A LITTLE good news for Storm victims.

Comm Bank has agreed to compensate Storm clients to $300 mil.

It won't be much but at least an elderly widow we know will be able to stay in her house. I regret never having voiced my doubts about them to her, but it would not have made any difference. :( Storm clients were fiercely loyal, at that time.
 
It was all bound to end in tears.

My daughter is an accountant, her in-laws (in their late fifties) went to a Storm presentation on the recommendation of an accountant, and were all set to follow the usual pattern - mortgage to the hilt and entrust everything to Storm. Thankfully they showed the paperwork to my daughter and she advised against it as the figures were simply too good to be true, coupled with concern at such a huge mortgage at their stage of life.

A lucky escape - sadly not everyone had access to free, unbiased, expert advice.
Marg
 
Its not so much that the figures were to good to be true, my understanding is that at no point was risk of any sort much of a consideration.............hence the big spill that came as a major surprise to both Storm and the clients.

The various lenders in that pie learnt something that others are now having to re learn. Local approvals based only on local ("branch") information and only a branch perspective is foolhardy, not just to the lender...............

A proper arms length lending/risk process would have prevented much of the pain.

ta
rolf
 
A lucky escape - sadly not everyone had access to free, unbiased, expert advice.
A lot of Storm clients would have had good accountants. My wife did this lady's tax and she had access to the senior partners. But accountants ARE NOT financial advisors under the meaning of the act so I'm not sure they can say anything "in the office". "Privately" is quite different.

It is great that your daughter could help.
 
But accountants ARE NOT financial advisors under the meaning of the act .

I think thats legally correct.

Im not a financial adviser either...............but if a client comes to me like one last week with a hair brain scenario of using his pensioner mothers house as crossed security for a comm property purchase, with no personal hurt money in the deal.........even if I could find the finance, there is no way I would write that and sleep.

I have never been shy of walking away from something or telling my clients my opinions on the negatve side of an investment. The positive side or decision thats their business.

Often, you cant protect people from themselves though :(

tarolf
 
I can't see how the CBA or other bank should be responsible for their losses? The only ones who should be sued is the owners of Storm Financial whose company gave the advice.

Can someone who buys a property that goes down in value sue the lender for making the loan? Sets a dangerous precident.
 
Comm Bank has agreed to compensate Storm clients to $300 mil.

It won't be much but at least an elderly widow we know will be able to stay in her house. I regret never having voiced my doubts about them to her, but it would not have made any difference. :( Storm clients were fiercely loyal, at that time.
To be a bit more technical,what about the shareholders in the "Banks",they just have to bend over:rolleyes: again and again,everyone that invested in Storm thought it was going to be the next investment utopia,always was going to end in tears..willair..
 
Hiya Yo

there is more here than is being let out of the bag so to speak :)

The only reason many lost more than they ever put in is due to gearing they should NEVER EVER have had approved..............I wont go further than that.

While I agree that there is more than area of responseability, no point going Storm, they are destitue themselves.

The catalyst for the loss was the lending practices at the time.

A suitable analogy may be >? Lender loaded the magazine, Storm breached the round, and the markets pulled the trigger.............no ammo, no go

ta
rolf
 
To be a bit more technical,what about the shareholders in the "Banks",they just have to bend over:rolleyes: again and again,everyone that invested in Storm thought it was going to be the next investment utopia,always was going to end in tears..willair..

The banks broke the law (or been grossly negligent) on behalf of their shareholders. IF the banks were blameless they would be looking after their shareholders still and telling Slater and Gordon to pith off, not rolling over. One thing you can be absolutely sure of is that they have not just had a "good neighbour" moment.

If you think banks are an easy mark check out ANZ and Opes Prime. ANZ's behavour was reprehensible but they have not given an inch.
 
The banks broke the law (or been grossly negligent) on behalf of their shareholders. IF the banks were blameless they would be looking after their shareholders still and telling Slater and Gordon to pith off, not rolling over. One thing you can be absolutely sure of is that they have not just had a "good neighbour" moment.

If you think banks are an easy mark check out ANZ and Opes Prime. ANZ's behavour was reprehensible but they have not given an inch.
Must be a lot of exBank F-P's working as Taxi drivers up that way now,..willair..
 
Hiya Sun

My limited info suggests they were working on a delegated authoriy provided "the lender".

That being the case, if the only requirement is that we meet an LVR target........the individuals are just puppets.

ta
rolf
 
Top