Advisers – some of whom were terminated in 2019 – have until 31 December to make the decision to exit alongside the cessation of client register buy-back arrangements as part of changes to AMP’s new advice model.
Speaking on a conference call on Monday to coincide with the announcement, AMP’s head of advice, Matt Lawler, said though the company will not speculate on how many will exit, they remain confident all can be managed.
“We’re not going to talk about numbers, because obviously that’s going to play itself out,” Mr Lawler told ifa.
“But we have a team that specialises in mergers and acquisitions and supports our advisers. We expect a lot of these businesses will be picked up.
“There’s a lot of advisers in growth mode… and for those advisers that deem that they want to retire or they want to use this as an opportunity to capitalise on their assets and to move, we’ll have an adviser that is keen to buy and we have a team that actually facilitates that.”
Mr Lawler’s comments come just days after a spokesman for Labor senator Deborah O’Neill told ifa she is campaigning for AMP to negotiate “just terms of settlement” with the hundreds of planners terminated in 2019.
“Senator O’Neill is continuing her fight for justice for the AMP advisers by continuing to meet with AMP advisers, the Australian Small and Family Business Ombudsman Bruce Billson, and the new CEO of AMP Scott Hartley, to negotiate arrangements that leave AMP advisers better off,” the spokesman said.
“She acknowledges the serious changes needed in the financial services industry following the Hayne royal commission, but AMP cannibalising its adviser network and driving them into desperation and poverty is not a change for the better, merely a repetition of the bad old task.”
I agree with Frank G. This is a good move for AMP, for whatever number of advisers stay, and ultimately clients. It may just be that the one man bands leave and the larger practices, who can afford to invest in themselves, grow and prosper. AMP fostered and allowed too many small practices many of whom may have been well meaning, and in today’s market place theses shows aren’t viable – not for themselves, not for the clients and not for the licensee REGARDLESS of who the license is.
There are some medium to large corporatised practices out there ( in all licensees ) who have invested a lot of money and time to align with the new world and they deserve not to be held back.
Small practices can be perfectly viable for their owners when they aren’t burdened by all the bureaucratic overhead and compliance bloat associated with large dealer groups.
Small practices aren’t viable within large dealer groups because they don’t deliver sufficient inhouse product sales – which is ultimately the main objective of those dealer groups.
Can’t understand the negativity with this issue, as it now creates a level playing field for advisers remaining in the industry. In addition, there are many advisers aged 65 and over who are looking to sell their practice, purely due to pre-nominated retirement age. Thus, the number of advisers exiting really doesn’t matter.
AMP Advisers. As AMP has gone out of its way to prove its self to be a corrupt and uterly evil organisation what you need to do is get copies of all your client folders/comtacts/portfolios, have a new licensee to move to, THEN GO AND GET CHANGE OF SERVICING FORMS (to the new licensee) COMPLETED FOR ALL CLIENTS and then sell up to AMP for 2.5 multiple then join another licensee have another adviser at the new licensee process all those changes of adviser and let him/her officially service these clients for 2 years with you as the supervisor.
AMP need to be taught a lesson
AMP isn’t perfect, no one is, but they are hardly and “uterly (sic) evil organisation”. There will be a lot of AMP advisers who don’t like them but AMP gave a start to a lot of advisers, both current and ex, who have prospered and arguably would not have without AMP’s help. They had a model that worked in the past and time just caught up with them. They should have abandoned their model years ago but I guess they were in too deep. There was always going to be pain and casualties when they changed their model but it had to happen. AND for the record I don’t work for AMP.
Agreed. The unsustainability of AMP’s old model had been evident for some time. It is surprising that so many “professional investment advisers” could not see that, and chose to invest heavily in it.
What you really mean in ASIC and Treasury wanted all competition to Industry Super reduced – and AMP was therefore a massive target. Funny how Industry Super seems to be OK with it’s Adviser workforce – no conflicts when all you sell is in-house product. I suspect AMP now understands this very well and I suspect they have restructured to reflect this new model.
Completely different issue. AMP’s model would have been out of date and unsustainable even if union super and regulator bias didn’t exist. It would be like Blockbuster saying the main reason they went out of business was because their store rents were too high. Those advisers who borrowed to buy fully priced AMP client books are similar to late stage Blockbuster franchisees.
Lets bounce bois
Lawler has no idea!
Other than a debt obligation to AMP why would any advisor want to stay with AMP with its defunct operation poor advisor services, broken systems, and a total lack of ownership to issues they create, especially considering their past actions prove they cannot be trusted i refer to treatment of their own advisors, forced exits treatment of advisors sacking them as their dealer group, Yes people i said sacking them after all they provide the advisor with a service ….or should.
remember actions speak louder than words
All of them!
I guess hotel California is no longer relevant
You can check out any time you like,
But you can NOW leave…
Will the last person at AMP turn out the lights, please?
I wonder if the exit audits will be different for advisers selling outside vs selling inside …
Of cause it will be different. Depending on your pathway, your outcome is known. With the first phase of planners if you lodged BOLR you failed your exit audit. If you went to another licensee you passed your exit audit. The latter involved AMP handing out no money because you are taking your clients. The former involved AMP paying out your BOLR be it 2.5x, so the only way to stop this was for AMP to fail you in the exit audit and not have to pay you any money. Manufactured corruption. This is why a Parliamentary Inquiry into AMP is required!