Comment
Author: Admin | 2025-04-28
Compliance;b) Elizabeth Korpi, Lawyer, Capital Markets, Compliance;c) Belisa Jong, Manager, Capital Markets, Compliance,would visit Storm's Sydney office on 13 November 2007, and requested an explanation of Storm's advice model, including the client education process and documentation provided to clients and an explanation of how Storm's internal software system interacted with the services Storm provided to clients. In the course of the meeting, ASIC officers referred to Storm's prospectus and asked various questions including an explanation of the advice that Storm gave to its index fund clients. In response Storm presented and communicated to the officers from ASIC:i) the substance of Storm's advice model;ii) the substance of Storm's client education process;iii) an explanation of how the Storm's internal software system interacted with the services Storm provided to clients;iv) responses to all other matters about which they enquired; andfollowing the meeting on 13 November 2007, ASIC was satisfied that Storm's prospectus accurately set out the material elements of its business model. In addition, Ms Koromilas from ASIC, informed Storm that ASIC wished other advisors had procedures and processes that were as good as Storm's.[21]SummaryWhen the officers of ASC and ASIC conducted their reviews and audits they had complete access to all of the documents used by Storm in giving financial advice to clients, including practice and procedure manuals, advice templates, cash flow analyses, client financial profiles, Storm's Financial Services Guide and Statements of Advice. The ASC and ASIC often required individual client files to be ready in advance of their visits.The ASC and ASIC thereby became familiar with all aspects of Storm's business relevant to the advice it was giving clients and the processes & procedures within Storm for the production of financial advice to clients, including advice templates, cash flow analyses and client financial profiles.Neither the ASC nor ASIC informed Storm following any of their reviews or audits that the Storm model contravened or might contravene any of the financial services laws. All of the ASC's and ASIC's communications with Storm, following such reviews and audits, were to the effect that Storm's conduct was, in general, appropriate and lawful, subject only to minor matters.The Commonwealth Bank forced Storm into administration on 9 January 2009 when the bank called up its lending facilities to Storm, citing a default on Storm's own margin lending facility with the bank.[22][23] Whilst the date of the alleged default by Storm was 10 October 2008, the Commonwealth
Add Comment