Storm Financial Group

[Frank Ainslie]

What is expected in Law of those that offer services or products?

For those on this forum that still cannot distinguish between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable under the laws that govern financial transactions in this country, let me clarify the position for you. Anyone that offers goods or services must abide by the following conditions:

1. They must accept responsibility for the consequences of their activities and make every effort to ensure that their decisions, recommendations, and actions function to identify, serve, and satisfy all relevant publics: customers, organizations and society.
2. Their dealings must be honest and fair
3. They should uphold and advance the integrity, honor and dignity of their profession.
4. They must protect the rights of those they deal with.
5. They should fulfill their duties in the marketing exchange process.
6. Buyers should be able to expect that products and services are safe and fit for intended uses; that communications about offered products and services are not deceptive; that all parties intend to discharge their obligations, financial and otherwise, in good faith; and that appropriate internal methods exist for equitable adjustment and/or redress of grievances concerning purchases.
7. Sellers should be aware of how their behavior influences the behavior of others in organizational relationships.
8. They should not demand, encourage, or apply coercion to encourage unethical behavior in their relationships with others.

The Banks in the dock and Storm who will soon be in the dock did not abide by these rules. That's all that you need to consider. Anything else as the Court is always quick to point out is irrelevant. That means that the Court will not consider anything other than the facts and how they relate to this case. I know that for some this is never enough. Thankfully, we that have been duped by so-called professionals do not have to rely on your verdict but rather on a court of law that will act only on the law as it stands and not on public opinion that is for the most part misinformed.

Have a good day!

 

[bunyip]

What is expected in Law of those that offer services or products?

For those on this forum that still cannot distinguish between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable under the laws that govern financial transactions in this country, let me clarify the position for you. Anyone that offers goods or services must abide by the following conditions:

1. They must accept responsibility for the consequences of their activities and make every effort to ensure that their decisions, recommendations, and actions function to identify, serve, and satisfy all relevant publics: customers, organizations and society.
2. Their dealings must be honest and fair
3. They should uphold and advance the integrity, honor and dignity of their profession.
4. They must protect the rights of those they deal with.
5. They should fulfill their duties in the marketing exchange process.
6. Buyers should be able to expect that products and services are safe and fit for intended uses; that communications about offered products and services are not deceptive; that all parties intend to discharge their obligations, financial and otherwise, in good faith; and that appropriate internal methods exist for equitable adjustment and/or redress of grievances concerning purchases.
7. Sellers should be aware of how their behavior influences the behavior of others in organizational relationships.
8. They should not demand, encourage, or apply coercion to encourage unethical behavior in their relationships with others.

The Banks in the dock and Storm who will soon be in the dock did not abide by these rules. That's all that you need to consider. Anything else as the Court is always quick to point out is irrelevant. That means that the Court will not consider anything other than the facts and how they relate to this case. I know that for some this is never enough. Thankfully, we that have been duped by so-called professionals do not have to rely on your verdict but rather on a court of law that will act only on the law as it stands and not on public opinion that is for the most part misinformed.

Have a good day!

LOL.....another of your rants eh Frank – although thankfully a shorter version than usual this time.

You say you don’t have to rely on our verdict. So tell us Frank.....what exactly is ‘our verdict’ that you speak of?
That the banks did nothing wrong? I’ve haven’t said that, and I can’t think of anyone else who has either. I haven’t even implied it. And I certainly don’t think it.
That Storm did nothing wrong? I haven’t said that either, and I don’t know of anyone else who has.
That Storm investors are entitled to no compensation whatsoever? That's another thing I haven't said.

You have this demented view that anyone who doesn’t agree with 100% of your opinions must somehow disagree with you entirely.

Thankfully the court doesn’t have to rely on your verdict either, Frank. The outcome will depend in no small measure upon how strongly the lawyers for each side can present their arguments and evidence.
You told this forum that your lawyers were some of the best in Australia.
That may well be the case. But the banks with their plentiful financial resources will no doubt have ensured that they too have hired some of the best lawyers in the country.

Thank you Frank, for your nice wishes to ‘have a good day’. I always have a good day, Frank. In fact I'd be pretty confident that my days are much nicer than yours are. I rise at dawn for a two hour walk in a quiet country area before breakfast, I have a nice leisurely breakfast with my wife out on the deck overlooking our large garden as we throw bits of food to the magpies. Then I come inside and download my currency data, and catch up with whatever interests me on ASF. My office window overlooks our acreage property where I can see the cattle grazing in our back paddock and listen to the magpies chorusing in the garden. We go camping and fishing and bushwalking, we eat out at our favorite haunt in town whenever the mood takes us, and we regularly visit our grown up children, even the ones who live thousands of km away from us.
All in all Frank, I'm a pretty contented bloke. I didn’t get into this position by taking crazy risks with borrowed money on the stock market.

You have a nice day too, Frank.

 

[bunyip]

We know exactly what we are up against and are relying on our own lawyers rather than ASIC to reveal the truth. If we had left it to ASIC we would have all jumped over a cliff long ago!

You’re learning, Frank – rather slowly, but you are learning.

A few years back you trusted ASIC without reservation.....ASIC gave Storm the thumbs up, so you jumped in boots and all. After all, if ASIC was endorsing a company whose strategy was to get its clients to risk their homes by borrowing heavily to invest in the riskiest of all markets, than double gear on top of that to invest even more heavily, well heck, it had to be a sound strategy, right?

Now you know better than to trust ASIC. Well done Frank – it’s good to see you’re finally starting to think for yourself.

 

[joku]

Bunyip, if nothing else I can at least tell you without doubt that many clients still have their strings being pulled by their old Storm advisers. The directors have split off and pointed the finger at each other - each acting as the innocent ill-treated and emotionally devastated saint (despite still holding extreme wealth) to their own direct client base. They play this card to as many existing clients as will listen. They had strong bonds with these clients - many hours spent together on golf courses, parties, and for some an exotic holiday or two. These bonds aren't always easily broken especially not when what they will have them believe is a whole lot more convenient than the hard truth you and others have laid down in this thread. This is still big business don't forget. Storm was very large and only a minority have been bent for all they're worth. Many have since seen the light but a considerable fraction of a very large pool of money is still a large pool of money. There is also a large sum of money up for grabs from the banks. Where do you think this money is going to go? Fact: Ex-Storm-advisers are drooling. These guys are strong marketers with plenty of wealth and little care for those around them. They haven't the intellect to get ahead other ways or the emotional intellect to really care for the devastation they create. Despite appearances they have copped little more than a slap on the wrist from our financial systems. Not many of them got ASIC bans and those at the top who did have proved long ago that they have little if any ethical grounding - only a fool would assume such a loosely monitored ban from a largely-incompetent regulator will stop them in a world where profit and equity is mostly disguise-able through family, friends and complex and poorly documented business activities. While there is money left to be earned (maybe not the right word it is still the old Storm marketing machine - morphed and fragmented as it may be - that you are really fighting against in this thread.

 

[joku]

I should add in falsely documented business activities to that last bit too.. they have plenty of experience to draw on there :frown:

 

[Frank Ainslie]

Bunyip, if nothing else I can at least tell you without doubt that many clients still have their strings being pulled by their old Storm advisers. The directors have split off and pointed the finger at each other - each acting as the innocent ill-treated and emotionally devastated saint (despite still holding extreme wealth) to their own direct client base. They play this card to as many existing clients as will listen. They had strong bonds with these clients - many hours spent together on golf courses, parties, and for some an exotic holiday or two. These bonds aren't always easily broken especially not when what they will have them believe is a whole lot more convenient than the hard truth you and others have laid down in this thread. This is still big business don't forget. Storm was very large and only a minority have been bent for all they're worth. Many have since seen the light but a considerable fraction of a very large pool of money is still a large pool of money. There is also a large sum of money up for grabs from the banks. Where do you think this money is going to go? Fact: Ex-Storm-advisers are drooling. These guys are strong marketers with plenty of wealth and little care for those around them. They haven't the intellect to get ahead other ways or the emotional intellect to really care for the devastation they create. Despite appearances they have copped little more than a slap on the wrist from our financial systems. Not many of them got ASIC bans and those at the top who did have proved long ago that they have little if any ethical grounding - only a fool would assume such a loosely monitored ban from a largely-incompetent regulator will stop them in a world where profit and equity is mostly disguise-able through family, friends and complex and poorly documented business activities. While there is money left to be earned (maybe not the right word it is still the old Storm marketing machine - morphed and fragmented as it may be - that you are really fighting against in this thread.

Hi Joku,

Any proof of this? I'm not saying you are wrong because nothing would surprise me any more! For one, why is it that 4 years down the track the Cassimatises have still not fronted up in Court? It would have made our case and ASIC's so much easier if the duplicity of Storm had already been proven in a court of law.

Further, there has always been a groundswell of support for Storm among our ranks which I have never been able to understand. I can quite believe that only a certain number of Storm clients were shafted because we (the ones that were) have never really had the numbers of protesters that one would have expected from such a financial fall-out!

Some proof would be good though! Without it, this is all merely supposition!

 

[Frank Ainslie]

You’re learning, Frank – rather slowly, but you are learning.

A few years back you trusted ASIC without reservation.....ASIC gave Storm the thumbs up, so you jumped in boots and all. After all, if ASIC was endorsing a company whose strategy was to get its clients to risk their homes by borrowing heavily to invest in the riskiest of all markets, than double gear on top of that to invest even more heavily, well heck, it had to be a sound strategy, right?

Now you know better than to trust ASIC. Well done Frank – it’s good to see you’re finally starting to think for yourself.

Hi Bunyip,

I was reminded of you yesterday when our neighbour dropped in for a quick natter. She is a long time friend of Helen's dating back from when they all lived in Morwell, Victoria. She, like you, believes that we shouldn't be entitled to get any money back because others lost money in the GFC through investing and they can't get theirs back! Needless to say, she and her husband numbered among those that lost money when the GFC hit! It should be added that they could have pulled out when the market was falling but decided to stay in and left it all too late.

I started to defend our position but then realized that this was an exercise in futility because she wasn't ready to listen. Much like a few on this forum that already have decided for themselves and nothing is going to shift them! That's okay though because they are welcome to their views as are we.

The thing is this! Human nature being what it is, we are more likely to fight if the cause we have taken up affects us personally. For instance, we all know that there is much wrong existing in our society but until we are affected personally by it, we remain complacent. There are a few among us that will get involved anyway but they are like diamonds.

We that have suffered at the hands of the banks and Storm know the truth of it because we have experienced this firsthand. People like you that air your views constantly haven't been there, done that! Therefore, whatever you or people like you have to say doesn't really affect us because we know what happened whilst you do not!

I think no less of our friend for holding such views because she is misinformed. At the same time, I do not feel the need to set her straight because I know this is a fruitless exercise. People will go on believing what they choose to believe because it makes them feel good. We will go believing what we believe because it makes us feel good! That's the way we all operate! Never the twain shall meet!

Gee! I've just had a thought! Does this mean that at long last I am starting to think for myself? I was rather under the impression that I had been doing that all along? Thanks for the tip! What are friends for!

 

[Julia]

Where is this case in the courts at the moment? I've not heard anything for a couple of weeks.

Frank, agree that we will personally fight hard for what affects us personally. Would be unnatural not to.

 

[bunyip]

Hi Bunyip,

I was reminded of you yesterday when our neighbour dropped in for a quick natter. She is a long time friend of Helen's dating back from when they all lived in Morwell, Victoria. She, like you, believes that we shouldn't be entitled to get any money back

Frank

Please quote the post where I expressed a belief that you shouldn’t be entitled to get any money back.

 

[bunyip]

Further, there has always been a groundswell of support for Storm among our ranks which I have never been able to understand. I can quite believe that only a certain number of Storm clients were shafted because we (the ones that were) have never really had the numbers of protesters that one would have expected from such a financial fall-out!

Only a certain number of Storm clients were shafted?

You all got milked to the tune of an outrageous 7% on every dollar invested.
You all got sold a highly risky strategy as conservative.
You all got abandoned when the market was crashing and you needed the help and direction that Storm committed to giving you on your ‘journey to capitalism’.

Seems to me that all Storm clients were shafted, not just some of them.

I too am amazed that some ex-Storm clients still come out in support of Storm.

 

[bunyip]

Hi Bunyip,

Gee! I've just had a thought! Does this mean that at long last I am starting to think for myself? I was rather under the impression that I had been doing that all along? Thanks for the tip! What are friends for!

Frank

If you’d been thinking for yourself all along, I mean really thinking properly, then you would never have believed it was a safe and conservative strategy to mortgage your home at age 65 to borrow and then borrow even more to invest heavily in the riskiest of all markets.

If you were really thinking for yourself then you would have realised that at age 65 and with 1.7 million dollars of net worth, the sensible thing to do would be to put your money into safe and conservative investments, then kick back and enjoy the rest of your life in peace and comfort.

 

[Mindstorm]

Hi Frank,

Just curious, in this post you said:

"there has always been a groundswell of support for Storm among our ranks which I have never been able to understand"

Can you tell me what ranks you're speaking of?

MS

Hi Joku,

Any proof of this? I'm not saying you are wrong because nothing would surprise me any more! For one, why is it that 4 years down the track the Cassimatises have still not fronted up in Court? It would have made our case and ASIC's so much easier if the duplicity of Storm had already been proven in a court of law.

Further, there has always been a groundswell of support for Storm among our ranks which I have never been able to understand. I can quite believe that only a certain number of Storm clients were shafted because we (the ones that were) have never really had the numbers of protesters that one would have expected from such a financial fall-out!

Some proof would be good though! Without it, this is all merely supposition!

 

[Mindstorm]

Hi Julia,

The trial is on a two week break, and commences again on Monday 22 October.

It will then run, hopefully, until 21 December.

Then? Who knows?

MS

Where is this case in the courts at the moment? I've not heard anything for a couple of weeks.

Frank, agree that we will personally fight hard for what affects us personally. Would be unnatural not to.

 

[Julia]

Thank you, Mindstorm.

 

[Frank Ainslie]

Hi Frank,

Just curious, in this post you said:

"there has always been a groundswell of support for Storm among our ranks which I have never been able to understand"

Can you tell me what ranks you're speaking of?

MS

I can but I won't! Suffice to say that some people that were in Storm long held the view that the Storm scheme was sound and it was entirely the fault of the banks for breaking their agreements with Storm.

Whether these people were or are still in denial (or just plain stupid) I've never been able to work out. Whether they still feel this way after all that we have learnt I have no idea either.

I know this attitude exists because I personally have encountered it over the past four years. That's what leads me to believe that not everyone in Storm was as adversely affected. Anyone that was burnt knows full well where the fault lies because we were lied to from the start by Storm.

Storm came up with the strategy and the banks supplied the means. In any partnership, when one party is no longer around, the other partner in law cops the blame. It's not exactly the best example but it will do in the circumstances.

I might add that if there were not so many of us, we would have had Buckley's chance of recovering anything and would have gone down the same path as our friend from Morwell. I guess we can therefore think ourselves lucky that Storm and the banks shafted so many!

"Never was so much owed to so many by so few?" Perhaps we ought to create a monument in Townsville with those words on it?

 

[Frank Ainslie]

Frank

If you’d been thinking for yourself all along, I mean really thinking properly, then you would never have believed it was a safe and conservative strategy to mortgage your home at age 65 to borrow and then borrow even more to invest heavily in the riskiest of all markets.

If you were really thinking for yourself then you would have realised that at age 65 and with 1.7 million dollars of net worth, the sensible thing to do would be to put your money into safe and conservative investments, then kick back and enjoy the rest of your life in peace and comfort.

Bunyip,

If you continue to view everything in black and white, you will miss the grey areas in between. Perhaps you should read "Fifty Shades of Grey"? As most women will attest, it is the grey areas that are the most interesting! Seriously though, you cannot put what happened in simple terms. You need to understand the dynamics opf any situation and the reasons why a financial disaster of this nature occurred.

You say, "the sensible thing to do would be to put your money into safe and conservative investments." People thought they were doing just that when they entrusted their money to one of the biggest financial advisory firms in this country. A financial advisory firm incidentally whose scheme was endorsed by ASIC as being exemplary in a compliance report ASIC did when that firm tried to float the company. A year or so later it went west!

Storm professed to offer a strategy that was "safe and conservative" because it was a broad market based one with safeguards in place. Why would the elderly (75% were past retirement age) invest in anything that was unsafe unless they were duped into believing it were so? Logic if nothing else tells you that these people now find themselves destitute because the people that operated this scheme, namely Storm and the Banks, used deceptive practices.

Now you are asking people to be wise after the event?

"The difference between perseverance and obstinacy is that one comes from a strong will, and the other from a strong won't." ~Henry Ward Beecher

 

[Frank Ainslie]

LOL.....another of your rants eh Frank – although thankfully a shorter version than usual this time.

You say you don’t have to rely on our verdict. So tell us Frank.....what exactly is ‘our verdict’ that you speak of?
That the banks did nothing wrong? I’ve haven’t said that, and I can’t think of anyone else who has either. I haven’t even implied it. And I certainly don’t think it.
That Storm did nothing wrong? I haven’t said that either, and I don’t know of anyone else who has.
That Storm investors are entitled to no compensation whatsoever? That's another thing I haven't said.

You have this demented view that anyone who doesn’t agree with 100% of your opinions must somehow disagree with you entirely.

Thankfully the court doesn’t have to rely on your verdict either, Frank. The outcome will depend in no small measure upon how strongly the lawyers for each side can present their arguments and evidence.
You told this forum that your lawyers were some of the best in Australia.
That may well be the case. But the banks with their plentiful financial resources will no doubt have ensured that they too have hired some of the best lawyers in the country.

Thank you Frank, for your nice wishes to ‘have a good day’. I always have a good day, Frank. In fact I'd be pretty confident that my days are much nicer than yours are. I rise at dawn for a two hour walk in a quiet country area before breakfast, I have a nice leisurely breakfast with my wife out on the deck overlooking our large garden as we throw bits of food to the magpies. Then I come inside and download my currency data, and catch up with whatever interests me on ASF. My office window overlooks our acreage property where I can see the cattle grazing in our back paddock and listen to the magpies chorusing in the garden. We go camping and fishing and bushwalking, we eat out at our favorite haunt in town whenever the mood takes us, and we regularly visit our grown up children, even the ones who live thousands of km away from us.
All in all Frank, I'm a pretty contented bloke. I didn’t get into this position by taking crazy risks with borrowed money on the stock market.

You have a nice day too, Frank.

Thanks Bunyip!

I write fiction too! I can't see anyone wasting their time on this forum if their life is so idyllic! I only post here to inform people but you post here to be controversial. Why do so unless you have an axe to grind? People that are rich have better things to do with their time. I know because I was once rich myself.

Do I believe a word you tell me? The answer is "No!" If like me, you have the guts to give us you real name so we can check some facts about you, then I will be the first to apologize. Until then, you are a faceless person that can claim anything and we have no way of knowing any different. I have nothing to hide and that is why I have given you my name. What's yours? Somehow or other, I don't think it's Palmer although you would like it to be!

 

[Solly]

I should add in falsely documented business activities to that last bit too.. they have plenty of experience to draw on there :frown:

Hi Joku,

Any proof of this? I'm not saying you are wrong because nothing would surprise me any more! For one, why is it that 4 years down the track the Cassimatises have still not fronted up in Court? It would have made our case and ASIC's so much easier if the duplicity of Storm had already been proven in a court of law.

Further, there has always been a groundswell of support for Storm among our ranks which I have never been able to understand. I can quite believe that only a certain number of Storm clients were shafted because we (the ones that were) have never really had the numbers of protesters that one would have expected from such a financial fall-out!

Some proof would be good though! Without it, this is all merely supposition!

Hi Frank,

That is an interesting statement made by joku, I suggest that it would prudent for joku to advise the appropriate authorities so that this claim can be scrutinised.

I have also observed the support for Storm and for certain individuals that you mention. It may have some basis in that foundational beliefs are challenged.

It is also interesting to note that www.cassimatis.com.au appears to now be unreachable.

S

 

[SJG1974]

It would not surprise me to know that there are still Stormers who are Cassimatis sympathisers.

I remember there seemed to be a pro Manny feeling on the SICAG website at least in the early days. Manny was obviously a very charismatic man and very persuasive...so it stands to reason there would be a selection of Stormers who agree with his banks are to blame for everything line.

I just hope he and his cronies don't get away with what they did to these people.

 

[Mindstorm]

Frank,

I'd have been happy (?) if you had just stopped at "I can but I won't".

It's my opinion that you speak for a very limited amount of people. Are these the people who you think are in denial or just plain stupid?

It serves no purpose to cast aspersions on other storm clients, and I guess that says more about you than it does about them.

As for your Churchill quote....

Get a grip Frank.

We lost money, it can't be compared to loss of life.

MS

I can but I won't! Suffice to say that some people that were in Storm long held the view that the Storm scheme was sound and it was entirely the fault of the banks for breaking their agreements with Storm.

Whether these people were or are still in denial (or just plain stupid) I've never been able to work out. Whether they still feel this way after all that we have learnt I have no idea either.

I know this attitude exists because I personally have encountered it over the past four years. That's what leads me to believe that not everyone in Storm was as adversely affected. Anyone that was burnt knows full well where the fault lies because we were lied to from the start by Storm.

Storm came up with the strategy and the banks supplied the means. In any partnership, when one party is no longer around, the other partner in law cops the blame. It's not exactly the best example but it will do in the circumstances.

I might add that if there were not so many of us, we would have had Buckley's chance of recovering anything and would have gone down the same path as our friend from Morwell. I guess we can therefore think ourselves lucky that Storm and the banks shafted so many!

"Never was so much owed to so many by so few?" Perhaps we ought to create a monument in Townsville with those words on it?