Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Register

10 October 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

Why spending more in early retirement can improve lifetime income

Conventional wisdom encourages retirees to preserve superannuation. But if those likely to qualify for the Age Pension later in life spend a little more today, it may deliver higher lifetime income and a more stable retirement.

It’s time for LICs to die

A high-profile dividend cut and a prominent fund manager’s apology have reignited a long-running debate. If investors can access similar exposures more cheaply and efficiently elsewhere, what exactly is keeping LICs alive?

Testamentary trusts survived the trust tax. The drafting battle has just begun.

The fight over testamentary trusts looked settled. Then the draft legislation arrived. Hidden in a technical detail is a question that could force many families to rethink wills they thought were already future-proof.

Is it time to bail on Australian stocks?

For generations, Australian investors have backed banks, miners and dividends. But has that loyalty come at a cost? A look at the numbers raises an uncomfortable question about where future returns will come from.

The new capital gains tax trap for your portfolio

Investors have long accepted one portfolio rule without much question. A major tax shift could change that calculation entirely, forcing difficult trade-offs between risk, discipline and an overlooked cost lurking beneath.

How the typical Australian Family could save $844,350 in taxes

The value of a testamentary trust is not determined by wealth alone. Depending on circumstances, it can reduce the tax burden on inherited income, create efficiencies and help build intergenerational wealth.

Latest Updates

Fixed interest

Higher yields are creating opportunities in global bonds

Bond markets are adjusting to a new reality, but not in the ways investors expect. With markets repricing and capital competing for attention, investors may need to rethink where resilience and opportunity lie. 

Economy

Are we in a recession?

What if the warning signs are already everywhere? From supermarket aisles to company failures, investors are being bombarded with recession signals. But most face a different risk that can be just as dangerous for portfolios. 

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs - Division 296 actuarial certificates

The tax bill might be yours, but the event that caused it may not be. A key Division 296 calculation can sometimes attribute earnings in ways that many SMSF trustees won't instinctively expect or fully appreciate.

Property

The first impact of negative gearing reform is not the tax bill

Negative gearing changes formally begin in 2027, but the first consequences may already be here. A subtle shift is quietly influencing who can borrow, how much they can access and which property strategies still stack up.

Economy

The oil market is running out of easy answers

The biggest threat to markets may not be what investors are watching. The numbers have stopped adding up and supply is harder to measure, with forecasts becoming simple guesses. A more fragile reality is being masked.

Investment strategies

The state of investor knowledge in Australia

Australians are investing more than ever, yet a surprising divide is emerging between those building wealth effectively and those making costly mistakes. Surprisingly, the gap has little to do with income, age or starting capital.

Taxation

Complexity and capital gains

A case study shows that the ‘30% minimum CGT’ is a poorly conceived tax that adds significant complexity to an already over-complex system. A less complicated model would create a much fairer progressive tax scale.

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

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.