@CaptainBarnacles agree adviser loans are a problem.  There are...

@CaptainBarnacles agree adviser loans are a problem.  There are many highly leveraged IO loans against the value of the business.  Without understanding how their loan covenants would be re-worked (if at all) backing out grandfathered commissions it's hard to pinpoint how that would look for AMP's loan book.  I do know that like with most commercial loans directors guarantees are put up so there is recourse via assets outside of the going concern business itself - but not great publicity and will no doubt provide fodder for the journo's to interview a poor hard-done by adviser who hasn't had to fly economy for the last 20 years.  Too be honest I don't have any issue with AMP leveraging off the 'no fault' clause that they have to take back the book of the adviser should they have been doing the wrong thing in the interest of the clients and let the matters play out individually in court.  It will be a good result for clients (who received none/poor service) and a good result for AMP in that it will mitigate some of the BOLR buybacks they will no doubt incur.  The thing is though with FUM run-off across the board, declining performance in the ASX etc. some advisers will be hanging on to try and recover to  a better position.  The BOLR is really a 'career ending' policy that effectively stops them operating as FA's for a fair period of time from memory so it's really only those in their late 50's and early 60's who might be prepared to ride off into the sunset and can't be bothered with it all any more....

In regards to the resi book LMI loans at AMP are not really an issue - most are done at 80% and they were one of the first to 'turn off the tap' effectively when the 'two tiered' pricing strategy on investment vs. O/O lending came into play.  They were completely OUT for a brief period of time before then dipping the toe back into the water with lower LVR's and high pricing (effectively an 'offer' but not a compelling one - but at least they could say they were 'open for business').

In regards to the SP so far it seems to be weathering the storm (to a degree) and if this is what it looks like at 1c EPS and profit attributable to shareholders of $28m (97% down) then this may be the bottom of sorts and would think that after a period of 12-18 months and change in business performance the stock could be due to be re-rated and back in the 3's.  Under no illusions that it's a journey from here....but I think it will be a good story at the end of the day and I look forward to hearing more from De Ferrari specifically on the transformation strategy