Insurance Advert Meets Art Installation
Miss-spent Adulthood

Which is better - more cover, or more scope?

One guideline for the amount of life insurance a person should have is ten times income. Let's assume we have a male non-smoker with an income of $100,000 per year.

What does this recommended level of life cover cost?

  • Monthly $76 buys the $1,000,000 life cover.

Here's an alternative. Monthly, $76 buys:

  • $350,000 Life cover
  • $50,000 Living assurance (basic product)
  • $50,000 Total and permanent disablement
  • $50,000 per annum Income Protection beenfit (13 week wait, five year term)
  • + Waiver of premium

Which would you buy? More to the point, which should you advise the client purchase?

Here's another way of asking the question - which advice strategy, if applied by two different advisers over the coming five years, would generate fewer complaints?

My bet is - the broader scope of cover will be more valuable and will generate fewer complaints over time.

But which strategy do you think best describes what's actually sold in the market right now?

 

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The comments to this entry are closed.