Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Register

1 May 2026

Home / 170

Bank royal commission survey initial results

Last week’s article, ‘10 reasons not to hold a bank royal commission’, drew many heated comments for both sides of the debate, in the comments section and in the results of the survey.

The original article showed the strong public support for a bank royal commission, with 64% in the support camp and only 13% opposing.

The Cuffelinks survey generally produced the opposite results, as shown in the table below:

The support camp was 25.6% while the oppose side was a healthy 73.2%. Even more impressive was the strong oppose score of 47.6%, nearly half of all respondents (although it is acknowledged that response numbers were down on our usual survey participation levels).

We will leave the survey open for a few more days to encourage more responses, and then open up the full survey results and comments before next week’s edition.

Please take our survey on whether a royal commission into banking and financial services is required [now closed].

 

  •   25 August 2016
  • 3
  •      
  •   
3 Comments
Keith Hart
August 26, 2016

How many readers of this post are connected in some way to the banks? Wouldn't that potentially skew your data?

Graham Hand
August 26, 2016

Hi Keith, every poll has its sampling shortcomings, especially where respondents are 'opt in' and not selected at random. We have a wide range of readers but with a bias to professionals. So the poll is offered for what it is - a survey of our readers, who are obviously far more engaged with markets and investing than the general public. Some argue polls in the SMH have a left wing bias and polls in The Australian have a right wing bias. Yes, the response is probably skewed. Cheers

SMSF Trustee
August 26, 2016

Keith, I expect that many of the Cuffelinks readers may well be connected to banks, if they are financial planners who work for bank-aligned agencies. But how does that necessarily skew the results? I am assuming that your belief is that these folk will oppose a RC.

However, there are plenty of planners who would much rather not be aligned with banks and thus who might see a RC as a way of getting the banks to sell off their advisory businesses.

There are also plenty who aren't bank-aligned, but use bank fund manager products who are very happy with their service and the results delivered to their clients, who thus might not favour an inquiry into the banks.

You just can't presume how people think about this and I believe we should just take the survey results as they come.

 

Leave a Comment:
Firstlinks is sponsored by:
banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Indexation implications – key changes to 2026/27 super thresholds

Stay on top of the latest changes to superannuation rates and thresholds for 2026, including increases to transfer balance cap, concessional contributions cap, and non-concessional contributions cap.

The refinery problem: A different kind of energy crisis in 2026

The Strait of Hormuz closure due to US-Iran conflict severely disrupted global energy supply chains. While various emergency measures mitigated the crude impact, the refined product market faces unprecedented stress.

The missing 30%: how LIC returns are understated, and why it matters

The perceived underperformance of LICs compared to ETFs is due to existing comparison data excluding crucial information, highlighting the need for proper assessment and transparent reporting.

Little‑known government scheme can help retirees tap into $3 trillion of housing wealth

The Home Equity Access Scheme in Australia allows older homeowners to tap into their home equity for retirement income, yet remains underused due to lack of awareness and its perceived complexity.

Origins of the mislabeled capital gains tax ‘discount’

Debate over the CGT discount is intensifying amid concerns about intergenerational equity and housing affordability. This analysis shows that the 'discount' does not necessarily favor property investors.

Div 296 may mean your estate pays tax on assets your beneficiaries never receive

The new super tax, applying from 1 July, introduces more than just a higher rate on large balances. It brings into focus a misalignment between where wealth sits and where the tax on that wealth ultimately falls.

Latest Updates

The ultimate superannuation EOFY checklist 2026

Here is a checklist of 28 important issues you should address before June 30 to ensure your SMSF or other super fund is in order and that you are making the most of the strategies available.

Retirement

Two months into retirement

A retirement researcher's take on retirement and her focus on each of her six resource buckets to stay engaged during the transition and beyond.

Superannuation

Markets have always delivered for super fund members. What if they don’t?

What happens if market resilience in the face of ongoing geopolitical tensions ends? Potential decade-long market weakness shows the need for contingency planning.

Retirement

We tend to spend less in retirement …

Studies show that a drop in expenditure during retirement leads to a happier retirement. But when costs ramp up again later in life, it's a guaranteed income that makes spending more hurt less.

Shares

Can you value a share just using dividends?

A cow for her milk, a stock for her dividends. Investors are too quick to dismiss this valuation technique. 

Property

The 25-year property trust default is being questioned

The 33% CGT discount rate being floated isn’t random. It sits at the structural break-even between trust and company for the multi-property cohort. That’s driving the conversation we’re hearing now.

Investment strategies

Are active managers bringing a knife to a gunfight?

How passive investing has permanently changed market structure — and why sophisticated tools are now the price of survival.

Sponsors

Alliances

Site Map

About Firstlinks

© 2026 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.