Storm Financial Group

[Lone Wolf]

Now you are saying that somehow we should trust others in the industry to act differently!

IT DOESN”T WORK IF THE PEOPLE GIVING YOU FINANCIAL ADVICE ARE LYING THROUGH THEIR BACK TEETH!

Hi Frank. I have no idea what you're talking about above. I've been stressing the importance of understanding the strategy for yourself, yet you keep talking about trusting someone else to accurately explain the risk to you. Either you have me confused with someone else, have completely misunderstood what I've said, or you simply haven't read what I've written. You also frequently put words in my mouth that I strongly disagree with. The only way for me to stop being misrepresented by you is to stop talking to you.

Good bye Frank. It's a shame that we couldn't reach a mutual understanding even if we were never going to reach an agreement.

 

[Judd]

This whole Asic/CBA deal reeks of another underhanded "back door"deal similar to the Slater & Gordan deal where the only one's who received a fair payout were Slater & Gordan.

Waiting to find out how much Asic received towards their legal bills???

Depends on how much the Federal Government, ie the taxpayer, funds the coffers of ASIC through the budgetary appropriations process.

 

[Julia]

Hi Julia,

I hope I've done the 'quote' thing correctly.

Perfectly.

Link to ASIC Media Release, and their Q&As regarding the agreement that they've reached with CBA:


https://storm.asic.gov.au/storm/sto...d CBA Storm Financial Settlement?opendocument


Sorry, I'm not very 'computer literate', so you may have to copy and paste to your browser to read what's available to all if they visit the ASIC website.

Many thanks, Mindstorm. The links worked well.

I can't say how anyone else will comprehend these documents, but it's my understanding that it's not only CBA margin loan clients who will 'benefit' from this agreement.

I've only scanned through them quickly but got the same impression. This is different from what Mr Levitt described.
The documents seem pretty complex. It's not difficult to imagine at least some weary Storm investors will accept the settlement without question, particularly as it's clearly a done deal and no amount of protest will make any difference.

 

[Julia]

Hi Frank. I have no idea what you're talking about above. I've been stressing the importance of understanding the strategy for yourself, yet you keep talking about trusting someone else to accurately explain the risk to you. Either you have me confused with someone else, have completely misunderstood what I've said, or you simply haven't read what I've written. You also frequently put words in my mouth that I strongly disagree with. The only way for me to stop being misrepresented by you is to stop talking to you.

Good bye Frank. It's a shame that we couldn't reach a mutual understanding even if we were never going to reach an agreement.

Despite your valiant attempts to be rational and more than civil in your remarks, you have reached the same conclusion many of us have.
Your posts were nonetheless appreciated for their sensible contribution to the thread.

 

[bunyip]

During my business life I was involved in endless strategies where clients were concerned. We moved everything from personal effects to massive generators (60 tonnes and more) to and fro around the world. Among my many positions, I was the General Manager for the Brambles Steamship Joint Venture in PNG. Therefore, I was also involved in strategies to generate and promote business. There were many who invested in Storm that had similar backgrounds so for people to try and group us as financially inept have missed the point completely.

What you or anyone else did in their business life is completely irrelevant to a discussion on how or why you were cleaned out in the Storm debacle.
In your career you may well have been as adept as you keep telling us.
But when Storm presented you with a highly risky strategy, you were grossly inept in not considering past stock market performance as a guide to the potential for disaster if you went ahead and mortgaged your home and borrowed to the hilt, then double geared on top of that, to invest in the market.
All it was going to take to put you in serious financial difficulty was one decent market plunge in combination with the loss-magnifying effect of heavy gearing.
You would have seen this very clearly if you were as financially adept and astute and circumspect as you would have this forum believe.
And don't waste any more of your time or mine by raving on about what Storm told you about their safety triggers or any other aspect of their model. You weren't investing in Storm, you were investing in the stock market, therefore you should have been using the stock market as your main source of information. A quick investigation of past market slumps would have enabled you to see that Storm was misleading you by claiming their strategy was safe and conservative. That fact alone would have given you sufficient reason to walk away.
It almost beggars belief that someone who was considering investing a couple of million dollars in the market would not even bother to thoroughly investigate past market performance, for the purpose of getting some idea of how future market performance may effect his investment.

 

[maccka]

It almost beggars belief that

What beggars belief is that there are STILL people who cannot see that this matter is not a simple one.

What beggars belief is that there are STILL people who refuse to see that there is enough smoke to cause people to need to go to a court to see where the fire actually started and have a high level court work out what actually happened and whether it was/is legal or not.

What beggars belief is that the bullying and carrying on that we see on this forum is worse than any school yard carry on. Just like in the school yard, it goes in cycles. It has been relatively quiet of late and now it is ramping up again. It is worse because at least in a school yard the students concerned are not adults and are full of raging hormones that make their brains behave in an irrational fashion. Honestly, sometimes you remind me of the scene in Harry Potter 5 where Dudley and his pack attempt to verbally attack Harry in the playground. You are all theoretically adults ... theoretically sensible, intelligent adults. Please behave like sensible, intelligent adults.

This is in court. It is not simple. People have been harmed. It actually has nothing to do with many of you. A number of the people who participate in this particular thread of the ASF have no personal involvement at all and have very little factual knowledge (although they have LOTS of opinion) about what happened. Perhaps it might be wise for you to stop attacking (either overtly or covertly) people who have different views to you at least until a decision has been made by people who are far more qualified than most of the people on this forum.

Thank you
Maccka

And for the record, before you jump on me, Julia, I am aware that I have not quoted strictly correctly. I have done so deliberately as I was trying to distance my comments from the person from whom I was 'borrowing' their written turn of phrase. I did not want to appear to be attacking that poster as that is not my intention. I was simply trying to use their turn of phrase as a lead to my own post.

 

[Ijustnewit]

Agree here Maccka , certainly "the wheels on the bus go round and round and round ......"
As in life and forums there will always be differing opinions . Can be healthy , can be unhealthy . What's important is not to eat too much of it and not put to much on others plates so they can feed off the leftovers.
Like Frank and yourself and myself and others we are living through this as a very real experience , a little different to standing on the sidelines and yelling out " you should have passed the ball !!" .

"Facts do not cease to exist because they ignored. "
Aldous Huxley

Take care my Friend

 

[Julia]

What beggars belief is that there are STILL people who cannot see that this matter is not a simple one.

What beggars belief is that there are STILL people who refuse to see that there is enough smoke to cause people to need to go to a court to see where the fire actually started and have a high level court work out what actually happened and whether it was/is legal or not.

What beggars belief is that the bullying and carrying on that we see on this forum is worse than any school yard carry on. Just like in the school yard, it goes in cycles. It has been relatively quiet of late and now it is ramping up again. It is worse because at least in a school yard the students concerned are not adults and are full of raging hormones that make their brains behave in an irrational fashion. Honestly, sometimes you remind me of the scene in Harry Potter 5 where Dudley and his pack attempt to verbally attack Harry in the playground. You are all theoretically adults ... theoretically sensible, intelligent adults. Please behave like sensible, intelligent adults.

This is in court. It is not simple. People have been harmed. It actually has nothing to do with many of you. A number of the people who participate in this particular thread of the ASF have no personal involvement at all and have very little factual knowledge (although they have LOTS of opinion) about what happened. Perhaps it might be wise for you to stop attacking (either overtly or covertly) people who have different views to you at least until a decision has been made by people who are far more qualified than most of the people on this forum.

Thank you
Maccka

And for the record, before you jump on me, Julia, I am aware that I have not quoted strictly correctly. I have done so deliberately as I was trying to distance my comments from the person from whom I was 'borrowing' their written turn of phrase. I did not want to appear to be attacking that poster as that is not my intention. I was simply trying to use their turn of phrase as a lead to my own post.

I have no interest in jumping on you or anyone else, Maccka.

You make a very reasonable point. It's quite true that many of us who comment on this miserable mess have no personal involvement. That is surely to be expected when one posts on a public forum designed to garner opinions widely on markets, money, investments, Super et al.

When Storm investors make various allegations on such a public forum, it's surely reasonable that any other member who disagrees should be free to say so.
Presumably there must be other avenues for Storm investors to collectively say whatever they wish, i.e. support groups, where disagreement is less likely to occur, as that seems to be what you are objecting to.

I'd be the first to agree that the Storm situation is complex. Throughout now three years of discussion I still have no idea who filled in the details of the loan applications. It is not clear whether Storm investors know and are not saying, or they do not know either.

I do genuinely feel for the financial and emotional distress of anyone personally affected by this fiasco.
Many people have been good enough to tell us of their involvement and how they have been affected.

It can, however, be frustrating and irritating to see the same absurd claims (that double gearing into a volatile share market was conservative strategy) aired over and over again. If someone does this on a public forum relating to investments I don't know why you would not expect others to contradict such an unreasonable assertion.

I gather there is now a delay to the start of the court case as a result of the ASIC/CBA agreement.
Hopefully it will not be for too long. My sympathy to all the Storm clients further frustrated by this.
The sooner the whole mess is concluded, the better.

 

[DocK]

What beggars belief is that there are STILL people who cannot see that this matter is not a simple one.

What beggars belief is that there are STILL people who refuse to see that there is enough smoke to cause people to need to go to a court to see where the fire actually started and have a high level court work out what actually happened and whether it was/is legal or not.

What beggars belief is that the bullying and carrying on that we see on this forum is worse than any school yard carry on. Just like in the school yard, it goes in cycles. It has been relatively quiet of late and now it is ramping up again. It is worse because at least in a school yard the students concerned are not adults and are full of raging hormones that make their brains behave in an irrational fashion. Honestly, sometimes you remind me of the scene in Harry Potter 5 where Dudley and his pack attempt to verbally attack Harry in the playground. You are all theoretically adults ... theoretically sensible, intelligent adults. Please behave like sensible, intelligent adults.

This is in court. It is not simple. People have been harmed. It actually has nothing to do with many of you. A number of the people who participate in this particular thread of the ASF have no personal involvement at all and have very little factual knowledge (although they have LOTS of opinion) about what happened. Perhaps it might be wise for you to stop attacking (either overtly or covertly) people who have different views to you at least until a decision has been made by people who are far more qualified than most of the people on this forum.

Thank you
Maccka

And for the record, before you jump on me, Julia, I am aware that I have not quoted strictly correctly. I have done so deliberately as I was trying to distance my comments from the person from whom I was 'borrowing' their written turn of phrase. I did not want to appear to be attacking that poster as that is not my intention. I was simply trying to use their turn of phrase as a lead to my own post.

Agree here Maccka , certainly "the wheels on the bus go round and round and round ......"
As in life and forums there will always be differing opinions . Can be healthy , can be unhealthy . What's important is not to eat too much of it and not put to much on others plates so they can feed off the leftovers.
Like Frank and yourself and myself and others we are living through this as a very real experience , a little different to standing on the sidelines and yelling out " you should have passed the ball !!" .

"Facts do not cease to exist because they ignored. "
Aldous Huxley

Take care my Friend

It is for reasons such as those you outline above that I very rarely post on this thread anymore. It's largely a waste of time conversing with someone whose ears are firmly shut and mind firmly closed. I do want to thank you though as I just won a little bet on both the content and author of the anticipated response - I just knew Julia wouldn't let me down

 

[doobsy]

I am interested to see what opinions people have here.

Just spoke to an ex storm client we occasionally do some strategy work for. I asked who their margin loan was through in light of the recent CBA scheme announcement.

They borrowed against the home from NAB as it was where there mortgage was (Yes, the investment loan was on top to take them back to 80% borrowing against the house) and the margin loan was through St George as it was offering a good interest rate at the time.

Now those are 2 names of financial institutions that rarely get mentioned in this forum. Maybe NAB weren't competitive on the home loans and they are the first I have seen to use St George through the Storm strategy.

They have been just as devastated as the rest.

They will NOT however have any chance of a UMIS decision or out of court settlement as the 2 financiers involved are to all apparent views "innocent" of most of the claims against some of the others.

They got their margin call processed in a timely fashion but I fear will be in a far worse position at the end of this than those through CBA, Macquarie, BOQ based on assumption of who will cut deals with ASIC and will probably receive some compensation.

My question to the whole forum (for and against the banks paying out) is: Is it fair that these Storm clients end up worse off simply because their adviser chose different banks?

 

[bunyip]

What beggars belief is that there are STILL people who cannot see that this matter is not a simple one.

What beggars belief is that there are STILL people who refuse to see that there is enough smoke to cause people to need to go to a court to see where the fire actually started and have a high level court work out what actually happened and whether it was/is legal or not.

What beggars belief is that the bullying and carrying on that we see on this forum is worse than any school yard carry on. Just like in the school yard, it goes in cycles. It has been relatively quiet of late and now it is ramping up again. It is worse because at least in a school yard the students concerned are not adults and are full of raging hormones that make their brains behave in an irrational fashion. Honestly, sometimes you remind me of the scene in Harry Potter 5 where Dudley and his pack attempt to verbally attack Harry in the playground. You are all theoretically adults ... theoretically sensible, intelligent adults. Please behave like sensible, intelligent adults.

This is in court. It is not simple. People have been harmed. It actually has nothing to do with many of you. A number of the people who participate in this particular thread of the ASF have no personal involvement at all and have very little factual knowledge (although they have LOTS of opinion) about what happened. Perhaps it might be wise for you to stop attacking (either overtly or covertly) people who have different views to you at least until a decision has been made by people who are far more qualified than most of the people on this forum.

Thank you
Maccka

And for the record, before you jump on me, Julia, I am aware that I have not quoted strictly correctly. I have done so deliberately as I was trying to distance my comments from the person from whom I was 'borrowing' their written turn of phrase. I did not want to appear to be attacking that poster as that is not my intention. I was simply trying to use their turn of phrase as a lead to my own post.

Macca

You have a history of being very one-sided in your views about who is bullying whom.
If you go through Franks posts, both recent and not so recent, you’ll see that on many occasions he’s resorted to name-calling, ridicule, derogatory comments, sarcastic remarks, personal abuse, and open hostility towards various people who have disagreed with his views.
In the last week or so, for example, he stated that people were ‘up themselves’ if they thought they could have seen the pitfalls in the Storm strategy.
If you’re so concerned about bullying, you would have rebuked Frank for the many times he’s resorted to behavior that’s disrespectful of other forum members and is clearly in breach of forum rules.

Furthermore, you seem to hold the rather queer view that people are being bullies by responding to allegations which are not supported by any reasonable argument or logic. The same tired old statements are repeated over and over again by Storm victims, and the recurring theme is ‘I’m not responsible for my decisions and actions – it’s all someone else’s fault’.
And yet you seem to think that people are unreasonable and are resorting to bullying by voicing their disagreement with those statements.

On a different note, I’m perplexed by your statement ‘What beggars belief is that there are STILL people who cannot see that this matter is not a simple one.’
I’d like to know who you’re referring to in making that statement? Nobody that I’m aware of has stated that the Storm matter overall is a simple one. Perhaps you’ve misunderstood what we’ve been saying in relation to simplicity.
We’ve stated quite correctly that the Storm strategy was very simple.....mortgage homes, borrow to the hilt to buy index funds, use double gearing to raise further loans to invest in index funds. Further down the track as assets increase in value, use this additional value as collateral to raise even more loans to invest further in index funds. Never sell out, never reduce debt, hang in there for the long haul.
There is NOTHING complex in this strategy – it’s just about as simple as it gets.
What we’ve also said is that it was a simple matter to do some basic research to uncover the huge risk in the strategy.......a small amount of time spent looking into past stock market slumps, and a bit more time spent investigating the pros and cons of margin loans, would have provided investors with all the info needed to spot the danger is Storm’s proposal.

However, the Storm strategy itself, and the research that would have uncovered the risk, are just two aspects (albeit very simple ones) of the overall Storm matter. Obviously that are many other aspects to the Storm business, some of which are clearly quite complex and need to be sorted out in a court of law. I don’t claim to know what these other aspects are. But I do know with absolute certainty that Storm had a simple strategy, and finding the risk in the strategy was a simple matter for anyone who put a small amount of effort into looking for it.

Macca, I understand that you are not a Storm victim, but your family is. You’re in a unique position to help future investors avoid what happened to Storm investors, by explaining the traps that ensnared your family, and how those traps can, with the benefit of hindsight, be avoided from here on. And yet we hear nothing at all from you in this regard. Not only do you seem to have little interest in helping people to avoid the next Storm that comes along, but you appear intent on rebuking those of us who do.
I think you need a change in attitude – your actions would be far more commendable if you tried to help people instead of selectively accusing a small number of people of being bullies because they express their views and challenge some peoples’ attitudes and beliefs.

 

[Solly]

bunyip,

I wish to put this proposition to you.

If you found yourself in a situation where your deliberate actions put you in a position that caused direct harm to you, would you seek a remedy ?

I understand if do choose not to respond.

S

 

[Julia]

It is for reasons such as those you outline above that I very rarely post on this thread anymore. It's largely a waste of time conversing with someone whose ears are firmly shut and mind firmly closed. I do want to thank you though as I just won a little bet on both the content and author of the anticipated response - I just knew Julia wouldn't let me down

It's good to know that your happiness can be derived so easily.
Perhaps you'd care to explain exactly what in my post you take issue or disagree with.
I will, of course, understand if you find it too difficult.

 

[DocK]

It's good to know that your happiness can be derived so easily.
Perhaps you'd care to explain exactly what in my post you take issue or disagree with.
I will, of course, understand if you find it too difficult.

Nothing difficult about it - and nothing worth taking issue with either - simply entirely predictable. Upon reading Maccka's post it was pretty good odds that you'd feel the need to remind him that "this is a public forum and not a support group and if a group of us wish to repeat ourselves ad nauseum re the absurdity etc etc etc...."

Didn't say I was happy - although I will admit to being horribly smug when proven correct. Perhaps you know the feeling?

 

[bunyip]

Nothing difficult about it - and nothing worth taking issue with either - simply entirely predictable. Upon reading Maccka's post it was pretty good odds that you'd feel the need to remind him that "this is a public forum and not a support group and if a group of us wish to repeat ourselves ad nauseum re the absurdity etc etc etc...."

Didn't say I was happy - although I will admit to being horribly smug when proven correct. Perhaps you know the feeling?

And you know what, DocK....when I read Macca’s post I thought it was pretty good odds that you would respond with one of your ‘That’s why I rarely post on here any more etc etc etc’ posts.
And you didn’t disappoint me.

I’m sure there’s been many a time when you’ve anticipated some of my responses too.
So I guess we’re all predictable to some extent.

 

[bunyip]

bunyip,

I wish to put this proposition to you.

If you found yourself in a situation where your deliberate actions put you in a position that caused direct harm to you, would you seek a remedy ?

I understand if do choose not to respond.

S

Yes Solly, of course I’d seek to remedy the situation.
And as a man of honesty and integrity, my remedy would not involve blaming others and attempting to get compensation from them for MY deliberate actions that were the cause of the harm.

 

[Julia]

Didn't say I was happy - although I will admit to being horribly smug when proven correct. Perhaps you know the feeling?

Not particularly. I'm often wrong and am always prepared to admit that if someone can genuinely show me that I'm in error.
I guess I just get a bit sick of your own predictability on this thread when I know you're capable of thoughtful and intelligent commentary, such as I recently enjoyed reading in your exchange with Duckman on another thread. It was a great example of two people intelligently considering something from different points of view and was conducted with civility on both sides.

 

[Solly]

Yes Solly, of course I’d seek to remedy the situation.
And as a man of honesty and integrity, my remedy would not involve blaming others and attempting to get compensation from them for MY deliberate actions that were the cause of the harm.

bunyip, Thank you for responding.

What actions would you apply in seeking this remedy ?

S

 

[Solly]

"Storm bank offer angers woman
A FORMER Rockhampton businesswoman vows not to give up the fight to get full compensation for Storm Financial victims."

More by Kerri-Anne Mesner @ themorningbulletin.com.au

 

[Solly]

"A week of calm before Storm Financial battle in court
THE latest chapter in the long-running Storm Financial saga will not be written for at least another week while victims digest the ramifications of an 11th-hour deal by one of the accused parties."

More by Anthony Marx @ heraldsun.com.au