Wade's comments seem to affirm suspicions that AMP has done sly deals with a few big practices to ensure FUM retention, and is forcing smaller practices to hand over their clients to those favoured few at discounted values. This divide and conquer strategy may appear clever on paper, but it will reduce the level of trust in AMP from "not much" to "absolutely zero".
AMP supposedly wants to drive further growth from its Bank and Capital divisions. But it's hard to see that happening when their brand is already toxic with consumers, and they are demonstrating a willingness to stab intermediaries in the back. Mortgage brokers are now far less likely to recommend AMP Bank, and non aligned financial advisers are far less likely to recommend AMP Capital.
Do they really think they can drive sufficient business growth through a small number of large AMP aligned practices?
In order to give you the best site experience, we need to know what kind of investor you are. Please select the title that best describes you below.
Financial Advisers - Investment
Financial Advisers - SMSFs
Individual Investors with SMSFs
Financial Advisers - Insurance
Accountants and Solicitors
Financial Services Professional