Storm Financial Group

[bunyip]

Its been said probably one hundred times but I will say it again. Some simple independent research by you would have uncovered the fact that this wasn’t low risk at all….and that should have been enough for you to stay away.
Like it or not Frank, you dropped the ball on that one.

Too bloody right Frank dropped the ball. In fact, in one of the few posts in which he was honest about the role he played in helping to create the mess that he now finds himself in, Frank admitted ‘To be honest, we took our eye off the ball’.

I have no doubt that Frank was an astute and capable man at some stage of his life – after all, he held responsible jobs, invested in a shopping center, and got himself into a position where he could enjoy a self-funded and deb-free retirement.
But once Frank walked into that Storm office and they dangled those dollar signs in front of his eyes, the astute and capable man became reckless and imprudent, and his capacity for clear thinking abandoned him.

[bunyip]

One more thing, Bunyip! Describing financial advisers as “commission salesmen” is an obvious attempt by you to obviate their primary function which is to give sound financial advice to their clients based on their experience and training in financial matters. Dismissing them merely as “commissioned salesmen” to suit your argument once again reflects your deviousness when commenting on such matters.

Have a look at the numerous services provided by financial planners, then ask yourself how many of those services were offered to you by Storm.
What Stom offered you instead of the usual FP services was a specialist yet very simple investment strategy of mortgaging your home and borrowing to the eyeballs to invest into the stock market.
Their 7% upfront fees structure, and their advice to borrow increasingly more money though ‘steps’ regardless of the condition of the market (7% of which was skimmed off the top to line their pockets) should have alerted you that this wasn't your usual financial planning firm offering the usual range of services, but was instead a bunch of commission salesmen with a vested interest in getting you to borrow heavily despite the risks.

A man like you who claims to have been astute and circumspect should have seen straight through it.
It almost beggars belief that someone of your experience with investment and debt could have been so pathetically naïve that you were completely incapable of seeing Storm for what they were, and further were incapable of seeing the glaringly obvious risks in the strategy.

You’re living proof of the old adage...’A fool and his money are easily parted’.

[Garpal Gumnut]

I am going to whisper this.

You are all starting to really piss me off with this conversation of the deaf. I and most posters on ASF are sick and tired of aimless posts going over and over and over these "conversations" between Stormers and Investors discussing the motivations of Storm victims, their financial intelligence and motives. I myself am a greedy bastard and admit it. Some can't. That is it. Finito. Let us move on to more substantial elements of this saga.

ps Long posts also piss me off.

If this does not deter the conversation of the deaf I shall have to get Nanny Whip to visit you all and spank your botties.

gg

[jjtebj12]

I am going to whisper this.

You are all starting to really piss me off with this conversation of the deaf. I and most posters on ASF are sick and tired of aimless posts going over and over and over these "conversations" between Stormers and Investors discussing the motivations of Storm victims, their financial intelligence and motives. I myself am a greedy bastard and admit it. Some can't. That is it. Finito. Let us move on to more substantial elements of this saga.

ps Long posts also piss me off.

If this does not deter the conversation of the deaf I shall have to get Nanny Whip to visit you all and spank your botties.

gg

Agree the conversations are boring and with no substance!

[Ijustnewit]

Agree the conversations are boring and with no substance!

+ 1

[Garpal Gumnut]

Could someone update me on the upcoming legal actions in relation to Storm.

And I do not want any bush lawyers giving me their expertise.

Just the different actions coming up, about Storm, perhaps on a timeline, e.g Investor Actions, ASIC, CBA, BOQ, Storm, Cassimatis', Failed Financial Advisers and any others , so that we can dissect the action.

gg

[bunyip]

Here’s some advice for those of you who are critical of the recent posts on here...

1. Don’t read the posts of people who annoy you.
Or better still, block their posts by using the ‘Ignore’ function mentioned by Julia. http://www.aussiestockforums.com/for...?do=ignorelist

2. Start contributing something worthwhile yourselves, instead of criticising those who make an effort to contribute to this thread.
Anyone can lurk in the background, and come out occasionally to criticise. But it takes a bit more substance to put forward your own views on the causes of the Storm debacle, and how future investors can avoid getting caught by dodgy investment schemes.
You say the posts are boring and lacking in substance. OK then, I look forward to your interesting and stimulating posts that have some substance.

[Solly]

Could someone update me on the upcoming legal actions in relation to Storm.

And I do not want any bush lawyers giving me their expertise.

Just the different actions coming up, about Storm, perhaps on a timeline, e.g Investor Actions, ASIC, CBA, BOQ, Storm, Cassimatis', Failed Financial Advisers and any others , so that we can dissect the action.

gg

Standby GG,

There's some interesting material coming in the pipeline.

Agree, Bush Lawyers are dangerous, especially when they prove their lack of grasp and go on record in the Public Domain.

S

[Frank Ainslie]

I am going to whisper this.

You are all starting to really piss me off with this conversation of the deaf. I and most posters on ASF are sick and tired of aimless posts going over and over and over these "conversations" between Stormers and Investors discussing the motivations of Storm victims, their financial intelligence and motives. I myself am a greedy bastard and admit it. Some can't. That is it. Finito. Let us move on to more substantial elements of this saga.

ps Long posts also piss me off.

If this does not deter the conversation of the deaf I shall have to get Nanny Whip to visit you all and spank your botties.

gg

Hi GG,

Nothing like a bit of flagellation in the mornings! Seriously though, I couldn't agree with you more!

For my part I am perfectly willing to move on and therefore will ignore any further postings addressed to me that are covering old ground.

There are going to be many interesting aspects of this case arising in the future, particularly when the trial starts and I, and I am sure many others, would like to focus our discussions on such rather than continually discuss what happened in the past! Such past happenings have been done to death by now anyway!

So I say, let's do just that!

[Garpal Gumnut]

Hi GG,

Nothing like a bit of flagellation in the mornings! Seriously though, I couldn't agree with you more!

For my part I am perfectly willing to move on and therefore will ignore any further postings addressed to me that are covering old ground.

There are going to be many interesting aspects of this case arising in the future, particularly when the trial starts and I, and I am sure many others, would like to focus our discussions on such rather than continually discuss what happened in the past! Such past happenings have been done to death by now anyway!

So I say, let's do just that!

You are a good bloke Frank.

Take the guilty as you find them.

gg

[Frank Ainslie]

Could someone update me on the upcoming legal actions in relation to Storm.

And I do not want any bush lawyers giving me their expertise.

Just the different actions coming up, about Storm, perhaps on a timeline, e.g Investor Actions, ASIC, CBA, BOQ, Storm, Cassimatis', Failed Financial Advisers and any others , so that we can dissect the action.

gg

Hi GG,

I'll tell you what I know!

In the last hearing, directions and orders were made by His Honour, Mr Justice Reeves, for the further conduct of the Richards -v- Macquarie Bank, the Sherwood et Ors -v- CBA and Colonial First State, and the ASIC Proceedings (namely the Levitt Robinson Class Actions, and the ASIC Proceedings), in the months leading up to 10 September, 2012, which is the scheduled trials' start date.

Apparently, there are several directions hearings, and many issues to be determined and applications to be made and heard, all prior to 10 September, 2012.

The matters next come back before His Honour on 24 May, 2012 in Sydney. All of the pending Class Action and ASIC proceedings will be listed before Justice Reeves in Sydney on that day.

The Bank of Queensland Class Action will be commencing within the week and it should be well under way in the Federal Court of Australia in Sydney by that date.

With regard to the Cassimatises, the proposed summary judgment and strike-out applications are, I believe, set down for hearing for three days, commencing 15 May 2012 at 10:15am. The proceedings are listed for any further directions on that day.

I'll keep the forum further posted as more details come to hand.

[bunyip]

Hi GG,

Nothing like a bit of flagellation in the mornings! Seriously though, I couldn't agree with you more!

For my part I am perfectly willing to move on and therefore will ignore any further postings addressed to me that are covering old ground.

LOL....Frank, this must be about the twentieth time you’ve said you’ll ignore postings and won't be responding any further, etc etc. But you always come back to fight another round!

Just a couple of points from one of your previous post that I want to comment on.......

You claimed that Storm’s strategy only became high risk when Storm failed to put in place the inbuilt safety devices that you and they agreed on, and when they failed to take the appropriate action that they should have taken.
And yet in the same post you admit that you would have lost ‘a great deal of money’ even if the trigger points that had been agreed to by you had been activated.
It’s a bit of a stretch to suggest that the strategy wasn’t high risk, despite the fact that you admit would have lost ‘a great deal of money’ even if Storm had acted precisely in accordance with your agreement.
Any strategy that could lose you ‘a great deal of money’ sure looks high risk to me.

The strategy was always risky, Frank, irrespective of what Storm did or didn’t do in relation to trigger points.
It was risky because it invested in just one market, rather than spreading the money around between different investment areas.
It was risky because it put the family home at risk at a time in life when most Stormers would have no time to recover if things went wrong.
It was risky because the market chosen for investment is volatile with a history of spectacular crashes, some of which have taken a quarter of a century for the market to recover from.
It was risky because the high level of borrowing greatly magnified losses when the market started falling.
It was risky because a bear market would destroy the strategy, and bear markets are inevitable.
It was risky because if the market had opened 20% lower than its close of the previous day (as happened in ‘87) the safety devices that were supposedly in place would have been completely useless.

[Frank Ainslie]

LOL....Frank, this must be about the twentieth time you’ve said you’ll ignore postings and won't be responding any further, etc etc. But you always come back to fight another round!

Just a couple of points from one of your previous post that I want to comment on.......

You claimed that Storm’s strategy only became high risk when Storm failed to put in place the inbuilt safety devices that you and they agreed on, and when they failed to take the appropriate action that they should have taken.
And yet in the same post you admit that you would have lost ‘a great deal of money’ even if the trigger points that had been agreed to by you had been activated.
It’s a bit of a stretch to suggest that the strategy wasn’t high risk, despite the fact that you admit would have lost ‘a great deal of money’ even if Storm had acted precisely in accordance with your agreement.
Any strategy that could lose you ‘a great deal of money’ sure looks high risk to me.

The strategy was always risky, Frank, irrespective of what Storm did or didn’t do in relation to trigger points.
It was risky because it invested in just one market, rather than spreading the money around between different investment areas.
It was risky because it put the family home at risk at a time in life when most Stormers would have no time to recover if things went wrong.
It was risky because the market chosen for investment is volatile with a history of spectacular crashes, some of which have taken a quarter of a century for the market to recover from.
It was risky because the high level of borrowing greatly magnified losses when the market started falling.
It was risky because a bear market would destroy the strategy, and bear markets are inevitable.
It was risky because if the market had opened 20% lower than its close of the previous day (as happened in ‘87) the safety devices that were supposedly in place would have been completely useless.

Please refer to GG's posting a little earlier

"You are all starting to really piss me off with this conversation of the deaf. I and most posters on ASF are sick and tired of aimless posts going over and over and over these "conversations" between Stormers and Investors discussing the motivations of Storm victims, their financial intelligence and motives."

He whispered it so perhaps you had trouble hearing him? Therefore, I am now repeating it loud and clear!

Have a good day!

[SJG1974]

Please refer to GG's posting a little earlier

"You are all starting to really piss me off with this conversation of the deaf. I and most posters on ASF are sick and tired of aimless posts going over and over and over these "conversations" between Stormers and Investors discussing the motivations of Storm victims, their financial intelligence and motives."

He whispered it so perhaps you had trouble hearing him? Therefore, I am now repeating it loud and clear!

Have a good day!

No, we wouldn't want to piss gg off now would we Frank?

He plays his flute and the mice start to follow. Interesting.

[bunyip]

Please refer to GG's posting a little earlier

"You are all starting to really piss me off with this conversation of the deaf. I and most posters on ASF are sick and tired of aimless posts going over and over and over these "conversations" between Stormers and Investors discussing the motivations of Storm victims, their financial intelligence and motives."

He whispered it so perhaps you had trouble hearing him? Therefore, I am now repeating it loud and clear!

Have a good day!

Thanks Frank – I knew you’d take another swing at me despite all your talk of ignoring me.
And I didn’t really think you’d address the points I’ve raised, even though they’re perfectly relevant to a discussion of the Storm debacle.

You have a good day too, ol’ mate.

[Frank Ainslie]

No, we wouldn't want to piss gg off now would we Frank?

He plays his flute and the mice start to follow. Interesting.

Frankly, I think you have already pissed him off and quite a few others on this forum as well by continually using the same material and pursuing the same theme.

Let's be quite frank! You are not going to change your opinion and neither am I so what's the point of you and some others "pushing your barrow" when we all know full well how you feel by now?

In Chess parlance, its called a 'stalemate'.I can live with that and so must you.

Incidentally, deafness is defined as:

1. Partially or completely lacking in the sense of hearing.
2 Of or relating to the Deaf or their culture.
3. Unwilling or refusing to listen.
4. A community of deaf people who use Sign Language as a primary means of communication.

I will not be answering any more questions that I have been asked countless times before. It would be unfair anyway because I can't do sign language and you can't read my lips.

I think GG has made it plain enough! It's his forum and he makes the rules! If you don't agree with them so be it. I'm sure there are other forums around that would be glad to hear your views on we Stormies - just not this one because we already know them, word for word, and there are far more interesting things to discuss.

I know it's frustrating for you but you'll just have to get over it. You can, of course, persist but you will only be wasting your time because THEY WILL REMAIN UNANSWERED BY ME! There, I'm shouting now because I know you and 'Bunyip' have a hearing problem.

Go and have a beer. It's really too hot (in Brisbane, that is) to get all upset and a few drops always makes the world seem a better place anyway.

[SJG1974]

In Chess parlance, its called a 'stalemate'.I can live with that and so must you.

Fair call Frank. I will go and down that beer now...maybe more than one.

[bunyip]

Frankly, I think you have already pissed him off and quite a few others on this forum as well by continually using the same material and pursuing the same theme.

I think GG has made it plain enough! It's his forum and he makes the rules! If you don't agree with them so be it.

Go and have a beer. It's really too hot (in Brisbane, that is) to get all upset and a few drops always makes the world seem a better place anyway.

Frank ol’ son.....I think most of us who are forthright in expressing our views on a public forum are always going to piss off someone. But judging by the lambasting you’ve copped from so many people on this thread, it’s pretty clear that you’ve pissed off more people than the rest of us put together.

As for 'pushing your barrow' and ‘continually using the same material and pursuing the same theme’ – I reckon you’ve done that as much as anyone has.

Just for the record, let me correct your misconceptions about GG......this is not his forum, and he does not make the rules. He started this thread, but he’s not a moderator and he's no more entitled to make the rules than you or I are.
It wasn’t so long ago that GG himself was embroiled in many a spirited exchange with a number of Stormers who thought he was a complete pain in the a*se.

Read the other threads on the forum and you’ll see many a fiery exchange. If you or anyone else can’t handle it, you can always leave.

Hope you enjoy that beer - I might even have one myself!

[Frank Ainslie]

Frank ol’ son.....I think most of us who are forthright in expressing our views on a public forum are always going to piss off someone. But judging by the lambasting you’ve copped from so many people on this thread, it’s pretty clear that you’ve pissed off more people than the rest of us put together.

As for 'pushing your barrow' and ‘continually using the same material and pursuing the same theme’ – I reckon you’ve done that as much as anyone has.

Just for the record, let me correct your misconceptions about GG......this is not his forum, and he does not make the rules. He started this thread, but he’s not a moderator and he's no more entitled to make the rules than you or I are.
It wasn’t so long ago that GG himself was embroiled in many a spirited exchange with a number of Stormers who thought he was a complete pain in the a*se.

Read the other threads on the forum and you’ll see many a fiery exchange. If you or anyone else can’t handle it, you can always leave.

Hope you enjoy that beer - I might even have one myself!

Good on you! Have one or two for me as well!

[Julia]

I think GG has made it plain enough! It's his forum and he makes the rules!

Wherever did you get that idea???
Joe Blow owns and runs the forum.

gg has no more authority here than any of the rest of us, so there's probably no really good reason to suck up to him.

He has, however, started many interesting threads, has great facility with the succinct phrase, and can be relied on to make most of us laugh during the course of any given day. If for no other reason, that makes me grateful for his frequent presence.

He also demonstrates extreme skill at playing both sides of the fence.