- Joined
- 2 June 2011
- Posts
- 5,341
- Reactions
- 242
And with that you have lost any credibility you might have had.
Absoloutley disgusting.
Storm Financial Group
- Thread starter Garpal Gumnut
- Start date
And with that you have lost any credibility you might have had.
Absoloutley disgusting.
Frank
A childish outburst such as the one above makes you appear more like a churlish 15 year old schoolboy than a grown man of 70 years.
Who are you to emphatically state to Mindstorm that 'You are somehow connected with Storm'.
I strongly suggest that you learn to activate your brain before you put your mouth into gear.
I have no idea who Mindstorm is, but I first became 'acquainted' with him about two years ago when he sent in a rather spirited post in response to me asking why Stormers who were already wealthy and retired would choose to adopt Storm's aggressive and risky strategy in an effort to even further boost their wealth.
To his immense credit, Mindstorm later apologized for his outburst.
This led to me swapping a few PM's with him, in which he gave me a general outline of how and why he chose to become a Storm client.
Without giving too much away in regard to his personal details, he did make it very clear that he held an extremely poor opinion of Storm Financial for their shonky advice and shabby treatment of their clients.
So for you to tell Mindstorm that he is 'somehow connected with Storm', is quite frankly so far off the mark that it makes you look foolish in the extreme.
I say again to you Frank, put your mouth into gear before you put your brain into gear and your fingers to the keyboard. That way you'll avoid making a fool of yourself with silly, ill-considered comments.
Mindstorm
I hope you don't mind me speaking up in your defense - I know you're well and truly capable of speaking for yourself without any help from me.
It’s just that Frank is inclined to say some pretty damned silly things at times, and well, I just couldn't let him get away with that one.
Hope you and your family are keeping well.
Cheers and all the best
Bunyip
Apologies if I'm butting in, but I think Frank is confusing my post and Mindstorm's as being one and the same - we both, separately and independently, requested he not take it upon himself to speak for "all ex-storm investors". I did send Frank a pm to that effect when I saw his outburst directed at Mindstorm, but it would appear he has either not read it or has chosen to ignore it.
Given Frank's recent comments I would like to emphasise that he does not speak for everyone who invested via Storm - I also find his latest comments to be repugnant.
Given Frank's recent comments I would like to emphasise that he does not speak for everyone who invested via Storm - I also find his latest comments to be repugnant.
- Joined
- 15 May 2011
- Posts
- 294
- Reactions
- 0
What a load of absolute hypocrisy! People on this forum have consistently chosen to misrepresent or pervert what we, the victims of Storm and the banks, are trying to convey. Now, we have the sympathy ploy. Julia states that she has been the victim of sexual abuse and somehow I am the bad guy!
I actually said, “If you were unfortunate enough to be raped the last thing you would want is to be continually questioned about your motives.” This is a hypothetical for God’s sake. If Julia wants to air what happened to her in public that’s her choice. I didn’t ask her to do so!
No one has been interested so far in what has happened to people in Storm. People that have killed themselves, people that have had their lives destroyed, people that have nothing left. No, you are only interested in focussing on one person’s claim that she has been abused. Do you really believe that she is the only one that has suffered?
I’ve had a woman that said her husband was looking to kill himself and make it look like an accident so she could claim his insurance and help his family to survive. Then there’s the story of a boy that had an accident and had an insurance pay out that would support him for life because his injuries were so bad that he needed full time care. Yet, his family were duped into investing in Storm and they lost everything. Now they have to support him despite the fact that they have nothing left.
I have a thousand stories but you are not interested, are you, because it doesn’t suit you to be so.
What was that line, “You can’t handle the truth!” and nowhere is it more apparent than on this forum. So be it!
You can talk all you want but in the end it will get you nowhere because you have closed your minds. Whatever, I have better things to do than listen to people who only want to hear one side of the story.
To all those that were in Storm, this forum offers nothing because it gives nothing. The self-righteous will go on being just that. If this is a reflection of the financial sector in general, then any would be investors tuning in are in serious trouble. I suggest that you look elsewhere because those within the investment sector are a lost cause.
Goodbye and good luck.
I actually said, “If you were unfortunate enough to be raped the last thing you would want is to be continually questioned about your motives.” This is a hypothetical for God’s sake. If Julia wants to air what happened to her in public that’s her choice. I didn’t ask her to do so!
No one has been interested so far in what has happened to people in Storm. People that have killed themselves, people that have had their lives destroyed, people that have nothing left. No, you are only interested in focussing on one person’s claim that she has been abused. Do you really believe that she is the only one that has suffered?
I’ve had a woman that said her husband was looking to kill himself and make it look like an accident so she could claim his insurance and help his family to survive. Then there’s the story of a boy that had an accident and had an insurance pay out that would support him for life because his injuries were so bad that he needed full time care. Yet, his family were duped into investing in Storm and they lost everything. Now they have to support him despite the fact that they have nothing left.
I have a thousand stories but you are not interested, are you, because it doesn’t suit you to be so.
What was that line, “You can’t handle the truth!” and nowhere is it more apparent than on this forum. So be it!
You can talk all you want but in the end it will get you nowhere because you have closed your minds. Whatever, I have better things to do than listen to people who only want to hear one side of the story.
To all those that were in Storm, this forum offers nothing because it gives nothing. The self-righteous will go on being just that. If this is a reflection of the financial sector in general, then any would be investors tuning in are in serious trouble. I suggest that you look elsewhere because those within the investment sector are a lost cause.
Goodbye and good luck.
You really are a sad, bitter, twisted individual, aren’t you Frank!
And a blatant hypocrite as well.
It’s comically pathetic to see you accusing others of not being able to handle the truth.....you’d have to be just about the perfect example of someone who is unable to handle the truth.....YOU who keeps denying that you are in any way responsible for the decisions you took and the mistakes you made, and the consequences of those decisions and mistakes.
YOU....who keeps accusing others of having closed minds, when your own mind is so clearly closed to anything that doesn’t fit in with what you’ve chosen to believe.
As for your constant attacks on this forum for not being interested in what happened to Storm victims.......this is just another example of the disingenuous comments that you spew forth because you don’t bother to think clearly before your start pounding the keyboard.
At least we try to put forward balanced views by suggesting that the blame lies with a number of different parties, banks included. This is in stark contrast to the unbalanced garbage you keep spouting by trying to pin the blame mainly on the banks, while accepting no responsibility yourself for the decisions you made.
So you’re saying goodbye to us forever, are you Frank? You’re clamping your tail firmly between your legs and you’re slinking away to some other outlet where you can spout your personal agenda until someone challenges you with confronting questions that you lack the backbone to answer, just like some of the questions that you’ve side-stepped on this forum.
I just wish that the Wallaby back line players were as adept at side-stepping as you are Frank – we’d have won the Rugby world cup for sure if that was the case, instead of those pesky Kiwis winning it instead.
I have another wish as well....namely that you really will leave this forum and never return. I doubt if there are many people who’ll be sad to see you go.
I can sincerely wish most Stormers all the best. Regrettably Frank, I am unable to extend that same wish to the likes of you.
- Joined
- 21 December 2008
- Posts
- 4,532
- Reactions
- 1
Thanks Igetit for the info.
My Stormer mate placed a lot of faith in Manny's ability to pull him out of the quagmire in Dec 08 and always spoke highly of Storm's strategy. I suppose to be simplistic, everybody wins on a rising market.
Here’s another nice example of ‘Firebrand Frank’ putting his mouth into gear before activating his brain.
I’m not aware of anyone claiming that all Stormers were greedy.
We’re not tarring all of them with the same brush by asserting that they were all greedy.
We've told Frank several times that..... The suggestion of greed was made specifically in relation to those Stormers who were already wealthy and were self sufficient in retirement, yet they approached Storm and accepted a strategy to significantly boost their already substantial wealth and to greatly magnify their already significant and completely adequate income.
No, we don’t have any hard and fast evidence that greed was a factor in this situation – we’re simply making an assessment based on good old common sense. If someone already has plenty of money and enough income for a comfortable self funded retirement, then what reason, other than greed, could he or she possibly have for seeking substantially more wealth and income, particular if he/she is up around retirement age.
Take Frank, for example........1.7 million dollars in unencumbered assets when he was well into his sixties. That sort of money would produce annual income of around 85 grand at 5% return, if invested in residential property in growth areas. In addition, capital appreciation of 8 – 10% annually should be achievable if careful attention is paid to selecting the right properties in the right areas, giving his overall net worth an average annual boost of approximately 130 – 170 grand.
If Franks home formed part of his 1.7 million in assets, and we assume a value of half a million dollars for the home, then he’s still left with 1.2 million to invest for income and growth, giving him a conservative 60 grand annual income plus average yearly growth of roughly 95 – 120 grand.
Not bad, certainly enough to make life very comfortable in retirement.
Hence our suggestion that any well heeled person not satisfied with an already safe and comfortable retirement was greedy to want substantially more.
Despite Frank’s vehement dismissal of this suggestion, he failed to come up with a rational explanation of what his motives were in investing with Storm, if something other than greed was involved.
Hi Solly,
No problem. Hope that is of some assistance.
All too true - everyone does well in a rising market.
Perhaps your friend's faith was not completely misplaced. There have been several strategies presented to me for review - at last count seven - adddressing means by which portfolios in MARGIN CALL could have been addressed. I know that Manny had one such strategy in place to implement. I don't want this to deteriorate into ... "Oh yeah, right!! Who'd trust him etc, etc" rant. However, I have seen some modeling regarding what could have been done.
However, without a Margin Call to trigger the implementation of some strategy (any strategy) there was not a lot any Storm client was able to do. Once there portfolios were allowed to spin down the drain into the strange new world of NEGATIVE EQUITY (a term I should mention which does not get a guernsey in the GLOSSARY OF TERMS appended to the BANK'S MARGIN LOAN AGREEMENT) - they were you know where and not a paddle in sight.
Manny, no doubt, made many, many errors in relation to the management of his clients accounts. Equally, however, there was an opportunity to bring a halt to the mismanagement with the issuing of a Margin Call.
As I read it there is little redress available to aggrieved clients should Manny be found to have done wrong. The only redress clients have will be against the Bank - for it appears beyond question that they too dropped the ball. People certainly expected better from Manny; they also expected better from a mature financial institution that boasts (and advertises) a status of one of the top 10 Banks in the world. The two parties knew precisely what each other was up to. There was a real synergy. Lovely during the rising market you mention. A little testy during the tough times. Make no mistake though, they were in it together. Keep hunting - the information is out there.
So you had substantial wealth and therefore no need to take out margin loans...but you took them out anyway! Well in that case Frank, more fool you!
Now why, I wonder, would you do that? Let me guess...because Storm told you that was the thing to do. And that it was safe. And you took them at face value and believed everything they said, because you were too lazy or indifferent or incompetent to do a small amount of research to check the veracity of what they told you. Or perhaps it was simply a case of being greedy or stupid. Or maybe a combination of both. In the absence of you explaining why you adopted Storm’s strategy (you’ve been invited to do so a number of times) the aforementioned conclusions are I believe quite reasonable.
Yes yes Frank, I know.....you had no reason to doubt them, they belonged to the Financial Planners Association, they were ASIC approved, etc etc etc.
Well OK, but how about the fact that they were salesmen who got paid a commission if they talked you into buying their product – that wouldn’t give you a reason to doubt them, or at least to compare them to a number of different FP firms to see who was offering what?
I bought a new car last week, Frank. The first dealership I went to assured me they were offering me ‘top dollar’ for my trade. The firm had been in business for more than thirty years and had branches in a number of towns and cities in my area. And they were a member of the MTAQ (Motor Traders Association of Queensland).
For your interest, here is an extract from the MTAQ website..........The Association works to a strict Code of Ethics whose theme is to act honestly and fairly in all dealings with the public and conduct business with professional courtesy and integrity.
Sounds pretty good eh Frank?.....a long-established and respected local firm, endorsed by a reputable motoring body whose members are obligated to conduct business according to a strict code of ethics.
Surely I had no reason to doubt them when they told me I was being offered ‘top dollar’ for my trade?
Well yes actually, I had not one but two very good reasons to doubt them.....
1. They were salesmen.
2. Common sense.
I’m sure I don’t need to elaborate on either of these reasons.
Is all this starting to sound somewhat familiar to you Frank? A respected firm that had been in business for decades, backed by a reputable governing body with strict ethical standards. Sounds a wee bit like Storm Financial, doesn’t it?
The two reasons I doubted what they told me are the very same two reasons why you should have doubted what Storm told you. You didn’t have to disbelieve them, but neither should you have believed them until you’d done some basic research to verify what they were telling you.
And that’s exactly what I did in relation to the car firm.....I called a number of used car dealers to get some idea of the value of my car, and I checked out a couple of websites for the same purpose.
And I visited four rival car dealerships to see what sort of deal they’d offer me. Then I went back to the first dealership and told them they’d have to raise their offer by at least fifteen hundred dollars if they wished to avoid losing my business to the opposition.
Surprise surprise – the ‘top dollar’ trade in price they’d offered me magically rose another $1500.
So what does that make me, Frank? An exceptionally smart bloke with an abnormally high IQ? Not really, it simply suggests that I think for myself and use a bit of common sense, particularly when dealing with salesmen.
Anyone can do it Frank – it’s not that hard. You could have done it with Storm. You didn’t, and it’s ended up costly you dearly. Sure, not all the blame is yours, but some of it certainly is.
And Frank, even though you got all hot under the collar and left the forum (supposedly) in rather a huff yesterday, I know you still lurk on here and read this thread. I logged into the forum today and immediately checked out who else was logged in, and lo and behold whose name did I see but yours.
You should keep reading this thread, Frank, even if you no longer contribute to it. I know we don’t beat the ‘blame the banks’ drum like you do, but neither do we deny that the banks may have a case to answer. All that aside, there are some smart people who contribute some very useful information on this thread. Perhaps one day you’ll stop your ‘blame the banks’ campaign long enough to absorb the some of the information and knowledge that’s being contributed by people who are far more switched on than you are.
Igetit,
Would you care to share the strategy Manny had in place? This is no pisstake, but I really can't understand how these clients could have survived even if the margin call was made.
Lets say that clients received the margin call...90% LVR I understand thanks to the sweet deal Manny did with the banks.
So, clients get a margin call at 90% LVR, and despite the market moving fairly quickly they were able to address the situation at 90%. What do they do to address this, given the likelihood that these clients had little or no reserves to pump into the margin loan to redress the situation?
And remember, its not as if the market staged its recovery in late 2008....it hit its low in March 2009 and then rallied, so clients, if they had have addressed the margin call and stayed in, would have lost more before the recovery started....potentially triggering a second margin call.
So, the margin calls are made on time by the bank and addressed by Storm and the clients in late 2008. How are they sitting now???
This is a serious question, I want to know how these clients could have recovered from this by now, bearing in mind they need to draw on their capital to pay the annual income storm promised to them, the trail commissions Storm take, and of course the interest to the margin loan provider. How on earth could they have recovered???????
Idontgetit.....
Following my question to Igetit, I prepared what seems like a plausible scenario within the Storm scam. If anyone can see something I have missed, let me know (note I am no financial planner, and my knowledge of margin loans is limited, but this does seem simple enough)...
Scenario
A client steps into Storm Central with a $500,000 home (unencumbered) and $500,000 in super.
Their friendly Storm advisor has recommended they borrow 50% of the value of their home. They combine this $250,000 debt with their super (which Storm have advised be taken out of the tax haven) and use this as equity to enter into a margin loan, with a starting LVR of 50%.
So, the lucky client has the following margin loan:
Margin loan equity $750,000 (of which $250,000 is a home mortgage)
Margin loan debt $750,000.
Total Margin Loan Portfolio $1,500,000 (bear in mind the client has a total debt of $1,000,000).
Now, thanks to the sweet deal Manny struck with the bank, and the lack of management of the lucky client’s portfolio as its value fell off the edge of a cliff (not true, as their research commentaries show, the end of the bear market was always just around the corner....it was written in the stars or the tea leaves apparently), the LVR hits 90% and the client receives the margin call they should have received.
The scenario at that point would be:
Margin loan equity $83,333 (of which $250,000 is the home mortgage)
Margin loan debt $750,000
So the client has a total debt of $1,000,000 (same as they started with) and equity of $83,333 (not including their house). And I haven’t even factored in the 7% upfront fee of $105,000 (on the original margin loan of $1,500,000), the interest which has been compounding all along (say 7% on their total debt of $70,000 p.a.), and the drawings from their portfolio to provide for the annual income Storm promised.
In a situation like this, assuming the client has no “dam” of money to fall back on, how on earth can this client get back on track? Is it even possible?
Again, can anyone explain how the client would get themselves out of this mess??? doobsy, I am looking at you to give me an answer!
Scenario
A client steps into Storm Central with a $500,000 home (unencumbered) and $500,000 in super.
Their friendly Storm advisor has recommended they borrow 50% of the value of their home. They combine this $250,000 debt with their super (which Storm have advised be taken out of the tax haven) and use this as equity to enter into a margin loan, with a starting LVR of 50%.
So, the lucky client has the following margin loan:
Margin loan equity $750,000 (of which $250,000 is a home mortgage)
Margin loan debt $750,000.
Total Margin Loan Portfolio $1,500,000 (bear in mind the client has a total debt of $1,000,000).
Now, thanks to the sweet deal Manny struck with the bank, and the lack of management of the lucky client’s portfolio as its value fell off the edge of a cliff (not true, as their research commentaries show, the end of the bear market was always just around the corner....it was written in the stars or the tea leaves apparently), the LVR hits 90% and the client receives the margin call they should have received.
The scenario at that point would be:
Margin loan equity $83,333 (of which $250,000 is the home mortgage)
Margin loan debt $750,000
So the client has a total debt of $1,000,000 (same as they started with) and equity of $83,333 (not including their house). And I haven’t even factored in the 7% upfront fee of $105,000 (on the original margin loan of $1,500,000), the interest which has been compounding all along (say 7% on their total debt of $70,000 p.a.), and the drawings from their portfolio to provide for the annual income Storm promised.
In a situation like this, assuming the client has no “dam” of money to fall back on, how on earth can this client get back on track? Is it even possible?
Again, can anyone explain how the client would get themselves out of this mess??? doobsy, I am looking at you to give me an answer!
Following my question to Igetit, I prepared what seems like a plausible scenario within the Storm scam. If anyone can see something I have missed, let me know (note I am no financial planner, and my knowledge of margin loans is limited, but this does seem simple enough)...
Scenario
A client steps into Storm Central with a $500,000 home (unencumbered) and $500,000 in super.
Their friendly Storm advisor has recommended they borrow 50% of the value of their home. They combine this $250,000 debt with their super (which Storm have advised be taken out of the tax haven) and use this as equity to enter into a margin loan, with a starting LVR of 50%.
So, the lucky client has the following margin loan:
Margin loan equity $750,000 (of which $250,000 is a home mortgage)
Margin loan debt $750,000.
Total Margin Loan Portfolio $1,500,000 (bear in mind the client has a total debt of $1,000,000).
Now, thanks to the sweet deal Manny struck with the bank, and the lack of management of the lucky client’s portfolio as its value fell off the edge of a cliff (not true, as their research commentaries show, the end of the bear market was always just around the corner....it was written in the stars or the tea leaves apparently), the LVR hits 90% and the client receives the margin call they should have received.
The scenario at that point would be:
Margin loan equity $83,333 (of which $250,000 is the home mortgage)
Margin loan debt $750,000
So the client has a total debt of $1,000,000 (same as they started with) and equity of $83,333 (not including their house). And I haven’t even factored in the 7% upfront fee of $105,000 (on the original margin loan of $1,500,000), the interest which has been compounding all along (say 7% on their total debt of $70,000 p.a.), and the drawings from their portfolio to provide for the annual income Storm promised.
In a situation like this, assuming the client has no “dam” of money to fall back on, how on earth can this client get back on track? Is it even possible?
Again, can anyone explain how the client would get themselves out of this mess??? doobsy, I am looking at you to give me an answer!
Hi SJG 1974,
The pictures painted regarding how one gets a particular individual back into the market and maintains them there during the recovery that followed in April-May 2009, of course vary circumstance to circumstance.
Doobsy does a good job of running through why this could not happen (clearly he knows his stuff); however, in any modeling - including Doobsy's and your own - certain assumptions need to be made. However, if you take this situation to a planner with the question:
"How do we save this?" There is a path forward. There is - more often than not - a solution to every problem. Almost always. (Except my wife's cooking of course). It involves selling down portions of the remaining portfolio along the way, in addition to making investments at certain trigger points. The LVR will be progressively lowered over a period of time during the market recovery - allowing further reparticipation of funds. And, it is a matter of history that the market did (and continues to - although perhaps a little haltingly at the moment for some) recover.
The alternatives proposed are the subject of stress testing by actuaries at the present. They are real and they appear to work. Nothing far fetched, no options trading, CFD's etc. I am not in any position to present them in a public forum. However, they will ultimately see the light of day - 2012. I would try and resist the urge to simply dismiss these alternatives as bunkum. They are not. Experienced people have advanced them - from reputable firms.
Having said that, the scenarios outlined all have Storm clients LOSING MONEY. But the damage is not irreversible and importantly, they remain in the market with an intact, though diminished, portfolio. With the prospect of continued growth over the years ahead.
At the end of the day, however, how a particular individual may have reparticipated in the market may end up being irrelevant. And much of the discussion regarding this issue may be of purely academic interest. The bigger issue for the BANK, as I understand, will be how the Court characterizes their relationship with STORM. Were they simply a provider of finance to enable Storm to implement its grand vision? Or was there a little more "hands on" involvement in Storms modeling. A little of the old - I scratch your back; you scratch mine.
We will soon see. I don't know the answer; but I do know if the guys who've been working on this issue are proved correct - the BANK will have an astronomic debt to repay. The Margin Call fuss, will be a blip on their financial radar compared to the implications of being found to have participated in an UMIS. Interesting days ahead.
Thanks Igetit. Still seems far fetched to me, so I will be interested to see the solutions if they see the light of day.
Seems to me that the hypothetical scenario would need every decision made by the client to be the right one (or trigger points to get in and out- remember Manny had trigger points and they didn't work so well). Easy to go back with the benefit if hindsight and pick trigger points compared to doing it in real time. I can time a market that's already happened, not so easy doing so in real time.
Then there is the interest on the debt that needs servicing, the income clients need to draw on to live, the assumption the market will continue to recover etc.
And of course the market is still 35% below it's pre gfc high, so clients are still miles behind. With so little equity against so much debt that is always incurring interest, I can't see how clients could be saved.
Again I hope the figures see the light of day one day
Seems to me that the hypothetical scenario would need every decision made by the client to be the right one (or trigger points to get in and out- remember Manny had trigger points and they didn't work so well). Easy to go back with the benefit if hindsight and pick trigger points compared to doing it in real time. I can time a market that's already happened, not so easy doing so in real time.
Then there is the interest on the debt that needs servicing, the income clients need to draw on to live, the assumption the market will continue to recover etc.
And of course the market is still 35% below it's pre gfc high, so clients are still miles behind. With so little equity against so much debt that is always incurring interest, I can't see how clients could be saved.
Again I hope the figures see the light of day one day
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
Can you explain how you know this so absolutely? Do you not think a salesman of Manny's consummate skill would have first of all secured his own future and have substantial funds squirreled away?
Everyone seems oh so willing to write off the possibility that the Storm principals should be held to account for their self serving incompetence.
- Joined
- 21 December 2008
- Posts
- 4,532
- Reactions
- 1
Just a reminder, when matters are next in Court.
Proceedings are being held in public so anyone interested may attend.
25 November 2011
Civil penalty proceedings against the Cassimatises
ASIC civil penalty proceedings
Federal Court, Brisbane
Justice Reeves
Level 7, Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Courts Building
119 North Quay
Brisbane QLD 4000
Source: https://storm.asic.gov.au/storm/storm.nsf/byheadline/Next%20Court%20Dates?opendocument
Proceedings are being held in public so anyone interested may attend.
25 November 2011
Civil penalty proceedings against the Cassimatises
ASIC civil penalty proceedings
Federal Court, Brisbane
Justice Reeves
Level 7, Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Courts Building
119 North Quay
Brisbane QLD 4000
Source: https://storm.asic.gov.au/storm/storm.nsf/byheadline/Next%20Court%20Dates?opendocument
Hi Julia,
By all means, in the event they have been found by a Court to have done wrong, they should certainly be held to account. This will involve Court directed punishment, however, the prospect of 3000 victims being adequately compensated by funds "squirreled away" by the Cassimatis family - well....Never say never, but I don't think there is much joy to be had on that front. Time will tell of course. My view is both the involved protagonists will ultimately be held to account by the Courts i.e Storm and the BANK. And that decision will form the basis for equitable compensation for the victims of their liaison.
Can you explain how you know this so absolutely? It would appear to be another generalisation, lacking any verifiable source to prove the accuracy that everyone seems oh so willing to write off the possibility that the Storm principals should be held to account ......
Julia, you're fond of asking posters to verify/explain/back-up their posts with statistics, studies, news articles or other references - I am rather surprised to see you make a statement that so clearly lacks any basis in fact.
I assure all on this thread that there are indeed many who are far from willing to see Manny & Julie Cassimatis escape prosecution, and would be very pleased to see them suffer the full extent of the law for the acts of negligence and fraud they have committed. Those who are more intimately involved in this saga will know that statements have been submitted to ASIC and others by some to enable this possibility. Journalists have been made aware of ex-clients' grievances and have reported same. If any funds have been "squirreled away" I'm sure ASIC, the ATO, their many secured and unsecured creditors (CBA first and foremost) and the advisors who sold their businesses to them who have not yet received payment will be doing their utmost to find and relieve them of those funds. I'm quite sure there'd be more than a few northern Qlders willing to check their pockets if they got the chance....
- Joined
- 21 December 2008
- Posts
- 4,532
- Reactions
- 1
Igetit
As you believe that Storm and the BANK will eventually be found accountable, what is your view on the timeline for this resolution and the eventual court-ordered payment being distributed.
I'm sure those affected would like some good news in this area.
S
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
Fair enough. I should not have said "Everyone". You may be one of the few who perhaps consider that Storm's 'strategy' was at the base of the problem.
My view was formed by the continuous focus on this thread on THE BANKS being responsible for clients' losses, with Storm apparently receiving a very secondary share of the blame.
Hi Solly,
I probably know little more than anyone else about the time line for this to resolve. As you know, the BANKS have been ordered by the Court to mediate the matter before the end of February 2012. The Court has ordered both the BANKS and ASIC hand over several thousand documents to the legal firm LEVITT-ROBINSON (who act for a number of Storm victims - I am reliably informed 300-400 - in a Class Action on the grounds that the Bank was party to the running of an UMIS) to review in preparation for the mediation.
Documents available to date support the view that an UMIS was in existence. Indeed, the Bank may have already drawn the same conclusion. So the question then is....
Do they risk running such a case and losing. Bearing in mind the material that will be set out before the Court during the three month period set aside for the hearing (SEPT. - NOV.) - is going to be more damaging to one of the parties than the other. If you see what I am saying. And so the pressure now begins to build. One party having lost all, has little left to lose. The other party - well......
So - when will some meaningful compensation be forthcoming. Perhaps sooner than we all anticipate. Worst case scenario. The case is lost and there is no compensation for the victims of the BANK-STORM "relationship". Not that daunting a prospect for people who now have nothing left anyway. Worst case scenario for the BANK. Well.....Not as inconsequential. They are pondering this I suspect. The damage to their reputation will be profound and successful litigation against them will, as I understand, open the door to ongoing litigation; potentially against specific individuals within the organization. This thought fills people who have been set upon and beaten up, with much hope. Hope is a wonderful thing. What's that old saying about every dog?
I know a large number of Storm victims; they have grown accustomed to waiting for an outcome. They are resilient and - although some will succumb along the way - their spirit will remain with those who continue to carry the fight. I often invoke the spirit of Thermopylae when I speak with them. I am left wondering why the Bank seems so unwilling to acknowledge its involvement in this. How hollow does Mr Norris's mea culpa now appear to all involved. It was a nice piece of PR work at the time but appears to lack substance don't you think?
