Brutal AMP may be on shaky ground says lawyer

amp bolr buyers of last resort Dan Mackay

8 October 2019
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

AMP is not on the firm legal ground it purports to be with respect to Buyer of Last Resort (BOLR) changes and its efforts to characterise the issues as straightforward should not be accepted at face value, according to a lawyer retained to represent a number of AMP advisers.

The lawyer, Dan Mackay of Melbourne-based Mackay Lawyers & Advisers, has written an analysis of the BOLR situation which is being published in Money Management and within which he states that the manner in which AMP is acting is ‘brutal’ and where advisers are at risk of losing everything, important issues of equity arise.

“The announced changes by AMP regarding BOLR have been brutal in their potential impact upon some Advisers. It is highly likely that Advisers relied upon the security of the ‘4X’ BOLR put option when they purchased their businesses or client-books, in many cases borrowing amounts based on the 4X value,” he said.

“The stark reality now, is that AMP’s unilateral revisions to the BOLR terms means Advisers may have negative equity in their businesses against their debt.  Their position might be further diminished by the effect of ‘lookback’ audits, as AMP accelerates years’ worth of ‘housekeeping’ in the aftermath of the Hayne Royal Commission.”

“Often misunderstood by laypeople (and many lawyers), equity is law ‘through the looking glass’. It is not concerned with what contracts say so much as what people do and did. ‘Black letter’ gives way to consideration of ‘all the circumstances’, including circumstances specific to each Adviser. Fundamentally, equity is concerned by what is fair,” Mackay said.

“Assuming for a moment that AMP has the ‘black letter’ legal right to reduce the BOLR valuation metric from 4X to 2.5X, should it be allowed to do so?” he asked. “In considering this question, equity might ask:  were Advisers induced by the promise and security of the 4X BOLR put option to buy AMP businesses, with loans from AMP Bank, at a price based on that 4X multiple?”

“If AMP says that practices are now worth less because they are riddled with compliance issues, should AMP have discovered and addressed them before a Royal Commission did?  Should AMP have made these risks clearer to Advisers earlier, even if it risked lessening AMP’s profits from them?  If AMP Advisers now risk losing everything because of changes to the BOLR policy, and AMP might profit from these changes, in all these circumstances, should AMP be allowed to rely on the changes to BOLR?” 

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

Completely agree Peter. The definition of 'significant change is circumstances relevant to the scope of the advice' is s...

1 month 3 weeks ago

This verdict highlights something deeply wrong and rotten at the heart of the FSCP. We are witnessing a heavy-handed, op...

2 months ago

Interesting. Would be good to know the details of the StrategyOne deal....

2 months ago

SuperRatings has shared the median estimated return for balanced superannuation funds for the calendar year 2024, finding the year achieved “strong and consistent positiv...

2 weeks 2 days ago

Original bidder Bain Capital, which saw its first offer rejected in December, has returned with a revised bid for Insignia Financial....

1 week 2 days ago

The FAAA has secured CSLR-related documents under the FOI process, after an extended four-month wait, which show little analysis was done on how the scheme’s cost would a...

1 week ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS