Storm Financial Group

[Harleyquin]

Judd nobody need worry about their bank shares not performing well. Our banking system is strong and I'm sure it will stay that way. Billions in profit pa from several banks in this country speaks for itself.

As a stormy all I'm basically saying is "why did they provide storm will the funds if storms advice was so outrageous?"

We've heard all the childish remarks such as "Duh because they can. OR Duh cause that's what they do". No one on this forum has been able to explain why and that's because the banks involved have serious questions to answer.
:car::bananasmi

We all make mistakes, it's human nature, and the banks are run by human beings, hopefully, even if they were run by computer, these break down from time to time!
They made a serious mistake here and caused untold grief in the process.

All they need to do is acknowledge their past mistakes. Pay the price and move on, instead of this on-going saga.

 

[doobsy]

As a stormy all I'm basically saying is "why did they provide storm will the funds if storms advice was so outrageous?"

We've heard all the childish remarks such as "Duh because they can. OR Duh cause that's what they do". No one on this forum has been able to explain why and that's because the banks involved have serious questions to answer.

All they need to do is acknowledge their past mistakes. Pay the price and move on, instead of this on-going saga.

HQ - got to jump in here. Storm's advice was bad, it was high risk, but it was not illegal. It is not the bank's job to tell clients not to take the advice offered by Storm.

Any illegal lending for whatever reason whether it be incorrect assessment, inflated house price, fudged up income will need to be addressed. Retirees, low income earners etc should expect to get something back.

But I still stand by my argument that (for example) a miner on $150K pa who could afford the loan repayments on what was borrowed and still can should not receive anything back. There was no illegal or immoral lending in that case. In that situation, the client borrowed money the same as any other non storm person, the banks have not broken any rules on their lending criteria, and the clients lost money due to strategy not improper lending practices. Let that client pay back the loan like they should, not be bailed out just because it was Storm.

In all seriousness - banks provide 2 services - they take and hold deposits and offer a return on that money and they lend. Lending is how they make their money. If someone meets their criteria to lend to they have done nothing wrong.

I would love to know the figures on how many of the 3-4000 stormified clients were still employed, earning incomes that could support the base loans taken out. These clients took on risk by borrowing against their homes.

Without opening the whole "i didn't get my margin call" thing again, if the margin loan process had worked then NO client in my opinion should have been denied a margin loan considering that there has NEVER been a requirement to service the interest on margin loans. ALL margin loans have the option to capitalise interest if that is the clients preference. There should have been no need for the banks to consider a margin loan interest cost as a living expense as clients potentially never had that cost.

Result - Those working, with incomes to support their base loans should not be bailed out.

Those who did not borrow against homes and had a simple margin loan structure supported by a non borrowed asset base should not be bailed out - they should however be bought back to a situation that reflects being sold out at 80% LVR - the point a non storm client would have been sold out in the same situation.

Those not working - the banks need to fix.

I bet this brings the numbers down from 4000 to less than half that.

 

[Harleyquin]

Good post D and I understand what you're saying.

 

[bunyip]

Judd nobody need worry about their bank shares not performing well. Our banking system is strong and I'm sure it will stay that way. Billions in profit pa from several banks in this country speaks for itself.

Strong profit performance from a company doesn’t necessarily equate to a strong share price.
The share prices of the major banks are down by about 50% despite their record profits.

 

[Julia]

Another point is the very misleading and very frequent quoting of the banks' profits in dollar terms, i.e. in the billions. Sounds impressive, but is much less meaningful than the ROE (return on equity). The average ROE in the last financial year for our major banks was around 16%, so hardly qualifies them for the endless bank bashing accusation of 'greedy piggy banks' etc.

BHP's ROE, e.g. was a fraction under 50%. Why, then, do those who love to bash the banks not do the same (or realistically a lot more) with respect to BHP?

 

[Harleyquin]

As I understand it talking to those with bank shares they are doing very well indeed. Who am I to believe?

Julia when I first joined ASF I spent some time in the Newbie sector. Have to say Sir O has some excellent advice for those starting out and easy enough to understand.
:newbie::newbie:

 

[Julia]

HQ, there are two separate issues here. What I attempted to draw attention to is the rather silly frequent referencing to the banks' profitability which is quoted in the billions of dollars. That figure is less relevant than the return on equity invested.

e.g. you might say that you are very profitable because your profit last year was $100.
What does that actually tell you? Nothing. Because you have not said what amount you invested to earn that $100.

If it was $1000, then you have a profit of 10% which is quite reasonable.
However, if it was $10,000, your profit was only 1% which is rather less than exciting, I'm sure you'd agree.
Hence my objection to the quoting of banks' profitability in dollar terms.


Instead of wondering whom to believe in terms of the value of holding bank shares and whether or not they are doing well, go to www.asx.com.au and have a look at prices for yourself. It is not hard to do this.

Type the address in and the ASX headings will come up. Click on "Prices".
You will get a box into which you type the codes for the banks you want to look at as follows:

CBA - CBA
NAB - NAB
ANZ - ANZ
Westpac - WBC
Suncorp - SUN
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank - BEN

Click on the box that says "Chart"

Click on " Five Years" for the time period you want to view.
You will see a chart with a line showing the price action over the last five years.
The prices are on the right hand side.

You can also look up Dividend yields by a similar process. Just find the heading "Dividends" and use the codes as above. It will tell you the actual dividend yield plus whether the share carries a franking credit. (I think all the banks have 100% franking). If you don't know what this is, google it. If you are still unable to find it let us know and someone will explain it to you.

If you discover how much your capital investment, should you have had one, in a bank, say five years ago is worth now, you can then work out whether the annual grossed up yield (dividend and franking credit) will have compensated you for any capital lost via a falling share price.

If any of the above is unclear, say so. No one minds explaining.

 

[bunyip]

As I understand it talking to those with bank shares they are doing very well indeed. Who am I to believe?

Don't believe anyone - do a bit of simple research and you'll soon find out for yourself how bank shares are performing.

The major banks are giving investors pretty good returns in terms of dividend yields, particularly when you consider the 100% franking.
Different story though in share price performance.

 

[Judd]

I am surprised that my post of 8 January was so obtuse it required explaining, particularly so as I made no mention or inference of any concerns about the banks being profitable.

Hmm, Piggy Bank. Interesting term but as the major banks' after tax return on assets to June 2011 was 0.9% (yep, that is no typo) then the term Piggy Bank doesn't quite fit. It could (just) if you looked at the return on equity (14%), ie the amount of funds the banks' shareholders (such as moi and a few others) have at risk.

http://www.apra.gov.au/adi/Publications/Pages/adi-quarterly-performance-statistics.aspx

I suppose that one of the factors causing the masses to whine about the profitability of banks and not be bothered to look behind the raw numbers is that (a) they are lazy, and (b) not many people borrow [somebody else's] money from BHP and are, horror of horrors, expected to pay it back together with interest to compensate those who lent funds in the first place, including, for banks, those with term deposits, etc. Shareholders wear the costs when the bank stuffs up and quite rightly to: that's their job.

 

[Julia]

I am surprised that my post of 8 January was so obtuse it required explaining, particularly so as I made no mention or inference of any concerns about the banks being profitable.

It wasn't, Judd, and it shouldn't have required explaining. But apparently the content was not comprehended.

I suppose that one of the factors causing the masses to whine about the profitability of banks and not be bothered to look behind the raw numbers is that (a) they are lazy, and (b) not many people borrow [somebody else's] money from BHP and are, horror of horrors, expected to pay it back together with interest to compensate those who lent funds in the first place, including, for banks, those with term deposits, etc.

Agree entirely and am a bit fed up with the continued rabbiting on about 'the massive profitability of banks'.

 

[bunyip]

As a stormy all I'm basically saying is "why did they provide storm will the funds if storms advice was so outrageous?"
No one on this forum has been able to explain why

Nonsense – this question has been raised, and answered, a number of times since the Storm collapse.

The banks lent money to Stormers because just like any business, banks are supplying a product, and Stormers approached the banks for the purpose of purchasing some of this product.

Dan Murphy's supplies a product called liquor – they have no obligation to ensure you’ll buy a responsible amount of their product, or that you’ll use it responsibly. If you down a bottle of rum and then go out and do something crazy like getting behind the wheel of your car, that’s your responsibility, not theirs.

Motor dealers supply a product called cars – they have no obligation to ensure that you’ll drive your new car safely. If you cause an accident by driving at some crazy speed, that’s your responsibility, not theirs.

Likewise, banks have no obligation to ensure you’ll responsibly use the money you borrow from them. If you do something crazy like sinking it all into the stock market along with your life savings and your super, causing you to get badly scorched when the market crashes, that’s your responsibility.
As long as the banks can recover their money if your investment goes bad, they’ll usually lend you the money.
As the person applying for the investment loan, the responsibility is on YOU, not the banks, to perform proper risk assessment by thoroughly evaluating the proposed business. Banks simply don’t have the time, the resources, or the expertise to thoroughly evaluate the thousands of different business they finance. They’re lenders, not business consultants.

 

[Julia]

HQ - got to jump in here. Storm's advice was bad, it was high risk, but it was not illegal. It is not the bank's job to tell clients not to take the advice offered by Storm.

The above from Doobsy a couple of days ago.
HQ, do you actually read the thread? Or do you just persist with your ill conceived ideas about the banks' responsibility without considering that you might be quite wrong?

Bunyip has now also explained absolutely clearly the role of banks.

Do you get the reality yet?

How did you go with working out for yourself whether owning bank shares over the last five years was worthwhile or not?

 

[Judd]

Aww, how nice. It's good to see someone, down and out, come back fighting. Do you think the author of the article has a few doubts? I certainly would.

Making money after the Storm
January 14, 2012

An insider at Storm Financial is back in business, writes Stuart Washington.

Jodie Nolan is walking and talking a fine line. On one hand the bright, charming woman sitting next to me at lunch is at ease in a world of opportunity. There's a book, a business she has founded and her telegenic good looks appear to suit her aspirations for a reality television show. On the drawing board is something like a budget boot camp for hapless people's household finances. Or, as I reformulate it, a super nanny for budget retards.

The book, the business, the seminars, the talks, the TV project, the full-time personal assistant - all fit Nolan's current passion for financial literacy. She expresses a keen desire to lift the sorry state of financial education in this country, particularly for women and children.

Her worthy goals and strong sales skills are gaining a wide audience for a subject that in other hands would be deadly dull. On the day we meet at restaurant King 143 in downtown Sydney she has just appeared on Seven's Sunrise program. In the next week she is booked to appear on The Circle and The Project.
Advertisement: Story continues below

On the other hand, there are shadows in the Queenslander's past that threaten the personable image of financial efficiency that she portrays so brightly.

Not that Nolan, 36, is trying to hide a secret past. Her book's title, Surviving the Storm, invites the difficult questions. Those questions centre on Nolan's role as a financial planner inside a company called Storm Financial, responsible for one of the biggest investment collapses in Australia's history.

You can see the fine line. On a favourable perspective, Nolan is relying on her experiences to learn from past mistakes and promote her new (profit-making) vision.

On a less positive view, Nolan was a financial planner whose advice cost her former clients a boatload of money. Some lost their life savings. And now she wants to talk about financial literacy?

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/making-money-after-the-storm-20120113-1pz2c.html#ixzz1jN4KQMZ7

 

[DocK]

Aww, how nice. It's good to see someone, down and out, come back fighting. Do you think the author of the article has a few doubts? I certainly would.

From the same article:

The rough edges of her upbringing also poke through, and that's not a bad thing in this media-managed age. A former colleague is "slimy"; the word "fricking" is very occasionally used as an adjective.

Gee, I wonder who she could be referring to??

Confusingly, many former staff within Storm Financial have identified themselves as victims of the fallout, partly based on their own investments in the unstable scheme and partly by blaming banks which loaned the money.

There's a familiar flavour of the staffer-as-victim in Nolan's explanations. She and her husband Peter followed the Storm model. Storm's founder, Emmanuel Cassimatis, was her financial planner.

Nolan says a couple of times during lunch: "We have lost more than anyone I know."

On Cassimatis's advice, Nolan says in June 2008 she sold an investment property and used the $700,000 in cash as the basis for a margin loan. She then invested the lot in the stockmarket, paying Storm $80,000 commission along the way.

(And now she wants to talk about financial literacy?)

When it all fell down in late 2008 - while Nolan was nursing her three-week-old baby on maternity leave - she was left with a debt of $1.34 million on her house, which she is still repaying.

In the book there are passages that smack of outright denial about Storm's collapse. Nolan writes: "Academically it was the perfect wealth system - use someone else's money to make money, buy low and sell high."

At lunch, she is more open about the impact her work with Storm had on her former clients, describing it as "beyond horrendous".

At this stage during lunch the sunny facade falters and Nolan holds back tears. She tells of depression, getting a prescription for sleeping tablets and writing a suicide note about what to do with her life insurance payout.

I find this interesting. I have often wondered whether the staff actually believed in what they were selling and had their own money where their mouths were - it would appear that at least some of them did. It would also appear they didn't get a discount on the 7% upfront fee

What is also interesting is that obviously several people with financial planning backgrounds (the advisors) believed/fell for/were brainwashed/insert own verb of choice the strategy enough to put considerable funds of their own into it. I've often said I'm sick of the whole justification "issue", and I really don't intend to bring it up again - but maybe some ex-clients can take some comfort in the fact if those who had the training (supposedly) to analyse financial stategies believed in it, perhaps we who had no such training can stop beating ourselves up for falling for it too. This woman had reached the top of her field in financial planning for ANZ and while I doubt she had the experience of a lot of independant FPs - she would have had more than most of the clients she advised. She's clearly a gifted saleswoman, who also believed in the product she was selling at the time - I can see how this combination would have been effective.

Like a good saleswoman, she inspires trust and confidence. And, indeed, that's what she was with Storm: "It was a sales role. They would train us on the adversities you would come up against for paying up-front fees."
As for her responsibility, she gets closest to it towards the end of lunch when she says: ""No excuses. I was involved. I was there. I put my family in it because I believed in it so much."

This statement also confirms my suspicions as to the work practices employed by Storm. Cleary pre-prepared responses from Head Office were being sprouted by the individual advisors to all and any objections raised - everything appears to have been orchestrated by Manny & Julie right down to a script for the advisors to recite from - this certainly seems to reinforce a "one-size-fits-all" approach rather than the personal advice most of us thought we were getting.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/making-money-after-the-storm-20120113-Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/making-money-after-the-storm-20120113-1pz2c.html#ixzz1jNEKt6Qw

 

[Solly]

From the same article:



Gee, I wonder who she could be referring to??



I find this interesting. I have often wondered whether the staff actually believed in what they were selling and had their own money where their mouths were - it would appear that at least some of them did. It would also appear they didn't get a discount on the 7% upfront fee

What is also interesting is that obviously several people with financial planning backgrounds (the advisors) believed/fell for/were brainwashed/insert own verb of choice the strategy enough to put considerable funds of their own into it. I've often said I'm sick of the whole justification "issue", and I really don't intend to bring it up again - but maybe some ex-clients can take some comfort in the fact if those who had the training (supposedly) to analyse financial stategies believed in it, perhaps we who had no such training can stop beating ourselves up for falling for it too. This woman had reached the top of her field in financial planning for ANZ and while I doubt she had the experience of a lot of independant FPs - she would have had more than most of the clients she advised. She's clearly a gifted saleswoman, who also believed in the product she was selling at the time - I can see how this combination would have been effective.



This statement also confirms my suspicions as to the work practices employed by Storm. Cleary pre-prepared responses from Head Office were being sprouted by the individual advisors to all and any objections raised - everything appears to have been orchestrated by Manny & Julie right down to a script for the advisors to recite from - this certainly seems to reinforce a "one-size-fits-all" approach rather than the personal advice most of us thought we were getting.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/making-money-after-the-storm-20120113-Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/making-money-after-the-storm-20120113-1pz2c.html#ixzz1jNEKt6Qw

DocK

To me these are the most interesting grabs in Stuart's article.

My understanding is that Jodie McIver held a Dip FP and worked for Storm Financial (Five) Pty Ltd.
I cannot find a reference that she attained the hallowed 'masters'.

 

[Frank Ainslie]

The above from Doobsy a couple of days ago.
HQ, do you actually read the thread? Or do you just persist with your ill conceived ideas about the banks' responsibility without considering that you might be quite wrong?

Bunyip has now also explained absolutely clearly the role of banks.

Do you get the reality yet?

How did you go with working out for yourself whether owning bank shares over the last five years was worthwhile or not?

Julia,

You seem to be fond of jumping on HQ just for the sake of it. I'm not sure why because she knows far more than you do about the subject in hand.

Before you ask her a question again like, “Do you actually read the thread?” or try to assert that her ideas are ill conceived, I would suggest that you better inform yourself of what really occurred between the Banks and their Storm customers.

For instance do you actually read the newspapers or listen to the news? I think they are more informed than anybody on this thread, don’t you? For that matter, have you been to the ASIC website lately? ASIC by the way is the Regulator in this country. Apart from anything else, ASIC charges people and corporations for wrongdoing. I believe the BOQ the CBA and the Macquarie Bank have been charged by ASIC so far for their dealings with their Storm customers? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that charges were laid against persons or parties for doing something wrong, or has the law changed? Hello! Are you reading me?

If the Banks have done nothing wrong, why are they being charged by ASIC and why are they now being sued by us as well? Or do you think we are doing this for fun?

Instead of telling HQ to get a reality check, I suggest that you do so yourself! Some research into what really happened may be a good start! Feel free to use my websites for educational purposes! Then it might just filter through to you that you just might be wrong about a few things. It’s called being human!

Until then, I'm afraid, your ideas, not HQ's are ill-conceived, based on uninformed opinion and nothing else.

One other thing! Bunyip has admitted among other things that he knows nothing about legal matters. From his remarks to date I tend to believe him. Therefore, I suggest that you don't use him as a reference point where the banks are concerned because the issues involved are based among other things on contractual breaches, not normal run-of-the-mill banking matters. Therefore trying to apply the same principles is somewhat meaningless!

 

[Frank Ainslie]

"HQ - got to jump in here. Storm's advice was bad, it was high risk, but it was not illegal. It is not the bank's job to tell clients not to take the advice offered by Storm.

Any illegal lending for whatever reason whether it be incorrect assessment, inflated house price, fudged up income will need to be addressed. Retirees, low income earners etc should expect to get something back.

But I still stand by my argument that (for example) a miner on $150K pa who could afford the loan repayments on what was borrowed and still can should not receive anything back. There was no illegal or immoral lending in that case. In that situation, the client borrowed money the same as any other non storm person, the banks have not broken any rules on their lending criteria, and the clients lost money due to strategy not improper lending practices. Let that client pay back the loan like they should, not be bailed out just because it was Storm.

In all seriousness - banks provide 2 services - they take and hold deposits and offer a return on that money and they lend. Lending is how they make their money. If someone meets their criteria to lend to they have done nothing wrong.

I would love to know the figures on how many of the 3-4000 stormified clients were still employed, earning incomes that could support the base loans taken out. These clients took on risk by borrowing against their homes.

Without opening the whole "i didn't get my margin call" thing again, if the margin loan process had worked then NO client in my opinion should have been denied a margin loan considering that there has NEVER been a requirement to service the interest on margin loans. ALL margin loans have the option to capitalise interest if that is the clients preference. There should have been no need for the banks to consider a margin loan interest cost as a living expense as clients potentially never had that cost.

Result - Those working, with incomes to support their base loans should not be bailed out.

Those who did not borrow against homes and had a simple margin loan structure supported by a non borrowed asset base should not be bailed out - they should however be bought back to a situation that reflects being sold out at 80% LVR - the point a non storm client would have been sold out in the same situation.

Those not working - the banks need to fix.

I bet this brings the numbers down from 4000 to less than half that.

Hi Doobsy,

Until you can think outside the square, you just won’t get it where Storm and the banks are concerned! This is not about the normal practice of banks but rather about malpractice.

This is not about what the banks have done right but rather about what the Banks have done wrong! Stop treating Banks where their Storm customers are concerned as though they acted in strict accordance with normal banking practice. They did not and you (and they) will find this out when this hits the Courts.

So far this forum has tended to shy away from the issues relating to the Banks focussing instead on Storm and its clients. I presume that is why most remain in the dark where the banks are concerned. The looming court battle will be about the relationship between Storm and the Banks and how it affected the Banks’ customers rights. I suggest that you familiarize yourselves with the issues because the comments you are making so far about the banks are erroneous.

It is completely wrong to assert that Banks can lend money at will (be imprudent). For one they have all signed off on banking codes that place restrictions on the manner and way they can lend money. Once accepted, banking codes are binding and form part of any contracts. Don’t let the Banks tell you otherwise. For another Banks are bound in the same way as we are by the contracts that we entered into with such. Contractual rights and obligations lie with both parties, not just with one! People also tend to forget that the agreements between the Banks and Storm violated the contractual rights of the Banks’ customers.

The Doctors’ case in Sydney (December proceedings) addresses this issue:

“Although His Honour found that the agreement between Storm and the CBA was not a contract to which the Storm Investors/Borrowers were privy, Perram J, accepted that an arrangement to that effect between the Bank and Storm could potentially be relevant to whether the Bank acted in good faith towards Dr, Oliver". His Honour considered that the existence of such an agreement could apply to a good faith/unconscionability claim - such as has been made in the Class Action against CBA.

His Honour further found that the unilateral application by CBA of the redemption of proceeds from Dr. Oliver's Storm units, to reduce his margin loan, could constitute a breach of Clause 25.3 of the CGI Margin loan Agreement but not of other terms of the Agreement

His Honour also sustained Dr. Oliver's right to bring a claim if he had received a margin call at the appropriate time, that he could have retained a much greater sum than as things panned-out, without his having received a margin call: in his case, a difference of almost $3.5 million.

In considering whether the conduct of the CBA in agreeing to implement the Storm Business Model, was conduct which would be unconscionable, the CBA alleged that the CBA's knowing of and agreeing with, or facilitating the implementation of the Storm Business Model, could not amount to 'conduct".unconscionable or otherwise. However, His Honour found: "In any event, it is impossible to see how the Bank's alleged affirmative agreement to the Storm Business Model, is not a form of conduct.”

Until you forget what normally occurs between Banks and their customers, you can never comprehend what happened between the Banks and their Storm customers. It’s called “breaking the law” and it has consequences!

Oh, and did I mention the little matter of UMIS (unregisted managed investment scheme) where pooling was done by certain banks? We also have other matters like 'unconscionability', 'breaches of the TPA', 'being linked creditors' and so on. Quite a charge list for the banks to contend with, don't you think?

Doobsy! Don't you get it yet? We were scammed by Storm and the banks! They were all as bad as one another! There are no good guys here! They were all crooks!

 

[Jifromoz]

DocK

To me these are the most interesting grabs in Stuart's article.




My understanding is that Jodie McIver held a Dip FP and worked for Storm Financial (Five) Pty Ltd.
I cannot find a reference that she attained the hallowed 'masters'.

Hi everyone, I hope you all had a good christmas break. I just googled Julie McIver. Here is a quote from one of her pages

"Formally a respected Financial Adviser in Australia for 13 years and now a business owner and mother of two, Jodie is no stranger to the ‘sometimes confusing world of finance’. Jodie addresses the basic fundamentals of finance including where to start if you don’t already have millions! Topics also include good debt verses bad debt, the revoluntary spending plan, what to look for when finding a good financial mentor and the 3 steps to financial freedom. Jodie’s refreshing approach to understanding money and navigating the finance lingo inspires even the most financially savvy individual. Designed to inspire and educate, Jodie’s passion for empowering people to succeed sets the tone for real financial strategies and solutions.

I have highlighted a part that reeks of Cassimatis and his "Claytons debt". My question is - would you "trust" this person to give you sound financial advice? I also wonder how much of her new found wealth will go back to her old customers.

Here is the link to her website for those who are interested http://www.jodienolan.com/

Cheers

 

[Glen48]

I see she has a debt of 1.3m on her house one has to ask where did the money come from if she is only in her 30's for the house and no mention about her husband and what he does.

Was he working for Storm ( good name they have cooked up one ).
The whole business sounds like the female version of Peter Foster.

 

[Julia]

Aww, how nice. It's good to see someone, down and out, come back fighting. Do you think the author of the article has a few doubts? I certainly would.

It's a well written article. The author, politely, makes his incredulity quite clear.

From the article:

followed a career in which she reached the position as "number one financial adviser" for ANZ.

I wonder if ANZ would support that claim or whether such status exists only in Ms Nolan's imagination.

(Observers of financial planning may pause to wonder about an industry in which a 20-something person with - at that stage - no university education can reach such dizzy heights, all the time advising people about their life savings.)

I've come across a few ANZ financial advisers/planners over the years and in general conversation they appeared surprisingly ill informed about global financial conditions and markets.
I suspect they get their qualification and then ANZ (or any bank) then tells them what products they are to promote. I don't want to do them a disservice, but I'd be surprised if they had great expertise in e.g. estate planning, taxation, asset management etc.

I find this interesting. I have often wondered whether the staff actually believed in what they were selling and had their own money where their mouths were - it would appear that at least some of them did.

I find the concept of 'believing' in a financial strategy a bit odd.
Some definitions of 'belief':

1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

I'd have thought a financial strategy should be a clear plan, tested rigorously to work, before being sold to anyone. We now know that Storm had not done this and had promoted their model on the extraordinary suggestion that the market would keep going up!

What is also interesting is that obviously several people with financial planning backgrounds (the advisors) believed/fell for/were brainwashed/insert own verb of choice the strategy enough to put considerable funds of their own into it.

Yes. This supports the contention that many of these 'advisers' had managed to acquire the relevant qualification but possibly had minimal experience of markets, and even were perhaps ignorant of previous market falls, e.g. 1987.

I can't seem to find it at present, but in the past we've had threads discussing the FP qualification and how easy or otherwise it is to acquire.

Doobsy, perhaps you'd be good enough to tell us what education is required in order to describe oneself as a Financial Adviser or Financial Planner? Is there a difference between the two terms?

It's possible that when Ms Nolan started with ANZ, formal qualifications were not mandatory. You'd have to hope they are now, for what they're worth.