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.


Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates


The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.


RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.


4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.


Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.


Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.


Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.



© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

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. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). 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.

Website Development by Master Publisher.