Storm Financial Group

SJG1974 said:

H

Do you know who runs the site Maccka? Having read a couple of articles, I am guessing that some ex Storm employees are involved, given the apparent absence of criticism of Storm itself (mind you I only read a few articles).

Click to expand...

Hi SJG1974,

I am not totally sure. I don't believe I know them personally. I do believe the site is run by some ex Storm clients volunteering their time and skills to uncover the truth. I think I read that somewhere however I have no recollection where. They have been working extremely hard uncovering documentary evidence from an extremely wide range of sources. Their documentation seems to come from most of the major entities tied into this.

I have to say that there are a number of ex Storm staff who have been very instrumental in helping people understand more fully what happened. The shame is that all the ex Storm staff (whether they were advisors or not) get tarred with the same very uncomplimentary brush.

I'd highly recommend you read the entire site. They have documents (available on the site) to support almost every (if not every) major allegation they make.

Cheers
Maccka

doobsy said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hi Doobsy,

You have been very kind with your time with me on a couple of occasionas - and I have been very greatful. So I write this to you now with good intent.

The Margin Lender did NOT have correct data on DEBT LEVELS. in fact there are 5 day periods during OCT 08 where LVR'S on client files did not alter. There were other periods when Funds were frozen completely.

Further, altering something on a Margin Loan Statement as significant as the LVR - and not thoroughly explaining the implications of this to their client - may constitute negligence in the event the client sustains damage. It was NOT Storm's responsibility to explain the implications of this to the client. It was the BANK'S. It was their decision to change the LVR. It was their product. It was their responsibility.

I have had occasion to give evidence in Court on medico-legal matters and in the event a patient did NOT understand the informed consent he/she signed prior to their operation, the treating physician is deemed liable for any injury sustained by the patient. That is to say: although the patient may have signed a consent for surgery, if they did NOT fully understand the risks associated with the operation, the Doctor is left to explain himself/herself. The Court tends to frown on the Doctor.

I hear tell, something similar may be confronting the BANK.

Would like to hear from you. All a bit gray I know. But, I think this may be a sticking point for the BANK going forward.

shibby said:

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.

Click to expand...

I replied to your post No. 6636 on page 332 which you made in response to an earlier post of mine.
In your post 6636 (which is quoted in its entirety in bold print below) you'll see that you did not ask financial advisers to reply.

Have you had a lobotomy Bunyip for the first time ever there are just facts.

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%.


As for 'the same 'ol, a step backward' etc etc, I note that you spend considerable time yourself going over old ground and rehashing what has already been said.

This thread can serve a useful purpose if we analyse all aspects of the Storm situation. Only by doing so can we.......
* Formulate ways to avoid past mistakes.
* Uncover any illegality that may have occurred.
* Help those people who still can't seem to understand what went wrong or how they got caught.
* Help people who may read this thread in five years time when they're considering investing for the first time.
* Help people avoid falling into the same traps again that brought them undone last time.

I'm happy to stand back from the discussion on banks - I'll leave that aspect of the situation to those with a more in-depth knowledge in that area than myself. In the end the courts will decide what the banks have or haven't done, and how much compensation, if any, they must pay.

My area of interest in all this is the human aspect. Specifically, what mistakes did the Stormers make, how could they have avoided the errors of judgment that resulted in them signing up with Storm.
Since it was errors of judgment and bad decisions that started the ball rolling, I think this area warrants discussion if those same mistakes are to be avoided from here on.
That’s why I persist in commenting on the actions and mistakes of people like you.

I don't and never have worked in the banking or financial advisory industries, I don't have a BEc like you, I've had no formal education in finance or economics.
Yet if anyone had asked me to give my opinion on the proposal put to them by Storm Financial, it would have taken me no more than two minutes with a pocket calculator to demonstrate to them just how deadly risky the Storm strategy was.

In a future post I intend to do exactly that.
In the meantime, although it will undoubtedly upset you, I'll continue to comment on the mistakes and actions of people like you, and how they could have avoided their mistakes.

An Easter Bunny story in advance.

Last night I had a very strange dream. In it Helen and I were rich again. She wanted to invest in shares but I said, “No! I want to buy the most expensive car possible so I can impress all our friends!" I'm shallow like that! I had my way which is most unusual where Helen is concerned, but then there’s a first time for everything!

In a dealer’s yard, a second-hand Mercedes stood out from the rest. I say second-hand because Helen still wanted a bit left over to put in shares and I thought I had better humour her. The dealer assured us that it had only done a few ks, had built in safety features (roll bars etc) and had been fully maintained. It was so expensive that I immediately assumed that it was the best that money could buy. Further, it came with a warranty although I admit I didn't read through the small print. Who does where warranties are concerned?

For a few months, all went well until we were driving along the freeway one day and a front wheel came off! This caused the car to veer into another lane and Helen and I were killed in the ensuing pile up. **** happens!

Our children decided to sue the dealer that sold us the car because it was found that the car did not have the safety features that we were assured it had (that would probably have saved our lives) and the wheel had come off because the front axle had rusted through due to lack of maintenance. There were a number of other faults as well that we hadn't been told about but they hadn't led to our demise.

Our lawyers were ecstatic pre-trial because almost everything the dealer had told us turned out to be false. They kept muttering something about “full disclosure” to our children.

The trial ended and the jury found that the dealer was “Not guilty!” Our children were distraught and so were we even though we were floating through the ether at this time and could only look in from afar.

“What happened?” One of our lawyer’s exclaimed. "This was an open and shut case of fraud."

The other replied, "There were three people on the jury that persuaded the rest that these old farts (1) must have been plain greedy to buy such an expensive car, (2) should have put it up on a hoist so they could have examined it mechanically and (3) should have ensured that the safety features were as advertised rather than taking the dealer’s word for it."

“But they lied! We trusted them!" we shouted but no one could hear us because we had already passed on.

The lawyers kept shaking their heads in disbelief. “Some people!” one muttered.

That’s when Julia, SJG1974 and Bunyip filed past them having just left the jury room. Bunyip said as they disappeared down the hall, “Anyone that can afford a car like that is just plain greedy and deserves everything they get!”

Julia replied, "People must be thick if they can't see what is obvious to anyone with a bit of common-sense!"

SJG1974 not wishing to be left out added, "Can someone explain to me why people with all that money bought a car like that? It would be far more suitable for a person like me that richly deserves it!"

Bunyip muttered, "Absolutely!" as they walked out the door.

“I’m sorry!” one of the lawyers said turning to our children. “The law is sometimes an ass and so are some members of the jury. It’s a funny old world and no mistake!

The fab three decided to ride home together in Bunyip’s car. Guess what! He crashed and they were all left in wheelchairs. “You bloody fool!” Julia screamed at him once she was able to open her mouth again. “Why didn’t you run over that rabbit rather than swerving into a tree! “

"I don’t understand it! Buniyip replied. I’ve never had an accident before!

“No matter!” SJG1974 exclaimed. “I’m going to sue the **** off you anyway!”

Bunnyip had nothing to fear as it turned out! The jury were rabbit lovers and Bunyip was subsequently acquitted whilst the other two were charged with being cruel to rabbits.

The moral of this story! Don’t mix with rabbits or you may end up like them!

bunyip said:

I replied to your post No. 6636 on page 332 which you made in response to an earlier post of mine.
In your post 6636 (which is quoted in its entirety in bold print below) you'll see that you did not ask financial advisers to reply.

Click to expand...

You are right Bunyip - I thought you were responding to #6628.
I never thought I would ever say you were right about anything in fact this is the second time I have attempted to post this.
The first attempt disappeared into the heavens never to be seen again (some one is trying to warn me off me thinks) but good manners prevail, you are right but let me clarify, only in reference to asking financial advisors to reply.

Love the Easter Bunny story Frank. Made my day and I'm still laughing.

Is that just the first chapter...or the whole book???

Frank Ainslie said:

An Easter Bunny story in advance.

Click to expand...

Wow!


Frank, what on earth was that? Judging by that nonsensical drivel, I am guessing your book didn’t sell too well?

And I thought that idontgetit had lost it with his claim that the Storm strategy of actively managing a margin lending portfolio was passive and that it wasn't double gearing that caused clients to go into negative equity, but rather the margin call fiasco. I mean that was utter nonsense and now we have this!

What on earth is going on around here? I didn’t realise Storm also conducted lobotomies as well as fleecing clients of their lifesavings!

:cuckoo:

SJG1974 said:

Wow!


Frank, what on earth was that? Judging by that nonsensical drivel, I am guessing your book didn’t sell too well?

And I thought that idontgetit had lost it with his claim that the Storm strategy of actively managing a margin lending portfolio was passive and that it wasn't double gearing that caused clients to go into negative equity, but rather the margin call fiasco. I mean that was utter nonsense and now we have this!

What on earth is going on around here? I didn’t realise Storm also conducted lobotomies as well as fleecing clients of their lifesavings!

:cuckoo:

Click to expand...

I don’t know about Storm conducting lobotomies, but I do notice that they seem to have caused amnesia in some people who were associated with them.

First there was Cassamatis claiming that the market crash of 2007/08 was unprecedented – clearly he was unable to recall the 1987 crash 20 years earlier.

Then when he was questioned at the inquiry, this same esteemed ‘gentleman’ couldn’t remember whether he was the CEO of Storm Financial.

Now we have Frank who can't remember why he decided to hand over 140 grand to Storm, mortgage his home and shove his own money plus a power of borrowed money into the stock market when he was 65 years old, debt-free, and already well set up for a very comfortable retirement!

The website with quotes re commonwealth bank deception, reads like a Manny outburst. . . blame the banks - well cwb has at least admitted its errors, even though I can understand some dissatisfaction re the res scheme.

Manny never will admit responsibiliy - at this point I think he is deluded - that he cannot believe the world would do this to him . . . have a gfc . . . it was his plans, his business, his dealings, that let down his clients. Sure blame the banks (I have seen plenty of dodgy paperwork re all the banks involved inthis fiascot), but do not let the Cassimatises off the hook.

RE the website - to say his old enemies in Townsville - those he maligned - eg Cary Ramm and others are responsible for Manny's problems is delusional. I am not a friend of the latter nor of Tony Raggatt, the newspaper reporter who is also maligned on the website, but again it smacks of Manny who used to sue or threaten any people he did not like.

Documents are there but not quoted in full. While Manny was asked by ASIC to undertake to not have his advisers give advice in Dec - he never signed it, never agreed to it but told advisers not to give advice. The poor coffee girls who answered the phone (know one of them presonally) were instructed to tell everyone everything was fine. . . .

Lessons from Storm . .
1) educate yourself in all matters financial
2) never get a loan against something you do not want to risk
3) do not invest in what you do not understand
4) if you are a senior make use of the free financial information service officers at Centrelink
5) most importanly, if it is financially too good to be true . . . it is not good at all

Igetit said:

Hi Doobsy,

You have been very kind with your time with me on a couple of occasionas - and I have been very greatful. So I write this to you now with good intent.

The Margin Lender did NOT have correct data on DEBT LEVELS. in fact there are 5 day periods during OCT 08 where LVR'S on client files did not alter. There were other periods when Funds were frozen completely.

Further, altering something on a Margin Loan Statement as significant as the LVR - and not thoroughly explaining the implications of this to their client - may constitute negligence in the event the client sustains damage. It was NOT Storm's responsibility to explain the implications of this to the client. It was the BANK'S. It was their decision to change the LVR. It was their product. It was their responsibility.

I have had occasion to give evidence in Court on medico-legal matters and in the event a patient did NOT understand the informed consent he/she signed prior to their operation, the treating physician is deemed liable for any injury sustained by the patient. That is to say: although the patient may have signed a consent for surgery, if they did NOT fully understand the risks associated with the operation, the Doctor is left to explain himself/herself. The Court tends to frown on the Doctor.

I hear tell, something similar may be confronting the BANK.

Would like to hear from you. All a bit gray I know. But, I think this may be a sticking point for the BANK going forward.

Click to expand...

Igetit and Macca

To this very day the terms and conditions of any margin loan contract include a clause about LVR. First one I found was suncorps:

"the Loan-to-Value Ratio is the percentage of value of each of the securities in your portfolio that you can borrow. We determine what the LVR is, and can change it at any time, including reducing it to zero."

Don't like the rules - don't play the game. Wasn't like no one knew the rules just that good times meant that parties had chosen to ignore the rules involved risks.

All information was readily available to advisers and clients.

On the scrambled data - The margin lenders knew the levels of debt. Of course they did, it was them lending the money. When has a bank ever not known how much they lent you.

Did they know the correct value of the funds? Maybe not for a few days in October. But my point is that storm would have had access to both lots of data. They had the data from the margin lender and they had the units and unit price (even if it was only the latest) for the funds.

Pushing further - October 08 and it was all over, markets were already 40% down. The funds froze up because you can't try to dump $4B into a falling market and expect it to all go through. The funds also needed a certain amount invested to make it viable to even run them. When EC started the panic selling to protect LVR's the funds pretty quickly emptied and both CFS and Challenger figured that there was no point keeping the funds open with no to little investments left.

My spreadsheet would work just fine.

Lets look at some questions:

1. Could storm find out the current margin loan levels? YES - easily - off the website. As they pushed most people to capitalise and prepay interest in advance, for the remainder of the year there were no other transactions other than steps. So for most clients they wouldn't have been taking on additional lending in 2008 so the debt figure should have been static I would have thought.

2. Did Storm know how many units in the investments that clients had? YES - easily - regular reporting, I would assume some sort of website access, datafeeds. They seemed to be on top of these figures in the good times. Again unless more investments occurred then the figure doesn't change. Not exactly rocket science so far.

3. Did Storm know the unit price? PROBABLY - CFS and Challenger are both big operators who managed to keep all their other funds with daily unit pricing where possible (where the assets could be valued). Storm funds were index funds so they simply reflect the underlying stocks right? So if we are talking about the industrials then get the top 200 industrials stocks and their price and we get the fund price? To my knowledge that is how it works. OK I am ignoring some small levels of tilts etc but simply by looking at what the underlying sub index (industrials, technology) had done on a certain day (info available from EVERYWHERE) you could confidently say the INDEX FUND had performed accordingly.

So I think Storm should have easily known what position their clients were in at all times.

Frank - Great story but unfortunately your anaology again would reflect in the dealer being storm and being to blame. Or do you want to change it to say the manufacturer (Mercedes) are to blame? Maybe you can include a known risk to that model that involved a recall that was advertised and could easily be controlled that the previous owner and caryard failed to disclose. Then it should still be Mercedes fault? Or maybe because Mercedes rewarded that Car Yard dealer with a special deal because he pushed so many second hand mercedes they must be in a Unregistered Managed Car Dealing scheme?

Too nice a day for this, I'm going to play golf.

Harleyquin said:

Love the Easter Bunny story Frank. Made my day and I'm still laughing.

Is that just the first chapter...or the whole book???

Click to expand...

Hi HQ!

Only the one chapter I'm afraid. I found the characters in it too unsavoury and somewhat lacking in credibility.

Seriously though, the Fab Three have provided us with many good belly laughs in the last few months by spouting vacuous truths so we should be grateful for that. I thought it only fair to return the favour.

It's been somewhat quite on the Storm front lately so I'm writing again. I'll still look in on ASF though in the hope that someone in the other camp eventually has something to say that is relevant. They never seem to get sick of rehashing the same old hackneyed themes, 'Greed', 'Stupidity', and 'Mia Culpa'. Boring! Boring! Boring! They have been told on a number of occasions to move things along but it doesn't suit them because this will give them nothing else to talk about. Now wouldn't that be a shame!

One has to ask one's self, "Are they worth bothering with anyway? To my mind, they are not so why do we expend our energy needlessly in this regard? Doing so only serves to encourage them further. Starve them of attention and they will eventually resort to talking among themselves. Then, at least, they can bore each other to death rather than the rest of us.

Frank Ainslie said:

Only the one chapter I'm afraid. I found the characters in it too unsavoury and somewhat lacking in credibility.

Click to expand...

That was my initial impression also Frank.

Perhaps next time, to add credibility, don't base the story on yourself.

maccka said:

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

Click to expand...

Solly said:

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

Click to expand...

SJG1974 said:

H

Do you know who runs the site Maccka? Having read a couple of articles, I am guessing that some ex Storm employees are involved, given the apparent absence of criticism of Storm itself (mind you I only read a few articles).

Click to expand...

maccka said:

Hi SJG1974,

I am not totally sure. I don't believe I know them personally. I do believe the site is run by some ex Storm clients volunteering their time and skills to uncover the truth. I think I read that somewhere however I have no recollection where. They have been working extremely hard uncovering documentary evidence from an extremely wide range of sources. Their documentation seems to come from most of the major entities tied into this.

I have to say that there are a number of ex Storm staff who have been very instrumental in helping people understand more fully what happened. The shame is that all the ex Storm staff (whether they were advisors or not) get tarred with the same very uncomplimentary brush.

I'd highly recommend you read the entire site. They have documents (available on the site) to support almost every (if not every) major allegation they make.

Cheers
Maccka

Click to expand...

Thanks Maccka,

I have been through all the documents on this site, and I would agree with you that it does give a different view to the Storm fiasco than is current in the main stream media, the Inquiry and by ASIC. It is also at variance with many posters perceptions on ASF. Then again they are just perceptions and you and your fellow Storm investors are closer to the coalface than the posters.

It does seem to have a very broad brush, with many statements, not necessarily backed up by facts or evidence.

There is some spleen against former and current competitors and critics of Emmanuel Cassimatis, so much so, that it detracts from the possible veracity of some of the documents.

The author(s) seem to hold Emmanuel in very, very, high regard. So much so that a Narcissus might be forgiven for demanding a fee for carrying them on his back as he bent over the pool. Then Echo is always about.

Thank you for alerting me to the site as it gives a singularly different view of the saga.

Let us hope that future investors do not get entangled in a similar web.

gg

Frank

This forum is fortunate indeed to have a story teller of your caliber to lighten the mood with your amusing yarns.
In fact there have been so many amusing stories in your posts that I think I should honor you by putting together a summarised portfolio of your wondrous

Smiley said:

....
RE the website - to say his old enemies in Townsville - those he maligned - eg Cary Ramm and others are responsible for Manny's problems is delusional. I am not a friend of the latter nor of Tony Raggatt, the newspaper reporter who is also maligned on the website, but again it smacks of Manny who used to sue or threaten any people he did not like.

Click to expand...

Michael West must be thanking his lucky stars that he doesn't live in Townsville.

Darn odd web-site too. Sure they are not smoking some Colombian Gold or other strong Mary J?

Garpal Gumnut said:

Thanks Maccka,

I have been through all the documents on this site, and I would agree with you that it does give a different view to the Storm fiasco than is current in the main stream media, the Inquiry and by ASIC. It is also at variance with many posters perceptions on ASF. Then again they are just perceptions and you and your fellow Storm investors are closer to the coalface than the posters.

.....

Thank you for alerting me to the site as it gives a singularly different view of the saga.

Let us hope that future investors do not get entangled in a similar web.

gg

Click to expand...

Thank you GG. There are obviously a range of authors (some of whom bring very interesting biases with them) contributing to this site. Consequently there are some articles that I see as having more value than others. Certainly the articles that back up their claims with documentary evidence are the ones that most capture my attention and trust.

I know that there are millions of documents out there that hold important keys to what happened. I am grateful that there are people in various institutions (including banks and SF) who are willing to share what they know. All the pieces fit somehow. It's just a matter of finding the key pieces that will help us unravel it.

While answers are important for the Stormers (and their families) trying to deal with what happened they are also important to trying to ensure that the chances of it happening again are reduced.

I think we will see a lot more come out of this site in the future. The coalition behind it seem to be on a mission. They have a wealth of information at their fingertips and generally they are divulging it in a very strategic manner. Little by little. Building up a case that is turning heads and getting attention. I'd love to see some of the traffic stats on that site. I'd love to know who was reading it and what offices they sit in and see their reactions when key documents and facts come to light.

cheers
Maccka

Real-life stories are sometimes stranger than fiction and certainly more relevant!

The one thing that has become evident to me whilst I have been a member of this forum is that whilst many have an understanding of financial matters, few if any have a real understanding of what really took place between Storm and the Banks, and very few also have a real understanding of the law. Yet, in to order to objectively discuss the issues relating to Storm and the Banks, these two factors are a pre-requisite because they lie at the heart of the matter.

Some like Doobsy have been very informative in their postings but they for the most part concentrate on what should have taken place. Don’t get me wrong! I think many, myself included, appreciate his explanations on many issues relating to the financial aspects involved, but his explanations are always along the same lines; namely known banking practices and financial systems that are the norm. What happened in the case of Storm and the banks involved with it has no bearing whatsoever on what is construed as normal practice – rather malpractice. Therefore, to have a true understanding of the issues involved, you need to come to grips with what really happened and also be made aware of the many transgressions that occurred that will now have legal implications for Storm and the Banks.

Until people on this forum fully understand what occurred, they will never be able to grasp why we and ASIC are pursuing the Banks involved with Storm through the Courts. Therefore, any opinions expressed so far are based on nothing more than member’s personal opinions (and prejudices) based on media releases and other suspect sources. The facts are everything or any debate becomes meaningless.

The equation is a simple one! “The actions by Storm and certain banks resulted in our losses!” One doesn’t go without the other! One doesn’t need to go beyond this point!

In order to understand the affects the Storm debacle had on our investments and the resulting losses, one needs to understand the cause. In the next few weeks (between chapters of my new book) I’ll endeavour to break down the various aspects of our case and explain in detail why we feel that our grievances are warranted, and I'll also outline the legal issues involved. When I say 'OUR', I mean we 'Stormies' as a whole rather than us personally. I’ll use the CBA’s relationship with Storm as a yardstick because this Bank was the worst offender.

I will not be answering any posts in that time because my aim will solely be to supply information that can be used to promote some sensible debate. It may also be educational for some 'Stormies' out there that do not have legal representation and may be still wondering where they stand.

bunyip said:

Frank

This forum is fortunate indeed to have a story teller of your caliber to lighten the mood with your amusing yarns.
In fact there have been so many amusing stories in your posts that I think I should honor you by putting together a summarised portfolio of your wondrous

Click to expand...

The post above seems to have got messed up somehow. Below is the complete version.



Frank

This forum is fortunate indeed to have a story teller of your caliber to lighten the mood with your amusing yarns.
In fact there have been so many amusing stories and attitudes and viewpoints in your posts that I think I should honor you by putting together a summarised portfolio of your wondrous tales.
I mean, what better way to delude ourselves than to think like you and adopt your attitudes?
What better way to set ourselves up for a wipeout out in the next market crash or investment scam?

Let’s see now.......

* No need to research or analyze an investment proposition before committing millions of dollars to it.

* You’re not responsible for decisions and actions that you make of your own free will.

* Always blame someone else for your mistakes, particularly if they have deep pockets.

* Never be satisfied with what you’ve got. Don’t stop just because you’re comfortable and debt-free in self funded retirement – have a crack at tripling your wealth by mortgaging your home and borrowing like crazy to invest in the market.

* Never admit that you were gullible or naïve or that you made a complete stuff-up in investment matters...try to save face by claiming that you were astute and circumspect.

* Steer clear of all financial planners – one bad apple like Storm is proof that all FP’s are shonks.

* Blame the government for not having laws in place to protect you from your own foolishness and imprudence.

* No need to think for yourself – it’s someone else’s responsibility to do your thinking for you in investment matters.

* Even savvy investors couldn’t have avoided getting caught by Storm.

* Don’t trouble yourself with research and analysis, it’s too hard and it’s a waste of your time.

* There’s nothing wrong with believing everything that salesmen tell you.

* Disregard everything that successful investors tell you – the only people worth listening to are those who were wiped out in the GFC.

* Be prepared to pay decent fees for decent advice. 7% upfront? No problem.

* Investors don’t need to be cautious and prudent.


They’re all good aren’t they Frank, but that last gem of yours is my favorite. That one should be essential reading for every investor who wants to end up broke like you. In fact it’s so good that I think it’s worth repeating!
Investors don’t need to be cautious and prudent!

Thanks for sharing your delusions and your amusing stories, Frank. Keep them coming – a bit of light-hearted entertainment never harmed anyone.

Frank Ainslie said:

The equation is a simple one! “The actions by Storm and certain banks resulted in our losses!” One doesn’t go without the other! One doesn’t need to go beyond this point!

Click to expand...

Hi Frank,

Let me get this straight....

What you are suggesting is that your agreement to mortgage your home (which the last time I looked is legal), despite admitting to all of us that you had no need to and it provided no benefits, did not cause you loss? Is that what this statement is suggesting to us Frank?

Or, do I understand it that the above action you undertook, which you have admitted provided no benefit to you whatsoever (yet of course you did it anyway), was the fault of the banks and Storm, and you had no say in borrowing against your home whatsoever?

It is amazing that people like you and idontgetit, after all you have seen and been through, still don't understand the damage that double gearing caused you. DOUBLE GEARING SIGNIFICANTLY MULTIPLIED YOUR LOSSES....IT DRAGGED YOU INTO NEGATIVE EQUITY WELL BEFORE THE MARGIN CALL FIASCO.

Take the blinkers off Frank.