The survey, launched by the AIOFP and developed in conjunction with adviser and psychologist Philippa Hunt, asks around 80 questions to former and existing AMP advisers relating to how the wealth giant’s business policies have affected their mental health.
AIOFP executive director Peter Johnston said the survey had been completed by around 75 advisers associated with AMP over the last two months, and the results would inform a new mental health service to be launched by the association later in the year.
“We got two clinical psychologists to put it together for us, and it tells us what everyone already knows is going on in the marketplace – advisers are severely traumatised,” Mr Johnston said.
“The service we are putting together off the back of it is going to be a comprehensive one – we’re going to have a panel of clinical psychologists from around Australia which is going to be partly subsidised by some of our sponsors looking to assist members with their mental health issues, and we’ve got applications in for some government funding as well.”
Mr Johnston said the service would be open to all AIOFP members including those associated with AMP, who numbered around 100 in the industry body’s membership.
However in a recent video update to members, chief executive of the Advisers Association Neil Macdonald said the peak body for AMP planners would discourage their members from taking the survey, suggesting mental health was a delicate subject best left to professionals.
Former AMP adviser David Haseldine, who has been promoting the survey on his website the Real AMP that records data on the financial effects of AMP’s advice turnaround strategy, said he was disappointed with the AMP association’s decision to “bury” the mental health needs of advisers.
“One assumes that the association is there for the benefit of advisers, however the blatantly incongruous stance the association is taking does everyone damage, not the least of which would be the association’s own credibility,” Mr Haseldine said.
“I applaud Peter and the AIOFP for taking the lead on an issue where so many others have backed away from, including AMPFP’s own association.”
I would just like say the ALL ADVISERS are traumatised at the moment. Their has been so much change thrust upon the industry with advisers being the easy whipping boys ( some justified but the majority not, like any industry). I just think we all should take moment next time we see those we know in the industry and ask if they are ok. We are all doing it very hard against massive PR machines who want to demonise us. Good luck all.
What does the “I” stand for in AIOFP if they have AMP advisers as members?
“Independently” owned practices of which many AMP aligned businesses were…move on!
Hang on, if AMP held the AFSL how can the practice be Independently owned? The O in AIOFP! Sorry, you’ve confused me as well?? It’s like IOOF advisers who jointed CountPlus did so, because they thought it was Independent. No, CountPlus is a listed ASX Company. No more Independent than MLC / NAB.
I cannot imagine being less independently owned than by having AMP as a licensee. Just the contracts that had to be signed are as restrictive as anything including ownership of clients among many other items.
This is a great question – I have no idea how they get away with having that ‘I’ in their name. I recall something about an exemption, or because it’s the association, not the adviser, or some such nonsense.
Because as you point out, any AMP adviser is unable to call themselves independent, because their licensee and advisers therein continue to receive commissions.
Looks like all advisers will be getting a mental health exclusion on their life cover based on the cohort suffers all this mental anguish. Don’t talk to your GP about how you feels because it will come up in the PMAR
Clive, I totally understand your thoughts and it is how I used to think for the first 20 years of my planning career. However, your comment now in the face of how BAD it really is……… IS VERY DANGEROUS!!!!
Everyone (including financial advisers) should seek help when they need it.
Not a current or former AMP planner (thank God) but I’m really getting sick to death of the ‘diplomatic approach’ the so-called leaders in this industry adopt when it comes to advisers getting shafted.
The chief executive of the Advisers Association Neil Macdonald seems all too happy to sweep the impact AMP have had on former advisers under the carpet so as few people as possible hear about the mental and financial carnage it’s caused them.
I had a meeting with an incredibly well respected lady in the life insurance industry a few months back and when I told her about the anger, frustration, mental anguish and stress I and thousands of other risk advisers were dealing with now, that we’d had enough and were now fighting back with unseen vigor, she had the cheek to say she didn’t agree with the approach the AIOPF had taken upsetting the apple cart and that a more diplomatic approach would be more beneficial to our cause. How much good has that done advisers the last 6-8 years??!! I’ll tell you…NONE!
I used to spit my cornflakes out in disgust every morning I’d read an industry report about advisers getting ripped by insurers, FASEA, Best Interest Duty, LIF and ASIC in particular ONLY TO READ that my industry body started their replies to those announcements with “We welcome…” or ‘We agree with…” or ‘We accept…”! Utter BS…WE didn’t! You did and thats why advisers are in this predicament.
WE’VE had it! WE didn’t agree with what was happening to advisers yet our industry body/ies would take their pathetic softly, softly approaches time and time again. Their approach was always detrimental to the work financial advisers were trying to do FOR their clients, not at THE EXPENSE of their clients. So this is why advisers are suffering such enormous mental anguish and why some have sadly, taken their own lives.
AMP has always been a horrible organisation in my opinion. The way they’ve treated their former advisers, after they were no doubt making them quite profitable, is an utter disgrace and simply unacceptable. The heads of its Senior Exec’s need to roll.
The organisations are conflicted. They need to keep the large licensees on side as they need their revenue instead of behaving like The Law Society and going in boots and all when the interests of their actual constituents were threatened. They don’t seem to have a single experienced lobbyist among them.
what about the rest of the planners who arent aligned, anyone thought about them aswell.
Sorry but being A Independently Owned FP that is the price you pay for that title / privilege. You need to look to your Association to be protected. Joint in force!
Following the survey, there should be a class action against AMP for damages to advisers for unconscionable conduct caused by unfair contracts. Once they have compensated consumers for bad advice, it’s the advisers turn to be compensated. One needs to ask; “Why were consumers pressured in to signing up for bad advice?” Now that would be worth seeing!
What to the AMP Advisers association actually do? AIOFP has helped with mental health, a third party got ASIC to review weaponized audits and the FSU helped with meditation.
…I thought they protedcted AMP (Directors / management)?
The survey needs to include the Bridges planners who either BOLR’d or were forced out of the Dealergroup
Ask those questions about fasea specific