Blame flies in AMP adviser dispute

An ex-AMP adviser involved in a bitter court dispute over his business has slammed AMP for its role in the saga, but his former business partner says he’s the one at fault.

Tuesday, December 11th 2012, 6:49AM 5 Comments

by Niko Kloeten

Bryan Tucker, a former area business manager for AMP before he became an adviser, merged his AMP broking business with that of fellow Authorised Financial Adviser (AFA) Eddie Longman in 2010.

They agreed to go their separate ways after Tucker fell out with AMP and Longman decided to stay with the provider.

AMP soon exercised its “step-in” rights to take control of the business as a dispute developed between the advisers that ended up in the High Court.

Tucker claims AMP was “working in concert” with Longman and has questioned its motives for a complaint it made about him to the Financial Markets Authority, which he said was made out of spite after AMP found out it had no restraint of trade against him.

He said the complaint, and his dispute with AMP, related to discounts given to clients switching over to new AMP products; Tucker claimed no complaint was made against Longman because he had chosen to stay with AMP.

Tucker, who spent nearly 28 years with AMP, said his difficulty selling his part of the business showed the pitfalls of being a tied adviser.

“When you’re a tied adviser you are supposedly building an asset for your future but the asset they build very rarely produces a whole lot of value… any value they get is usually if they use the cash-flow to buy other things such as rental properties.”

However, Longman said Tucker was to blame for the dispute, which is due for a court hearing early next year.

Advice Tucker was providing to clients was “often not in their best interests” and after they agreed to part ways Tucker “began claiming ownership of my clients and continuing the same practices that had got him into trouble with AMP,” Longman said.

He said Tucker attempted to exclude him from the merged businesses entirely and “continued in his attempts to poach clients from me that are not his using the client lists he gained access to during the period our businesses were merged.”

He said he and at least three other parties that he was aware of had complained to the FMA about Tucker, against whom he would be taking further legal action.

A spokesman for AMP said the company couldn’t comment on the dispute or confirm whether it had complained to the FMA, due to privacy issues.

Earlier story

Niko Kloeten can be contacted at niko@goodreturns.co.nz

« [Weekly Wrap] More questions about Ross

Fund managers call for level playing field »

Special Offers

Comments from our readers

On 11 December 2012 at 8:28 am Independent Observer said:

When I hear comments like: “When you’re a tied adviser you are supposedly building an asset for your future but the asset they build very rarely produces a whole lot of value”, and “Advice Tucker was providing to clients was “often not in their best interests” I wonder whether the industry has really learnt anything from the events of the past few years.

What about the client’s interests – where do they rank in all of this?

On 11 December 2012 at 9:10 am Amused said:

Tucker, who spent nearly 28 years with AMP, said his difficulty selling his part of the business showed the pitfalls of being a tied adviser. “When you’re a tied adviser you are supposedly building an asset for your future but the asset they build very rarely produces a whole lot of value…"

I don't know the full background behind this dispute between Tucker & Longman but regardless it illustrates exactly why as an adviser you wouldn't want your business aligned to the one provider!

On 11 December 2012 at 2:37 pm billy the broker said:

lesson...don't get into bed unless you know your partner implicitly!
Sorry to say it sound like he said she said..and the AMP acting like big brother..with a little bit of naughty churning going on....very familiar:(

On 12 December 2012 at 9:30 pm Informer Observer said:

"Tucker “began claiming ownership of my clients"? Mr Longman remains deluded about who owns the clients he refers to. Perhaps it is time he re-read the High Court judgment (as should anyone else who is in doubt about the facts of this dispute). As for taking further legal action, I can only guess that Mr Tucker will say "bring it on" ....

On 17 December 2012 at 3:14 pm Cynical Observer said:

Always amused by people who claim they know the inside story. Unless you were there you don't know enough to make an educated comment. Why don't we all just wait and see as it will all come out in the wash.

Sign In to add your comment