Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 171

What readers think about a bank royal commission

In the Cuffelinks’ reader survey regarding the pros and cons of a bank royal commission (RC), the majority (70%) said they opposed a RC, although there was less agreement on the reasons for the opposition among a diverse range of strong opinions.

Common among supporters were issues surrounding executive salaries and bonuses, the failings of regulators, and fraud and unconscionable conduct.

Those who opposed tended to agree with the arguments put forward in the related article, 10 reasons not to hold bank royal commission, especially time and cost, doubts about what it would achieve, lack of firm terms of reference and a view that banking regulators should be allowed to do their job.

Results summary

Question 1: Do you support or oppose holding a royal commission into the banking and financial services industry?

Among the more than 250 responses, the percentage split was around 70/30 against. This would indicate that while the wider public shows strong support for a RC, people that are more engaged with their investments and perhaps even linked to the industry in some way, cannot see a RC making the difference everyone wants it to.

Can our politicians put politics aside and act on the industry’s shortcomings without the hoo-ha of a RC? It’s a challenging question. Comments for Question 1 can be found here.

Question 2: Do you agree with the points made in Graham Hand's article?

Most of those who took the survey agreed with or were convinced by Graham’s arguments, although four of the points were supported by only a little over half the respondents: issues of customer satisfaction, bank profit levels, benefits of RC recommendations, and alternatives to a RC. Clearly the most agreed upon point was that, for our economy to be strong, we need a strong banking system.

Comments for Question 2 can be found here.

Question 3: Please add any other comments.

Summarising all of the comments is difficult given the wide variety of opinion and many people draw on their personal experiences. Even so, some of the recurring phrases (from each camp) went a little something like:

Comments for Question 3 can be found here. Thank you to all our respondents, including the many who disagreed with Graham's original article. We await future developments with interest.

 

Leisa Bell is Assistant Editor at Cuffelinks. No responsibility is accepted for the comments by any of our readers and they are presented in the spirit of an open conversation.

 

  •   31 August 2016
  • 3
  •      
  •   
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Latest Updates

Exchange traded products

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?

Taxation

Will investors be better or worse off under new housing tax changes?

Housing tax reforms have sparked warnings of market turmoil and promises of greater fairness. But after modelling nearly two decades of property data, the results suggest winners and losers may not be who many investors expect.

Retirement

Three considerations before reshaping your legacy plan

Many retirees hope to leave a legacy. Proposed trust tax reforms could force families to rethink. The question is not how much to leave behind, but whether today's inheritance plans will still make sense as circumstances change.

Investment strategies

Why experienced investors still get markets wrong

Retirement is approaching. Markets are noisy. And every headline seems to demand action. The biggest investment risk isn't fear, greed or market volatility, it often arrives disguised as research and sensible risk management.

Shares

Why pay more for less?

Conditions were stacked in favour of professional investors in 2026. Most still fell short, raising questions about where investors should look for value. Meanwhile, an alternative strategy continued to make its case.

Investment strategies

Bleeding air out of the bubble

Equity valuations have fallen sharply over the past year, yet investors have largely been spared the volatility and losses that typically accompany a de-rating. What explains this unusually orderly reset? Here are five key drivers.

Strategy

Has AI gone rogue?

We worry about AI becoming conscious. But what if consciousness isn't the issue? The more unsettling possibility is a machine capable of pursuing objectives relentlessly, without motives, emotions, or awareness of any kind.

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.