This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Storm Financial Group

Jump to new

No - my understanding is you obviously have to meet the "member" status. That is investment into Storm indexed fund FUNDED by Macq Margin Loan between 2005-08

The people who funded the action will receive more than those who did not but are still eligible under the "member status"
 
The post below in blue is post 5770 on page 289, by Frank.
I've had to do a copy and paste to reproduce this post, because the qote tags won't work for me.


Just had a quick look to see if anything has changed! In general, sentiment still seems about the same.

I’m afraid no one on this site that may be working in the financial sector as a financial adviser or in some other capacity quite realizes the impact the collapse of Storm Financial has had, and will continue to have on his or her industry. One of the issues that financial advisers now have to deal with is “trust” or rather, lack of it.

All we hear about on this forum are the foibles of Storm and the foolishness of the people that used that firm to invest. Whilst this may instil in some the feeling that they cannot be blamed for what a rogue financial advisory firm did, I’m afraid that is what ordinary Australians will think. It’s called being guilty by association.

So, I believe, it will be the financial advisers and those within the investment markets that will be feeling the pinch in the foreseeable future, not us. After all, our fate will be decided in a court of law, not on this site so we are not really concerned by what you say or think. You, however, should be concerned though by what we think because that word-of-mouth business that once existed will dry up if it hasn’t already done so. We are many mouths and our generation has children and grand-children that will preach our mantra, “They cannot be trusted!”

You may level abuse on us for now but it’s going to come back to bite you. The Storm collapse will leave a smell for years and rightfully so. No matter how you dress it up, qualified financial advisers that were FPA approved gave Storm investors bad financial advice full-stop! The professional indemnity insurance was a chimera, the compliance regulations were inadequate, systems were non-existent, and our trust was met with lies and subterfuge. Yet, you have endeavoured to shift some of the blame to the Storm investors. No doubt, you think that by so doing people will think this was a one off aberration, and the public will not condemn the financial sector in general for what occurred with Storm.

Good luck if you believe that because many would-be investors will be now looking elsewhere rather than using financial advisers. Once people out there (some of them could be potential investors) have assessed the evidence, for themselves they are just going to be too wary of being burnt like us. After all, they are going to ask themselves, “What guarantees are there that this won’t happen again?”

I believe that anyone on this forum that is connected with the financial sector would be far better off concentrating on how they are going to win back some “minds and hearts”, rather than mocking us at every opportunity. This type of ploy will just alienate us further! Remember that we, the victims of Storm and the Banks, number in the thousands, and that’s a very wide sphere of influence

The Storm affair has already generated a lot of bad publicity to date about financial advisers in general, not just Storm, and there will certainly be a lot more before all this has finished. Every single piece of bad publicity will be just another nail in your coffin so it’s time you started seeing the bigger picture.

One of the many things that Storm investors were led to believe was that Storm had adequate 'professional indemnity insurance'. If people on this forum want to have a constructive debate with a view to winning back some of that lost trust, I am quite willing to start with what I consider to be one of the key features that might, if the industry now gets it right, enable financial advisers to reassure their would-be investors that their investments are safe- not from market downturns but rather from shonky financial advisers. If you cannot convince them that you have this under control, and you have safeguards in place to protect their assets from crooks, you won’t have a business because you won’t have any clients left. You’ll then be the ones looking for work, not us.

Doobsy

I came across the above post from Frank - the stronger points of which I've underlined.

Given Frank's dire warnings to the financial planning sector, I thought maybe you could give us an overview of the state of the financial planning industry these days.
Any sign that Frank’s dire prophesies for financial planners are coming true? Or is it business as usual in your industry?

I recently bumped into a financial planner at a traders meeting, and asked him how business was these days. He told me that since the GFC took hold he’s had more people than ever before seeking investment and planning advice to better utilize their income and assets.
He's just one plannner though, and may not necessarily be representative of the industry as a whole.
 
Bunyip

I can't speak for the industry but we are busier than ever. I see this as a result of a number of factors:

  1. Governments changing rules and creating confusion
  2. Cash rates providing inadequate returns
  3. Herd mentality coming forward as markets improved over the past 12 months

There is always a run of business as a new group of people retire or get close to retiring. Let me stress something - 90% of our business is referred by business partners - mostly accountants. They do not send them over unless they need advice.

Storm had a hit rate of 3/10 (7/10 walked away is thrown around alot on this forum). Since the crisis I would say our hit rate is closer to 80%. We don't get the tyre kickers.

The last couple of years have been tough with markets underperforming but we grew our client numbers and our revenue. The last 4 months we have written more businss than we did in the previous 12 months so this year looks good.

Plenty of "older" advisers stuck in the old school ways and processes might be struggling a bit but we are pretty happy with where we are at.

I think any adviser who has focussed on their advice and service rather than "return" would be very comfortable and their clients happy they have a plan to achieve their goals.

Can I also add that good luck to those who can do it themselves and watch out those who can't but try to. Most clients that handle their own affairs lose money because they don't have an outside party who is clear minded about when to buy and sell and because they can't keep up with the rules and so miss great opportunities to use strategy to maximise how their assets are working. Advisers that rely on money invested to generate a fee have a vested interest to keep it invested. There should always be a "relationship" fee which covers the strategic and technical advice no matter what is invested. If there is also a fee based on monies managed then that is fine also but it should not be the only source of income as it creates conflict.
 

Thanks Doobsy for your insights – that pretty much ties in with what I was told by the planner I bumped into recently.

It would have been a shame if Frank’s prophesies had come true, and financial planners were treated like the plague because of one bad apple called Storm Financial. I’m pleased that hasn’t happened.
 
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...lio-crash-likely/story-e6freoof-1226633409728

 
Julia said:
Court approves settlement between Storm investors and Macquarie Bank
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...t-macquarie-bank/story-e6freoof-1226634877272
Click to expand...


Judge approves $82.5 million settlement of class action by Storm Financial victims against Macquarie Bank

by: Anthony Marx

A FEDERAL Court judge in Brisbane has approved an $82.5 million settlement of a class action launched by Storm Financial victims against Macquarie Bank.
The decision by Justice John Logan, announced late today, will assist 1050 Storm clients who had taken out about $275 million worth of high-risk margin loans to invest in the doomed company, which collapsed in 2009.

Sloppy journalism here from Anthony Marx.

He makes it sound like investors sunk their money into Storm Financial, and were wiped out when that company collapsed.

In reality they invested in Index Funds through Storm Financial, but they didn’t invest in Storm Financial itself. They weren’t wiped out when or because that company collapsed. They were wiped out when and because the share market collapsed, and because their losses were magnified by their heavy gearing levels.
 
are people still talking about these guys?? aren't they in jail? they were a bonofide scam!
 
kevvo said:
are people still talking about these guys?? aren't they in jail? they were a bonofide scam!
Click to expand...
Despite the widely held view that they deserve to spend some time in the slammer, they’re not in there yet and it’s not looking very likely that they ever will be.
 
bunyip said:
Despite the widely held view that they deserve to spend some time in the slammer, they’re not in there yet and it’s not looking very likely that they ever will be.
Click to expand...

bunyip, some may hold the view that the principals as well, may in fact be victims of the banks as well.

Discuss?
 
Solly said:
bunyip, some may hold the view that the principals as well, may in fact be victims of the banks as well.

Discuss?
Click to expand...

Cassamatis would be in complete aggreement I'm sure, regardless of wheter or not he really believes it.

At one stage he was hell bent on taking legal action against the CBA - I haven't heard wheter he's proceeding or whether that plan has just fizzled out.
 

Indeed it will be interesting to see if any actions are in fact launched.

Also as ASIC are seeking a pecuniary penalty to be imposed by the courts in a civil, rather than in a criminal jurisdiction, it appears to me that there may be further scope for entertaining times ahead for observers.

I hold the view that this saga is not winding down but is now entering its next phase.

S
 
Word on the grapevine today is the court cases are in recess for two weeks due to illness .
 
Massive ASIC announcement today.

Not sure of the full implications yet and not sure I agree that they are necessarily right but could be huge for Stormies that were linked to Macquarie, BOQ.
 
My first post on this site, but the Storm thread is what I am interested in due to the fact I am a former Storm client.
I am quite surprised things are a little quiet in here considering the latest developments the last few days?
 
Skybeau said:
My first post on this site, but the Storm thread is what I am interested in due to the fact I am a former Storm client.
I am quite surprised things are a little quiet in here considering the latest developments the last few days?
Click to expand...
Well, perhaps you'd be good enough to inform us what we've missed?
 
Julia, I am not saying anyone has missed anything, I just thought there would be a little more discussion considering the link Solly has provided a few posts above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The dynamics of money and TIME: crimping cashflow for a period
Replies
3
Views
862
TiminOz
The planning of a portfolio
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
Value Collector
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
2K
sptrawler
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
5K
ducati916
Mayfair 101/Mayfair Platinum
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
Dona Ferentes
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...