'Storm Financial' disaster.

From what I remember, the 50% LVR they aim for is total debt to asset ratio. This takes into account margin loan for managed funds, home loan, car loan, credit cards everything.. this required a cash reserve of a certain percent - at a guess 10-15%.

The double leveraging concept seems out of sync with what I heard.. thats not to say it didn't happen.

And it was stressed that in the event of a margin call you never sell! you top up. Is that familiar?

I definitely remember that part.
 
The whole thing is really sad, especially for oldies. I hope they take the assets of the company owners.

But everyone has to take responsibility for some stupidity. When it comes to money some people can only see the dollars and common sense goes out the window.

Why would you risk your house like that ?
 
each investor would have been provided with a very detailed Statement of Advice. This SoA would have clearly outlined the potential risks and benefits, and they would have signed an Authority to Proceed.
Hoffy,yes lets hope some did and walked out the door on the soap box night to lure all the punters in, but how many would have been able to see through all fine-print and understand it all,this company had a target age zone from my understanding, a class action against this company could take several year and millions,no one will win on this one, i pity anyone trying to sell property in this part of the cycle,under someone:rolleyes: else terms....imho..
..willair..
 
Stormified

Know lots of clients, many retired or nearing retirement who have been stormified. Statements of advice are 100+ pages and very confusing - have seen some. Clients are asked to mortgage home to 80% and then take margin loans too. For example if you owned a house valued at $400,000, investment loan would be for $320,000 and in two to three years clients also ended up with Margin loans well over half a milllion; and paying interest of over 9% (a year in advance). Clients pay for their own Storm holidays - last one to So AFrica was over $13,000. There are lots of clients in Qld and elsewhere who are in danger of losing homes and were obviously over geared.
 
Know lots of clients, many retired or nearing retirement who have been stormified. Statements of advice are 100+ pages and very confusing - have seen some. Clients are asked to mortgage home to 80% and then take margin loans too. For example if you owned a house valued at $400,000, investment loan would be for $320,000 and in two to three years clients also ended up with Margin loans well over half a milllion; and paying interest of over 9% (a year in advance). Clients pay for their own Storm holidays - last one to So AFrica was over $13,000. There are lots of clients in Qld and elsewhere who are in danger of losing homes and were obviously over geared.

That's incredible. What a mess. Anyone whose fingerprints show up on any part of this operation should be stripped of any licenses and hauled before a judge.
 
That's incredible. What a mess. Anyone whose fingerprints show up on any part of this operation should be stripped of any licenses and hauled before a judge.

Unlikely, but at least they will go out of business as it is hard to imagine them ever picking up a new client.

Funny thing is, with the market having now come off over 50%, I am pretty comfortable undertaking the general strategy now. Wouldn't go to 80% LVR on PPOR though, but am happy to borrow against it. And certainly wouldn't part with 6 - 7% in fees for the pleasure.

With franking credits and low interest rates, you will be well and truly cashflow positive into good companies at half the price (or more) of what they were 12 months ago. Still not for the faint hearted or those without a long term time frame though.
 
If more people had used Puts, they would be feeling very comfortable right about now.

Most people don't even know what a "put" is.

For most people, this is far too sophisticated a strategy, and in hindsight it would be true if they had used them.

Without the required level of knowledge, most people will do their dough in these sorts of adventures.

Considering that the majority of the world don't even invest, or only invest in managed funds, then this would be an unlikely direction, and a dangerous one.

But what's been happening is the majority of folk have been giving over their money to invest in what they thought were a simple and safe investment (probably no such thing).

Ignorance is expensive.
 
Last edited:
For most people, this is far too sophisticated a strategy, and in hindsight it would be true if they had used them.

Without the required level of knowledge, most people will do their dough in these sorts of adventures.

Considering that the majority of the world don't even invest, or only invest in managed funds, then this would be an unlikely direction, and a dangerous one.

But what's been happening is the majority of folk have been giving over their money to invest in what they thought were a simple and safe investment (probably no such thing).

But thats the thing about Puts, it prevents you from doing your dough. Far from dangerous, it is actually a very conservative approach, more conservative than an unprotected share exposure. Only cost is the premium paid for the insurance, which in the less volatile times of the bull market, were quite cheap. And if you want, because of the protection, you can gain greater exposure than you would otherwise.

I think that protected equity exposure will be a major part of share market investment going forward, for the very reason of what we have just gone through. Not the ridiculously over engineered structured offerings that the likes of Macquarie have previoulsy sold in the market, but simple direct exposure with a corresponding put, or put over the relevant index.

Imagine if you could buy a 5 year Put over your IP, ie. a guaranteed option to sell your property at an agreed price at the 5 year mark (European Put) or at anytime within that 5 years (american Put). Who wouldn't buy that downside protection if the premium was right.
 
We were caught up in a similar arrangement not thru Storm however. We were just too blind and trusted someone else with our own money. A BIG MISTAKE and HUGE LESSON LEARNT !

Something I thought would never happen to us. It has and after much emotional roller coaster riding we are slowly beginning to move on.

I am sure the SOA where water tight and I can't even imagine trying to fight this in a court.
 
My husband and I talked about the Madoff scam last night. In that context hubby (who's been burnt using financial advisors before) made an excellent point when he said that he always gets nervous if a product / strategy is very much built around 1 person or if the product is "new and different" to other strategies. The latter means it's usually a product of certain market conditions which can go horribly wrong when these conditions change eg. Storm Financials. Well and the central person strategy is also risky as human behaviour and egos can become too much of a factor in all this.

Cause there are the Warren Buffets of the world but then Madoff was perceived to have been up there with the best of them. Shows you how much people want to believe as Madoff had them all in his pocket, including the watchdogs and the banks - amazing!

Cheers

kaf
 
Article from www.moneymanagement.com.au

An old article, but the bold paragraph will bring some comfort to those affected:eek:

Funds lost in the Storm
14 November 2008 | by Lucinda Beaman
A letter sent by Queensland-based Storm Financial to its clients has raised industry eyebrows and revealed the group’s client base may be under increasing threat of margin calls.

The correspondence to clients, which Money Management has obtained a copy of, prompted financial planning industry figures to question whether the group’s advice is tailored and customised to client needs and objectives.

Storm Financial has made no secret of its strategy, which is to encourage the use of debt, or margin lending, to ‘optimise’ its clients’ personal balance sheets.

The group has grown substantially by acquiring financial planning practices along the East Coast, before “converting” the firms’ existing clients (many of whom have no previous exposure to geared investments) to the “Storm model”, according to its prospectus prepared in anticipation of last year’s failed float.

The Storm model sees clients geared into Storm-branded indexed products developed in conjunction with Colonial First State and Challenger, with clients paying fees of around 7.5 per cent.

This strategy appeared to work well during the recent bull market, with the group claiming it has a higher volume of profit per planner than any other group in Australia. But a dramatic fall in investment markets has led the group to advise clients to switch to cash to avoid margin calls.

The letter, dated October 8, and signed by Storm Financial executive chairman and joint chief executive Emmanuel Cassimatis, stated that with markets “moving speedily downwards É we now find that it may be necessary to recommend that you switch up to 100 [per cent] of your portfolio to cash”.

The group said this action was required to avoid clients having to dispose of assets or sell down assets to reduce debt.

Storm said its strategy to avoid margin calls would “keep you in the game and still standing through this crisis”.

“Whilst not perfect, nor without risk, we believe it contains less risk than leaving you open to [the potential of a margin call],” the letter stated.

Storm said it would monitor market movements closely so cash could be “switched back into equities to gain from any upswing in the future”.

The letter went on to add that those clients who pre-paid interest on their margin loans could potentially obtain a refund of any remaining interest pre-paid for 2008 in order to reduce debt, at a possible price of “25 per cent of the interest refund amount”.

“In some cases, both of the two actions above may need to be taken,” the letter stated.

The letter said while switching to cash carries capital gains tax implications, “our experience tells us these tend to be neutral” when a client re-enters the market.

The group proposed two additional options: do nothing and risk “permanent, irrecoverable losses”; or find additional security to increase buffers.

Storm said, should markets continue to fall, client options are limited.

The letter alluded to previous correspondence recommending clients switch up to 50 per cent of their portfolio to cash, but nonetheless instructed clients to “please sign this document as well”.

Money Management has sought an explanation from Storm Financial regarding the content of the letter, but at the time of going to print, Storm had not responded to interview requests.

Money Management understands further correspondence from Storm has also been sent following the October 8 letter.

In last year’s prospectus the group said it had 13,000 clients with $4.5 billion of funds and loans under administration at June 2007. It said at the time that 3,080 clients had invested in Storm-branded indexed products, with the remaining clients of firms acquired by Storm “yet to convert to the Storm model”. But this was not for lack of trying on Storm’s behalf, with the group seeking to “convert” these clients, who represent “a significant growth opportunity” for the group.

Colonial First State chief executive officer Brian Bissaker said this was a matter for Storm.
 
Also from www.moneymanagement.com.au

The saying "once bitten twice shy" comes to mind.

Storm Financial clients offered free advice
18 December 2008 | by Lucinda Beaman
Distressed clients of Storm Financial will be referred to financial planners outside of the Storm group for free advice as part of a service to be offered by the Financial Planning Association (FPA).

FPA members have volunteered their services to assist clients of Storm Financial who have faced margin calls and, in some cases, financial ruin, as a result of the group’s aggressive gearing strategy.

FPA chief executive Jo-Anne Bloch said 50 Queensland FPA members had been matched with around 100 investors negatively impacted through their involvement with Storm.

A statement from the FPA said the industry body is “conducting preliminary enquiries with Storm” – who are also members of the FPA – to understand the situation. The FPA said Storm, headed up by Emmanuel Cassamitis, are “co-operating fully”.

“It’s important that we provide clients who have been affected, with professional advice, during a time when they’re no doubt experiencing extreme anxiety and confusion,” Bloch said.
 
another media update on Storm.

http://business.smh.com.au/business/storm-catches-symonds-20081218-71cx.html

I found this part really disgusting:

Storm fees are among the highest in the market at some 7% of portfolio value and so, in many cases, clients required a stock market return of around 18% before they began to make money. :eek:


Talking about crooks... :mad:

I wonder how many "investors" understood this when they signed.

Yeah I read that number too. It doesn't make sense to me though. I reckon the journo has just added 7% entry fee to loan interest and determined that to be a breakeven, without taking into account the deductibility of both costs.

Regardless, 7% is way out of whack with industry standards, with most charging upfronts of 1%, and many going to a pure fee for service model charging on an hourly rate.
 
But everyone has to take responsibility for some stupidity. When it comes to money some people can only see the dollars and common sense goes out the window.
Absolutely. If they couldn't understand the investment - as I'm sure many will claim - then why did they risk their life savings on it?
Know lots of clients, many retired or nearing retirement who have been stormified. Statements of advice are 100+ pages and very confusing - have seen some.
Shouldn't that serve as a warning that perhaps it's too complicated for the novice?
The letter, dated October 8, and signed by Storm Financial executive chairman and joint chief executive Emmanuel Cassimatis, stated that with markets “moving speedily downwards É we now find that it may be necessary to recommend that you switch up to 100 [per cent] of your portfolio to cash”.
How would people have fared if they'd followed this "recommendation", or the earlier one to switch 50% to cash?
 
But thats the thing about Puts, it prevents you from doing your dough. Far from dangerous, it is actually a very conservative approach, more conservative than an unprotected share exposure. Only cost is the premium paid for the insurance, which in the less volatile times of the bull market, were quite cheap. And if you want, because of the protection, you can gain greater exposure than you would otherwise.

I think that protected equity exposure will be a major part of share market investment going forward, for the very reason of what we have just gone through. Not the ridiculously over engineered structured offerings that the likes of Macquarie have previoulsy sold in the market, but simple direct exposure with a corresponding put, or put over the relevant index.

Imagine if you could buy a 5 year Put over your IP, ie. a guaranteed option to sell your property at an agreed price at the 5 year mark (European Put) or at anytime within that 5 years (american Put). Who wouldn't buy that downside protection if the premium was right.

I wouldn't buy that premium because I don't want to sell my IP's, and I back myself to buy a property that will be sustainable in the future, and I'm in full control of it - not some Board of Directors with personal agendas clouding my actions that might bring the company down.

But, yep, agree with you Hoff about the puts.

But we here at SS are the minority who have bothered to get off our backsides and learn about such things. It's the 10% stuff, while the 90% won't do it. For example; how many people do you know who've even heard of Jan Somers, let alone read her books, or sit on this forum chewing the fat? I know none - 90% rule applies again.

The average penguin can't be bothered, or is too busy, or thinks it's too complicated, too hard etc to learn other forms of investing, so they prefer to hand over the cash to others to do their work for them, or just buy a plain and simple direct share and hope for a good outcome.

And, unfortunately, there is always plenty of exposure to that mentality for them on the news and in the media - buy shares, plow you dough into super etc etc. It's all loaded with agendas for others to profit from.

Hence, a lot of very sad people around the world today.
 
hi all
anyone got some numbers
what was the size of this group and to what value would the exposure be
I know of storm but very little as to what they invest in
will this add to the already huge amount of property in the 3 to 10 mil property on the market
if this group and I think they do have alot of high networth clients then this product will come on the market if it not already
so just getting an idea in my head about size
are they the size of say a mfs or are they alot smaller
they are planner but that wil have an amount undermangement put tey will be leveraged up to a dollar amount
anyone got these numbers.
I only met with one of them about 3 years ago and was woundering what they did
 
hi willair
not another one
the same one that was the group thats gone west.
and I think that 20 mil is a very low figure it will be a bit higher then that I think
they had a very big office in north sydney so I think the numbers will be more like 3 to 4 times that number
 
The Australian Securities and Investment Commission estimates Storm customers still owe approximately $20 million in margin loans - some are expected to lose their homes.

This is very sad. A lovely guy I drink with says his sister is down 1.3 mil and a widow friend of Mrs Fish looks like keeping her house but having a mortgage on it. By then her only income will be the pension. :(

I underlined "customers" in the above quote. Storm was a private company and it must be assumed that there would be director's guarantees on their borrowings so they may lose it all too.

I'll have to take my camera to town and show you their "humble abode". lol
 
Back
Top