Yes, he noticeably did this throughout the interview, at times suggesting he didn't hear/understand the question in order to have more time to come up with a plausible answer.He ducked and weaved and wouldn't answer the question when asked what up front fees he charged his clients.
And he continually refers to 'a black swan event' and suggests the situation could not possibly have been foreseen and that ' nobody saw what was happening'. Then later he quotes Opes Prime as an early example of what happened. These two observations contradict each other.He keeps repeating that this event was unprecedented. Rubbish....comparing this crash to 1987, the 87 crash was far more brutal with a 25% slump in one day, and an overall drop of similar magnitude to what the current crash has dealt up so far. The drop occured over about 3 months in 87, compared to 12 months this time.
it is admirable that he is using his resources to get justice for the clients,
Yes, he noticeably did this throughout the interview, at times suggesting he didn't hear/understand the question in order to have more time to come up with a plausible answer.
And he continually refers to 'a black swan event' and suggests the situation could not possibly have been foreseen and that ' nobody saw what was happening'. Then later he quotes Opes Prime as an early example of what happened. These two observations contradict each other.
It seems incomprehensible, but listening to him I could almost believe that he really doesn't understand why it all fell over, that he had developed such a total belief in his own infallibility that even as everything was coming down around him, he still believed that - barring the CBA's action - it would all have been just fine.
"FPA stands firm on Storm investigation"
"Issues not considered widespread
The collapse of Storm Financial is not widespread and the FPA does not intend to investigate any firms with similar strategies."
Kate Kachor's full story from Investor Daily is here:
http://www.investordaily.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/id/style/5686.htm/
The taking of the $2mil was interesting, it is admirable that he is using his resources to get justice for the clients, I am eager to see what the results will be.
I presume/hope you made this comment with tongue in cheek?
He was mighty cagey when asked to clarify how he's attempting to help clients....that was another one of the questions he dodged around.
I can well imagine how much effort he's putting into trying to help clients. More grandstanding from the master himself.
All is not lost with the Storm victims those who have to sell hopefully can sell at the top of the market wait a few years and buy back in once R E tanks, it a matter of trying to save as much as possible for the next 3 + yrs and waiting.
Its possible the principles of Storm became afflicted with psychological trauma, in and during the crisis period.
This can and does lead to poor decision making, paralysis of action, denial of reality, taking of hands completely off lever, etc etc.
I imagine they would be in a form of "post traumatic shock", considering the pressure they would be under.
I have seen and heard of examples of the boss "losing it", which would be especially fateful in volatile leveraged equities.
I dont seek to excuse the actions or business model of Storm, and am not a client, but maybe part of the reason things went sour, and explain why they want to re-direct blame.
Bunyip, your friend in Westpac is a very brave person to have made that statement.
Generally speaking most people think the sharemarket will make some sort of recovery by mid year. The health of the economy may lag behind (some say 12 months).
bunyip you skeptic. Can't you see that the economic recovery is going to be driven by people productively spending money that the government gives them. By giving money to people to spend without having to earn it we will build this great nation. (plus there's little doubt that putting all that insulation in everyone's roof should set us up as a world economic superpower).
Apologies I think we're straying off topic ...
What r u smoking there Glen........ u obviously don't have any property on the market now..... it already has tanked..... well upper end has.....
Upper end tanked ? (I assume you are talking Townsville ?) I guess it depends on what you define as "tanked" and "upper end". I have been looking at houses / units in the $700K price range and I see very little, if any sign of the market tanking ? I see that price in Townsville at the bottom of upper end. Maybe it's because the prices I am seeing are those the agent/owner hope they can get rather rather then a reflection of the selling price. I have seen two properties withdrawn from the market, so I take it from that the owner did not have to sell ? "Tanked" to me would be a 30% or greater reduction... 5 - 10% is just the vagaries of the market.
Asking price is no reflection of market price -
Exactly... I see no evidence (doesn't mean some people don't have anecdotal stories to tell, I just see no evidence) of tanking per se in the "upper end" locally. Like I said, I am looking at about $700K or there about which to me in Townsville is the lower edge of upper end. I do think prices in Townsville are incredibly overinflated so a pull back is reasonable from being one of the most unaffordable places in Australia it's to be hoped for and expected.(and even that is historical and not necessarily reflecting the current market).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?