Mitchell says: “The premiums would appear to be competitive, especially where taken as a package. Friends Provident has a very good reputation in the income protection market.”
Crossan quantifies his comments: “Dependent upon the benefits selected within the plan, the premiums can be quite competitive. However, care has to be taken to ensure where a restricted selection of benefits are taken, the cover could be obtained elsewhere at a lower rate on an individual basis.”
Moving on to whether the charges are fair and reasonable, Crossan simply says: “Yes.” Wingar is in agreement.
Mitchell says that a menu based product such as this does save on policy fees.
Looking at the commission payable, Mitchell says: “Commission would appear to be reasonable and if anything slightly higher than the market average. The only slight drawback is that, unlike many of their competitors, Friends Provident's claw back period is greater than 24 months.”
Crossan and Wingar agree that the commission is fair and reasonable, while Mitchell says: “The product literature is very good in that it is concise and easy to understand and is presented in an attractive way.”
When asked about the product literature, Crossan calls it: “Good, clear and informative.”
Summing up, Wingar says: “This plan should sell well in the domestic marketplace.”
Mitchell says: “This seems to be a well structured and well thought out product offered by a very reputable life office. The premiums appear competitive and the marketing literature is simple and concise. Friends Provident deserve to do well with this.”
Crossan says: “I like the ability to finely tune the cover provided to clients, taking into account any other arrangements which may already be in place with other providers. This can certainly prove useful where, in the event of a marriage, one partner comes to the union with cover in place and only needs a top up, whereas the other may have no existing cover in place whatsoever.”