Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Register

1 March 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

Ray Dalio on 2025’s real story, Trump, and what’s next

The renowned investor says 2025’s real story wasn’t AI or US stocks but the shift away from American assets and a collapse in the value of money. And he outlines how to best position portfolios for what’s ahead.

Making sense of record high markets as the world catches fire

The post-World War Two economic system is unravelling, leading to huge shifts in currency, bond and commodity markets, yet stocks seem oblivious to the chaos. This looks to history as a guide for what’s next.

3 ways to fix Australia’s affordability crisis

Our cost-of-living pressures go beyond the RBA: surging house prices, excessive migration, and expanding government programs, including the NDIS, are fuelling inflation, demanding bold, structural solutions.

Is there a better way to reform the CGT discount?

The capital gains tax discount is under review, but debate should go beyond its size. Its original purpose, design flaws and distortions suggest Australia could adopt a better, more targeted approach.

How cutting the CGT discount could help rebalance housing market

A more rational taxation system that supports home ownership but discourages asset speculation could provide greater financial support to first home buyers.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 648 with weekend update

This is my last edition as Editor of Firstlinks. I’m moving onto a new role though the newsletter will remain in good hands until my permanent replacement is found.

  • 5 February 2026

Latest Updates

Property

The 5% deposit scheme is bad for homeowners and Australia

An ‘affordability’ scheme making the county more vulnerable to economic shocks and contributing to the deteriorating financial situation of everyday Australians.

Investment strategies

Is defensive the new offensive?

Relatively boring, unglamorous, defensive stocks like Kroger and Allstate have quietly outperformed gilded tech giants, offering steady growth, visibility, and resilient returns in a market captivated by AI and flashier industries.

Shares

How the RBA scores on its inflation goal

The Reserve Bank continues to face criticism from all sides. A reminder of the RBA's mandate and a review of their track record in maintaining price stability since the early 1990s.

Investment strategies

Levered credit: A late cycle ingredient for drawdown pain

As credit spreads normalised through 2025, yield‑hungry investors have turned to leverage for high returns, uncomfortably echoing pre‑GFC behaviours. Investors need to be careful to understand the true risk‑return trade‑off.

Planning

The more things change… longevity just goes on increasing

Australia needs a major shift in longevity awareness, attitudes and behaviour if, as a community, we are to reap the benefits of increasing longevity. Adopting a national strategy is well overdue.

Property

The improving outlook of Australian commercial real estate

The sector is positioned to benefit from defensive and resilient income streams supported by embedded rental increase opportunities. 

Property

Seize hidden opportunities among 50+ home buyer schemes in Australia

There is a laundry list of government schemes to help Australian's struggling with housing affordability. Savvy buyers should take advantage to break into the property market.

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.