Storm Financial Group

DocK said:

I'd really like to know if there are actually very many ex-clients who still have favourable feelings towards Manny & Julie.

I've never been a member of sicag or had much contact with other ex-stormers, so don't have a feel for the way E & C are viewed by the majority. Given all that's been exposed I find it hard to imagine there could be any supporters remaining, but would be genuinely interested to know how they're now regarded, particularly up north where their base was strongest. I noticed that the "high profile" supporters that once appeared on their website were very quick to either distance themselves or remain totally silent on their involvement, undoubtedly under advice from their managers in order to avoid the taint of guilt by association?

Would any sicag member care to post what the general consensus of opinion is within that group?

Click to expand...

Hi Dock,

I am a member of SICAG! It is a Group that is diversified so I expect that some do still feel some loyalty towards Manny. Indeed, many posts I made on that forum in the early days were met with a degree of antipathy by some members whenever I got stuck into Storm. A "tread softly" where Storm was concerned seemed to exist. I think that attitude no longer predominates because many have now come to realize that Storm did the wrong thing.

It should be remembered that Storm did not burn everyone, just a selected part of its clientele. Further, Storm did have some clients for many years and the directors knew many personally.

The Manny I saw answering questions in the Worrells’ enquiry was a different person from the one that I saw on two occasions addressing people before Storm collapsed. Then, he was full of confidence and seemed to believe that he had all the answers. I never met the man myself but he certainly had the talk. It’s a pity he couldn’t walk the walk!

I think Storm and the people that ran it started off with the best of intentions. Somewhere along the way, however, they lost the plot and let their personal interests get in the way of their clients’ interests. Storm’s private deals with the banks had a lot to do with this. Making money became Storm’s prime concern and they lost sight of their responsibilities in so doing.

Frankly, I cannot believe that a firm the size of Storm, who had been around for some years and kept pumping millions into Ignite, couldn’t come up with a comprehensive software system that was capable of tracking everything. I must therefore conclude that doing so was not in their best interests because clients would have more easily seen how risky it was when the numbers were crunched properly. After all, when you think about it, they had the expertise in Ignite and the resources available to put in a complete customised system.

Even Storm's SOA's were written in such a way that the statements within contradicted themselves at times when it came to whose responsibility it was to monitor – theirs or their clients. Again, this seems to me like a deliberate ploy to shirk their responsibility if the s**t ever hit the fan.

It all smacks of duplicity to me and I believe the Courts will see it this way as far as the Casimatises are concerned. Personally, I cannot feel any sympathy for them because they ruined so many people, the majority of whom were past retirement age.

Let's not get too assured about proposed changes to the financial planning industry actually representing any improvement for clients.

I was a bit shocked to read that so many reputable firms have been swallowed up by the banks, notably in the instance of this report, CBA.

S THE first generation of financial planners retire and sell their businesses, after a long career of upfront fees and trailing commissions, the big banks are there to buy them out.

And soon their clients will be switched into financial products that have been manufactured by, or are associated with, their new institutional masters. The banks may pay lip service to independence, but one need look no further than the recent spate of industry deals to see the threat to arm's-length advice.
Commonwealth Bank, for instance, has cleaned out the entire board of Commonwealth Financial Planning (CFP) in recent months, that is, the licensee that controls the approved product list, and the vehicle into which the bank is wrapping all its acquisitions: CBA Financial Planning and the wholly owned planning practices, Financial Wisdom, Whittaker Macnaught, Bankwest financial planning and lately, Count Financial.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/threat-to-armslength-advice-20111218-1p0m9.html#ixzz1h4drBLCi

Click to expand...

I'd have regarded especially Whittaker Macnaught as entirely independent. Presumably these businesses, although now owned by CBA, will continue to trade under their original names, and prospective clients will be unaware of almost certain skewing of advice to CBA products.

Frank Ainslie said:

Hi Dock,

I am a member of SICAG! It is a Group that is diversified so I expect that some do still feel some loyalty towards Manny. Indeed, many posts I made on that forum in the early days were met with a degree of antipathy by some members whenever I got stuck into Storm. A "tread softly" where Storm was concerned seemed to exist. I think that attitude no longer predominates because many have now come to realize that Storm did the wrong thing.

.

Click to expand...

I doubt it Frank.

Most sicag members still support Manny from what I hear, and the evidence is the utter lack of any comments detrimental to Manny or Storm on the pages of ASF.

gg

Garpal Gumnut said:

I doubt it Frank.

Most sicag members still support Manny from what I hear, and the evidence is the utter lack of any comments detrimental to Manny or Storm on the pages of ASF.

gg

Click to expand...

You are probably right GG! I must admit that I haven't felt the love at times from one or two posters on this forum whom I suspect are in Manny's camp. However, the facts are undeniable! If they want to bury their heads in the sand, so be it.

As I understand it, Manny did bail out one or two in the latter part of 2008 and that would command a certain degree of loyalty. Further, many Storm financial advisers are also caught up in all this. By admitting Storm was part of the problem, they probably feel that they weaken their own position.

I have always made my position very clear! "Don't sleep with the enemy!" It is counter-productive

Garpal Gumnut said:

I doubt it Frank.

Most sicag members still support Manny from what I hear, and the evidence is the utter lack of any comments detrimental to Manny or Storm on the pages of ASF.

gg

Click to expand...

GG

I asked my non SICAG Stormer mate about your proposition. What still angers him is why he was given assurances that Storm had processes in place to monitor his investment, to ensure that he would never lose his family home.

He seems to think that if this monitoring was in place he still would have some of his nest egg and still would have been able to re-enter the market.

It appears to me that the leading participants in this event benefit from the diffusion of blame in the murkiness of the finger pointing.

I have found that it is hard for some to dismiss the reality, especially where there was such a deep basic belief installed in their psych that they were on the road to Nirvana.

I hope someone responds to challenge my view.

S

I wouldn't spit on them (EC & JC ) if they were on fire... in fact I would probably add a can of fuel or 2....and add Ralph to the bonfire as well.. They all disgust me.
In the beginning of course they courted us and led us to believe they were the salt of the earth caring sharing types...lots of warm and fuzzies about being part of the family.....:cussing::cussing: I think once the float was proposed it all went to hell in a basket .. in our case that seems to be when the hard sell really began....

GG
Your cult comment .... IMHO... I think it was more of belonging to a club. Exclusive benefits and deals for it's members..... little did we know it was based on a deal with the Devil!!!!:angry:

Frank Ainslie said:

Hi Dock,

I am a member of SICAG! It is a Group that is diversified so I expect that some do still feel some loyalty towards Manny. Indeed, many posts I made on that forum in the early days were met with a degree of antipathy by some members whenever I got stuck into Storm. A "tread softly" where Storm was concerned seemed to exist. I think that attitude no longer predominates because many have now come to realize that Storm did the wrong thing.
(snip)
It all smacks of duplicity to me and I believe the Courts will see it this way as far as the Casimatises are concerned. Personally, I cannot feel any sympathy for them because they ruined so many people, the majority of whom were past retirement age.

Click to expand...

Thanks Frank. One phone conversation with a SICAG organiser was enough to assure me that I wouldn't "fit in" with that group - a couple of negative comments I made about the lack of management by storm hq were immediately met with a tirade about "it's all the bank's fault" etc, etc. Seems a lot of people in SICAG are happy to absolve the Cassimatii and blame the evil banks entirely

Julia said:

Let's not get too assured about proposed changes to the financial planning industry actually representing any improvement for clients.

I was a bit shocked to read that so many reputable firms have been swallowed up by the banks, notably in the instance of this report, CBA.

I'd have regarded especially Whittaker Macnaught as entirely independent. Presumably these businesses, although now owned by CBA, will continue to trade under their original names, and prospective clients will be unaware of almost certain skewing of advice to CBA products.

Click to expand...

More evidence of the difficulty of actually being able to find an honest, unbiased FP. Seems even when one might think they're getting independent advice, they're often not!

Garpal Gumnut said:

I doubt it Frank.

Most sicag members still support Manny from what I hear, and the evidence is the utter lack of any comments detrimental to Manny or Storm on the pages of ASF.

gg

Click to expand...

You may be correct about SICAG members GG (or not - I have no knowledge of that group), but if you read this thread from the beginning you'll find plenty of comments very detrimental to Manny & Julie C from ex-storm clients. Please don't make the mistake of thinking that those you may know personally are representative of the entire group. As I've often said ex-storm clients come in many shapes and sizes and are not "one size fits all" despite having been treated that way.

Frank Ainslie said:

You are probably right GG! I must admit that I haven't felt the love at times from one or two posters on this forum whom I suspect are in Manny's camp. However, the facts are undeniable! If they want to bury their heads in the sand, so be it.

As I understand it, Manny did bail out one or two in the latter part of 2008 and that would command a certain degree of loyalty. Further, many Storm financial advisers are also caught up in all this. By admitting Storm was part of the problem, they probably feel that they weaken their own position.

I have always made my position very clear! "Don't sleep with the enemy!" It is counter-productive

Click to expand...

Frank, I've lost a friendship with the couple who originally enthused about their great good fortune with storm which led to me attending their seminar. I don't at all blame them for my involvement with storm as that was of my own free will and my decision. I am aware though that when the #### hit the fan they were "lent" funds from storm's hidden treasure chest to bail them out to the point where they could keep a roof over their heads - how they are ever to pay this money back I don't know. I don't even begrudge them their good fortune at being the recipients of what is basically stolen money (I don't believe it was the Cassimatis's to give away, unless it came from their own pockets), but the few times I met with them after storm's demise and all the resulting negative media brought the full picture to light they remained staunchly loyal to Manny & Julie and still regard them as personal friends of theirs! Everything is either the fault of Colonial or CBA in their eyes, and the system/strategy, the millions in divs ripped out by Cassimatis (even the last failed grab), the lack of action to move to cash when they said they would and their inability to monitor margins despite their promoted world-class systems - these are all brushed aside! I just found it impossible to maintain a friendship with people whose views were so very far apart from my own in that regard, as it was always the elephant in the room that had to be carefully stepped around in order to maintain the peace. Just became easier to part ways - and I guess that could be the way a lot of marriages are now going between ex-storm clients. Some just find it easier to pretend to themselves that their "good friends" Manny & Julie didn't knife them in the back, but are actually the caring friends they always knew they were - it's all the bank's fault! It can be hard to turn your back on a loved one - easier to blame a common enemy. I think the Cassimatii have been very "clever" in uniting a lot of their ex-clients with themselves in a fight against the banks - in a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" type of deal.

Post crossed with Mash - evidence that there are some who, like me, certainly aren't fans of the cassimatii. Agree also that the hard sell began about the time of the proposed float - maybe this is when their own interests became more important to them than ethics etc.

This may be my memory playing tricks on me, but I seem to recall that it was written somewhere that Manny and Julie and perhaps some other advisers who adopted the Storm strategy did in fact start selling down their own personal shares whilst they were at the same time telling clients to hang on.

Not sure if anyone can verify this or not?

SJG1974 said:

This may be my memory playing tricks on me, but I seem to recall that it was written somewhere that Manny and Julie and perhaps some other advisers who adopted the Storm strategy did in fact start selling down their own personal shares whilst they were at the same time telling clients to hang on.

Not sure if anyone can verify this or not?

Click to expand...

To my knowledge most of the advisers held the line... but there was one in adviser in Sydney ...Anne somebody ....who told her clients she had gotten her funds out but couldn't do the same for them as only Head Office could do it !!!!

Mash said:

To my knowledge most of the advisers held the line... but there was one in adviser in Sydney ...Anne somebody ....who told her clients she had gotten her funds out but couldn't do the same for them as only Head Office could do it !!!!

Click to expand...

How can this sort of behaviour go unpunished??? It is absolutely false that only head office could redeem funds and I cannot believe she could get away with telling her clients such nonsense. When the writing was on the wall I didn't even bother trying to contact my adviser but dealt directly with Challenger and Macquarie to salvage what remained - to tell clients that they had to sit on their hands because head office was unwilling or unable to act on their instructions is monstrously unethical, negligent and downright criminal behaviour imo! If she were my adviser I'd be doing all in my power to have her lose her FP license - if she still has one. Beyond belief what some of these people did to clients whose interests they were supposed to be protecting!

Solly said:

I have found that it is hard for some to dismiss the reality, especially where there was such a deep basic belief installed in their psych that they were on the road to Nirvana.

Click to expand...

"hard for some to dismiss the reality"? I'd have thought "hard for some to accept the reality was more like it?

DocK said:

You may be correct about SICAG members GG (or not - I have no knowledge of that group), but if you read this thread from the beginning you'll find plenty of comments very detrimental to Manny & Julie C from ex-storm clients.

Click to expand...

My impression also. I can't recall anyone on this thread actually defending the Cassimati. (I could, of course, have missed this.)

Julia said:

My impression also. I can't recall anyone on this thread actually defending the Cassimati. (I could, of course, have missed this.)

Click to expand...

Dear Julia,

You know I hate to be pedantic but the plural of Cassimatis is Cassimatis, not Cassimati.

Heaven knows what the title of that wonderful fantasy adventure novel by Yann Martel called the Life of Pi would have been called if you had been it's publisher.

Then again the Cassimati literally pied the savings of thousands of hardworking Australians down the gold plated loos in the Sturt St. Storm headquarters.

gg

Steve Borden said:

Solly

I am not an expert biologist but my understanding is that the species you attempted to photograph (the Emmanueli Cassimati) is notoriously hard to capture on film after certain events.

The Emmanueli Cassimati is a parasitic invertebrate exists simply to feed off its host, once it has drained the host of its life-savings it moves on, however it can also fall prey to larger forms of itself, they are known as Banks.

Once the Emmanueli Cassimati has fallen victim to effectively itself it becomes reclusive and very hard to detect, it is also very difficult to photograph because as you can appreciate without other people's money forming its backbone it tends to become only a reflection of itself.

In summary the are considerable difficulties in photographing the reflection of a spineless parasite.

Or so I am told.

Click to expand...

There you go GG - I think I've located the original definition for you. Not strictly grammatically correct, however for the purposes of this thread it has been adopted by some as being the appropriate sobriquet.

Julia said:

"hard for some to dismiss the reality"? I'd have thought "hard for some to accept the reality was more like it?


My impression also. I can't recall anyone on this thread actually defending the Cassimati. (I could, of course, have missed this.)

Click to expand...

There were a couple of posters early in the thread who purported to be happy storm clients, but they didn't stay long..... Also recall a poster who was widely believed to be Manny himself (Cerebus?) - hasn't posted for some time now.

DocK said:

There were a couple of posters early in the thread who purported to be happy storm clients, but they didn't stay long..... Also recall a poster who was widely believed to be Manny himself (Cerebus?) - hasn't posted for some time now.

Click to expand...

Yes I recall Cereberus...a couple of posts telling us to stay tuned as the truth will be revealed, only to disappear.

There was also a Dark Leopard who constantly implored victims to make submissions to the PJC but he too disappeared.

They both appeared at about the time the cassimatis.com.au website went temporarily offline due to some maintenance issues which don't seem to have been resolved.

SJG1974 said:

This may be my memory playing tricks on me, but I seem to recall that it was written somewhere that Manny and Julie and perhaps some other advisers who adopted the Storm strategy did in fact start selling down their own personal shares whilst they were at the same time telling clients to hang on.

Not sure if anyone can verify this or not?

Click to expand...

See shibby's post on page 162 of this thread - Anne O'Neill was the person's name.

Judd said:

See shibby's post on page 162 of this thread - Anne O'Neill was the person's name.

Click to expand...

Thanks Judd...it also appears that Carey Ramm had also heard of others doing the same.

Garpal Gumnut said:

Dear Julia,

You know I hate to be pedantic but the plural of Cassimatis is Cassimatis, not Cassimati.

Click to expand...

I'm always happy for anyone to be pedantic about language, so I thank you.
I noticed DocK using the expression, liked it, and decided to adopt it.

To pursue the pedantry, wouldn't the plural of Cassimatis be Cassimatises?

Plural forms
The plural form of a noun indicates simply that there are more than one of the person or thing in question. For most nouns, the plural form includes the letter "s" at the end of the word:

Dogs
Trees
Turtles

Nouns ending in s, z, ch, sh, and x
Nouns with these letters at the end call for an "es" in the plural form. This added syllable makes pronunciation easier.

beaches
foxes
wishes

Click to expand...

(With apologies to those who are irritated by discussions of grammar and punctuation.)

To everyone on this thread, I want to say ‘MERRY CHRISTMAS’. And that includes those who I’ve locked horns with from time to time.

To those of you who are suffering financial hardship, have health issues, or are worried about the future, I hope you can put all that aside over the next week as you join with family or friends to celebrate the joy of the festive season.

Certainly agree with you Mash re EC and co, and the co includes their mates in the banking industry. I'm also in SICAG and don't know anyone who has a good word to say about the c's whatever way you spell it.

GG if there is anyone in SICAG still supporting c and co you can bet the percentage is extremely small. I know some Sicagers personally who won't post on this forum but have told me in no uncertain terms what they think of storms ex CEO and their comments are the same as Mash's.

bunyip said:

To everyone on this thread, I want to say ‘MERRY CHRISTMAS’. And that includes those who I’ve locked horns with from time to time.

To those of you who are suffering financial hardship, have health issues, or are worried about the future, I hope you can put all that aside over the next week as you join with family or friends to celebrate the joy of the festive season.

Click to expand...

Yes everyone! Have a very happy Christmas and may the new year be a good one for all of us. I have been digging a ditch with a conspiracy theorist for two days. He makes this forum seem tame by comparison.