Storm Financial Group

[Frank Ainslie]

Frank - to further the knowledge on the forum - you outline in your previous post

* making false and misleading statements in breach of s1041E of the Corporations Act 2001,

Can you elaborate on what Drummond told you that ASIC found to be false and misleading.

* engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct under s1041H of the Corporations Act 2001,

Happy to hear more about what was found here.

* promoting the Storm strategy without considering the suitability of the strategy for individual clients,

Think everyone on the forum agrees that the strategy was suitable for about 1% of the client base.

* providing Statements of Advice and Statements of Additional Advice containing misleading and deceptive information in order to induce them to invest using the Storm strategy,

Was this the old data about property returns etc?

and
* didn’t have an understanding of the nature and risks of financial products recommended on the basis of the Storm strategy.

Think that just makes him a dud adviser doesn't it?


If you can expand on what ASIC found for the forum that would assist others in their understanding.

Hi Doobsy,

Most of your questions have been covered by me in previous postings. Our particular case has not only been mentioned in the media but it was also referred to in the ‘Worrells enquiry’ as an example of inappropriate advice that was at odds with what our circumstances demanded and was directly opposed to our expressed wishes.

I do not want to dwell on inappropriate advice, however, because this is only one of the issues involved. Financial advisers have a responsibility to give appropriate advice but I will not discuss this particular aspect because I know it will only attract the sharks!

As I have stated previously, deception is the key here and I will tell you one thing that we were misled on from the start – the safeguards that Storm claimed to have in place that persuaded us in large measure to sign up with them.

On the 27th July 2007 in the letter I wrote to Stuart Drummond I stated among other things, “Would you clearly state in in writing that the statement contained in your financial plan on page 62; namely, ‘If the market index moves through your trigger point, simply call us and we will review your position in light of the new market conditions" is incorrect.’ During our recent meeting you assured us that you, not we, would be monitoring this. Bear in mind that we decided to use your services once you had clarified this for us. We need something in writing from you before we proceed any further that you accept responsible for so doing”

Bear in mind, Stuart, that we will be entrusting Storm Financial with a great deal of money. We therefore expect to be fully informed at all times.

Despite our repeated requests he never did acknowledge this in writing although he verbally reconfirmed this every time we met. We signed up on the understanding that this written confirmation would be forthcoming.

So it’s our word against his you might think! The subsequent events that took place will prove that this conversation as claimed by us did take place.

In December 2007 Drummond sent me a draft of Storm's new Statement of Advice because, being a writer myself and a former corporate man as well, he wanted my opinion of such. In my reply to him dated 13th December 2007 among other things I once again queried the SOA because it contained certain statements that were contrary to what we had originally agreed to prior to our signing with Storm.

I quote,

“Page 48 – ‘You will be informed of your triggerpoints… If the market moves through your triggerpoint, simply call us…’ You may recall that this was my bone of contention in a previous letter in which I stated "It states clearly in writing in your Statement of Advice - page 62 (current SOA) that if the market index moves through your trigger point, simply call us and we will review your position in light of the new market conditions.' In your subsequent discussions with both Helen and me, you said this statement in the SOA was wrong and the trigger points are activated by Storm's systems automatically and you (Storm) then notify us.”

Again, Drummond did not confirm this! Remember that “silence” in matters such as these is no defence legally. However, there’s more!

On 30th April 2008 I received a faxed letter from Jodie Geissman in Storm’s compliance section in Townsville which said, “I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your input into our new ‘Statement of Advice’. Your input was invaluable and since receiving it, we have been busily making improvements to the document.”

Anyone reading this should bear in mind that I proof-read this document and altered in part the structure and presentation of certain data but not its content. How could I because I am not a financial adviser!

In essence her response confirms the fact that my suggestions contained in my letter dated 13th December which also queried “triggerpoints” had been sent to her via Drummond. Therefore, he must have read it! He cannot therefore say that such a conversation never took place because he had an opportunity to deny it at that time. That’s enough in any court, I believe, to provide proof that Drummond did actually say this. ASIC certainly believed us!

My previous statement, “Bear in mind that we decided to use your services once you had clarified this for us!” also emphasizes how much reliance we placed on this statement being true, and the importance we also placed on monitoring for safety purposes. We now know that Storm’s software was defective when we contracted with Storm and this should have been apparent to them at that time. Common-sense tells us that Storm's directors and advisers knew full-well the capability of the software they were using and chose to ignore it flaws. How could Stormies know this? In fact, they were informed otherwise.

Frankly, in retrospect, I believe tStorm's SOA’s were deliberately written in such a way that they wanted to shift any responsibility to their clients if the s**t hit the fan. As I said at the time to Helen, “It seems strange that a firm that has been in the business of giving financial advice for so long cannot get a simple SOA right?”

As for Drummond, if you now consider him just a dud adviser you had better inform ASIC and the people that were his clients. They have another word for him and it's not pleasant!

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

A BREATH OF FRESH AIR... STORM'S WORD OF MOUTH REFERRAL RATE IS 75%... STORM FINANCIAL - YOUR GOOD FORTUNE... FREE EDUCATION... STORM'S CLIENT RETENTION RATE IS 99%... SHARES VS. FUNDS - PHONE STORM FOR NO OBLIGATION CONSULTATION...

From the website.

http://207.210.106.29/index.php

gg

 

[doobsy]

OK Frank

Understand you don't want to be repeating yourself but I was trying to get out into the forum more specific information around mostly the top two points on the Corps act breaches.

This along with the UMIS will be where Storm clients either have a big win or a big loss so felt it was important to be specific rather than generalise simply based on your singular experience and successful ASIC prosecution of Drummond.

As the UMIS will be a fight against both Storm and the banks, this one will be dragged out over MANY years whereas proving the advisers were negligent brings in the PI Cover. I know this cover was inadequate but it might mean clients get at least a partial payment to keep them going.

I am not looking to open the UMIS argument up again, I think that both sides will have quite valid arguments for and against and it will be a much higher court than the forum that will make the eventual decision.

 

[SJG1974]

On the 27th July 2007 in the letter I wrote to Stuart Drummond I stated among other things, “Would you clearly state in in writing that the statement contained in your financial plan on page 62; namely, ‘If the market index moves through your trigger point, simply call us and we will review your position in light of the new market conditions" is incorrect.’ During our recent meeting you assured us that you, not we, would be monitoring this. Bear in mind that we decided to use your services once you had clarified this for us. We need something in writing from you before we proceed any further that you accept responsible for so doing”

Bear in mind, Stuart, that we will be entrusting Storm Financial with a great deal of money. We therefore expect to be fully informed at all times.

Despite our repeated requests he never did acknowledge this in writing although he verbally reconfirmed this every time we met. We signed up on the understanding that this written confirmation would be forthcoming.

Why Frank, when you told Drummond you wouldn't proceed any further until you got something in writing, did you then do so? WHY????????

Wouldn't this whole thing have been triggering alarm bells in your head? Why would you proceed with them if they couldn't satisfy this basic request? Why didn't you tell him where to stick his conservate strategy? You were under no obligation at that point were you?

Again, I find it amazing that you keep throwing up these instances where you have been wronged, yet take absolutely no responsibility for the choices you made! You were reckless in the way you treated your own money Frank....can't you see that????

Add the above to the list of warning signs I made in my previous post....I am sure there are plenty more.

 

[DocK]

My previous statement, “Bear in mind that we decided to use your services once you had clarified this for us!” also emphasizes how much reliance we placed on this statement being true, and the importance we also placed on monitoring for safety purposes. We now know that Storm’s software was defective when we contracted with Storm and this should have been apparent to them at that time. Common-sense tells us that Storm's directors and advisers knew full-well the capability of the software they were using and chose to ignore it flaws. How could Stormies know this? In fact, they were informed otherwise.

I was also assured, verbally, by my adviser, that state of the art systems were in place to monitor clients' portfolios and assured that storm HQ would ensure my adviser would be made aware if any trigger points were reached. During discussions it was pointed out that the trigger points were in the SOA so that those clients who wished could keep track themselves, but the implication was certainly that it was not necessary - there was always that emphasis that "we're looking after everything, safeguards are in place, we have the technology!!!" It certainly seemed to work perfectly when a further investment was recommended!

 

[Frank Ainslie]

Unless you didn't have access to a television, radio or newspapers during 2008, then you would have realised that we were suffering from a major financial event that was affecting the sharemarket terribly.

The All Ords fell from 6,853 on 1 November 2007 to 5,052 on 31 July 2008, a fall of 26%. This wasn't some secret that only the financial professionals knew, it was everywhere. The news every night quotes the All Ords. It is in the papers. It was on the front page, and yet you weren't aware????? Were you living in a cave during all of this?

Now I assume at that time, with your portfolio having fallen in value by much more than 26% due to the level of gearing, you still didn't see any risk? This conservative strategy you agreed to was still conservative?

The market then dropped like a stone between then and when you were sold out, falling by a further 26% or so. The Black Swan even that Manny called it.

So Frank, When did you realise that this "low risk" strategy was anything but?

- When you first borrowed against your home?
- When you borrowed further as part of a margin loan?
- When all of your borrowed money and investment capital was invested 100% into shares?
- During the bull market when your investments were growing faster than everyone else's?
- When you saw that the market was falling and the value of your geared portfolio was falling faster?
- When the media coverage of the GFC and the financial meltdown reached its peak?
- When Storm came to you and told you to pump more borrowed money into your portfolio when the value was so greatly depressed?
- when the final margin call was made which saw you in negative equity?

It seems to me the warning signs were coming thick and fast that this "conservative" strategy wasn't anything of the sort. We know Storm ignored the warning signs. But it was your money they were playing with Frank, you could have stepped in and said "enough". But for whatever reason you chose not to, and now you claim ignorance and blame the contractual arrangements between the banks and Storm 100% for your loss!

With this mentality, I am truly amazed you walked into Storm with over $1,000,000 in assets in the first place.

Stop avoiding the question I posed. You are not fooling anyone! Respond with a viewpoint based on the legal issues and stop digressing. You are a master at it but no one is being taken in! You don't have an answer do you? I think we have now got your number my friend. No one is listening any longer to your material. As was suggested earlier by another poster, I think it would be a good idea to change channels.

“Who is more foolish, the child afraid of the dark or the man afraid of the light?”

 

[SJG1974]

Stop avoiding the question I posed. You are not fooling anyone! Respond with a viewpoint based on the legal issues and stop digressing. You are a master at it but no one is being taken in! You don't have an answer do you? I think we have now got your number my friend. No one is listening any longer to your material. As was suggested earlier by another poster, I think it would be a good idea to change channels.

“Who is more foolish, the child afraid of the dark or the man afraid of the light?”

Thanks for the advice Frank, but given your experiences with Storm, I would be a fool to take advice from you don't you think?

Save your legal stoush for the courtroom Frank. I am not interested in that...you have bombarded the forum with your legal views ad nauseum. And I certainly won't have you dictate to me what I can and can't post in here, thats for sure.

You have failed to answer the most basic of questions time and time again Frank...and now you want me to play your little game? You are a card Frank.

The warning signs were there, right from the start, but you chose to ignore them. What's that saying...A fool and his money are soon parted?

Please do me and others a favour and stop trying to cover up your own contributory negligence by blaming everyone else for the actions you took and the choices you made.

You are 70 years old Frank...perhaps its time to take some responsibility don't you think?

 

[DocK]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYa1eI1hpDE&ob=av3e

Here's a catchy little tune for everyone's enjoyment.

 

[SJG1974]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYa1eI1hpDE&ob=av3e

Here's a catchy little tune for everyone's enjoyment.

Thanks DocK, that is a catchy tune. Taylor Swift doesn't usually do it for me (her music that is), but that seemed to strike a chord for some reason.

In Frank's defence, while he has been mean to me, I haven't taken it to heart.

 

[Frank Ainslie]

Thanks for the advice Frank, but given your experiences with Storm, I would be a fool to take advice from you don't you think?

Save your legal stoush for the courtroom Frank. I am not interested in that...you have bombarded the forum with your legal views ad nauseum. And I certainly won't have you dictate to me what I can and can't post in here, thats for sure.

You have failed to answer the most basic of questions time and time again Frank...and now you want me to play your little game? You are a card Frank.

The warning signs were there, right from the start, but you chose to ignore them. What's that saying...A fool and his money are soon parted?

Please do me and others a favour and stop trying to cover up your own contributory negligence by blaming everyone else for the actions you took and the choices you made.

You are 70 years old Frank...perhaps its time to take some responsibility don't you think?

"Save your legal stoush for the courtroom Frank. I am not interested in that...you have bombarded the forum with your legal views ad nauseum."

Legal stoush is what this is all about. Without having laws in place there would be total anarchy which would probably suit you. You have been pontificating your views
on this forum for long enough. No one has brought you to account before. Now's the time to present your viewpoint based on the facts of this case rather than banal commentary.

In fact, it is you that has continually bombarded this forum ad nauseum with your uninformed opinions. I don't know how old you are but stop acting like a petulant child because suddenly you are asked to provide a case for your constant assertions that we are somehow partly to blame. You remind me of the school bully that is suddenly confronted with someone that is prepared to fight back and you have been caught off guard. If you can't take it, don't try to dish it out!

Answer the question I have asked. Explain your position from a legal perspective. After all, Stormies' legal position is the only one that will really count in the end - not your distorted view of things according to SJG 1974. We are waiting!

It's no longer a game, is it? Suddenly, someone has put you on the spot! Defend your position or forever hold your peace. What's it to be?

 

[Julia]

I was also assured, verbally, by my adviser, that state of the art systems were in place to monitor clients' portfolios and assured that storm HQ would ensure my adviser would be made aware if any trigger points were reached. During discussions it was pointed out that the trigger points were in the SOA so that those clients who wished could keep track themselves, but the implication was certainly that it was not necessary - there was always that emphasis that "we're looking after everything, safeguards are in place, we have the technology!!!" It certainly seemed to work perfectly when a further investment was recommended!

So they created perfect reassurance for you but took care to ensure it was only verbally offered and - going by their lack of responsiveness to Frank's repeated requests - absolutely not in writing. They certainly had a plan - for themselves.

 

[Julia]

Do I sense an air of defensiveness in your response?

Oh, the irony. You fill page after page with denial and defensiveness and then attempt to project this on to me.


This is a stock market and investment forum.
Not a legal forum.
It's for discussion, the sharing of knowledge, and exchange of views.

We are under no obligation to offer legal views. As non-lawyers it would be foolish to attempt to do so.

We are, however, entitled to offer our observations about risk management and simple common sense.

 

[Ijustnewit]

Well Frank no one seems to want to take your challenge based on the fact the are not legal people and admit they know little about the law.
So we must assume that when needed those same people seek out a lawyer or someone that is familiar with the law when they need help.
Should they not be self educated in Law and know what they are signing, the same way the Investors should have been self educated in Financial Planning and knew what they where signing? Interesting .

 

[Frank Ainslie]

Well Frank no one seems to want to take your challenge based on the fact the are not legal people and admit they know little about the law.
So we must assume that when needed those same people seek out a lawyer or someone that is familiar with the law when they need help.
Should they not be self educated in Law and know what they are signing, the same way the Investors should have been self educated in Financial Planning and knew what they where signing? Interesting .

Hi Ijustnewit,

Welcome to the debate!

What with ‘Igetit’ and ‘Ijustnewit’, I wish I had now called myself ‘Ijustlostit’ because it seems more apt somehow.

What an inciteful question. I think you have just aced them!, I only wished I had thought of that! Any more of those pearls and you will face banishment.

It really is a good point though and it poses the question, "Is it okay to rely on the advice of a lawyer but not on the advice of a financial adviser?" Perhaps Doobsy would like to answer this?

Keep the juices flowing! We need you.

 

[Frank Ainslie]

Oh, the irony. You fill page after page with denial and defensiveness and then attempt to project this on to me.


This is a stock market and investment forum.
Not a legal forum.
It's for discussion, the sharing of knowledge, and exchange of views.

We are under no obligation to offer legal views. As non-lawyers it would be foolish to attempt to do so.

We are, however, entitled to offer our observations about risk management and simple common sense.

"This is a stock market and investment forum. Not a legal forum. It's for discussion, the sharing of knowledge, and exchange of views."

Need I remind you that this forum is about Storm Financial and by association, the Banks that were connected with it. Who best then to comment on such? You who were never involved or people that were and know first hand what transpired?

"We are under no obligation to offer legal views. As non-lawyers it would be foolish to attempt to do so."

Yet, you are continuously offering financial advice to HQ and others and you are not a financial adviser? Have I missed something here?

If you take the legalities out of this debate, you nullify any discussion about Storm and the Banks. It just then becomes a backslapping forum for those that want to inform all and sundry that they are far too clever to be caught up in all this. What does that achieve other than making these people feel good.

There are lessons to be learnt from the Storm debacle but they can only be learned from looking at what really occurred and the causes behind such. Not as you and some others would have everyone believe by focussing on the advice Storm gave but rather on the wrongdoings that took place by Storm and the Banks.

Arguing that the Storm investors were partially responsible is a personal view that has so far not been backed up by any evidence. Whilst you are entitled to your views, if you are to be taken seriously, you must supply some hard proof. To date neither you or anyone else has done so. You constantly harp on about the advice Storm gave and the Stormies' mindset in choosing to accept such. Yet, you conveniently ignored the various transgressions that have taken place which have infringed on the rights of those Storm investors.

ASIC and our lawyers are not taking those involved to court because they have nothing better to do with their time, or we have nothing better to do with the little money we have left. Further, to my knowledge, no one is taking us to court as well for being part of all this so why should we therefore admit to or share in any blame?. Litigation has been brought about to compensate those Storm investors who were caught up in the schemes between Storm and the Banks. There are numerous legal issues involved so it is not a straight-forward case by any means.

It should also be understood that compensation through our legal system is only permissible when people have suffered a loss that could have been avoidable and resulted directly from another party or parties’ actions.

"We are, however, entitled to offer our observations about risk management and simple common sense."

Yes, you are entitled to offer observations about risk management and commonsense but we on the other side of the fence are also entitled to defend ourselves if you persist in putting us in the dock with those that have been charged. We are not the guilty ones but you and others want to label us as being partially so?

I believe that this forum can best serve those that tune in because they want to know what really happened between Storm and the Banks. They don’t want to be bombarded with the views of people that want only to gloss over the facts and ignore anything relevant that doesn’t agree with their view of things. You can’t have a worthwhile debate until people understand all the facts and are able to look at things objectively. I am aware that some on this forum will never reach that point because they are simply incapable. Therefore, I am not posting for those forum members but rather for those that want to genuinely understand the issues and the real story behind the Storm debacle.

Whatever, Julia, unless you are willing to come to grips with the legal issues, you can never come to terms with the story of Storm and the Banks. The story will always remain incomplete! It’s as simple as that!

 

[doobsy]

Hi Ijustnewit,

Welcome to the debate!

What with ‘Igetit’ and ‘Ijustnewit’, I wish I had now called myself ‘Ijustlostit’ because it seems more apt somehow.

What an inciteful question. I think you have just aced them!, I only wished I had thought of that! Any more of those pearls and you will face banishment.

It really is a good point though and it poses the question, "Is it okay to rely on the advice of a lawyer but not on the advice of a financial adviser?" Perhaps Doobsy would like to answer this?

Keep the juices flowing! We need you.

Not sure Frank - if the lawyer tells me it is ok to do something that is a bit dodgey because that means he can charge me extra if I do it then I guess I should get a 2nd opinion.

And if I get arrested the I will blame him and not a 3rd party that talked to him once. Sorry, that was just a little tongue in cheek

 

[doobsy]

Frank

Again to be devils advocate and keep the entertainment high but:

1. So far no UMIS has been proven
2. Just because ASIC and some ambulance chasers have started an action does not make it so

So until that time, cannot others on the forum be allowed to take differing positions and offer comment based on what is at hand (not what has yet to be proven).

This being the case, we are down to the advice and relationship between adviser and client.

If/When we have an answer on the decision about the relationship between the banks and storm, then we can offer opinions based on that new information.

You want us to take the position based on an assumption the banks are guilty as charged - this is not yet the case.

 

[SJG1974]

"Save your legal stoush for the courtroom Frank. I am not interested in that...you have bombarded the forum with your legal views ad nauseum."

Legal stoush is what this is all about. Without having laws in place there would be total anarchy which would probably suit you. You have been pontificating your views
on this forum for long enough. No one has brought you to account before. Now's the time to present your viewpoint based on the facts of this case rather than banal commentary.

In fact, it is you that has continually bombarded this forum ad nauseum with your uninformed opinions. I don't know how old you are but stop acting like a petulant child because suddenly you are asked to provide a case for your constant assertions that we are somehow partly to blame. You remind me of the school bully that is suddenly confronted with someone that is prepared to fight back and you have been caught off guard. If you can't take it, don't try to dish it out!

Answer the question I have asked. Explain your position from a legal perspective. After all, Stormies' legal position is the only one that will really count in the end - not your distorted view of things according to SJG 1974. We are waiting!

It's no longer a game, is it? Suddenly, someone has put you on the spot! Defend your position or forever hold your peace. What's it to be?

I am not sure what you are trying to achieve here Frank? Why do you want me to pretend I am in court and defend my position? This does seem like a game. Who are you…Perry Mason? Can I be Matlock?

I don’t need to defend myself…I am not even sure what I am supposed to be defending? Using common sense? Do I have to defend that? Of that I am guilty your honour!

Despite your misguided view, no one is saying you are guilty in the eyes of the law. What you are guilty of is a lack of common sense, and despite my knowledge of the law not being as thorough as yours, I am pretty sure that is not illegal. So no, I won’t play your silly little game…this is not a court, this is an investment forum. If you want to play Court 101, get idontgetit around and you can play to your heart’s content. You can wear your wigs and have a jolly old time. Whatever floats your boat Frank.

All I have done throughout my posts is point out to you the various decision points that you arrived at during your time with Storm. At each of these points, you and Helen had a choice to make. The choices weren’t made by Stuart Drummond or Manny or the bank manager, they were made by you. I am not sure how you can even dispute this, yet you seem determined to at every opportunity. Perhaps it is easier for you to cope with the bad decisions and choices you made by remaining in complete denial. I understand stress can cause irrational behavior, and I am guessing with what you have been through you would be highly stressed. That’s to be expected when you have been financially devastated.

All of the decision points that I have pointed out throughout the forum, from being recommended to borrow against your home, to investing 100% in shares, to borrowing over and over and over again, to just hanging on while the market slowly wiped you out, dollar by dollar, day by day, came before you were ultimately wiped out. At each point, you had a choice to do something else that could have potentially saved you money, but you chose a different course. Others chose a different path and are now like me, sitting on the outside looking in. The arrangement between the bank and Storm had no bearing on your ability to make your own choices Frank, regardless of how legal or otherwise it was.

You chose to follow what Storm told you, even though all of the evidence suggested that there were massive risks involved. That Frank, is how you contributed to your own undoing. And it is as obvious as the nose on your face.

I mean, you expect us to believe that in all of your years in business, you didn’t realise that borrowing money from the bank was risky? That investing in the sharemarket is risky? I knew that by the time I left primary school Frank. Don’t insult me and others by claiming you didn’t understand what you were doing.

You are either terribly naïve or a liar Frank, and I doubt you could have found yourself in the position you were in pre-Storm by being that naïve.

Its not easy admitting that you were greedy is it? I have been there before…thankfully it didn’t wipe me out. Lesson learned the hard way. It seems you don’t even know what the lesson is, let alone learn from it. That’s a worry Frank.

You made the choices Frank that led to your demise. No one else made them for you. Yes other parties contributed as well, but if it wasn’t for the choices YOU made, you wouldn’t be here. You would be sitting on the outside looking in with me, rather than trying to get me to play your silly courtroom games.

But again, don’t insult me and other posters by claiming you had no choice in the matter Frank and didn’t know there were risks involved…you don’t get to 70 and have a successful business career without having some idea do you?

 

[Frank Ainslie]

Why Frank, when you told Drummond you wouldn't proceed any further until you got something in writing, did you then do so? WHY????????

Wouldn't this whole thing have been triggering alarm bells in your head? Why would you proceed with them if they couldn't satisfy this basic request? Why didn't you tell him where to stick his conservate strategy? You were under no obligation at that point were you?

Again, I find it amazing that you keep throwing up these instances where you have been wronged, yet take absolutely no responsibility for the choices you made! You were reckless in the way you treated your own money Frank....can't you see that????

Add the above to the list of warning signs I made in my previous post....I am sure there are plenty more.

Keep rattling your cage! With a bit of luck, before long we'll hear the death rattle!

Give us some answers! State your case! I know! You have to go and do some more "cut and paste!" Let me guess! "I find it quite incredible..." You have used that word "amazing" long enough! I quite agree! Now go off and study some law books and confound me with your brilliance!

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Keep rattling your cage! With a bit of luck, before long we'll hear the death rattle!

Give us some answers! State your case! I know! You have to go and do some more "cut and paste!" Let me guess! "I find it quite incredible..." You have used that word "amazing" long enough! I quite agree! Now go off and study some law books and confound me with your brilliance!

Frank mate,

I feel you need to go off and have a shower mate.

You are making little sense.

The posters are a tad unfair to you but you are losing the argument.

As Julia has pointed out this is a share/investment site where we share our hopes, successes and failures.

I am sure you can justify your actions in investing in Storm, but basically nobody gives a rats, once it has been posted.

Many of your points are good, but so are those of the posters who disagree with you.

Please continue to post but listen and look at the comments of your fellow posters. I find gems every day in the posts on ASF, even though I may disagree with where the posters are coming from.

gg