Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Register

17 September 2026

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
  •      
  •   
Firstlinks is sponsored by:
banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

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. 

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.

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

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.