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

Arrogance?

I would think its common sense to ensure that you have a full understanding of how your life savings are being managed and the risks involved, whether its your trusted adviser investing your money, or any other professional.

And it wasn't a complex strategy they needed to understand...just a ridiculously high risk one.
 

What a load of self indulgent garbage. There goes any vestige of sympathy I've had for you HQ. Get yourself back into the real world.
 
In answer to those who have said 'take responsibility for your actions', I do, I take responsibility for accepting the advice of a qualified financial planner, and I seem to recall saying that more than once on this forum.

I'm also sure that I've said that I just wanted to walk into a financial planners office and pay him/her to give me their expert advice. I have never pretended for one moment that I was interested in financial issues, it's not my forte, never has been and never will be.

Julia has given me a good starting point and I appreciate that but I will never take any form of financial guidance from anyone ever again, all decisions will be mine alone. I no longer trust anyone no matter how genuine they may or may not be. There are loads of threads on this forum for newbies for educate themselves, don't they say 'start at the bottom' well I'm still on the bottom and learning a little each time I visit.

Financial planners spend something in the vicinity of four years at university studying for their degree, more for their PhD, and you're virtually saying 'don't believe them they don't know what they're talking about but I should know exactly what they are talking about even though I've never had a financial lesson in my life', well that sounds like good sound advice!!!

It's all very well to say after the event 'you should have educated yourself first' in which case I wouldn't have bothered seeking financial advice, I would have just muddled through as I've done all along and as I intend to do in the future.

They put warning labels on cigarette packets, why don't they do the same thing to financial planners, it really is almost the same thing, life threatening, just ask those who's family members have suicided over this disaster.

As for those affected by the dreadful flooding in SE Qld earlier in the year, many of us know people directly affected by that disaster in the Lockyer Valley, myself included, and I see them still traumatised. You'll get no argument from me on that score.

What many of you who are sitting back doing the criticising don't realise the exact scale of the storm disaster on thousands of lives. Like the floods, storm and co have stripped the homes off thousands and they've been left floundering without any idea of how or why, and then to boot, they've been called greedy.

One minute you think you're doing the right thing seeking and accepying financial advice and the next you're a greedy mongrel who should have educated yourself and realised that what you were doing was wrong, what a load of hogwash.

It's all very well for you arm chair experts out there in forumland to sit up there on your soapboxes and criticise us. The fact remains that there are a lot of traumatised, untrusting people out there who have had their homes and lives totally destroyed by this disaster and many of them are whole families, great grandparents, grandparents, parents and the kids, whole generations destroyed.

Don't tell me to educate myself, I'm over it; tell the financial planners, banks and government to get their act together and do their jobs properly instead of ripping off the ordinary man in the name of 'financial planning.'
 


Solly said:
GG

Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that you will really be there?

I hope you snap some pics with your g-Phone from the scene and upload them for us all to peruse.

S
Click to expand...



Solly said:
More by Bridget Carter @ www.theaustralian.com.au
Click to expand...

Solly, mate,

I have arrived at the mate's "Church" on the Gold Coast having been met this afternoon by a frantic mob of believers at the Wild Scotsman in Gin Gin who travelled north in a Toyota Tarago to plead their beliefs and financial statements. The books are in an interesting state but with this earthly financial year yet to end for in excess of seven months I have persuaded the congregation to consider Casa Cassimatis as the base for a new church, The Church of the Coral Sea.

The Cassimatis mansion in Townsville was passed in this afternoon at $1.35m, a smidgeon under the SP Bookie's estimate at the Ross Island Hotel not 24 hours ago, as I faithfully recorded on this thread.

She ( The bookie ) reckons that an offer of $1.6 will garner the pile for the service of the just and the pure, and The Church of the Coral Sea.

Unfortunately due to some unfortunate entanglement with MF Global, the Church is cash flow challenged, and from my view of the books has only $1.6m to spend on this worthy cause.

As my fees are $400,000, this will leave them with only $1.2m.

I wondered if you or Lady Penelope could rustle up a lazy 4, to become 25% partners in a Church on Melton Tce., Townsville, which will be dedicated to the expungement of the taint of money, greed, capitalism and financial cataclysm from that gentle slope.

It will be an icon for believers and a warning for those who believe in ASIC, financial planners and banks.

Please let me know as soon as you can and I will contact Byrnsie. I am off to visit a member of the flock presently located adjacent to the Stockport Watchhouse who has a guaranteed cure for obesity which he hopes to market in North Queensland.

gg
 
Harleyquin said:
Financial planners spend something in the vicinity of four years at university studying for their degree, more for their PhD,
Click to expand...

You're have to be kidding if you believe that !
There may be some who have taken it to that level but I know a few very successful ones who never did, one of them used to sell insurance door to door !
 
'What a load of self indulgent garbage. There goes any vestige of sympathy I've had for you HQ. Get yourself back into the real world.' by Julia

I live very much in the real world Julia and I don't recall asking for or expecting sympathy from you or anyone else. As you yourself have often said 'this is a stock forum' and I'd like to remind you that this thread say's 'Storm Financial Group'. That is, one would expect, a thread on which one can discuss all aspects of the storm disaster, nothing more, nothing less.

As for a load of self indulgent garbage, that's only your opinion Julia, and I know that there are many, myself included, who disagree with your opinions. It's obvious from your postings on other threads that you've become a very financially astute person and I admire you for that, yet you continue to contribute nothing to this thread except a monologue of abuse to all the storm victims. You continue to nitpick on all postings offering nothing in return. I often wonder why you bother visiting this thread and what your agenda really is.
 
Boggo our storm financial planner had a university degree. I did my research on that score. It has been shown however that some of the storm 'planners' had a five minute lesson with some university for their degree, that's disgusting.

If financial planners are operating without formal qualifications and still approved by ASIC and the FPA, then I want to know how and why. I expect a so called professional to at least have professional qualifications, that's the least one would expect.

You'll have to excuse me if I fail to believe that there was anyone 'successful' in financial planning who sold insurance, I may have believed it once but not today. That's a furfy.

Time they got rid of the non professionals out of the profession and tightened up on their 'professionalism'. No unqualified person should be legally allowed to call themselves a financial planner. Just my two bobs worth.
 

You are excused and I never said that they weren't qualified, they meet every requirement plus a few but never spent four years in uni listening to someone who has never actually practised.

They are a damn sight more professional than any one else I have encountered in that industry.
Maybe the lesson is to avoid the uni bludgers and seek out the ones that started from scratch and learned the hard way and you might avoid another storm !
 

Hi Harlequin,

Nice to have you back! The bigots are still out in force, I'm afraid!

Do what I’ve now done and only reply to people with something constructive rather than destructive to say! Idiots will only succeed in vexing you if you encourage them.

It's much better if you relegate the 'Dumb and Dumbers' on this forum to the back-bench where they belong. They just want you to confess to something you didn’t do to feed their own egos. You’ll never be able to explain to such people what happened because they have all the answers.

Trust me, it’s not worth your time or effort. Better to wait for intelligent posters to come along rather than squander your energy for nothing.
 

‘Intelligent’ posters like you eh Frank?....people who repeatedly contradict themselves, make silly statements they can’t substantiate, make claims they can’t back up, big-note themselves about their careers and business achievements in the mistaken belief that this is relevant to this discussion, publicly condemn all financial planners but then change their mind a week or two later, refuse to take responsibility for their own actions but expect everyone else to be accountable for theirs, etc etc etc etc etc.
Yep, that’s pretty ‘intelligent’ all right Frank!
Strange though that such an intelligent man couldn’t see the glaringly obvious pitfalls in the Storm strategy. Ahh well – I guess I just don’t understand ‘intelligent’ people.
Maybe the only way for me to become 'intelligent' is to agree with everything you say.
 
Thanks Frank I'll take your comments on board.

We have committed a 'crime' apparently. I, and many others, have already admitted that our 'crime' was to believe a financial planner, who had the financial backing of the CBA, and believe what they had to say. I had dealt with that bank before and trusted them implicately.

The point is not, 'you should have done your research etc' , the point is 'we should have been able to trust the very people who let us down'. End of story.

We have, and continue to pay the price for our trust; and the price is far far higher than anyone else not involved has any idea.

My advice these days to anyone seeking financial advice is DON'T TRUST ANYONE WITH YOUR FINANCES, no matter how genuinely they present themselves to you, there is just too much corruption in this country, from the top down.

I find the internet extremely helpful, unfortunately those of us who live in remote areas are not always able to access it one hundred percent of the time, and our computers are almost ready for the computer graveyard. Contrary to what our city counterparts think , there are still many out here who've no access to a computer or the internet as the costs involved are too great, among other things.

There are some genuine posters on this thread and they've given us some sensible advice and I for one appreciate their input. The storm disaster has taken an incredibly huge toll on so many, they continue to pay a heavy price and the uneducated ramblings of some posters are only rubbing salt into their open wounds.
 
DON'T TRUST ANYONE WITH YOUR FINANCES,
Click to expand...

Ive never read this thread.
But this is the wisest thing you can possibly do.

I have a rule which I never break.

"If I cant control it then I dont do it."

Business
Property
Trading
Investing
Super.

You'll never find yourself on a thread like this!
 
Boggo you didn't say they weren't qualified however you didn't say they were either.

As for the second part of your comment, I agree with you.

I would just like to see the industry cleaned up and the participants suitable qualified and made accountable. That isn't the case at present.

An accountant must be suitably qualified, and accountable, to call themselves an accountant.

I would just like to see the same applied to our financial planners.

I'd also like to see the same applied to our banking sector.

Obviously a strong banking industry is extremely important to our country's continued growth and financial success but when they or their employees commit a crime, they need to own up and acknowledge that there has been a problem and they are willing to address it.
 

End of story eh? I don’t think so. That’s precisely the naïve attitude that’s partly responsible for the situation you find yourself in.
If only it was that easy – that we could take everything salesmen say as gospel truth.
The real end of the story though is that if you accept at face value everything salesmen tell you, without looking into it properly, you’re ‘cruisin’ for a bruisin’.
No matter if they’re selling real estate, cars, investment strategies, swimming pools or whatever – if you blindly believe the sales pitch then you’re setting yourself up for a fall.
People who can’t get this simple fact through their heads can end up paying a heavy price for their naivety and their trusting nature.

That’s not the way it should be, but it’s the way it is.

Incidentally, HQ, nobody has said or even hinted that you committed a crime or did anything immoral or illegal.
 
Why Storm's Professional Indemnity Insurance failed

Extract from my letter to ASIC 16th November 2011

Subject: Re: Reg Guide 210 –“Compensation and Insurance arrangements for credit licensees.”

"...There are two areas in particular with regard to "Professional Indemnity Insurance” that the Storm Financial saga has highlighted as major weaknesses in the system:

The first is the amount of cover in monetary terms that was taken out by Storm Financial. The total sum of Storm’s insurance - $25-45 million or so dollars - in a business with a turnover of hundreds of millions of dollars was simply ludicrous. Why someone in your Office never picked up on this is beyond me. Unfortunately, this National Credit Act has not fully addressed this issue either because it has totally missed the point in the first place?

The point is that even if Storm Financial had professional indemnity insurance in place for $500 million or more, we, the investors, would not have been able to claim against such an insurance cover because Storm had no provision for such contained in the policy.

'Claims made' policie - such as professional indemnity and directors' and officers' (D&O) insurance - only provide cover for claims made against the insured during the policy period. They invariably include a deeming provision, under which the insurance is extended to claims made outside of the policy period, provided they arise from circumstances notified to insurers within it. Without the deeming provision, the insured would be left without cover for such claims.

The sentence, “They invariably include a deeming provision, under which the insurance is extended to claims made outside of the policy period, provided they arise from circumstances notified to insurers within it” is of particular relevance. You may recall that Storm’s professional indemnity insurance came up for renewal in December of 2008. Any claims that we had on Storm’s professional indemnity insurance were extinguished at that time which really makes the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (National Credit Act) a bit of a joke unless the Insurance Contracts Act is amended to accommodate circumstances such as these.

Let me quote you part of an article by ‘FindLaw Australia’s Michael Gill entitled, ‘Section 54 Review of the Insurance Contracts Act:

“Particular problems have emerged in relation to the operation of section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act upon claims made and claims made and notified policies. The benefits extended to insureds by section 54 have been gradually extended by the courts. In particular, in the 2001 case of FAI General Insurance Company Ltd v Australian Hospital Care Pty Ltd, the High Court applied section 54 to a deeming clause in a professional indemnity policy. A deeming clause can extend an insured's cover even if no claim is made against the insured during the period of insurance. It extends cover provided that the insured gives written notice during the period of insurance if it becomes aware of any occurrence which might subsequently give rise to a claim against it. An insurer has been obliged to indemnify an insured who failed to notify circumstances discovered during the currency of a policy unless prejudice could be proved.

Since Australian Hospital Care, insurers writing claims made and claims made and notified policies have tended to omit deeming clauses from their policies. This leaves the insured to rely on the statutory right given by section 40(3) of the Act. It has been held by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Gosford Council v GIO General Limited that section 54 does not apply in relation to the statutory right provided by section 40(3) but, as the Report rightly points out, 'there is still some uncertainty because the High Court may well reverse the effect of the decision in Gosford Council v GIO General Limited'.

The Report indicates that there was strong evidence that the judicial interpretation of section 54 was a factor having material impact on the professional indemnity insurance market in Australia. Some insurers, particularly London insurers, had withdrawn from the market, or had altered their policies in an effort to reduce the impact of the decisions. Others made it clear that they would withdraw if those alterations were found by subsequent judicial decisions to be ineffective. The reviewers also report that even where cover remained, the cost was increasing alarmingly and the comprehensiveness of the cover was declining.

The Report concludes that legislative reform is necessary in relation to the operation of section 54 on claims made and claims made and notified insurance. It recommends that section 54 be amended so as not to apply to a failure to notify circumstances that might give rise to a claim. This would amount to a statutory reversal of the High Court decision in Australian Hospital Care Pty Ltd.

Section 40(3) only gives a statutory protection to an insured where notice of facts that might give rise to a claim is made as soon as was reasonably practical but in any event before the insurance cover provided by the contract expired. The Panel has recognised that this could give rise to unfair results and has recommended an extended reporting period of 45 days after expiry of the insurance policy. There is also a recommendation that insurers provide a pre-expiry notice to insured of their need to notify circumstances, unless there is, to the insurer's knowledge, a broker involved.”

Investors in this country need an insurance cover that will protect them from the many rogues that roam the investment sector. It is appreciated that people cannot insure themselves against losses that arise in the investment market, but they should be able to effectively insure themselves against fraudulent or negligent behaviour by the financial advisory firms/individuals that ply their trade. They should also be able to claim after the event because many of them are not made aware of all the facts until it is all too late! An insurance industry that cannot devise a policy to cater for such eventualities lacks both imagination and commercial enterprise. It is also failing to meet the interests of its clients.

There were some Storm investors that took out an insurance cover with Storm believing that they were covered for loss should Storm fail. They were, of course, duped like the rest of us. The very fact that they could have the wool pulled over their eyes in this way is a sad indictment of the poor way this industry was regulated and does your organization no credit whatsoever. It’s time now, I feel, for concerted action on your part to atone for past deficiencies.

What needs to be done is simple enough. It should be incumbent on all credit licensees to take out a professional indemnity insurance cover for an adequate sum of money (sliding scale depending on the value of the individuals' investment assets) that contains a deeming clause extendable (for claim purposes) for a year beyond the expiration of the policy. The Storm fiasco should have taught your organization and this Government that nothing less is workable. This professional indemnity insurance cover should be mandatory!

If it costs a little more so what! It's better than it costing investors everything later on! Investors would rather pay a little more now and have some form of security instead of being left out on a limb as they clearly have been!

For that matter the Government itself might consider offering a special form of insurance of its own to investors, effectively by-passing the insurance industry altogether. It would be: (1) a revenue earner, (2) it would restore confidence in the market place, and (3) it would ensure that the likes of another Storm Financial episode would be minimised.

Whatever, strong steps need to be taken now! Sometimes, it seems to us, the victims of Government ineptitude, that these conditions continue to persist in the financial sector because it suits certain vested interests, be they in the insurance sector, in the banking sector or wherever. Quite frankly, we, the people that pay the ultimate price, are sick and tired of it all. "
 

I totally agree. However, I don't think such a philosophy should preclude people from seeking advice in an area where they have minimal experience. I expect you get e.g. good tax advice from your accountant, and legal clarification where you need it.

But you're not going to go accepting crazy suggestions just because someone has set themselves up in an advisory capacity, are you?

I've had an accountant who behaved completely unethically. That doesn't mean I'm never going to use any accountant ever again. Neither would I consider it reasonable to demonise an entire profession on the basis of that bad experience.
 

That’s right – some Stormers still don’t seem to have a clear understanding of how or why this all happened. And their lack of understanding will continue unless they're enlightened by someone with knowledge in these areas.
That's one of the main reasons why those of us who knew how to avoid the Storm Financials of this world bother to post on here.

We share our knowledge and experience, we point out the pitfalls in the Storm strategy, we point out the risk in margin loans, we point out the mistakes Stormers made, so that those mistakes and pitfalls can be avoided in the future.
Some Stormers are wise enough to glean something worthwhile from what we say. Others berate us for ‘attacking’ them, for being wise after the event, for being 'arm chair experts', for not ‘understanding’ their plight.
Such is life – help comes in many different forms, but you don’t always get thanked for trying to help people.

And HQ, another thing.......nobody has called you ‘greedy mongrels’. In fact nobody is even making a blanket statement that you were all greedy. What we’ve said is that some Stormers were greedy for chasing more wealth and income when they were already financially well of and nicely set up for a comfortable retirement.
So please get a grip on yourself, stop ranting on with silly nonsense, and try to speak truthfully. A week or two back you received favorable comment from a number of us for the dignity you’ve shown on this forum in spite of the difficult time you’ve been through. It’s a shame to see you starting to abandon that dignity.
 
My mother called in a FA or knew FA (take that any way you like ) adviser from her bank who told her to invest in a arm of that bank as it now turns out the company concerned is in financial trouble and frozen her funds and have agreed to re- pay 25% of the principle over the next few years however it look like she can claim hardship and get some back sooner how much is not know and will take some week for an answer.
So if some one can go to a bank for advise on money and still end up getting fleeced what hope is there for any one.
 
GG during a phone hacking experiment I some how over heard a conversation from North Ward about Pres. Obama when he was staying in a Bungalow at the Ross Island abode.

The topic was he Keynesian or not and the other person managed to established he was in fact born in Hawaii not Kenya then the person gave him a gift of KY gel to pass on to Herman Cain.
I realise your could have been on your sojourn to the land of Satan so may not be able to confirm this also a story about a statesman like person quelling riots run by the OHA ( Occupy Hedges Avenue ) group.

I relaise there could be an effort to besmirch your good name here.

Can you confirm these stories ?
 
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
872
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
64
Views
6K
ducati916
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...