A friend who is a financial planner, and highly competent in that field, especially in investment planning but also in all manner of financial decision-making, baffled me with his approach to insurance a little while ago.
Allow me to contrast the difference in approach, between his investment planning service and his insurance advice:
Providers: for investments many options were given, for risk, just two.
Products: investment product ranges were carefully selected to provide many complementary options - a mix of management styles, geographical areas, large and small. No such mix was provided with insurance, in fact, the two ranges closely resemble each other.
Criteria: a page of detailed financial information, corporate information, and even details of management staff were included in the selection criteria for the fund managers - nothing more than the financial stability rating was given for the insurance advice.
Calculations: lots of time and effort had gone into comparing funds and calculations of risk of the recommended portfolio and future possible returns, contrasted with estimates of inflation and benchmarks were included. A bare calculation of cover amounts was included for insurance, and little attention was paid to future-proofing tools such as indexed benefits and special events increase in cover options.
Alternatives: were given plenty of discussion in the investment plan, but little in the insurance plan.
I could go on. Also, I don't think the approach is atypical. It is strange, though, that financial advisers do not always apply the same standards of advice to the secondary advice field offered. But before insurance advisers feel to smug about their superior level of service in their primary area of expertise they should consider how good their service is when, say, offering access to some KiwiSaver scheme.