Storm Financial Group

[Harleyquin]

Bunyip and SJ you are as bad as Julia. You are prepared to excuse the shortcomings of those who work in the financial industry and blame those who paid for their financial expertise. Not good enough.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Julia you've taken so much of what I and others have said and twisted it around to your own advantage. I have never said that my focus is solely on the banks. Again I ask who do you work for and what is your agenda as it's become very obvious that you have one.

You and your like minded on this forum are prepared to ignore the shortcomings of the financial planner and bank with your ludicrous claims that we have to take responsibility for this. That's ridiculous. We paid for their financial expertise.

I'm actually watching 'Four Corners' and there's a very interesting story on Bank West and CBA and the criticisms of the banks is on a par with our experiences. It's called 'unhappy Banking". To quote something from this program "we can't have a David and Goliath situation where the boys from the big end of town ride roughshod over the little bloke". That's exactly what they've done and are continuing to do.

Interesting too that the CBA bought Bank West at exactly the same time they closed storm down. These bankers have no interest in the little bloke he is purely a cash cow to them. They have a lack of ethics and morals and that needs investigating thoroughly. Why are you willing to excuse the banks for their obvious shortcomings Julia??? Do you work for one of them???

HQ I have just watched 4 Corners, some serious questions to be answered by CBA and BW.

gg

 

[Julia]

Julia you've taken so much of what I and others have said and twisted it around to your own advantage.

To my own advantage? What, exactly, advantages me in this situation? It doesn't affect me. I have no advantage or disadvantage to gain or lose.
You are now being pretty ridiculous HQ. I have tried to be patient and polite with you. I've even acknowledged that Storm's line of spin was so good that I can see how you were taken in by it. Despite the fact that many were not because they had some level of investigative capacity.

I've not responded to your silly, childish prattle about Easter stories etc because it's just too silly, but you are now being simply foolish and rather hysterical.

I have never said that my focus is solely on the banks. Again I ask who do you work for and what is your agenda as it's become very obvious that you have one.

Oh for god's sake, I'm a self funded retiree. I took retirement in my 40's because I could afford to. I don't have to work for anyone. Get it? Don't work at all.
So get over your stupid obsession and unfounded accusations.

You and your like minded on this forum are prepared to ignore the shortcomings of the financial planner

What??? Here is what I said earlier:

It was Storm who sold you on the massively risky scheme.

And you now tell me I am ignoring the shortcomings of the financial planner.
For god's sake, think about what you're saying.

As a separate issue I only saw a small amount of the Four Corners program where a couple bought a motel. Prior to finalising the purchase they did not actually inspect the premises.
Why on earth would anyone take out a loan for millions of dollars and not know exactly what they were buying!!!

Isn't there a theme here?

 

[Julia]

Bunyip and SJ you are as bad as Julia. You are prepared to excuse the shortcomings of those who work in the financial industry and blame those who paid for their financial expertise. Not good enough.

Just put up the posts where Bunyip, SJG or I have ever advocated on behalf of or excused the personnel of the financial industry. On the contrary. We have all at various times pointed out the self interest of the financial industry.

So get over yourself and stick to reality instead of making up silly accusations which have no foundation in fact.

 

[SJG1974]

Bunyip and SJ you are as bad as Julia. You are prepared to excuse the shortcomings of those who work in the financial industry and blame those who paid for their financial expertise. Not good enough.

Unfortunately HQ, those who work in the financial sector aren't/weren't the only ones with shortcomings. If they were, YOU wouldn't have double geared into investments you didn't understand.

 

[bunyip]

Bunyip and SJ you are as bad as Julia. You are prepared to excuse the shortcomings of those who work in the financial industry and blame those who paid for their financial expertise. Not good enough.

Really???
Show me one post, just one, where I've excused the actions of Storm.
Show me one post where I've said the banks are blameless.
Show me one post, just one, where I've attempted to lay the blame entirely on Storm investors.

If you can't do that, which you most definitely cannot, then stop making a fool of yourself by talking like a twit.

Your problem is that you don’t have the strength of character to admit that quite apart from the shortcomings of the banks and Storm, you too displayed serious shortcomings. And whether you realise it or not, your shortcomings went much deeper than simply being too trusting.

 

[bunyip]

And HQ – just in case you’re dumb enough to suggest that I work for a bank – I’ve been retired since the age of 42, although I don't really consider myself retired, due to the fact that I spend 15 minutes a day at my computer ‘working ’ in my own investment business. Although to me it's more like recreation than work.
I assure you, I don’t work for anyone except myself.

 

[Frank Ainslie]

What a cowardly bunch we have on this forum. They will gang up on people like 'Harlequin' and bombard them with cant, and yet they duck and weave when they are asked questions themselves. They always put such in the "too hard basket" and hope the rest of us don't notice. Unfortunately, you are not getting away with it that easily this time!

Answer the question you were asked!

EXPLAIN WHY YOU EXPECTED US TO SEE THROUGH STORM'S SCHEME WHEN ASIC COULD NOT?

Now what part of the question don't you understand? Should I repeat it again?

Until you do answer this fundamental question, stop talking a load of rubbish! Stop trying to convince us that you know better than anyone else. Stop with all this nonsense! You may be fooling yourselves, but you are certainly NOT FOOLING US.

Your failure to give us a meaningful answer to this question blows any argument you have that we were foolish to invest using the services of Storm "out of the water"

There was no reason why ordinary investors would be any more aware than ASIC were about Storm (After all, ASIC is the Regulator for God's sake!) You know this to be true and we know it to be true because it would defy belief to think otherwise. Indeed, anyone with a modicum of commonsense will know this.The fact that there are some on this forum that can't see this speaks volumes for their level of mentality!

When all is said and done, Storm was one of the largest financial advisory firms in Australia and it was legit. So I would ask the enlightened ones to stop trying to convince people that Storm was running some backyard operation staffed by "fly-by'night" operators that had only been around for a short time. Your spiel is becoming more asinine by the minute.

IF you can come up with a reason why ASIC could not and we should have, we would dearly like to hear it. If you can't then please stop talking through the top of your heads. Please stop presenting arguments that have no basis in fact. Please stop telling us that we were stupid. Instead, spend your time writing to ASIC. It will be more productive than wasting our time reading through specious comment that is designed to pervert the truth.

So, what is it? Are you going to answer the question I have asked or are you going to slink away to your burrows and appear again when the coast is clear?

I say, "answer the question you have been asked or get out of the kitchen", and stay out until your powers of reasoning are up to the job.

 

[maccka]

HQ I have just watched 4 Corners, some serious questions to be answered by CBA and BW.

gg

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/04/05/3471045.htm

Here is the link to the 4 Corners show.

Cheers
Maccka

 

[DocK]

HQ I have just watched 4 Corners, some serious questions to be answered by CBA and BW.

gg

As a separate issue I only saw a small amount of the Four Corners program where a couple bought a motel. Prior to finalising the purchase they did not actually inspect the premises.
Why on earth would anyone take out a loan for millions of dollars and not know exactly what they were buying!!!

Isn't there a theme here?

I too watched Four Corners last night - found it quite enlightening. Perhaps, Julia, you shouldn't comment on a show that you haven't watched in its entirety. The couple you mention above, while undoubtedly were gullible in purchasing a motel without making a thorough inspection themselves, relied upon the specialist broker who "found" the deal and the valuation undertaken by Bankwest that valued the motel at the purchase price. Bankwest just happened to be fallling over themselves to get into the East coast market and lo and behold their valuation of a commercial enterprise failed to uncover what the purchasers also failed to uncover. If this valuation had been done correctly the loan would never had been made. But the story doesn't end there - this couple sold every other asset they could and built the motel occupancy rates up from nothing to almost match the fake figures used to support the purchase price and bank's val'n, didn't miss an interest payment along the way, only to have Bankwest under the new ownership of CBA revalue the motel at a vastly lower figure and demand an immediate lump sum payment as they were then in breach of their LVR. They effectively did the same thing to the other people featured on the show. It would be akin to the bank lending you $400K to purchase a $500K house, revaluing it at the height of the GFC at $400K and demanding an immediate payment of $80K or selling you up for being in breach of your LVR even if you hadn't missed a payment!

No doubt the show has its own agenda, but the message that came across loud and clear to me is that at the height of the GFC, the Ralph Norris led CBA was focussed on clearing its books of any areas of lending that were deemed risky, despite the human fallout. It appears the areas that Bankwest had been actively pursuing, and the clients they had wooed, were seen as nothing more than human collateral by their new owners who simply made a boardroom decision to exit the market in higher-risk lending areas and were prepared to use any means to extract themselves - with no regard for ethics, prior agreements or the human cost. All this while enjoying the protection of a tax-payer funded Govt guarantee.

I have no doubt that there are many who cry foul at the banks who have no case. I also have no doubt that there are many who certainly do, but to date have had no chance in a David vs Goliath battle. It's time for Australia's banks to be made more accountable for their actions imo. Saying it's simply a commercial decision and we're looking after our shareholders is simply not good enough when you're making the profits they're making, enjoying "too big to fail/endangered species" Govt protection - while also holding a position of such power over the population. The big four need to be more accountable to the people of Australia in return imo.

 

[Julia]

Perhaps, Julia, you shouldn't comment on a show that you haven't watched in its entirety. The couple you mention above, while undoubtedly were gullible in purchasing a motel without making a thorough inspection themselves,

And that is the only point on which I remarked. It is not for you to tell me what I may or may not comment on, especially when you apparently agree on the single point I was making, i.e. their failure to physically inspect the property they were buying.

 

[SJG1974]

Are you serious Frank?

This has to be one of the more bizarre posts you have written…and believe me, you have written some absolute doozies that still have me scratching my head in bewilderment.

Let me get this straight. You want people to answer a question you pose? Aren't you the same guy who I and others have asked countless questions over the journey, in fact countless questions over the past week or so, and you have refused to answer them?

Aren’t you the guy who, to borrow your words, ducks and weaves when you are asked questions yourself? Aren’t you the guy who puts them in the too hard basket and hopes the rest of us don’t notice?

Are you that same guy Frank? Because if you are, then I find it odd...actually much more than odd...for you to say things like "Answer the question you were asked" when you can't do the same yourself.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

 

[DocK]

And that is the only point on which I remarked. It is not for you to tell me what I may or may not comment on, especially when you apparently agree on the single point I was making, i.e. their failure to physically inspect the property they were buying.

Ah, somehow I just knew that Julia would get the ruler out to rap me over the knuckles once more????

The point I was making is that even though a person may not have made the best decision, or done thorough research, does this then give a bank carte blanche to act as unethically, immorally or illegally as they wish? The couple in question may have made a mistake - but they were doing everything in their power to make a go of it, and had not defaulted until the bank made their situation impossible for its own purposes.

 

[bunyip]

Ah, somehow I just knew that Julia would get the ruler out to rap me over the knuckles once more????

Oh I don't know - the way I read it, you attempted to rap Julia over the knuckles in the first instance, and she simply responded.

 

[bunyip]

What a cowardly bunch we have on this forum. They will gang up on people like 'Harlequin' and bombard them with cant, and yet they duck and weave when they are asked questions themselves. They always put such in the "too hard basket" and hope the rest of us don't notice. Unfortunately, you are not getting away with it that easily this time!

Answer the question you were asked!

EXPLAIN WHY YOU EXPECTED US TO SEE THROUGH STORM'S SCHEME WHEN ASIC COULD NOT?

.

LOL! Gee Frank, I thought you said you were going to ignore us in future. I thought you said you weren't going to talk to us. I thought you said you wouldn’t be posting on here any more. And yet here you are, coming back time after time!

I have no idea why ASIC couldn’t see through the Storm scheme. Or maybe they could, but didn’t shut it down because in their view it wasn’t illegal. I’m not much interested in ASIC or their reasons for what they did or didn’t do. But I do know that they have a track record of incompetence, and for that reason alone, their opinions could hardly be considered trustworthy.

Now I’ll tell you how you could have and should have seen through the Storm scheme, regardless of whether ASIC or anyone else saw through it. You’ve already been told about a hundred times, but I’ll tell you again.
The 1987 market crash occurred less than twenty years before you invested with Storm. You were in your mid forties in 1987, so your memory of that historic event should have still been fresh in your mind less than 20 years later.
To evaluate the risk in the Storm strategy, all you needed to do was consider what effect a 25% slump in one day, as occurred in ‘87, would have on your proposed 2 million dollar investment. A three second calculation tells me you would have been brutalized to the tune of half a million dollars in just one day.
And if the market had slumped 50% as it did in ‘87 in just a few weeks, another three second calculation tells me you would have taken a 1 million dollar hit on your 2 million dollar portfolio.
Was that level of risk acceptable to you? Somehow I doubt it. If it wasn’t, then you should have walked away without even bothering to look further into the Storm strategy.
You should have had the intelligence to realize that if you borrow heavily to to get yourself a bigger market stake, and hence potentially larger returns, you also expose yourself to bigger losses if the market caves in. It’s not rocket science Frank, it’s not like you need sophisticated investment knowledge or expertise to work it out. All you need is a bit of common sense – something that seems to be in short supply in your case.

I could name you a dozen other reasons why and how you should have seen through the Storm strategy, but I won’t bother. The example above should have given you sufficient reason to reject the Storm strategy, just as it was rejected by three out of four people who looked at it.

You accuse others of dodging questions, but there’s nobody on this forum who’s dodged more questions than you have. Time and time again you’ve clamped your tail between your legs and slunk away like a whipped dog when you’ve been asked confronting but perfectly reasonable questions. Like the two completely relevant and reasonable questions that Doobsy asked you just a few days ago, for example.

Here are some questions I’ve asked you over the last few months, but you’ve ignored......

1. You witnessed the 1987 market crash. Before signing on with Storm, did you not consider what effect a similar slump would have on your portfolio?

2. You would have been meticulous in your research before making a considerable investment in your shopping center - you would have left no stone unturned in your effort to uncover every detail that could possibly affect the success of your venture.
Why could you not have used the same care in evaluating the Storm strategy?

3. Why didn’t you think for yourself, rather than handing over the responsibility to someone else to do your thinking for you? Yes, I know you were paying for a professional service, but the same can be said when you deal with a professional real estate firm or a professional motor dealer. No matter what these people tell you, if you have any intelligence you still think for yourself to evaluate the pros and cons of their proposal.
So why didn’t you do the same with Storm?

4. You keep repeating that ordinary people had no chance of seeing through the Storm strategy. Yet three out of four people who looked at it walked away. Sure, there could have been any number of reasons why they walked. But do you really expect this forum to believe that none of them saw the pitfalls?
And if other people saw the pitfalls, why didn’t you?
It’s not as if you didn't have experience with investment and debt. It’s not as if you spent your life in occupations that required no thinking on your part.
So why was it Frank, that you couldn’t see what many others saw? Were they a lot smarter than you? Were you blinded by greed? Were you dazzled by dollar signs dancing before your eyes? Are you just plain stupid? Are you just a habitual risk taker? Did you think the gamble was worth the risk?

5. And the most intriguing question of all, one that you’ve been completely unable to answer....
Considering that you were 65 years old with a net worth of 1.7 million dollars, no debt whatsoever and plenty of money for a very comfortable and enjoyable retirement, why did you even consider mortgaging your home and going heavily into debt to make even more money that you didn’t need anyway?

So come on Frank, you who accuses others of dodging questions – let’s see how you go with these questions.

 

[DocK]

Oh I don't know - the way I read it, you attempted to rap Julia over the knuckles in the first instance, and she simply responded.

Where would we be without our White Knights in this world?

Actually I made what I thought to be a polite suggestion that a tv show (or its underlying message) shouldn't be written off on the basis of watching only a very little of it and forming a judgement based on only a small part, and not the whole. There is probably a parallel in there somewhere for the whole Storm client vs bank situation.

I did not presume to tell Julia what she could or could not comment on - as she seems to have taken exception to this time - merely suggested that had she watched a little more she may have formed a different opinion. Or not.

 

[Frank Ainslie]

Are you serious Frank?

This has to be one of the more bizarre posts you have written…and believe me, you have written some absolute doozies that still have me scratching my head in bewilderment.

Let me get this straight. You want people to answer a question you pose? Aren't you the same guy who I and others have asked countless questions over the journey, in fact countless questions over the past week or so, and you have refused to answer them?

Aren’t you the guy who, to borrow your words, ducks and weaves when you are asked questions yourself? Aren’t you the guy who puts them in the too hard basket and hopes the rest of us don’t notice?

Are you that same guy Frank? Because if you are, then I find it odd...actually much more than odd...for you to say things like "Answer the question you were asked" when you can't do the same yourself.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

Stop prevaricating and simply answer the question! If you don't, nothing you say on this forum in the future will have any credence because people will simply see you for what you are - an empty vessel. I'm leaving the kitchen door open!

 

[Frank Ainslie]

Where would we be without our White Knights in this world?

Actually I made what I thought to be a polite suggestion that a tv show (or its underlying message) shouldn't be written off on the basis of watching only a very little of it and forming a judgement based on only a small part, and not the whole. There is probably a parallel in there somewhere for the whole Storm client vs bank situation.

I did not presume to tell Julia what she could or could not comment on - as she seems to have taken exception to this time - merely suggested that had she watched a little more she may have formed a different opinion. Or not.

Dock,

It's not a good thing to contradict Julia because she is a sensitive soul. She can give it out but she just hates getting it back! Shame on you!

Incidentally, you wrote a terrific piece about the 4 corners show. I didn't see it myself but your explanation was first rate.

 

[Julia]

Oh I don't know - the way I read it, you attempted to rap Julia over the knuckles in the first instance, and she simply responded.

Correct.

Actually I made what I thought to be a polite suggestion that a tv show (or its underlying message) shouldn't be written off on the basis of watching only a very little of it and forming a judgement based on only a small part, and not the whole.

I made no comment whatsoever on the program or what you interpret as its 'underlying message'.

I did not write it off.

I formed no judgement on the program because I didn't see most of it.

I remarked only on the stupidity of anyone making a commitment to buy a business which they had not checked out for themselves.

You can carry this silliness on if you wish, Dock. I won't be further responding to your non-points.

 

[Julia]

Are you serious Frank?

This has to be one of the more bizarre posts you have written…and believe me, you have written some absolute doozies that still have me scratching my head in bewilderment.

Let me get this straight. You want people to answer a question you pose? Aren't you the same guy who I and others have asked countless questions over the journey, in fact countless questions over the past week or so, and you have refused to answer them?

Aren’t you the guy who, to borrow your words, ducks and weaves when you are asked questions yourself? Aren’t you the guy who puts them in the too hard basket and hopes the rest of us don’t notice?

Are you that same guy Frank? Because if you are, then I find it odd...actually much more than odd...for you to say things like "Answer the question you were asked" when you can't do the same yourself.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

SJG, try this.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/account/ignored