Skip to main content

AMPFP numbers set to drop below 500

Mike Taylor31 May 2023
Hand hovers over figures

Amid renewed media speculation about AMP having been in line to acquire Westpac’s BT Panorama platform, new analysis suggests that the number of financial advisers employed under the AMP Financial Planning license is set to fall below 500.

The analysis, conducted by WealthData, has the number of advisers working under AMP Financial Planning license sitting at 503 out of a total of 908 advisers working under the AMP brand.

Speculation about the future shape and scale of the AMP business has increased as a result of Monday’s announcement about the exit of the company’s Australian Wealth Management (AWM) chief executive, Scott Hartley, and the dissolution of the AWM division.

Contacted by Financial Newswire, Westpac and BT Financial Group has refused to comment on the speculation over the future of the Panorama platform.

The dissolution of the AWM division, which has previously encompassed financial advice, the North platform and the AMP superannuation master trust business, has also led to speculation about the degree to which the still unprofitable financial planning business will be made to stand alone.

That speculation has also reflected upon the fact that a decision is looming out of the Federal Court Class Action mounted by financial advisers over changes to AMP’s Buyer of Last Resort (BOLR) regime which could have a significant impact on the company’s balance sheet.

While AMP last year halved the losses attributable to its financial planning business, it is expected to be at least another year before it achieves break-even and possibly as long as four years before it turns a profit.

As part of the broader AWM division the continuing financial planning losses were substantially offset by the profitability of the platform and superannuation businesses.

A number of licensee executives have signalled an interest in financial advice businesses currently aligned with AMP but have suggested that luring them to make a change is difficult because of the nature of commercial arrangements put in place by AMP.

Mike Taylor

Mike Taylor

Managing Editor/Publisher, Financial Newswire

Subscribe to comments
Be notified of
6 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scott
1 year ago

I feel sorry for all 503 of them.

Neil M
1 year ago

Mike, the number of advisers employed by AMPFP is close to zero. The firms and advisers they authorise are individually owned businesses that no longer have institutional ownership (so can leave if they want to) and, like any other adviser, have a BID obligation and a choice of 5 different platforms, 2 different mortgage aggregators as well as a broad APL.

Anon
1 year ago
Reply to  Neil M

Quite true Neil. As it is with most product companies that have advice licences. However just because AMPFP doesn’t employ the advisers under its licence, or own the adviser’s clients, doesn’t mean AMPFP doesn’t have significant influence over those advisers to drive sales of AMP products.

AMPFP has legal responsibility for the compliance of all advisers under its licence, and has the power to make things easy or difficult depending on how much a of a “team player” the adviser is. Big licensees also need to throw some human sacrifices in ASIC’s direction every now and again to give the appearance of a strong compliance process. Advisers who favour any of the other 4 platforms on the APL will be the more likely targets for trumped up breach reporting.

Jeff
1 year ago

I thought they got rid of the salaried Advisers?

One foot out the door.
1 year ago

I’m surprised to hear they have 500 sallied advisors. With IPAC sold to PSK, who are now self Licensed.

I can only think they are employed by NORTH to service the orphan FUM. ;Last I heard about 4Billion. But who knows.

bemused
1 year ago

According to every other media outlet AMP dosen’t have any Advisers. They have 503 salespeople. Remember those front page articles Mike Taylor? I find the term Adviser and AMP being used in the same sentence quite offensive.