"95% Storm, 5% Banks"
If it were not for the support of the banks then Storm would be a small corner store in the suburbs of Townsville - I had retired, had nil income yet a bank, thanks to Storm, loaned me $140 large on my house because
"several houses have been sold recently in your area so we can lend you $140K"
this happened without me stepping into a bank to produce/sign any paperwork and the bank had not laid eyes on my house (it may have been a tin shed for all they knew) - I would tend to reconsider those percentages
"95% Storm, 5% Banks"
If it were not for the support of the banks then Storm would be a small corner store in the suburbs of Townsville - I had retired, had nil income yet a bank, thanks to Storm, loaned me $140 large on my house because
"several houses have been sold recently in your area so we can lend you $140K"
this happened without me stepping into a bank to produce/sign any paperwork and the bank had not laid eyes on my house (it may have been a tin shed for all they knew) - I would tend to reconsider those percentages
You accepted Storm’s advice at face value, you failed to adequately research that advice, consequently you believed their claim that it was a safe and conservative strategy, when in fact it was aggressive and highly risky.
You should accept your share of the fault in getting duped by Storm.
+1.And this is what I cannot understand no matter how hard I try. Why not simply reject the loan offer? Just because a bank says that will lend that amount of money you're not forced at gunpoint to take it up. You surely agreed to take it up even though you didn't have to.
This is what my mindset is unable to comprehend.
And this is what I cannot understand no matter how hard I try. Why not simply reject the loan offer? Just because a bank says that will lend that amount of money you're not forced at gunpoint to take it up. You surely agreed to take it up even though you didn't have to.
This is what my mindset is unable to comprehend.
Hi Bunyip,
Should we accept out share of the blame because Storm hit us over the head and took our money? No! We accept no blame whatsoever! The perpetrators are Storm and the Banks that dealt with that company. Our state of mind at the time has nothing to do with it!
I'm very interested to hear from the Stormers about what preceptions they held about the monitoring systems and software that was tracking their portfolios.
Did they feel confident that this was being done or was it not a concern?
Hi Solly,
Speaking only for myself, my adviser always assured us that our investments were being closely monitored and all necessary safeguards were in place to ensure that we would never be in any danger of losing our home. He was quite keen to brag about their state-of-the-art software (what a joke that turned out to be) and all the levels of protection that were in place. When things started to go pear-shaped and I was unable to get in contact with anyone from Storm, I dealt with Challenger and Macquarie directly to have our managed funds withdrawn and margin loan cleared, with our remaining capital (decimated though it was) paid to me directly. As I am probably younger (late 40's) than the average Storm client, and had access to the various websites etc required, I was able to do this. I'm guessing quite a few older/less computer literate clients either did not know how to go about this or didn't have a clue they even could deal directly with Challenger/Colonial. I really feel for those clients who wound up in negative equity on their margin loans because they either were not able to monitor their situations themselves or trusted their advisers to be doing it for them. I'm aware that quite a few thought they had "gone to cash" several weeks before receiving a margin call, as they had signed instructions to that end.
Frank
I can see that no matter what anyone says to you, you’ll persist with your attitude that ‘Stormers bear no responsibility for what happened – it’s all the fault of someone else’.
OK then, if that’s what you choose to believe, no problem – it’s makes no difference to me.
Incidentally, I wonder who you’re referring to when you say ‘we’ accept no blame whatsoever’.
If you’re referring to your wife and yourself, then OK. But if you’re referring to Stormers generally, then I think you may be out of touch. There have been a number of Stormers who have openly admitted on this thread that they were gullible and naïve and they should have checked things out more thoroughly before signing with Storm.
Last year at a school reunion I was talking to a Storm victim. One of the things he said to me was “Looking back on the Storm debacle, I can see that I should have looked into it much more closely. I still don’t know how I could have been so downright f*****g stupid.”
When my wife and I were raising our kids we drummed into them over and over again the importance of doing their own thinking rather than letting others think for them. We hoped this advice would help them to resist peer group pressure in their teen years, and help them to make the right decisions in adult life.
Now that they’re responsible young adults in their early twenties, we still stress the importance of doing their own thinking.
And so Frank, in relation to the Storm debacle I’ll leave you with this thought ........
You wouldn’t be in your current predicament if you’d put sufficient effort into thinking for yourself instead of relying on others to do your thinking for you.
Maybe consider the number of cases into which ASIC has poured resources and taken to court, and lost.Let commonsense prevail if nothing else. Ask yourself why ASIC is now litigating against these banks? Do you think ASIC is doing this for kicks? Do you think ASIC has nothing better to do with its time?
When people accept that the Banks have a case to answer, a sensible debate can then ensue. Bear in mind that ASIC started litigation proceedings against these Banks after conducting one of the most exacting investigations in its history which has cost millions. ASIC has gathered literally millions of documents on its central data-base to draw on. If there isn’t a case to answer, why does ASIC believe otherwise?? ASIC has spent millions to bring these Banks to account? Do you know something that ASIC doesn’t?
If ASIC believes it has a case, it should be good enough for you? What evidence have you really considered when you think about it? What facts have you acquainted yourself with? What insider knowledge do you possess that makes your opinions more valid than ASIC’s or our lawyers for that matter. (See Part 2)
More comments from the darkside
If someone approached the banks with a business plan to draw equity from their home to provide capital for say a coffee shop and were lent the money then the coffee shop fell on tough times and the business went under, should the person have to pay back that debt or was it the obligation of the bank to know that he wasn't very good at managing his money and had assumed the business would grow? Was it the banks fault the customers didn't come as expected? Or should he harden up, and start paying off the debt again?
Also on the "selling" by fin planners. If you step on a car lot expect to be sold a car. Providing advice is how planners make money. You wouldn't take everything a car salesman said at face value without a bit of research on the model, the financing etc.
Hi Bunnyip
Let commonsense prevail if nothing else. Ask yourself why ASIC is now litigating against these banks? Do you think ASIC is doing this for kicks? Do you think ASIC has nothing better to do with its time?
When people accept that the Banks have a case to answer, a sensible debate can then ensue. Bear in mind that ASIC started litigation proceedings against these Banks after conducting one of the most exacting investigations in its history which has cost millions. ASIC has gathered literally millions of documents on its central data-base to draw on. If there isn’t a case to answer, why does ASIC believe otherwise?? ASIC has spent millions to bring these Banks to account? Do you know something that ASIC doesn’t?
If ASIC believes it has a case, it should be good enough for you? What evidence have you really considered when you think about it? What facts have you acquainted yourself with? What insider knowledge do you possess that makes your opinions more valid than ASIC’s or our lawyers for that matter. (See Part 2)
As for why we went to storm, we went because we didn't trust anyone with our money and a family member said they'd been with them for some time and recommended them. We asked around too and everyone who was with them said how good they were. They certainly seemed professional enough to us. Not one person mentioned that they only had a high risk strategy and the advisors certainly didn't mention it. Is that our fault. Some of you will say so and that's fine that's your call.
"95% Storm, 5% Banks"
If it were not for the support of the banks then Storm would be a small corner store in the suburbs of Townsville - I had retired, had nil income yet a bank, thanks to Storm, loaned me $140 large on my house because
"several houses have been sold recently in your area so we can lend you $140K"
this happened without me stepping into a bank to produce/sign any paperwork and the bank had not laid eyes on my house (it may have been a tin shed for all they knew) - I would tend to reconsider those percentages
Hq,
Early on in this thread there were many Storm investors who believed that the Cassimatis were blameless in all of this.
Are there any who still believe this?
gg
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?