AMP Limited (AMP) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

[Presentation] Good morning, everyone. My name is Debra Hazelton, and I am Chair of AMP Limited and Chair of your meeting today. As the Company Secretary has informed me that a quorum is present, I now formally open our 2023 Annual General Meeting. I'd like to begin by paying our respects to elders, past and present, and to all First Nations people across the country. AMP acknowledges the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet and the custodians of the lands from which you are all joining us today. We pay our respect to elders, past, present and emerging, and we extend that same respect and recognition to all First Nations people. Thank you to all of you for joining us here at Wesley Conference Center and those shareholders participating online. Welcome to the Annual General Meeting of AMP Limited. We understand that it is important to allow shareholders to have different means of joining a meeting, and we are pleased that once again, we have been able to provide options for shareholders. I'm joined on the stage this morning by our fellow directors on the Board of AMP Limited and Andrew Price, representing AMP's auditors, Ernst & Young in the audience. The Board is currently comprised of 7 non-executive directors and our CEO, who is a Managing Director on the Board. All of our non-executive directors are also members of the Nomination Committee. I would like to take a moment to introduce our directors. Starting on my far left, we have Andrea Slattery. Andrea was appointed to the Board in February 2019 and is Chair of the ESG and Sustainability Advisory Group, and a member of the Audit Committee and Risk and Compliance Committee. Sitting next to Andrea is our newest director, Andrew Best. Andrew was appointed to the Board in July 2022 and is a member of the Risk and Compliance Committee and the Technology Transformation Advisory Group. Andrew is standing for election today and I will invite Andrew to say a few words when we reach that item. Sitting next to Andrew is Rahoul Chowdry. Rahoul was appointed to the Board in January 2020 and is Chair of the Audit Committee and a member of the Risk and Compliance Committee. Rahoul is standing for reelection today, so I will invite Rahoul to say a few words when we reach that item. Next to Rahoul, on my immediate left is our CEO, Alexis George. Alexis joined AMP in August 2021 and was appointed to the AMP Limited Board as Managing Director shortly after her commencement. Alexis will provide an update on AMP's financial performance in 2022 and delivery against the strategic priorities. Turning to my far right, we have Mike Hirst. Mike was appointed to the Board in July 2021 and is the Chair of the Risk and Compliance Committee and a member of the Remuneration Committee and Technology Transformation Advisory Group. Next to Mike is Kate McKenzie. Kate was appointed to the Board in November 2020 and is Chair of the Technology Transformation Advisory Group. Kate has been appointed by the Board to chair the segment of today's meeting when I will be standing for reelection. On my immediate right, we have our Group General Counsel and Company Secretary, David Cullen, who will assist me today in the running of the meeting. Thank you, David. Unfortunately, Michael Sammells is unable to join us in person today due to an unforeseen family matter, and he has joined us on Teams. Michael was appointed to the Board in March 2020 and is Chair of the Remuneration Committee and member of the Audit Committee. Michael is standing for reelection today, and I will invite Michael to say a few words when we reach that item. I'd also like to acknowledge the members of the AMP executive team. who are seated in the front row to provide this Board today. For those of you who joined our hybrid AGM last year, the procedures for voting and the Q&A process remain the same. I will ask David Cullen, our Company Secretary, to go through that with you now. Thank you, David.

Thank you, Chair. Let me start with Q&A. When we come to discussion on each resolution, there are 3 ways in which questions can be asked today. We'll first address the questions in the auditorium, then the questions submitted on the online platform, which I will read out. And lastly, questions on the phone line, which will be -- we will ask for an operator to facilitate. For those here in person, when we come to question time, you can ask your question, by approaching 1 of the 2 microphone attendants showing your admission and voting card and providing your name. For those attending online, today's meeting is being held by the Computershare meeting platform. This allows shareholders, proxies and guests to attend the meeting virtually, and shareholders and proxies can ask questions and vote online. Online attendees, who are shareholders or proxies of a shareholder can submit questions at any time. [Operator Instructions] Questions can be submitted now and throughout the meeting, and they will be addressed at the relevant item of business. As there may be a short time lag with technology, to ensure your question is received before the relevant item, we encourage you to submit your questions now. Please also note that your questions may be moderated. For example, if we receive multiple questions on 1 topic, they may be amalgamated or if a question is particularly lengthy, we may need to summarize it in the interest of time. We've received a number of questions from shareholders in advance of the meeting. Thank you for these, and we'll address these questions at the appropriate time during the course of the meeting. If you experience technical difficulty with the online platform during the meeting, please refer to the user guide on the Computershare platform or contact Computershare. To ask a question over the telephone, please follow the instructions written below the broadcast. If you have questions about your AMP products or services or about any other personal dealings with AMP unrelated to your interest as a shareholder, we asked you to please contact the customer center. Let me now explain the voting procedures. Only shareholders or their proxies, attorneys and representatives can vote. For attendees here in person who are eligible to vote, you can scan the QR code on your admission and voting card with your mobile device at any time after the voting has opened. This will take you to the online voting page. If you don't have a mobile device, you may complete your vote on the reverse side of your admission and voting card. For online attendees who are eligible to vote, when voting opens on the Computershare online platform, press the vote icon and all resolutions will be activated with voting options. To cast your vote, simply select one of the options. There is no need to hit a submit or enter button as the vote is automatically recorded. You'll receive a vote confirmation notification on your screen. You can change your vote up until the time the voting is declared closed. If you are participating today as a proxy and your appointing shareholder has directed you had to vote on any items of business, these proxy votes will be cast as directed. You only need to cast open proxy votes that you hold. As set out in the notice of meeting, voting restrictions apply on items 3 and 4 to AMP's key management personnel and their closely related parties. We have implemented procedures with Computershare to ensure that these voting restrictions are followed. Voting on all items of business today will be conducted by way of a poll. Details of the results for all the items will be shown on the screen after the voting is closed following Item 5. In order to provide you with enough time to vote, we will shortly open voting on resolutions 2 to 5. Barry, as a part of Computershare has been appointed as the returning officer. Following confirmation by Computershare, final results will be announced on the ASX later today and published on our website. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, David. I declare that each of the proposed resolutions set out in items 2 to 5 of the notice of meeting are now properly before the meeting. And I declare the poll open on those items of business. The voting icon will soon appear. Please submit your votes at any time. All directed proxies to me are being cast in accordance with the directions provided by shareholders. The available open proxies I am holding in my capacity as Chair of the meeting are being cast in favor of Resolutions 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 3, 4 and 5. Our agenda for today is now on the screen. As you can see, Alexis George, our CEO and I will both address the meeting before we move to the formal business. I address you all today, our shareholders amidst the backdrop of very challenging global economic conditions. I preface this by saying that we are fortunate here in Australia to have a strong and effective regulatory framework for banks of all sizes. The government and our regulators have clearly reminded us that Australia's financial system remains resilient, well-capitalized and highly liquid. That said, the ramifications of the recent bank turmoil in the U.S. and Europe have been felt in the Australian market by our banking sector and regulators and are still being digested. The implications of the sudden failure of Silicon Valley Bank, the near failure of others in the U.S. and the rescue takeover of Credit Suisse are still playing out. What we do know is that as a financial institution, liquidity is paramount as is having an experienced Board and management at the helm to ensure we navigate through this period successfully. AMP has weathered many economic storms in our 174-year history, and the fundamentals of our company remain strong. Our business portfolios are well positioned in their respective markets, particularly since leaning into the imperative to make AMP's offerings more competitive over the last 12 to 18 months. In particular, based on the timely completion of the recent divestment of the AMP Capital businesses, we are very pleased to have delivered for our shareholders a much more resilient company as we phase into current economic headwinds and market volatility. We are a simplified company with a stronger balance sheet and liquidity position. And we are now in a stronger position to focus on the go-forward banking and wealth management businesses in Australia and New Zealand. We are in a stronger position as a result of the many deliberate decisions taken in 2022, a year of getting things done for AMP. There is still more to do, but we have been making encouraging progress. As Chair, I am proud of AMP's progress in supporting our customers, our people and the community, building on AMP's strong legacy, and at the same time, strengthening the business and sharpening our strategic focus. We are already delivering on our commitment to return capital to shareholders and we are now in a position to address the appropriate capital structure and cost base for our go-forward business. Key function of any Board is the appointment of the CEO. Since we appointed Alexis George in 2021, she has set a clear road map for AMP and together with her leadership team has made great progress through strategy execution and comfortable transformation. We are partway through AMP's transformation program and have full confidence in the CEO and management team's ability to deliver. As you will be aware, last month, we announced the completion of the sales of AMP Capital International Infrastructure Equity business. And this month, the Real Estate and Domestic Infrastructure Equity business. The completion of these sales follows the divestment in the past 18 months of the remaining interest in AMP Life and the other AMP Capital businesses. These transactions were all very complex, and their completion marks a significant milestone in the delivery of our simplification strategy. Returning the capital raised through these sales to shareholders is a priority. Last August, we announced a $1.1 billion capital return program, which comprises $350 million via on-market buyback, which is now complete. Another $400 million via the announcement of further on-market buybacks and a 2022 final dividend of $0.025 per share and another $350 million through on- or off-market buybacks or other capital mechanisms, which are subject to regulatory and other approvals. As well as the delivery of portfolio simplification, AMP's businesses in 2022 displayed a solid operational performance, particularly given the challenging market environment. The 2 key growth areas identified in our strategy, the bank and platform businesses reported progress and momentum. AMP's offerings are now more competitive and compelling for customers. That's due to investment in technology to improve the customer experience in banking platforms and more competitive pricing across platforms and our default [ super ] business. These strategic decisions had negative short-term impacts on profit but will benefit the businesses and our shareholders in the longer term. During 2022, management also significantly reduced costs, meeting our 3-year $300 million cost-out target announced in 2019, including significant cost reductions in the Advice business. This marks significant progress on the transformation of AMP. We have simplified and strengthened the business portfolio and launched new offerings while exploring other growth opportunities. We have mapped out a pathway to return capital efficiently and will continue to focus on delivering a sustainable lower cost base appropriate for the new AMP. As ever, we maintain a strong focus on governance at Board level as we guide the organization through this transformation. Board renewal has been critical to this. We have welcomed 3 new independent directors since I became Chair and are confident that the new Board has the right balance of deep banking and wealth management backgrounds as well as the diversity of thought and broader relevant backgrounds and experience. Ahead of the meeting today, we received some shareholder questions and other feedback. We appreciate the feedback. We appreciate all feedback we received from investors and other stakeholders. I believe it's important to address some of the more prominent topics here and now. First, a number of shareholders have highlighted concern about the fall in the share price since the announcement of our FY '22 results. I acknowledge that the share price performance in February was extremely disappointing. That said, while the Board and executive are mindful, of course, of the day-to-day share price movements, it is the long term, which remains our focus. By successfully executing our strategy and delivering on commitments, the share price will ultimately reflect that, irrespective of the influence of short term market factors that may well be out of our control. Over the course of 2022, AMP's share price outperformed the market by about 30% as we progressed our transformation strategy. While the performance since February has reversed part of that gain, influenced as well by macroeconomic factors, we must focus on the long-term trend and where we take the business from here. We have a clear strategy in place and are focused on the key growth businesses as well as rightsizing our cost base and returning capital to our shareholders. Second, some shareholders have raised the size of AMP's capital management program and the pace of capital return, keen for us to return capital faster. As already mentioned, we are steadily progressing the committed $1.1 billion return to shareholders. To expedite that today, we are asking you to approve a motion to give the company flexibility to buyback and cancel up to 500 million AMP shares in the next 12-month period. We have also recommenced the payment of dividends. The 2022 final dividend for the 6 months to December 2022 is the first dividend AMP has paid in 4 years and should be a strong sign to all of you of confidence in the stability and performance of the business going forward. Returning capital to shareholders as quickly as possible is a top priority for the Board and management. And I promise you that there has been much work done to determine how we do that most efficiently. The speed of capital return and any ability to increase the amount of that capital return is driven by 2 key factors: one, we have determined that returning capital through an on-market share buyback is the most tax-effective method for shareholders. However, on-market share buybacks by their nature, take time. Because the buyback reduces the number of shares on issue and increases the portion of AMP you own, it increases your participation in the future success of the company. And two, as for the size of the capital return. This is largely driven by our regulatory obligations to maintain appropriate capital and liquidity levels. As you will well understand, this is even more important given the current ongoing market volatility. For both Board and management, it is an absolute priority to both complete the current $1.1 billion capital management program and to consider future options for returning any additional surplus capital to shareholders. The latter will form part of the capital and balance sheet review, along with a cost review, which were announced earlier this month by the CEO following the recent completion of the AMP Capital sales. Concerns have also been raised about how AMP Super directs voting for its investments when voting on climate resolutions. With the changes to our business and divestment of AMP Capital, these investments are no longer managed directly by AMP but through third-party fund managers. However, this is important and absolutely indicates how important AMP regards climate risk. Despite the fact that management of investments is now through external managers, AMP took the decision last September that on climate-specific resolutions for select energy, materials and utility companies, we would direct our managers were available to us as to how to vote our investment. AMP discloses its voting statistics annually. AMP's position on climate change is articulated in the latest sustainability report. Many of our actions in the previous report 2021 have been superseded as the actions related specifically to AMP Capital and are no longer relevant. With the completion of the final AMP Capital sale transaction earlier this month, AMP has committed to a comprehensive review of its balance sheet, with the view to returning excess liquidity to shareholders and/or reducing outstanding debt. We have also committed to review the operational model and cost base for the future business. Both reviews will be a key priority during the first half of 2023 and will reflect the forward-looking focus on AMP Bank and the Australia and New Zealand Wealth Management businesses. While we have identified in the order of $500 million of liquidity that could be deemed excess to requirements in a normal operating environment, given the current volatile markets, the Board deems it appropriate to retain this liquidity and focus on efficient execution of the $1.1 billion return program until the capital and balance sheet review is completed. Clearly, at a time like this, AMP's capital position is a significant strength for us. On costs, we fully recognize that a structural shift is required to rightsize AMP's cost base. I want to assure shareholders that we intend to align our go-forward cost base to the size of the go-forward business. It's also important to point out that AMP is still in a transition period. And while we're close to separating the legacy business, there do remain costs and other separation activity to work through. Just to keep costs flat this year, management will need to mitigate the impact of inflation and stranded costs that have resulted from the sales. Alexis and her team will also continue to actively identify all future sustainable cost reductions across business units. Moreover, our new CFO, Peter Fredricson, is focused on working hard hand in hand with Alexis to simplify the internal operating model and architecture to further unlock sustainable cost reductions. An update on the quantum and intended use of identified surplus liquidity and the amount and timing for delivery of identified cost savings will be reported back to shareholders as soon as the reviews are completed, but no later than with the delivery of our half year results this August. I'd now like to take some time to talk about AMP's remuneration approach and acknowledge some negative shareholder feedback as demonstrated by votes already cast on today's resolution -- sorry, remuneration report resolution. Based on the votes already cast, we are expecting to receive a first strike on the adoption of the remuneration report. While we have already made significant changes to our remuneration framework over the last 12 months, based on comprehensive engagement with investors, proxy advisers, remuneration experts and importantly regulators, we remain keen to understand and respond to all feedback. While the first strike we're expecting today is disappointing, we hear the feedback from our stakeholders and are committed to continuing to evolve our approach. I would summarize the 2 key objectives -- objections to the remuneration report as follows: one, the Board's decision to award a bonus higher than the scorecard outcome, particularly in light of the fall of the share price in February; and two, a lack of both a retrospective and prospective disclosure of STI targets. I think there's merit in explaining the way we think about the remuneration. We're guided by 3 key principles: one, ensuring a clear link between performance and the reward outcome; two, reaching a balance between shareholder experience and rewarding our people for what they deliver against the group scorecard and a holistic assessment of performance in the year; and three, attracting and retaining the talent required to deliver on AMP's transformation strategy. The Board appreciates that the share price performance in February of this year may have colored shareholders' view of management's performance. Remuneration was allocated based on performance against the 2022 scorecard, in addition to a number of other factors that occurred during the performance year that were not envisaged at the start of 2022. The Board is obliged by regulation to apply appropriate discretion to ensure that performance is assessed holistically. In doing so, the Board deemed that upward discretion was warranted due to the value creation and strategic delivery that was not captured in the scorecard measures. The 2022 scorecard was designed without the prior knowledge of the requirement to pivot to trade sales from the planned demerger during the year. There is no doubt that this extra work was in the best interest of shareholders. Discretion also reflected a more than 30% increase in the share price over the course of the performance period. It's important to note, I think, to highlight consistency that the Board exercised downward discretion in 2021, once again, to align reward for management with shareholders' disappointing experiences during that year. With regard to the disclosure of STI targets, we are continually looking to improve our disclosures. We take the feedback of shareholders on board, and we'll consider the 2023 performance outcomes on this basis. With respect to our new 2023 remuneration framework, the feedback has been largely positive, as you can see by the vote for the 2023 LTI grant for the CEO item 4. The Board made several changes in order to comply with APRA's new remuneration prudential CPS 511, as well as improving the framework's effectiveness. The changes outlined in the remuneration report and the notice of meeting, explanation -- exploratory -- sorry, explanation results and notes are the result of comprehensive engagement with investors, proxy advisers, remuneration experts and regulators over the past 12 months. Critical to these changes has been finding the appropriate balance between financial and nonfinancial metrics. Much of the restructuring of the framework addresses this to ensure AMP meets the expectations of regulators and of course, our shareholders. For our 2023 short-term incentive scorecard, we've listened to market feedback and increased the weighting of financial objectives with an increased focus on profitability. We've maintained a balance of nonfinancial metrics, including customer, people and risk in line with the new regulatory requirements of CPS 511. And our ongoing commitment to these key performance areas. The strategy metric includes nonfinancial and financially aligned measures. The new regulations require that a material weighting is also given to nonfinancial metrics across all variable reward. As such, we have introduced a nonfinancial metric in the design of the long-term incentive. In response, we have included an independent benchmark relative reputation measure, together with the financial measures of relative TSR and adjusted EPS. With AMP's performance year, starting on first of January this year, I note that we are one of the first organizations whose go-forward remuneration structure needs to comply with these new regulations. As such, we'll continue to seek feedback from stakeholders during this year on our model. Turning to the critical matter of governance. Good governance is central to our business performance and culture. As we simplify AMP, we are ensuring that the functioning of the Board reflects the needs of the company for its future. During 2022, we restructured the Board committees while continuing to reduce the cost of running the Board. We also established 2 advisory groups to enhance our focus on the key strategic enablers of ESG and sustainability and technology transformation. Board is made up of committed individuals with deep integrity, experience and high capability. In addition to core banking and wealth management skills and experience, the diverse mix of backgrounds results in deep insights into technology, risk management, government, culture transformation, multi-sector advisory, strategy and capital management, among others. It also means robust boardroom discussions and challenges to management. The Board takes an active role in guiding AMP's cultural transformation. And from its beginning, has had a strong focus on driving a culture of performance, inclusion and accountability. We have also continued to enhance AMP's robust risk culture. We fully recognize that the risks facing the industry are evolving and that all businesses must continually refine and strengthen their responses as well as looking forward to anticipate future risks and mitigants. A key process in determining focus areas from a risk perspective is our annual materiality review, which is an important part of our sustainability work. This ongoing engagement with stakeholders on their most material issues helps to inform the Board's decision making around risks most relevant to our business and our stakeholders. I believe that engagement with stakeholders and other relevant -- I'm sorry, I believe that engagement with our shareholders as well as other relevant stakeholders is essential if the Board is to deliver on its obligation to always act in the best long-term interest of the company, that is all our shareholders. I'm conscious that there's often a dichotomy of views around financial performance and meeting stakeholder expectations regarding ESG standards. Strong financial performance is critical, of course. However, we believe that the 2 interests are not mutually exclusive and that they often converge, particularly in the longer term. This is how we think about setting up the company for a strong sustainable future. To that end, as Chair of one of Australia's leading wealth managers, on very conscious of the broader role that AMP has to play in society in supporting financial well-being. It's a role that AMP has played for 174 years and will continue to play into the future. The Board takes its role as custodian of wealth and retirement savings very seriously. We recognize the profound impact it could have on individuals and our society. For individuals, our purpose as an organization is helping people create their tomorrow. This means supporting our customers and members to realize their financial goals and aspirations and to support them when things don't go to plan. For society more broadly, we have an opportunity to play a leading role in enabling Australians to feel more confident in their retirement and an increasing financial well-being, financial literacy and financial inclusion. We also addressed this responsibility to society through our sustainability report and other related policies and engagement, which helped guide our investment decisions as well. We are very aware of the responsibility we have to those parts of the community that need more support. We're acting on this through our reconciliation action plan, our collaboration with community partners to support financial counseling programs across Australia, and of course, through our support for the important work of the AMP Foundation in enabling individuals and organizations to tackle complex social and environmental challenges. This work and much more makes AMP a company we can all be very proud to be associated with. For any Board, there's always a great deal of focus on managing risk. And of course, for AMP's Board, that is no different. However, we are also focused on the significant potential in this business. I am confident that AMP has a bright and prosperous future as a bank and wealth manager in Australia and New Zealand. As a Board, our interests are entirely aligned to yours as shareholders. We will continue to work hard to deliver your business that is strong and stable, returning consistent value to its shareholders and other stakeholders and has a corporate structure and cost base that is efficient and fit for purpose and is a highly respected iconic Australian company. Thank you for your ongoing support. I will now hand over to Alexis.

Thank you, Chair. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to meet with our shareholders today and to give you an update on the significant progress we've made in our transformation over the past year. Since the release of our annual results, I've had the opportunity to hear from many shareholders and other stakeholders. And I can assure you that the team and I are listening to the feedback. Today, as well as highlighting our achievements for the year, I want to take the opportunity to address some of that feedback. And I also want to layout very clearly our priorities for the next 12 months as we set the business up to deliver long-term sustainable growth for shareholders. Despite the uncertainty of the operating environment, we are very confident in the strength of our position with a healthy balance sheet and liquidity following the sales of the AMP Capital businesses. That position takes into account the $1.1 billion capital were in the process of returning to shareholders as a result of our asset sales and simplification. We've made great progress on the path to a new AMP. We've executed the AMP Capital sales while also achieving significant progress in repositioning our existing businesses, creating opportunities for growth and demonstrating innovation. The 3 key pillars of our strategy: first outlined in November '21 had been the subject of a consistent focus right across every team at AMP. Those pillars remain reposition, simplify and explore. Firstly, our focus on repositioning is about how we ensure each of our businesses can win in their respective markets. Last year, you would have heard me talk about how our bank and platform businesses are the growth engines that we're focused on investing in and driving performance from. We operate in competitive spaces in both these businesses and so have been working hard to win and retain business in both. In Bank, that's included investing in our service proposition and the relationships with our broker network to drive growth in an ultra-competitive market. I'm very pleased with our progress in '22, having delivered loan growth of $2 billion or 9.4% for the year. We've achieved this through new customer acquisition by the traditional channels and through a small loan book purchase. We achieved year-on-year customer growth of 16% across both loans and deposits. We also launched a new direct-to-customer proposition with our digital mortgage, which I'll talk about more shortly. In Platforms, our focus has been on making sure this solution is competitively priced, meets customers' digital needs and has the investment choices being demanded by clients. We also launched our new retirement solutions, which gives customers confidence about their income and retirement. These focuses allowed us to grow our footprint in '22 with platform net cash flows of $936 million. These innovations mean we continue to see a positive upward trajectory in flows from those independent advisers, which we continue to engage with. In both Platforms and Super businesses, we also took the strategic decision to reprice these offers to better compete in the market. While this impacted our profit in '22, it will benefit both of these businesses as we move forward. In our Advice business, we successfully drove down costs for the second year in a row and more than half the losses in that business to further improve AMP's overall profit position. Continuing to drive our Advice business towards breakeven is one of the business's highest priorities and good progress continues to be made. In addition, relationships with the broader adviser community and AMP continued to improve, which is a critical factor for success. Our New Zealand business has produced resilient earnings despite the challenging investment markets. We continue to be the leading corporate super provider in that market. We've maintained discipline on cost, reducing expenses to offset inflation with controllable costs down nearly 3% for the year. Now turning to our strategic pillar, Simplify. The completion of the 2 recent sales of the AMP Capital businesses is a significant milestone as it finally completes our divestment of AMP Capital. The final transaction, which settled on 24 March was complicated, but it's important that we now have clarity for the people and the clients of that business. In '22, we complete the remainder of the lifestyle, the infrastructure debt transactions, our fund management business sale and in '23, the international infrastructure business; and finally, the remaining local infrastructure and real estate sales. These were all major transactions and importantly, enable the focus of management to move squarely onto driving the go-forward business of banking in Australia and Wealth Management in Australia and New Zealand. The sales and simplification unpin the $1.1 billion capital return that we've talked about previously and today and the reestablishment of dividends, which is an important demonstration of our confidence in the future profitability and stability of AMP. As the Chair mentioned, we're undertaking a balance sheet review with the intention of really challenging ourselves around the capital requirements of the business. Now it has been reshaped. While we assess that we have in the order of $500 million of capital that may be surplus to our liquidity needs, the current environment means it's appropriate for us to retain this funding in the interim. When the capital and balance sheet review are completed, which is due no later than August, the return of any excess capital will be considered taking into account the market conditions that prevail at that time. Importantly, and I know this is something that a number of you have raised, now that we're a smaller business, the next step is to rightsize our operating model for agility and efficiency. This means reducing our costs and simplifying our operating model. We acknowledge that our cost base is too high for the size of the company we are today and in the future. However, we've been through significant change in the last years and still have work to completely separate the businesses that have been sold. '23 will see flat costs in a period of higher inflation than we've seen for some time. This means that we need to take actions to both deal with the upward cost inflation and the additional costs that have emerged from the sales. The team and I know that as we move forward, we have to drive further efficiencies and rightsize the organization for the future. No one is shying away from this, and we've publicly committed to coming to our shareholders with further detail in our half yearly results. While much work is already underway to simplify and reposition AMP we've also been looking to the future and exploring new opportunities for growth. We've launched new products that are unique in their markets as we shift the organization towards a growth mindset. We've delivered new retirement solutions to address the fear of running out that many retirees face, and they're now available on our North platform through financial advisers. We've also created a direct-to-customer offer in bank with the launch last year of our digital mortgage, where customers can now refinance entirely online in just 30 minutes. I'm proud of the work that the teams have shown and being able to deliver these innovative offers, which are aligned to our strategy of putting customers at the center of our decision-making. For many Australians, their Home and Super are their 2 biggest assets, and we're here to support them to manage and leverage those assets to help them create their tomorrow. The retirement solutions and digital mortgage are great examples of what we can achieve when we put sustained focus on innovation. The significant progress we've made on the strategy is underpinned by our purpose and values. We've embedded our purpose, helping people create their tomorrow throughout the business over the last 12 months. Our continued focus on culture is also being positively reflected in our employee engagement scores. In '22, our engagement score continued to increase, reaching 73 up from 71 in the prior period. AMP has also launched a new brand campaign, which you saw today, designed to raise awareness of its banking and wealth solutions for Australians. And I'm very excited by it. You may have also seen it on TV or advertised on bus shelters and in public areas on your travels. Personally, I'm really pleased to see AMP's brand back out in the market promoting who we are and being proud of what we do. The brand campaign is another sign that we're building momentum and that we're positioning AMP for the future and for growth. I'd now like to specifically discuss our business performance for the '22 year. As the Chair mentioned, some shareholders raised concerns about the fall in share price following AMP's results announcements. Let me first say that the market response to our results was also very disappointing to me. I want to emphasize that we take our obligation to keep the market fully informed very seriously, and we believe that our profit announcement was largely in line with our guidance. This reporting period was complicated by our multiple asset sales and the profit of those sold businesses being moved into our discontinued operations. Clearly, we also delivered our results in a period where there are broader market factors at play. As the Chair mentioned, in '22, the share price outperformed the market, reflecting the significant progress we've made on the strategy that I've just been outlining. While the more recent performance has reversed some of this price gain was focused on continuing to execute on the strategy to deliver long-term growth and value for shareholders. So let's take a look at the businesses and how they did perform for '22. Despite the challenging environment and the impact of strategic pricing decisions that I've already referred to, the AMP businesses delivered a resilient performance during '22 with $184 million underlying net profit after tax. We took a disciplined approach to growing the bank in a competitive environment, but even with that approach, we're successful in growing the mortgage book above system. Platforms and MasterTrust earnings were both impacted by falls in investment markets that led to overall reductions in the value of their assets under management as well as the repricing initiatives I've talked about. More positively, platform's net cash flows were up, and that is in part due to our renewed focus on independent financial advisers. The transformation and reduced costs and advice helped the bottom line with losses improving by $78 million. New Zealand business earnings also remained resilient but was slightly lower than the prior period, mainly due to the impact of investment markets. Meanwhile, our China Life joint ventures are continuing to deliver growth in earnings and value. Our focus on simplification also saw controllable costs across the business reduced by $76 million, which is offset by CPI increases of just over $20 million. While the business is subject to ongoing volatile market conditions, we've completed important transformation work and investment in our businesses will make them -- that will make them more resilient and translate into improved business performance. Over the past year, we've also continued our commitment to running a business that prioritizes sustainability for the benefit of all our stakeholders. We've continued to make progress on our climate-related strategies. This includes establishing a baseline for Scope 3 financed emissions in AMP Bank. In our Super business, we're taking a more active position on climate-related investment directing the votes of our external fund managers on initiatives for selected energy, materials and utility companies. These actions build on our long-standing carbon-neutral commitment across operations, both Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, which has been in place since 2013. We're also very proud to be celebrating the 30th anniversary of our foundation, AMP's independently funded philanthropic arm. It's contributed more than $110 million to Australian communities through social impact investing, direct donations, innovative grant programs and is engaging AMP employees through dollar matching donations and volunteering. Looking forward, I'm incredibly optimistic about the future of AMP while also very clear on the work we still have to do to meet my own high expectations for this business and the expectations of all stakeholders. Reputation remains important to our success. AMP has an iconic brand that is entwined with the history of Australia, and it's important that we protect and leverage it. We have a robust risk culture, and together with our purpose and values-led approach are confident of continuing to move beyond the legacy issues that have in recent history held us back. Clearly, in an organization like ours, our people are a key to success. I'm personally dedicated to ensuring we have a highly engaged, high-performing team that delivers constantly for our customers and goes above and beyond to make AMP successful for all stakeholders. As CEO, I can assure you that the executive team remains focused on our strategic priorities and will continue to work tirelessly for our stakeholders, including importantly, our shareholders. We most certainly have more hard work to do, but we're well positioned to navigate the market challenges ahead. During '22, we did deliver on our promises, simplified the business and are ready to focus on a go-forward strategy. AMP has the potential for a highly successful future. We have a motivated management team determined to ensure it reaches that potential. Thank you. I'll hand back to the Chair.

Thank you, Alexis. Now let us turn to the formal business of the meeting. The items of business for today's meeting are set out on the screen. The proxy position for each item is also shown on the screen. The Notice of Meeting contains detailed information and explanatory notes on each item should you refer to it. Turning to the first item of business. The purpose of this item is to discuss the 2022 financial report and directors and auditors reports contained within the 2022 annual report. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce Andrew Price of Ernst & Young, AMP's auditor. Andrew is here today in his role as EY's lead audit partner for AMP. Andrew is available to answer questions relating to the audit of our 2022 accounts. I now call for any questions or comments on our 2022 financial report and directors and auditors reports or on the management of AMP. Please note that we will focus specifically on the remuneration report later in the meeting. As David mentioned earlier, I will take questions from the auditorium first. [Operator Instructions] We have a question from the auditorium, and I will take that question from microphone #1.

Chair, I would like to introduce Mr. Star.

Good morning Debra, my name is Peter Star. I'm here representing the number of shareholders and then I'm a private equity adviser. I'd like to say to Ms. George, thanks for coming and speaking with us before the meeting. And then also 2 my other colleagues that are here, Mr. Coffee, who you know, so we're grateful for that. Some general comments for the whole Board to -- I know it's mainly being reviewed, but I remember back in 2018, our share price was at [ $4.89 ] and since then, it's been on a decline. While you've been speaking it's sitting at $1.07. Now back in 2019, we had a special dividend of $0.10, something for the Board to consider for these people in the audience here, mom and dad shareholders, retirees who had their Super who have their shares in AMP is to think about when you're returning capital to them is that $0.10 dividend that we got back in 2019 was a big thing. So -- and some other things too. The previous Boards, I know we changed. And it's nice to see we've got ladies. Maybe we won't have to deal with nonsense that we've dealt with in the past, [indiscernible] in the Company, sending pictures and other nonsense that went on. Shareholders don't want to hear that. We want to see the company performing. We want to see the Board performing, and we're sick and tired of the nonsense that's going on. Now with all due respect to Ms. George, she's a fresh start and a fresh face, and we're prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt. Given that Mr. Caufield, who is on my right here happens to know Alexis quite well, we're quite prepared to back her. It's good we've got a lady chair as well. But the nonsense went on from 2018 that affected the real people in this room, they're the real people, ladies and gentlemen, who hold shares, and I'm blank here listening and paying attention. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Star. And thank you to all of you who are here today and who are supporters of AMP. We fully recognize the disappointment in the long-term share price movements of AMP. But I think it's important at the very beginning of this session to make clear to think about to remember that in 2018, there was a Royal Commission. I I'm not questioning or underappreciating Mr. Star's comments, by the way. What I'd like to say is that Royal Commission totally upended AMP's business model. It meant that the vertical integration business model was totally upended. It was -- had an enormous effect on AMP almost existential. Since that time, we have a new Board new CEO. Thank you for your support. And we are working, I promise you, tirelessly to restore AMP to what it was. And I can say we have made progress in that transformation. We still have work to do, but we are generating profits and dividends, and we are working really hard to make sure those dividends are consistent and sustainable going forward.

I appreciate the response you've given. I'd like you also to consider when the time is right with that excess capital that we think about returning excess capital to the mom and dad shareholders here, not only just the shareholders I'm representing. And just another 2 quick points, if I could make because I know there's plenty of other people in the room who'd like to speak, but it is really important here for the Board to really focus on the business and to make certain we do not make the same mistakes that have happened in the past. Now I know most of you are new. I'd like to take a thing out of the gentleman, Andrew Best. Do you know? The Board needs to put their best foot forward, okay, if I can just say that. And just on the Royal Commission, I'm very grateful to have Mr. Caufield and Mr. Sanderson, they played a big -- I pay a very minor part in the Royal Commission, but they played a very big part in lobbying to get that in the nonsense that went on with financial institutions, they ought to hang their heads and shams, from Westpac to Commonwealth Bank, the whole Board of Commonwealth Bank has been replaced, and half of the Board of Westpac is gone. So -- and a lot of that's due to the hard work that Mr. Caufield of Mr. Sanderson played in the background beginning Royal Commission that was overdue needed. Thank you.

Thank you, thank you very much, Mr. Star. I'll take a question now from, #2.

Chair, I would like to introduce Mr. Sanderson. Good morning, Mr. Sanderson.

Good day, Board. As I said, my name Michael Sanderson. I'm an adviser at the bank reform now, also a foundation member of a group called Bank Warriors. I've got a number of questions, but I'll roll out 2. First one relates to share buyback. AMP has committed $360 million of share buyback once again further Forbes Magazine states, 1 stock buybacks were deemed to be illegal because they were thought to be a form of stock market manipulation. Buybacks can inflate share price, boost earnings and executive bonuses. Writers says buybacks enrich bosses even when business sags. My questions are, was the buyback approved by shareholders and will the buyback boost AMP's share price and executive bonuses?

Thank you for your question, Mr. Sanderson. There are rules in place, I would say, no, it is the answer to both those questions. There are rules in place for companies that are operating buybacks. And we started this $350 million buyback in September 2022. There are rules around the size and the method and number of shares you can buyback. The share price during that period of buying back, obviously, has been a wide range. So I would say no, certainly has not manipulated the share price. In terms of remuneration, this is why we have to have discretion for the Board when we are looking at remuneration. And this is why, for example, in the new design, we have adjusted EPS so that we can make sure that the rewards to the executive are taking account of anything that is happening either externally or internally in AMP. I can assure you that there is nothing untoward in terms of the buyback. And I remind people in the room, we've done an enormous amount of work on how best to return this capital to you, how most effectively to do that. We have found that the buyback is the most tax-effective method of returning that capital to you. And that's what we're currently going through that. Third tranche of the buyback, we will do more work and see where we are in the process in terms of the method of returning it to you. But by reducing the number of shares in the market and canceling them, we are, as I said in my speech, increasing your ownership of AMP and therefore, your participation in its future success. It's our way of returning capital to shareholders that we see as best for you in this environment and in terms of our position.

Just a quick comment, Returning capital to shareholders surely, for the shareholders, [indiscernible] capital they could simply set this year.

Yes, that's right.

They don't need to...

But don't they want to get more for their shares, if this...

I suppose I do, probably like to get more for the shares by you increasing the share price. I'll just ask...

We're working our hardest.

One more question. This probably straight on remuneration as well, but I'll get out of the way now. AMP was de-mutualized in 1998. Those shares in the company were valued in at $6.19 and increased to a high of $15.87. Following rules and incompetence and scandals while some of the biggest names in corporate Australia came and went from the Board and senior executive positions, the share price has dropped to a current value. I look it was $1.08 this morning. Peter says it was $1.07, so considerably low. Ken Henry response to a question in 2018 nearby AGM stated the Boards have a limited pool from which to draw their members. My question is has its incestuous pool become contaminated to a point that AMP and other banks would be better served by artificial -- I was going to say insemination there -- that was artificial intelligence.

It's a good question had 2 parts. Thank you very much, Mr. Sanderson. I'll answer the first one first. And I think I've already spoken about that in the speech and also just earlier to Mr. Star. We really -- we can't rewrite the past. We are working tirelessly to build long-term sustainable value for shareholders going forward. In terms of the Board members, no, we don't have an incestuous pool that we draw from.

I'm referring to Ken Henry's comment where he said the pool is...

Oh, I see. Let me just assure you that we go through a very rigorous process of recruitment using external recruiters. We also have a very carefully designed skills metrics that we review every year to make sure that we're filling the Board positions with people who have the appropriate skills and experience to add to the breadth of information and ability and insights we need to take AMP forward. I would also say on top of that, we pay a particular attention to the integrity of the people that come on this Board. And I've got to say, Mr. Sanderson, that you're not being taught to come on the AMP Board, you can't be, right? You have to come on roll your sleeves up. It's a hard job, but we're all committed to do it.

As the Board considered broadening the scope, for instance, Germany draws from -- within the organization and also from union, it seems to be there's some resistance, I'm not just talking about AMP but generally, of broadening this Ken Henry's limited pool, to people that have, I suppose, a different set of skills and probably more important, different life skills.

I think if you -- and we don't have time today, but another time, maybe, if you got to know the Board members, you would notice that they have a lot of diversity across their experience -- experience, but also cognitive diversity in terms of the way we think. Thank you very much for your questions. particularly the one about insemination. We have another question from the microphone #1.

Chair, I'd like to introduce Mr. Caufield. Mr. Caufield, you guys are really taking over today.

I'd like to reiterate Peter Star's comments that we've got 2 strong women as Chairman and CEO of the Board. So that's something very special. Thank you.

Thank you.

I recently attended this week the financial review Banking Summit. And one of the keynote speakers was John Lonsdale from APRA. It was an excellent speech, and it shows the strength of the -- one of their regulators. What I would say though, a balancing thing is that we have 2 main regulators APRA and ASIC. And ASIC, whilst APRA has ensured that we're unquestionably strong, ASIC is missing in action in terms of ensuring -- were unquestionably fair across the spectrum. We've also got $200 million of emergency level finance from the reserve bank that's coming through. And the peak of those loans that transfer from variable rates -- from fixed rates -- fixed low rates to variable rates occurs in September. So you can imagine someone coming off at 2% rate on to a 6% rate. Maybe their payments change from $1,500 a month to $4,500 a month. We're yet to experience that tidal wave, so I did want to talk about that side of things. Just to quote from Chief Justice Bell of the New South Wales Supreme Court recently, we unfortunately anticipate a very significant growth of work in the possession list this year with the likely continued rise in interest rates likely to be productive of extreme mortgage stress. Robert Collison in the Australian said, today, I issue a warning to the share market in a vast number of unsuspecting enterprises, including the Reserve Bank. We now have up-to-date detailed stats that show a large segment of the population is encountering a level of financial turmoil not seen since the early '90s. So we need to be taking care of our banking customers I'm thinking of as they're transitioning. And so I looked this morning for model litigant in AMP's website, and I couldn't find it. Now I know that Alexis is very keen in this area and is very strong in advocating for fairness and looking after customers. But I was disappointed to see that it was absent. So I hope that, that goes back up. I worked with Alexis previously at ANZ. And I would have to say that ANZ's model litigant principles incorporated in the fairness principles is the best of the 11 banks that I've worked with that have introduced them in Australia and New Zealand. So I think you've got a standard there, Alexis to beat, so I mentioned to come up with better than that. And you did talk of, someone was talking of revising code of conduct, et cetera, so that it would be timely to do that. But I would like to see the model litigant easily searched and published up-front on the website. I've been through repossessions with other banks, and I can assure you, you just get kicked in the guts. The talk that's out there of how we look after customers versus the work once it gets handed over to courts and lawyers is a disgrace. So that's what I'm looking for. And I've got confidence that Alexis can lead that. According to data released by suicide prevention in Australia, more than 1 in 3 Australians know someone in the personal life or network who died or attempted suicide in the past 12 months. These findings came from mainly -- that showed the cost of living and personal death was the #1. So I'm very interested in making sure that this doesn't happen again to others where that's happened to me. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Caufield. And I really appreciate it's a very important issue. I can say that the Board is very alert to what's happening in the financial markets, obviously. And in terms of risk management in our bank and the stability and the resilience of the bank and importantly, how that impacts our customers. We are alert, but I'm going to pass it over to Alexis because I know she feels strongly about this, and she will have also the details around the banking book.

Thank you very much for your faith. As you would expect, we do have fairness principles that probably noted on our website. And one of our customer values is to put the customer first. I think the reality is we are going into more difficult times, as we've articulated today for our customers. And I think the financial services industry has changed markedly over the last 4, 5 years as we have. And we'll continue to work with customers who may be vulnerable in those difficult times. So you certainly have our assurance of that, but it certainly is going to be a more difficult environment in the coming 2 years.

Can I have your assurance that you published the model litigant and...

Let me take that away and have a look at our fairness principles, and whether we can put them on the website. I don't particularly have a problem with publicizing them.

We also should make sure you know that we do a lot of work around training our people to make sure that they can hopefully see signs of distress, so we can deal with it earlier.

I do hear the training from. You can imagine if I ask this question at all of the banks, they're all saying, yes, we're up with the training. But I've experienced in the last 2 years at 3 of our 4 major banks, that doesn't happen. It happens on a surface level, but not deep down below.

I can assure you that's not the case with AMP. Thank you. Another question from microphone 1.

Chair, I would like to introduce Mr. Kingston.

Good morning, Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Kingston.

Fully appreciate it's a challenging environment. And you've inherited a difficult role, albeit you have been Chaired since 2020. So you've been in the challenging role for 3 years. To be frank, I thought your speech today. There are a lot of platitudes and euphemisms. Indeed, I was absolutely shocked, Chair, to hear you state -- I had to check my ears. I think I heard you correctly to state the AMP is a highly respected and iconic Australian company. Now if you're referring to 15 years ago, I would totally agree with you. But I nearly fell off my chair to hear the Chairman state AMP currently is a highly respected and iconic Australian company. But let me briefly make a few comments and then a couple of suggestions. In my view, the results are still very weak and not enough corporate action, where underlying profit declined substantially in 2022. One of the euphemisms I think you put forward was that you had confidence in the CEO's ability to deliver. AMP shareholders have heard that for 15, 20 years. It's very easy to say, but we have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. As you correctly say, it's 174-year-old company. 174 years after inception, it's trading at a thumping discount to its shareholders' equity. Big discount, very disappointing. It's so sad. It once was one of the bluest chip companies on the stock exchange. Formed 1849, de-mutualized in 1998. To be frank, that was the start of the decline. The not-for-profit became a commercial enterprise and was judged on its results, not on the platitudes and euphemisms. And in a very, very consistent line since the IPO, it's declined from $15 down at the current $1. It's not your fault, but progressively over various management regimes, all of which put forward euphemisms and platitudes and hope and expectation promises. Progressively, the AMP performance has become bleaker and bleaker. It has been one of the great chronic underperformers on the Australian stock market. As the prior speaker said, it peaked at $15. It's down to $1. Massive shareholder value destruction, many, many, many billions of dollars lost. In my opinion, it's past the point of no return. Does it need more medicine? Does it need more surgery? Or does it need to be euthanized? We've heard and I accept it's before your time, and the Royal Commission was tough, but there was the Royal Commission modest transaction with [ REs ] a demerger it didn't complete and then a few fairly complicated sales and transactions in the past year or so. I've asked myself the question, is the AMP and other Alco or Babcock & Brown. No, it's not because it's not going to go into liquidation like those 2 companies. However, in my opinion, the AMP has been a bundling company with shareholder value eroding over 15 years at a very great pace. In my opinion, it is irrefutably a badly tarnished brand, which is why I was shocked that you should suggest it's a highly respected and iconic Australian brand. I genuinely hope, Chair, that it doesn't end up like the great company, Kodak in America. Household name, and we all know what happened to Kodak. It's slowly, slowly ground into oblivion, which was a terrible shame. As just one example, Chair of the indictment on AMP, you've got a start-up company like Netwealth, a relevant newbie. It's smart cap. It's only a tiny company compared to the AMP, a single-dimensional company, but its market caps the same as the AMP's. That cuts to market rating. The market for better or worse things, Netwealth is well managed, is growing, and they think that the AMP is a declining an icon. My conclusion is that AMP is no longer a blue chip. People can form their own view, whether it's a great chip or it's now a black chip, but it's certainly not a blue chip. I asked you why does Suncor which is going well, their market caps perform well, it's a well-recognized company. Why do they choose to sell their bank? It was viable, a good company, but they chose to sell their bank, which is in the process of happening now. I put to you, as a Board, why not sell the AMP Bank. It's subscale. In my opinion, the brand is poor, it's tarnished. Why not sell it and return that money to shareholders? My final comment, Chair, is I assume you agree there has been huge destruction of shareholder value over many years. I assume you therefore agree that the AMP brand has been severely tarnished. In those circumstances, chair, I put to you and the Board, why not sell the components of AMP and distribute the capital to the long-suffering shareholders. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Kingson. There were a lot of things in your questions and comments, and I appreciate the work you put into composing it. I'll take most of them as comments. Certainly, yes, I'll take most of them as comments. I would say that, look, I said in my speech and I said it earlier, we cannot write the past. We are working tirelessly to address the future prosperity of this company. We are generating profits. We are generating dividends, we had a period at the Royal Commission which upended the company's business model, and we are all working hard to address that. Take onboard your other comments. In terms of what parts of the business we sell and hold, of course, our responsibility is to consider the best interest of shareholders, that's what we do as Board members. And so we are constantly looking at what is in the best interest of shareholders from a strategic point of view and from a capital and management point of view, so that is part of our job. At the moment, we are absolutely confident that our strategy to build the bank and platforms business, the wealth business is in the best interest of AMP shareholders. But thank you for your comments. Another one from #1.

Chair, I would like to introduce Mr. Alan.

Thank you. Can I just -- I'm sorry, Mr. Alan.

Congratulations AMP, still being a great Aussie company despite a lot of negative criticism and an atrocious amount of negative advice you've received. I'm quite happy to discuss the Royal Commission with anybody in Australia. I think it did not work very well for Australian companies. I joined AMP in the 1970s. I worked in special calculations, and information technology. I went to Europe, I had a career in innovation, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, whatever. I've done very well out of AMP. Thank you very much. And I do have contact with the regulators in Europe. They are quite concerned about the current economic environment. It's not just Australia. And yesterday, I saw a report about 1,000 top information technology people are advising we stopped progressing quite as quickly with artificial intelligence. I see a relationship between artificial intelligence and poor cybersecurity. Is that anything you might agree with?

That's a very interesting question. And thank you very much for being a supporter of AMP, and I am very pleased that you're ground -- you're a leader in your field at the time, obviously, to be involved in those kinds of issues. Let me say that in terms of cybersecurity -- please they sit down. Thank you. In terms of cybersecurity, we, like every other financial institution, are very much focused on cybersecurity. No one is immune from the risks, and we are making huge investments in that space. We have a dedicated team who monitor, test and drills are very important. We have 24/7 monitoring. We have independent experts checking our systems and are monitoring, verifying our processes, but we have to remain vigilant like everyone. I think there is no doubt that the more technology evolves, the more vigilant we need to be. Thank you for the question. I might just return also to the statement made about me calling AMP -- sorry, this was by Mr. Kingston. I've forgotten to mention in my response that I checked while we were talking, I checked my speech. And I was very clear that I said we will continue to work hard to deliver for you a business that is strong and stable, consistent, returning consistent value to shareholders and other stakeholders, corporate structure and cost base fit for purpose and is a highly respected iconic Australian company. That is what we are intending to do.

Chair. I'm pretty sure you actually said is a highly respected and iconic Australian company...

Thank you. I'll take that as a comment.

If you clarify and that you hope to make it an iconic Australian company in the future, please clarify. But unless I misheard you, Chair, you said is a highly respected and truly iconic Australian company, which, in my professional opinion is false.

Thank you. I'll take that as a comment. Now we might move to -- it looks like we have no more questions from the floor. So I'll take any questions now online. Please, David.

Chair. We have a question from Mr. Busch, the online platform. The question is, what are the Board and Senior Executives of AMP doing, if anything, to get the share price closer to its peak value of above or well above a price of $2?

Thank you for that question, Mr. Busch. I know that the online questions came in before my speech and Alexis' speech. So I think I did address the fact in my speech that the Board and senior executive are working tirelessly to build the value in AMP. We are taking a long-term approach. Obviously, we're doing everything we can to see that reflected in share market value. Maybe the next question. Thank you.

Chair, Next question from Mr. Kip Mios. Will AMP still make profits in the future?

We have committed to paying a dividend, which is a very confident signal that we intend to build a profitable, sustainably profitable business going forward. Thank you for the question, Mr. Kip.

Chair, we have a question for the online platform from Mr. Ferry. What was the purpose of splitting the life insurance and/or renaming the life insurance to AIA? Where is the value to shareholder and policyholder?

Thank you for the question. We sold the life insurance company in 2018 to RLA, so I'm not quite sure where AIA came from. We have no relationship with that company. However, when we sold the life insurance, we did returned that capital to shareholders in the form of a special dividend as well as beefing up the balance sheet of the company as well as investing in our future business. I believe that, that was the appropriate use of the sales. The other thing I should note is at the time it was judged that life insurance companies needed huge global scale to manage the increasing claims that were coming through. Thank you.

Chair, we have a question from Mr. Yee. What's the progress of the shareholder class action? Will it affect share price?

Thank you, Mr. Yee. The class action hasn't progressed to this date. Next question?

Chair, We have a question from Mr. Wallace. What have been the company's exposures and losses in China since entering that market? How many personnel from China and Chinese companies has AMP employed in the last 10 years? What is AMP's exit program for China and Chinese shareholders?

Thank you, Mr. Wallace. I'm not quite sure what you mean regarding losses. We've actually had a very positive return on our investment in China. We invested in the China Life Pension company in 2014. And the returns in terms of dividend and equity value have increased. It's a very -- it's a growing market, and it is the biggest life insurance company in China. We also have an investment, of course, in their asset management company. We're very satisfied at the moment with the value of that investment that is adding for AMP. We have a small team of experts who are working with our Chinese counterparts. We have the right people with the right connections and the right relationships to make sure that, that relationship is managed well. Obviously, we need to continue, as I was saying earlier. As the Board of this company, we need to always review and understand who is the right owner for our various investments. But I can say we're very happy with our investments in China to the state. Thank you.

Chair, we have a question from Mr. Wall. Shareholders are continually told that they will benefit from the sale of AMP Capital. Can you give a guideline on how much per share could be returned that would do more to increase share price than buybacks?

Thank you, Mr. Wall. And once again, I think I covered this off in quite a lot of detail in my speech. But the sale of the asset -- of the AMP Capital businesses was part of what is -- has contributed to the $1.1 billion shareholder capital return program that we have already announced. And as we both Alexis and I said today, we are also examining whether there is more surplus liquidity to be returned through a review that will -- and we will announce the results of later this year. Thank you.

Chair, we have a question from Mr. Smith. How will AMP compete against industry funds?

The team at AMP have been doing an enormous amount of work to increase the value that we can add for our customers. We have a very different business model to industry funds, clearly. Our advantage is that we are a whole of wealth manager. We have a retail bank, superannuation, investments and obviously, advice. This is how we can help our customers reach a more financial wellness, and also we can make sure that we can use that advantage in the marketplace. We -- including, for example, our superannuation business, where we are still the largest superannuation -- retail superannuation fund in Australia. On top of that, we are very excited, as Alexis was saying earlier in our ability to help our members and customers enjoy their retirement without that terrible -- and I know this from my own family, that terrible fear of running out of money. Our new retirement income account is already assisting people in that regard, and we believe that will be a very powerful competitive advantage for us going forward. I know that Alexis will want to talk about superannuation and some of the other areas where we can differentiate ourselves from the industry funds. Is that right, Alexis?

Well, I mean city they are a big player when it comes to superannuation. As I mentioned, when I was talking earlier, we have reduced our prices in the superannuation space to make sure we're competitive. Secondly, we have really made sure that we've got options available on our platform that the customers want, and that may include sustainability option but also includes options whereby you can move through your life without having to make investment decisions. So we've got a good selection of portfolios. We do have good service, and I take the comments around the brand about AMP over the past, but we've been working really hard to restore our brand. And it is showing improvements in the reputation scores, clearly, more work to do, that the brand is a big brand. So I think we're competing on price. We're competing on options. We're competing on service. And as you talked about, we're going to innovate to help people in that retirement phase to have faith. Thank you.

Thank you. Next question, please.

Chair, we have a question from Mr. Swale. Why are you passing a policy on ESG? Do you want to go woke and broke?

Thank you, Mr. Swale. Trying to think that's [indiscernible]. Anyway, look, a nice use of wording there. We fully believe that it's the Board's responsibility to act in the best interest, long-term interest with our shareholders. And we believe that, that -- and I did speak about this in my speech as well, we believe that in the long term, that converges on the long-term interest of our stakeholders. Thank you.

Chair, we have a question from Ms. Connor. Does AMP have a policy around sustainable future for the communities in which it serves? Are they stakeholders? How do you know if you have contributed to equity for communities? What KPIs do you use?

Thank you, Ms. Connor. When we look at our sustainability framework, we look at our customers, our people and partners and our communities and environment. And we carry out a really comprehensive annual materiality assessments. And in various ways, we test the stakeholders in terms of what matters to them that is relevant for our business. So when we look at communities, we try to understand where AMP can add value to our communities, which then in turn adds value to the shareholders' experience. There are many areas where this would take place. And I think a very good example is our engagement and our work with the AMP Foundation, for example, which supports individuals and organizations to tackle some of the most complex social and environmental issues that we are facing. Thank you.

Chair, we have a question from Mr. Scrag. Why should I increase my shareholding when in March 2001, my shares were worth $20.05, and I was offered a lousy $1.13 per share in the buyback August 2021? Also, there has been no increase in my number of shares through DRP since February 2019.

Thank you, Mr. Scrag, and I do appreciate your question but recognize that it was put in before my speech earlier and previous answers. So I think you'll understand how I feel about not being able to rewrite history, but certainly being committed to working hard for the future for our shareholders. I would say that after the Royal Commission, we needed to build our balance sheet and our strength and liquidity, and we could not in -- with any sense of prudence return of capital to shareholders during that period. That is why we are so excited to announce now that we are starting a dividend program and, I believe, Monday our shareholders will receive the dividend. Thank you. Next question.

Chair, we have a question from Mr. Rodman. As a financial institution looking to grow its retail business, are there any programs that the Board or company directors are looking to implement such as partnering with not-for-profit organizations to build affordable housing, offering low interest loans to assist those who may struggle to qualify with other major lengths, providing educational resources or programs to help new existing customers with budgeting et cetera, simplify the document application process for a approval investing community housing whilst working with state and local governments to help create more favorable housing developments and expanding the retail loan book?

Thank you, Mr. Rodman. This is a terrific question and very pleased to answer. As I was saying earlier, we do a lot of work in terms of our assessment of materiality for our contribution to communities. One of the areas where we would be active -- if we are active in these particular areas would be the AMP Foundation, which we're very, very proud of. Alexis is a Board member of the AMP Foundation. So I'm going to hand over to her.

Yes. Maybe I can just say a couple of things. Firstly, we do have an AMP Bank, and I'm proud of our AMP Bank. It is simply a mortgage provider and a deposit taker, and we have about 2% of the market share in mortgages. So quite a small challenger bank. In that space, we're looking to innovate all the time and partner with new players all the time. We've talked about a couple of those. The digital mortgage that we got out. We're also working with another player to do part equity ownership in housing. So I think we actually really pushing down that innovation front in the bank because we are a small player, and we do want to grow that space. When it comes to the foundation, we're doing some incredible community work there to try and improve the lives of the community. Some of that includes water purification, some of that includes helping those who may not be so able to purchase housing. So there is -- as I mentioned in my speech, $110 million being issued to various charities throughout Australia to help support communities. So I'm very proud of the work we're doing there, and we'll celebrate even more when we have our 30th anniversary in a couple of weeks with some additional big donations to help in the spaces that have been highlighted here.

Thank you, Alexis, and thank you Mr. Rodman, and that's true. We are also doing a lot of work in this space through the bank, which we're very proud of. Thank you. David?

Chair, we have a question from Mr. Mayne. The 2004 annual report stated that AMP had 977,100 shareholders, 6 years after demutualization and float. The latest annual report put the number at 454,722, meaning that 522,000 shareholders have dumped AMP over the last 19 years. Given that we still have 40,213 shareholders with an unmarketable parcel, are we planning another offer to take them out, thereby further reducing the size of our register? How many of these offers have we done over the years?

Thank you, Mr. Mayne. I cannot answer that question around how many offers we have done over the years. I do know that we look at these kind of issues regularly, and we will continue to do so. That's all I can say on that one, I'm afraid.

Chair, a further question from Mr. Mayne, and it's a question for the external auditor and our Audit Committee Chair, Rahoul Chowdry. The market capitalization today is $3.23 billion when the latest accounts claim we have net assets of $4.17 billion, a $940 million disparity. How much of this difference is explained by post-balance date buybacks and capital returns? And how intensive was the investigation of the carrying values? What assets are we continuing to value which the market is not? If this discount to book value continues, will there be a thorough look at the carrying values during the upcoming first half audit process.

I think maybe can we start with you, please, Andrew, as our external auditor.

Great. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for the question. I'm clearly looking at the net assets on the balance sheet of the company versus its market capitalization is something that we do in every order that we carry out. As the question has pointed out, there is a deficit. The number is actually slightly different to, I think, what's implied in the question, but still that concept is there. Clearly, as far as the way the market values AMP. It's based on its future profitability, views around that as well as sort of what may happen with respect to the profitability and underlying trends in the business. We do look very closely at intangible assets that are booked, and that forms a key part of what we've set out in our long-form audit report on Page 148 of the document you have in front of you. So from our point of view, it is something we look at every time. We've looked at it this year, and we'll continue to do so. But we are confident in the carrying value of the assets that are booked which, obviously, varies from time to time as to the market's view of the future prospects of the company.

Thank you very much Andrew. And maybe Rahoul, do you have anything to add to that?

Thank you, Chairman. Just one line really perhaps to say that thank you, Mr. Mayne for the question. We, as you can imagine, keep a very close eye on the carrying value of assets and ensure that the manner in which we report complies with accounting standards, and we will continue to do exactly that going forward.

Thank you.

Chair, we have a further question from Mr. Mayne, which of the 5 main proxy advisers, ACSI ownership matters, Glass Lewis, ISS and ASA recommend a vote against any of today's resolutions, particularly the Rem Report and the Chair's reelection.

Thank you. Thank you for the question, Mr. Mayne. I'm not going to provide a summary of the recommendations of the proxy advisers. They provide detailed reports to their own subscriber base, and it would be inappropriate for me to do so. Next question, please.

Chair, we have a question from Mr. Friend. AMP savings accounts are more complicated than almost all of our competitors resulting in missed opportunities to gain more customers and market share. When will AMP Bank simplify its savings products to match the market?

I think I'll pass that one to Alexis is very close.

Well, I actually don't think that's true. I think we have a number of savings products available to customers. We actually -- most of our savings come through a digital program. So it's quite simple for many customers. So I really don't think that's a fair reflection of that offering.

I would have been very surprised. But thank you for the question.

Chair, we have a question from Mr. and Mrs. Ho. We are exceedingly disappointed that the chair keeps talking about remuneration and the need to reward the CEO despite her whole management team dragging their feet and sitting on their hands on the return of capital to its long suffering shareholders who have put up with the negative news in the past 3 years, stemming from the continued outflows of funds. As long suffering shareholders, we will not believe or trust in your transformation story without a clear time frame on a speedy return of the $1.1 billion capital.

Thank you. Mr. Ho, is it?

Mr. and Mrs. Ho.

Thank you. Mr. and Mrs. Ho. We have committed to returning $1.1 billion of capital to our shareholders. We have already completed $350 million as of 2 days ago. So I think that is a proof point. We -- you will receive -- given you hold shares, you will receive dividend on Monday. I think we have laid out a plan for returning that capital, and we're looking to give more detail about that third tranche that we will be looking at in the future.

So if I may add, Chair. We'll start the buyback immediately next week as we if we get approval through the resolutions today.

So today, of course, Resolution 5, we are asking shareholders to approve a resolution to start the buyback, the next stage of the buyback. And given the votes we have already on record, I assume that we will be starting the buyback in the next few days. Thank you.

Chair, we have a further question from Mr. Friend. AMP Bank has roughly 2% market share. What is the goal to increase market share to over 1 year, 5 years and 10 years.

I'll pass this to Alexis, if you don't mind.

Thank you very much for that question. I could probably talk about that for hours, if you would like, but I don't think shareholders would appreciate that. As I said, we have an ambition to grow above-market share in our mortgage book, and we've done that throughout '22 and we will do that through '23. We are really pushing innovation. We've launched our digital mortgage. We've launched a partnership with a player that helps people buy their property with equity ownership. We'll continue to look at other innovative solutions like that, but we're absolutely committed to growing the bank overall those time frames.

Thank you, which is entirely aligned to the strategy of growing the bank and the platforms business. Thank you.

Chair, there are no further online questions for this item.

Thank you. As there are no further online questions, we'll go to questions on the phone line, are there any questions on the phone line? And if so, could the operator, please introduce the speaker?

Chair, There are no questions via the phone lines.

I believe, we have a further question from Microphone 1.

Chair, I'd like to reintroduce Mr. Star.

Hello again, Mr. Star.

Thank you, Debra. Just 2 quick things on all the points you've been making is that the business we have in China, given the current situation, what's going on there. And things seems to be better relationships in the discussions I've had with some officials from China. But -- and I clearly think some media reports a few weeks ago about we're going to be invaded in that nonsense was absolute -- didn't help anything its just nonsense. But I think just some clarity around that, you feel -- and the Board feels that the return we're getting is good and no risk -- or the risk is minimized. And just I want to make a further comment and point. Well, I understand about return of capital to mom and dad shareholders and the shareholders I represent. It is a really important thing. And I can't underestimate given some of the other comments from some of the other shareholders here as well is really important, there are long-term shareholders I have seen -- where we're sitting -- markets not giving as much of a thing today. We're still sitting on [indiscernible]. I just look before I get up to speak. But look, as I said -- look, if these things are going to implement and come through, I think time lines are important. I also think that the other thing on superannuation. A lot of the superannuation companies now offer, whether it be host plus rest, the -- what they do is they offer their members twice a year to actually engage with no fee involved where you can actually determine where you can put you. So if you're a young person, you're going to be looking at growth. Obviously, if you like myself and the rest, most of the people in the room, you're looking at maybe being a bit more conservative and looking to make certain that you're getting at least that growth perspective. Given that interest rates have come back now for the positives, you can get 5%, 5.5% if you look around hard.

Thank you for your comments and questions. I'll answer briefly on China. Yes, we are very confident in the relationship we have with our counterparts in China. And we continue to work very closely with them. We are very comfortable with the investment as it stands. But obviously, we are always looking at our investments in terms of who is the right owner in the portfolio. That goes for all our investments, not just China. In terms of -- and I will pass over to Alexis to talk about your ideas regarding superannuation and advice and maybe there's an overlap there. But I would say that I have heard loud and clear your message regarding returning capital. We are very, very committed and sincerely want to return as much capital as we can given the capability to return that appropriately for our own strength of balance sheet, but also on a tax-effective method -- message -- method to our shareholders. And we are working hard to build the profitability of the company so that long may we be able to return dividends and higher proportions of profit to our shareholders. Thank you. And now Alexis, would you like to add?

Yes, thank you. I certainly appreciate the need to return value to our shareholders. So I just want to start on behalf of management committed to that as well. In relation to your comment about industry funds, we also offer what they call inter-fund advice to our customers, whereby they can get some one-off basic advice about certain things. So we certainly have that in our portfolio. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have another question from...

Chair, I would like to reintroduce Mr. Sanderson.

Thank you.

Yes, thanks. A few of the questions relate to the Financial Royal Commission and just a comment. I attended personally or Mr. Caufield and a number of others here Financial Royal Commission. I'd categorize it as a Clayton's Royal Commission that only went forward after the political elite got permission from the banking elite and there's a letter of that effect. There was over 10,000 complaints to that commission. There are only 27 case studies. And probably what illustrates my point is that I can say, categorically, not 1 dead person made a submission, but they've got a lot of airplay. That's a comment.

I've picked that.

It was a joke. So Mr. Han should hand his head in shame. Not saying that the work he did was bad, but he had the opportunity to ask for more time and more money and he didn't.

Thank you, Mr. Sanderson.

Now I'd like to build a Mr. Caufield comment about model litigant but coming from a different direction. AMP consumers have made 248 complaints to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. The majority relate to housing finance, its consumers real experience that the industry-centric [ AFCA ] routinely ignores documentation, ignores that all, is unfair and bias. Dispute resolution as such, such as EDR, external dispute resolution, IDR internal dispute resolution and mediation are heavily weighted in favor of the stronger party. It's a nature of things. There is a potential mortgage crisis on horizon due to high interest rates. My question is, because the courts are unaffordable and out of reach, what mechanism does AMP have in place to ensure as consumers are treated fairly and in accordance with the banking code of practice?

Thank you. I'll take the earlier part of your question as a comment and pass to Alexis.

Thank you. Clearly, as I mentioned before, and I think if you look at our sustainability report, we talk about a couple of things. We do have fairness principles, which we abide by. We also have a customer advocate. As you mentioned, we acquired that for our bank, but we have it across our entire business. And they will look at themes in relation to customer feedback. They will focus on vulnerable customers, and vulnerability is a very broad definition, including the items you've raised before. So I think we also have a very professional complaints management process, and I frequently have direct contact with customers as would most of our executive team, so that we have a good process in place to deliver to our customers, to listen to their complaints, to deal with their complaints. And just yesterday, we had a thematic report to our Board from the customer advocate. So that implies well. The customers always have the ability to go to AFCA. I don't want to comment on their processes, but I mean we all treat that process as an independent process and provide whatever documentation is requested by both the customer and AFCA to try and get to a resolution. Nobody wants to go to court, not us, not the customer.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I would say the governance around the customer advocate and the complaints is very strong, and we have a standing item on board meetings to talk about anything that we are concerned about in terms of thematic impact on customers.

In relation to AFCA, where does the consumer go post AFCA if they're to satisfied with the determination. I know the determination isn't binding on the consumer. It can be rejected. Where does a customer go? Obviously, they've gone through the IDR EDR mitigation in AFCA, and there is still no. And I saying this from personal experience. [indiscernible] done over by bank, the loved Bank, Bank of Queensland never missed a payment, had the ability to pay, not done over on an LVR, which I've since found it was jacked up, but we're right under done. Never had a day in court. can't afford. AFCA didn't just ignored internal documents. And somebody in a similar position than I am -- the bank with you. Where do they go?

Well, I mean, there are, I mean, you know the process, Mr. Sanderson. It's we can go to courts would obviously is that...

They can't go to court, they can't afford to go to court, and no lawyer in the right mind is going to take on a bank. Banks have deep pockets.

Mr. Sanderson, we are all -- I'm sorry to hear this history, but we really do have to give other members a chance to speak.

Okay. I've got another question here. It's not widely known by the general public, and it would see in the media. The banks are not revenue constrained, capital constrained. They're not revenue constrained. This is clearly articulated by the by Matt Conlan, the CEO of the CBA, who stated at their last AGM. We also create deposits in the system. We expand money supply when we lend money. The question is, how does AMP justify increasing the interest rate on the total balance of loans and mortgages in line with the IBA cash rate, when it creates a deposit from nothing?

Well, I mean when we come to lending, we have to think what is the cost of us funding that lending.

Cost of what, sorry?

We have to fund loans in order for people to buy houses, and that costs us money. We have to borrow money, whether that's from depositors, whether that's from markets, whether that's through the bond market. So I mean, lending and borrowing does determine what the cost of housing -- what the cost of those loans to the housing people is. And yes, the RBA cash rate is one, but your credit rate is another. Your ability to enter foreign markets, we could probably talk for a very long time about that. So I don't believe, and especially for a bank like us, we have to pay for every deposit that comes through the door.

That's, again, it's not the question I asked. I've met Conlan is pulling my leg and banks do not create deposits in the process of lending. I'm not suggesting the banks don't have overheads. They don't have capital cost. My question is the cash rate relates to the overnight money rate. It is the interest rate that banks pay banks for the difference between the spread of capital cash within the overnight market. The question I've got is how do banks justify applying the cash rate to the overnight money market to a mortgage in total?

Mr. Sanderson. I think we've already -- I think Alexis has answered that question. We really do need to move on.

Okay. I don't believe she has, but I'll just take it there.

Thank you, and thank you for your participation today. We've got another question from #1.

Thank you, Chair. If I can reintroduce Mr. Caufield.

Thank you. A short question for the auditor in the...

The external auditor?

Yes. Does the auditor review loan application files? Any of them, some of them won't be all of them, of course? And within looking at the loan application files? Do you use artificial intelligence? Thank you.

Great. Thank you for your question. So clearly, in carrying out our audit of the AMP group, we do look at transactions that are undertaken, included within that -- obviously the application process for loans. We're always looking at the latest technologies to how we go about doing that, and we use statistical sampling and other techniques. As for the application of artificial intelligence, that's something that is still in its early days. We are looking as to how we use that in our audit approach. But it's fair to say you carrying out the '22 audit of AMP, we didn't use that approach, but we're looking as to how that technology may evolve going forward. Thank you.

Thank you very much for that. Just a brief response. At the financial review Banking and Wealth Summit, all of the majors artificial intelligence reviewing those. And last year, at one of the major bank AGMs, they said they found 2,500 fraudulent loans from their -- from the use of artificial intelligence. So given that you're wanting to be a high growth above sector rate and you're bringing loans in from various sources, you'd want to be really looking into that, so it's concerning if there's not deep dives in that area.

There are definitely, there's a lot of effort and development in that area, Mr. Caufield. I can promise you.

How many of the loan application files would you look at when you say you're assessing those for the auditor?

Yes. Look, thank you for your question. So in carrying out our audit of a financial institution like AMP, we actually look at the processes and the controls that the organization has in place to make sure that fraudulent applications, which is where your question originally was going are, in fact, picked up. So we don't rely on the fact that we are going to spot check the majority of the transactions that are done. We actually look at the controls that the organization has in place. And I think if you look, in particular, in your question is around loan losses in the residential mortgage book of AMP. You will see, if you look at the APRA data, as well as the RBA data, you will see that the loan losses that the AMP Bank has materially lower than the rest of the industry. And so we look at the controls that they have in place rather than seeking to check a substantive number of particular loan files. And we do see from the loan loss data that they have, that is a well controlled process.

Thank you very much, Andrew. And I'd just reinforce the fact we are a very simple bank, a well-run simple bank, but thank you very much for the question. I think shareholders have had a reasonable opportunity as a whole to discuss this item. As there are no further questions or comments, we will now turn to the items of business which will be put to a vote. I now move to Item 2 of the Notice of Meeting, which concerns the election and reelection of directors. As I mentioned earlier, I'm standing for reelection today as are 2 of my fellow independent nonexecutive directors, Rahoul Chowdry and Michael Sammells. Andrew Best will also be standing for election. As the resolution on my reelection is first, the Board has resolved to appoint Kate McKenzie to assume the role of Chair for the next part of the meeting and to conduct the discussion concerning my reelection. Thank you, Kate, for taking the Chair.

Thank you, Debra, and good morning, everyone. We will proceed with Item 2A, which concerns the reelection of Debra Hazelton as a director. The proposed resolution is on the screen. By way of background, Debra was appointed to the AMP Limited Board as a Nonexecutive Director in June 2019 and as Chair in August 2020. She was also appointed as the Chair of the Nomination Committee in August 2020 and is continuing as a member of the Remuneration Committee. As you have probably all observed over the course of the morning, Debra is also the Chair of the AMP Bank Board. Debra brings significant experience from more than 30 years in global financial services including as the local Chief Executive of Mizuho Bank in Australia and prior to that, the Commonwealth Bank in Japan. She has expertise across financial markets, institutional banking, risk management, treasury, human resource management and global corporate culture transformation. Debra is also a Nonexecutive Director on the Boards of the Treasury Corporation of Victoria and PERSOL Asia Pacific. She is Vice President of the Australia Japan Business Corporation Committee, and a principle of Kokusai Business Advisory. The previous Board experience includes the Australia Japan Foundation, Australian Financial Markets Association, the Asia Society and Women in Banking and Finance. She has graduate and postgraduate degrees in economics and finance as well as philosophy, Japanese language and literature. I would like to invite Debra to say a few words.

Thank you. Thank you, Kate, and thank you to everyone for the opportunity to stand for reelection to the AMP Board. It's been a privilege to chair AMP for the past 2.5 years. Like my fellow Board members, I joined AMP because I believed that my skills and experience would meaningfully contribute to rebuilding this Australian company. When I assumed the role of Chair at the request of the Board in August 2020, the company needed to transform itself. The business and leadership required stabilization, and we needed to start on the long and critically important journey of rebuilding the trust and respect of customers, our people and the community. That was absolutely essential if AMP was going to act and deliver in the long-term best interest of shareholders. Together with the talented and dedicated new Board and executive team, we have stabilized the business. Our new highly talented CEO, Alexis George, has hit the ground running, and AMP has made good progress in restoring its reputation based on her emphasis on purpose and values. We also knew that to deliver real change, we had to challenge our business model. AMP's core business focus needed to be redefined, simplified and execution expedited. Alexis and her leadership team have now made great progress on the simplification -- the simplification agenda by divesting AMP Capital businesses, while at the same time, simplifying and repositioning AMP to focus on consolidating its competitive position in retail banking and wealth management in Australia and New Zealand. Moreover, this substantial progress was achieved at a time of severe economic headwinds, market volatility and social upheaval. The AMP of today is a more resilient institution with a stronger balance sheet and importantly, now able to commit to sizable capital return for shareholders, including the reinstatement of the dividend. Last week, with the realization of the AMP Capital sales, we announced that AMP will review our appropriate go-forward balance sheet structure, operational model and cost base. As I see it, this together with the continued simplification and development of new growth opportunities is the third phase of the businesses successful transformation. We have committed to updating shareholders on the review of outcomes and action plan details, no later than the announcement of the first half 2023 results in August. It would be an honor to have your support to continue my governance work with this Board and management team. I believe that what I bring personally to the role, together with a long background in financial markets, risk management and culture transformation is the ability to work constructively with stakeholders and take hard decisions in the best long-term interest of shareholders. The transformation of a complex 174-year-old business takes time. However, please feel confident that your company is making excellent progress. Thank you.

Thanks, Debra. I confirm that Debra has the unqualified support of all of her fellow directors for her reelection. I now open the discussion on Debra's reelection. Please proceed to a microphone attendant if you have a question, and I think we might have a question at microphone #1.

Chair, I'd like to reintroduce Mr. Kingston.

Thank you, Chair, I'm quite concerned in the ASX announcement attaching the notice of meeting that the Chair actually stated that she intended exploring longer-term opportunities for growth. You've also stated, Chair, that you remain committed to delivering enduring value to shareholders and all stakeholders. Again, they're lovely words, and I made a comment before about euphemisms and platitudes, but let's subjectively look at the facts, Chair. You joined the Board in 2019, we've all heard today and partly legitimately, but you can't rewrite history. But you've been on the board for 4 years, Chair. You're not a new-be. You've been Chair women for nearly 3 years. Now over that time, the share price has almost halved. So you have been an accomplice to a significant value destruction. Now we've heard a lot of nice words today. Superbly manicured and choreographed all sounds good. But when we look at the cold hard facts, the reality is shareholder value destruction of a major degree. Now if we cut to the macro, let's look at what's happened recently. Perhaps the most attractive part of the AMP business has actually been sold. Funds Management is a great business. You've got Charter Hall capitalized at $5 billion you've sold your property management business for a relatively small amount of money. You're in infrastructure, very attractive. A lot of people have made a lot of money. That's gone. So where are you at today, chair, under your governance. We are at a situation where your 2 main businesses are both in my opinion, pretty weak businesses in a difficult segment of the financial industry. You've got a second tier bank. Now that's been challenging for years, but it's even worse now with what's happened in America where there's a flight to quality, and there are real concerns about the viability and the ability to create shareholder value with small second-tier banks. So in my professional opinion, you've let go of perhaps the most attractive part of your business. I know you have under pressure to do something. But in my opinion, the AMP Bank is -- should be sold to a bigger player, and that is one question I would ask for you. Will you engage with other bigger players if they approach you to sell the AMP bank, in my view, that would be a sensible approach. The second main business, you've retained share under your management and governance is the wealth business. Now again, that's a very checked industry at the moment. Most of the big banks, the big 4 have sold out of their wealth management. It's tough. There's a lot of litigation, a lot of compliance. UBS sold their wealth management business for nothing. Rumor has it, they had to give it away, subsidize the buyer. So you've sort of migrated while you've been share from a much larger market capitalization to a much smaller market cap, and you've sold perhaps the better part of the business for a relatively small amount of money. And you left with 2 businesses which arguably are a tough part of the financial industry. So my question to you, Chair is -- will you -- if you are approached or if you get the opportunity to sell the 2 main businesses you retained, would you engage constructively with potential buyers for those 2 businesses? And will you actually even initiate the potential sale of the AMP Bank and the AMP Wealth Management division? In my professional opinion, that will deliver the best possible result for the long-suffering shareholders. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Kingston, and thank you for your professional opinion on the strategy of AMP and the value of our various businesses. I would disagree with some of your suggestions. However, to answer your questions, we, as a Board, must and take very seriously our role to consider what's best in the best interests of the shareholders. And that's what we do when we decide on the strategy and we work through our strategy and then we implement that strategy. When we brought on our new CEO, we worked on the strategy regarding simplification and repositioning. I can tell you that the exploring new opportunities for growth, of course, is very important in all businesses. So I would stand by that statement earlier. But in terms of, let's say, the AMP Capital fund management sales. Yes, the yes, AMP Capital was a good business. It didn't fit with AMP in our portfolio was the decision we came to when we did the strategy work. And I can tell you, selling fund management businesses is not a simple process. It's very complex. And these businesses were complex. And the Board believes that we achieved very pleasing price for those businesses, which we have now committed to return as capital to shareholders. I don't know if Alexis if you want to talk about the strategy of the bank and wealth management. But clearly, we're committed to growing both those businesses.

I mean I think we've talked about the strategy, and I appreciate the comments that you've offered today. As the Chair said, we always have an obligation to consider value whenever it's presented to us, and we'll continue to do so. So I mean at this point, we're focused on growing our platforms and our bank business. As I've said, we're pushing down the innovation frame. But we're very well aware that we have to consider any offer that is produced. Thank you.

Do we have any more questions from the floor? Microphone #1?

If I can reintroduce Mr. Star.

[ Ms. McKenzie ]. It would be great to know that I noticed that Debra, you were on the Commonwealth Bank in Japan board, which I think was a good thing. So mainly the shareholders I represent if given me 2 options in relation to this in your reelection. We're happy to see you continue -- that's the first thing. Second, it's a difficult job. I don't doubt that and neither do my shareholders. I think it takes a great deal of courage when you're faced with this adversary and things like that. So I think it's to your credit. But just going on Mr. Kingston, what he spoke of, that does resonate with a lot of people. what I worry about and my shareholders worry about is that I say, Peter, one of the big fall can come in and just say we'll buy 10% and we'll buy another, then we declared that we're going to make an offer to take the whole thing over. And I don't think necessarily that would be a good thing because I've seen it happened just recently with Tyro Payments. You're probably familiar with them, they're payments situation. And one of the best Chairman in the country, David Thodey just stepped down after a 5-year term, and a great Chairman, he has been. And that Board took the position that they weren't going to sell out from the moment at shareholders, I can tell you. So that's the thing that I want to reflect from the shareholders I'm representing is that we worry about when the share price is down like this, the Board would be well aware that someone can -- what's called opportunity. An opportunistic big do. So -- but look, we'll support you. But really, you hear what's been said in the room, I don't have to read go over it. It's a difficult job, but we want you to focus and focus on, as I said, the mom and dad shareholders, that's what's really important here.

Thank you, Mr. Star. Thank you for your support. I might -- and I don't want to sound defensive here, but transformations take time. The fact that I was on the board in 2020 when AMP was struggling to find its way after the Royal Commission, you can't turn around a company like AMP quickly. I think we've already spoken today in great -- I'm sorry, the speeches were so long. We wanted to let you know that we are making good progress in this transformation, and we're confident about the future. And I am sorry that we can't do it fast to Mr. Star. But I can tell you we're committed to putting all our efforts into delivering.

Look, I can certainly tell you it takes time because I know when Ms. Livingston was appointed to the Commonwealth Bank Board, she would have liked to have stayed 10 years and having to replace the whole of the board and to get rid of that [indiscernible] who destroyed the bank. But in the end, just affected her tenure to stay, she was just warming up. So I don't want to see the same thing happened to you because it can happen.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Star. I think that's it in terms of questions from the floor. So I will now move to questions received before today's meeting and from the online platform. David, do we have any questions? And if so, could you read them out?

Deputy Chair. We have a question from Mr. Mayne. A 15% proxy protest vote against a relatively new chair is very unusual. Could Debra, please comment as to which of the proxy advisers recommended against her and what discussions she personally had with institutional investors about how they would vote on her resolution. Does Debra know which major shareholders voted against to and why Corporate voting is not a secret ballot in Australia. So has the chair investigated who voted against her?

[ Andrea ] you like to say something or would you like me to say.

No, I was thinking I was to.

Look, I was just going to go -- I was just going to say, clearly, there has been feedback from shareholders. We've heard a lot of it here this morning, and there's been a lot of conversation in the lead up to the AGM about the matters that people are concerned about. I think the chair has responded now on numerous occasions to those comments. So please let me reassure everyone those comments are heard. But yes, I think that's probably been canvassed sufficiently.

Deputy Chair. We have a question from Mr. [ Friend ]. Surely, if reelected today, it is time for Debra Hazelton to step down as Chair of AMP to give the opportunity to another board member who will no doubt be more successful in the role of chair than Debra Hazelton has been. Will Debra Hazelton commit to step down as chair if reelected?

Thank you for the question. But I think implicit in the reelection vote is a vote of confidence in Debra. I think it's good to have some stability on the board as we're going through this major transformation. And so we wouldn't wish to speak on Debra's behalf, but I'm pretty sure she's committed to staying on his chair if she is elected today.

Deputy Chair, we have a further question from Mr. Mayne. On what basis were you chosen to share this item? Does that reflect Board ranking? And do you lead the annual performance review of the chair -- why not just appoint a permanent deputy chair, so there is a clear line of reporting if there are issues with the chair and a clear leader in terms of reviewing the Chair's performance.

This is -- I would say, there is no hierarchy and there is no ranking, and I certainly would not want to be ranking myself with my fellow directors. There is a process and a discussion. We work as a team on this board to consider these matters and it was as much as anything else, a matter of convenience and who was going to be available to share this item, and there's not much more to it than that.

Deputy. We have a question from Mr. and Mrs. [ Hoe ]. We don't know how reelecting Debra back to the chair position would help all the moms and dads who have suffered massive wealth destruction under her watch since 2019.

And again, I think I would just reiterate that it has been a very difficult job. Debra has led the Board through and the management team through a major transformation. As you've heard many times already this morning, we are all very focused on delivering on the strategy -- of course, we listen to feedback, but I think it's a really important time for us to have some stability.

Deputy Chair, there are no further online questions for this item.

As there are no further online questions, we will move to questions on the phone line. Are there any questions on the phone line? And if so, could the operator, please introduce the speaker.

There are no questions via the phone line.

Okay. If there are no further comments on questions or questions, I will close this discussion. Thank you all very much. And Debra, I'm now very glad to hand back to you to resume your role as Chair of the meeting. Thank you.

Thank you, Kate. And I'm sorry, I overstepped my mark there at 1 stage. We will now move to Item 2b concerning the proposed reelection of Rahoul Chowdry, as Director. The proposed resolution is on the screen. Rahoul was appointed to AMP Limited Board as a Non-Executive Director in January 2020. He served as Chair of the Risk Committee from May 2020 to October 2022. He was appointed Chair of the Audit Committee in October 2022 and is continuing as a member of the Nomination Committee and the Risk and Compliance Committee. At the same time, Rahoul was appointed to the AMP Bank Board and is Chair of its Audit Committee and a member of its Risk and Compliance Committee. Rahoul has over 40 years' experience in professional services, advising complex multinational organizations in Australia and overseas. Rahoul is a senior adviser at MinterEllison and is a member of the Audit and Risk Committee of the firm's Partnership Board. Between 2018 and 2021, he was a partner a national leader of MinterEllison's Financial Services practice in Australia and lead of the risk consulting practice. Prior to this, Rahoul was a senior partner at PwC for almost 30 years, where he undertook a number of leadership roles, delivering audit, assurance and risk consulting services to major financial institutions in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. Rahoul is also a member of the Reserve Bank of Australia's Audit Committee. Rahoul, could I please invite you to say a few words.

Thank you, Debra, and good afternoon, fellow shareholders. I'm honored to be standing for reelection. I joined the Board, as Debra said, in 2020 at a time, as you know only too well, of immense challenge and change. And as AMP was working through a significant transformation of the business in response to a dramatically altered regulatory environment. It was clear that there was an enormous amount of work to be done. And I signed up because I believed that my experience and commitment to AMP would enable me to help restore this proud company's reputation for integrity, quality and success. The journey has been challenging, very challenging with many legacy issues to work through. And although there is still a lot to do, we are making real progress. For example, in my role as a Risk Committee Chair for 2.5 years, we've overseen significant enhancement of management's -- significant enhancement by management to our risk management framework and practices and their embedment into everyday decision-making. We now have more robust discipline in relation to risk reward decision-making, improve compliance with complex regulatory responsibilities and reduction in our exposure to unwanted risks. Importantly also, we've uplifted our risk culture. What does that mean? You might ask? Well, focusing on customers, doing the right thing and never losing sight of our responsibilities to you, our shareholders, have been key outcomes. All of this, of course, is in addition to the broad agenda, namely our focus on ensuring stability and simplifying the business and indeed positioning it for the future. Going forward, in order to achieve results, I believe AMP needs steady leadership, clear vision, a commitment to excellence drive. So what do I continue to offer AMP? Well, 3 things really. Firstly, I understand the financial services industry, particularly well, having worked as Debra said, both in Australia and overseas. Secondly, I have deep technical knowledge of risk, culture, regulation, audit and financial reporting and an ability to harness that knowledge in board decision-making. Finally, I bring some relevant personal characteristics such as healthy skepticism and ability to challenge management a passion for excellence and a nose that I rely on to early detect potential issues requiring action. As I said earlier, much good work has been done, much more remains as we reposition the company for the future. I'm passionate and committed to AMP's future and will be honored to continue to serve. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you.

Thank you, Rahoul. I confirm that Rahoul has the unqualified support of his fellow directors for his election -- his reelection. I now open the discussion on Rahoul's reelection. Please proceed to a microphone attendant if you have a question. We have a question at Microphone 2.

Chair, I'd like to reintroduce Mr. Sanderson.

Thank you, Mr. Sanderson.

Good -- we added in this [ one ]. I didn't realize you were a member of the Reserve Bank of Australia. I'd like to question you going forward on the Reserve Bank of Australia has increased interest rate primarily to offset cost push inflation, which may do. You have a counter example in Japan, where Japan's cash rate is minus [ 2.01% ]inflation rate of 4%. So central banks do have other approach for better results. Based on the fact that the Reserve Bank has made very dodgy decisions, not in the interest in Australian public. How can you justify sitting on a board like this?

Well, thank you for the question. Perhaps it's important to correct this conception. I sit on the Audit Committee of the Reserve Bank, but I do not sit on the board of the Reserve Bank point 1. Point 2 is I have no -- I don't participate at all in the decision-making when it comes to setting interest rates for the country. In fact, I hear about interest rate changes when the rest of Australia does at precisely 2:00 on the second Tuesday of every month. So it's, in fact, very easy for me to remain on this Board, I believe as I have no participation in interest rate setting in this country.

Thank you, Rahoul.

So I apologies for that.

Thank you, Mr. Sanderson. We have a question from microphone 1.

If I can reintroduce Mr. Star.

Thank you, Mr. Star.

Thank you, Debra, just quickly with that, I noticed Rahoul, it's the Reserve Bank of Australia. It's the audit committee that you're on not the actual board. So I take that -- just 2 quick things, Debra. If any discussions come up before the Board in relation to, say, PricewaterhouseCooper or I think the other 1 is...

MinterEllison.

MinterEllison, would you abstain?

Yes, we would recuse. Absolutely Rahoul would recuse as with any conflict of interest protocol.

Yes. No, just checking. I'm pleased that.

Yes, no question at all. Thank you. And thank you for the question. I believe we don't -- yes, we do. Have another question from the floor.

Chair, thank you, if I can reintroduce Mr. Allen.

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

Congratulations, Mr. Chair. You are doing a good job in a difficult environment -- in Europe, mathematics is very central for risk management. You didn't mention the word at all. And how concerned are you about getting qualified staff to come and assist you given the way our mathematic standards in education are dropping.

Thank you, Mr. Alan. Our focus on the risk committee and indeed on the Board of AMP has been to ensure that the framework risk and the manner in which we deal with the risks of this organization and indeed the risk culture of the organization are appropriately dealt with. I'm delighted to say that we're not an overly complex organization that requires detailed mathematics. It's a case of getting the basics right and ensuring that those basics are applied in our day-to-day decision-making. And I believe we are -- we made great strides in the last few years to get to that point. But to the extent that we might need to uplift in the future, it's something that we have our eye on. And to the extent we need additional skills going forward will make absolutely certain that we acquire them whether from Australia or overseas.

Thank you, Mr. Alan for the question. I believe there are no more questions from the floor. I'll move to the questions received before today's meeting and from the online platform. David, do we have any questions?

Chair, we now have 1 question from Mr. [indiscernible] financial investment company is Australia's biggest listed investment company and has a clear policy of not investing in gambling companies given the harm they cause. As Chair of the Audit Committee, Could Rahoul comment on the Board's involvement in deliberations about whether there are any sectors which AMP will avoid investing in. Also, why are we only controlling our super funds voting vision on climate resolutions and not other matters of ESG, such as modern slavery or gambling.

I'm no pretty sure, I can answer that question.

Mike as, let me say that just looking at this question again. Yes, we have very clear policies on not investing in certain parts of -- we have an ethical and responsible investing policy. And we look at all our investments through the lens of that policy. There are certain investments we do not make that I'm aware of regarding controversial weapons and tobacco and other such items. I know also that we do look at our super funds voting position on other resolutions other than -- and in terms of modern slavery, we have just reissued our statement on modern slavery in the last month. We are very committed to all these issues, and we have strong policies and processes around them. And the Board will continue to follow that path. I don't know if you want to add?

I may just add here, I think it's important to recognize that -- we don't actually manage direct money, so we manage money through other fund managers. And when we select those fund managers, you're quite right in saying the exclusions that we have -- but we also consider ESG as one of the elements in selecting those particular managers. And we will continue to look at whether we need to direct are voting in certain issues at points in time.

That's right. We -- the appointment of external fund managers, you would realize goes through a very deep due diligence processes and then is reaffirmed externally by independent ratings and so on. So I can promise you Mr. [indiscernible] and that's taken very seriously. Any other questions, please, David?

Chair, there're no further online questions for this item.

As there are no further online questions, we'll move to questions on the phone. Are there any questions on the phone line? And if so, could the operator please put them through?

Chair, there are no questions via the phone lines.

Thank you very much. I don't think there's any other questions from the floor. So in that case, we will move now to Item 2C concerning the proposed reelection of Michael Sammells as a Director. I'm disappointed Michael can't be with us today. He's a very important part of the Board. The proposed resolution is on the screen. Michael was appointed to the AMP Limited Board as a Non-Executive Director in March 2020. He was appointed as Chair of the Remuneration Committee in August 2020 and is a member of the Audit Committee and the Nomination Committee. At the same time, Michael was also appointed to the AMP Bank Board and is a member of its Audit Committee. Michael has over 35 years of professional experience with significant experience in senior executive financial and commercial roles. His experience as Chief Financial Officer spans over 20 years in ASX-listed companies as well as the public sector. Michael is also a Non-Executive Director and Chair of Sigma Healthcare and has served on numerous private Boards since 2010. While Michael is unable to be in Sydney today, he has joined the meeting online with Teams from Melbourne. Michael, could you -- could I please invite you to say a few words.

Thank you, Debra. And first, my apologies and able to talk you to you in-person. It has been a privilege to Non-Executive Director of AMP for 3 years will be a further privilege to elect -- when I was first approached on [indiscernible] kept Non-Executive Director, but honored and very [indiscernible] up the opportunity. I feel my previous roles as a Chief Financial Officer of listed entities and corporate experience on side of the financial services industry has complemented the skill base of other Board members as we navigate AMP through its transformation. We have made significant progress in repositioning AMP. We have taken tough decisions over what the future of the company would look like. And along the way, we have been focused [indiscernible] share -- we accept that there was [ opportunity ] company is heading in the right direction. [indiscernible] very positive contributions to the Board through my role across all committees, including the key pieces of work as strategic transact capital businesses to maximize shareholder value. Through much of the past year is in my role, I was our Chair AMP Capital to help navigate the through this complex period of time. In August 2020, [indiscernible] there of APP with [ numeration community ] during my role as Chair AMP made significant progress. We have consulted with [ Gareth Health] with the stakeholders to get a balance between performance, shareholder experience and reward outcome. We have simplified the new relationship framework and implemented our[indiscernible] CPS I. We have been very focused on extracting and retaining the executive leadership in a very competitive marketplace and achieved a highest excellent leaders. I acknowledge to that expected strike on the remuneration report resolution and in we will take shareholders' feedback on Board. I look forward to the opportunity to serve on the AMP Board if elected. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you, Michael. I confirm that Michael has the unqualified support of his fellow directors for his election. I now open the discussion on Michael Samuels reelection. Please proceed to a microphone attendant if you have a question. As we don't appear to have any questions from the floor, I will move to the questions received before today's meeting and from the online platform, David, do we have any questions?

Chair, there's no questions for this item.

As there are no online questions, we will move to questions on the phone. Are there any questions on the phone line? And if so, could the operator, please introduce the speaker.

Okay. There are no questions via the phone lines.

Thank you. As there are no further comments or questions, I will close the discussion. We will now move to Item 2D concerning the proposed election of Andrew Best as a Director. The proposed resolution is on the screen. Andrew was appointed to the AMP Limited Board as a Nonexecutive Director in July 2022 and is a member of the Nomination Committee and the Risk and Compliance Committee. At the same time, Andrew was appointed to the AMP Bank Board and is a member of its Risk and Compliance Committee. Andrew is a senior financial services executive with over 30 years international and domestic experience across banking and financial markets in Australia, London, Hong Kong and Singapore, with particular focus on capital markets and mergers and acquisitions. From 1989 to 2020, Andrew worked with JPMorgan Chase & Company, holding various roles over his 3-decade career with the company, including most recently, Head of Investment Banking for Australia and New Zealand from 2017 to 2020. Prior to that role, Andrew was Head of the Financial Institutions Investment Banking business for Australia and New Zealand from 2004. Andrew is a member of the Ord Minnett Private Opportunities Fund Investment Committee, a panel member for Adara Group, which provides independent pro bono advice to Australian companies as well as being an executive coach with Foresight Global Coaching. Andrew is also a member of the National Heart Foundation Advisory Board. Andrew, could I please invite you to say a few words.

Yes. Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon, everyone. Let me start by saying that I'm delighted to serve on the AMP Limited Board. I have known AMP, well, for a long time, having worked for Chase AMP in the late '80s and early '90s. I've also observed and worked with AMP in my role as a banker at JPMorgan from 2004 to 2020. While there have been tough times over the years, I believe recently, the Board and management team have done an excellent job of simplifying and repositioning the business, putting it back on a strong footing to grow into the future with a clear purpose of helping people create their tomorrow. In accepting the Chair and Board's offer to join the Board last year, I understood while the Board has done a lot of heavy lifting with management change, asset sales and many other things, there would still be a lot to do to get AMP back to a position of strength. This is one of the key reasons I agreed to join. I'm excited by the opportunities as well as the challenges ahead of AMP. And to be able to support the ongoing improvement of the business in the constantly changing environment we are seeing in the financial services industry. In terms of what I bring to AMP, I believe my banking and markets experience gained over 30 years at JPMorgan in Sydney, Hong Kong, Singapore and London will provide valuable insights to AMP as it continues its journey. My experience includes advising and working with many of AMP's peers and competitors across a broad range of strategic advice, including mergers and acquisitions, capital markets, both debt and equity, as well as capital management. I also have experience in financial markets, including trading, marketing and structuring transactions that gives me a good understanding of the key risks related to markets in the financial services sector. Additionally, I have experience across a broad range of skills, outlining the Board's skills metrics, including dealing with customers, leadership, business strategy, experience in the financial services sector, risk management, culture and regulation. If elected today, I will seek to continue the good work of the Board and management over recent times. In my short time on the Board, I have been highly impressed by the knowledge and hard work of both the management team and the Board. I believe AMP is in a much better position today than 12 or 20 months, 24 months ago. And the strategic direction set by the Board and Alexis and the management team will continue to deliver improvement and enhance shareholder value over the medium to long term. Thank you.

Thank you, Andrew. I confirm that Andrew has the unqualified support of his fellow directors for his election. I now open the discussion on Andrew Best selection. Please proceed to a microphone attendant if you have a question. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. If I can reintroduce Mr. Stark.

Thank you, Debra. Thank you, Mr. I think at the -- my opening remarks, I made a common relation to the gentleman's surname Best, and I quoted that maybe the whole Board needs to take a leaf out of that and put their best foot forward given the problems and the things that have gone on in the past. So on behalf of the shareholders, I represent Mr. Best. We're very happy to support you, and we look forward to you contributing your insights. 30 years, you can't buy that experience. So we really hope, Paul, that you can, like I said, best foot forward to the whole Board, and next year when we're here, we see the change.

Okay. Thank you. Mr. Stark. As we have no more questions from the floor, I'll move to questions received before today's meeting and from the online platform. David, do we have any questions?

Here, we have a question from Mr. Mayne. It was claimed earlier in the meeting that AMP Super is Australia's biggest retail super fund, but does Board candidate, Andrew Best believe it is the best super fund. Also, could the Best inform person on the stage comment on what metric we are the biggest, client numbers or AUM? In the retail space, who is second and third? And how big is our lead?

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayne. I think the best person to comment is our CEO, Alexis.

Well, I won't profess to put words into Andrew's mouth around the Best, but I certainly think we're a very good super fund. It's hard to actually find market share in the superannuation business that encompasses the market because you've got industry funds, retail funds, self-managed super funds. If I just contain it to retail funds, we sit at about 20%. I'm not going to on who is second or third because honestly, I can't remember, but about 20% in that retail fund. But clearly, the market is much bigger than retail funds.

I got the next question.

A further question from Mr. Mayne. After more than 20 years on National Mutual AXA and then AMP Boards, I was surprised to discover through the Royal Commission that Mr. Allot was still receiving Board fees up until 5 years ago through AMP's subsidiary. Are any of our former directors still on the payroll through subsidiary Boards. And what is our current policy on who gets these gigs now? .

I am not aware of anyone -- or certainly no one on this board is on any of the superannuation subsidiary -- there's I mean there is no overlap between our Board and our Superannuation Trustee Board, which I believe is the only other Board that exists today that would get fees for their services.

Yes, I believe so. And I'm not sure about the other comment, Mr. Mayne, but I appreciate your interest.

Chair, there's no further online questions for this item.

As there are no further online questions, let's move to questions on the telephone. Are there any questions on the phone, please?

There are no questions via the phone line.

Thank you. Then I believe with that we've covered off on this item. I'm wondering if we should move to item 3. Okay. We'll now turn to item 3, being the adoption of the 2022 remuneration report. The proposed resolution is shown on screen. The remuneration report appears on Pages 42 to 72 of the 2022 annual report. Based on proxy votes, we project that 25% or more of the votes cast will be cast against the resolution to adopt the 2022 remuneration report. This will mean that AMP receives a first strike on the remuneration report. As noted earlier, AMP is committed to listening to feedback from our shareholders, proxy advisers and other shareholder representatives. The remuneration report that shareholders are being asked to cast their votes on today explains the Board's policies in relation to the nature and level of remuneration paid to the key management personnel, otherwise known as KMP, and discusses the alignment between the Board's remuneration policies, AMP's performance and remuneration outcomes for 2022. For the short-term incentive remuneration outcomes for 2022, the Board determined that an 85% outcome reflected the contribution and value creation of the executive team. In doing so, the Board took into consideration the scorecard result of 68%, the achievement of outcomes not represented on the scorecard, such as the economic and operating environment and applied a risk overlay. This resulted in an incentive pool starting amount of 70% of target or 35% of the maximum opportunity. After careful consideration, the Board determined a further 15% be awarded in cash based, firstly, on value creation and strategic delivery, including a 30% increase in total shareholder return over the course of the performance period. Secondly, on the delivery of AMP Capital portfolio outcomes, including pivoting from a demerger. And thirdly, on completing all required steps for the second tranche of the capital return, excluding shareholder and regulatory approvals. Importantly, the second tranche of capital return is not an objective that is included in the 2023 scorecard. And management are, therefore, not able to benefit from this outcome in 2023. Despite the change in share price, as it is reflected today. It is the Board's opinion that the remuneration outcomes for 2022 remain reasonable and appropriately reflect management's contribution for the 2022 year and their performance. Whilst the 2022 remuneration reports primary purpose, is to provide information on 2022 remuneration outcomes. It also contains a comprehensive overview of the changes made to the executive remuneration framework for 2023, which I have already touched upon in my speech earlier today and largely relates to the next item of business on today's agenda. Following the release of our 2022 remuneration report on the 16th of February, we note that the transformation incentive awards that were allocated to some executives in 2019 have lapsed following the performance testing at the vesting point in February 2023. The outcomes of this plan were only determined and approved by the Remuneration Committee on the 10th of March. Therefore, the details of this outcome could not be included in the 2022 remuneration report. Further details of the lapse will be disclosed in the 2023 remuneration report. Each director recommends shareholders vote in favor of adopting the remuneration report. I will now respond to any questions or comments on the 2022 remuneration report. Please proceed to a microphone attendant if you have a question. As we have no questions from the floor -- yes, we do. Thank you. We'll go to microphone one. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair. I can reintroduce Mr. Corfield.

Thank you, Mr. Corfield.

Thank you, Chair. Just in relation to the nonfinancial component under remuneration. I personally don't like the use of Net Promoter Score as the sole determinant to find out what our customers think. That system can be gained and it's not consistent. There's not a proper set of rules that's transparent, that we can see around that. And as far as I know, it's not audited. I think there are other measures that could be bought in that I'd like the Board at least to consider. So my colleague, Mr. Sanderson mentioned for example. So a measure of customer satisfaction might be a number of disputes or number of complaints that are made to internal dispute resolution. Another might be the percentage of those that go to the customer advocate. Another angle would be how many of those go to the financial complaints. How long do those do the complaints last? What are the outcomes of those complaints. How many cases go to court, et cetera. So the Net Promoter Score is -- it's an average, someone has one foot in a bucket of boiling order and one foot in a bucket of ice water, we're saying, on average, everything is quite tepid actually. You're not getting the fabric there. So introducing other measures in addition or instead of, I would prefer to see.

Thank you, Mr. Corfield. Can I just clarify with you? Are you talking about the long-term incentive Board here?

On Page 51, the scorecard nonfinancial relating to customer and the weighting is 15%. It does then talk of Net Promoter Score later. I'm not sure whether that applies to short term or long term. I haven't read through the -- there's volumes of pages to go through here. But I did see the Net Promoter Score was used.

Thank you, Mr. Corfield. It's an insightful comment. I would, first of all, say that going forward in 2022, we have taken out the Net Promoter Score from that measure, and we're changing to a CSAT score instead. But to your point regarding customer advocate complaints and so on, we do measure those metrics and they are all included in our performance rating of our teams, maybe not highlighted in the high-level explanation. But in terms of the Net Promoter Score, we did agree with you that it is not all metrics are difficult, of course, but we decided not to use that one going forward in 2023.

Okay. So you're not using Promoter Score any further. There was a reference in there somewhere, but it's a long way.

Yes. No, it's a very long way to go.

Could you consider the other factors that I've mentioned there. And I'd like to engage actually with -- if Alexis can put me in touch with someone in terms of [indiscernible] principles, some of these measurements would be interesting.

Do you want to comment on that?

No. I think you're right. We have one metric, whether it's customer satisfaction or Net Promoter plus reputation, which I think many of those things come into as well. Clearly, though, when the board goes about considering remuneration overall, they do take into account complaints and after referrals. So I think that come into it in terms of the overall performance, but we'll note your comments.

Yes. I also -- I think it's worth seeing averages not very meaningful. You have to look at the tail. Yes. Thank you for comments.

Thank you again.

Another comment from floor.

I can reintroduce Mr. Stark.

Thank you, Mr. Stark.

I'll just be brief, Debra. I'm pleased to hear about that net promoter because one of the other banks has taken it out too because it is one foot in ice water, one put in hot water, give everybody the STI. Just in relation to the remuneration report. I've got to be very transparent and honest on behalf of the people I'm representing. My instructions are devoted down. I've had discussions with other people here too in a similar vote. As I said, for the purpose of transparency, I have to vote down.

So thank you for your transparency. And as I think both Alexis and I have said, we do appreciate all feedback and we listen to it and take it into consideration. Thank you. As we have no more questions on the floor, I'll move to questions received before today's meeting from the online platform. Do we have any, David?

Chair, we have a question online from Ms. Watts. Are directors given the bonus?

That's an easy one to announce Ms. Watts No, it would be totally inappropriate and outside of governance rulings, but no, certainly not. Thank you for the question.

Chair, we have a question from Mr. Lewis. Why do the directors and shareholders always grant significant incentives when the company has failed to reform for the last 5 to 10 years. The share price has crashed and never recovered. Super returns have also crashed. The significant share price reduction and low super returns have impacted my retirement financial position. It is also worrying that several directors have not purchased additional shares in the company and are only sitting on their allocated amounts. Why don't they see an improvement or can't they see a way forward that the company can return to be a respected company.

Thank you, Mr. Lewis. I think the question regarding the performance of the share price over the 5 to 10 years, I think we've lent into that both in my speech and in previous questions, and I understand this question was posed before you had a chance to hear that. Yes, I don't think there's anything to say on that. In the second case, the shareholders, we have a minimum shareholding policy with nonexecutive directors, and we need to meet that minimum shareholding every year, and all members of the Board do meet that currently. I would say that over the last few years because there was so much going on in the AMP activity, as you know, there was -- we only have a short period when we can buy shares. And that was often close to us because of conflict of interest type information. If we were negotiating a sale for example, at the time. That has now obviously, as we've stabilized the company and delivered on many of those extra activities that has allowed the shareholder -- the directors to purchase the appropriate number of shares. Thank you for the question.

Chair, I have a question from Ms. [Scripps]. Are the executive pay increases and staff pay increases the same? If not, what are the percentage changes for each group? What is the percentage of female executives at AMP? Please indicate all political donations in the annual report.

I can't see the question. The second one was what.

The first was around executive pay increases and staff are they the same? What is it -- and secondly, what's the percentage of female executives at AMP?

Easy. Thank you. Thanks very much for your question, Ms. [Scripps]. The -- no, the executive pay increases and staff increases are not the same. The executive pay increases are decided based on slightly different framework based on some of it based on regulations. I don't know the percentage changes for each group, I'm afraid.

I think for the pool this year, clearly, we're in a different environment for our staff pool it. So above 3.5%. Not everyone gets that. It depends on what is happening in the market, but that was our staff pool. And as you said, I mean, if you look at the report, none of the executives with the exception of our Head of Bank received an increase this year.

That's right. And in terms of percentage of female executives at AMP, we have a policy at AMP, a 40-40-20 split between male and female and then there's flexibility in the other 20%. We meet that across the board. -- for AMP, we're pleased to say. And in terms of the Board, obviously, we're 50-50. All political -- we don't make political donations in Australia, AMP. And we're apolitical in terms of involvement in policy activities. They might, for example, require attendance at a function or something. We do report that in the sustainability report. Thank you.

Chair, a question from Mr. Smith. In the remuneration report, why did Phil Pakes not receive a bonus and his long-term incentives canceled? Thank you.

Mr. Pakes left after the production of the 2021 remuneration report and his bonus payments and the incentives were in line with his contract in relationship to his resignation.

Chair, we have a question from Mr. [indiscernible] . Why have so many directors on the Board? Do we need them?

Good governance to have the right structure and number of directors on the board. We obviously look into this. AMP is still a complex company, not as complex as it was. It's appropriate to have 7 nonexecutive directors on the Board, I believe. And the combination of the different skills and backgrounds that they bring to the Board discussions is very important in making sure that the Board is well run and delivers to shareholders in the long term.

Chair, we have a question from Mr. Morse, why should a shareholder give approval to any financial or remunerative motions for some directors when improving share value seems to be a low priority?

That is absolutely not the case. And I think I've spoken to that earlier in the meeting and also at length in my speech.

Chair, a question online from Ms. Everett. Why are directors and executives pay millions for their part in running this company? Their remuneration, bonuses and share allocations all seem excessive in a time when so many are struggling.

I can't see the question again. Can I see the question, please? Thank you. Well, directors are not paid millions for their part in running the company. I think we've clarified that. The remuneration bonuses and share allocations are in line with where -- so we benchmark our remuneration packages for our executives both in terms of fixed pay and incentive pays. And then, of course, the incentive pay structure requires delivery to various threshold hurdle and then depending on what part of the remuneration framework it sits in, is then deferred until much later in the piece, certainly in the case of executives. We benchmark against peers, and we have remuneration expert advice in setting up that remuneration framework for our executives. And we are confident that it's appropriate in the current circumstances. I think a point I'd like to make here is maybe too much detail, but I do get concerned when people compare our benchmarking to market capitalization because market capitalization is one way of deciding the peers you're going to benchmark against. But you also have to look at complexity of work and the workloads involved. And I can tell you that, and I hope you've understood today that we have to take all those things into consideration when we're thinking of what leadership we need to lead this company forward to complete its transformation and make sure we're adding value for the future for all our shareholders. Thank you

Chair, a question from Mr. Dundas. Why don't the directors take a cut in remuneration equivalent to the 34% drop in net profit? People running their own businesses do exactly that. Why are you people any different?

Thank you for the question, Mr. Dundas. I think I pointed out that our directors don't receive incentive payments. But I would also say that running the Board has -- we have reduced the cost of running the Board since 2019 by more than 40% now. Last year, it was down by 13%, the year before down by 15%. So since 2019, down by 40%, and we continue to want to look at that. We review appropriate fees for benchmarked companies regularly.

Chair, a question from Mr. Ho. I want assurances that the retained capital you have been so unwilling to give back to shareholders will not be used to remunerate the team at AMP.

Thank you for the question. As I said, we are committed to giving back $1.1 billion to shareholders. We've completed $350 million of that last this week. That's my answer to that question.

Chair a question from Mr. [ Frind ]. With the AMP remuneration report facing a first strike at this meeting, will Debra Hazelton do the right thing and honorable thing and resign as Chair of AMP whilst remaining a director, take responsibility for the remuneration report and its likely rejection by AMP shareholders?

Thank you, Mr. [ Frind ] for your suggestion. No, I won't be deciding to do that.

Sure, we have a question from Mr. and Mrs. Ho. We strongly object to any adoption of the remuneration report because of the inclusion of nonfinancial indicators to reward financial performance.

Thank you. Mr. and Mrs. Ho. We kind to -- sorry, I'm confused on the top one now. Yes. Thank you very much for your question. The inclusion of nonfinancial indicators -- well, first of all, it's not to reward financial performance as such as to reward the performance that adds to the financial performance of AMP. And as I said earlier, we believe that long-term value creation involves dealing with the nonfinancial issues around ESG as well as obviously delivering on financial issues. I would say, though, that the nonfinancial indicators that we are talking about are required by the regulator in our remuneration structure. The -- and this year -- and this is why I think there's a lot of misunderstanding around our announcements this year around the LTI in particular, is that we are one of the first companies to have to report and apply and comply with these regulations. The nonfinancial indicators are a very important part of measuring performance of our executives, but they are also required by law. I might -- and a good example might be if you were not to take account of reputation as a deliverer in AMP of value then I think we would be -- you wouldn't have customers. So I think it's very obvious that there are overlaps there.

Chair, we have a question from Mr. Logan. It's directed towards Ms. George. There was recently an anonymous post via social media, detailing that members of staff had some of their bonus withdrawn due to speaking up and voicing their concerns and opinions during recent restructures. Given one the company values is around inclusivity and allowing people to speak up, why are staff members being punished for voicing their concerns?

It doesn't sound likely. I completely refute that comment. I mean there is no way that's happened in our organization. And if that is a particular person, as I say, the staff, every single day, they know where my e-mail address is, they know what my mobile number is, and they're welcome to contact me any time. Thank you.

Chair, we have a question from Mr. Mayne. After lots of Royal Commission brand damage, IOOF decided to rebrand as Insignia a couple of years ago. Has this Board discussed the possibility of rebranding AMP, given the damage suffered over many years? And is the AMP name valued in the goodwill on the balance sheet. Would a name change lead to a write-down? And have we costed actually ditching either the corporate brand or the operating brand at the customer level?

Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Mayne. We regard our brand as extremely valuable. I know that there's been a lot of work and obviously, there's been a lot of recent work done on bringing the brand back out into the public. But I know there's been a lot of work done on the brand and the value of that brand by the executive team. So I might pass to Alexis on that.

Yes. Thank you for that question. And before I commenced with AMP, I spent a lot of time talking to various stakeholders about the brand AMP. And we made a conscious decision that it is an iconic brand. It does have a deep history rooted in Australian history and that we would focus on rebuilding that brand, restoring the reputation. I think we're making progress on that, but we still have further work to do. As you saw today, though, we are out there talking about who the new AMP is, and I'm certainly proud of the advertisements that we've got out there, and we'll continue to work on it.

Thank you, Alexis.

There's no further online questions for this item.

As there are no further online questions, I might just check the phone line, please?

There are no questions by the phone line.

Thank you. I believe we have had a sufficient time to discuss this remuneration report. As there are no further comments or questions, I'll close the discussion.

We'll now turn to Item 4 being the approval of the CEO's long-term incentive for 2023. The proposed resolution is shown on the screen. The CEO's 2023 long-term incentive will be granted in performance rights with a face value of $1.715 million, equivalent to 100% of fixed remuneration and represents the maximum grant. The ultimate value will depend on the number of rights that vest after the performance period and the share price at the end of the restriction period. The Board have made several changes to the 2023 executive remuneration framework, based on consultation with stakeholder groups and to comply with APRA's new remuneration Prudential Standard CPS 511. The changes are -- the changes made are largely concentrated around getting the balance right between financial and nonfinancial performance measures and ensuring remuneration is deferred for sufficient time to detect any potential risk and conduct issues. The new framework applies for the CEO's LTI for 2023. The LTI vesting period has been extended to a total of 6 years and is split into 3 components, each with its own performance measure and targets. The minimum vesting requirements for the 3 components is contingent upon the AMP achieving a total shareholder return at or above the median of its peer group as well as growth in adjusted earnings per share or above 4% on a compound annual growth basis and improvement in AMP's reputation score, independently measured at or above the median of a subset of organizations positioned similarly to AMP. Having 3 performance metrics, each contingent upon their own targets and performance ranges, the achievement of maximum vesting under the 2023 LTI is significantly challenging and demanding. It is the nonexecutive directors' view that it is in the best interest of shareholders to approve the 2023 LTI grant to the CEO because vesting of the performance rights will be subject to performance hurdles, which align with the CEO's remuneration to long-term sustainable business performance and shareholder value creation. Each director recommends shareholders vote in favor of the CEO's long-term incentive for 2023. And I'll now respond to questions or comments. Please proceed to a microphone attendant if you have a question. As we have no questions from the floor, I will move to questions received before today's meeting and from the online platform.

Chair, we have a question on Mr. and Mrs. McDonald. Please explain to shareholders how in difficult economic times low profits for AMP and weak financial history can you justify performance gains to the CEO.

Thank you, Mr. and Ms. McDonald. As I said earlier several times, and once again, I appreciate your question. The remuneration package for the CEO is, as we know, fixed remuneration and variable remuneration, one short term and on future focused. They are all aligned with market, and they are benchmarked to peer our companies. The LTI, which is what we're talking about here, is forward-looking. And its ultimate value, as I said earlier, is dependent on whether the performance metrics are met and then at the share price at the end of each vesting period. I can't imagine how we could more clearly align the reward to the CEO for her value add to the company with shareholders value than that structure. Thank you.

Chair, we have a question from Mr. [ Arens ]. Having invested in the company and held shares for several years since the mid-1990s, I'm extremely disappointed with the poor performance of the company and its directors, I'm asking the Chair how she justifies seeking further incentive pay when the value of the shares and dividends continue to lag.

I think I've answered that question previously. But thank you very much for your question, Mr. [ Arenz ].

Chair, we have a question from Mr. Mayne. Could the CEO summarize her past LTI grants as to their prospects of vesting or lapsing? Also, has she ever sold any ordinary shares in the company or bought any on market without relying on an incentive scheme? Please don't say, look it up in the annual report and through ASX announcements. It's complicated over many years and the CEO could actually summarize the situation in 60 seconds.

Well, I'll try and summarize it in less than that because I'm sure you all would not be that interested. Firstly, I've only been at the company for 18 months. So I've had 1 LTI grant. Subject to today, I may get a second LTI grant. As the Chair said, those LTI grants do -- are not tested for 3 years after the grant and that the basis on which those tests have occurred have changed from last due to this year, but are based on TSR, earnings per share and for the [ '22 grant ] if approved, also a reputational index. So they are tested at the end of 3 years and then vest 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 up to the 6-year period. Of course, I'd be optimistic about receiving those because that's what we're all here today to add value for both the shareholders and for all other stakeholders. So I'm continuing to work tirelessly to ensure that they are exercised.

Of course. And I'll just repeat that any reward paid to Alexis means that the shareholders are receiving enormous reward as a result.

Chair, there are no further online questions for this item.

Thank you. Then we might move to the telephone.

Chair, there are no questions by the phone line.

I believe shareholders have had a reasonable opportunity as a whole to discuss the CEO's long-term incentive for 2023. As there are no further comments or questions, I'll close the discussion.

We now turn to Item 5, which is the approval to exceed the 10/12 share buyback limit. The proposed resolution is shown on the screen. On the 11th of August 2022, AMP announced the capital return program, under which it intends to return $1.1 billion of capital to shareholders. This was another step to delivering on AMP's strategy to return surplus capital to shareholders. Under the Corporations Act, the company is committed to buy back up to 10% of the smallest number of voting shares on issue at any time in a 12-month period without the need for shareholder approval. This is known as the 10/12 limit. The $350 million on market share buyback announced on the 11th of August 2022 was completed this week. However, as it is likely that any additional on-market share buyback activity under the capital return program will exceed the 10/12 limit, the company is, therefore, seeking shareholder approval to undertake further buybacks of shares exceeding the 10/12 limit. If shareholder approval is granted, the company will have the flexibility to buy back up to 500 million AMP shares in the 12-month period following the AGM, should the buy -- should the Board decide that it is appropriate to do so. This represents approximately 16% of the company's shares on issue as at the 16th of February 2023, being the last predicable day prior to the finalization of the notice of meeting. If shareholders vote in favor of this item today, the Board expects the next share buyback to commence shortly after the AGM and to complete by the 31st of March 2024. In 2022, AMP obtained approval from APRA to undertake the current $350 million on market share buyback within the 10/12 limit. In relation to the additional buyback under this Item 5, APRA has approved the company undertake up to a further $325 million capital return in FY '23. Each director recommends shareholders vote in favor of the approval to exceed the 10/12 buyback limit. I will now respond to any questions or comments. Please proceed to a microphone attendant if you have a question. We have no question? Yes, we do. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. I can reintroduce Mr. [ Scott ].

Thank you, Debra. Just quickly on that. We'll vote for it, but it comes with this proviso or provisions that I reiterated back in 2019 the shareholders received a $0.10 dividend, a special dividend. I understand because we don't have enough franking credits and maybe the mom-and-dad shareholders don't understand about how the franking credits work. So maybe you might want to just explain that for their benefit because not everybody understands that. And the other thing too is they may not be aware that the new Albanese government are trying to now look at this, and you might want to just quickly explain about that buyback system and what they're trying to do with the franking implications it has.

I'm not quite sure if I'll go into the government's discussions around franking credits, but I'm very happy to talk about why this dividend is 20% franked as opposed to more franking. So one of the things we are committed to doing is to returning to an expectable dividend program. We want to be able to return regular, consistent dividends. And the availability of franking credits in our balance sheet at the moment requires us, if we're going to do that, to deliver the dividends with a 20% franked. We think that is in the best interest of all the shareholders here because of that consistency of return of dividends. We have no questions from -- more questions from the floor. So I'll move to questions received before today's meeting from the online platform. Please, David.

Chair, we have a question from Mr. Mayne. When disclosing the outcome of voting on all resolutions today, including this buyback resolution, could you please advise the ASX how many shareholders voted for and against each item similar to what happens with the scheme of arrangement? This will provide a better gauge of retail shareholder sentiment on all resolutions. And was a disclosure initiative doctored by the likes of Metcash, Altium, Dexus, Webjet and Tabcorp?

Thank you for the question, Mr. Mayne. I do fully understand the intent of this question. We will disclose the way we have previously, but we will certainly consider this for the future. Thank you.

Chair, we have a question from Mr. [ Frind ]. At this meeting today, you've heard time and time again about shareholders preparing a special or extraordinary dividend rather than a share buyback to return capital to shareholders. Will the Board listen to shareholders and declare a special or extraordinary dividend instead of another share buyback?

Thank you, Mr. [ Frind ]. I think AMP operates in a highly complex and regulated market around -- and that's because we're [ a bank ] and superannuation business. We need to listen, obviously, to shareholders. But when I talk about other stakeholders, one of our most important stakeholders is the regulator. And we take all that information into account when we consider how best and most effectively to return the capital.

Chair, we have a, I think, a comment and a question from Mr. Mayne. Thank you for offering shareholders a hybrid AGM this year and also for voicing many of the pre-AGM written questions submitted by shareholders. You've gone above and beyond submitting yourself to a comprehensive 3-hour Q&A session today. Well done. And will you commit to continuing with the hybrid model next year? Feel free to ditch the live telephone option as this is really used, given the range of other alternatives.

Mr. Mayne, thank you very much for that comment. It's much appreciated. And also, it's helped us in doing our post-implementation review of the AGM because it's very insightful. And certainly, we will always consider the hybrid form. Thank you.

Chair, we have a comment from Mr. and Mrs Ho. The just-completed 350 million share buyback has done absolutely nothing to improve the share price, and our retirement savings keep going down.

Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Ho. We can't control the share price, as you know. As I've explained, the buyback gives you more access to the performance of AMP, going forward. And we would hope that will come through in the share price, going forward.

Chair, there are no further questions online.

Let's see if Mr. Mayne is wrong and see if there's a telephone call from the line. Operator -- I should have got my husband to call in. Operator, are there are any further questions on the phone line?

Chair, there are no questions by the phone lines.

I believe that shareholders have had a reasonable opportunity to discuss the share buyback exceeding the 10/12 buyback limit. As there are no further comments or questions, I will close the discussion. That concludes the questions section of the meeting. I'd like to advise that the voting on all resolutions will close shortly. I will provide you all with a few moments now to allow you to finish voting.

Please complete your voting now. If you are in this room and not voting online via the QR code and instead have completed the colored voting code, these will now be collected by Computershare staff in the room. [Voting]

I think I now declare -- I now declare the voting closed. As the poll has now closed, the provisional results will appear on the screen momentarily. It appears that Resolutions 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 4 and 5 are passed. Congratulations, Rahoul, Michael and Andrew, and thank you, shareholders, for your support for my reelection. In respect of the remuneration report, as 25% or more of the votes cast were against the resolution, AMP has received a first strike on the remuneration report. As mentioned earlier, AMP implemented an updated remuneration approach for 2022, which has received -- for 2023, which has received positive support from the majority of proxy advisers and investors. However, we acknowledge the feedback that has been raised and reflected in the voting outcome today. We will continue to work on enhancing our remuneration approach and address concerns that have been raised. As David mentioned earlier, final results will be lodged with the ASX later today and published on our website. Before I close the meeting, I'd like to reiterate the Board's commitment to take all necessary actions to continue to progress the transformation of our company. On behalf of my fellow directors, I would also like to thank all AMP employees sincerely for their continued focus on delivering for customers and dedication to the strategic transformation of AMP. Under the leadership of Alexis and the Executive Committee, we are well progressed on our strategy to reposition and simplify AMP and to support opportunities for growth. Thank you very much for joining us today. I now declare the meeting closed. Good afternoon.