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
I don't know how you are involved in Storm or where you are from, however once the evidence is tabled in the Courts then and only then will the associated parties be seen in the true light.
 

When the Golden Greek said at the hearing that their system was not accurate, he was probably right...but only to the degree that the market was moving by the second (as it does). Any system will have some degree of lag, and that what he was referring to, I believe. It could have (would have) been out by a fly poo or two, and that's what he based his comments on. He was correct in what he said, but deceiving...and successfully so!

Make no mistake, the system gave them a very good understanding of where everyone was. It was a useful working tool & did not let them down in any way. Unfortunately, the learned panel, to my frustration, did not pursue questioning as to the degree of accuracy of the system...rather black & white...is it 100% accurate or not. So 99.99% accuracy would have given a determination of "not accurate"! All my opinions as an ex-client (not employee).
 
Quincy said:
See View attachment 39910 - for the the Financial Planning Association "findings" regarding Emmanuel Cassimatis
Click to expand...

I had a read through this. The one thing that stood out to me was that these people paid Storm Financial an upfront fee of $198,000 to effectively have Storm sell down their assets, get them into debt and invest in index funds.

$198,000!!! That is unbelievable.

These people had sufficient assets to live the lifestyle they wanted without taking big risks, yet they paid Storm $198,000 to undertake this high risk strategy.

God Manny must have been a good salesman. Alarm bells should have been ringing for these folk as soon as that figure was mentioned.
 


As stated by D'Aloisio in the above-referenced article : -

D'Aloisio says that Storm investors would not have reacted well to ASIC trying to close down Storm at a time when they were making such good money. He also argues that ASIC did not have the power to close down Storm.
Click to expand...

. . . . but hang on . . . .


and . . .


So Tony is saying that : -

1. He didn't have the power to close down Storm
2. He did have the power to close down Storm

Which one is it Tony ?
 

The statement "the system was not accurate" is exactly right, especially in the last quarter of 2008. The accuracy in fact was nowhere near even 50%. For a significant period during that time, any clients with a Colonial Margin Loan did not have correctly LVRs, either in Storm's software or in CBA's software. It was in fact impossible to determine a client's actual position. Colonial Margin Loans are just one (significant) reason why client positions could not be quantified. There were many, MANY other issues around the data that was loaded into Phormula.

The Phormula software was shown to all clients, everyone saw what it was capable of, therefore this should not be a significant revelation to anyone. Phormula was specifically designed to monitor and track client positions daily, but as previously stated, only if the data going into it was correct and was well maintained.

Regards,
Paul
 
Solly said:
"ASIC BLOWS HOT AND COLD ON STORM"

http://www.moneymanagement.com.au/news/asic-blows-hot-and-cold-on-storm
Click to expand...

As stated in the above-referenced article : -



However as per my previous post : -



In conjunction with a statement made previously by ASIC’s Executive Director of Enforcement at the time : -


As stated in Solly's posted article : -



If ASIC's claim is in fact a valid one (that the Storm Model amounted to the operation of a managed investment scheme), then with reference to all of the above, to suggest that ASIC did not have the power to close down Storm, is (IMO) simply not true.
 
I still go and have a look at the Storm financial website every now and then just to remind myself of the big statements and claims they made on there.

I like this one:

"Why Storm:
Our desire is for people to embrace the analogy of the storm. Storms are the harbingers of growth. They return life to parched land and create new and fresh beginnings.

We also think the name signifies the dynamic process we go through with our clients. Initially our clients can feel disturbed by stormy waters, and we are alongside them to navigate them through that. The storm's replenishing rains bring the promise of renewal and growth.

In keeping with the storm analogy, Storm Financial is refreshing and invigorating for clients…they know to 'expect the unexpected!"

If only the clients had known to expect the unexpected they would not be in the current mess.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080720070059/www.stormfinancial.com.au/ins_abo.php
 
My parents lost virtually everything with storm, and i very nearly invested with them as well.

I'll never forget what the adviser said to me when trying to get me to take out a 700k loan on shares.

I said but i cant afford to loose that, i can afford to loose and recover from a 100k loan but 700k would sink me.

He said it will never happen. its impossible for you too loose everything, if that happened your house, the australian dollar every major instituition would be worth nothing. The world would be kaos!!!!

he said the same thing to my parents!!!

Storm and all there partners should be hung drawn and quartered!
 
Yes my adviser said the exact same thing. Funny so did my bank. One thing I know for sure is that I know the Comm Bank are trying to tempt me with small offers, but it won't cut it. I am rebuilding and have already spent a significant amount of money collating evidence which will demonstrate the disgraceful behavior from all connected with this scam.
 

This "Funny so did my bank" is something I have never been really able to understand. Was it the Commonwealth Bank proper which said those sort of things or was it individuals of a particular CBA branch, who were probably also caught up with the Storm euphoria, who gave this information?

Obviously, it is only curiosity on my part since I did not sign up for the Storm song and dance act as you did. Equally, I don't give a rats if you do or do not get your money back although it would be nice for you if that happened and, if so, all good fortune to you.

Slight correction: "you' was used in the Royal sense and not in the personal one.
 
It is very complicated but two banks are involved which I've settled with one. Only one to go so i'm being forced to roll the dice! The banks are just stalling and just trying to wear people down so they give in. Big banks with big pockets V the little man! Will be interesting start to 2011!
 

Mate, you need to let ASIC know of these conversations.

A diary note from the day would be useful.

You do need to let ASIC know.

gg
 

Solly mate,

I sailed my aging Cat from Maggie to the Watermark for a meeting with an SC over a a misunderstanding with the ATO on Friday.

After the meat he mentioned Storm Financial, and indicated that the Ripoll inquiry would in law vindicate Manny and Storm.

I'm no lawyer so don't understand it, but it sounds to me that the Financial Planners and the Government are ganging up on the little guys, to gloss this over, and leave the poor Storm bastards penniless.

gg
 
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
869
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
63
Views
6K
qldfrog
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...