Storm Financial Group

[Solly]

Slater & Gordon, the world's first law firm to list publicly....profit jumps 22%

Full SMH story is here;

http://business.smh.com.au/business/slater--gordon-profit-jumps-22-20090225-8hup.html

Looks like the Storm clients are in good solid hands....

 

[Mash]

The banking industry needs a shake up.... that's why we are pushing for a parliamentary enquiry... not just for Storm clients but for those that may follow... Westpac was made to pay in the 90's for their abominations with the swiss franc debacle... now it's our turn ..."to keep the bastards honest"... FYI... loans approved before application date...WTF!!!....
FOS...Financial Ombudsman Service can only claim minimal amounts... along with ASIC another toothless tiger...and don't get me started on FPA.. Laws and regulations need to be changed... together we can force these changes... once again it may take time but I'm there for the long haul...not just for my own solution but for the good of many others!... I am no longer pessimistic..I will survive... and I will not stop when there are others who are willing to fight the Goliaths with me... We will finish strong!!!!

 

[bunyip]

as usual you are unable to comprehend what is written... I didn't say illegal.... I said wrong..... but to give you insight into the allegations may prejudice the proceedings and claims....so you will just have to watch this space....let's just say the banks and other institutions are beginning to squirm.... it will take time... but like Damian says .. we have right on our side...

You have right on your side because Damian Scattani says so?? Well he would, wouldn't he!

I wonder if the intrepid Mr Scattani bothered to mention that in business and investment there are many practices that are wrong, greedy, unscrupulous and immoral, but are nevertheless legal.

I wonder if he mentioned that court cases are very difficult to win when the practices in question are legal in the eyes of the law?

I wonder did he mention that if the banks lose the court case they'll drag it out for years with one appeal after the other.

I wonder if he mentioned that this would suit his law firm down to the ground......big dollars for them if they can represent you Stormers in a protracted dispute. Guess who pays!

If you can take on the banks and come away with a win - a win that puts money in your pockets, not just your lawyers pockets, then I'll be genuinely happy for you. Believe me, I don't like banks. But realistically I don't like your chances, no matter what Damian Scattani tells you.

 

[basilio]

Good post GG on how to straighten out the financial services industry.

Trouble is most of the players are in there to serve themselves. It would take a very "socialist, nanny " government to have the balls to put your recommendations a into place. But then, when this whole sorry mess is over,perhaps the public will demand such action. It could certainly be a policy platform for a reform government in the future.

 

[Mash]

bunyip....yes if we were told our margin loans were in fact in buffer...or even in margin call... we could have made an informed decision... but when you are not sold out until 106% or higher with negative equity and the websites don't have up to date information (unit prices 2-3 days old) and the website can not reflect that the LVR is over 100% (just not supposed to get over this level) then who in fact has created the problem.... the banks......shock horror... the PDS... basically says.. this is the rules...but we can change them to suit ourselves and screw you...They can be beaten.. and God damn it... we will at least try to stand up to them and even if we fail (which I don't believe we will)... We will try...if not for ourselves... then maybe for our kids... lay down and roll over or get up and fight... I have chosen to fight!!!!!!

 

[Mash]

Bunyip... wonder no more... Yes ... Damian has pointed out all of the pitfalls you have mentioned.... but we have at this point basically got nothing left to lose...I expect that Slater & Gordon will make a packet....they are not a gov't initiated toothless tiger.... but the fight is no longer just for the storm client but way beyond... we live in a fortunate country where those that are least able to afford it can take on the might of those such as a bank... and not fear being shot in the street... we can but try....nothing ventured nothing gained.. I'm willing to try... as will our brothers in arms...

 

[basilio]

There is a point in fighting Mash et al. If only on principle.

I wonder though if going through the courts is the best way? I feel the legal system as it stands will tie everyone up for years until your broke.

Perhaps another strategy might be public opinion. Do you think there could be an opportunity for a really hard documentary/movie based on the Storm story, the collusion of the banks and the impact this has had on the people? And by the way just opening up the idea of a such a documentary could cause some consternation with the banks. Ironically you might even make a dollar out of the movie as well as forcing some sort of settlement.

Another consideration would be attempting to lay criminal charges against the people you see as causing the problems. Again even the threat of such an action could get some results. I would open these conversations with your legal advisors. In the end you want a good result not just a protracted legal case.....

 

[bunyip]

Bunyip... wonder no more... Yes ... Damian has pointed out all of the pitfalls you have mentioned.... but we have at this point basically got nothing left to lose...I expect that Slater & Gordon will make a packet....they are not a gov't initiated toothless tiger.... but the fight is no longer just for the storm client but way beyond... we live in a fortunate country where those that are least able to afford it can take on the might of those such as a bank... and not fear being shot in the street... we can but try....nothing ventured nothing gained.. I'm willing to try... as will our brothers in arms...

OK Mash.....I hope you get a positive outcome.
As I've previously stated, I have a poor regard for banks and investment advisors.
So despite my belief that it'll be a waste of time and money, I'll be one of the first to say 'well done' if you come away with a win.

 

[Mash]

Thanks Bunyip.... we may be looking at the world through rose coloured glasses... but why not... no one would have thought only a few years ago that the US of A would have a black president.... may wonders never cease.... we have to have faith in making the world and our fantastic country a better place for all... that means all of us... together we stand.. divided we fall ....

 

[Glen48]

Didn't know where to put this but it's a story about getting fleeced:
A couple of weeks ago a friend told me that someone she
knew had their car broken into while they were at a football
game. Their car was parked on the green which was adjacent
to the football stadium and specially allotted to football
fans. Things stolen from the car included a garage door
remote control, some money and a GPS which had been
prominently mounted on the dashboard.

When the victims got home, they found that their house had
been ransacked and just about everything worth anything had
been stolen.

The thieves had used the GPS to guide them to the house.
They then used the garage remote control to open the garage
door and gain entry to the house. The thieves knew the
owners were at the football game, they knew what time the
game was scheduled to finish and so they knew how much time
they had to clean out the house. It would appear that they
had brought a truck to empty the house of its contents.
*** MOBILE PHONE ***
I never thought of this.......
This lady has now changed her habit of how she lists her
names on her mobile phone after her handbag was stolen. Her
handbag, which contained her cell phone, credit card,
wallet... Etc...was stolen.

20 minutes later when she called her hubby, from a pay
phone telling him what had happened, hubby says 'I
received your text asking about our Pin number and I've
replied a little while ago.'

When they rushed down to the bank, the bank staff told them
all the money was already withdrawn. The thief had actually
used the stolen cell phone to text 'hubby' in the
contact list and got hold of the pin number. Within 20
minutes he had withdrawn all the money from their bank
account.
*** Moral of the lesson:
Do not disclose the relationship between you and the people
in your contact list.
Avoid using names like Home, Honey, Hubby, Sweetheart, Dad,
Mom, etc....
And very importantly, when sensitive info is being asked
through texts, CONFIRM by calling back.
Also, when you're being text by friends or family to
meet them somewhere, be sure to call back to confirm that
the message came from them. If you don't reach them, be
very careful about going places to meet 'family and
friends' who text you.



Scary thought !!!

 

[bunyip]

Once upon a time home loans were made carefully to people who had to tell the truth on their applications and who the bank was going to see for the next 20 years. The new order of banking however ditched long term relationships for short term bonuses and the chickens have turned into emus which are going to bash their dunny doors down..

You seem to be suggesting that banks have no interest in long term lending relationships. I assure you they do.
Having said that, I don't doubt that some of their lending is short term bonus-based as well.
Irrespective of their lending culture, one of the main questions to be answered in a court case will be whether or not the banks did anything illegal in lending to Storm clients. A 'yes' answer is unlikely to be provable.

 

[Mash]

Glen48....Maybe you should have posted this along with all those bulk junk emails I recieve and delete..... now my turn to say ..AYK...now that's just stupid to text back details u know your partner already knows... ha ha ha... stupid...not really... just goes to show how easy it is to let your guard down and bang... you've been had

 

[Julia]

Irrespective of their lending culture, one of the main questions to be answered in a court case will be whether or not the banks did anything illegal in lending to Storm clients. A 'yes' answer is unlikely to be provable.

Which was my point a page and a half ago.

 

[Julia]

I am not a lawyer and I don't know the difference between wrong and illegal. All I know is the bank has got the money and trying to get it back from them is harder than extracting teeth !!

You may not know the difference between wrong and illegal but you can bet your life that the bank does.

Julia, The stupid ones are them who believe they can win any thing back from the banks. The lawyers are telling the wood ducks again, we will win this. LOL,LOL.

Yes, it seems that the very naivete and vulnerability which landed Storm investors in this mess via Storm's advice in the first place is alive and well, merely transferred to Slater & Gordon.

It may not be a silver bullet but the provision of a home loan to someone who could only afford the loan based on storm's projections or even a complete falsehood is the Bank's weak point.

Where I'm still confused and puzzled is where any such 'falsehood' originated?
How on earth would it be in the banks' interests to falsify figures when such manipulations would almost certainly result in a default?
(being careful not to make any allegations here) it would be much easier to believe that Storm advisers could have presented the documentation in a less than truthful fashion to the banks. Provided substantiating backup was submitted along with the application, I can't see how the banks will be liable for any such misrepresentation.

If you tried to get a loan from the Bank based on made up information it could be considered fraud, what is it called when the Bank makes up the information?

Do you have proof that the bank 'made up the information'?

 

[bunyip]

Thanks Bunyip.... we may be looking at the world through rose coloured glasses... but why not... no one would have thought only a few years ago that the US of A would have a black president.... may wonders never cease.... we have to have faith in making the world and our fantastic country a better place for all... that means all of us... together we stand.. divided we fall ....

Mash

Can you give us some insight about the basis on which Slater & Gordon will be paid to represent you?

No win no fee?

A client trust fund setup whereby you all put in a sum of money, and S & G draw from that at their discretion?

Something else?

Thanks.....just curious.

 

[Mash]

Bunyip..... you sound like a bank johnny.... You describe how a bank is supposed to act and how we all believe (or used to believe) a bank should act.... there seems to have been a shift in the way the banks are doing business....some of them... are franchisee's..some not....and the rewards for being "the highest lenders" are huge... all will be revealed...unless of course we are offered a substantial "settlement" to not reveal the real irregularities..... oooh.. what a wicked web they weave!!!
Yes, we believe they disregarded usual practice when lending to storm clients... for their own short term benefit... they will be judged one way or another for their indiscretions!
Note from previous message:
Loan approved prior to application date ..... how can this be????? go figure.....

 

[bunyip]

You may not know the difference between wrong and illegal but you can bet your life that the bank does.

How on earth would it be in the banks' interests to falsify figures when such manipulations would almost certainly result in a default?
(being careful not to make any allegations here) it would be much easier to believe that Storm advisers could have presented the documentation in a less than truthful fashion to the banks. Provided substantiating backup was submitted along with the application, I can't see how the banks will be liable for any such misrepresentation.

I'm like you, Julia......I find it difficult to believe that a bank would consider it to be in their best interests to falsify figures to get a loan for someone who is likely to default. Banks are by no means immune from taking losses from loan defaults.

As you've stated, it's more believable that a loan document may perhaps be falsified by a financial advisor applying for a loan on the clients behalf, with a view to collecting a massive upfront management fee based on a percentage of the loan amount.

I'd be very surprised if the banks didn't cover all their bases.

 

[Julia]

4. The punters themselves should be given public education on money management, saving and super, from Primary school onwards. Those who make unwise decisions need to be left to drift lower, those who prosper and invest wisely need to be rewarded.

5. Industry and employers need to be encouraged to educate every worker as to investment and saving.






gg

gg: excellent points and I agree, but with qualifications on (4) and (5) above.
There is plenty of education out there if people choose to access it.
You are financially literate, are you not? Why then can anyone else not similarly take advantage of available education?

I think there's a limit to what we can expect schools/teachers to take responsiblity for teaching individuals. Surely it's not too much to expect that we can take responsibility ourselves for becoming financially literate.

You have right on your side because Damian Scattani says so?? Well he would, wouldn't he!

I wonder if the intrepid Mr Scattani bothered to mention that in business and investment there are many practices that are wrong, greedy, unscrupulous and immoral, but are nevertheless legal.

I wonder if he mentioned that court cases are very difficult to win when the practices in question are legal in the eyes of the law?

I wonder did he mention that if the banks lose the court case they'll drag it out for years with one appeal after the other.

I wonder if he mentioned that this would suit his law firm down to the ground......big dollars for them if they can represent you Stormers in a protracted dispute. Guess who pays!

Yes. It's stuff like this that contributes to S & G's bottom line.
Extract from SMH article posted above:

Slater & Gordon said there had been an increase in fee revenue from outside Victoria to 44% of total revenue due to its geographical diversification.

The company opened new offices in Tasmania and the Melbourne western suburb of Sunshine, and acquired the personal injuries practice of Brisbane firm Carter Capner.

It said there had been a large increase in shareholder and financial service enquiries from potential clients during the half year, most notably through the Centro class action and Storm Financial and Opes Prime matters.

=basilio;402107]There is a point in fighting Mash et al. If only on principle.

I wonder though if going through the courts is the best way? I feel the legal system as it stands will tie everyone up for years until your broke.

Perhaps another strategy might be public opinion. Do you think there could be an opportunity for a really hard documentary/movie based on the Storm story, the collusion of the banks and the impact this has had on the people? And by the way just opening up the idea of a such a documentary could cause some consternation with the banks. Ironically you might even make a dollar out of the movie as well as forcing some sort of settlement.

Hasn't the 4 Corners programme already done this? It barely raised a comment as far as I know. And it was pretty sympathetic to investors.

Another consideration would be attempting to lay criminal charges against the people you see as causing the problems. Again even the threat of such an action could get some results. I would open these conversations with your legal advisors. In the end you want a good result not just a protracted legal case.....

If criminal charges were a possibility one would assume S & G will already have this under control.

Mash, your zeal is understandable and I genuinely hope it's rewarded.
I just wonder if you have considered the personal toll that years of protracted court battles will have on your stress levels, not to mention the funding of such legal activities.
I, too, would be interested in the question Bunyip has asked about how the legal action is being funded? Presumably no win, no pay? If that's the case and if that's how it remains, then indeed you have nothing to lose it would seem.

 

[bunyip]

Bunyip..... you sound like a bank johnny.... You describe how a bank is supposed to act and how we all believe (or used to believe) a bank should act.... there seems to have been a shift in the way the banks are doing business....some of them... are franchisee's..some not....and the rewards for being "the highest lenders" are huge... all will be revealed...unless of course we are offered a substantial "settlement" to not reveal the real irregularities..... oooh.. what a wicked web they weave!!!
Yes, we believe they disregarded usual practice when lending to storm clients... for their own short term benefit... they will be judged one way or another for their indiscretions!
Note from previous message:
Loan approved prior to application date ..... how can this be????? go figure.....

Well Mash - I assure you that I'm not and never have been a bank Johnny, nor have I worked in the financial industry. But I do have some knowledge of bank lending policies through loans I've taken out for investment in property and shares.

 

[Steve Borden]

Do you have proof that the bank 'made up the information'?

From the instances I have seen over many years it is difficult to draw any other conclusion. Income figures are clearly made up when they have no basis in fact, and no they were not low doc loans.

For example when the figures provided by the client to storm and then to the Bank are not the same as those that appear on the application but a self-funded retiree nevertheless meets the required commitment level.

Or when the income amounts are based on a lender using projected income from an investment portfolio but neglecting to factor in the margin loan expense.

Or even using a projected income that includes income and growth to service the loans but not factoring in either redemption of the investment or an increasing margin loan.

As to evidence, the lack of substantiation of the figures used will be sufficient. The onus will be on the Bank to prove their figures were correct.

What's in it for the Bank, market share and profit, what's in it for the Banker, bonuses and promotion. In the latter instance hopefully by the time it hits the fan you have moved on and it's a problem for the guy that replaced you.

Of course there was no thought to it going wrong to the extent it did so as long as the Bank got its money back that's all that ever really matters.

The Banks never really had a relationship with the client, it was simply transactional from their perspective, the relationship was run by storm and the Bank's were not 'allowed' to cross-sell to these clients. There was also a lingering view that when the next increase was being sought the deal would be churned to the Bank with the best offer. So to keep up your numbers you needed to do every deal you could to keep storm happy.