The Ripoll report was nine months in the making and held the hopes of many victims caught up in the collapse of advice firm Storm Financial.
It was hoped the findings of the report would offer a level of justice that many had been blindly seeking since December 2008.
Many willed the report to answer the questions all involved with Storm wanted answered: What was the cause of Storm’s collapse and who was to blame for the millions lost?
While Parliamentary Joint Committee chair Bernie Ripoll kept his promise that the report would be delivered on 23 November, all other promises proved empty.
As it stands, the cause of Storm’s demise is still unknown.
Varying reasons have been given over why these questions and others remain unanswered.
“The causes of the collapse of Storm Financial are complex and contested,” the Ripoll report said.
“The committee’s sources disagree in many details, including the true nature of the relationship between Storm and the banks (particularly but not solely the Commonwealth Bank); the processes for filling out loan documentation; the obligation (if any) of the banks to contact customers directly regarding margin calls; key meetings and events between September 2008 and January 2009; and the sophistication and understanding of risk by clients who entered into double-geared investment strategies under Storm’s advice.”
The report found there was substantial dispute about what in fact happened to Storm and to the accounts of Storm clients during the closing months of 2008.
“Many Storm investors should have received a margin call or calls but were not notified of any such call, either by their adviser or by the relevant bank,” the report said.
“Some Storm clients do recall being contacted by their bank(s) but instructed the banks to deal through their adviser. Many clients would have been able to rectify their position if given a chance to act on margin calls at an appropriate time.
“Instead, many found out in December that they had moved into negative equity and that their portfolios had been sold down at some time during October and November, without their knowledge and at or near the bottom of the market, thereby crystallising and maximising their losses. Clients remain unclear as to who sold their portfolios and at whose direction.”
While a conclusive reason for Storm’s collapse was not found, the committee used the findings of the report to offer 11 recommendations for the betterment of Australia’s financial services industry.
Many industry participants welcomed the recommendations, though others were left disillusioned.
What was your reaction to the Ripoll report?
Did it deliver the findings you expected?
