Speaking anonymously to ifa, the AMP adviser explained how they lodged a BOLR application in January this year after purchasing a client book from AMP five years ago.
“You were just given a spreadsheet and that was that. I did not receive all the clients for 18 months. I had to fight to get what I paid for,” the adviser said.
After years of difficulty with the group, which involved fighting with AMP Financial Planning (AMPFP) to receive full details of the clients acquired and to correct errors on their files, the adviser’s health started to decline.
The adviser lodged their BOLR application in January this year.
“AMPFP said they did not receive the request,” the adviser told ifa.
“I had to send in the BOLR request again in February. The BOLR request for me was due to ill health caused by AMPFP. I supplied letters from a doctor and a psychologist. My doctor requested it to be actioned by April.”
The AMPFP BOLR team contacted the adviser in March detailing what had to done to successfully sell the business back to AMP.
“In essence you have to go through your entire book and make sure all of the addresses, telephone numbers and account numbers are all correct on all of AMP’s systems or you will not be paid BOLR. I had 657 entries. Most were incorrect when I received the clients,” the adviser said.
“You also have to go through all of your fee for service clients and make sure your FDSs have a minimum of six to nine months validity so AMPFP does not have to complete any work for nine months.
“You have to have one to two years on your service agreements validity minimum so AMPFP does not have to complete any work for up to two years.
“You have to enter all of the fee arrangements into their computer system manually, so AMPFP does not have to complete any work for 12 months.”
The adviser said that unless all of these demands were met, AMP would not pay.
“The system changed in June so you now have to re-enter all the information into the new system manually (no system with AMP ever talks to another system), so AMPFP does not have to complete any work for 12 months. Otherwise you will not be paid BOLR,” the adviser said.
“You need to provide details of all the client fee groups and then alter all of them manually to AMPFP terminology and services and then manually change all of the above [in the] system again, or you will not be paid BOLR.”
Finally, AMP conducts an audit on the adviser’s business. If the auditors give a pass mark of under 85 per cent on 100 files, “you will not be paid BOLR”.
“AMPFP does not want to pay,” the adviser explained. “They have delayed my health release and kept placing additional obstacles in my way so I could go past 9 August, when they changed the BOLR arrangements and reduced revenue from 4x to 2.5x.”
Two weeks ago the adviser was informed that AMPFP had not approved their request so they are now under the new terms.
The adviser claims AMPFP sent the authorisation request to another company, AMP Life (now owned by Resolution Life), to follow up with a doctor’s report in July.
The adviser asked AMP Life how they managed to receive a request that was sent to a different company.
“The claims manager, who I have dealt with for some of my clients’ claims, said he did not know and asked the same question. He was told to follow it up and then was taken off the case. He had three other advisers asking about the privacy concerns and legality of the request, as Resolution Life is a different company.”
More to come.
1. Sounds like a largely comms and trail book with no ongoing service, hence outdated addresses and contact details, however I dont point the finger at the adviser – that was the state of the entire industry once upon a time.
2. Most licensees with buy back or BOLR arrangements will now conduct thorough Due Diligence before approving a payment, the spotlight is on them around fees for no service and governance, they will pin the adviser to save face.
3. Change is the only constant – expect more as the years go on, in any industry or profession!
Who can spell Senate Inquiry? Retail Foods Group couldn’t till earlier this year either….
[quote=Shaking my head..]We need an Erin Brockovich on the case![/quote]
this is where we need terry m. terry get on the job.
[quote=Anonymous]It is self evident that these revelations will eventuate more and more. Much to the dismay of the average punter and AMP, not all advisers are thieves or competent, but not all are incompetent. My experience has always been that some advisers within the AMP network are average to competent, few are exemplary, but the same occurs in various other dealer groups. AMP as an organisation, being demanding on its advisers, isn’t improper, illegal or unlawful. That they fail their advisers, is not uncommon, that’s their attitude. I recall the AMP – AXA merger, both sides would point fingers at each other blaming the other for past failings. Management was lax, inefficient and rife with nepotism and cornyism. However, like with some commercial dealings, you’re sold a stuffed hot bird, only to realise later that it was a pigeon instead of a chicken. It’s still a meal, even if you have to pull a few feathers to get to where you wanted to. In this case, the adviser has had to contact his/her clients and keep their contact details up to date before the BOLR sale. A good adviser would already have all of those contact details up to date, so shouldn’t be complaining about having to do their job. The delay tactics of AMP for this sick adviser and the minimal information that they give their new advisers is abhorrent behaviour, but not necessarily unlawful, or is it? These behaviours can only be stamped out IF enough AMP (and other dealer group) advisers coming out and denounce who, what & when they experienced this. This should push the Federal Government to impose swift legislative reform to impose greater fines and sanctions on corporations who apply these behaviours that skirt around unconscionability and misuse of market power. I feel for the delay suffered by the sick adviser in the article, but not that they had to keep the details correct. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail.[/quote][quote=Anonymous]It is self evident that these revelations will eventuate more and more. Much to the dismay of the average punter and AMP, not all advisers are thieves or competent, but not all are incompetent. My experience has always been that some advisers within the AMP network are average to competent, few are exemplary, but the same occurs in various other dealer groups. AMP as an organisation, being demanding on its advisers, isn’t improper, illegal or unlawful. That they fail their advisers, is not uncommon, that’s their attitude. I recall the AMP – AXA merger, both sides would point fingers at each other blaming the other for past failings. Management was lax, inefficient and rife with nepotism and cornyism. However, like with some commercial dealings, you’re sold a stuffed hot bird, only to realise later that it was a pigeon instead of a chicken. It’s still a meal, even if you have to pull a few feathers to get to where you wanted to. In this case, the adviser has had to contact his/her clients and keep their contact details up to date before the BOLR sale. A good adviser would already have all of those contact details up to date, so shouldn’t be complaining about having to do their job. The delay tactics of AMP for this sick adviser and the minimal information that they give their new advisers is abhorrent behaviour, but not necessarily unlawful, or is it? These behaviours can only be stamped out IF enough AMP (and other dealer group) advisers coming out and denounce who, what & when they experienced this. This should push the Federal Government to impose swift legislative reform to impose greater fines and sanctions on corporations who apply these behaviours that skirt around unconscionability and misuse of market power. I feel for the delay suffered by the sick adviser in the article, but not that they had to keep the details correct. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail.[/quote]
I agree with you. But the advisor was obviously sold a book for 4 X’s and may well have been quite cold inactive clients given so much was out of date and clients not contactable in cases. If AMP expects it to be all updated then it should have provided it as current and warranted it. He possibly didnt get the full files for these clients either. So now AMP keeps him stringing along and reduces him to 2.5 X’s and about 1.3 X;s for all grandfathered business which includes a lot of risk insurance apparently too. Will he lose his home also? Nice punishment for someone having a go and couldn’t even get what they paid for in a quick timely fashion.
[quote=Steve]I would suggest an emabargo on recommending AMP insurance by all, in support of the affected advisers would be appropriate as long as it doesnt breach BID.[/quote][quote=Steve]I would suggest an emabargo on recommending AMP insurance by all, in support of the affected advisers would be appropriate as long as it doesnt breach BID.[/quote]
great idea bro. They don’t sell insurance anymore
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Reality]Frankly, this is disgusting, yet not surprising. AMP should be stripped of their AFSL, nothing less.[/quote][quote=Reality]Frankly, this is disgusting, yet not surprising. AMP should be stripped of their AFSL, nothing less.[/quote] Maybe the other side should get a right reply before all shareholders lose their life savings…fair enough?[/quote]
Shareholders dont invest there life savings in one stock would be my thoughts. Do you recommend or have clients invested in just one stock with their life savings? Damn, myth buster!
[quote=Anonymous]Poor planners.. who purchased these books simply to make profits. The same guys purporting to be experts at giving financial advice (and charging a healthy fee) didn’t read their contracts properly[/quote]
it would be healthy banter if a poster was least a little informed. Mt anonymous, I’d encourage to read the news and the changes and the potential of breach of contract that is widely out their in media. I direct your comments back to you no demonstrating your poor research and understanding. Embarrassing.
[quote=Anony-mouse][quote=Jim]What the adviser expected free money. 4x was always to gerrerous. id say 2.5 x is too.[/quote]
No, what the adviser expected was a) the book that they purchased in the first place to not have the hurdles they have faced, and b) on needing to leave due to ongoing health concerns for AMP to actually honour the agreement which they entered into.
This is nothing short of disgusting behavior by AMP, and your remark is ill-considered in view of the facts. [/quote]
You are absolutely correct and its sad you had negative feedback for pointing out another poster (JIm) for his ignorance. that was why AMP kept advisers for decades and really no others could keep such long term loyalty. Its definite now that AMP has burnt all loyalty not only to the public but to those who flew their flag to build what was once a great icon. The BOLR was never a market price but more handcuffs and you couldn’t leave and start in the industry for some years should you have taken that. AMP also sold it to advisers for that price and encouraged them to do so and borrow to do so. if only that passed on files with their sales to all these planners. I hear now they wont buy them back without the fully history in the files. AMP’s BOLR was never a market price, just handcuffs and trade restrictions so you couldnt leave. It worked for both sides. I feel for these people. AMP once had a value of “a sure friend in uncertain times”. I6ts important to walk out of your office on a regular basis and view your first impressions to und3errsatnd how your clients see you. Im suggesting AMP management step outside into the thick of it and stare back and visualize what all others see. They may even be embarrassed if they read “A sure friend in uncertain times” when all they care about is unloyal shareholders as stated by their head, they must bring value to shareholders. I think they lost site of relevance now…..
If you bought a book of clients originally with their name address , phone numbers wrong , You should get legal advice and say this is not what I paid for given that you now can’t sell the book back . Alternatively , if you did not see these clients for 12 months or more , just took the money and provided no reviews, how can u do a review each year if you don’t know the name address and phone number of the clients . I am not saying this is you , but too many advisers just bought books of clients and not properly serviced them or gave them to junior staff members . For AMP planners , how can you now recommend AMP products given the RC and the fact that the super and pension funds are getting funds withdrawn and placed elsewhere ( See industry funds up 20% FUM ) which incurs capital gains tax , extra brokerage etc in the total pool reducing everyones returns under BEST INTEREST duties ???.
Only have a few clients left with AMP. Once they’re all out won’t even take the Brochure Delivery Mans call.
[quote=No More AMP]I think all the adviser who are under AMP banner should band together and leave and go to a new licensee or set one up. Then all the advisers should just sue AMP. AMP would then go into liquidation and the Advisers would get more of their money back![/quote]
AMP advisers set up their own licence? No chance. They’d all be bankrupt in hours. More concerning is and damaging to AMP is large practices paying out AMP and self-licencing. That’d be more concerning to AMP and a few are considering it. The adviser in the article is at the bottom of the AMP BOLR food chain, single operator, high level of in-built commission (”C and D clients” sold back to AMP from larger practices to be ”re-sold” to newbie advisers like the articles subject) who recently bought crappy database. Sad, but Caveat Emptor.
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Reality]Frankly, this is disgusting, yet not surprising. AMP should be stripped of their AFSL, nothing less.[/quote][quote=Reality]Frankly, this is disgusting, yet not surprising. AMP should be stripped of their AFSL, nothing less.[/quote] Maybe the other side should get a right reply before all shareholders lose their life savings…fair enough?[/quote]
AMP shareholders losing their life savings? AMP has been nothing more than a penny-dreadful since listing, a day-traders dream. Long-term investors sell AMP and use it against capital gains.
What can one say 1) amp share holders have a class action against amp 2) customers have class action against amp 2) now the amp advisers are about to take part in a 3 rd class action against amp . What does that all = no one trusts amp they as a company which are morally and ethically bankrupt. So I forgot to mention they charge dead people .
I cannot see how AMP will receive any recommended new business from any advisers from AMP or otherwise going forward following their attitude and unconscionable behaviour .
The IFA’s should simply cease placing or recommending any client business at all.
Even without this, customers and clients are already well aware of AMP’s issues over a long period of time and are making noises about steering well clear of this organisation.
But maybe that’s what AMP are trying to achieve….divest themselves of advisers and adviser driven business,focus on selling off assets and concentrating on direct business only.
Apparently the new strategy is not going well….. The advisers AMP want to keep are keen to leave ASAP and the advisers they want to get rid of want to stay. ?!?
[quote=Anon]Consumers hate AMP.
The media hates AMP.
Employers (corporate super clients) hate AMP.
Non AMP advisers hate AMP.
Until recently, the only people trying to counteract all this hate, and stem the resultant loss of business, were AMP advisers. So what does AMP do? It launches a disgusting attack on those very advisers. The last remaining industry participants that didn’t already hate them. Go figure.[/quote][quote=Anon]Consumers hate AMP.
The media hates AMP.
Employers (corporate super clients) hate AMP.
Non AMP advisers hate AMP.
Until recently, the only people trying to counteract all this hate, and stem the resultant loss of business, were AMP advisers. So what does AMP do? It launches a disgusting attack on those very advisers. The last remaining industry participants that didn’t already hate them. Go figure.[/quote]
you forgot the shareholders who bought in on the float at $16.50.
A lot of people are suggesting that new AMP advisers who purchased a register at 4 times only have themselves to blame. But those people were generally new to the industry and did not understand the subtleties. They were misled by AMP about the value of their purchase and the conditions for subsequent sale. They were misled about the accuracy of client contact details to be provided. The new entrant program was positioned as an opportunity for these advisers to contact neglected orphan clients and convert them to an ongoing fee based advice relationship. But how can they do that without accurate contact details? These new advisers didn’t deliberately buy a book of uncontactable grandfathered commission clients to just sit on and do nothing. Why would they?
When a powerful organisation misleads and deceives a relatively naïve and powerless purchaser into buying a dud product, that is unconscionable conduct. On that basis, all those new entrant purchase agreements should be torn up, and the full purchase price refunded.
Really?! This logic, that people aren’t responsible for their own decisions is how we ended up with FDS and Renewal. Are you a fan of them?
It is self evident that these revelations will eventuate more and more. Much to the dismay of the average punter and AMP, not all advisers are thieves or competent, but not all are incompetent. My experience has always been that some advisers within the AMP network are average to competent, few are exemplary, but the same occurs in various other dealer groups. AMP as an organisation, being demanding on its advisers, isn’t improper, illegal or unlawful. That they fail their advisers, is not uncommon, that’s their attitude. I recall the AMP – AXA merger, both sides would point fingers at each other blaming the other for past failings. Management was lax, inefficient and rife with nepotism and cornyism. However, like with some commercial dealings, you’re sold a stuffed hot bird, only to realise later that it was a pigeon instead of a chicken. It’s still a meal, even if you have to pull a few feathers to get to where you wanted to. In this case, the adviser has had to contact his/her clients and keep their contact details up to date before the BOLR sale. A good adviser would already have all of those contact details up to date, so shouldn’t be complaining about having to do their job. The delay tactics of AMP for this sick adviser and the minimal information that they give their new advisers is abhorrent behaviour, but not necessarily unlawful, or is it? These behaviours can only be stamped out IF enough AMP (and other dealer group) advisers coming out and denounce who, what & when they experienced this. This should push the Federal Government to impose swift legislative reform to impose greater fines and sanctions on corporations who apply these behaviours that skirt around unconscionability and misuse of market power. I feel for the delay suffered by the sick adviser in the article, but not that they had to keep the details correct. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail.
I would suggest an emabargo on recommending AMP insurance by all, in support of the affected advisers would be appropriate as long as it doesnt breach BID.
What is the big deal here? If advisers service their clients and can prove it, there should be no impediment to receiving your full BOLR payment? We are the most entitled industry I’ve ever seen!
I dont see how AMP will even survive the next 18 months.
You could argue that it was the advisers job to get on top of updating the client details but more so that he/she was obviously sold “a spreadsheet” with out of date information (I’m wondering how you can update contact details if you were sold a client with incorrect contact details for example?). The fact that this adviser had to also fight for some clients they had already purchased shows the lax AMP attitude to the clients they were happy to sell and still take the fees from. This was AMP management’s blatant corruption with fees for no service, not advisers.
Clearly the AMP management have learned nothing about ethics since the Royal Commission.
My heart goes out to this adviser. Its easy to judge with time and hindsight and they may have been naive but that is no excuse for AMP selling them a pup and then ripping them off when they are most vulnerable.
Let me start by saying I am sympathetic to what this guy is going through and the emotional toll…. however I’m not sympathic for the choice he’s made. These are the guys that have “registers” they don’t have “clients” or “customers”. They don’t have people it’s just a “register”. And I’ve just seen another client (could be his) with $400,000 in the AMP Super Directions Fund paying a management fee of 3.30%…with an adviser listed that they’ve never seen and the 3.3% goes towards marketing and propping up the adviser and subsidizing his business costs.
These people are sales reps and not advisers. For those AMP sales rep yes I’m very sad to hear that the biggest problem in your life if BOLR is dropping to 4 times. If you think you’re an adviser I’m not. The easiest offer I’ve ever had in my entire life was to knock back an offer to become an AMP practice. No one has ever sympathized with the emotional toll I’ve had for the last five years of trying to compete with AMP, running a business and paying full freight and being severely emotionally and financially punished due to the actions of this corporation. Sympathy Yes…sorry No.
If AMP are planning on focusing on their direct financial services offering then would they not be deemed to be a competitor to their own advisers ?
If that is the case, then the methods AMP are now employing against the advisers must be seen as a gross misuse of market power.
Section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act, regulates unilateral anti-competitive conduct.
Subsection 46 (1), prohibits a corporation with a substantial degree of market power from misusing that power.
Perhaps an ‘effects’ test should be applied to this situation whereby the firm, being AMP who has substantial market power would be prohibited from taking advantage of that power if the effect is to cause anti-competitive harm.
AMP may be employing the current pressure to it’s advisers in order to reduce the viability of a competitor and harness both components or income from an advisers business to drive their own agenda to increase their direct or in house business.
The most concerning issue from this mess is that the insto execs take their cues from eachother ie if AMP are doing this we can do it too. They will then state that this is the market so don’t blame us. This was the attitude that caused this mess and it is likely to continue. The bottom line is that you cannot trust the instos as they are like rudderless ships that have no idea but to protect their own back.
What I find the most sad is that they go so hard in their exit audits, but not on the audits while the advisers remain AMP advisers.
Perhaps AMP should be held accountable to a degree for allowing what they claim is ‘uncompliant’ practice as it happened on their ‘watch’…. Or its simply ok to turn a blind eye while its generating AMP revenue?
Consumers hate AMP.
The media hates AMP.
Employers (corporate super clients) hate AMP.
Non AMP advisers hate AMP.
Until recently, the only people trying to counteract all this hate, and stem the resultant loss of business, were AMP advisers. So what does AMP do? It launches a disgusting attack on those very advisers. The last remaining industry participants that didn’t already hate them. Go figure.
Hey, not a problem. The new ex CBA Whistleblower will be right on top of the this. I hear there are more whistles happening at the moment than a Pies v Blues game.
we keep reading about AMP tactics, and only the FSU is standing up to them. Surely the AMP advisers association is doing something? You also have have got to feel for the AMP advice practice staff that have been handed a shovel to bury their jobs.
Jim….you seem like an understanding and empathetic individual.
You must have a lot of friends.
AMP don’t give a F#@% what the advice community thinks. It about accounting tricks and protecting their $1B+ provision for BOLR liability at all costs. that have p^&*$% off the public, the regulators, customers, their advisers and pretty soon staff , as the layoffs start . What is really surprising is that the advisers that have chosen to stay still have trust.
Poor planners.. who purchased these books simply to make profits. The same guys purporting to be experts at giving financial advice (and charging a healthy fee) didn’t read their contracts properly
Unconscionability (sometimes known as unconscionable dealing/conduct in Australia) is a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience…. say no more!
As part of my BOLR exit, AMP ordered I pay tens of thousands of dollars to a number of clients as remediation – on the pretense of no service. . This was total crap. The effected A clients told me the they never experienced any period of no service & said, “does AMP expect you to work for free”.
AMP has deducted the remediation payment from me. Now months later, AMP has not contacted the effected clients saying that they are holding money for them. Is AMP now stealing from the advisers on the basis of “remediation” & keeping the cash? That’s one way to fix your balance sheet.
If you have been a victim of financial fraud and/or misconduct through AMP then please get in touch. Contact us via email at grobinson@srgroup.com.au or alternatively visit our website https://www.srgroup.com.au
It is cost and obligation free
It seems like all the big instos are paying out huge “fee for no service” payments to clients who did actually receive service. These payments are mostly for PR purposes, not genuine remediation.
Any adviser who is penalised for a “remediation” payment where service was actually delivered, should have a case against their licensee. It should be easy enough for advisers to prove. Just ask the clients. It will be the first time anyone has actually asked them.
My BOLR experience was the same; one of the worst experiences of my life. Stressful & extremely costly.
AMP dragged it out as long as possible to their advantage and won every argument.
Their exit audits are totally fabricated with the sole objective to discount the price they pay you.
It is nothing short of corporate theft!
If this is what they are doing to their advisers, they would have little regard to their clients.
As advises, if we conducted ourselves in a similar matter we would be struck off.
It is unconscionable what they doing and I agree that ASIC should look to shut down them as an AFSL.
Jim – you are an idiot – go away.
It is nothing short of disgusting and immoral what they are doing to loyal planners.
[quote=Reality]Frankly, this is disgusting, yet not surprising. AMP should be stripped of their AFSL, nothing less.[/quote][quote=Reality]Frankly, this is disgusting, yet not surprising. AMP should be stripped of their AFSL, nothing less.[/quote] Maybe the other side should get a right reply before all shareholders lose their life savings…fair enough?
[quote=John X]AMP pay the advisers! You have ripped off clients with fee for no service thats a fact. Dont now rip off your advisers, to do so will for sure lead to your own demise.
Or John X, so where do the Adviser who owned the books come into the ripping off of client with no service?
[quote=No More AMP]I think all the adviser who are under AMP banner should band together and leave and go to a new licensee or set one up. Then all the advisers should just sue AMP. AMP would then go into liquidation and the Advisers would get more of their money back![/quote][quote=No More AMP]I think all the adviser who are under AMP banner should band together and leave and go to a new licensee or set one up. Then all the advisers should just sue AMP. AMP would then go into liquidation and the Advisers would get more of their money back![/quote] Only problem, the Adviser will actually have to prove they met all of their servicing requirements, sent FDS’ etc that they were paid to do… that would be interesting to see..
The delaying tactics (if true) is below the belt and if he had genuinely met all reasonable expectations should be paid the old rate – he should pursue legal recourse. Other than that, taking into account this is article is biased to one side and has not sought reply from AMP, their requirements of getting correct names, FDS sent, reviews done, is a reasonable expectation of a well-run business. Why would anyone buy a practice that was a rabble and did not meet general FP legal requirements?
He enjoyed the revenue of 657 clients but then baulks at actually having to actually have their correct details? All care (and revenue) and no responsibility.
Theft
[quote=Jim]What the adviser expected free money. 4x was always to gerrerous. id say 2.5 x is too.[/quote]
No, what the adviser expected was a) the book that they purchased in the first place to not have the hurdles they have faced, and b) on needing to leave due to ongoing health concerns for AMP to actually honour the agreement which they entered into.
This is nothing short of disgusting behaviour by AMP, and your remark is ill-considered in view of the facts.
Just a thought, how many of these advisers have AMP insurance? I suggest starting the IP/TPD claims process now. Mental health issues will be easy to prove with this behaviour.
AMP proves their lack of organisational capacity on a daily basis however their cosy relationship with ASIC means they are never held to account. AMP selling books for 4 times on the grounds that BOLR will always be there has been one of their most successful frauds
Sue that b@astards
I think all the adviser who are under AMP banner should band together and leave and go to a new licensee or set one up. Then all the advisers should just sue AMP. AMP would then go into liquidation and the Advisers would get more of their money back!
All Advisers (except AMP Adviser already stuck there) should NEVER use an AMP product ever again !!!!
A dwindling internal AMP Advice network and ZERO external product use will see AMP continue to shrink and die.
What a sad, sad institution that deserves nothing better than a continued slow death.
Unfortunately, removing the AFSL will only damage the decent advisers that are trying to provide advice to their clients. There needs to be legal action against the directors of AMP for their unconscionable conduct, breach of privacy etc etc. To confirm though, the BOLR process is pretty much the same with any large licensee, they are all demanding everything to be 100% up to date so that they can cover themselves, they aren’t concerned about the clients or the adviser. My experiences are similar…
Appalling and the senior management at AMP need to be held legally responsible for all of this. This is a calculated and deliberate stalling strategy by AMP. Real people at AMP need to be put up publicly and everybody be told what they are doing, in lying and cheating both their customers as well as their Advisers. And if found legally guilty, then appropriately punished with the full weight of the law for their crimes.
What the adviser expected free money. 4x was always to gerrerous. id say 2.5 x is too.
AMP pay the advisers! You have ripped off clients with fee for no service thats a fact. Dont now rip off your advisers, to do so will for sure lead to your own demise. What happened to Mother Amicus. “A sure friend in uncertain times” from a past proud AMP adviser from the 80’s to 2007.
If you have been a victim of financial fraud and/or misconduct through AMP then please get in touch. Contact us via email at grobinson@srgroup.com.au or alternatively visit our website http://www.srgroup.com.au
It is cost and obligation free
We need an Erin Brockovich on the case!
House always wins
Frankly, this is disgusting, yet not surprising. AMP should be stripped of their AFSL, nothing less.