Hello All,
So once again this forum is hotting up... seems to follow the action in the media arena ... things certainly seem to be hotting up there and will get hotter as the Parliamentary inquiry progresses.
As I understand it from media reports (drat can never find them when I want to quote them) there would appear to have been a number of documents that are unsigned.
Without placing the blame at the feet of anyone (especially before court cases are launched and heard)...
It would appear that in some cases, some documents were falsified by someone. It may be that only forensics will narrow down the who answer.
It would also appear that a number of the contracts between banks and clients are contracts with specific clauses making reference to the fact that the banks in question will (i) keep details on websites up to date (which they often did not) and (ii) would contact clients directly in the event of margin calls (which it appears did not happen until portfolios were in negative equity situations. Some clients still have not received any contact from their banks advising of negative equity.).
Not all documentation (eg worksheets, proprietary documents) were available to clients. I suspect that many of these documents are going to be the ones that hold the answers to many of the questions for ex-Storm clients and all of us chasing answers to the questions.
It has been noted before on this forum that SICAG are very active in communicating with members in non-public ways.
I agree with you GG. "The Bully" and AFR seem to be doing some very fine reporting. It is interesting that they are very interested in the answers being uncovered by SICAG. Those reputable papers seem to place confidence in the organisation.
A check of the whole Cassimatis disclaimer on the SICAG website shows the following (I am hoping that the attachment did stick).
It is this statement that may help forum members with their questions about why SICAG is not being publicly Anti-Cassimatis.
"...SICAG takes a neutral position until such time as the due processes have been completed. "
It goes on to say...
"SICAG has been set up to look after the interests of those who suffered losses in the wake of the dispute between Storm Financial and the CBA and Macquarie bank as to which party was responsible for managing clients margin loans. "
"It does not exist to promote the interests of Storm Financial or its founders Julie and Emmanuel Cassimatis."
It seems pretty clear to me that they are trying quite hard to let "due process" take its course before they launch against individuals.
It also appears to me that the banks have been behaving badly in recent times (and not just with SF) and don't like it when they get caught out being bad.
Why shouldn't pressure be placed on banks to own up to their bad behaviour and make restitution IF they are found to have been at fault (or to have contributed to this tragedy)?
I would like to raise my own point in this discussion about SICAG.
It exists to serve the interests of its own members, not the banks, not SF, and certainly not many of the members of this forum. It has a number of objectives which it is working towards achieving and appears to be doing so very successfully.
One of its objectives is to bring about a parliamentary inquiry. I think all on this forum can agree that this has happened and that they have succeeded in this.
Another is to connect its members in a variety of ways to offer support and comfort. The "warm fuzzy picnics" are part of this mechanism and again I can say that they are working well to reduce the misery suffered by ex-Storm clients.
The fact that all of the work of the SICAG committee is being done by volunteer ex-Storm clients who are themselves going through their own personal hell can only be a credit to their dedication to offering genuine assistance. (Yes - I support them. No - I am not a committee member or an ex-Storm client for that matter.)
May I suggest a truce between GG and Mash until such time as ALL of the relevant facts are out in the open for all to see?
late night (early morning) regards to all
Happy Mothers' Day:70:
So once again this forum is hotting up... seems to follow the action in the media arena ... things certainly seem to be hotting up there and will get hotter as the Parliamentary inquiry progresses.
As I understand it from media reports (drat can never find them when I want to quote them) there would appear to have been a number of documents that are unsigned.
Without placing the blame at the feet of anyone (especially before court cases are launched and heard)...
It would appear that in some cases, some documents were falsified by someone. It may be that only forensics will narrow down the who answer.
It would also appear that a number of the contracts between banks and clients are contracts with specific clauses making reference to the fact that the banks in question will (i) keep details on websites up to date (which they often did not) and (ii) would contact clients directly in the event of margin calls (which it appears did not happen until portfolios were in negative equity situations. Some clients still have not received any contact from their banks advising of negative equity.).
Not all documentation (eg worksheets, proprietary documents) were available to clients. I suspect that many of these documents are going to be the ones that hold the answers to many of the questions for ex-Storm clients and all of us chasing answers to the questions.
there are other ways to get information to ex storm clients not just the sicag website. you never know what bank scum likes to patrol the sicag site.
It has been noted before on this forum that SICAG are very active in communicating with members in non-public ways.
I agree with you GG. "The Bully" and AFR seem to be doing some very fine reporting. It is interesting that they are very interested in the answers being uncovered by SICAG. Those reputable papers seem to place confidence in the organisation.
A check of the whole Cassimatis disclaimer on the SICAG website shows the following (I am hoping that the attachment did stick).
It is this statement that may help forum members with their questions about why SICAG is not being publicly Anti-Cassimatis.
"...SICAG takes a neutral position until such time as the due processes have been completed. "
It goes on to say...
"SICAG has been set up to look after the interests of those who suffered losses in the wake of the dispute between Storm Financial and the CBA and Macquarie bank as to which party was responsible for managing clients margin loans. "
"It does not exist to promote the interests of Storm Financial or its founders Julie and Emmanuel Cassimatis."
It seems pretty clear to me that they are trying quite hard to let "due process" take its course before they launch against individuals.
It also appears to me that the banks have been behaving badly in recent times (and not just with SF) and don't like it when they get caught out being bad.
Why shouldn't pressure be placed on banks to own up to their bad behaviour and make restitution IF they are found to have been at fault (or to have contributed to this tragedy)?
I would like to raise my own point in this discussion about SICAG.
It exists to serve the interests of its own members, not the banks, not SF, and certainly not many of the members of this forum. It has a number of objectives which it is working towards achieving and appears to be doing so very successfully.
One of its objectives is to bring about a parliamentary inquiry. I think all on this forum can agree that this has happened and that they have succeeded in this.
Another is to connect its members in a variety of ways to offer support and comfort. The "warm fuzzy picnics" are part of this mechanism and again I can say that they are working well to reduce the misery suffered by ex-Storm clients.
The fact that all of the work of the SICAG committee is being done by volunteer ex-Storm clients who are themselves going through their own personal hell can only be a credit to their dedication to offering genuine assistance. (Yes - I support them. No - I am not a committee member or an ex-Storm client for that matter.)
May I suggest a truce between GG and Mash until such time as ALL of the relevant facts are out in the open for all to see?
late night (early morning) regards to all
Happy Mothers' Day:70:
