In October 2016, AMP announced the launch of the new AMP Advice model, which aims to make financial advice more accessible to Australians through a goals-based approach.
All advisers under the iPac license were transitioned to the new model.
Speaking to ifa, Michael Paff, managing director of AMP Financial Planning, AMP Advice, AMP Horizons and AMP Direct, said the business has now reached a second stage of growth.
“We have over 200 advisers operating in 24 AMP Advice practices across the country. Now that we’ve reached a good scale, we’re focusing this year on building out all the technology and systems to underpin the process,” he said.
“We’re also identifying how we can use some of this technology for our other licensee practices, helping them achieve greater efficiencies and become even more competitive.”
Earlier this month, Treysta Financial Life Management executive director Mark Nagle said the goals-based approach to advice is flawed since humans cannot accurately predict their futures.
Mr Paff, however, said AMP’s model works because it focuses on broad goals.
“We’ve found that the best way to engage people in their finances over the long-term is to focus on the broader goals they are trying to achieve,” he said.
“These goals are largely consistent across individuals with the emphasis changing throughout life, from owning your own home, protecting loved ones to retiring right.
“Our experience is that this approach makes advice more accessible to more Australians, more often.”
I’m just shocked that Michael Paff is AMPFP MD (with other MD roles)? Mellor must be scared of potential internal competitors after the private equity firm that has the highest ownership in AMP gave him a spray that the AMP chairwoman backed. Then again, seen worse appointments in the industry, but I’ve seen a lot better. Time will tell.
This comment makes no sense at all.
Congratulations to AMP for moving a little way into the financial planning sphere. I guess this is an admission that they have just been flogging products for the last 30 years without taking into account peoples goals. but really however when your motivation is to just flog more product and more FUM it’s not going to end well for any of us. perhaps it’s best they stick to what they’re best at and let people work out their own goals and then just go and buy AMP product.
Make no mistake AMP Advice is more about product flogging that any model AMP has had in the past. Under AMP Advice the adviser is merely a pawn in the process and all the advice is done in house by AMP head office “advice teams” which I very much doubt would recommend a solution that does not include AMP product. But to be fair that is exactly what all the salaried advisers at the union funds do at the moment too.
Is there really anything wrong with AMP branded practices selling lots of AMP product? Surely that’s what the consumer would be expecting. It’s true to label.
However I think there is a big problem with Charter or Hillross or ipac practices selling lots of AMP product. It is misleading and deceptive for them to have independent sounding names when clearly they are not. Just as it is misleading and deceptive for union funds to call themselves “industry funds”.
Well said, there is a place for brands and institutions in this space as some consumers desire that (we all know Coke isn’t healthy but is still one of the biggest selling drinks, due mainly to brand desire). Bashing the big end of town serves no purpose except to belittle the professionalism of all of us, giving ISA more credibility in the process. And no, I am a self licensed multi-discipline holistic IFA, so definitely not biased in this area.
I suggest you look closely at the AMP Advice model. It’s not all it seems. There is a reason why AMP is struggling to get advisers other than the ones in licences they own (ie IPAC) to sign up with the model.
According to Adviser ratings – AMP “Licensees 5 Companies 1256 Advisers 2789”, so a bit more than 1-2%, but apparently 111 advisers and 12 companies in Ipac – without a choice. Early days but up to individual businesses to decide if they want to become ‘more aligned’ and join this model, the early adopters have scale on their side. I’d argue this model is one step away from being an employed adviser, whether this is a good or bad thing is yet to be seen.
We have been directed to sell a new platform to our customers which is very similar to that of a well know Pizza company
They can choose as many different toppings as they like but its still the same Pizza from the same company
Years in the building and millions of $$ spent – but only 24 practices signed up (1-2% of network). No wonder the SP is tanking…. At least the management consultants are thriving.