alone and these people do not deserve the same level of restitution as the pensioners and less financially literate who are the true "Victims".

GG, On another point, I take your point about the menagerie of other beasts that havegathered at the salt lick, but some seek nutrition of a different kind. There are many FPs and Lawyers I know of that are working with the worst storm cases on a Pro Bono basis.

Personally, this process has been one of the most professionally satisfying of my career. I have cried,laughed with these people, I have had some wins for them and enjoyed a beverage or two.

When someone who has been financially destroyed by dishonesty and negligence can still find trust in you there is far more satisfaction then telling a multi millionaire you have saved them a few bob in tax or That we have made few $$

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

irish, I agree that not all FP's are dangerous vagabonds, but many are. You sound like a decent bloke or lass having said that.

The FP industry is poorly regulated and frankly not full of the brightest stars in the sky. Many I have met seem more like ex Nat Mut Insurance salesmen as Manny I believe was.

gg

 

[irish joe]

GG,

Alas I must concur but standards have improved and continue to do so. We are slowly dragging the standard of advice to the level where we can truly claim to be a profession.

When as a young fellow I started in the business it was indeed with Nat Mut and I only lasted about 3 years as at the time as I was disillusioned with the whole process of flogging insurance contracts dressed up as investments. I left the industry for a few years but returned via a stockbroking firm which was really not much better. I have subsequently moved on over the last 15 years and now operate a fee for service business with my own licence.

For the record, MAnny was at MLC when I started and was feted by all as a scion of the business. I questioned at the time not only his approach but also the standard practices across the gamut of insurance companies and was told by my regional manager that I would go broke with that attitude.