The value of risk advice is not limited to identifying a policy, premium or sum insured. It is also about helping clients understand what their protection is designed to do when life does not go to plan.
This guide is a companion to The impact of doing nothing: using Visualise in risk advice. It provides use case examples advisers can use to explore the potential financial impact of an insured event, with and without cover.
The focus is not on predicting an outcome or replacing insurance needs analysis. It is on making the client’s financial position easier to understand by showing:
- the income or capital need created by an event;
- the expenses and liabilities that continue;
- the sources of funds available;
- the potential shortfall without cover; and
- how the recommended protection may change the position.
A repeatable four-scenario framework
A useful starting point is to create four connected scenarios:
Scenario | What it shows |
|---|
Income continues with cover | The client’s normal position, including the ongoing cost of premiums. |
Income continues without cover | The potential short-term cashflow improvement from not paying premiums, alongside the risk that remains unprotected. |
An insured event occurs with cover | The impact of the event and how an eligible benefit may support cashflow, recovery costs or capital needs. |
An insured event occurs without cover | The same event without an insurance benefit, showing the resulting shortfall and the assets or income sources that may need to fund it. |
Keeping the event and underlying assumptions as consistent as possible helps the client focus on the difference protection may make, rather than on a completely different set of circumstances.
Premiums should remain visible in the scenarios where cover is held. This helps clients understand the trade-off between paying for protection today and retaining more disposable cashflow today while accepting greater financial exposure.
Use case 1: trauma event with cover versus without cover
Client goal: “I want sufficient funds if I experience a trauma event.”
A trauma event can create both an immediate capital need and a temporary or extended cashflow disruption. The conversation can focus on whether the client can fund the period of disruption without relying on their partner, family, additional debt or forced asset sales.
Model the scenarios
Without trauma cover:
- medical, rehabilitation and recovery costs;
- reduced or interrupted employment income;
- ongoing mortgage and household expenses;
- additional care or lifestyle costs; and
- the resulting cashflow or capital shortfall.
With trauma cover:
- the same event and expense assumptions;
- the trauma premium continuing as an expense;
- the lump-sum benefit being received, subject to the policy terms; and
- how the benefit may fund recovery costs, support cashflow or reduce the need to sell assets.
Adviser conversation
“Let’s model what your cashflow and available capital could look like if a trauma event occurred at age 55. We can first look at the position without trauma cover, then add the recommended benefit and compare which costs and shortfalls it may help address.”
Use case 2: TPD event and long-term financial security
Client goal: “If I can never work again, I want my family to remain financially secure.”
A TPD scenario is an opportunity to make the sum insured tangible. Rather than presenting it as an arbitrary dollar amount, show the needs it may be intended to address.
Model the scenarios
Include:
- the loss of employment income;
- ongoing living expenses;
- mortgage and other liabilities;
- medical, rehabilitation and home-modification costs;
- care or support costs; and
- the available TPD benefit.
Compare the outcome with and without TPD cover. The client can see whether the benefit may:
- clear or reduce debt;
- fund immediate recovery and lifestyle adjustments;
- provide capital to support lost income; and
- reduce the need to draw down savings or sell the family home.
Adviser conversation
“If you were unable to return to work permanently, what would need to be funded? Let’s look at the income and capital gap, the assets that may be available and how the recommended TPD benefit could change the amount your family would need to fund themselves.”
Use case 3: income loss using Work Transition
Client goal: “If I cannot work due to illness or injury, I want to maintain my household cashflow.”
A Work Transition modelled in Visualise can be a useful way to illustrate a temporary income protection claim or a staged return to work. It can represent a change from the client’s current income to:
- zero income during a waiting period;
- reduced income while an income protection benefit is paid; and/or
- a gradual return to work through part-time.
Compare the result with and without income protection. This can show:
- the monthly cashflow shortfall;
- how long emergency savings may last;
- whether debt repayments can continue;
- where funds would need to come from; and
- how quickly the client could return to their normal position.
The adviser should explain that this is a cashflow illustration of an income interruption or staged return to work. It is not a representation of every feature or terms of an income protection policy.
Adviser conversation
“Let’s assume you cannot work for two years, followed by a gradual return to work. We can compare your cashflow without income protection against the position where an income benefit is received, so you can see how much of the shortfall the policy may address.”
Use case 4: trauma claim followed by a gradual return to work
This is a strong combined scenario because it shows both the capital need created by the event and the cashflow need created by an interruption to work.
Model the sequence
- A trauma event occurs at age 55.
- Employment income reduces or stops.
- A trauma benefit is received, subject to the policy terms.
- Part of the benefit is used for medical and recovery costs.
- The client returns to work gradually through a Work Transition.
- The adviser compares the outcome with and without trauma cover.
The client can see how the lump-sum benefit and the changing employment income interact. The model may help explore whether the client can meet immediate costs, maintain household commitments and recover without exhausting their available capital.
Adviser conversation
“Let’s look at the event in stages: the immediate recovery period, the income interruption and the gradual return to work. We can then compare how the position changes if a trauma benefit is available and if it is not.”
Use case 5: TPD and the source of funds
A TPD discussion can become more meaningful when the adviser shows the order in which a shortfall may need to be funded.
Model the possible funding sources
Show the potential contribution from:
- continuing partner income;
- government or other income support, where relevant;
- existing cash or disposable assets;
- sale or redraw of assets;
- debt restructuring; and
- insurance proceeds.
The key Adviser conversation becomes:
“Without cover, the shortfall may need to be funded from these sources. With cover, the benefit may fill or reduce that gap.”
This approach connects the needs analysis to the client’s actual financial position. It compares the total capital required with disposable assets, continuing income, existing cover and the recommended benefit, rather than discussing the sum insured in isolation.
Use case 6: reviewing cover as circumstances change
Risk advice is not a once-only conversation. Visualise can support a practical review when:
- the mortgage balance has reduced;
- children become financially independent;
- a partner’s income increases;
- the client changes employment;
- the client becomes self-employed;
- emergency savings increase; or
- existing cover is cancelled, replaced or reduced.
Create a current scenario and an alternative scenario to show whether the client’s protection gap has changed.
For example:
- Today: higher cover may be required because the mortgage and family expenses are substantial.
- After the mortgage is repaid: the required lump sum may reduce.
- After dependants become independent: future expenditure may reduce further.
- After a change in employment: income protection may need to be reassessed.
This keeps protection advice connected to the client’s actual objective rather than treating insurance as a once-only recommendation.
Adviser conversation
“Your circumstances have changed since we last reviewed your cover. Let’s update the current position and compare it with your revised obligations, income and available resources so we can see whether the protection gap is still the same.”
Use case 7: reducing cover at a defined milestone
Client goal: “I want enough cover while my financial responsibilities are highest, but I do not want to pay for unnecessary cover forever.”
Visualise can help compare a planned reduction in cover with the client’s changing financial responsibilities.
Model the options
- retain the current level of cover;
- reduce cover when the mortgage reaches a specified balance;
- reduce cover when children reach financial independence; or
- retain a defined amount for medical, recovery and final expenses.
Compare the premium cost and protection outcome at each milestone. The client can then discuss whether the premium saving justifies the reduced protection and establish a future review trigger.
The important point is to model the trade-off rather than assume that reducing cover is automatically better or worse. A lower premium may improve current cashflow, but it may also increase the potential shortfall if an event occurs later.
Use case 8: premium affordability during a claim or income reduction
Protection needs to remain sustainable, including when the client’s income is under pressure.
This is especially useful for clients with:
- stepped premiums;
- premiums paid outside super;
- premiums paid through super;
- bundled policies; or
- limited surplus cashflow.
Model the options
- current cover and current premiums;
- recommended cover and premiums;
- reduced cover after a claim or income change; and
- premium funding from cashflow versus super, where applicable.
The aim is to test whether the recommended protection remains affordable under the type of event it is intended to protect against. It also creates a more balanced conversation about the cost of holding cover and the risks of reducing or cancelling it.
Use case 9: existing cover versus recommended cover
For a risk-only adviser, a side-by-side comparison can be structured around the client’s questions:
Scenario | Client question |
|---|
No cover | What would happen if the event occurred today? |
Existing cover | How much of the need is already met? |
Recommended cover | What shortfall does the recommendation address? |
Reduced cover | What premium is saved, and what risk remains? |
Cover funded differently | What changes in personal cashflow or super? |
Visualise can help present the current and proposed scenarios side by side, while Risk Researcher supports the product, needs and premium analysis behind the recommendation.
A simple adviser workflow
A repeatable workflow can help keep the modelling focused:
- Start with the client’s protection goal.
- Establish the current income, expenses, liabilities, assets and existing cover.
- Model the client’s current position with premiums included.
- Introduce the relevant event or work transition.
- Add the proposed insurance benefit, where appropriate.
- Compare the outcome with and without cover.
- Identify the remaining shortfall and the funding sources that may be required.
- Discuss affordability, policy conditions and future review triggers.
- The model should support the advice conversation, not replace the adviser’s judgement or the formal needs-analysis and research process.
Suggested adviser conversations
Trauma
“Your protection goal is to have sufficient funds if you experience a trauma event at age 55. Let’s model your cashflow first without trauma cover and then with the recommended cover. We can see the immediate costs, the income interruption, the ongoing expenses and which sources of funds may be required in each scenario.”
Income protection
“Let’s assume you cannot work for two years, followed by a gradual return to work. We can compare your cashflow without income protection against the position where an income benefit is received, so you can see how much of the shortfall the policy may address.”
TPD
“If you were unable to return to work permanently, what would need to be funded, what assets would be available and how much would need to come from the TPD benefit?”
The core value for risk-only advisers
Visualise can help shift the adviser conversation from:
“Here is the premium and sum insured.”
to:
“Here is the financial consequence of the event, here is the shortfall without cover and here is how the recommended protection may change your position.”
That makes the protection goal measurable through cashflow, capital required, funding sources and remaining shortfall.
Projections are not promises. They are tools for helping clients understand the possible consequences of today’s choices and for revisiting whether their strategy remains aligned with their goals as life changes.
Important: This use case guide is intended to prompt ideas for adviser conversations. Any modelling, assumptions and recommendations should be tailored to the client’s circumstances and supported by appropriate advice, policy terms and disclosures.
Related content
The impact of doing nothing: using Visualise in risk advice
