Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 73

Cuffelinks Reader Survey results

Our thanks to the 972 readers who filled in our Reader Survey. This is a great response rate and the feedback provides valuable guidance for the future of Cuffelinks.

Cuffelinks is a community of investors sharing ideas, and in the spirit of openness, we are taking the unprecedented step of attaching all 447 answers to the final question – 20 pages of comments, warts and all. We have edited out only names and email addresses in the interests of privacy and confidentiality, and we have not touched the spelling or grammar.

The bar charts on responses to every question are linked here.

The verbatim comments are linked here.

In brief, some of the findings are:

  • 38% of our readers identify themselves as ‘SMSF trustees’ while 32% are investors without an SMSF. Most of the rest are industry professionals, many of which would also manage an SMSF.
  • 73% say the length of our articles is about right, while 15% say it depends on the subject. Overall, we think we are writing appropriately for our audience.
  • 82% like to receive the newsletter once a week, with little support for more frequent.
  • a large majority consider our articles easy to understand, credible and professional, so we hope we are pitching our content at the right level.
  • there is not much support for more political commentary or lifestyle stories, and only a little more for stock picking. Long term forecasting is more popular.
  • while almost 60% report using Cuffelinks to investigate particular subjects and to reference useful articles, over 40% do not use the search function or use Cuffelinks as a general information source.
  • 82% have already recommended Cuffelinks to a friend or colleague and a further 5% want to do so. Thank you very much, the word-of-mouth support is crucial for our growth.

There were also hundreds of responses attached to specific questions which we take on board.

The 447 responses to the last question are a treasure trove of useful insights. Most value our independence and variety of expert opinions, and want us to avoid overt product promotions or advertising. There is recognition of our focus on quality of analysis, sharing expert opinions and information rather than grabbing the headlines. While some say we are too technical, others say we should write more in depth, so hopefully each edition has something for everyone.

We know you all have many priorities in your life and we appreciate the time you took to complete the survey.

From the team at Cuffelinks

Chris, Graham, David, Ashley and Leisa

July 2014

 

  •   1 August 2014
  • 2
  •      
  •   
2 Comments
James
August 02, 2014

Dear Graham and team,
Congratulations on the publication. That it is both well-credentialed and easy to read is a rare highly commendable feat.
I notice you invited questions and suggestions. Please forgive me if this topic has been covered before and I missed it, but glancing through headlines and synopses of previous articles I couldn't see it.
I appreciate your readership includes many professional investors as well as advisers who would be all over this, but I think there are a lot of average Australians, including many who look after their own SMSF, who don't fully understand the machinations of bond funds - there appear to be more moving parts than a simple, old equities fund. May I suggest a series of articles that might consider the following topics:
- an idiot's guide on how to analyse a bond fund. What is the significance of duration vs credit risk? Should one invest in them for income or capital gain? Are there some bond funds that should be included in the growth section of a portfolio as opposed to the defensive? Is a 70/30 split crazy when interest rates are at all time lows?
- a discussion of the merits of passive vs active investing in bonds (it is my understanding that most bond funds have underperformed passive funds over the past ten years, much like active equities funds)
- an explanation of these new-fangled 'unconstrained bond funds'. Are they just a fad? Are they a genuine solution to the duration risk argument? Have they been created in response to bond fund managers wondering where the next dollar will come from after a 30 year bull market?
I look forward very much to your response.
Regards,
James

Graham Hand
August 02, 2014

Thanks for the great questions, James. Our bond guru, Warren Bird, will prepare a response over the next couple of weeks. Bond funds can be confusing and I'm sure many people would like to read the answers. Cheers, Graham

 

Leave a Comment:

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.

Will you run out of money in retirement?

Fear of running out has become a defining retirement anxiety. Why do some retirees die with substantial wealth while others deplete their nest egg? Evidence suggests the answer is more complicated than we think. 

The investment that sidesteps the new tax traps

Tax rules have changed, but many investors are still using yesterday’s strategies. Insurance bonds may offer advantages for those seeking greater control, tax efficiency and certainty about their wealth.

Testamentary trusts have secured the CGT exemption

Treasury’s latest CGT reform draft delivers a win for testamentary trusts and deceased estates, exempting estate-derived gains from the 30% floor. However, questions on death and divorce rollovers remain unresolved.

Meg on SMSFs: What do we think about reversionary pensions these days?

Reversionary pensions have long been a staple of SMSF estate planning, but are they still the best option? Meg Heffron revisits a once-clear favourite and asks whether changing super rules have shifted the balance.

How does the 4% rule stack up?

The 4% rule has long been retirement's gold standard. But after a difficult period for investors, fresh analysis suggests a more conservative approach may significantly improve the chances of making savings last.

Latest Updates

Planning

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.

Investment strategies

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.

Economy

Population growth masks Australia’s productivity problem

For years, investors have benefited from a seemingly reliable growth story. But recent national accounts raise uncomfortable questions about what has really been driving Australia’s economy and whether that can continue unchecked.

Investment strategies

Why tomorrow’s winners may not be today’s index leaders

The stocks that built retirement balances over the past decade now dominate many portfolios. The new challenge is whether these companies can continue meeting the increasingly high expectations embedded in today's share prices.

Investing

What earnings surprises reveal about future returns

Sometimes the most important information in an earnings result isn't the number itself. It's the possibility that the market's assumptions have been fundamentally wrong and future earnings may look very different.

SMSF strategies

Individual SMSF Trusteeship directly liable for ATO fines

A rarely discussed detail buried in SMSF structures could dramatically change who wears the cost when something goes wrong. With penalties rising, a decision many dismissed as administrative may deserve a second look.

Investment strategies

The currency bet you didn’t know you made

Buying global shares means making two bets: on the companies and on the Australian dollar. Most investors consciously choose only the first. Last financial year, the second bet cost 8.5% in returns for many investors.

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

© 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.