Storm clients WERE victims of fraud, or at best malpractice from the people they trusted. I believe CBA should compensate for their negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.
Sunfish, it's a complex case and whilst I've read a number of articles, perhaps you can save me from re-reading it all, because I'm obviously missing something. I understand that Storm overstated some people's incomes. That was the wrong thing to do, but did the clients have knowledge of it, and sign false declarations? What wrongdoing is Commbank accused of? How were they negligent? In which manner did they breach their fiduciary duty?
Gents,
Stop the fighting over this.
1) I'm not a gent, and 2) we're not fighting, we're discussing.
And if there's information I've forgotten or that I'm not aware of, I'm fully prepared to change my position. I seriously would like more insight into precisely how this is Storm or Commbank's fault rather than the investors.
Shaneelastic said:
1) Alot of storm clients were given bad advice that they did not understand, they thought everything was legit. These people who invested were ordinary people not investors.
How was it not legit? And aren't investors just people who invest?
What do you mean by "ordinary people", as opposed to ...? Isn't it each individual's responsibility not to invest in things that they don't understand? (And, in fairness, I think many of us are pretty scornful of people who invest in property and then have no idea of what their obligations are as landlords.
) If you're investing your entire life savings, don't you owe it to yourself to be prudent and run the suggestions past another adviser, or a trusted friend or accountant?
Shaneelastic said:
2) These clients only sought advice with what to do with a lump sum of super on reitrement. The strategy that they were given were not appropiate for 60+ people.
Isn't that ultimately for the client to decide, as to whether a strategy is "appropriate"? Did Storm actually breach any duties or obligations? I agree that the strategy wouldn't be appropriate for most retirees, but what I'm questioning is whose responsibility is it to make that decision? If that is the role of a financial planner - and obviously I don't know or I wouldn't be asking - then the situation is much more grey. I just would have thought the financial planner's job was to explain each investment, its pros and cons, and that the client would ultimately choose the appropriate vehicle, and bear the consequences of that choice. I would have thought that unless the financial planner lied, or directed money to a different investment than requested by the client, etc, that the consequences of the investment decision lie with the client.
I'm genuinely interested to hear more thoughts from Sunfish, as he knows somebody who's unfortunately caught up in this debacle, and Shaneelastic, who I'm guessing is a financial planner (or knows a bit about it).
