Funds urged to get smarter on income protection

3 November 2016
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

While there is a compelling case for superannuation funds to provide group life insurance, there is a far less compelling case for them seeking to provide income protection insurance, according to actuarial consultancy, Rice Warner.

In an analysis published this week, Rice Warner has stated that the reality is that income-protection insurance is difficult to offer efficiently within superannuation for such reasons as the:

  • High cost of providing an adequate level of cover: superannuation funds have to try to find the balance between offering an acceptable degree of cover without diminishing retirement benefits.
  • High net worth Australians can afford to buy this insurance outside superannuation, particularly as the premiums are tax-deductible.
  • Benefits from income-protection cover only apply to members still working as a means to replace income. This means that members who are temporarily off work through unemployment or maternity leave are paying for the minimum cover — unless they have opted-out — without a potential benefit.
  • Usual limit of income-protection benefits to 75 per cent of salary (plus SG contributions) means that members who have cover elsewhere (e.g. with another fund, an employer-owned policy or an industry-based arrangement), and/or receive Workers' Compensation benefits may have paid for cover yet may be ineligible to receive all the benefits.
  • Limit of income-protection benefit payouts by most funds to two years even though income replacement should ideally flow through to retirement — particularly given the role of superannuation in providing for retirement.

It said that if funds wanted to provide income protection cover, they needed to be smarter about segmenting members and tailoring the cover to different groups.

"We believe funds can place more of an emphasis on educating and advising members, including through fund advisory groups, about how much income-protection cover is needed for their circumstances," the Rice Warner analysis said.

"Second, advise members, again through fund advisory groups, about the most cost-effective way to obtain that cover."

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Recommended for you

sidebar subscription

Never miss the latest developments in Super Review! Anytime, Anywhere!

Grant Banner

From my perspective, 40- 50% of people are likely going to be deeply unhappy about how long they actually live. ...

4 months 1 week ago
Kevin Gorman

Super director remuneration ...

4 months 2 weeks ago
Anthony Asher

No doubt true, but most of it is still because over 45’s have been upgrading their houses with 30 year mortgages. Money ...

4 months 2 weeks ago

A “concerning” number of Aussies don’t know what they pay in super fees, a young super fund has said. ...

42 minutes 34 seconds ago

The corporate regulator has shared some ‘disappointing’ findings upon reviewing the public communications of more than 20 trustees with regards to death benefits....

1 hour ago

According to the industry body, funds should have an obligation to transfer members in failing products to better-performing products in a timely way....

1 hour ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND