Storm Financial Group

[Frank Ainslie]

Assumptions:

YOU assume that people assume the above about you.

Noone has assumed any of these things about YOU. And I am pretty sure that noone has assumed the banks did no wrong.

However, given some of the posts from certain Storm victims on this forum, it is hard to come to any other assumption about some Stormers then those above. Which leads me to good old Frank…



And yet of every 4 people who went to Storm and learnt about this you beaut strategy of gearing to the gills and plonking it in shares, 3 walked away and took their life savings with them.

If it was so darn difficult to see through the strategy that Storm sold you, then how come you were in the minority when it came to people who went with them? Perhaps it is time you woke up to yourself Frank and understand the role you played in your own demise.

You really are incredible! What a foolish statement to make, "...how come you were in the minority when it came to people who went with them?" I think you are the one that needs to wake up to himself.

Here we have one of the biggest, if not the biggest investors losses in Australian history and you now claim that I and others were in the minority! Thousands of investors used the services of Storm and you are now trying to tell us that we were still a "minority" even though $3 billion dollars and counting is the estimated cost and countless people have lost everything.

A minority indeed! Goodness me! Where are you coming from? Any credibility you may have had as a poster on this forum has long gone because you are now starting to insult people's intelligence.

If you want to snipe, at least stick with the facts instead of perverting them as you are prone to do at every opportunity. And try and give some thought to what you are saying because you are starting to sound damn silly!

 

[SJG1974]

You really are incredible! What a foolish statement to make, "...how come you were in the minority when it came to people who went with them?" I think you are the one that needs to wake up to himself.

Here we have one of the biggest, if not the biggest investors losses in Australian history and you now claim that I and others were in the minority! Thousands of investors used the services of Storm and you are now trying to tell us that we were still a "minority" even though $3 billion dollars and counting is the estimated cost and countless people have lost everything.

A minority indeed! Goodness me! Where are you coming from? Any credibility you may have had as a poster on this forum has long gone because you are now starting to insult people's intelligence.

If you want to snipe, at least stick with the facts instead of perverting them as you are prone to do at every opportunity. And try and give some thought to what you are saying because you are starting to sound damn silly!

Nice one Frank.

I must admit I thought you would understand what the word minority means. My bad. Just to clarify from an online dictionary “mi.nor.i.ty: The smaller in number of two groups forming a whole”.

The last time I looked, if you had a group of people where 75% did one thing, and 25% did the opposite, then the 25% were in the minority. And you, being amongst the 25% of people who went with Storm, compared to the 75% who didn’t are, Frank old chap, in the minority. But that isn’t really the point is it….yet again you have glossed over the real issue and attempted one of your diversion tactics. And the issue is that you claim no one could have seen through the Storm strategy and uncovered the risks involved, that this whole mess could have happened to anyone. Well, no it couldn’t and no it didn’t Frank. The 75% who make up the majority (hopefully I don’t need to define what that means Frank) are living proof of that.

Its funny, but you have made so many outlandish statements on this forum, and yet whenever anyone has pulled you up and questioned you about any of this, you can’t back them up and completely ignore them, or divert which you have attempted to do here.

And as for insulting people’s intelligence, you have done enough of that for all of us Frank. Repeatedly.

I mean really, do you expect us to believe that a man:

• With your self professed experience in business;
• With your self professed level of intellect;
• With well over $1m in unencumbered assets;
• Who wanted just $45,000 per annum to live on (i.e. less than 5% per annum);
• Who had experience with debt;
• Who knew the risks with shares; and
• Who saw the Storm website and the claims that they will put you in touch with the strategies that have been the domain of the rich, as well as their intention to provide you with the money to do the types of things you have dreamt of

paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to Storm, DOUBLE GEARED INTO THE SHAREMARKET and thought that this was a conservative strategy, with the sole expected outcome to preserve the capital he already had?

How outlandish is that? Sit back and look at that for a minute and tell me how anyone in the right mind would believe that? It reads more like a plot for one of your fantasy books. And I am the one insulting people’s intelligence Frank?

Dear lord man….wake up to yourself!

 

[Solly]

SJG1974
What exactly has Frank done that is wrongful?'
My understanding is that he has not been served.
S

 

[jjtebj12]

Why are some people on this forum so concerned if the Banks are at fault. The banks are wrong, thats why they are trying to settle. Banks never settle or admit their wrong doings. The banks thought this had gone away with Slater & Gordan deal. Never did they think it would come to this.

 

[Judd]

Good point, Solly, although I get the gist of SJG1974's remarks.

If I were Frank I'd be pretty annoyed as well. Just look what happened to this unfortunate couple who went with Storm.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...ried-court-hears/story-e6freqmx-1225790630201

A BANK of Queensland franchisee in Townsville loaned money to Storm Financial clients without checking data provided by Storm, a Federal Court in Brisbane was told yesterday.

The bank's failure to verify "client profiles" meant that a retired Brisbane couple was able to borrow $344,000 against their home in July 2007 to invest even though they had less than $15,000 available cash at the time.

The public examination into Storm's collapse heard the firm told BoQ's North Ward branch in Townsville that Victor Ainslie and Helen Gillies had total assets of $1.75 million and $1.23 million in cash.

In fact, supporting data in the couple's statement of advice showed they had just $14,892 in the bank and another $1.16 million in "preserved super and restricted assets", including a shopping centre at Woodridge.

More...

 

[SJG1974]

SJG1974
What exactly has Frank done that is wrongful?'
My understanding is that he has not been served.
S

Nothing illegal as far as I can tell Solly, hence no need to be served. I am sure this has been covered previously. But wrong? Depends on what you consider wrong I guess.

Is comparing his plight to that of a rape victim wrong?
Is calling a poster a redneck wrong?
Is making grand claims that cant be supported by evidence wrong?
Is being less than truthful wrong?

Frank has a habit of making grandiose claims and statements and then when challenged about them, either ignores them or deflects. He has contradicted himself time and again. He has publicly questioned the motives of the banks, Storm, ASIC etc. etc. but when questioned about his motives, he shies away from answering. He shies away from responsibility.

He claimed early on that he would like to educate people so they don't fall into the trap he did, yet he refuses to admit to the mistakes he made, the mistakes he can help others avoid. Digging into what the banks did behind the scenes won't help the next naive retiree who walks into a financial planning office.

He has claimed to not have understood the risks, yet in other posts has shown that he knew there were risks, but for want of a better word, he took the gamble. And he is unable or not prepared to tell us why.

I have no doubt that there were Storm victims who had no idea what they were geting into. Frank has shown that he does not fit into this category, despite trying to make us believe he does.

What Frank's postings tell me is that he had an understanding of some of the risks involved, rolled the dice, lost, and is now claiming that everyone else is to blame for the risks he took....and playing dumb claiming he thought it was conservative and he had no idea what he was doing. Bollocks.

And of course, Frank has denied any responsibility for the actions he took himself, as if he had no choice other than to double gear into shares. Frank took a risk, he knew there were risks, he lost, and he is passing 100% of the blame to third parties. Is that wrong? I think you know my opinion on that quite clearly by now Solly.

 

[Solly]

Nothing illegal as far as I can tell Solly, hence no need to be served. I am sure this has been covered previously. But wrong? Depends on what you consider wrong I guess.

Is comparing his plight to that of a rape victim wrong?
Is calling a poster a redneck wrong?
Is making grand claims that cant be supported by evidence wrong?
Is being less than truthful wrong?

Frank has a habit of making grandiose claims and statements and then when challenged about them, either ignores them or deflects. He has contradicted himself time and again. He has publicly questioned the motives of the banks, Storm, ASIC etc. etc. but when questioned about his motives, he shies away from answering. He shies away from responsibility.

He claimed early on that he would like to educate people so they don't fall into the trap he did, yet he refuses to admit to the mistakes he made, the mistakes he can help others avoid. Digging into what the banks did behind the scenes won't help the next naive retiree who walks into a financial planning office.

He has claimed to not have understood the risks, yet in other posts has shown that he knew there were risks, but for want of a better word, he took the gamble. And he is unable or not prepared to tell us why.

I have no doubt that there were Storm victims who had no idea what they were geting into. Frank has shown that he does not fit into this category, despite trying to make us believe he does.

What Frank's postings tell me is that he had an understanding of some of the risks involved, rolled the dice, lost, and is now claiming that everyone else is to blame for the risks he took....and playing dumb claiming he thought it was conservative and he had no idea what he was doing. Bollocks.

And of course, Frank has denied any responsibility for the actions he took himself, as if he had no choice other than to double gear into shares. Frank took a risk, he knew there were risks, he lost, and he is passing 100% of the blame to third parties. Is that wrong? I think you know my opinion on that quite clearly by now Solly.

Thanks SJG1974 for your reply and stating your belief that Frank has not done anything wrongful. I have had some difficulty understanding your position on this matter from the content of your posts.

As you may or may not be aware my colleagues and I keep a close eye on the court lists and we have never noticed Frank being mentioned.

S

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Why are some people on this forum so concerned if the Banks are at fault. The banks are wrong, thats why they are trying to settle. Banks never settle or admit their wrong doings. The banks thought this had gone away with Slater & Gordan deal. Never did they think it would come to this.

jjtebj12, I think there are two reasons some people on ASF are concerned re the banks being involved in wrongdoing.

1. They may genuinely believe that it was all Storm Financial and/or the investors fault.

and/or

2. They may have shares in the banks involved, and may be concerned that the price will fall if a payout is needed.

As with all arguments on ASF it comes down to pure motives and/or greed.

gg

 

[maccka]

jjtebj12, I think there are two reasons some people on ASF are concerned re the banks being involved in wrongdoing.

1. They may genuinely believe that it was all Storm Financial and/or the investors fault.

and/or

2. They may have shares in the banks involved, and may be concerned that the price will fall if a payout is needed.

As with all arguments on ASF it comes down to pure motives and/or greed.

gg

Hi GG,

You raise a very interesting point here. How much effect could a payout have on share prices? How would it be measured? Obviously there may be an immediate drop in price but what could long term costs be to the company? Also, what does a drop (or vice versa a rise) in a share price actually mean in real terms (not just paper money) to the cash flow or liquidity of a company? Does it mean anything or is it just virtual with no real effect?

Cheers Maccka

 

[Harleyquin]

Bunyip there are lots of assumptions on ASF. You're assuming that Doobsy thought carefully about his opinions and other posters haven't. The truth is you, I and anyone else on this forum, have no way of knowing this for sure.

Sig you assume many things 1 that 3 out of 4 walked away from storm. You don't know that for sure and you don't know why they walked away. Those figures have been bandied around but where is the hard proof? Do you think everyone who walked away understood it was a risky investment? Do you know the figures for those who walk away from all financial planners.

Too many assume that ALL stormies had dollar signs in their eyes. We all want financial security and some of us want help achieving financial security. The government encourages us all to take responsibility for our finances.

There are a lot of people out there who spend all they earn on their own enjoyment knowing that in old age that the government will look after them. They are not getting accused of being greedy and yet Stormies who asked for financial investment advice from the experts so that they would never become a burden on the government are the greedy ones.

ASIC, accountants and many others thought this investment strategy was ok so how could the ordinary man in the street know any different. The old 'do your own research' is a copout. We all have our strengths and weaknesses.

As Albert Einstein is credited with saying "Everybody is a genius, but if you judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree, it will live it's whole life believing that it is stupid".

 

[maccka]

Nice one Frank.

I must admit I thought you would understand what the word minority means. My bad. Just to clarify from an online dictionary “mi.nor.i.ty: The smaller in number of two groups forming a whole”.

The last time I looked, if you had a group of people where 75% did one thing, and 25% did the opposite, then the 25% were in the minority. And you, being amongst the 25% of people who went with Storm, compared to the 75% who didn’t are, Frank old chap, in the minority.

Solly,

next time you are in Brisvegas or lunching with ppl with legal connections could you find out how far the minority vilification laws extend please?

I'd appreciate that. Thanks ol' chap!

Cheers
Maccka

 

[Harleyquin]

GG have just read your post. Well done. You've hit the nail well and truly on the head.

I know stormies who still have bank shares. In fact I mentioned someone not so long back who said that their bank shares were doing well and she was a stormie.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Hi GG,

You raise a very interesting point here. How much effect could a payout have on share prices? How would it be measured? Obviously there may be an immediate drop in price but what could long term costs be to the company? Also, what does a drop (or vice versa a rise) in a share price actually mean in real terms (not just paper money) to the cash flow or liquidity of a company? Does it mean anything or is it just virtual with no real effect?

Cheers Maccka

GG have just read your post. Well done. You've hit the nail well and truly on the head.

I know stormies who still have bank shares. In fact I mentioned someone not so long back who said that their bank shares were doing well and she was a stormie.

Thanks maccka and HQ,

I just follow the charts and am not a fundamental follower of stocks. I would imagine that any "hit" has been factored in to the share price by the institutions, unless there is a sudden event, e.g. a massive win for Storm investors.

Your points are interesting and valid, but I cannot answer your queries, and would be interested to hear from other posters on the effect on the stock price of CBA, MQG or BOQ of adverse findings.

I am in and out of CBA as a chartist, and must admit have shied away from BOQ because of a possible hit on it's price.

CBA would be able to weather it I feel better than the other two, depending on their exposure. Then this is not my field of expertise.

gg

 

[maccka]

Bunyip there are lots of assumptions on ASF. You're assuming that Doobsy thought carefully about his opinions and other posters haven't. The truth is you, I and anyone else on this forum, have no way of knowing this for sure.

Sig you assume many things 1 that 3 out of 4 walked away from storm. You don't know that for sure and you don't know why they walked away. Those figures have been bandied around but where is the hard proof? Do you think everyone who walked away understood it was a risky investment? Do you know the figures for those who walk away from all financial planners.

Too many assume that ALL stormies had dollar signs in their eyes. We all want financial security and some of us want help achieving financial security. The government encourages us all to take responsibility for our finances.

There are a lot of people out there who spend all they earn on their own enjoyment knowing that in old age that the government will look after them. They are not getting accused of being greedy and yet Stormies who asked for financial investment advice from the experts so that they would never become a burden on the government are the greedy ones.

ASIC, accountants and many others thought this investment strategy was ok so how could the ordinary man in the street know any different. The old 'do your own research' is a copout. We all have our strengths and weaknesses.

As Albert Einstein is credited with saying "Everybody is a genius, but if you judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree, it will live it's whole life believing that it is stupid".

I LOVE that quote Harlyquin! :1luvu: It seems so apt here. I can even think of the perfect picture to go with it! I will go to sleep tonight happy in the thought that Albert Einstein's (alleged) wisdom has made it into the ASF forum.

As for the rest of your post I agree. My understanding talking to a local SF advisor was that the 75% figure also included other people who were on the books for insurance or simpler financial advice as well as people who came, listened and walked away. Without having the hard evidence and primary source information in front of us the figure means nothing.

Cheers
Maccka

 

[Solly]

Hi GG,

You raise a very interesting point here. How much effect could a payout have on share prices? How would it be measured? Obviously there may be an immediate drop in price but what could long term costs be to the company? Also, what does a drop (or vice versa a rise) in a share price actually mean in real terms (not just paper money) to the cash flow or liquidity of a company? Does it mean anything or is it just virtual with no real effect?

Cheers Maccka

Maccka

Let's just say I believe it would be a bee sting. Here's some APRA banking stats as of Dec 11.

 

[Julia]

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.

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?

Maccka, perhaps you missed my question to you several days ago as above?
I'd very much appreciate a response.

I know stormies who still have bank shares. In fact I mentioned someone not so long back who said that their bank shares were doing well and she was a stormie.

You also said at the time that you had no idea whether or not you could believe her.
The fact that someone holds shares in any company is not necessarily a testimony to the success of that company or its share price.

 

[maccka]

Maccka, perhaps you missed my question to you several days ago as above?
I'd very much appreciate a response.

Hi Julia,

I certainly didn't miss your question. I just chose not to answer it. I had hoped that you might be careful enough to go back and read what I ACTUALLY wrote rather than what you read in your mind. I knew that you probably wouldn't appreciate a post that pointed out (again) that you didn't read my post carefully enough to read the whole meaning as it was written. Couldn't see any point in stirring up trouble on such a volatile forum.

You also said at the time that you had no idea whether or not you could believe her.
The fact that someone holds shares in any company is not necessarily a testimony to the success of that company or its share price.

I have enormous respect for HQ so I absolutely do believe what she says. However I am not sure that is what you are trying to communicate with me. Is it possible that you've made a mistake in your quoting or perhaps left some important words out of your message to me? Or were you trying to also write a message to HQ in the same post?

Cheers
Maccka

 

[Solly]

Solly,

next time you are in Brisvegas or lunching with ppl with legal connections could you find out how far the minority vilification laws extend please?

I'd appreciate that. Thanks ol' chap!

Cheers
Maccka

Maccka

On my next excursion to George St, I might just do that. In my experience, I have found it to be fraught with danger to quote before the bench definitions from on-line dictionaries. Also I have a strange feeling you may now know who my associates are by observing my twitter time line.

S

 

[Julia]

Hi Julia,

I certainly didn't miss your question. I just chose not to answer it.

OK. That's your right. Pity, though. One would hope there would be a substantial reason for paying 7% commission.

I have enormous respect for HQ so I absolutely do believe what she says. However I am not sure that is what you are trying to communicate with me. Is it possible that you've made a mistake in your quoting or perhaps left some important words out of your message to me? Or were you trying to also write a message to HQ in the same post?

If you look again at the post you will see above my response to HQ the format makes clear that the remarks to which I am replying were from HQ. For our convenience, ASF has the neat facility of the "multiquote" button which allows us to respond to various posters at one time. Hope this helps.

 

[SJG1974]

Thanks SJG1974 for your reply and stating your belief that Frank has not done anything wrongful. I have had some difficulty understanding your position on this matter from the content of your posts.

As you may or may not be aware my colleagues and I keep a close eye on the court lists and we have never noticed Frank being mentioned.

S

Not a problem Solly. Always happy to clarify my position.

And I have stated several times that I am not putting Frank or any Storm victim "on the stand" as it were.

And I am not bracketing all storm clients as greedy, money hungry morons. I am sure that some of the 4,000 clients probably were, but again, how would we know? And I am certainly not saying that the banks are an innocent party in all this....far from it. But it would be nice to have some balance around here.

Simply put, there is more to this whole saga than what the banks did and didn't do. Much more. There are more factors behind why people lost so much money in this mess than simply what the banks did and didn't do. However, it seems that those posters who were with Storm have chosen to focus purely on this aspect.

Some are happy to accuse the banks of wrongdoing, of the banks and storm for telling fibs, to did and dig to find the "truth". Yet when other aspects are raised, such as the why they invested in the first place, or when they are challenged to back up and explain statements they have made, they clam up.

They are happy to discredit statements made by say Ralph Norris that he didn't undrstand what was going on, or a statement by Manny Cassimatis that they ensured Stormers were fully educated before they took them on as clients, or the statement that 3 in 4 people walked away, yet we are all expected to blindly believe them when they themselves say they did not have any idea of the risks involved. Again, when people like Frank claim one thing and then contradict themselves a few posts later, it makes me question whether they know more than they are letting on....particularly when they are unwilling to answer questions about their motives.

I guess because Storm and the banks are the bad guys, we are free to discredit them and what they say, yet because the victims are innocent, we are expected to believe everything they say, despite there being no way to verify it, other than to ask them to explain further, which in most cases they don't do.

Questions have been asked and Stormers have not been able or prepared to answer them. I cant imagine the hurt of what they are going through, and I genuinely feel sorry for them. This whole mess should not have happened. But it did, like so many other messes before and in the future. But again, this forum is not a Storm support group, it is a place where we can look at all the issues...and at the moment the focus is mainly on one thing and one thing only....the banks. Focussing on the banks wont help prevent the next gullible 65 year old when he walks into a financial planners office, focussing on what that 65 year old should and shouldn't do will provide a better lesson.

Anyway, i trust that has clarified things.

On a separate issue, Solly with your legal knowledge, perhaps you can answer this:

If the UMIS case gets up, who pays the compensation? I am guessing that Storm and the CBA would be jointly to blame, yet Storm no longer exists, so is unable to pay damages. So would the CBA have to stump up Storm's half, or only their own, which would mean that clients would only receive half of what they are entitled to?