Interesting research out of Australia, yes I know Aussie. However, as our closest neighbour, most research has some value for insight or application in our market too.

What is interesting with this, is the insurance uptake across all products is generally better in Australia, with house car and contents being the most similar to us.

This research was specifically about insurance literacy, most of the time these reports are on investment or financial literacy or subject matter and insurance is treated as a by-line. Which for those relying on it, it is far from a by-line.

You've got a fairly steep learning curve going on and ACC has just thrown a spanner in the works. It's a spanner in the works because ACC isn't intuitive and you're short on time and don't have time to figure this crap out right now.

If this resonates with you, you need to read this, it will short cut this for you.

Let's start with the simple things you need to understand first.

If you are self-employed the answer is you should! We don't joke about this, restructuring your ACC will give you more certainty if you are disabled through an accident and if you have talked to a financial adviser and arranged income protection, you will have more certainty for non-accident disabilities as well.

Let me start at the beginning. You started your own business and you have been doing your thing for a few years, you have no income protection because you have got by this long without it.

Offsets are one of the most contentious and least understood provisions of an Income Protection contract with policy holders.

Why?

Simply it's not a selling point so it's glossed over in the advice discussion.

Keep in mind, having some cover is better than no cover, but having the right cover is even better.

I'm going to explore offsets in this article so you have a better understanding of what this may mean to you.

I wrote recently about a new approach Asteron was taking to income protection.

In the right client situation quite appropriate, in others it would potentially be a disaster. As the options in insurance advice expand and hybrid or niche products develop, the need to have an adviser involved is even more apparent. One that really understands the application of insurance benefits to your risks.

In our opinion in all situations Agreed Value is. Yes, there are some clever tricks you can play with tax and claims on indemnity or loss of earnings, but the vast majority of claims just don't work out like that at claim time.

In my experience when it comes to Income Protection claims, indemnity claims cause the most headaches. In my time as a manager looking after advisers and as an adviser myself, the only problematic claims I have had were indemnity claims. Agreed Value never had the drama and hassle.

Insurance and shades of grey, no not 50 shades but certainly something most people don't like to hear when it comes to insurance. Most people want to hear black and white. My experience is every claim has shades of grey and they are rarely cut and dried. There is always something that pops up; most are foreseeable, some not so much.

Where I am going with this is the differing effects different policy wordings have at claim time.

For example there are a few insurance company trauma policies where a good angina attack could almost qualify for a trauma claim and then there are others where you have to be half dead and not working, probably not working in a manual job ever again, before you could claim.

This is what we achieved for one of our clients without getting creative on cover levels and types of cover, the creative bit is likely to be another $2-3000 per annum ongoing.

So what have we achieved?

We've managed to achieve a $2,500 per year average saving on what they were previously doing and this applies to what they do going forward. Add to this an additional $2000 per annum after restructuring how they're covered, giving an expected savings of $4,500 per annum ongoing.

Significant in most people's book, so how did we achieve this?

The short answer: depends.

The longer answer: maybe, maybe not.

No I am not trying to be difficult, it does depend on the policy you have so maybe, maybe not.

The simple answer:

If you have indemnity or loss of earnings yes, it is tax assessable. If you have agreed value, it is generally not tax assessable. But there's more, no not a set of steak knives, really there's more.

Interesting question, up there with what's the best value income protection?

The answer to both questions is a good quality income protection solution. It will both work at claim and give you great value as a result. The way to do this is talk to a good adviser who will arrange this for you, that's me.

If you mean best value equals cheapest premium, then you have to ask the question do you expect to claim? If not, why have it? Cheapest like most things in life usually translates to inferior.

I’ve got insurance this under insurance thing doesn’t apply to me? It probably does apply to you

What I’m referring to by underinsurance are the various studies around the world, that are pretty consistent with saying about 70% of the population are under insured when it comes to life insurance.

Why do I say it probably does apply to you?

Something that often pops up in the insurance industry and media, but what does it really mean for you.

Over insurance is where you are carrying more protection than you need and under insurance is when you have less than you need.

This is not about you having insurance or not, it is about you having the right type of insurance, at the right level for your situation.

Looking at the numbers, most households will have some form of insurance. It might be House, Contents or Car cover, it may also be Life or Medical Insurance.

What the numbers do tell us though, about 80% of households, possibly higher, will have exposure if someone was to be disabled and 75% of you would have to use the public system for medical treatment, or pay your own way for private medical treatment.

Exclusions and policy terms, another good reason to regularly review your insurance coverage

An unfortunate fact of life is; time marches on and we all get that little bit older. This also means the policy you took last year, five years or ten years ago may not be quite as appropriate now as it was at the time you first took it.

Obviously, if you are laid off, but when is it going to be the most use to you?

Often there are comments redundancy protection is expensive relative to the cost of income protection. For those looking at income protection under the age of 40 this is often the case. Income protection pays up to age 70, redundancy protection only pays up to 6 months, with redundancy protection sometimes costing more than income protection for those under 40. Cost is relative, for a 50 year old it can be less than 25% of your overall cost of income protection even though redundancy protection premiums are the same for all ages.

Let's have a closer look at this picture.

You have a mortgage which is why you're probably asking this question, so the logical leap is you have a mortgage because you either don't have the financial resources not to or you wish to leverage your capital for the maximum return. Either way you have taken on a financial risk by having a mortgage.

If things go to plan and nothing happens to you or your property then the risk has not been realised, the question then becomes what if the risk is realised?

Mortgage Protection Insurance is how you go about mitigating this particular financial risk.