AMP & AMPP, page-1466

baltasar - you write very thoughtful posts. But at times you do come across as an amp representative. This is boosted by the fact that other than two posts in the last 3 months you only post on amp, supporting them in very technical way.

While your view that plaintiffs not doing well is not unreasonable - who knows - the move by AMP today to allow advisers to leave with their clients from next year is the first backdown by AMP. A first win for advisers. A win that was obvious to those who the business and the basis of the amp bolr terms. Amp locked advisers in and as a result had an inflated bolr. When the time came to pay up, they did not. A judge will hear this and amp will have a hard time proving otherwise. A judge will not be swayed by claims of the industry changing, valuations changing or it only being poor quality advisers losing out. AMP had over $100m adviser buyback related provisions in the accounts in 2019 and $67m the next year in order to allow for them recognising they would have to settle on a case by case basis in order to minimize individual legal actions. Even with this, AMP are involved in legal actions with practices.