Our reasons why!
Doobsy (and others) have asked me to explain why we signed up with Storm Financial in the first place.
In late 2006 when our shopping center was on the market, we started to look around for suitable investments that would ensure that any capital we had would not erode away over time. Our two prime objects at that time were (1) to ensure that our assets would be secure and (2) that they would appreciate over time.
We looked at a number of options. Allocated pension plans were considered. So was putting our money in the Bank and just living off the interest. However, with inflation and lack of growth, we thought that these were not viable options in the long term.
Yes, and some of these people have further taken responsibility to become financially literate. They're the people who will recover well and move on. To be determined to remain a victim is just counterproductive.However, unlike you, there seem to be many other Storm investors taking responsibility for the role they played in their own demise, rather than taking no responsibility at all and placing 100% of the blame with third parties.
Glad you finally answered Frank. Perhaps I should have posted as Doobsy to get you to answer my questions...
I think it is fair to conclude that, based on the above, the reasons you went with Storm were a combination of greed, naivety and gullibility....areas which you have seemed determined to deny any responsibility for in your posts.
Greed- chasing returns that would give you more than the bank or an allocated pension, particularly given that you could have met your income needs by simply putting your money in the bank.
Naivety- having an objective of ensuring your assets were secure, and then double gearing them into the sharemarket.
Gullibility- believing what Storm told you without doing any independent research yourself, and accepting what they told you on face value, even though you obviously did not have any idea of the risks you were taking, or understand the strategy.
I am sure you aren't the only Storm investor who the above applied to. A harsh lesson learned Im afraid.
However, unlike you, there seem to be many other Storm investors taking responsibility for the role they played in their own demise, rather than taking no responsibility at all and placing 100% of the blame with third parties.
With respect doobsy, I disagree entirely. There is everything an investor needs to know available in this technological age. It's simply a matter of spending a bit of time acquiring financial literacy.
It does, of course, make sense for you - as a financial adviser - to promote the idea that people need 'expert help'. Nothing wrong with that. You're in business to make a living, and I'm sure you provide genuine assistance to many clients.
But I hold that it's simply wrong to suggest that it's beyond your average Australian to understand superannuation or to acquire financial literacy plus an understanding of how the market works.
Considering there was a strong bull market at the time, it's difficult to understand why you would give credit to Storm for this growth.
Surely you were aware of how the market had been growing when you consulted Storm???
Either you could or you couldn't. Not too hard to do the basic sums.
So did you quantify that indemnity insurance? i.e. find out the total number of clients, know what the total capital invested was of all these clients, and then determine that the indemnity insurance would absolutely cover you in the face of the firm failing? ???
So what? Before it failed so spectacularly, ABC Learning also went on a massive acquisition binge. What makes you think this is an indicator of a well managed company?
Really?
Hold on a moment: earlier you told us that they'd informed you not to expect any profits or capacity to draw an income for five to seven years.
You are directly contradicting yourself here.
Further, did you have them explain how exactly this $100K p.a. would be derived, i.e. X amount will come from growth of your capital, X amount will come from dividends, and X amount will come from franking credits?
If so, (and I rather doubt that you would have) how could you have felt assured of the growth factor? Or the dividend yield for that matter?
$8000 per month? I thought you said you only had an expectation of $45,000 p.a.?
Can't help wondering what you'd feel obliged to spend $8000 per month on in retirement. Yet another contradiction.
Disagree entirely. If the nanny state continues to increase at the same exponential rate, we will all soon be told when we may take a breath.
It doesn't matter how much regulation you have, there will always be scammers able to find a way round it. We should not over-regulate the thinking population in an attempt to safeguard those who want to have their hands held every minute.
This is an entirely justified complaint imo. But it was ever thus. Belonging to an industry's overseeing body is absolutely no guarantee of that firm's ethics. Most of it is window dressing. Never depend on a professional body offering any guarantee of ethical behaviour.
On the contrary: I have no special skills, neither did I receive any education in financial matters. But since being left without a home, a job or any money after leaving a marriage in my mid 30's I realised I needed to understand how to make some money with relative safety.Julia,
“Considering there was a strong bull market at the time, it's difficult to understand why you would give credit to Storm for this growth.
Surely you were aware of how the market had been growing when you consulted Storm?”
You obviously pride yourself on being rather more astute than the average investor.
Oh, please. If you are going to relegate people to their place amongst the quite uneducated and across the full sphere of intelligence levels, probably all of the posters on this forum would be considered of exceptional capacity in terms of understanding investment, yourself included.Investors come in many guises and from different backgrounds. A study conducted by England's Financial Services Authority (FSA) in 2004 called "Consumer Understanding Of Financial Risk" has shed some light on how well people understand their investments. This can be found at: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/UnderstandRisk.asp#axzz1doQVDhVt
Based on this study you would probably fall into the category of a “Controller”. “Controllers are often experienced investors who rely on their own understanding and make their own decisions.”
If you'd taken a five second look, you'd have quickly seen that they were drowning under a mountain of debt. Did you ask Storm about their balance sheet/debt levels?The collapse of the ABC learning centers for instance was still on the horizon when we joined Storm!
I haven't bothered to read your article. It's not relevant to this discussion.In the article I have previously mentioned, it also states that ‘Education’ and ‘Financial Sophistication’ Are Not the Same Thing
For certain purposes, net worth and income restrictions must be met before a person can be classified a sophisticated investor. The distinction makes an investor eligible to buy into certain investment opportunities, such as pre-IPO securities, that are considered "non-disclosure" or "non-prospectus" issues. Typically, a sophisticated investor must have either a net worth of $2.5 million or have earned more than $250,000 in the past two years to qualify.
Yet you still fell for the greed pitch.I, myself, had to be knowledgeable in financial accounting in order to manage companies where interpreting ‘balance sheets’ and ‘profit and loss statements’ was essential. I am also a trained book-keeper (I had to be to do the books for our various businesses), but this demands a different form of expertise. Many in Storm were business sophisticates in their own right having operated small businesses and the like all their lives. Therefore, to write all ‘Stormies’ off as simpletons is not realistic or accurate.
I can't be bothered trawling through back pages, but you have, I'm quite sure, previously stated that you only wanted a modest income in retirement.You stated that I misled you when I mentioned a figure of $45,000 earlier. The figure of $45,000 emanated from a Court document and a Media article. We are not responsible for what others write about us.
Yet, as Bunyip has pointed out many times, you discarded any notion of reality, common sense and risk managementThink about it! We were retirees, not retards. Why would we invest through Storm unless we could get a good return (or so we thought) for our money. One uses a tax agent so one can reduce one’s tax to the minimum. The principle is no different!
On the one hand you describe yourself as smart, experienced and capable, and indeed to have acquired a reasonable net worth, one would imagine this to be the case.Doobsy works in the market place and therefore has an understanding of the differing nature of investors. I would tend to give him the benefit of the doubt in this instance!
We can always find time for what we consider a priority. Personally, I'd say that taking care of your financial well being is every bit as important as keeping in shape in order to take care of your physical health.Insights from the darkside. I would say for over 50% of the ppl i see one of the first things i need to do is explain super is a tax structure where you have the same investment choices as investing outside in personal names. This misunderstanding may be apathy it may be age based whatever. Time is an issue. I have wanted to learn Spanish for 12 months but running a business, having a six month old i adore, trying to stay in shape and have some sort of social interactions means i havent found the time. I think for many ppl investing is like this. It gets put back behind other things because life gets in the way.
The other point is unless you are retired or unemployed you do not have the time to stay up to date with markets, strategies, technical points and govts changing laws. Ppl need an expert. Even if sometimes it is simply to tell them nothing has changed and to keep doing what they are doing.
To Bunnyip, SIG1974 and Julia,
My reason for joining this forum has never been to justify why we and others invested using Storm as our financial advisers. I have merely explained our rationale because I have been asked to by people like Doobsy who seem to be genuinely interested. To others like yourselves, whatever I or other “Stormies” say will never be enough anyway and I realize this. Therefore my postings are not aimed at you but rather those that now operate within the financial sector and want to improve the way they do business.
There is much to learn from the Storm debacle if people are willing to listen to those that were caught up in the Storm collapse and understand first hand what occurred.
I believe this forum can be enlivened by constructive debate about some of the issues involved and the weaknesses that have been inherent in the financial advisory sector to date. By exploring some of these issues, we can also inform any would-be investors of the things to look out for that were not apparent to us at the time.
It would be easy to stay within the confines of my own group or within SICAG because it offers some safety from our detractors. However, I believe that by so doing, it achieves little because these are closed forums and those within are all, for the most part, people that will never invest again. Their minds are now forever closed because they have been deceived by those they thought they could trust. We need to get our message out to the public at large and this forum may be one way of doing this.
....................................
There is a window of opportunity here to delve into the reasons behind the Storm collapse and formulate a blueprint for anyone that is seeking to invest. Whether people on this forum wish to do this is entirely their prerogative. I am willing to invest my time with them in doing this, but I am not willing to waste any more of my time on people that only want to listen to themselves speak and have closed their minds to the views of others. It may give them some satisfaction but it’s leading nowhere fast.
We can always find time for what we consider a priority. Personally, I'd say that taking care of your financial well being is every bit as important as keeping in shape in order to take care of your physical health.
It does not require massive inputs of time. It just requires about half an hour a day of keeping abreast of the news, global and local, and subscribing to a couple of objective sources of financial news analysis. Then a one-off self education course via the ASX website or that of an online broker, then an equally one-off reading of a couple of basic books, and you're on your way.
I don't buy this "no time to do it" stuff. I have friends who are highly intelligent and well educated, successful in their chosen careers but who keep saying they have no time to educate themselves in basic financial literacy. They say this as they sit for three hours over lunch, or describe a Sunday afternoon just 'going for a drive'.
In short, they prefer to whine about how "super is a con", failing even to grasp the basic fact that Super is simply a tax advantaged vehicle for holding assets, and acknowledge that they will enter retirement almost entirely dependent on the government age pension.
We all make our choices. And we are where we are as a result of the choices we make.
Just a quick comment about apportioning blame.
I can understand why some participants in this event are taking the position that complete blame lies elsewhere and not with them.
We shouldn't lose sight that there are current actions in progress to seek a remedy and that there may be subsequent related actions.
I believe that it could be detrimental to make any admission of fault that could be harmful to your position, especially in a public forum.
S
I believe this forum can be enlivened by constructive debate about some of the issues involved and the weaknesses that have been inherent in the financial advisory sector to date. By exploring some of these issues, we can also inform any would-be investors of the things to look out for that were not apparent to us at the time.
Having said this, it is not my intention on this forum to belittle the financial advisory sector. I must admit that at times I do have the occasional "dummy spit" when I think about what has happened to us. However, I also know it would be foolish on my part to condemn all financial advisers for the wrongs of a few. Good financial advisers have a place in the scheme of things and they are beneficial to society.
In other words, Solly, people like Frank are going to push their own agenda while denying all personal responsibility for their actions. Why?...because they feel that this course of action is the most likely to result in them getting a payout.
It's not particularly honest....but that's what money does to some people.
bunyip, I believe Frank has the right to push any agenda he feels fit in this forum, just as anybody else has the right to counter or agree. I am pleased that there is one ex-client who is willing to be publicly identified and engage.
I hope Frank will respond one day as to why he is taking the above tack.
Maybe the courts will decide if this is an honest approach.
In debacles like this I'm always reminded of Herbert Spencer's quote from "The Principles of Biology" in 1864;
"This survival of the fittest... is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life'."
bunyip, I believe Frank has the right to push any agenda he feels fit in this forum, just as anybody else has the right to counter or agree. I am pleased that there is one ex-client who is willing to be publicly identified and engage.
I hope Frank will respond one day as to why he is taking the above tack.
Maybe the courts will decide if this is an honest approach.
In debacles like this I'm always reminded of Herbert Spencer's quote from "The Principles of Biology" in 1864;
"This survival of the fittest... is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life'."
To Bunnyip, SIG1974 and Julia,
There is much to learn from the Storm debacle if people are willing to listen to those that were caught up in the Storm collapse and understand first hand what occurred.
I believe this forum can be enlivened by constructive debate about some of the issues involved and the weaknesses that have been inherent in the financial advisory sector to date. By exploring some of these issues, we can also inform any would-be investors of the things to look out for that were not apparent to us at the time.
There is a window of opportunity here to delve into the reasons behind the Storm collapse and formulate a blueprint for anyone that is seeking to invest.
The reasons why this occurred are of no importance to them because they feel themselves superior somehow. They could never find themselves in such a situation because they are far too clever!
Now, what possible agenda could I have for making this offer other than stopping investors from making the same mistakes we did?
The others among you that are completely one-eyed should give the other eye a chance. Life is a funny thing! Some day they may lose their sight in that one eye and have nothing to fall back on!
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?