Storm Financial Group

[Solly]

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

GG

I hope it wasn't a rented Tarago from the GC. I suggest a thorough vacuuming before returning to the depot. All kinds of residues can be found lurking which can have quite a strange effect on the K9 Squad, causing them to howl at the moon for days.

I have reviewed your offer and this is a sound proposal, needs no prospectus or further scrutiny or other opinion. It is a noble use for such already hallowed grounds.
It would only need some minor works to install a bell tower. I'm sure the bell ringers could thread the pull ropes through the featured chandelier and sound off a set of method ringing every time a soul has been saved from the financial dark side.

Lady P and I will have a spare lazy 4 soon, as soon as it's cleaned in the High Rollers Room at the Big J. Let me know where to send the fiat. I've got a couple of mates who can assist with delivery, they have large panniers on their Fat Boys and is only a short trip from the Hinterland.

I've been reviewing the vision from the auction. Saw this still of Byrnsie. To me it sure does look like he's preaching to the converted. I wonder if he'd be interested in scheduling a few services to the faithful between his open house inspections ?

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2011/11/19/1226199/934839-cassimatis-mansion-auction-nov-19.jpg

S

 

[Solly]

"Collapses won't stop under ASIC: Ripoll

Panel tackles opt-in and intra-fund advice
An industry panel has responded to questions about ASIC's powers and impact of the FOFA reforms."

More by Philippa Yelland @ www.investordaily.com

 

[Frank Ainslie]

I cannot believe the attacks made here on people that have been decimated by Storm and the banks.

I have had an experience involving helping to try and pick up the pieces for people who were decimated by taking the advice of their financial planner. The end result on the back of the bad advice was financial decimation.

These people placed the same level of trust in their advisor as they did their doctor, accountant, lawyer etc only to be destroyed.

For many of these people they will never recover from what has occurred. Many people do not have the level of sophistication financially and hence sought the advice of someone they believed was qualified to manage their nest egg.

The arrogance of some people here to say oh you should have researched this. If you go to your accountant do you take his tax advice and then go and do your own research. A certain percentage with financial skills could but for most they take the advice of a trusted advisor.

Walk in someone shoes for a while before you start throwing mud.

Hi Gardie,

I see that we have someone that truly understands.

When someone is standing on a ledge waiting to jump off, some people will try and save him or her and others want to see that person fall. Anyone that wants to blame the Storm victims for what happened rather than go after the real culprits, to my mind, falls into the second category. Yet, these same "Jump!" merchants will be the first ones shouting and bawling if they go into hospital to have a leg amputated and wake up in the morning to find that the surgeons took off the good leg by mistake.

"But I thought he was a proper surgeon? I thought he was qualified?

"You mean Doctor Patel? We did too but no one bothered to check on his credentials! No one did the research!"

Individuals that blithely go through life imbued with hubris and arrogance often find that life has a few curved balls in the back cupboard that it has been saving up for them. When it happens, it will be interesting to see how they cope!

Regards

FA

 

[SJG1974]

Hi Gardie,

I see that we have someone that truly understands.

When someone is standing on a ledge waiting to jump off, some people will try and save him or her and others want to see that person fall. Anyone that wants to blame the Storm victims for what happened rather than go after the real culprits, to my mind, falls into the second category. Yet, these same "Jump!" merchants will be the first ones shouting and bawling if they go into hospital to have a leg amputated and wake up in the morning to find that the surgeons took off the good leg by mistake.

"But I thought he was a proper surgeon? I thought he was qualified?

"You mean Doctor Patel? We did too but no one bothered to check on his credentials! No one did the research!"

Individuals that blithely go through life imbued with hubris and arrogance often find that life has a few curved balls in the back cupboard that it has been saving up for them. When it happens, it will be interesting to see how they cope!

Regards

FA

Thats it isn't it Frank...someone agrees with you and they understand?

Someone doesn't and they are short sighted, one eyed, arrogant, ill-informed, and whatever else you call people who don't agree with you.

Noone is blaming the Storm victims Frank. Noone is dancing around rubbing your noses in it. I know you love emphasising wherever possible that you are a victim, and you are a victim. Many parties played a role in your financial demise, but the fact that you won't acknowledge or admit the role YOU played is staggering.

You and others ask the question about what sort of a world we live in where the banks and financial planners can get away with this. Well I will counter with a question:

What sort of a world do we live in where people cannot take responsibility for their own actions?

Thats you Frank.

YOU entrusted your life savings in a strategy YOU DID NOT UNDERSTAND. You just blindly followed what your adviser said and didn't bother to verify his claims. Surely your life savings demanded more attention than that?
If you didn't understand it, why did you do it??????

These were your life savings Frank. Did you not value them enough to ensure you understood what was being done with them?

Sure we would like to live in some kind of utopia where everyone can be trusted to do the right thing and nothing can go wrong, but the world doesn't work like that. Surely as a worldly businessman you knew that didn't you?

It is simple common sense to ensure you understand where your life savings were being committed. It was a simple, yet flawed strategy Frank, which you decided to commit to without taking the time to get a second opinion or do some checking of your own.

Hence, you are a victim of your own lack of common sense, amongst other things.

 

[maccka]

One of the common training/education/professional development theories is the Conscious Competence Learning Model. It explains 4 stages of learning that are particularly relevant to adults in all walks of life when learning a new concept or skill.

Stage 1 Unconscious Incompetence - People have no idea that they don't know something. It can occur when people don't know that something exists so therefore they don't know about it or it can occur when people think they understand something but in reality don't.

Stage 2 Conscious Incompetence - People know they don't know something. For example - I know that I understand the theory of how to fly a plane however I also know I don't have the skills required to do so yet. People in this area will often seek assistance from others who they consider skilled or qualified in order to do particular tasks. For example, I would seek a qualified pilot to do the flying in the event that I need to fly somewhere.

Stage 3 Conscious Competence - People are aware of what they can do. They utilise and apply their learning and skills and have to think constantly about what they are doing and why.

Stage 4 Unconscious Competence - People are so highly skilled or practiced that they can perform tasks without thinking about what they are doing and why. These people often describe themselves as following their gut.

I think that if you were to look at many of the clients of Storm (or any financial planning product) you would find a small number that fit into Stage 3, tiny number that fit into Stage 4 and that many/most of them fit into Stage 1 and 2. And in fact I would go so far as to suggest that some fit into both 1 & 2.

Stage 1 - People in this stage often don't ask the right questions as they aren't aware (1) that they need to or (2) what questions they should be asking. People thought that they had learned large amounts about how financial planning worked through the considerable hours of training and learning that they had to do as part of the Storm client seminars but were unaware of the things that they really didn't understand until it was too late.

Stage 2 - They sought professional help (that they paid big money for believing the fees were reasonable and justified) from people who were founding members of a seemingly well respected professional body called FPA and many of whom held tertiary level qualifications in financial planning.

These people knew enough about themselves to know that they didn't know enough about the industry so they asked lots of questions. Many people asked for references about the company from other people they knew and trusted (friends and family); they spoke to their bank managers (who supported the move - we know why now don't we?); they checked with the professional associations and many of the people I know did check out the company and its methods with other financial planners.

This is not a simple black and white situation guys. It would be nice if people stopped beating themselves and others up over it. There are complex legal/financial/emotional and psychological matters here.

The only black and white part of this is that Stormers are under a huge amount of stress (still) and many of them are doing their level best to get themselves out of it. Some are trying to make sure that any institution that was complicit is brought to task. For those of you desperate to apportion blame you should feel quite confident that when the time comes for blame to be apportioned and restitution to be paid (if at all) the courts will recognize the part that all parties played and take that into consideration.

As for the pages and pages of he said/she said, your fault/their fault nonsense that we have witnessed in recent weeks - enough is enough. You are constantly covering the same ground and trampling it into a compacted mass of nonsense with very little basis in fact or even opinion worth reading such a repeated number of times. It's hard enough to see the truth in the muddy water without the continual stirring of the mud and muck to make it worse.

Perhaps you'd all be best to go away and cool your heels for a while. Perhaps even you might like to choose to utilize some selective ignoring of parties that you know you don't (and never will) agree with.

As it comes dangerously close to the first anniversary of the suicide of one of the Storm Financial clients extremely close to me I would dearly love to see a degree of decorum and understanding between members of this forum.

cheers
Maccka

 

[Julia]

Maccka, that's a balanced and sensible post. I like the diagram and its analysis.
(People laughed at Donald Rumsfeld's "Known Knowns and Known Unknowns" speech, but what he said was spot on and can - as you point out here - be related to many of life's situations.)

Agree that this thread has been going round in circles for some time.

I determine to stop commenting as I've nothing new to add. But then a couple of people post something so outrageous that I won't let it go unchallenged.

The main example of this is the branding of the entire financial services industry as unethical and incompetent. That is simply not correct and it is totally unfair.

 

[DocK]

This is not a simple black and white situation guys. It would be nice if people stopped beating themselves and others up over it. There are complex legal/financial/emotional and psychological matters here.

The only black and white part of this is that Stormers are under a huge amount of stress (still) and many of them are doing their level best to get themselves out of it. Some are trying to make sure that any institution that was complicit is brought to task. For those of you desperate to apportion blame you should feel quite confident that when the time comes for blame to be apportioned and restitution to be paid (if at all) the courts will recognize the part that all parties played and take that into consideration.

As for the pages and pages of he said/she said, your fault/their fault nonsense that we have witnessed in recent weeks - enough is enough. You are constantly covering the same ground and trampling it into a compacted mass of nonsense with very little basis in fact or even opinion worth reading such a repeated number of times. It's hard enough to see the truth in the muddy water without the continual stirring of the mud and muck to make it worse.

Perhaps you'd all be best to go away and cool your heels for a while. Perhaps even you might like to choose to utilize some selective ignoring of parties that you know you don't (and never will) agree with.

As it comes dangerously close to the first anniversary of the suicide of one of the Storm Financial clients extremely close to me I would dearly love to see a degree of decorum and understanding between members of this forum.

cheers
Maccka

Very well said Maccka. I don't see the probability as high, but it would indeed be nice to see a degree of decorum and understanding. The personal attacks and sniping have become monotonous on both sides lately, and manners appear to be a thing of the past. I know there are some hanging on by a thread at this time of year, it sometimes doesn't take a lot to let depression gain the upper hand. Arguing with strangers who will never understand the way you feel is unlikely to be productive - best to put the thread to bed imo

 

[Mindstorm]

Hi GG,

SICAG held its Annual General Meeting on 19 June 2010. Noel and Mark were re-elected. Some positions in the committee changed but the newly elected committee is very similar.

Manny is not a member so he can't be the Chairman.

Cheers
Maccka

Quoting an old post of your's Maccka, and to change the current subject of the thread for a moment:

I've been looking through previous posts on this thread, (obviously too much time on my hands), and there seems to be have been much made of the continued presence of Noel O'Brien and Mark Weir on the SICAG Committee in some posts.

I was at the meeting at the Ox in Margate when these two were voted onto the SICAG Committee, (amongst those others who were nomitated and voted in on that occasion). At that time I didn't know anyone else who was involved with Storm Financial, and I didn't take part in that vote.

They've resigned and been re-nomitated twice now to my knowledge, at SICAG AGMs. (Please anyone feel welcome to correct me if I'm wrong here.)

I believe that another SICAG AGM is due in the coming weeks, and yet again they will have to resign their positions, (as will all of the committee).

It'll be interesting to see if anyone steps forward to take their place.

Personally, I'll be voting them both in again, because I don't think anyone else could take over from them now. I do wonder though, if they would have put their hands up in 2009 if they'd realised that they'd be 'stuck' on the committee for the duration.

In the (nearly) three years now since the formation of SICAG, I don't think that there could be anyone amongst the SICAG members that I've met personally who would be willing to take on the job that they have.

Whether you believe it or not, that committee, more especially Mark Weir and Noel O'brien, have put themselves on the line for many people. You can tell me they did this to forward their own best interests, but I think the personal price they've paid in speaking for others, when they are so obviously able to fight the banks on a one to one basis to solve their own situations, (and not involve themselves in other storm clients problems), speaks for itself.

Maccka, I'm very sorry for your loss. I know lots of sicag members now, but none who have found themselves in such a desparate situation where they thought it best to take their own life. Sincere condolences.

MS

 

[gardie]

Gee SJG1974 you must feel good ripping into Frank again.

Do you not think that he would everyday ask himself why he didnt do the things you are suggesting he did.

Were you the kid at school with the magnify glass burning ants or just the school bully ?

A lot of people have been decimated because in hindsight they were too trusting. Now people here seem to take pleasure in kicking the c--p out of them because they have superior financial knowledge.

If you cannot see that the banks in engaging in these extreme lending practices have a case to answer then you cannot see the woods for the tree's.

 

[Mindstorm]

Maccka,

Sorry, I meant to ask you this in my previous post.

How do you know that Manny is not part of SICAG?

Are you in a position where you know who is a member of sicag?

MS

 

[Harleyquin]

Thank you so much Maccka for such a sensible post and a good reference point for all of us when we get a little hot under the collar.

It' s not always easy being a storm survivor.

 

[SJG1974]

Gee SJG1974 you must feel good ripping into Frank again.

Do you not think that he would everyday ask himself why he didnt do the things you are suggesting he did.

Were you the kid at school with the magnify glass burning ants or just the school bully ?

A lot of people have been decimated because in hindsight they were too trusting. Now people here seem to take pleasure in kicking the c--p out of them because they have superior financial knowledge.

If you cannot see that the banks in engaging in these extreme lending practices have a case to answer then you cannot see the woods for the tree's.

No doubt the banks have a case to answer. Never said they don't. Perhaps rather than take the high moral ground, you should go back and read my posts before making accusations.

If he is going to come on a public forum and deal out some of the over the top rubbish he has, he has to expect people to question his motives in going with Storm in the first place. He is yet to provide an answer for this that makes any sense whatseover. Here is a man who had in excess of $1m unencumbered, wanted $45,000 p.a. to live on, and saw merit in a strategy to borrow against his home, and borrow again via a margin loan, and put it all on the sharemarket. And it all goes horribly wrong, and everyone else is to blame? Come on, give me a break.

I don't delight in his misfortune, far from it. But investing in shares is a risky business. As is gearing. As is double gearing. As is committing your life savings to a strategy which involved all three of these things and not having an understanding of the risks involved. As is handing you entire financial future to a third party and not taking the time to understand what he is doing with your money.

And frank was prepared to take on all of these risks, so he should be prepared to accept some of the responsibility for the loss that occurred.

You can disagree with me, I don't really care. Everyone knows how I feel about this whole episode. Time to move on now, as others have suggested. I think I will leave it at that and go back to burning ants with my magnifying glass.

 

[bunyip]

Gee SJG1974 you must feel good ripping into Frank again.

Do you not think that he would everyday ask himself why he didnt do the things you are suggesting he did.

Were you the kid at school with the magnify glass burning ants or just the school bully ?

A lot of people have been decimated because in hindsight they were too trusting. Now people here seem to take pleasure in kicking the c--p out of them because they have superior financial knowledge.

If you cannot see that the banks in engaging in these extreme lending practices have a case to answer then you cannot see the woods for the tree's.

Gardie

If we’ve said it once, we said it a hundred times – we’re not claiming that the banks have no case to answer. We’ve said over and over that the banks should be accountable for their actions – if those actions can be proven in a court of law to have been illegal, then the banks should be dealt with accordingly.
It's looking like you’re rather slow on the uptake – will we have to tell you a hundred more times that we’re not defending the banks or denying that they’ve done something wrong?

As for SJG ‘ripping into Frank again’ – you are of course entitled to your opinion on that score. My view is somewhat different – I say that SJG is simply pointing out to Frank in a forthright and completely truthful manner a number of things that Frank is in self-denial about.
SJG has not used abusive language to get his point across, he hasn’t even come close to duplicating the scornful terminology that Frank uses to describe those who disagree with him.
Are we supposed to desist from being forthright and honest because it might upset someone? If you can’t handle someone speaking the truth, then why are you on this forum? Maybe it would suit you better if SJG was a habitual liar instead of being honest and forthright.

 

[Harleyquin]

Julia you've said earlier that this statement irks you. ''The main example of this is the branding of the entire financial services industry as unethical and incompetent. That is simply not correct and it is totally unfair.'' I can understand why this would upset many as you're right, it is unfair.

The problem for anyone looking for financial help for the first time is that the numbers of those in the financial industry who are unethical and incompetent are far too high. Some posters have said 'there have always been shonks in the industry' etc. and the impression that I'm getting from some is, ''this is human nature, get over it.''

Until the industry is able to clean out the shonks and sharks, by way of regular monitoring, auditing or whatever works. I feel sorry for the those in the financial industry who are genuine.

Finding out that just because an advisor is approved by ASIC and the FPA means nothing has been a shock. The incompetence shown by the government body/ASIC who are unable or unwilling to rectify the problems in the industry remains a huge problem. The FPA told me that there is nothing they could do to help even though our advisor was a member of the FPA. Now we're seeing ads promoting FPA recommended planners. No wonder so many of us are sceptical.

Knowing who to trust is still the hardest thing for the average first time seeker of financial help.

 

[Solly]

Julia you've said earlier that this statement irks you. ''The main example of this is the branding of the entire financial services industry as unethical and incompetent. That is simply not correct and it is totally unfair.'' I can understand why this would upset many as you're right, it is unfair.

The problem for anyone looking for financial help for the first time is that the numbers of those in the financial industry who are unethical and incompetent are far too high. Some posters have said 'there have always been shonks in the industry' etc. and the impression that I'm getting from some is, ''this is human nature, get over it.''

Until the industry is able to clean out the shonks and sharks, by way of regular monitoring, auditing or whatever works. I feel sorry for the those in the financial industry who are genuine.

Finding out that just because an advisor is approved by ASIC and the FPA means nothing has been a shock. The incompetence shown by the government body/ASIC who are unable or unwilling to rectify the problems in the industry remains a huge problem. The FPA told me that there is nothing they could do to help even though our advisor was a member of the FPA. Now we're seeing ads promoting FPA recommended planners. No wonder so many of us are sceptical.

Knowing who to trust is still the hardest thing for the average first time seeker of financial help.

Harleyquin,
This article may be of interest to you. It appears that Bernie Ripoll has some concerns about the Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) package and also he still has concerns about people's understanding of risk.

From, www.investordaily.com

And here's another article where Bernie Ripoll discusses more about FOFA from,

www.financialstandard.com.au

 

[doobsy]

Julia you've said earlier that this statement irks you. ''The main example of this is the branding of the entire financial services industry as unethical and incompetent. That is simply not correct and it is totally unfair.'' I can understand why this would upset many as you're right, it is unfair.

The problem for anyone looking for financial help for the first time is that the numbers of those in the financial industry who are unethical and incompetent are far too high. Some posters have said 'there have always been shonks in the industry' etc. and the impression that I'm getting from some is, ''this is human nature, get over it.''

Until the industry is able to clean out the shonks and sharks, by way of regular monitoring, auditing or whatever works. I feel sorry for the those in the financial industry who are genuine.

Finding out that just because an advisor is approved by ASIC and the FPA means nothing has been a shock. The incompetence shown by the government body/ASIC who are unable or unwilling to rectify the problems in the industry remains a huge problem. The FPA told me that there is nothing they could do to help even though our advisor was a member of the FPA. Now we're seeing ads promoting FPA recommended planners. No wonder so many of us are sceptical.

Knowing who to trust is still the hardest thing for the average first time seeker of financial help.

HQ

Can you please give me a single example of an Australian industry that doesn't have shonks/ rogue operators / those who stretch the boundaries.

 

[Igetit]

HQ

Can you please give me a single example of an Australian industry that doesn't have shonks/ rogue operators / those who stretch the boundaries.

St Vincent de Paul, Salvation Army, Red Cross, Sisters of Mercy, The BANK (OOPSY, that last one was a mistake!)

 

[bunyip]

HQ

Can you please give me a single example of an Australian industry that doesn't have shonks/ rogue operators / those who stretch the boundaries.

Doobsy makes a good point here, HQ.

Another question to consider is ‘how many shonky operators are there in the financial services industry’?
I’d suggest the number is very small in percentage terms. If you’d consulted twenty or thirty or even fifty different financial planning firms when you consulted Storm, I’ll hazard a guess that Storm would have been the only one recommending a strategy so risky and flawed that it was guaranteed to fail once the stock market changed from bullish to bearish.
I daresay all the other firms would have recommended much safer and more conservative strategies something along the lines of what Doosby outlined in some of his earlier posts.

To totally weed out every crooked operator in the financial planning industry is as impossible as weeding out every corrupt cop or politician.
Are outfits like ASIC and the FPA doing a satisfactory job of weeding out the shonks? Perhaps not, but if those watchdog organizations weren’t there then it’d be open slather for any crook to set up shop as a financial planner. Then we'd see a much larger percentage of rogue operators in the industry.

 

[Julia]

The problem for anyone looking for financial help for the first time is that the numbers of those in the financial industry who are unethical and incompetent are far too high.

How have you established this? I doubt you have any realistic basis for such a statement. You have certainly experienced one totally unethical such person but I don't see how you can extrapolate from that the conclusion that this is widespread throughout the industry.

Some posters have said 'there have always been shonks in the industry' etc. and the impression that I'm getting from some is, ''this is human nature, get over it.''

Well, HQ, whoever said that was simply being pragmatic, and until you acknowledge this and as a result learn to be discerning, you'll go on and on about how unfair it all is. And you will not move on.

Just accept that human nature consists of the very best and the very worst and everything in between.

As Doobsy has suggested, it's difficult to come up with any field of endeavour which is free of unethical behaviour.

Consider the gynaecologist who - simply because he disliked women - performed unnecessary hysterectomies.

Or the GP, addicted to morphine, who took for himself the much needed prescriptions for his terminally ill patients, depriving them of pain relief.

Or the dentist who quotes for an expensive procedure, then does a crap patch up job.
The patient doesn't know until it fails shortly after.

Or the accountant who siphons off his clients' funds with some creative accounting, the client never even knowing it has happened.

And these are "the professions". I could go on about various other occupations, e.g. the shoddily built house when the customer is paying for top quality.

Etc Etc.

Voltaire, in his satire "Candide", created a character called Dr. Pangloss. Dr Pangloss believed that "everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds", i.e. he was the ultimate optimist. He was also utterly unrealistic.

There's no point in adopting a panglossian approach to the world. It is what it is.
To expect that because someone belongs to some so called 'professional body' and has acquired a licence to give financial advice, they are therefore utterly and absolutely trustworthy is simply to deny reality.

This is not a criticism of you. Just a suggestion that you need to accept that the only people who absolutely have your best interests at heart are those who love you.
Human beings are by nature selfish in that they want what is best for themselves.
Some are disposed to take this to the extent of disregarding any notion of ethical behaviour. You cannot change that. You can, however, change your view of the world.

 

[SJG1974]

To totally weed out every crooked operator in the financial planning industry is as impossible as weeding out every corrupt cop or politician.

Yep. Like it or not, thats the world we live in. If people want to take advantage of others, they will find a way to do so. No matter what industry they work in, or what professional body they belong to. And more often than not, by the time they are caught, the damage has been done.

There's no point in adopting a panglossian approach to the world. It is what it is.
To expect that because someone belongs to some so called 'professional body' and has acquired a licence to give financial advice, they are therefore utterly and absolutely trustworthy is simply to deny reality.

This is not a criticism of you. Just a suggestion that you need to accept that the only people who absolutely have your best interests at heart are those who love you.
Human beings are by nature selfish in that they want what is best for themselves.
Some are disposed to take this to the extent of disregarding any notion of ethical behaviour. You cannot change that. You can, however, change your view of the world.

Well said.