Storm Financial Group

[Tysonboss1]

Tyson Boss 1

1, Normally I would have let your last comment pass but I was determined I wouldn't

2,This is really kindergarten stuff dont you think

3, Once again Julia has to snipe at the correct way for quotations on the forum how many times over the last 3 years have you pointed that out?

1, I asked three questions, 1 just because I was interested in what storm were promising and 2 questions so I could understand where you were coming from, and what lead you and others to do what you did. there's nothing wrong with me asking a question is there.

2, No, But quoting alice in wonderland is I guess.

3, All she is saying is, If you quote her just press the quote button and actually get the proper quote, Just don't write her name and write somthing from memory that your putting into your own words. I think you will find that she gives you that courtesy, so why not return it.

A) I will eventually answer your questions but I would like to see first someone who had called us greedy answer my questions.

B) I would like to ask the questions for a change on why we are greedy.

C) You are free to answer your own 3 questions if you would like too.

D) I commenced with Storm in September 2006 what do you think would be a conservative interest rate return on an investment for that period?

A) Great, I look forward to it.

B) Did I say you were greedy, I don't think I did.

C) I will, and any others you wish to put my way

D) Well that depends on what sort of investor you are and your skills and knowledge. A defensive investor should really expect a return of more than market average Intrest and dividends, and perhaps the stock component to grow in capital value over time by an amount roughly equal to inflation,

Saying that though, the defensive investor should not be using debt, and should be drip feeding funds into the operation ove time ( dollar cost averaging ). The defensive investor won't have the skill to time the markets.

 

[Tysonboss1]

1, What sort of returns were they suggesting?

2, What do you consider exorbitant?

3, What do you consider an acceptable return?

1, N/A ( direct question to storm members )

2, For the defensive investor any return higher than market average capital gains, and cashflow greater than market average interest and dividends.

3, For the defensive investor, Market average capital gains, dividends and interest.

 

[Solly]

Solly: if you are going to quote remarks I have made, please do so accurately, attributing what I have said under my name, not - as occurs in your post 6549 - incorporating my comments with those of another poster.

Here is Joe's thread on how to use the Quote Tags.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2737&highlight=tags

Julia

I was not quoting you. I've been on this forum since Dec 2008 and made thousands of posts. I fully understand Joe's requirements and accepted conventions relating to the use of quote tags.

I find the tone and your remarks to me about the use of quote tags offensive.

S

 

[shibby]

Dear Tyson Boss1
I guess your last post is your idea of being clever so I feel very sorry for you.

You have criticized us so therefore I thought you would have some knowledge of the process.
I never said that you said we were greedy and the post was not aimed at you I just simply wanted someone who is the past has called us greedy to give the reasons why they made such a comment.
You really have not made any attempt at any sort of investigation as to what actually happened outside of this forum you have probably scanned a few posts and thought I will get in here and stir a few feathers. I will be able to bluff my way through this because I am a real smart a**e.

This thread has become a competition of who can strip away any sense of what the Stormies do actually say, you nit pick it, turn it into mush and spit it out.
You take it in turns to decimate people all in the guise of being smart and clever.
You all seem to feel somehow that you have the upper hand and it makes me laugh

I quoted Alice in Wonderland because this forum is insane there is no commonsense to it no rational thread your like a pack of rabid dogs any morsel that is thrown your way you all dissect it till it makes no sense at all.

There is a little group who continually trivialise this disaster and the collapse of Storm Financial is a disaster, good ol’ Bunyip will start up once again about the Brisbane Floods and “that is what you call a disaster”.
Like there is a competition on disasters my disaster is bigger than your disaster.
Our disaster should not be trivialised if you want to comment educate yourself on what did actually happen.

 

[Tysonboss1]

Dear Tyson Boss1
I guess your last post is your idea of being clever so I feel very sorry for you.

.

1, N/A ( direct question to storm members )

2, For the defensive investor any return higher than market average capital gains, and cashflow greater than market average interest and dividends.

3, For the defensive investor, Market average capital gains, dividends and interest.

I simply asked 3 questions, you refused to answer them, But said you wanted me to answer them, So I gave my honest answer. I wasn't trying to be clever or be a smart a**e as you latter said.

Any way, Can you or some other stormy answer question 1 atleast, What return did storm financel say you were looking at making?

This is not a personal question, and please don't take it as a personal attack.

It is simply a straight forward question,

When sitting down with the advisor, What were the returns they were saying you could make?

 

[DocK]

I simply asked 3 questions, you refused to answer them, But said you wanted me to answer them, So I gave my honest answer. I wasn't trying to be clever or be a smart a**e as you latter said.

Any way, Can you or some other stormy answer question 1 atleast, What return did storm financel say you were looking at making?

This is not a personal question, and please don't take it as a personal attack.

It is simply a straight forward question,

When sitting down with the advisor, What were the returns they were saying you could make?

This has been covered many times on this thread already. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Storm would know that there were three or four index funds which simply tracked the performance of the market - therefore there were no promises of exceptional returns.

 

[bunyip]

I know I have a mere BEc but to me is sure as hell looks like Westpacs Financial Product is a commodity if you look at the defenition above

BEc meaning Batchelor of Economics, presumably - is that correct?

 

[bunyip]

I've a question for you and anyone else on here "What is the role of a financial planner/advisor and what are their responsibilities?"

This question has been answered and discussed at length many times on this forum.
I don't think there's anyone on here who doesn't know the answer.
I don't think anyone on here believes that Storm fulfilled their responsibilites as financial planners.

A more pertinent question for you to consider is 'What is the role and responsibility of a person who consults a financial planner'?

The people who knew the correct answer to this question are the ones who walked away after looking at the Storm strategy.
The people who didn't know the correct answer are the ones who got sucked in by Storm.

 

[SJG1974]

This has been covered many times on this thread already. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Storm would know that there were three or four index funds which simply tracked the performance of the market - therefore there were no promises of exceptional returns.

That would be true if gearing were not involved. However as we all know, gearing multiplies the gains and magnifies the losses. You wouldn't gear if you didn't expect to get greater than average returns, otherwise why would you take such a big risk?

I can see why some people would see gearing as the only way they can build a sufficient asset base to provide for a decent lifestyle. However, we know that many Storm investors were independently wealthy before they set foot in Storm HQ. these people had absolutely no need to borrow to build their asset base, yet they not only borrowed, but double geared, building an asset base that was so much more than what they needed. Why on earth would anyone in their right mind take on such a huge risk when they had no need to unless there was some sort of carrot dangled in front of them?

Shibby asked about greed...well isn't wanting more than you need the definition of greed? We have read of multi millionaires risking it all in an attempt to make even more. Well if that isn't greed then I don't know what it is, other than perhaps the height of stupidity.

 

[Solly]

This question has been answered and discussed at length many times on this forum.
I don't think there's anyone on here who doesn't know the answer.
I don't think anyone on here believes that Storm fulfilled their responsibilites as financial planners.

A more pertinent question for you to consider is 'What is the role and responsibility of a person who consults a financial planner'?

The people who knew the correct answer to this question are the ones who walked away after looking at the Storm strategy.
The people who didn't know the correct answer are the ones who got sucked in by Storm.

bunyip

According to ASIC, these are the responsibilities;

https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/investing/financial-advice/choosing-an-adviser

S

 

[Julia]

Julia

I was not quoting you. I've been on this forum since Dec 2008 and made thousands of posts. I fully understand Joe's requirements and accepted conventions relating to the use of quote tags.

Why, then, have you so misused them in the post to which I referred where my remarks are included, without attribution, amongst those made by another poster?

I find the tone and your remarks to me about the use of quote tags offensive.

S

That's unfortunate. It doesn't, however, alter my objection to your incorrectly including my remarks in the post from someone else.

 

[DocK]

This question has been answered and discussed at length many times on this forum.
I don't think there's anyone on here who doesn't know the answer.
I don't think anyone on here believes that Storm fulfilled their responsibilites as financial planners.

A more pertinent question for you to consider is 'What is the role and responsibility of a person who consults a financial planner'?

The people who knew the correct answer to this question are the ones who walked away after looking at the Storm strategy.
The people who didn't know the correct answer are the ones who got sucked in by Storm.

That's quite a sweeping generalisation there Bunyip. Unless you are familiar with all those who both did and did not walk away after looking at the Storm strategy I think you are projecting or making assumptions based on your own beliefs. Do you have any research to back up your claim that "the ones who got sucked in by Storm" didn't know their role or responsibilities? Perhaps it might be more accurate to say that just as some FPs are on the level and some aren't, so are some clients more inclined to research the advice given and some less so? Actually, what are the roles and responsibilities of a person who consults a FP, other than to provide honest and accurate answers to a fact find in order to allow them to formulate an individualised plan of course? Does the FPA or ASIC have any guidelines on a website that outline what responsibilities the client takes on? I'm not being snide here, I'm genuinely interested to know if such a guideline exists and maybe should have been provided to prospective clients of Storm?

 

[Solly]

Why, then, have you so misused them in the post to which I referred where my remarks are included, without attribution, amongst those made by another poster?


That's unfortunate. It doesn't, however, alter my objection to your incorrectly including my remarks in the post from someone else.

Julia

I have no further comment other than my remarks in my post #6563.

S

 

[DocK]

That would be true if gearing were not involved. However as we all know, gearing multiplies the gains and magnifies the losses. You wouldn't gear if you didn't expect to get greater than average returns, otherwise why would you take such a big risk?

I can see why some people would see gearing as the only way they can build a sufficient asset base to provide for a decent lifestyle. However, we know that many Storm investors were independently wealthy before they set foot in Storm HQ. these people had absolutely no need to borrow to build their asset base, yet they not only borrowed, but double geared, building an asset base that was so much more than what they needed. [I]Why on earth would anyone in their right mind take on such a huge risk when they had no need to unless there was some sort of carrot dangled in front of them?
[/I]
Shibby asked about greed...well isn't wanting more than you need the definition of greed? We have read of multi millionaires risking it all in an attempt to make even more. Well if that isn't greed then I don't know what it is, other than perhaps the height of stupidity.

The bolded section has been asked and answered several times, yet clearly you believe there was a carrot dangled no matter how often actual clients tell you otherwise. That's your right of course, but it is wearying to read it again.

What is your definition of wanting more than you need? I don't need to own my home, I could be content to rent - is striving for home ownership being greedy? I don't need to feed my family nutritious food, we could subsist on McDonalds for less than my average weekly grocery bill - am I being greedy in wanting a good diet? My kids don't need to go to a good school, but I want to give them the best chance in life that I can - am I being greedy here? I've never been outside Australia, but would love to broaden my horizons and gain an insight into how other nationalities live - am I being greedy to aspire to overseas travel one day? I don't need to put myself in a position to help my kids fund their first homes, or leave them a little nestegg, but I'd like to - is this being greedy? Who are you to tell me I can't have aspirations and dreams anyway? If wanting more than you need is the definition of greed, I guess you need to clarify exactly what constitutes a need vs a want. A necessity for you might be a luxury for me, or vice versa. Personally I think a world where nobody aspired to have more than the bare essentials in life would lead to a backward society with no incentives to work hard, no innovations or marvellous inventions etc.

 

[DocK]

Why, then, have you so misused them in the post to which I referred where my remarks are included, without attribution, amongst those made by another poster?


That's unfortunate. It doesn't, however, alter my objection to your incorrectly including my remarks in the post from someone else.

I read Solly's post as quoting Shibby's post no. 6524 from a page or two earlier.

 

[Tysonboss1]

there were three or four index funds which simply tracked the performance of the market - therefore there were no promises of exceptional returns.

The index funds may have been the underlying asset, But they were obviously chasing higher returns or they would not have used leverage.

For example - A person wanting to track an index's performance simply takes their $100K and buys the index, if the index returns 10% they make $10K if it drops 10% the lose $10K

However an person seeking higher returns takes their $100K adds $900K of debt so their total exposure is $1M, if the market returns 10% the make $100K minus $63,000 interest So their total return on their $100K is $37K = 37% gain.

As the Stormies have learned though, When using debt to seek higher returns means when you lose 30% on that leveraged $1M of exposure it will completely wipe out the $100K capital base and leave you still owing another $200K plus interest.

There is a saying about debt, "If your smart you don't need it and if your dumb you have no business using it

 

[Julia]

I read Solly's post as quoting Shibby's post no. 6524 from a page or two earlier.

Yes it does. But about every second line is a comment that I made in an earlier post.
The way the post comes up, it all reads as a post made by Shibby, does it not?

In fact it wasn't at all.

When you click on the "Reply to Post" and the post in question includes responses to quoted remarks from another poster, it all comes out in the same italics, as is the case in the post from Solly in question.

viz. here is some of the post in question:

Quote Originally Posted by shibby View Post
Then we would probably be accused of being egocentric.
The above sentence is a response I made earlier.

What! your not?
This is from Shibby

It genuinely puzzles me why you, HQ et al are even members of this forum.
Again, my remark from an earlier post

Why are you?
From Shibby

Forums are where people come to exchange information, usually with the aim of learning from those who have greater expertise in a particular area.
Again, my comment from an earlier post

I'm sure you get the gist. So it went throughout the whole post.

I am simply asking that if I am going to be quoted, such quotes should be correctly attributed to me. Is that reasonable, do you think?

 

[Tysonboss1]

The bolded section has been asked and answered several times, yet clearly you believe there was a carrot dangled no matter how often actual clients tell you otherwise. That's your right of course, but it is wearying to read it again.

What is your definition of wanting more than you need? I don't need to own my home, I could be content to rent - is striving for home ownership being greedy? I don't need to feed my family nutritious food, we could subsist on McDonalds for less than my average weekly grocery bill - am I being greedy in wanting a good diet? My kids don't need to go to a good school, but I want to give them the best chance in life that I can - am I being greedy here? I've never been outside Australia, but would love to broaden my horizons and gain an insight into how other nationalities live - am I being greedy to aspire to overseas travel one day? I don't need to put myself in a position to help my kids fund their first homes, or leave them a little nestegg, but I'd like to - is this being greedy? Who are you to tell me I can't have aspirations and dreams anyway? If wanting more than you need is the definition of greed, I guess you need to clarify exactly what constitutes a need vs a want. A necessity for you might be a luxury for me, or vice versa. Personally I think a world where nobody aspired to have more than the bare essentials in life would lead to a backward society with no incentives to work hard, no innovations or marvellous inventions etc.

Here is Buffett explaining a topic you hit on here. he is talking about LTCM who basically did what storm did x1000 in the late 90's

I think the test whether it is greed or not is when you are risking things you need eg, your home for something you don't need, A holiday or a deposit on a kids home. There is nothing wrong with aspiring to get those things, but taking large risks and laying things you rely on down to gamble to get them is silly

 

[Solly]

That's quite a sweeping generalisation there Bunyip. Unless you are familiar with all those who both did and did not walk away after looking at the Storm strategy I think you are projecting or making assumptions based on your own beliefs. Do you have any research to back up your claim that "the ones who got sucked in by Storm" didn't know their role or responsibilities? Perhaps it might be more accurate to say that just as some FPs are on the level and some aren't, so are some clients more inclined to research the advice given and some less so? Actually, what are the roles and responsibilities of a person who consults a FP, other than to provide honest and accurate answers to a fact find in order to allow them to formulate an individualised plan of course? Does the FPA or ASIC have any guidelines on a website that outline what responsibilities the client takes on? I'm not being snide here, I'm genuinely interested to know if such a guideline exists and maybe should have been provided to prospective clients of Storm?

DocK

I got a tweet this morning from my Stormer mate with this link to ASIC's Getting Advice booklet;

https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/media/276435/getting-advice.pdf

He is quite amused by this on page 5.

An advisory business that gives personal advice must:

• give personal advice that suits you
• take legal responsibility for its staff and representatives
• act efficiently, honestly and fairly
• meet standards designed to protect you against
  something going wrong

I've posted this here hoping this will be a catalyst for him to join this forum so he can add further comment and opinion to this thread. If he doesn't join and comment, what do others think about the above from ASIC?

 

[Joe Blow]

It appears that this thread is getting derailed by too much angst and unnecessary provocation and bickering. I'm not going to go pointing fingers, I just want it to stop now and for the discussion in this thread to return to the topic at hand: Storm Financial.

This thread is a very useful resource for those following how the whole Storm Financial debacle is unfolding and I would hate to see its usefulness (and the quality of the discussion) diminish due to unfortunate personality clashes.

I will be monitoring this thread a little closer in the coming days and I sincerely hope that there will be no need for me to intervene further.

Back on topic please ladies and gentlemen, and lets keep it civil.

Thank you all for your co-operation.