Storm Financial Group

[SJG1974]

Myth : Borrowers could work out their own security values




cheers
Maccka

The more articles on that site I read, the more I come to the conclusion that Cassimatis is behind it. A lot of the info just wouldn't be available to anyone other than a Storm insider in my opinion.

Thats not to say what is reported in wrong, but it certainly is very one sided insofar as the banks are to blame and Storm escapes all criticism. This is the line of attack/defence that Cassimatis used in his old website and in his public utterances.

 

[maccka]

The more articles on that site I read, the more I come to the conclusion that Cassimatis is behind it. A lot of the info just wouldn't be available to anyone other than a Storm insider in my opinion.

Thats not to say what is reported in wrong, but it certainly is very one sided insofar as the banks are to blame and Storm escapes all criticism. This is the line of attack/defence that Cassimatis used in his old website and in his public utterances.

SJG, from where I sit as long as the information is obtained legally and is truthful I don't care whether the information came from a Storm insider or a bank insider (as is suggested in the article) or from ASIC or from anyone else. Even Cassimatis family members (and there are more of them involved than just EC and JC) have information that is valuable.

Every piece of the puzzle fits somewhere into the overall picture of what happened. If you focus on one single piece you will only see it's part. What counts is how the overall picture looks when all the little pieces are fit together.

cheers
Maccka

 

[Judd]

The more articles on that site I read, the more I come to the conclusion that Cassimatis is behind it. A lot of the info just wouldn't be available to anyone other than a Storm insider in my opinion.

Thats not to say what is reported in wrong, but it certainly is very one sided insofar as the banks are to blame and Storm escapes all criticism. This is the line of attack/defence that Cassimatis used in his old website and in his public utterances.

I wouldn't have a clue who contributes to that site and I don't really care. I don't even know if the information is or is not accurate. I simply cannot be bothered to read it. I tried to but as the style of writing reminds me of an 8-year old throwing a massive tanty because Dad would not buy them a new iPod so they can keep up with their friends it is simply a turn off for me.

Sorry, ex-Storm clients. I did try so that I could attempt to see where a number of issues were but unless you are really, really into it, no thanks it just doesn't do it for me.

 

[Judd]

Sorry about this but I'd probably run out of "Edit time" if I amended my previous post.

I have a very uncomplicated approach to finance and I must be missing a few nuances with the Storm situation.

When I had a mortgage, I got a monthly statement from the lender as to how much I owed and paid that month. When I had a margin loan, I also had a monthly statement from the lender on how much I owed and how much I paid each month. So, being very basic in my approach, I would just add up the amounts I owed and so knew where I stood overall. No high finance, no need to know about Return on Equity or anything else. Just and simply how much I owed and how much I had.

I know from a number of the previous posts that the poor blighters who got caught up in this fiasco, while apparently receiving an advice on the LVR in respect of the margin loan, had the mortgage debt glossed over (if that is the appropriate term) as something as of not being of very much importance.

It is clever how that was done but I simply don't understand. How do you get a number of people who owe, say $200,000, against their home, and convince them to dismiss that debt and concentrate only on the LVR? Despite that debt having a relevant impact on their overall equity. Wish I could bottle that talent. I'd make a fortune.

 

[bunyip]

Sorry about this but I'd probably run out of "Edit time" if I amended my previous post.

I have a very uncomplicated approach to finance and I must be missing a few nuances with the Storm situation.

When I had a mortgage, I got a monthly statement from the lender as to how much I owed and paid that month. When I had a margin loan, I also had a monthly statement from the lender on how much I owed and how much I paid each month. So, being very basic in my approach, I would just add up the amounts I owed and so knew where I stood overall. No high finance, no need to know about Return on Equity or anything else. Just and simply how much I owed and how much I had.

I know from a number of the previous posts that the poor blighters who got caught up in this fiasco, while apparently receiving an advice on the LVR in respect of the margin loan, had the mortgage debt glossed over (if that is the appropriate term) as something as of not being of very much importance.

It is clever how that was done but I simply don't understand. How do you get a number of people who owe, say $200,000, against their home, and convince them to dismiss that debt and concentrate only on the LVR? Despite that debt having a relevant impact on their overall equity. Wish I could bottle that talent. I'd make a fortune.

Judd

What I've noticed about Cassamatis and every other spruiker is that they've worked out that if you tell people what they want to hear, they'll follow you and pay big money for the 'privilege'.
Cassamatis told people what they wanted to hear - that he could make them a lot of money without them having to think or work for it.
Once they swallowed that line, it wasn't too hard to get them to swallow his other rubbish such as dismissing their debt on their home.

 

[maccka]

Judd
What I've noticed about Cassamatis and every other spruiker is that they've worked out that if you tell people what they want to hear, they'll follow you and pay big money for the 'privilege'.
Cassamatis told people what they wanted to hear - that he could make them a lot of money without them having to think or work for it.

Bunyip, did you ever have a conversation with Cassimatis where he/she told you that he could make you a lot of money without you having to think or work for it? Did you personally hear him/her tell anyone that. If you didn't wouldn't you say your statement is fairly sweeping and a pretty huge assumption?

I never once heard Cassimatis or any of the advisors tell me that he/they/Storm could make me a lot money without me having to think or work for it. As an extra declaration, I never had any conversation with Cassimatis (he or she) and to my knowledge was never ever in the same building as them. I can say that over a number of years I had conversations/consultations with at least 4 Storm advisors.

I'm not actually trying to defend Cassimatis/the advisors or Storm (although I have no doubt I'll be accused of it). I am trying to keep some truth in this conversation.

Cheers
Maccka

 

[doobsy]

Bunyip, did you ever have a conversation with Cassimatis where he/she told you that he could make you a lot of money without you having to think or work for it? Did you personally hear him/her tell anyone that. If you didn't wouldn't you say your statement is fairly sweeping and a pretty huge assumption?

I never once heard Cassimatis or any of the advisors tell me that he/they/Storm could make me a lot money without me having to think or work for it. As an extra declaration, I never had any conversation with Cassimatis (he or she) and to my knowledge was never ever in the same building as them. I can say that over a number of years I had conversations/consultations with at least 4 Storm advisors.

I'm not actually trying to defend Cassimatis/the advisors or Storm (although I have no doubt I'll be accused of it). I am trying to keep some truth in this conversation.

Cheers
Maccka

A true believer - still. WOW

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Bunyip, did you ever have a conversation with Cassimatis where he/she told you that he could make you a lot of money without you having to think or work for it? Did you personally hear him/her tell anyone that. If you didn't wouldn't you say your statement is fairly sweeping and a pretty huge assumption?

I never once heard Cassimatis or any of the advisors tell me that he/they/Storm could make me a lot money without me having to think or work for it. As an extra declaration, I never had any conversation with Cassimatis (he or she) and to my knowledge was never ever in the same building as them. I can say that over a number of years I had conversations/consultations with at least 4 Storm advisors.

I'm not actually trying to defend Cassimatis/the advisors or Storm (although I have no doubt I'll be accused of it). I am trying to keep some truth in this conversation.

Cheers
Maccka

Thanks maccka,

From the above reply it would appear then, that you would not be able to condemn Storm, Manny or any of the Storm advisers for the advice received by investors.

May I ask then are you neutral in relation to that advice, or would you support the advice given to investors, taking in to account prevailing market conditions and lending practices at the time.

gg

 

[bunyip]

Bunyip, did you ever have a conversation with Cassimatis where he/she told you that he could make you a lot of money without you having to think or work for it? Did you personally hear him/her tell anyone that. If you didn't wouldn't you say your statement is fairly sweeping and a pretty huge assumption?

I never once heard Cassimatis or any of the advisors tell me that he/they/Storm could make me a lot money without me having to think or work for it. As an extra declaration, I never had any conversation with Cassimatis (he or she) and to my knowledge was never ever in the same building as them. I can say that over a number of years I had conversations/consultations with at least 4 Storm advisors.

I'm not actually trying to defend Cassimatis/the advisors or Storm (although I have no doubt I'll be accused of it). I am trying to keep some truth in this conversation.

Cheers
Maccka

Frankly Macca, I couldn't care less if Cassamatis did or did not say the words 'I can make you a lot of money'.
There's more than one way to tell people something.
Take a look at the Storm website and tell me if it does or does not talk about how Storm is there to help clients create wealth.
Step back for a minute and think about Storms strategy of using heavy gearing to dramatically increase the amount that clients could invest in the market.
Someone with half a million of his own money in the market could triple or quadruple that amount by using Storm's strategy.
Apart from generating big fees for Storm, what reason other than making big money would you think they had for quadrupling a clients stake in the market?
Everything that Storm said was designed to convince clients they could make big money by following Storm's investment model.
That was the message loud and clear.....sign on with Storm and we'll help you to become wealthy.

Look at the homepage of some of these wealth creation gurus, or look at the brochures they put out. You’ll usually see photos of yachts or Ferraris or speed boats.....what they’re telling you loud and clear is ‘We can make you so much money that you’ll be able to afford all these expensive toys yourself.’
They don’t have to actually utter any words to tell you what they want you to believe.

You seem like a smart enough bloke most times Macca - you work it out for yourself.

 

[maccka]

I'm not actually trying to defend Cassimatis/the advisors or Storm (although I have no doubt I'll be accused of it). I am trying to keep some truth in this conversation.

Cheers
Maccka

A true believer - still. WOW

And there it is! There is the evidence of accusation that I was expecting and predicted. Thank you Doobsy for participating so readily.

Thanks maccka,

From the above reply it would appear then, that you would not be able to condemn Storm, Manny or any of the Storm advisers for the advice received by investors.

May I ask then are you neutral in relation to that advice, or would you support the advice given to investors, taking in to account prevailing market conditions and lending practices at the time.

gg

Hi GG,

To be perfectly honest, I am trying to wait until all the information is in before I make a decision one way or the other. Some days I can condemn them 'til the cows come home. Other days I can't if I look at all the information I have. As I've said before it depends on the bits of information you have at your disposal. As a scientist I also constantly feel the need to remove unsupported hypotheses from the table which is why I have very little interest in leaving statements like the one Bunyip wrote unchallenged. I've been very consistent in wanting people to stick to the truth (supported by evidence).

I like http://www.commonwealthbankdeception.com/ because it often gives evidence to support it's statements. I like the fact that there are cases before the court as I know that everyone involved will need to give evidence to support their statements.

I intensely dislike it when people are willing to publicly write information and accusations that are unsupported and quite frankly could well be open to libel legislation.

I've seen enough evidence personally to know where my opinion on various banking type institutions is likely to finish up. I am prepared to say that until all the information is in my opinion could swing in a different direction.

As yet I don't have a clear feeling about the Storm advice. I haven't seen enough evidence personally yet.

We went to financial planners (SF, and 2 banks) because we aren't experts and we didn't feel qualified enough to build wealth. I still don't feel qualified to know whether the advice was sound. I feel doubly unqualified if you factor in the prevailing market conditions and lending practices of the time. The advice from Storm and the 2 banks was nearly identical and none of it felt right for us. That's why we didn't go all the way down that track with our own finances. Enough of my family did though for us to be very personally affected by it.

Frankly Macca, I couldn't care less if Cassamatis did or did not say the words 'I can make you a lot of money'.
There's more than one way to tell people something.
Take a look at the Storm website and tell me if it does or does not talk about how Storm is there to help clients create wealth.
Step back for a minute and think about Storms strategy of using heavy gearing to dramatically increase the amount that clients could invest in the market.
Someone with half a million of his own money in the market could triple or quadruple that amount by using Storm's strategy.
Apart from generating big fees for Storm, what reason other than making big money would you think they had for quadrupling a clients stake in the market?
Everything that Storm said was designed to convince clients they could make big money by following Storm's investment model.
That was the message loud and clear.....sign on with Storm and we'll help you to become wealthy.

Look at the homepage of some of these wealth creation gurus, or look at the brochures they put out. You’ll usually see photos of yachts or Ferraris or speed boats.....what they’re telling you loud and clear is ‘We can make you so much money that you’ll be able to afford all these expensive toys yourself.’
They don’t have to actually utter any words to tell you what they want you to believe.

You seem like a smart enough bloke most times Macca - you work it out for yourself.

Now Bunyip - that is a much better way to put your point across. It comes out more like a logically written statement/arguments with less of the direct statement that is written to appear as if it was what you factually know happened.

Cassamatis told people what they wanted to hear - that he could make them a lot of money without them having to think or work for it.

cheers
Maccka

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Thanks for that honest answer Maccka, and I trust your family are successful in getting their money back.

It has helped me understand many of the posts on the thread of late, and your point about evidence is a moot one.

I did not find the www.commonwealthbankdeception.com site as useful as you did.

gg

 

[maccka]

Thanks for that honest answer Maccka, and I trust your family are successful in getting their money back.

It has helped me understand many of the posts on the thread of late, and your point about evidence is a moot one.

I did not find the www.commonwealthbankdeception.com site as useful as you did.

gg

GG,

I can see how you could think my point about evidence is moot. I would argue though that the debate only comes in if people are choosing to look at each piece of evidence in isolation of all the other pieces.

The Commonwealth Bank Deception site holds low value if you only look at that evidence. However if you combine it with evidence from other sources eg the Parliamentary Inquiry, legal documents etc then it has some value. There are documents shown on that site (in their entirety) that many people would not be able to see otherwise.

It is also extremely important that people read all of the evidence/submissions etc with a critical eye and with constant thinking around what are the biases of the writer/s. Critical literacy is definitely required, especially given the highly emotive nature (and potential criminal and financial liability) of this topic.

I hope you have a great weekend.

cheers
Maccka

 

[Harleyquin]

SJ and Bunyip, I don't care what was/is in the storm prospectus. Why? Because we didn't have a copy of the prospectus when we went to storm for advice and we didn't have the Internet on at that time either.

It's very easy in hindsight to throw stones at people in glass houses.

Frank, like the rest of us, was never prepared to risk his house and money. This was a financial strategy with safeguards in place...supposedly! I don't understand exactly what they were. I just accepted that this was the case as I don't have any experience in this sort of thing.

 

[Solly]

Maccka,

To me you make valid points in your recent posts. No entity has been found guilty of any wrongdoings in the court room. At this stage there have only been allegations. When I read back over some of the posts in this thread it appears to me that there is sometimes a fine line between robust discussion and slander. Regardless of what identity is chosen, nobody is truly anonymous here on this forum and we all are completely responsible for every utterance.

I have my own not fully supported view on the reason for this collapse that I would never publicly state as I don't possess or have sighted all the evidence. I may well be proved incorrect. It would be beneficial to hope that all relevant details will one day make it to a court room for scrutiny.

With so many here taking a keen interest in this event, I note that nobody has made any comment about the Directions hearing that was held last Thursday.


S

 

[bunyip]

Now Bunyip - that is a much better way to put your point across. It comes out more like a logically written statement/arguments with less of the direct statement that is written to appear as if it was what you factually know happened.

cheers
Maccka

Macca

From my private discussions with ex Storm clients and from what I’ve seen on the Storm website, I believe I have a pretty good idea of the tactics used by Cassamatis to convey the message of ‘Storm Financial is the way to personal wealth creation’.
I didn’t say that Cassamatis told clients in person that he could make them wealthy – that was simply the way you chose to take it.
I’m saying that he told them through his website, through sporting identities like Aussie cricket coach John Buchanan, through testimonials from Storm clients, through Storm’s educational sessions, and through Storm’s branches and client advisers.

Perhaps as a scientist you sometimes have a tendency to over-analyse and look for things that aren't actually there. I trust that you need no further clarification on this.

 

[maccka]

I didn’t say that Cassamatis told clients in person that he could make them wealthy – that was simply the way you chose to take it.

No you didn't say that he told people in person. You said...

Judd
Cassamatis told people what they wanted to hear - that he could make them a lot of money without them having to think or work for it.

I chose to challenge the way it was written. You wrote as if it was a statement of fact. Whether you like it or not your message implies you are for all intents and purposes quoting him. Words can be a dangerous thing when used by people who are unaware of their impact OR by people who use them to deliberately (or even unknowingly) manipulate them to create a truth that does not exist (commonly considered to be rumours or lies).

That is why I congratulated you for your second rewording of your argument. It is clearer and makes your point without giving the impression that it was definitively factual and something directly said by a specific person.

Now Bunyip - that is a much better way to put your point across. It comes out more like a logically written statement/arguments with less of the direct statement that is written to appear as if it was what you factually know happened.

Even your extra arguments in your last post further support your point of view. I congratulate you on that also.

I’m saying that he told them through his website, through sporting identities like Aussie cricket coach John Buchanan, through testimonials from Storm clients, through Storm’s educational sessions, and through Storm’s branches and client advisers.

Through a process of self analysis of your own text you have clarified what you really intended to say in your original post. You added detail and arguments in an attempt to support your original statements. (What you actually did was rationally argue for a slightly different point of view (semantically) to your original one.) Your later discussion added value to the conversation whereas your original point added little.

As a scientist, I am well able to recognise if I am or am not overanalysing as evidence and further testing allows me to identify it when it is happening.

As an educator, I work to help people develop their potential - to capacity build people. I want people to be able to communicate clearly. As a scientific educator I want people to communicate truth clearly without rumour, unsupported statements and innuendo.

I trust that you need no further clarification on this.

Have a great weekend.

Cheers
Maccka

 

[SJG1974]

SJ and Bunyip, I don't care what was/is in the storm prospectus. Why? Because we didn't have a copy of the prospectus when we went to storm for advice and we didn't have the Internet on at that time either.

It's very easy in hindsight to throw stones at people in glass houses.

Frank, like the rest of us, was never prepared to risk his house and money. This was a financial strategy with safeguards in place...supposedly! I don't understand exactly what they were. I just accepted that this was the case as I don't have any experience in this sort of thing.

So Frank given he knew what debt was and had at least a basic understanding of shares, wasn't prepared to risk his money? And yet he double geared (admitting he didn't need to) and plonked it all in shares?

Come on HQ...really this is getting ridiculous.

 

[bunyip]

No you didn't say that he told people in person. You said...



I chose to challenge the way it was written. You wrote as if it was a statement of fact. Whether you like it or not your message implies you are for all intents and purposes quoting him. Words can be a dangerous thing when used by people who are unaware of their impact OR by people who use them to deliberately (or even unknowingly) manipulate them to create a truth that does not exist (commonly considered to be rumours or lies).

That is why I congratulated you for your second rewording of your argument. It is clearer and makes your point without giving the impression that it was definitively factual and something directly said by a specific person.



Even your extra arguments in your last post further support your point of view. I congratulate you on that also.



Through a process of self analysis of your own text you have clarified what you really intended to say in your original post. You added detail and arguments in an attempt to support your original statements. (What you actually did was rationally argue for a slightly different point of view (semantically) to your original one.) Your later discussion added value to the conversation whereas your original point added little.

As a scientist, I am well able to recognise if I am or am not overanalysing as evidence and further testing allows me to identify it when it is happening.

As an educator, I work to help people develop their potential - to capacity build people. I want people to be able to communicate clearly. As a scientific educator I want people to communicate truth clearly without rumour, unsupported statements and innuendo.

I trust that you need no further clarification on this.

Have a great weekend.

Cheers
Maccka

Macca

Your in-depth analysis doesn’t interest me. Accordingly, I neither agree nor disagree with what you’ve said.

Perhaps your penchant for analysis could have been put to better use by making a thorough assessment of the risks in the Storm strategy. Had you done a better job in that regard, your family might have fared much better.

 

[Julia]

Bunyip, did you ever have a conversation with Cassimatis where he/she told you that he could make you a lot of money without you having to think or work for it?

I never once heard Cassimatis or any of the advisors tell me that he/they/Storm could make me a lot money without me having to think or work for it.

We went to financial planners (SF, and 2 banks) because we aren't experts and we didn't feel qualified enough to build wealth.

So could you perhaps explain what clients were paying 7% commission for if it was not to hand over their funds in order to have Storm make money for them?

I am trying to keep some truth in this conversation.

I support such an aspiration but will not be holding my breath.

 

[Solly]

"Hope for Storm stricken


SYDNEY lawyer Stewart Levitt has raised hopes that hundreds of millions of dollars lost via failed wealth adviser Storm Financial can be recouped by investors in class actions against the banks."

More by Tony Raggatt @ townsvillebulletin.com.au