Where do all the life insurance premiums go?

[OPINION] Last year $1.64 billion was paid in life premiums but only $539 million in income protection premiums – differences in life product premiums hint at great adviser opportunity.

Tuesday, June 2nd 2026, 1:37PM 1 Comment

by Steve Wright

According to the FSC, annual premiums paid for life and accidental death cover (excluding Group Life) for the year to March 31, 2026 amounted to $1.64 billion.  For the same period, income protection premiums amounted to just $539 million.

Why are life cover premiums three times that of income protection. What does this tell us?

  1. Life cover premium rates are higher than income protection premiums?  They might be, but probably not three times more expensive.
  2. Many more people have life cover than income protection?  This is likely correct, but one would imagine the vast majority of people who have anything other than relatively small life cover sums insured are probably of working age (and who have incomes to protect).  This suggests a lot of people who have life cover don’t have income protection - a big opportunity for advisers. (Previous FSC research corroborates this).

Interestingly, for the same period, trauma cover premiums amounted to $672 million. Why is this less than half of life cover premiums? Is it because:

  1. Life cover premium rates are much higher than trauma cover premiums?  I’d say overall, that’s probably not the reason.
  2. Fewer people have trauma cover than life cover?  This is probably true – a potentially big opportunity for advisers.  Don’t all people need trauma cover?
  3. Trauma cover sums insured are lower than life cover sums insured?  This is probably correct. Trauma cover sums insured are relatively low, and I suspect most people are significantly underinsured (something that can no longer be blamed on affordability alone).  Another opportunity for advisers.

For the same period, TPD premiums amount to just $89 million. This seems low considering never being able to work again is probably the biggest financial risk facing working age people still more than a few years from retirement.  Why might this be?

  1. TPD premium rates are lower than income protection premiums?  Yes, this is a likely contributing factor.
  2. Fewer people have TPD cover than have income cover?  I’d guess this is true also – another opportunity for advisers, considering income protection always underinsures, making TPD in addition to income cover necessary.

One last question, why are these annual trauma premiums greater than the income protection premiums? In my ideal world it would be because many children are covered with more than the ‘free’ trauma cover provided on their parent’s policy, but I doubt that’s the case.

Trauma cover to protect children – yet another great opportunity for advisers!

The great thing about these possible opportunities is that they are likely present in your existing client base.

These are my musings only; I have no information that might justify my thoughts or explain any of these premium disparities.

Steve Wright has qualifications in economics, law, tax, and financial planning. He has spent the last 20 years in sales, product, and professional development roles with insurers. He is now independent and helping advisers mitigate advice risk through training and advice coaching.

Tags: Opinion

« New insurance comparison tool hits the marketFidelity exec to become Apex CEO »

Special Offers

Comments from our readers

On 3 June 2026 at 4:58 pm Paul Flood said:
Looking back at the March 2021 FSC stats, it appears the life insurance market (excluding health) has stagnated. Current premium revenue of $3.31B against $2.76B five years ago, annual growth of 3.7%. This is lower than increases in both CPI inflation (4.6%) and average household income (4.5%) over the same period.

The product splits as a % of total revenue have remained steady. 50% of premium from life cover, 19-20% from Trauma, and 15-16% from IP. TPD accounts for roughly 3% of premium revenue.

Are these splits appropriate? Should IP and TPD spend exceed trauma spend? Is 50% on life too high? And why is life insurance penetration at the population level so much higher than living insurances such as IP and trauma?

Things I (think I) know about life cover.
1. It has a lower loss ratio than trauma and IP covers (so more profitable for insurers).
2. Insurers typically pay higher commission for life cover than for trauma or IP (so more profitable for advisers).

I wonder how much (if any) of the premium skew towards life cover is explained by the incentives at play over the last 20 years?

Sign In to add your comment

www.GoodReturns.co.nz

© Copyright 1997-2026 Tarawera Publishing Ltd. All Rights Reserved