Storm Financial Group

[bunyip]

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.

I don’t give a damn if you tell Julia that perhaps she shouldn’t comment etc etc. But if you give someone a rap over the knuckles like that, mild though it was, it’s a bit rich that you then accuse them of rapping you over the knuckles when they respond to what you said.

 

[SJG1974]

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

Thanks Julia.

The funny thing is, I have a mobid fascination in seeing just how far Frank can get his foot into his mouth. By my reckoning, he is about knee deep by now.

 

[DocK]

Correct.


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.

Your condescension leaves me, once again, breathless.

Please put me on your ignore list.

 

[Solly]

Gee, I've been sitting on the sidelines watching the recent interactions.
I'm glad that this is just a discussion group and nobody here holds any authority. I believe it could be a rather messy view from the bench if they did !

On other matters, is there anybody here who attended and has any further comments about the Directions and Interlocutory Hearings from last Thursday ?

S

 

[bunyip]

No one argues that compensation is due for wrongdoing. My questions to you and any other stormie who is brave:

1. Do you acknowledge that if the storm systems had worked and you had been sold down at the trigger points you would still have sustained SERIOUS losses and most of your capital would be gone.

2. Do you acknowledge that you knew you had borrowed money to invest and as the market fell this meant that your capital was disappearing as the borrowings would need to be repaid at some stage. Or did you simply believe Storm when they said markets would bounce and therefore it would not be a problem.

Here you go Frank - here's the two perfectly reasonable and relevant questions that Doobsy asked you recently. We're still waiting for you to answer them. And don't treat this forum like fools by telling us that these are not relevant questions. They're very relevant, as you well know.

You'd love to convince everyone that your losses were caused by margin calls not being made on time, by faulty data, by secret deals between Storm and the banks.
But you've never been honest enough to acknowledge that even if all the systems had worked as they were supposed to work, even if the margin calls were made on time, even if everything was legal and above board with no collusion or skullduggery, you still would have suffered catastrophic losses due to the combined effects of a collapsing market and crazy levels of borrowing.

Come on Frank, answer the two questions above. You snap and snarl at people and demand that they answer your questions, but you run away like a frightened hyena when someone puts confronting questions to you. Your attitude is weak and hypocritical, to say the least.
Answer the questions Frank - answer the questions.

 

[maccka]

Come on Frank, answer the two questions above. You snap and snarl at people and demand that they answer your questions, but you run away like a frightened hyena when someone puts confronting questions to you. Your attitude is weak and hypocritical, to say the least.
Answer the questions Frank - answer the questions.

Bunyip,

Frank actually doesn't have to answer any questions to anyone on this forum. There is no obligation for him to do so.

An interesting point to note might be that while you think his attitude is weak and hypocritical there are others that admire his strength and ability to stick to his beliefs and continually fight for them when others would have given up on being continually bullied (both by large institutions and opinionated people with no idea of the reality he's living) and walked away years ago.

Bunyip, some would see your attitude as confrontational and that of a bully. Others would see it as identical to Frank's in many ways - continually pushing the same point of view. Still others would have other ideas.

cheers
Maccka

 

[maccka]

Stormers with SICAG have likely seen these. This post is for those that haven't.

Here are a couple of videos worth watching.

Finish Strong!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOlTdkYXuzE&feature=fvwrel

Never Give Up!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW579icDRSA


cheers
Maccka

 

[Mash]

Gee, I've been sitting on the sidelines watching the recent interactions.
I'm glad that this is just a discussion group and nobody here holds any authority. I believe it could be a rather messy view from the bench if they did !

On other matters, is there anybody here who attended and has any further comments about the Directions and Interlocutory Hearings from last Thursday ?

S

Judge Reeve immediately raised the D.Mc/CBA/Colonial issue as he had heard part of a story on the ABC before coming to Court. He expressed deep concern should the report be shown to have any basis of fact and requested more information to be supplied.

Then the usual argy bargy ensued however a new issue involved a request by Levitts silk Ron Merkel for “Linked Credit Provider” to be included in the evidence for trial. The Bank under no circumstances wanted the Linked Credit Provider issue to be allowed to be part of the trial. Merkel succeeded in having it included.

A good day in court for Stormies!!! Again !! Bring it ON !!!

 

[bunyip]

Bunyip,

Frank actually doesn't have to answer any questions to anyone on this forum. There is no obligation for him to do so.

An interesting point to note might be that while you think his attitude is weak and hypocritical there are others that admire his strength and ability to stick to his beliefs and continually fight for them when others would have given up on being continually bullied (both by large institutions and opinionated people with no idea of the reality he's living) and walked away years ago.

Bunyip, some would see your attitude as confrontational and that of a bully. Others would see it as identical to Frank's in many ways - continually pushing the same point of view. Still others would have other ideas.

cheers
Maccka

Quite right Macca – Frank doesn't have to answer questions from me or anyone else. But if you want to be fair-minded about this, then you should point out to Frank that nobody is obliged to answer his questions either.
I refer you to Post 7068 on Page 354 in which Frank demanded answers to his question, and in fact used quite aggressive and derogatory language in doing so. It’s quite unreasonable that Frank should demand answers when he himself has continually refused to answer dozens of perfectly reasonable and relevant questions.
I answered Frank’s question anyway, but I’m still waiting for him to answer mine. Knowing Frank, I don’t think I’ll hold my breath.
Frank seems to fancy himself as a bit of a brawler, but it doesn’t take long for his courage to dessert him when he comes up against someone who throws punches in return.

As for my attitude being identical to Frank’s – I partly agree. We’re both tenacious and stick doggedly to our views. The big difference between us is that I try to have some balance in my views, whereas Frank has none whatsoever in his. Franks’ agenda is clearly based on getting compensation any way he can. If that means distorting the true cause of his losses, then he’s demonstrated that he’s quite prepared to do so.
As for my agenda, I don’t have one – I’m not affected by the Storm disaster and I don’t care which way the court case goes, as long as the outcome is fair. If the banks are proven to have done anything illegal, then I and every other fair-minded person will have no objection to them receiving appropriate penalties. All I want is for everyone involved to take responsibility for their actions - Storm and Storm investors very much included.

Me confrontational? You’re right – I’ll confront anyone on this forum who refuses to take responsibility for their actions, who distorts the truth for what they hope will be financial gain, and who resorts to name-calling as Frank has done on various occasions.

Cheers to you too Maccka
Bunyip

 

[Solly]

Judge Reeve immediately raised the D.Mc/CBA/Colonial issue as he had heard part of a story on the ABC before coming to Court. He expressed deep concern should the report be shown to have any basis of fact and requested more information to be supplied.

Then the usual argy bargy ensued however a new issue involved a request by Levitts silk Ron Merkel for “Linked Credit Provider” to be included in the evidence for trial. The Bank under no circumstances wanted the Linked Credit Provider issue to be allowed to be part of the trial. Merkel succeeded in having it included.

A good day in court for Stormies!!! Again !! Bring it ON !!!

Thanks Mash,

The “Linked Credit Provider” matter is an interesting development. I suppose it highlights the value of having a knowledgeable, experienced practitioner on your team presenting items that need to be tested.

I shall now sit back and be entertained by the static until other factual matters of substance and real consequence to these actions arise into the public domain.

S

 

[Harleyquin]

I watched the Four Corners program called Happy Banking on Monday night and thought exactly the same thing GG. This is exactly what they've done to storm and clients. When you add some of the evidence, which hasn't been put on this forum for obvious reasons, you are looking at the same scenario believe me.

For heavens sake Julia read what I've said instead of again twisting my words around.. Again and yes to your own advantage. I'm sure you know exactly what I mean. You can carry on about childish prattle all you like...just read your own posts for a prime example. I ask the hard question and suddenly you Bunnyip and co are all retired at 40 ummm excuse me if I suddenly feel very doubtful...again.

We see professional dishonesty taken to extremes and you all excuse it so blatantly...why I wonder? As I'm sure many others are wondering the same thing. Blaming the client just doesn't cut it anymore. What are you people hiding behind?

We have two choices when it comes to our financial future. One is to do it yourself...as some of you have chosen to do. The other is to employ a professional...as many others have chosen to do. It's a free country and we still have the freedom to make that choice. There is no excuse for criminals in the financial world just because their clients choose to focus on what they are good at.

 

[Harleyquin]

Doobsy those questions you've posed are for storm to answer. Storm the company may be gone but the storm operators are still out there alive and kicking. Ask them they were paid to monitor their clients investments.

 

[Harleyquin]

While you're putting DoK on your ignore list Julia put me on there as well. I prefer to discuss/ debate with someone who knows what they're talking about.

 

[doobsy]

Doobsy those questions you've posed are for storm to answer. Storm the company may be gone but the storm operators are still out there alive and kicking. Ask them they were paid to monitor their clients investments.

No HQ, the questions are very much relevant to storm clients.

I am in no way saying that every storm client knew exactly what was happening. Storm spent many years wearing certain clients down and slowly drip feeding the borrowing levels into their portfolio. Markets were heading North and I can see why clients would sign paperwork prepared by their trusted adviser who had done the right thing to that point. I know I have clients who trust me and don't really question or look at every detail of what I am doing for them. Lucky for them it is all above board.

The questions were posed to point out that the Storm strategy was massively flawed. I agree the advisers are the ones that ultimately should take the fall for the advice. The strategy was flawed to the point that no matter what protections, what trigger points, what cash dams Storm had put in place it was all predicated on the fact the market would never fall as far as it did over 2008.

As I mentioned my wife had money invested. We had spoken about where I saw markets heading vs what she was being told from Storm. She was willing to take the risk with the money and when her margin call came she ended up with $2,000 out of a $20,000 investment. She does however acknowledge that she knew the risk, she saw the portfolio dropping and she made the decision to stay in under Storms advice in the hope the market would bounce before a margin call was made.

HQ there is a clear obsession by some on the forum that the banks are to blame. I believe they played their part but they cannot be seen to be completely to blame. I have been over this ad nauseum. You can't put all clients in one category. To expand on this, Storm clients I know of include:

• Clients who withdrew super and used a margin loan
• Clients who borrowed against their home only
• Clients who borrowed against the home and had a margin loan
• Clients who had money from another source and then got a margin loan
• Clients who borrowed against the house and withdrew their super but no margin loan

Now out of these, only the ones with the margin loans were completely wiped out. Others like the ones that only borrowed against the home or the last one have had massive hits to their situation but weren't wiped out. They still have their homes in both cases but their super is caput.

My other point that I am sick of typing is that in no way was ALL of the bank lending imprudent. I know of ex storm clients that are in their 40s and 50s that were working mining jobs on wages over $150Kpa. They could and can afford this. They invested using borrowed money and lost that bet that the market would go up by more than the cost to borrow.

How then can we say the banks are the only people to blame in this whole thing?

My point was that no matter which financial advice firm, which bank, which margin lender, ANY client who used borrowed or double borrowed money to invest in Australian shares between late 2007 - early 2009 was wiped out.

Storm clients need to have a good look at what category they fall into. If HQ you were a fully retired, no significant income client who Storm misled and the banks should not have lent to then keep up the fight. If not, a bit of self reflection is required.

 

[bunyip]

Here’s a scenario worth considering due to its parallels with the Storm situation......

I’m looking for an investment property to add to my real estate portfolio. A real estate agent shows me a house for sale on a flood plain beside a creek. I could easily check out past flood levels for the area – flood records are readily available to the general public, as are stock market records. Or I could simply use a bit of common sense to recognize that a flood plain is subject to flooding. But I don’t do either, preferring instead to trust the real estate agent when he tells me it’s a safe area with no flood problem. After all, he’s a licensed real estate agent with professional qualifications, has been in business for thirty years, and is a member of a reputable professional body, the REIQ (Real Estate Institute of Queensland). He has thousands of satisfied clients of long standing, and he can arrange finance through a bank that’s will lend me the money if I give them a mortgage over my family home.

I buy the house, only to have it washed away by a flood a few months later. My insurance policy doesn’t cover the damage. With no house, no tenant, and hence no income from the property, I’m unable to service the loan. The bank forecloses on my family home.

Time for the finger pointing to begin. But who should I point my finger at – who’s at fault here?
The bank for lending me the money to invest in a high risk area?
The bank for foreclosing on my family home in an effort to recover their loan?
The real estate agent for conning me into believing it was a safe area with no flood problem?
The REIQ for endorsing a shonky operator by allowing him membership of their organization?
The local council for allowing residential development in a flood-prone area?
The insurance company for not paying out on my policy?

Or does the fault lie mainly with me because I was too trusting and didn’t think for myself, and I wasn’t astute enough to do a bit of independent research to find out the readily-available facts, instead of just blindly believing what a salesman told me?

 

[Harleyquin]

Doobsy I disagree those questions need to asked of storm. At the end of the day it was their financial advice and monitoring.

On the issue of clients in a range of categories you are spot on.

Also they also had a range of understanding ie some knew exactly what was involved and asked for this high risk strategy. I have spoken to stormies who asked for this high risk strategy and could afford to take the risk. They have no problem with storms advice and agreed with it is their right.

They do not agree with CBA s treatment of storm or it's clients and I believe that they have good reasons for this as they understand exactly what has happened...and they've explained this to me.



Many others asked for different types of risks yet were all placed in a high risk category. If a client doesn't understand what is being suggested and is paying for advice then I believe the advisor has an obligation to explain to ensure that their clients do understand .

Let's just say that hasn't happened. I will accept that it would be best for us all to be financially educated so that we are not in a position to be taken advantage of. So many of us just trusted that these advisors were helping us, it's been a dreadful shock to discover how deceptive they've been and To discover that the banks were in league with them.

 

[doobsy]

Doobsy I disagree those questions need to asked of storm. At the end of the day it was their financial advice and monitoring.

On the issue of clients in a range of categories you are spot on.

Also they also had a range of understanding ie some knew exactly what was involved and asked for this high risk strategy. I have spoken to stormies who asked for this high risk strategy and could afford to take the risk. They have no problem with storms advice and agreed with it is their right.

They do not agree with CBA s treatment of storm or it's clients and I believe that they have good reasons for this as they understand exactly what has happened...and they've explained this to me.



Many others asked for different types of risks yet were all placed in a high risk category. If a client doesn't understand what is being suggested and is paying for advice then I believe the advisor has an obligation to explain to ensure that their clients do understand .

Let's just say that hasn't happened. I will accept that it would be best for us all to be financially educated so that we are not in a position to be taken advantage of. So many of us just trusted that these advisors were helping us, it's been a dreadful shock to discover how deceptive they've been and To discover that the banks were in league with them.

HQ - from an industry point of view - yes we should always be working to ensure the result is the best for the client. I think some storm advisers did believe this though so how do you cover an adviser who is working in his clients best interests and truly believes what they are doing is the right way to go.

As a reverse - if an adviser believes the world is about to go into the second great depression and advises his clients to cash out and the market doesn't fall, then the client has a grievance for lost opportunities. This is where you can't have rules covering everything, especially when it involves markets which are out of the control of the adviser anyway. Back to one of my previous posts - any adviser selling a return is a liar. We add value through strategy and technical expertise.

The forum will jump on you about this so sorry but I do need to point out that EVERY storm client signed EVERY page of their SOAs. This unfortunately comes back to the herd mentality and not wanting to look silly by saying 'no I don't understand' I can't sign yet.

Think my points are now exhausted for a while. No point harping on.

 

[Julia]

Many others asked for different types of risks yet were all placed in a high risk category. If a client doesn't understand what is being suggested and is paying for advice then I believe the advisor has an obligation to explain to ensure that their clients do understand

I have absolutely no wish to defend any so called adviser who misled clients in any way, but the adviser is necessarily dependent on a client making it clear that he/she does not understand a suggested strategy if that's the case.
Salespeople are adept at phrasing their story so that you're obliged to interrupt the patter and say, "Wait, I do not understand what you are proposing here."

I will accept that it would be best for us all to be financially educated so that we are not in a position to be taken advantage of.

Well, that's a great step forward so good for you. Hope you'll not feel daunted at the proposition of seeking out that financial education. As I've said so often, HQ, it's not as difficult as you probably imagine.

You earlier chose to disbelieve that I withdrew from the paid workforce in my 40's.
That's OK. I don't mind if you believe or not.

I would just suggest to you that you find it difficult to believe because you lack the understanding of how possible it is to make money once one has a reasonable level of base capital. It's a matter of taking advantage of the cyclical nature of markets to a large extent. e.g. in a time of high inflation when property values were going massively upward, it was hugely worthwhile to negatively gear into several properties, and in a relatively short time, double your capital investment.

You would not, however, find that so easy in today's environment.

Alternatively, if someone's understanding of making money is just what they can earn from an employer, then I can quite see how that person would find early retirement a difficult concept to comprehend.

I have no wish to place you on Ignore, Harleyquin. Feel free, however, to use the Ignore function for my posts if my contributions are so worthless to you.
I don't mind either way.

 

[bunyip]

I ask the hard question and suddenly you Bunnyip and co are all retired at 40 ummm excuse me if I suddenly feel very doubtful...again.

Doubt all you want, HQ – it makes no difference to me.
But here’s a rough outline of my story if you’re interested.
I was self employed in my own business with a substantial amount of money invested, and working sometimes 7 days and up to 80 hours a week, averaging 55 – 60 hours.
For some years my wife and I had felt that there had to be more to life than working like trojans and having limited time for family and leisure. So at 42 we cashed out our assets, moved to an area that offered a better lifestyle for our family, and put our money into passive investments that require almost no work. It turned out to be the right move for us.

People who’ve worked for wages all their lives without investing tend to have little understanding of what’s achievable if you start investing at an early age and make your money work for you.
You should read ‘The Richest Man In Babylon’ – maybe it’s too late for you to get much benefit from it, but your children or grandchildren may find it very beneficial.

 

[drmb]

You should read ‘The Richest Man In Babylon’ – maybe it’s too late for you to get much benefit from it, but your children or grandchildren may find it very beneficial.

Invest wisely with advice from experts - don’t trust the knowledge of a brickmaker about jewels or a baker about the stars (Risk Management 101)

Start your purse to fattening Regularly save a tenth of your income and as much more as you can afford it and make the savings work. Simple truth, hard to believe

Study to become wiser

Control expenditures - Budget expenses without spending more than nine-tenths of earnings.

Make your money multiply - put your savings to work earning interest.

Own your own home - don't rent.

Buy insurance (Risk Management 101)

Set concrete goals and work to achieve them -

Have compassion on those injured and or come to misfortune and help them within reasonable limits.

More or less from the Richest Man in Babylon G S Clason