Storm Financial Group

[SJG1974]

SJG1974,

I applaud you on your balanced and sensible approach, it is refreshing to see this stated and I hope others are influenced by your views.

Just more about my comments about investment derailments which occur in later life. My observations of the Stormers is that some come from a generation who are very trusting. Where a handshake sealed a deal, a person's word was a binding contract and intent to defraud was a far away concept. Unfortunately it appears in this over regulated and compliance focused world some innate basic values get buried in the layers.

I acknowledge your view of blame and responsibility regarding the Stormers. I will be very interested to see where the regulatory authorities and the judiciary determine where the fault lies in this collapse.

S

Cheers Solly.

Like you, I will be interested in what comes of it all. I am sure it will continue to be drawn out. Again, I know there were many parties involved in all of this, and if people or companies are proven to have failed in their duties along the line, then I would hope they pay for their actions.

 

[Igetit]

Igetit, good to see that you have returned unscathed from the Alps to this forum. That reminds I must again try my luck again at Mühlbach am Hochkönig, although last time while en route I must say I did end up a litte worse for wear after a stay at the Hotel Stieglbräu. But that is another story and probably one that GG or John Birmingham would fully understand.

I was quite amazed that SJG 1974 has admitted to making past bad investment decisions and is likely to make them again in the future. No doubt SJG 1974 will take full responsibility for those decisions and will never attempt to seek a remedy or compensation from any other parties that had input or influence in that flawed strategy. Each to their own, as they say. I'm making a guess that SJG is around 38, I wonder what SJG's attitude would be like if he/she was around 60 or 70 when investment 'mistakes' were made.

I totally agree with SJG's statement of not handing money over to FAs and expecting them to make you rich. I don't know of anybody who is 'rich' due solely to the advice of an adviser. I suppose some have worked out what industry I am in and certain people in this game take home multimillion dollar pay packets, others struggle to survive. The real wealth and high value lifestyle I see being made is through the spoils of the corporate world, not through the efforts of your local financial adviser who, drives a Mazda3, works 6 days/nights a week and who is themselves servicing a 30 year mortgage. I suppose my view on the financial advisory arena is that it is more like a savings bank but with slightly higher returns but those who choose to use the services of this industry should be afforded the basic protections, safeguards and harm minimisation that our society offers.

One final thing about the spoils and riches of the corporate world, I have an associate who has a favourite saying which I'll share now.

"When it comes to making bucket loads, not everybody can have the financial acumen, marketing momentum, business wisdom and stage presence of a 'Kochie'."


S

Hi Solly,

Yes a lovely time was had by all. Tried some ice karting with the boys. Go karting of an ice rink. Everyone should try it. Once.

Now, I have a funny feeling SJG 1974 doesn't wish to hear back from me directly - I have been told that one can block a posters response if they so choose. So I thought I would get back to him indirectly.

Firstly, may I be perfectly clear that I am not a financial planner, nor lawyer, butcher, baker, candle.....More an advocate. Indeed, not only have I never received money from anyone connected with Storm, history will soon reveal that quite the converse is true. A little cryptic I know - I like it like that.

Careful reading of my post will confirm that I never accused SJG 1974 of being "stupid"(although I am beginning to form a conclusion), I simply asked him to characterize the reason for his investment failures. He eventually decided upon "greed". He then engaged in the traditional self praise about the nobility associated with his acknowledgement of his failure and the magnificent way in which he takes full responsibility for his decisions. A real man among men. He then drew a comparison of himself with Warren Buffet, there was some talk about curry and Greeks in sports coats etc, etc.

The difficulty, however, with disparate situations is that comparisons are difficult to make - unless you dontgetit (again - I have resisted the urge to accuse him of stupidity - thankyou). Getting out of the market when he did was fine. His decision to make. Getting out of the market for a Storm Victim not so. They were reliant upon information fed down a chain from the BANK to STORM. As we know this data feed was fatally flawed and they were operating in darkness. And when I say they, I mean the BANK, STORM and the STORM VICTIMS.

Now, just to very clear, I am not interested in claims for compensation. I am interested in ensuring the blame for the position Storm victims now find themselves in, is laid squarely at the feet of the responsible party. That is not, never was and never will be the Storm client. Getit. For the decisions of the client could only be made based on information provided to them by the Margin Lender. No point saying they should not have geared. Irrelevant. They did and the Bank then had a duty of care to ensure the accuracy of their systems and the timeliness with which data was provided to "their" customer.

Now, compensation will flow deep and far once this is acknowledged. That time is fast approaching. That is good.

As for SJG 1974 - can I ask, given your cheeky inference that I am an EX-STORM ADVISER (I really am resisting the urge to accuse you of stupidity) seeking to cleanse my soul - do you get a bonus from the BANK each time you post from your desk at the office? Have you been asked to keep posting to try and break the resolve of the Stormies by belittling them and berating them and accusing them of greed, stupidity and laziness for not taking responsibility for their decisions? You see they did take responsibility for their decisions when they signed an agreement with the Bank to enter a Margin Loan Agreement. The BANK is now required to take responsibility for their management of their agreement, their Margin Lending Division, their ill-conceived manipulation of their clients LVR's, their failure to advise of the implications of this and the failure of their systems to trigger margin calls in a timely manner. GETIT.

P.S The "IDON'TGETIT" thing - hysterical. Tears in my eyes. You must have taken forever to come up with that. Stupid? I don't think so.

 

[shibby]

Good to hear from you again shibby, the dog is obviously better? You didn't stay away for long did you??

I didnt say I was going away I just said that it was silly to converse with you as we would never agree.
Thank you the dog is better but it all is a matter of time as she is 14 years old, blind and deaf and she is getting old. I prepare myself for the worst and then she bounces back to her old self, with a slight deterioration in general health.

 

[SJG1974]

Now, I have a funny feeling SJG 1974 doesn't wish to hear back from me directly - I have been told that one can block a posters response if they so choose. So I thought I would get back to him indirectly. .

I am happy to hear back from you directly idontgetit. Really I am. I would think by now you would understand that given all the flak I have copped from the Stormers for daring to suggest that they are responsible for their decisions, it takes a lot to offend or insult me. I hope you don’t think so highly of your witty remarks that they offend me? Because trust me, they don’t. I liken them to being slapped with a wet paper towel. So, no, I don’t ignore your posts, and for good reason. Keep them coming. Sometimes, they throw up a bit of gold.

I will try to be brief, because it appears the more words that are used, the more confused you become. Firstly, your post goes over old ground, so no need to respond to the specifics. And you choose to disregard what is written in front of you and go of on a tangent. I have also answered the questions you have posed previously, if you forgot the answers, try the search function. Saves me from repeating myself. Not that it would matter.

P.S The "IDON'TGETIT" thing - hysterical. Tears in my eyes. You must have taken forever to come up with that..

Well whether you find the name funny or not doesn’t really matter to me…but the name has obviously got to you otherwise you would not comment on it. I was looking for a reaction, and I got one. Don’t you love it when the fish actually jump up onto the hook and take the bait? Don’t you idontgetit?

Secondly, the fact you took the time to respond to my post (and in a detailed way, and even via Solly so you could ensure I read it) is more noteworthy than the post itself, considering the following remark….

Note to self: disregard anything SJG 1974 has to say.

This brings us to the question of stupidity.

Some (including me) have questioned whether Storm victims were stupid for accepting Storm’s advice. Some think yes, some think no. The debate will rage.
However, I think the answer is pretty clear cut when you think about individuals who don’t even follow their own advice…what do you reckon idontgetit?

Stupid? I don’t think so.

Well, the evidence is starting to mount against you I am afraid old friend……

 

[SJG1974]

I didnt say I was going away I just said that it was silly to converse with you as we would never agree.
Thank you the dog is better but it all is a matter of time as she is 14 years old, blind and deaf and she is getting old. I prepare myself for the worst and then she bounces back to her old self, with a slight deterioration in general health.

Well shibby, I hope her remaining days, however many of them there are, are spent in as much comfort as possible and you can enjoy the time you get to spend with her.

 

[Igetit]

I am happy to hear back from you directly idontgetit. Really I am. I would think by now you would understand that given all the flak I have copped from the Stormers for daring to suggest that they are responsible for their decisions, it takes a lot to offend or insult me. I hope you don’t think so highly of your witty remarks that they offend me? Because trust me, they don’t. I liken them to being slapped with a wet paper towel. So, no, I don’t ignore your posts, and for good reason. Keep them coming. Sometimes, they throw up a bit of gold.

I will try to be brief, because it appears the more words that are used, the more confused you become. Firstly, your post goes over old ground, so no need to respond to the specifics. And you choose to disregard what is written in front of you and go of on a tangent. I have also answered the questions you have posed previously, if you forgot the answers, try the search function. Saves me from repeating myself. Not that it would matter.



Well whether you find the name funny or not doesn’t really matter to me…but the name has obviously got to you otherwise you would not comment on it. I was looking for a reaction, and I got one. Don’t you love it when the fish actually jump up onto the hook and take the bait? Don’t you idontgetit?

Secondly, the fact you took the time to respond to my post (and in a detailed way, and even via Solly so you could ensure I read it) is more noteworthy than the post itself, considering the following remark….



This brings us to the question of stupidity.

Some (including me) have questioned whether Storm victims were stupid for accepting Storm’s advice. Some think yes, some think no. The debate will rage.
However, I think the answer is pretty clear cut when you think about individuals who don’t even follow their own advice…what do you reckon idontgetit?
Well, the evidence is starting to mount against you I am afraid old friend……

Hi SJG 1974,

I am not sure what this post was for. However, speaking of mounting evidence, many of us think we've figured out what the "S" in SJG 1974 stands for.

Now, just to put your posts in perspective. By your very recent admission you are an investor motivated by "greed" - the reason you gave for staying in the market for longer than you should have.

You subsequently decided to pull the pin when your strategy of "holding and waiting" was not working. Some would say you "panicked" and sold - nothing particularly sophisticated or insightful about that. Now, I'm no stock market pundit - and clearly neither are you - but my readings tell me that "fear and greed" are the hallmarks of the mug stock punter.

So as you sit back and compose your commentaries, bear in mind what you are and ask yourself what it is you bring to the table. Invective and derision and little else. Nothing more. You lack insight and are certainly not a person to be offering advice or putting yourself on some sort of higher intellectual ground or seeking explanations from others as if you are an investment guru to set them on the right track. GETIT. I thought your comparison of yourself with Warren Buffet was kinda cute by the way. Do you know what a Nero complex is?

You are an active investor. You certainly should take a great deal of interest in what you are investing in, but the Storm model was a passive one. I am not sure you even appreciate that difference my "greedy, panic-driven" friend. There, I feel confident that I have not gone off on a tangent. Pretty direct really.

 

[Mindstorm]

Hi all,

Bunyip, I've part quoted you here.

I'm not responding to your post in its entirety but I would like to point out that Luke Vogel was never, to my continued knowledge, a storm advisor.

It's my belief that he was employed by storm at one point, but his employment was not in any way related to advising clients.

I've seen this 'Luke Vogel was a storm advisor' in more than one post on this thread, and think that there are others who are obviously misinformed on this issue, but I think the whole objective of ASF is to publish information that is as true as it can be.

Obviously Mr Vogel doesn't read this forum or he would have told you this himself, or maybe he does and just thinks it's not relevant in the bigger 'picture'.

I'm happy to be corrected if anyone can supply us with concrete evidence that Luke Vogel was a storm advisor.

If he wasn't? Are those here who said he was liable for possible accusations of slander or libel?

No offence intended, and apologies if I've offended anyone.

MS

The myth of the ‘conservative’ Storm strategy is promoted on the SICAG website in an article on margin lending written by former Storm adviser Luke Vogel.
Here’s an extract from that article.....

Essentially, the Storm model promised ‘average market returns’...nothing more, nothing less. Some media reports claimed that Storm clients were greedy because they were choosing high-risk high-return investment and that they got what they deserved. Clearly, an index fund cannot outperform the market!

While Vogel doesn’t say anything dishonest here, he masks the true picture by neglecting to mention that Storm’s model was based on heavy leverage, thereby converting a conservative strategy into a high risk strategy.

 

[SJG1974]

Hi SJG 1974,

I am not sure what this post was for. However, speaking of mounting evidence, many of us think we've figured out what the "S" in SJG 1974 stands for.

Now, just to put your posts in perspective. By your very recent admission you are an investor motivated by "greed" - the reason you gave for staying in the market for longer than you should have.

You subsequently decided to pull the pin when your strategy of "holding and waiting" was not working. Some would say you "panicked" and sold - nothing particularly sophisticated or insightful about that. Now, I'm no stock market pundit - and clearly neither are you - but my readings tell me that "fear and greed" are the hallmarks of the mug stock punter.

So as you sit back and compose your commentaries, bear in mind what you are and ask yourself what it is you bring to the table. Invective and derision and little else. Nothing more. You lack insight and are certainly not a person to be offering advice or putting yourself on some sort of higher intellectual ground or seeking explanations from others as if you are an investment guru to set them on the right track. GETIT. I thought your comparison of yourself with Warren Buffet was kinda cute by the way. Do you know what a Nero complex is?

You are an active investor. You certainly should take a great deal of interest in what you are investing in, but the Storm model was a passive one. I am not sure you even appreciate that difference my "greedy, panic-driven" friend. There, I feel confident that I have not gone off on a tangent. Pretty direct really.

I have gotten to you haven't I?

 

[Solly]

Hi all,

Bunyip, I've part quoted you here.

I'm not responding to your post in its entirety but I would like to point out that Luke Vogel was never, to my continued knowledge, a storm advisor.

It's my belief that he was employed by storm at one point, but his employment was not in any way related to advising clients.

I've seen this 'Luke Vogel was a storm advisor' in more than one post on this thread, and think that there are others who are obviously misinformed on this issue, but I think the whole objective of ASF is to publish information that is as true as it can be.

Obviously Mr Vogel doesn't read this forum or he would have told you this himself, or maybe he does and just thinks it's not relevant in the bigger 'picture'.

I'm happy to be corrected if anyone can supply us with concrete evidence that Luke Vogel was a storm advisor.

If he wasn't? Are those here who said he was liable for possible accusations of slander or libel?

No offence intended, and apologies if I've offended anyone.

MS

MS

I believe Luke Vogel was a staff member and not an adviser.

There was this article that did state that he was an adviser.

http://redcliffe-and-bayside-herald...nvestors-counting-the-cost-of-storm-collapse/

S

 

[Igetit]

I have gotten to you haven't I?

That is extraordinary. I was just thinking the same thing about you.

Now for all those out there who were wondering about the nature and intent of your posts. Let there be no mistake. You are here as an irritant. Trying to "get to people". What a fascinating life you lead.

Best wait for Julia to get back to help you with your responses. I notice your grammar and clarity drops off when she's away. Now back to the tennis.

 

[SJG1974]

Trying to "get to people".

Replace "people" with "idontgetit" and you would be on the money.

Like shooting fish in a barrel. Ahh, its good to have you back idontgetit, it really is!

 

[SJG1974]

What a night hey idontgetit? Tennis was great wasn't it?

I guess in all the commotion, and through all of your personal pot shots last night I happened to overlook something you said which is probably quite relevant (and you really should settle down, getting so worked up over anonymous internet posters isn't healthy).

Now let me state from the outset that I don't care what you think of me and the way I invest my money. That much is certain. If you think I am greedy, panic driven, stupid, whatever, I don't really care. If you interpret the honest answers I gave to a question you asked in a certain, twisted way, then that is you prerogative. Again to me you are just another no name on the internet….I know nothing about you and don’t want to.

You are an active investor. You certainly should take a great deal of interest in what you are investing in, but the Storm model was a passive one. I am not sure you even appreciate that difference my "greedy, panic-driven" friend. There, I feel confident that I have not gone off on a tangent. Pretty direct really.

This is an ill informed comment and really flies in the face of the whole margin lending strategy on its own. And you seem to be mistaking passive investments for passive strategy. I may be a mug punter in your eyes, but of this I do know the difference. You apparently do not.

I would think a passive strategy (remember, we are talking strategy, or “model’, not investment- there is a difference you know) would be something that you put in place and leave there.
Just because the investments in index funds may have been passive, does not mean they can’t be actively managed.

Two points to note with your ill informed comments:

1. We have heard from Storm clients that they were told Storm would manage their portfolio and had trigger points to get out if things got bad. Passive investment, active strategy. In fact, this seems to have been the misguided premise for a lot of these people to have taken such a high risk in the first place, that Storm would protect them by actively managing. The fact they didn’t doesn’t change this premise one bit. Add to this that Storm and through them investors added to their “passive” investment over time, at different trigger points initiated by storm. So this strategy is so far from passive it is not funny.

2. A margin loan, by definition, is active. It has built in trigger points which trigger a decision on what to do when the investment reaches a certain level, as you well know. Passive? I hardly think so.

Now I know full well that the trigger points did not happen until much later than they should have, and that seems to be the basis of your case against the banks. And fair enough. As I have said all along (and you have conveniently ignored time after time), someone needs to pay for not enacting the margin calls on time. I guess we will find out just whose responsibility that was when the courts decide for us.

And you know full well that not getting a margin call at 80% LVR is not what screwed these people- double gearing was. The margin call situation just took them from screwed to more screwed. It may not suit your argument but that is the fact.

In fact, having done some rough numbers with my adviser (who “inherited” a Storm client from Paul Florence in Melbourne), we figured that a sample client who took a $400K loan against his house, added this to his $500K super fund, and geared it up 50% in November 2007 by using this high risk strategy would have been in negative equity when the market was down just 28%. That is sometime in the middle of 2008, certainly well before September and the fall of Lehmann Brothers, and well before the **** hit the fan at Storm Central. Well before the scrambled data started conveniently getting through to Storm and prevented the adviser from “actively” managing the portfolios.

At that point, the LVR on the margin loan was an acceptable 69%. In fact, by the time the margin call should have come, the market would have fallen around 37.5%, by which time that client is well and truly in negative equity (again due to the effect of double gearing).

No point saying they should not have geared. Irrelevant. They did and the Bank then had a duty of care to ensure the accuracy of their systems and the timeliness with which data was provided to "their" customer.

So you see, it did matter that these clients double geared. It mattered a lot. It may not matter to you in the context of going after the banks for what they did or didn’t do at margin call time, but it sure as hell mattered to these clients, who were screwed well before the banks’ inactivity on margin calls, or the scrambled data came through to Storm HQ. Because they were shot by then, not by the banks, but by the Strategy, or model.

So for these clients, what events took place that led to their loss, and who is responsible?
- Was it the fact they signed on for the strategy in the first place?
- Was it that Storm didn’t actively manage their portfolio like they said they would?
- Was it the banks and Storm increasing the LVR without telling the clients?
- Was it Storm central not letting clients get out (as shabby has shown) when they tried to?
- Was it the scrambled data that got through to Storm in late 2008?
- Was it the inaction on portfolios when the LVR went beyond margin call territory?
- Was it clients being forcefully sold out at the end, with no chance of recovery?
I would think that at every point above (and I am sure many others) the action or inaction of the parties involved contributed to clients’ loss. And at every point, where wrong was done, the wrongdoers should pay.

But, as I have said from day one, of all the points above, none would have even been an issue to these people, if event number 1 above did not occur. And that is where Storm clients’ responsibility in all of this lies; in their decision to sign up to a high risk strategy in the first place. No they shouldn’t blame themselves for their mess, but they should at least take some responsibility for making the decision they did in the first place, no matter why they made the decision and no matter how much they understood the strategy. It appears many, including your mate Frank, can't even do that. What sort of a society do we live in where people cant take responsibility for the decisions and choice they make?

That’s my opinion, and the thing with opinions is they are neither right nor wrong, despite what people like you may think.

Time to go and enjoy the rest of the Australia Day weekend.

 

[doobsy]

Knowledge from the darkside:

I will try to get back to some other points throughout the day if I get a chance but I want to clear something up immediately.

SCRAMBLED DATA = BS

It was an INDEX FUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unit price was available on a daily basis directly from Colonial or Challenger depending on which fund the client got.

Unit price x units = value.

The margin lender had correct data on the debt levels, that we know.

I could spend 20 minutes on Excel and design up a spreadsheet to give me up to date LVR positions, how far from buffer, how much more the market would need to drop etc etc.

Keeping it up to date - wow that would be hard, there were only about 4 mini index funds (technology, industrials, etc) that storm used. That would take all of 30sec to put in the new unit price of a morning. We know the debt levels were static unless a step was taken or interest was capitalised. In the crisis there were no steps so.........

Lets all accept that the margin loan fiasco is the first step in fixing things by the banks. No client should have ended up with negative equity and I think Macquarie will end up accepting this.

However as was just pointed out, bring them back to getting a margin call at 90%, or go even further and disallow the "arrangement" and make the margin call at 80%. They have still lost ALL of their original capital.

Speaking of the arrangement - much BS on this not being disclosed. It was disclosed on the margin loan statements. It was disclosed in the SOA's. It was clear that the Storm Index funds had a gearing level of 80% which means margin call at 90%. Even those clients who had been with Storm pre the "arrangement" being made would have had a "step" SOA which would have disclosed that information.

If clients were unaware then that falls on the Storm advisers not disclosing it. Again it is not up to the bank (in this case Macquarie) to get clients to acknowledge it.

 

[bunyip]

Just for this exercise we leave out the "arrangements with the banks over funding".

Lets also leave out the "arrangements over LVR %"

So now that has been settled what would the responsibility of the Financial Advisor be under these circumstances?

To revert you to cash when your LVR has reached 98.7% or in some cases 126% 145%.

Your questions are of no interest to me. Perhaps someone else may care to help you with those enquiries.

What does interest me though is that you went ahead and signed on with Storm even though your own figures gave you cause to have serious reservations about their strategy.

I wondered why you'd be so imprudent, but then I remembered you admitting that you were gullible and naive.
I think we could add that you showed a lack of common sense as well.

Ah well - live and learn. Guess you'll do things differently next time.

 

[shibby]

I have taken this from the Brisbane Times Article

I would really like the Financial Advisors out there to comment on this article if possible.

Firstly do you think this article is a true reflection on the industry? As one cant believe every thing one reads in the press.

Do you think that some of the inappropriate advice could be related to greed?

What would you personally like done to clean up the industry?

Do you think the number "64 financial plans" is a large enough statistical data base to get a true picture of the industry?
That question goes both ways of course

Bunyip
Note I said I really would like Financial Advisors to reply.
So now your a Financial Advisor? Presumably with a Bank!


Bunyip Quote#6654
Your questions are of no interest to me. Perhaps someone else may care to help you with those enquiries.

What does interest me though is that you went ahead and signed on with Storm even though your own figures gave you cause to have serious reservations about their strategy.

I wondered why you'd be so imprudent, but then I remembered you admitting that you were gullible and naive.
I think we could add that you showed a lack of common sense as well.

Ah well - live and learn. Guess you'll do things differently next time.

In response to the blah! blah! blah! above - here we go again rabitting on as usual the same ol same ol. A step backwards yet again.

 

[maccka]

SCRAMBLED DATA = BS

It was an INDEX FUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unit price was available on a daily basis directly from Colonial or Challenger depending on which fund the client got.

Unit price x units = value.

Doobsy, there were a number of days (at critical times) when the index funds were frozen/suspended. There was no trading and therefore no unit price was available.

Null x units = null information available.

As I keep saying...the situation is NOT black and white.

The margin lender had correct data on the debt levels, that we know.

I could spend 20 minutes on Excel and design up a spreadsheet to give me up to date LVR positions, how far from buffer, how much more the market would need to drop etc etc.

You make an assumption here. In a world where you trust systems it would be a reasonable one to make...

The margin lender had correct data on the debt levels, that we know.

Unfortunately that assumption is a fatally flawed one and there is mountains of evidence that proves otherwise. Interesting to note that if you were to go down the path of trusting systems you would find yourself in similar situations as many others that trusted... (and wouldn't that be ironic?) I wonder if that would make you "gullible and naive"?

The data coming out of the systems was dangerously inconsistent and on an unacceptable number of occasions (i.e. more than zero times) wrong. Therefore any excel spreadsheet you design will give you incorrect figures if you rely on the data as being correct. It doesn't matter how good you are at designing databases and spreadsheets as the effort will be a gigantic waste of time. In the IT industry it is a RIRO error.

Rubbish In Rubbish Out.

(Could be equated to a lot of the stuff I've read lately really! )

Cheers
Maccka

 

[Harleyquin]

Reports that FoFA will mean that fewer people will seek financial advice may well prove to be true.

Just seeing what happened with Storm Financial and other financial planners that went down the tube should be more than enough to be extremely wary.

 

[maccka]

For Doobsy et al claiming to want the truth....

You may find some of the answers to your questions here:

http://www.commonwealthbankdeception.com/index.php

I have to warn you though that for those in serious denial it will prove to be full of inconvenient truths.

Cheers
Maccka


PS Doobsy you might find this page particularly relevant to your claims on how terribly simple it would have been to keep track of the portfolio values (read right to the end).
http://www.commonwealthbankdeception.com/art016.htm

 

[Solly]

For Doobsy et al claiming to want the truth....

You may find some of the answers to your questions here:

http://www.commonwealthbankdeception.com/index.php

I have to warn you though that for those in serious denial it will prove to be full of inconvenient truths.

Cheers
Maccka


PS Doobsy you might find this page particularly relevant to your claims on how terribly simple it would have been to keep track of the portfolio values (read right to the end).
http://www.commonwealthbankdeception.com/art016.htm

Thanks Maccka,

I found the posting

Ian Narev thinks 'yes' means 'no' by "Tommy Tucker"
http://www.commonwealthbankdeception.com/art016.htm

a very interesting read.


S

 

[maccka]

Thanks Maccka,

I found the posting

Ian Narev thinks 'yes' means 'no' by "Tommy Tucker"
http://www.commonwealthbankdeception.com/art016.htm

a very interesting read.


S

Hi Solly,

There is a wealth of interesting information on that site. The supporting documentation is quite interesting also.

Cheers
Maccka