A tale of two banks

18 June 2009 | by Lucinda Beaman

Print this article Comments Bookmark and Share

The Bank of Queensland (BOQ) is believed to have threatened to sue the clients of financial planning group Storm Financial for misrepresenting their income levels in loan applications, according to a lawyer close to the issue.

The Bank of Queensland’s response to the issue is now in stark contrast to that of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia's (CBA's), with the latter acknowledging yesterday that it had found shortcomings in how it lent money to clients of Storm Financial.

Law firm Slater & Gordon has been acting on behalf of hundreds of former clients of Storm Financial, who were also clients of CBA and BOQ.

Slater & Gordon practice group leader Damian Scattini said the BOQ is yet to take any responsibility for its involvement in the issue, and in fact has said it “will sue the customers for misleading us about their income”.

He said the CBA’s admission yesterday was “obviously a welcome development”, and one that was in stark contrast to the response from the BOQ.

But BOQ head of corporate affairs Caroline Dunworth refuted the suggestion that the bank would take such action against individual clients.

The spokesperson for BOQ said the bank is not currently reviewing its lending practices in relation to clients of Storm Financial, but that any clients in a distressed situation would be considered on an individual basis.

Nationals Senator for New South Wales John Williams said the CBA’s admission yesterday was an overdue win for Storm Financial clients and one that would be “a boost for those investors who have been devastated”. Williams described the bank’s admission as “the first step in righting some wrongs”.

He said the Storm Financial issue had been “a public relations disaster for the CBA and other financial institutions”.

More details regarding the events that led to the collapse of Storm, as well as other failed financial services groups, will come to light in the public hearings for the inquiry that will begin next week.
Williams said he met with the Storm Investors Consumers Action Group (SICAG) last week, and that the group has “a mountain of evidence” to present to the parliamentary joint committee inquiry into the financial services sector.


Add a comment3 Comments

  1. Wayne | 18 June, 2009 at 02:32 PM
    Having worked in the CBA for over 20 years through the 80's, 90's and into the 00's, I witnessed a dramtic decline in prudent lending policies that were going to and have, ended in the only way it could, I am constantly reminded of those famous words of Gordon Gecko... "greed is good..". There's your explanation
  2. DOOMSDAYER | 18 June, 2009 at 01:11 PM
    I have saved myself much angst and stress by not investing in crap schemes like this!!Looked at Timbercorp,westpoint e.t.c and simply I READ the prospectus WORD FOR WORD AND RESEARCHED the company's financials!!IF U DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PRODUCT DO NOT INVEST!!
  3. Mike | 18 June, 2009 at 11:42 AM
    My question to the regulators of the financial planning industry or who ever is in control in regards to the Storm Financial debacle is how did these so called Financial Advisors get away with giving such terrible advice to people by over inflating their incomes and investments, etc remembering they were working on behalf of the client to get them the Margin Lending loans in the first place. It looks like the clients did not even have any contact with the banks at all and left it up to the financial advisor to sort out, I really don't beleive it was the banks fault in the first place, very interesting, regards Mike

Tags: IFSA | Merrill Lynch | superannuation fees and commissions

Just in:


Add a new comment

Enter the code shown:

1MMFPAAFAmerger Do you support a merger of the Financial Planning Association and the Association of Financial Advisers?
 
58%
 
2%
 
40%

News Roundup

Sponsored links

The Blue Book Directory

Recent comments

Recent tweets