THE signs came down at Storm Financial's office yesterday as the bank-appointed receivers and managers prepared the property for sale.
The plush Townsville headquarters of the failed national financial planning firm is one of six Storm-owned properties along the east coast that will be put to the market over the next few weeks to repay bank debts.
http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2009/03/13/44395_news.html
THE signs came down at Storm Financial's office yesterday as the bank-appointed receivers and managers prepared the property for sale.
The plush Townsville headquarters of the failed national financial planning firm is one of six Storm-owned properties along the east coast that will be put to the market over the next few weeks to repay bank debts
Unless they traded while insolvent, I doubt they did anything untoward in respect of corporation law. Ripping off gullible customers ("getting the maximum revenue out of each customer") is what all business do, from the Banks, through Storm, to Maccas and the corner store... it's a core strategy of all business. The only thing that keeps it in check is decent competition.
Storm were let down because their business model was fundamentally flawed, this is not against the law as far as I know. It's unlikely that even without a so called "black swan" event, their customers would have made money in the long term, the market tends to regress to the mean, and over swing down (and up) while they do. Storms customers needed massive leveraging (the fatal flaw) to overcome the huge fees Storm charged and Storm could not get them to switch out to cash without going bankrupt (no more fees to sustain them !).
They have as long a leash as their political masters give them. That aside, why do you think ASIC should be involved, do you have some insite not available to ASIC ?
Unless they traded while insolvent, I doubt they did anything untoward in respect of corporation law. Ripping off gullible customers ("getting the maximum revenue out of each customer") is what all business do, from the Banks, through Storm, to Maccas and the corner store... it's a core strategy of all business. The only thing that keeps it in check is decent competition.
Storm were let down because their business model was fundamentally flawed, this is not against the law as far as I know. It's unlikely that even without a so called "black swan" event, their customers would have made money in the long term, the market tends to regress to the mean, and over swing down (and up) while they do. Storms customers needed massive leveraging (the fatal flaw) to overcome the huge fees Storm charged and Storm could not get them to switch out to cash without going bankrupt (no more fees to sustain them !).
Maybe gg could make a reasonable cash offer before auction and could add this well positioned property to his portfolio and make a quite reasonable yeild psm or maybe it could become the new Head Office of Garpal Inc...... although I believe he'd have to refit the "dunnies" as I hear he has an issue with the taps and the angle of the water jets on the bidets.
The insolvency is just one issue - please remember that ASIC are also the "regulators" of the financial services industry.
And, getting back to the insolvency issue, ASIC's behaviour in relation to OPES:
Should ASIC not be working to both ends - recovery of financial losses as well as prosecuting to the fullest extent of the law?
Should we continue to allow ASIC to let these organisations get away with their actions without ANY legal redress? Just because it is "commercially sensible"?
however ASIC appear to believe that it is more expedient to let the creditors do the work.
I'm not sure whether its my glasses or not but the colour on Manny's website is fading , especially his mission statement.
gg
For you to so lightly dismiss the issue of insolvent trading
is that SF operated a model that would not have stood up to any scrutiny
(this scrutiny was beyond and not the responsibility of clients),
and that is where ASIC, as the regulator, I repeat, REGULATOR, of those with an AFS licence has utterly failed.
It became quite apparent in the early days of this mess, that SF clients were not to blame.
The number and frequency of irregularities in all aspects of the operations of all parties involved (SF, unnamed financial institutions) cannot be overlooked by ASIC.
but you find it easy to let this go and carry on, putting it down to experience, but I think that there are many people who have been failed by those in question, who would like to see the law and associated regulations enacted.
Have a look through the content on the link below, and let me know if you feel that SF, and unnamed financial institutions operated within the letter and intent of these requirements.
This is about justice,
and trusting those who are charged with protecting us.
I know that there can never by 100% prevention, and I do not want a nanny-state, however when repeated warnings go unheeded, and investigations are quit, what are we to do? There is redress Trevor – it is called Jail. It is a deterrent, a disincentive for those that go after us to repeat this kind of mistake. I hear it is even successful in some instances.
On the contrary, Trevor. Your comments above are about the best summary of the Storm situation on this thread. Drivel it is not.I am just starting to repeat myself, so hows about I leave it there, stop choking this thread and let Solly continue his good work. It is seemly actually appreciated as opposed to my drivel
On the contrary, Trevor. Your comments above are about the best summary of the Storm situation on this thread. Drivel it is not.
Anyone know anything about these guys. A few of my mates are clients. They are Townsville based . I don't use advisers.
gg
I'd agree Julia, an apt summary Trevor.
By the way it sounds as if sicag.info, the Storm folks self help group are trying to oust the Mannymen from their deliberations.
gg
Yep, agreed, I'll let this bone go.
I suppose you could argue that most of Mr. Madoff’s direct investors lacked the ability or the financial sophistication of someone like Mr. Hedges. But it shouldn’t have mattered. Isn’t the first lesson of personal finance that you should never put all your money with one person or one fund? Even if you think your money manager is “God”? Diversification has many virtues; one of them is that you won’t lose everything if one of your money managers turns out to be a crook.
“These were people with a fair amount of money, and most of them sought no professional advice,” said Bruce C. Greenwald, who teaches value investing at the Graduate School of Business at Columbia University. “It’s like trying to do your own dentistry.” Mr. Hedges said, “It is a real lesson that people cannot abdicate personal responsibility when it comes to their personal finances.”
And that’s the point. People did abdicate responsibility ”” and now, rather than face that fact, many of them are blaming the government for not, in effect, saving them from themselves. Indeed, what you discover when you talk to victims is that they harbor an anger toward the S.E.C. that is as deep or deeper than the anger they feel toward Mr. Madoff. There is a powerful sense that because the agency was asleep at the switch, they have been doubly victimized. And they want the government to do something about it.
But just as a general question to all - does anyone know if the Action Group will be helping to encourage or support submissions to the Senate Inquiry? The terms of referencce look very interesting...
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?