The sale may be the best thing for shareholders.Not all...

The sale may be the best thing for shareholders.

Not all shareholders are convinced that it is. In part this is because of the $2billion loss compared to embedded value - which is not market value but a value that some thought real.

in part this is because the story on strategy does not quite hang together as well as it could. Is this an integrated business or not? Why can a company like AMP not get cost effective capital for life insurance but can for being a bank? Is capital that cheap in the uk? How come AMP doesn't have the skills and capital it needs to run a life business in Australia after all these years? 

The next question is why the urgency? Why can’t there be an overall strategy by the new ceo before selling off this business? Or is this the strategy? 

And this is being done  by a mix of a failed board and management team with an unelected chairman and a few new unelected directors thrown in. AMP is on track for a second strike at its next AGM which will see a board spill - but only after it has sold the life business. 

For these reasons some shareholders, maybe a majority think that the sale should not proceed. 

What wiil be the outcome of at the May AGM all current directors are spilled and not re-elected? For them it will be embarrassing but AMP shareholders will have lost the life business with no say. Directors can just walk away. It is our money, not their’s. 

‘’This is why activist shareholders are not happy.