Culprits did not ‘take all your money’.
Many people lost money when the market plunged in 2008, but most of them were not borrowed to the hilt through a ludicrous double gearing strategy, nor were they invested solely in the stockmarket. Therefore they were not financially destroyed.
These people are in stark contrast to you, Frank, who ‘went for broke’, so to speak, by mortgaging your previously unencumbered home, and using it as the cornerstone of an aggressive borrowing campaign that saw you heavily geared, then double geared on top of that, with 100% of these funds sunk into just one very risky basket called the stock market.
It was a strategy designed to massively magnify your income and wealth, but it ensured that your losses would be immense once the market inevitably turned bearish.
THAT is the primary reason you were wiped out – not because ‘culprits took all your money’.
Sure, the gravity of your situation was exacerbated by the incompetence and greed of other parties – no argument from me on that score. And I don’t blame you for seeking reasonable recompense – I’d do the same.
In fact I even hope you'll receive some compensation.
But it was your choice to accept and implement the strategy, your choice not to look into it thoroughly, your choice to trust implicitly the word of salesmen.
Remember that you had absolutely no need to do any of this – your money could have easily provided the retirement income and lifestyle you were looking for if it was invested sensibly and conservatively without any borrowing whatsoever.
I agree that the banks are unlikely to be ordered to pay 100% of your losses. Nor should they be. Indeed, it would be a travesty of justice if they were, since they didn’t cause 100% of your losses. A number of parties contributed to the situation you now find yourself in, one of which was YOU.
Bunnyip,
I am not really sure what you are trying to prove by continuing with your personal attacks on me. For one, you know nothing about me personally and yet you are making outlandish assumptions.
Let me take you through this slowly addressing the various points you have made.
“Culprits did not ‘take all your money’.”
A culprit is defined as 1. In Law a person awaiting trial, esp one who has pleaded not guilty. 2. the person responsible for a particular offence, misdeed, etc.[/I]
What part of
“offence, misdeed etc.,” don’t you understand?
Our financial adviser has already been found guilty by ASIC of giving us among others the wrong financial advice using misleading and deceptive conduct. In our particular case, he was also condemned in a Court of law (Worrells enquiry).
The Banks now stand accused of aiding and abetting Storm, yet you still want to label us (Helen and me) as culprits?
”Many people lost money when the market plunged in 2008, but most of them were not borrowed to the hilt through a ludicrous double gearing strategy, nor were they invested solely in the stockmarket. Therefore they were not financially destroyed.”
Again you have chosen to miss the point. Many people did lose money when the market plunged in 2008 but they were pulled out of the market in time by responsible people that were paid to act in their interests. The Banks and Storm
DID NOT act in a responsible way by pulling Storm’s investors out of the market in time which is what this is really all about. Why did they fail to do so? Because they had manufactured deals between them that led all parties concerned to gamble with our investments by failing to take the appropriate action. We are not talking days here but weeks and months! That’s the reason we were financially destroyed. Is it now sinking in?
”These people are in stark contrast to you, Frank, who ‘went for broke’, so to speak, by mortgaging your previously unencumbered home, and using it as the cornerstone of an aggressive borrowing campaign that saw you heavily geared, then double geared on top of that, with 100% of these funds sunk into just one very risky basket called the stock market.It was a strategy designed to massively magnify your income and wealth, but it ensured that your losses would be immense once the market inevitably turned bearish.”
These are outrageous remarks that are not based on the facts. I have already given you details of part of our Storm SOA. Nowhere does it indicate a strategy for magnifying our wealth or our adopting a “high risk” strategy. Yet, you have again chosen to ignore this!
”…it was your choice to accept and implement the strategy, your choice not to look into it thoroughly, your choice to trust implicitly the word of salesmen.”
Again, you are using words to suit your purpose. We didn’t trust the word of a saleman! We trusted the word of a qualified financial adviser that worked for a reputable financial advisory firm.
“ A number of parties contributed to the situation you now find yourself in, one of which was YOU."
Your arrogance is beyond belief. We went to a financial advisory firm for FINANCIAL ADVICE and paid that advisory firm a considerable sum of money for that advice. Today, that advisory firm and the Banks involved stand accused of doing the wrong thing by Storm’s investors.
The charges against the parties involved: Misleading and deceptive financial advice, breaches of banking codes, breaches of contracts, imprudent lending, unconscionability, breaches of the Corporations Act, breaches of the Trade Practices Act, possible charges of criminality under the Crimes Act, and, operating unregistered managed investment schemes.
Yet you now want us to admit that we were one of the culprits? What planet are you on? For that matter, what is your problem?
The Storm Financial collapse resulted in the biggest loss to investors in the financial history of Australia – 3 billion dollars and counting. Thousands of investors are involved and it has resulted in major changes to the financial sector. These changes have come about because of the loopholes in the regulations and the financial incentives then existing in the market place that made many financial advisers lose sight of their clients' interests by focussing instead on their bottom line.
We’ve had a ‘Worrells enquiry, a Parliamentary Joint-Committee enquiry and a massive investigation launched by ASIC and yet you have the audacity to inform the people that invested in Storm that investors wouldn’t have lost money if they weren’t so greedy! For goodness sake, get real!
People were greedy alright but they weren’t the Storm investors. Rather, they were Storm’s financial advisers selling us down the river with the blessings of the Banks that aided and abetted them. Storm supplied the gun and the Banks supplied the ammunition.
It is obvious to me that you have never taken the trouble to investigate the facts for yourself but rather have chosen to promote your personal opinions that are blatantly at odds with what occurred. I suggest that before you voice any more unsubstantiated opinions you review what has been said about Storm and the Banks. There are enough articles out there and a few websites (mine included) that will fill you in what really happened. Not what happened according to Bunnyip!
Whatever, I think I speak for many when I say that your continuing to beat the same tune has become more than a little monotonous. Give it a rest before you drive us all insane.