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
Solly said:
Harleyquin & Frank,

Does this look familiar ?

It appears that there are quite a few claims being made here.

View attachment 45295
Click to expand...

Hi Solly,

“I want to see a more transparent financial system, and believe that the present system can be improved for Mr and Mrs Average prospective financial plan seeker; even if Mr and Mrs ACE doesn't believe it.” HQ

HQ makes a lot of sense. All of her postings are of interest and she always seeks to be constructive. Unfortunately, there is a negative element on this forum that want to misconstrue everything she says without giving weight to her comments. Others like ‘Igetit’ have listened and commented without judging or condemning. It doesn’t mean that he or fair-minded people on this forum condone everything we have done or have agreed with everything we Stormies have said, but they have given us the benefit of the doubt. We can ask for no more than that!

The Storm set-up was impressive – no question about that! Storm had the credentials, the infra-structure, the backing of major banks, a track record and the systems (or so we thought) to safeguard our assets. This was very re-assuring for investors that wanted to safeguard their assets and have them grow in the long-term.

There was no reason at the time to doubt that Storm could deliver on its promises despite the ‘Holy Trinity’ pontificating otherwise.
 
Solly said:
Now scheduled to;
30 November 2011
Click to expand...
Solly, do you know what the essence of this is?
Are the Cassimatises required to be there? To have anything to say?

When I tried to access your link, it failed.
 

Hi Igetit,

‘You get it’ but they will ‘never get it’ I’m afraid!

In response to the Doctor Patel analogy, Julia has responded, “That's a totally ridiculous analogy and you know it. To suggest a patient is in a position to judge the skill of a surgeon they may have met for the first time and to compare this with agreeing to participate in a financial scheme you don't understand is just silly.”

In fact it’s the perfect analogy but Julia has decided to discard the comment because it doesn’t suit her to consider it.

People literally placed their financial lives in the hands of Storm who was reputed to be a skilled financial advisory firm. People that went under Doctor Patel’s knife knew nothing about surgery and no one expected them to! The people that put their trust in Storm knew little if anything about investing in the share market. That’s why they went to Storm in the first place.

Doctor Patel had a duty of care as a surgeon to perform to the standards expected of a qualified surgeon. Storm had a duty of care to perform to the standards required of a qualified financial advisory firm.

Doctor Patel failed in that duty of care and has now been imprisoned for so doing. Storm and the Banks that concocted these schemes together failed in their duty of care to Storm's clients and we now want the culprits to pay for their wrongdoings.

Can anyone see the difference so far?

The victims that suffered under Doctor Patel’s knife could hardly be classified as culprits although Bunnyip may have differing views on this? Why therefore are Stormies being labelled any differently. Did any Stormies lose their life as a consequence? Yes, they did (more, I would suggest than those that had the misfortune to trust in Doctor Patel) so for Julia to flippantly suggest “That's a totally ridiculous analogy…” shows you the level of her thinking. Hundreds, if not thousands of people’s lives have been completely wiped out in the Storm collapse. Yet Julia cannot see any similarity or, for that matter, feel any compassion for those people.

You have said to Julia, “I have noticed that you have the capacity to be a little nasty in your dialogue at times and I am sure you will be offended by this response, as people who like to give it but not take it generally are.” You’ve got that in one!

She is without doubt one of the most opinionated people I’ve have ever encountered. No matter what you or anyone else says she knows best! Whatever facts you produce, she refutes on the basis that she has a superior intellect! Sometimes she doesn’t even bother to look at what you present to her because it is not worth (in her opinion) considering. She takes the moral high ground on every issue and there is no room for compromise. She’s an expert in everything so she can’t be told! When she’s confronted with evidence to the contrary, she gives puerile responses.

Little does she realize that by refusing to listen to the views of others and at least give them due consideration, she is merely demonstrating her lack of objectivity and her obvious self-obsession with her own ideas. She seems to find some solace in her view of the world ‘ACCORDING TO JULIA’ and you will never shake her from that position.

What was that you said! “Sad really.” We, the people that have had to live with this situation for three years now, have not only lost everything, but we’ve had to listen to people like her, Bunnyip and SIG1974 (uninformed at best) prattle on about things that they haven’t bothered to research. Now, there’s a word ‘reseach’ that we often hear on this forum from these three. Perhaps it’s time they did some research so they can better acquaint yourselves with the facts. Perhaps then we can give some credence to what they are saying.

Yes, you can classify this as a rant! The bilge coming from them of late is enough to make anyone rant. Fortunately, there are good people in our society from all walks of life that have extended a helping hand to the people that have been caught up in the Storm holocaust. They compensate in full measure for those that want to take the knife to us because we refuse to accept that we are the wrongdoers in this sorry saga.

The Worrells Court case, the PJ-C hearings and findings, the pending court action against the Banks, the Media or anyone else for that matter has never described the Storm investors as the wrongdoers. Yet, these three keep playing the same old tune. What does that tell everyone about their level of mentality? Personally, I believe it speaks volumes!
 

Frank,

How does one follow on from that rant?

First you compare what you have been through to rape. Then you compare Storm to the holocaust. Then you compare your plight to that of a patient of a negligent doctor. What could possibly come next??? I can’t wait to find out.

But you are right…I don’t get it. Amongst the things I don’t get are…

- I don’t get why you decided to take such a big risk with your life savings
- I don’t get how you could think borrowing against your home was not risky
- I don’t get how you could think investing 100% into shares was not risky
- I don’t get how you could think then gearing it all again into a margin loan was not risky
- I don’t get why, with in excess of $1m and only wanting $45K p.a., you decided on taking this risk over and above the other options you said you considered
- I don’t get how you could think paying 7% fees on your geared up asset base could represent anything near value for money
- I don’t get how you could blindly follow this high risk strategy without giving due consideration to the risks involved
- I don’t get how, with all the evidence you now have, you still deny this was a risky strategy
- I don’t get how you can seemingly think that you had no choice in the matter
- I don’t get how a man of your experience could come to the above conclusions.

You have said you want to educate people so they don’t get the same result as you did. Well focussing on the banks won’t help the next person who walks into the offices of a financial planning company determine whether to invest or not, I am afraid. It might be the focus of your legal fight, but the man on the street doesn’t have the ability to unwind the complex relationships that a financial planner, or an accountant, or a solicitor may have with third parties. You said yourself it has taken you 3 years. That’s an issue for the courts, not Joe Public.

No, the way you can help people Frank is to help them avoid making the choices you made. Because the power we as individuals have is in the choices we make, and how we make them. Financial planners are like all other service providers, they want our business. They make money off of their clients. Nothing wrong with that in general. But is it wise to just simply believe everything they say and throw common sense out the window? I am sure you know the answer to this.

As I have said, a Storm adviser claimed that 80% of people who walked through their doors considered the pros and cons and CHOSE to walk away. You CHOSE not to. Regardless of what the banks did or didn’t do, you knew the strategy and you agreed to implement it; if you didn’t then you should have. No one else made the CHOICE for you. You would not be here if you didn’t make that choice. That Frank, is the role you played in this. And it is not a crime to make bad decisions, but as you well know and are living every day, decisions we make have consequences.

You and your mate Igetit should remember that we aren’t in court. No one is on trial here. This is an internet forum, nothing more. You and Igetit and other victims have a vested interest in this whole saga…me, I am just an interested onlooker. I am not interested in debating what the bank did and didn’t do- I will wait for the court to tell me the legalities of it.

You have made some rather ridiculous claims if I may say so. And you have made them over and over and over again. Every time someone questions them, you are unable to provide an answer. In fact, you avoid them like the plague. And you then attack the man and not the ball. THAT, Frank, is what speaks volumes about you.

Good luck with your fight Frank. I mean that, regardless of what you may think of me; of that I could not care less. However, I think your time would be better off concentrating on your legal stoush with the banks rather than your long winded posts on this forum that really do nothing for your cause.
 
Solly said:
bunyip

What's your opinion of the (double) leverage strategy that Storm was pushing ?
Do you have a position on whether it is an acceptable method to use ?

S
Click to expand...

I don't know what bunyip thinks about the strategy but I reckon that if you wish to hang 'em over the fence and risk them being chopped off, go for it.

SJG1974 said:
....me, I am just an interested onlooker...
Click to expand...

That is where I am as well since there is no direct impact on me. Possibly/Maybe/Could be downstream if the Storm clients are successful with a hit to the bank but the banks will get over it.

Very strange position though to claim that one dodgy financial planner means all FPs are dodgy. When I had lunch with a mate, who is an FP, Storm came up. Shook his head an recounted how an accountant, on behalf of a farmer, sent him the Storm guff. Simply looked at how much the farm income was, the upfront fees Storm charged, rang two mates and asked how much they would charge for arranging a margin loan of that size - over $1m (his mates would have charged about $5k) and got back to the accountant saying if the farmer was prepared to pay Storm an upfront fee of four times the farm's annual income, he would arrange the deal for about a quarter of the farm income. The farmer took the hint and binned Storm's proposal. That advice cost the farmer not one cent.

So reversing the proposition that one dodgy FP means that all FPs are dodgy, then my example confirms that if one FP is an honest broker, then all FPs are honest brokers. Have to be balanced in these matters, you know.
 
Thanks for the info that you posted on post no, 6015 Solly, it made very interesting reading in hindsight. I haven't seen it before but have seen some similar sentiments expressed in the storm paperwork.

Found it interesting that a large percentage of clients came from client referrals. I wonder how this compares with client referrals for other financial planning groups. When it comes to finding people to help us with financial matters we all tend to ask others if they are happy with their advisor, do you think they are trustworthy, do they have the right qualifications etc, as some advisors get a good repution amongst their clients as we often see written here on this forum.

Referral 'by word of mouth' is, I would have thought, a normal occurrence.

I know that there's been some criticism, particularly earlier on, on this forum that potential clients found out that storm clients were happy with their advisors and therefore recommended storm, and this inevitably made them 'suitable' for the 'greedy' tag. Were storm clients ever called 'greedy' before storm collapsed or is this just something that's been reserved for them since 9th January 2009?

I don't know how stupid this is going to sound, but if clients of a financial planner said something like this 'oh don't go near that lot they're hopeless' , would anyone then be considered stupid for not going near that particular planner. I see this as a reverse situation to the criticism levelled at stormies. Just a thought.

Something else that you might find interesting is the invitation to the castle in Italy, where Tom Cruise and his wife were married, and storm clients who went on the Meditterean cruise in 2007 were entertained. I don't have a copy as we didn't go on any of the storm 'excursions'.

If anyone out there in stormyland has a copy and could scan it, could you post it on this forum? I'd be interested in seeing some of the comments.
 
In the interests of keeping things upbeat and interesting we seem to have established 2 clear sides. Looking forward to the comments from both to continue.

Side 1: Storm Clients + FP haters: Believe that the whole thing was illegal, there was a UMIS and the banks were the puppet masters. Because the banks may have been more involved than was known at the time they feel there should be compensation potentially all the way back to dollar 1. All FP's are only out to steal money.

Side 2: FP's + Owner investors: Can't work out why people invested into the strategy. Feel that part of the losses should be incurred. Feel that Storm going under means plenty of the bad eggs were removed from the industry. Would hate to see a Storm client in a better position than Average Joe who stayed invested throughout and is still down up to 40% himself and has had to cut back on living expenses also over the past 3 years to ensure their capital is protected as best as possible.

That is the crux. The non storm client group feel that no matter what the circumstances that Storm was the major player not the bank and the clients went with Storm under their own free will. They therefore should be no better off than other clients who were less agressive but due to markets are still down up to 40% on their capital pre crisis. Because in my mind if you are willing to put the house, the super on the line and gear it all up, no matter who you used, you would have been invested heavily throughout the past 3 years because no one would have convinced you otherwise.

Darkside comments:

I say that with some level of experience. I saw Storm clients both pre and post going with Storm (some did look for 2nd opinions). They all took one look at our proposal and chose to stick it out because ours would not have provided the same "modelled" returns.

QUESTION FOR THE STORMIES: Did any of you get a 2nd opinion or go even further and get a 2nd plan? If so, how different were the recommendations?

As to the backing of the banks that keeps getting mentioned. My understanding was they only used CBA or BOQ if the client did not have an existing bank / loan that they preferred to use and/or didn't want the hassle of arranging it themselves. Since we are hating on banks I would think pretty much every bank should be included as all arranged loans in some way for clients, just not all on the same scale.

HQ: What sort of information are you looking for on the Castle outing, we can see what can be dug up.
 
Hi Doobsy enjoyed most of your last post and like you would like to see any future discussions directed into into the upbeat slot. I'm gathering that you're either a FA or similar. As a member of Side One, I find myself at this point in time unable to trust an advisor based on what I now know. Don't take it personally and despite what some have said on this forum we are not all FA haters, I've meet some 'nice' ones, just don't trust myself to trust them that's all. Blame it on a certain experience over recent years.

Also I stress that I only speak for myself, that way any mistake/s I make on this forum can be directed solely at me, and I'm happy to take responsibility for any mistakes that I make. I've seen a copy of the castle invite quite some time back and I'm interested in what those who believe that the banks weren't closely 'associated' with storm, make of the wording on that invite.

When I came back 'online' a week or so back I only read a couple of posts, read Julias post on the r*** story, and fired back, as it certainly seemed out of character for her to say such a thing on a public forum, and the only reason I could see for such an admission, was to trivialise the trauma that stormies are feeling. Financial r*** is certainly real imo. Have just read Julias post #5833 and understand. My sincere apologies and I hope that you have taken advantage of the help available to those in your position to try and lessen in some way the effects of this crime.

Rape is an horrific crime, and one I'm not qualified to comment on, unfortunately we need to accept that the r word is used poetically to describe 'the loss of something important'. I thought that Franks explanation in post #5784 when he says 'this is a hypothetical ...' explains this adequately.

Bunyip you say in post #5785 that 'you are not aware of all stormies were greedy', maybe you and others don't claim that ALL stormies were greedy, yet I find the word GREED used profusely in regard to stormies throughout this thread, including your post # 5789 "or perhaps it was just a case of being GREEDY or stupid" and SJG #5847 "Given your ....you were GREEDY'.

As a stormie I feel that we are constantly accussed of being greedy, perhaps the small sample of posts that I've highlighted above will explain while I feel this way. Go back a way on this thread and there are loads more.
 
Thanks for the following information from your link SJG

Helping you create your good fortune
At Storm Financial, our core desire
is to support you in a genuine and lasting
way in your quest for a fulfilling life.

While planning for your future is important, you also need to be able to enjoy life in the meantime. . . LIVE! now. Our prime objective is to assist you to make money - to achieve wealth so you are free to spend on the things you want.

Storm is one of Australia's largest and fastest growing Financial Services firms. Our strength comes from providing quality services and advice, based on sound research, which integrate smoothly with your life goals and ambitions.

Investing successfully is about fulfilling your full financial potential; not about being constrained by the limits of your present position.
Part of our vision is putting within reach of the average Australian the wealth creation instruments that are traditionally the domain of the rich.

We take the confusion and complexity out of investing and provide free investor education so you can make informed choices to create the quality of life you desire.

When our clients do well, we do well - and the results speak for themselves.

storm milestones
As a rapidly expanding corporate sucess story Storm has achieved significant milestones in 2007

More....

free education
If you want money to work for you rather than you work for money, if you want the freedom to do what you want to do, click through to more information and course registration on our free no-obligation workshops.

More...

opportunities
Acquisitions and Authorised Representative expansion

More...

in praise of storm
Long-time client of Storm, former Australian Cricket Coach John Buchanan shares his view of Storm's success.

More...
© Storm Financial 2005, 2007
privacy policy | disclaimer
Australian Financial Services Licence No. 228905
 
doobsy said:
In the interests of keeping things upbeat and interesting we seem to have established 2 clear sides. Looking forward to the comments from both to continue.
Click to expand...

I'd suggest there is a third side, as outlined below - maybe the "debate" is triangular?


Side 3: Those who feel this "debate" is going nowhere as there appears to be no interest shown on either side of reaching a middle ground, or actually giving consideration to "the other side's" point of view. The section I've bolded above is, imo, often at the crux of it for the non-storm bunch - can't understand why somebody would get so hot under the collar by the thought of someone receiving "more than they deserve" otherwise? I sit at my screen and alternatively swear, laugh or simply shake my head in bewilderment at the lack of manners, courtesy, sensitivity or consideration shown on this thread. The bile spewed by some and pomposity sprouted by others is certainly eye-opening, if not always entertaining. I don't think the blinkers are being worn only by one of the sides. In the end it will come down to the court's decision based upon the law and nothing else - matters of "blame" and whether claimants "deserve" to be compensated or not are immaterial, and the endless exhortations to admit blame or otherwise are pointless imo.

.

As to the backing of the banks - I think your understanding may be incorrect in most cases. I had a good relationship with my bank - which happened to be CBA Southport - and told my adviser that I'd arrange my own finance and didn't need him to obtain quotes etc for me. This was met with strong opposition and it was explained at great length that discounts in fees, interest rates etc could be obtained by using their "connections" in Townsville. They found it easier to facilitate fundings into the index funds etc when dealing with one of their banking contacts who was very familiar with the storm procedures. Silly to waste my time when they were happy to look after everything for me and could get a better int rate etc etc. This may not have been typical across the board, but my experience would indicate that the storm method was to direct the banking business to their close bed-fellows, rather than risk their customers dealing with their own bankers.

Harleyquinn - I didn't consider going on any of their overseas jaunts either, but I do know a couple who did. As far as I am aware they paid their own way, and reports of storm or the banks funding these holidays are false. I think a group discount may have been obtained for cruises etc due to the size of the booking, but this would be standard practice I assume. I was told by the couple concerned that an event (I think it might have been Tina Arena singing at the Castle) was put on by one of the banks, or maybe Challenger or Colonial - can't remember which one, sorry, and I believe a ball or dinner may have been provided by either storm or Manny & Jules.
 
HQ - openly a member of the FP industry. Happy to be so. I take nothing personal when on this forum and would like to think I have done my bit to assist a few ex stormies over the past couple of years to get back on track.

Dock - Challenger put on the castle show according to my sources. Tina did sing and the fireworks overlooking the lake were impressive from reports.

I would think your bank example shows that CBA across the board were not all on the same page RE storm. I think part of the investigations will be that certain branches are found wanting when it comes to their compliance and also certain managers up the line will come under fire. I don't think CBA as a whole were in bed and I worry that will cost the investors when it comes to the UMIS argument. CBA will be looking to show they declined loans in different branches that were Storm clients and therefore were not completely in bed with Storm.

I understand there is alot more in there than that but they will be looking to create distance anyway they can. My understanding of BOQ is that they are taking the argument that their loans were done in the same vein as no-doc or lo-doc arrangements and that allows them to not ask all those pesky questions about income etc. They will fall back on signed disclosure pages for their defense.

Regarding the average Joe, I would think the bulk of people want to see a level of fairness. If Storm clients have been wronged (and they have, mostly by their adviser) and there are means to address this then the PI cover or whoever should cough up. But I keep coming back to any other investor over the past 3 years, anyone else who pulled money out to start a small business that failed, anyone else who bought the wrong unit in the wrong town at the top of the market, anyone else who thought they could trade foreign exchange after a 1 week course. They have all lost capital and are working to get it back but there are no bailouts. Stormies should get something back, they should not get it all back.

Fire away.
 
Oh, the Storm paid for ball (nice of them to give back some of the 7%) was the Venetian Ball that they love using the photo from with E & J all dressed up.
 

No fire coming from this direction - as I said, it'll be a matter for the courts - I was merely expressing my opinion on what's probably the root cause of the horror and angst shown by some at the mere suggestion that ex-stormers might get back "more than they should". Personally, I don't think there's much chance of total compensation of all funds contributed - but I'm no legal eagle and my opinion counts for nothing. But nor does anyone else's really - unless they want to declare themselves as being at the heart of the legal proceedings underway. What will be, will be - endless haranguing or defending on this forum will make no difference in the end. The opinions expressed, and more particularly the language and vitriol used to express them (by some, not all by any means), are what confound me.

As to whether other branches of CBA declined loans for investment in the storm strategy or not, and whether only a few branches were rogue or not - I'm not sure this would be a get-out-of-jail free card for the CBA. Their T'ville branch (North Ward I think?) had been writing record levels of lending and had been audited at least once during the period that the bulk of the lending was taking place. The question probably should be if CBA executive can possibly claim to be ignorant of the lending and relationships that were in place in the branches concerned, and if not, why not? I seem to recall reading that several branch managers were quite annoyed that the T'ville branch kept taking out "lender of the year" or some such award several times, due mainly to the business generated with/from storm. Branches of the CBA are not independantly owned and to the best of my knowledge the same lending standards should apply across the board. Anything falling outside approved lending criteria would need to be submitted up the chain surely? I understand that some CBA scapegoats have already lost their jobs - haven't read as much about BOQ or NAB. I believe BOQ branches are more of a franchise deal - perhaps it's more a case of stand on your own in that situation. On a lighter note - a local BOQ manager has recently recommenced his job after being found not guilty of stealing money from his own branch safe. The funniest part is that he doesn't deny taking the money - apparently he was carjacked by Irish terrorists who injected him with an unknown substance and demanded the contents of the safe or they wouldn't provide him with the antidote! The jurors apparently decided that his story was just too outlandish to be anything but true! So, to get back to the topic, who can tell what our legal system may rule? Personally, although it's unlikely to apply to my own situation, I hope most ex-stormies get back as much as possible - it will still be small potatoes to the banks, and whether they're fully compensated, partly compensated or not compensated at all won't make a scrap of difference to all those average Joes out there who have lost capital one way or the other - they'll be in the same situation either way. Why begrudge a much needed helping hand to someone else, just because it's not extended to yourself? I know, don't tell me - it's just human nature.
 

I've been reading this thread for sometime, and am also in FP. I agree with most of what Dock and Doobsy are posting here.

With regards to the above, my guess would be they were receiving a trail commission from the bank..maybe even volume bonuses as well. In addition they would be more likely to have larger loans approved if you used their contacts at the bank.
 
Doobsy and/or Junior,

As Financial Planners, have you ever had a client approach you wanting to undertake a double gearing strategy in the manner that Storm promoted, or would you ever see a circumstance where this could be appropriate for anyone?

I posted a link a while back to an article by Paul Resnik which looked at margin lending on its own and also the double gearing strategy. It would appear from that, that if Storm has have taken even 5 minutes to stress test the entire strategy they would have seen just how ludicrous it was.

http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/committee/corporations_ctte/fps/submissions/sub293.pdf

Their research even suggests that a margin lending scenario without the double gearing doesn't bring much to the table either...
 
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
870
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...