no , not me , stop it , not true, how do they get these ideas.
Ms Richards said Storm clients did not have to sign loan documents under Commonwealth Bank procedures.
a bit like a security guard reading the newspaper while criminal walks in and steals something - just because the security gaurd is negligent it doesn't absolve the criminal).
Ironhalo, you have provided a good summary of the Storm and SICAG models.
This, from the Courier Mail, is just a breathtaking statement imo:
This from Mr Weir confirms the aspersions cast on SICAG throughout this thread.
The other thing I will never understand is how Storm investors who were already well set up for retirement, more than adequately funded for same,
risked at least some of this with such massive borrowing to make even more
money.
It seems enough would never have been enough.
Julia you have to be bloody joking, he said that!?!
I am speechless. Well, would it be considered a conspiracy theory to state that we now know where the true allegiances lie?
It makes me sick.
Do you have a link? I'd love to read the whole article.
Mr Dalle Cort, who termed himself ''Cairns' biggest loser'' after he was left with a loss of more than $450,000, blamed the collapse on the ''product failure'' of margin loans.
''We couldn't possibly know,'' he said. ''The data coming through from the banks was bizarre.''
Cairns financial planner Jo Tuck, of Menico Tuck Parrish Financial Services, said she did not recognise the problems Mr Dalle Cort described with margin loans. ''Listening to Gus this morning, I didn't actually recognise his method of doing business,'' she said.
''We did have CGI (Colonial Geared Investments) loans, and we did have managed trusts and in November, as with a lot of planners, we were really very, very actively managing our margin loans. It's not that the product failed at the end of the day, it's that the strategy failed.''
I look forward to commentary from the following:
Big Max
Mindstorm
Specialed
Maccka
Mash
Even what Harleyquin thinks after giving SICAG a big wrap earlier on page 151.
So, what's the agenda of SICAG again?
Yes, agreed they have helped support and console etc. However, their agenda to steer the blame to the banks and away from EC & JC and the adviser's is becoming crystal clear.
Am I going to be gullible and swallow the above by David McCulloch or should I state the obvious and comment that they were just trying to ensure their future income stream and keep viable those clients of more benefit to them. I personally know of clients offered money by Storm (but never actually received it) to meet margin calls and many others who were not. It is "strange" that those offered funds had quite a bit of potential for future growth/ Storm survival if the funds had come through.
Be prepared for more heart string pulling tomorrow by Manny....such a nice, salt of the earth human being.
The sarcasm meter is ticking away again!!!
Has Mr Weir ever heard of the concept of 'justice'? Blame should be levelled at the parties responsible for causing this mess, irrespective of whether victims can receive money out of them.
If it so happens that some of the parties responsible also have the funds to make reparations ie the banks, then all the better but the principle of justice needs to be upheld, NOT the immoral act of 'let's forget about who is actually the major cause' ie Storm and it's dodgy advice.
The other thing I will never understand is how Storm investors who were already well set up for retirement, more than adequately funded for same,
risked at least some of this with such massive borrowing to make even more
money.
It seems enough would never have been enough.
From Julia's post:
That statement by Mark Weir, if true, is astounding Julia
Its all well and good for SICAG and some ex-stormers to blame the banks but this mess would never have occurred in the first place if:
* Storm had tailored financial plans to suit the individual clients stage of life, personal goals and personal risk appetite
* Storm had not participated in the misrepresentation of clients income streams or asset values and/or aggressively encouraged clients to misrepresent their income streams and asset values to the banks.
* Storm had not formed innappropriate relationships with their banking partners and arguably crossed boundaries of due process in dealing with the banks. (e.g hiring of ex-bank staff etc.).
* Storm had not encouraged the banks into providing high risk lending products to clients that they were aware were not of the calibre or sophistication to understand these products or equipped to service the debt requirements in the event of asset price collapses.
* Storm had not failed to adequately monitor clients investments and take appropriate risk mitigation measures to prevent loss of clients investments.
Storm is the biggest cause of this problem as far as I can see.
The whole ludicrously risky investment model was formulated by Storm and then aggressively pedalled as a one size fits all investment model.
There are plenty of submissions and anecdotal evidence that Storm advisors knowingly participated in or encouraged the misrepresentation of income streams. If Storm were a responsible financial advice firm they would not have allowed CBA to make these sorts of loans to their clients even if CBA were aggressively pushing the loans onto the clients. Instead in fact Storm was actively encouraging CBA to provide these products and encouraging their clients to take them up. Storm was the middle man acting irresponsibly to both parties (the clients and the banks).
Storm can't have it both ways. If they were the financial advisor then their job was to know a clients financial circumstances and thus recommend AGAINST taking out these high risk loans for people that were not at a stage of life or of the financial means or sophistication to understand them or service them.
Had Storm acted responsibly in the first place when advising and dealing with clients then the entire snowball effect of stock price collapses, banks making ill timed margin calls and the other 'big bad bank' problems that have been harped on about simply would not have occurred.
I look forward to gg's commentary on today 's developments....
"Storm blames banks for margin call fiasco"
From STUART WASHINGTON IN TOWNSVILLE for The Age.
"Storm Financial had no formal process about margin calls being made to their clients as the market fell, with former Storm staff arguing today margin calls were the sole responsibility of their margin loan providers."
http://business.theage.com.au/business/storm-blames-banks-for-margin-call-fiasco-20090902-f7wa.html
As reported today: http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2009/sep/02/aap-storm-founder-tried-to-save-customers/
"The inquiry also heard Storm Financial founder Emmanuel Cassimatis offered to take responsibility for his clients' mounting debts in a desperate attempt to save the company and its customers late last year.
David McCulloch, a former Storm executive, said Mr Cassimatis had offered to take over responsibility for the multi-million dollar debt from the bank, but would need to secure a loan to do so.
"It was probably a last throw of the dice by Storm," he said.
"(We said) 'You've got the debt on your books anyway, obviously Storm is a strong corporate entity, we will take on the debt and pay you back over two years or four years when the market eventually recovers'."
Am I going to be gullible and swallow the above by David McCulloch or should I state the obvious and comment that they were just trying to ensure their future income stream and keep viable those clients of more benefit to them. I personally know of clients offered money by Storm (but never actually received it) to meet margin calls and many others who were not. It is "strange" that those offered funds had quite a bit of potential for future growth/ Storm survival if the funds had come through.
Be prepared for more heart string pulling tomorrow by Manny....such a nice, salt of the earth human being.
The sarcasm meter is ticking away again!!!
Can any Stormer who was in that position - out of debt and with enough real estate rental income to give you a comfortable lifestyle for the rest of your days - throw any light on what possessed you to put it all at risk to attain more wealth that you didn't need?
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?