Storm Financial Group

[Frank Ainslie]

Hid from view? I don’t think so, Frank old man, I simply ignored the question because I thought it was stupid and irrelevant and it showed that the person asking it lacked the capacity to comprehend the significant differences between engaging a lawyer to represent you in a legal matter, and committing vast sums of money, much of it borrowed, to a business investment.
With the business investment you have plenty of opportunity to thoroughly scrutinize the proposal before committing millions to it. This holds true regardless of whether you do it all yourself or you go through an investment adviser. Pretty much all the information you need is available free on the internet.
You can do cash flow projections, risk assessment, anything relevant to your proposed business can be investigated thoroughly if you commit a bit of effort to it.

This is a very different situation to being represented by a lawyer – you can’t just jump on the net and have access to the same amount of law-related information as what’s available about share markets, margin loans, and general investment matters.

There are very good reasons to thoroughly look into any investment before proceeding, the most obvious being that if you don't then you greatly increase the likelihood of getting burnt.
If you fail to look into it, then more fool you. Maybe you’ll be more careful next time.

Nine out of ten people walked away after looking at the Storm proposal. If they could see the pitfalls, then you would have been able to too.....IF you’d put a bit of effort into looking instead of being so gullible as to blindly believe everything Storm told you.
If you’d handled your stock market investment project with similar thoroughness to which you handled your shopping center project, then you would have been among the 90% who rejected Storms outrageously reckless gamble. You could have been sitting on the sidelines with the rest of us interested observers.

By the way, Frank, we’re still waiting for you to explain why you mortgaged your home and borrowed a million or so dollars, when you could have easily funded a very comfortable retirement without borrowing a cent.

Bunyip,

Stop using misleading figures that you have plucked out of the air. How do you know that 90% walked away? Where's your proof?

Because you ignored a fundamental question on the pretext that you thought it was "stupid and irrelevant" is more an excuse by you not to answer the question posed rather than an answer. Once again, you have chosen to ignore a direct question, deciding instead to give us more of the same.

This is a very different situation to being represented by a lawyer No it isn't! Both lawyers and financial advisers are professionals. Why should people trust lawyers and not financial advisers? How many lawyers in their time have burnt their clients by giving them bad advice? Yet, you would still rely on your lawyer entirely.

Remember that the Internet is also readily available to people that want to learn about aspects of the law as well as financial matters. Why don't people jump on the Internet when they employ a lawyer if such is the case? There is no difference, is there, except in your peculiar way of looking at things? When people employ lawyers, they don't feel the added need to search the Internet to see whether the lawyer is giving them good advice because they trust that lawyer completely to do his job. We trusted Storm's advisers to do their job! It's the same thing!

Please explain to us all therefore why you consider there is a difference? Your answer so far is not addressing the question. Frankly, I don't believe you can justify your position. Prove me wrong! Do it with logical argument rather than your opinions that are not supported by any facts. Until you do, why should I take anything you say seriously or lend any weight to your comments?

To use words such as "outrageously reckless gamble" is an attempt by you to be evocative. Your posts are always full of such expressions which is a sure indicator that you are not a serious poster but rather one that just likes to stir things up. No matter what anyone says, you are intractable in your thinking. No matter what information is presented, you look for arguments rather than making any attempt to come to grips with what really happened. Can you wonder that I give no serious credence to anything you say? Say something worthwhile that has a real bearing on what happened and I may just listen!

 

[Monario]

I have stayed away from this thread for sometime due to what I feel is ignorance on some peoples behalf in relation to professional advice and management. I see Frank Ainslie continually getting an ear bashing for his belief that if you go to an accredited and endorsed professional for these services, and the service you receive is sub standard and ends up causing you a loss of any kind you are entitled to compensation.

Yes, many of you on here a well versed in finances, and I applaud you for it, but we cannot all be experts in everything in our lives, which is why people go to professionals for a service.

If I could self serve myself in every facet of life I needed I would be a rich man, I would love to be well versed in medicine, an automotive genius, a builder and electrician, lets throw in a hair dresser, dentist and engineer, perhaps a plumber as well.

Hmmm, seems a little impractical does it not?

Now, I am Damn sure if anyone of the nay sayers on here went to any of the above and received bad service and workmanship resulting in loss and damages you would be seeking compensation, why should it be any different in the situation of Storm.

A professional service that was accredited and endorsed was sought out, and used, mistakes were made, clearly. So in my and many others opinion compensation should follow. Mistakes were made on many fronts, and the Banks had a hand in creating a lot of the trouble, not all of it, no, but they were riding the Storm wave as well, and making handsome profits.

So, if you have ever asked for a refund for dodgey work, as far as I am concerned anything that comes from your mouth to the contrary is null and void.

On the other hand, if you have always blamed yourself, for following a professionals advice when things go wrong and have never sought compensation, speak up I would love to understand your thought process….

 

[Solly]

I was at a social event last night where there was also a Stormer. I try in these contexts not to bring up the Storm saga. But last night, maybe after reading some of the recent posts here, I decided to ask about what tests he applied to the Storm model to evaluate the risks before agreeing to the strategy.

His response was quick and direct, he advised me that he totally relied on the professional advice from Storm and like Frank, he believed he was paying good money for this professional advice. He is very successful in his field of expertise but has limited knowledge of the Financial Planning and wealth creation areas and chose Storm as he believed that their strategy and professional advice was sound.

I asked if he would have picked another planning company if he was to start over again and his response was a resounding "No", because at the time he believed that there was nothing wrong with the Storm strategy as presented.

When I pressed him further about the collapse and did he feel that he should have acted to exit the strategy when the markets declined, his response was a definite "No". He then asked what had he really done wrong to be in the financial situation he is in now. And he closed the conservation by saying, "Look mate, I'm not the one before the courts defending why I invested in Storm and it's not me who will have the manacles slapped on."

I then steered the conservation towards the cricket.

 

[bunyip]

Bunyip,

When people employ lawyers, they don't feel the added need to search the Internet to see whether the lawyer is giving them good advice because they trust that lawyer completely to do his job. We trusted Storm's advisers to do their job! It's the same thing!

Frank

My way of doing things is clearly quite different to yours.

I say it’s just common sense to check into things to the best of your ability before proceeding. That’s what I did before undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer – I looked as thoroughly as I could into the treatment, got a couple of opinions from different doctors, found out what drugs were to be used in the treatment and what their side effects were, looked into alternative treatments.

Anyone with a bit of common sense thoroughly looks into a financial proposition before committing millions of dollars to it. It’s quite easy to do so, as all the information you need is very basic and is readily available to the general public.
By failing to properly look into Storm’s strategy, you failed in your duty of care to yourself, as you well know. More fool you. You got burnt. You’ll get burnt again if you can’t admit your mistakes and learn from them.

You spend considerable time on this forum trying to justify your actions in relation to Storm. Rave on about lawyers all you want, but you cannot justify the stupidity, gullibility and incompetence you displayed in your dealings with Storm.

 

[bunyip]

I see Frank Ainslie continually getting an ear bashing for his belief that if you go to an accredited and endorsed professional for these services, and the service you receive is sub standard and ends up causing you a loss of any kind you are entitled to compensation.

On the contrary, we've clearly stated that both Storm and the banks should be held accountable for their actions, including have to pay compensation if any illegality can be proven by a court of law.

 

[DocK]

I totally agree. Should I deduce from your saying "the overall LVR should have been made clear in the SOA and any subsequent review" that it wasn't so stated?
Please don't answer if the questions seem intrusive, but I'd be interested to know if you received regular statements, including LVR from the margin lending provider?
Nothing at all from Storm stating your overall position?

If not, did you ask for these?

Naturally regular statements were received from margin lender - quarterly I think, but I often checked my position via their website.

My point is indeed that the SOAs from Storm also only included the margin loan in their stated lvrs for pre and post advice positions. Likewise, at regular reviews any mention of lvrs was of the margin loan lvr only. No inclusion of the home loan debt was made by Storm in either the SOA or in discussions/reviews, to the best of my recollection and perusal of past SOAs at any rate. I have made mention of the fact that I'm a bit of a control freak so I'm certainly not claiming that I was unaware of my overall position - but the point I'm trying to make is that I can certainly understand how some of Storm's ex-clients may have lost touch with the extent of their total debt as any discussions of debt to asset ratios conveniently ignored the original home loan for the most part. Whether this was a deliberate ploy by Storm or not will probably forever remain a point of speculation - unless an ex-staffer wishes to spill the beans????

 

[Judd]

Naturally regular statements were received from margin lender - quarterly I think, but I often checked my position via their website.

My point is indeed that the SOAs from Storm also only included the margin loan in their stated lvrs for pre and post advice positions. Likewise, at regular reviews any mention of lvrs was of the margin loan lvr only. No inclusion of the home loan debt was made by Storm in either the SOA or in discussions/reviews, to the best of my recollection and perusal of past SOAs at any rate. I have made mention of the fact that I'm a bit of a control freak so I'm certainly not claiming that I was unaware of my overall position - but the point I'm trying to make is that I can certainly understand how some of Storm's ex-clients may have lost touch with the extent of their total debt as any discussions of debt to asset ratios conveniently ignored the original home loan for the most part. Whether this was a deliberate ploy by Storm or not will probably forever remain a point of speculation - unless an ex-staffer wishes to spill the beans????

It was damned cunning, wasn't it DocK? If you simply had a mortgage and that debt wasn't used for investment purposes, you wouldn't include it in any discussion about gearing into the sharemarket. Overall debt levels maybe but not gearing. So, from an EC viewpoint, why would I include it in the overall LVR? A mortgage debt is for all intents and purposes irrelevant.

Bloody smart. Have to give them credit for that way of [skewed] thinking in order to bamboozle the punters.

 

[DocK]

It was damned cunning, wasn't it DocK? If you simply had a mortgage and that debt wasn't used for investment purposes, you wouldn't include it in any discussion about gearing into the sharemarket. Overall debt levels maybe but not gearing. So, from an EC viewpoint, why would I include it in the overall LVR? A mortgage debt is for all intents and purposes irrelevant.

Bloody smart. Have to give them credit for that way of [skewed] thinking in order to bamboozle the punters.

Indeed.... There are many epithets placed in front of the name Cassimatis by my husband and I, but stoopid aint one of them. I read early in the thread that his origins in the FP business were as a top salesman for a life ins outfit - a very good salesman he certainly was!

 

[doobsy]

Indeed.... There are many epithets placed in front of the name Cassimatis by my husband and I, but stoopid aint one of them. I read early in the thread that his origins in the FP business were as a top salesman for a life ins outfit - a very good salesman he certainly was!

Go back further Dock and I've been told by clients in Townsville the brothers Cassimatis as kids were known to steal nails out of the roofs of businesses around the place so they could melt down the lead.

 

[Julia]

Both lawyers and financial advisers are professionals. Why should people trust lawyers and not financial advisers? How many lawyers in their time have burnt their clients by giving them bad advice?

I've never had bad advice from a lawyer, but don't doubt that it happens.

Shall we have a look at this notion that if we consult any professional, we should absolutely be confident of accepting their advice without qualification or consideration.
A few hypotheticals:

The Dentist
You're 65, have looked after your teeth conscientiously all your life and feel pretty proud of the result. You chomp down on a piece of pork cracking and chip a bit off a tooth. You should know better, of course: you've done this before and your then dentist repaired the damage for around $300.
This time, you decide to go to the dentist everyone is talking about, saying what a great dentist he is. He examines the tooth. Says that at your age just repairing it isn't nearly as useful as putting crowns on all your teeth. You'll be thrilled with the result and it will be a great investment.
Now, you know that if you just get the tooth repaired and stay away from the crackling in future, you'll be quite fine, but hell, he's persuasive. So you agree to multiple appointments and a bill for many thousands of dollars.

Your option: to go back to the original dentist who did what you needed for $300.


The Physiotherapist
You have a low grade intermittent back ache. It doesn't stop you doing anything, but when it was irritating you a few years back you had a couple of sessions with a physio who did some deep tissue massage and gave you regular exercises to follow.
You've been slack about the exercises so the ache has returned.

Off you go to the physio everyone is praising, saying he's got the most amazing equipment and can do all sorts of helpful things.

He examines you and tells you the problem is more serious than you could possibly have contemplated and it's vital you have four sessions a week for the next year at least with his XYZ machine. This will cost you $300 per session, but at the end of a year, with a cost of a bit over $62,000, you'll be well set up for a few years at least if you do some simple exercises on an ongoing basis.

You choose the most sensible option.


The Lawyer
You have a problem with a neighbour's tree dumping branches, leaves, bark into your property. The neighbour is unresponsive to your pleas to have the tree pruned.
You consult the lawyer. He says the only option you have is to have him give instructions to a barrister who will take the case to Court in your capital city.
You live in a regional town and would have to travel to the capital city.
There would be the lawyer's fees and of course those of the barrister, plus your travel and accommodation costs. No change out of around $10,000.

You ask if there is not some less expensive option. No, he says. This is what you have to do.

Option: a little research would quickly show that there is a Tribunal which adjudicates in such matters. The application form is easily downloaded and the fee $275.


I could go on, e.g. the doctor who advises that you need to have an amputation of your hand because you have a skin cancer on it, "just in case it turns nasty".

In all these above hypothetical situations, you have consulted properly qualified professionals. None of them, however, have given you advice that served you as much as it serves themselves. It's up to you to discern what is sensible and appropriate for your circumstances in almost all instances of consulting the so called professionals. Just because god knows how many years ago they passed some exams does not confer upon them the perpetual moral compass you might like to imagine.

 

[DocK]

Go back further Dock and I've been told by clients in Townsville the brothers Cassimatis as kids were known to steal nails out of the roofs of businesses around the place so they could melt down the lead.

Why am I not surprised??? Lining his own pocket at the expense of anyone who's dumb or unlucky enough to become fodder for his villianous schemes is clearly a well-honed skill, not to mention an ingrained personality trait perhaps? How lucky for him to find his soul-mate in Jules...

 

[Frank Ainslie]

Bunyip and Julia,

I believe that many people on this forum are genuinely interested in finding out what really happened between Storm and the Banks, and why thousands (75% of whom were past retirement age) were left destitute. Thanks to some sensible posts lately, we are now some way towards achieving this end.

You two cannot tell the Storm story because you were not involved and you are therefore only guessing at what happened most of the time. Both of you weren’t there so you have no idea what really went on. We were and we know what occurred based on our experiences when this all was happening.

How clever you two are is not the issue at hand. The fact of the matter is that this isn’t about you and what YOU would do! This is about what WE did! Whether we acted foolishly or not is a matter of opinion. You both have expressed your views ad nauseum so we are well aware where you stand. Indeed, some may agree with. Quite frankly, I couldn’t give a rat’s, and I doubt that anyone else does either. Your personal opinion about the people that invested using Storm is irrelevant to the topic in hand. Therefore, your continual efforts to promote your “I would never fall for such a scheme” line is somewhat meaningless now to this discussion.

The rest of us have moved on! I think it's time you two caught up.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Bunyip and Julia,
The fact of the matter is that this isn’t about you and what YOU would do! This is about what WE did! Whether we acted foolishly or not is a matter of opinion. You both have expressed your views .

Frank,

I cannot speak for other ASF members, or for ASF, but the posts above are not about Storm exclusively.

Your site and sicag are about Storm. This is an ASF forum thread about Storm, no more, no less, and Julia and Bunyip are entitled to their opinions.

gg

 

[Julia]

You two cannot tell the Storm story because you were not involved and you are therefore only guessing at what happened most of the time. Both of you weren’t there so you have no idea what really went on

I agree absolutely. Hence I have never attempted to 'tell the Storm story'. I have asked some questions out of interest and been grateful to those, e.g. DocK, Mindstorm et al, who were good enough to answer.

What I have done in my earlier post is to address your general assertion that anyone consulting any professional can reasonably, and without qualification, accept any such advice as that person may give, without the need to consider if that advice constitutes:

1. an appropriate solution to the problem

2. a cost-effective solution

 

[Frank Ainslie]

Frank,

I cannot speak for other ASF members, or for ASF, but the posts above are not about Storm exclusively.

Your site and sicag are about Storm. This is an ASF forum thread about Storm, no more, no less, and Julia and Bunyip are entitled to their opinions.

gg

Hi GG,

I thought I was echoing your sentiments?

“The thread is turning in to a conversation between posters who do not agree and at length push their own barrow, without any movement or agreement, a conversation of the deaf.

The issue of Storm investors responsibility is particularly contentious, so would it be possible to move off that topic and discuss the other players in this debacle.”

I agree that Bunyip and Julia are entitled to have their points of view, but do we all have to hear the same thing over and over? And is it acceptable for one person, namely Bunyip, to call others on this forum such things as ‘stupid’, ‘gullible’ and ‘incompetent’ when their own level of mentality is in serious doubt? Julia described it well when she called it vitriol.

There are some such as 'Monario' that don’t post here because they know that whatever they say will be met with derision by a small minority. Bunyip is the worst offender! I’m all for free speech, but if the standard for any debate is lowered to suit the few polemistists on this forum, you will keep those that would like to participate from doing just that. I don’t mind abiding by the forum rules as long as others do so as well. Calling others names or abusing them because they don't agree with you is not acceptable in anyone's language. Bunyip has been using this type of language for some time now. I can certainly respond in kind because I too can think of a few choice words. However, I am more interested in debating the issues rather than deflecting remarks that are designed to be offensive.

One thing is for sure! I don’t want to listen to the same old hackneyed comments and over again about the same thing. I don't think anyone does! It doesn’t bother me whether the few agree with me or not. It seems to bother them though because they consistently persist in "pushing their barrow!". Can someone smash the record because it’s stuck in a groove at the moment! It doesn't bother them because they are deaf. On the other hand, we getting weary of the din.

I agree wholeheartedly that having a debate with some people is akin to a conversation with the deaf. My mother was deaf but at least she could lip read.

A bit of decorum on this forum might help! It would certainly go along way towards sensible discussion rather than our being consistently bombarded with invective.

 

[Julia]

Julia described it well when she called it vitriol.

When I used that description it was with reference to your own comments, especially in the context of rape.

However, I am more interested in debating the issues rather than deflecting remarks that are designed to be offensive.

Are you? What I see is the repetitive mantra, uttered over and over, that anyone consulting any professional should be able to accept advice offered without questioning the validity of that advice.

This is a forum, Frank. A place where ideas about investment are shared and discussed. You have chosen to post in this environment so you need to understand that by so doing people who disagree with some of your remarks are going to express that disagreement.

I don't think you're stupid at all. I don't know why you got sucked in with Storm. As I've said already, despite pages and pages of 'explanation' from you, I'm no closer to understanding how or why you became engaged in something so unnecessarily complex and risky. However, I don't need to understand. You do, though, and my genuine fear is that unless you can work out why you were persuaded to go with Storm, you're at risk of something similar happening again.

 

[Harleyquin]

Have just read post #6642 Monario and agree with everything you've said.

The problem is if you get dodgy service from anyone offering their services you're entitled to complain ... Unless it's a financial advisory 'service' ... Then it's your fault! If you complain about dodgy financial service you're the worst in the world. According to some of our regulars on this thread.

I'm still waiting for any of those regular posters to give me some concrete evidence to convince me that it was our fault. Up until now they are only throwing lots of accusations in our direction, they mean nothing, until you can give us a genuine explanation for those accusations.

Some of you are hounding Frank and yet I find all of his posts to be some of the only ones with any real substance. Well done Frank.

 

[Harleyquin]

Hi Julia you've just accused Frank of "repetitive mantra" and yet you are also guilty of repeating yourself on more than one occasion on this thread. I'm also guilty in this department.

You say that "this is a forum where ideas about investment are shared and discussed". True it is, however there are numerous threads on ASF, devoted entirely to investment advice, strategy etc. This thread, is I presume, dealing with all aspects of Storm Financial, not just the investment aspects.

As you've said on several occasions, you hadn't even heard of Storm Financial before it collapsed. Therefore you can only approach this discussion post Storm and from a financially astute perspective.

Stormies only knew Storm before it collapsed and generally speaking from a non financial background. This gives you the advantage of hindsight which is something we don't have the privilege of. You also understand how storm operated, we didn't, we've only found this out since storm's collapse.

Your background gives you the privilege of knowing what questions to ask and also understanding the answers given. Generally this doesn't apply to Stormies.

Julia think of something that doesn't interest you or your no good at...that's how I feel when it comes to financial matters. I'm one of those people whose eyes glaze over. My husband on the other hand is interested in shares and has taken an interest in the ASX site as well as the investment discussions on ASF.

In hindsight, I wish I had found ASF pre Storm and we wouldn't be in our present state. I've learnt an awful lot post storm.

 

[Ijustnewit]

Frank, You are to be admired for coming to a public forum and putting your heart and sole online as such. You use your real name for all to see and tell your experiences for all to read . I think that perhaps that a few on here have more of an issue with your former wealth rather than your losses with Storm. Tall poppy syndrome ? Perhaps those posters are really Neville Nobodys ? that are jealous of your former riches , things they could only dream of achieving. It's easy to sit back and be smart in the cyber world but much harder to make a go of it in the real world. All the best ,as I put on my flak jacket and await the incoming shrapnel.

 

[jez47]

There are some such as 'Monario' that don’t post here because they know that whatever they say will be met with derision by a small minority.

How true Mr Ainslie !!
Jez47