Faxes to apps: CommSec's 30 years of shaping investing
"Everyone was teasing me afterwards," she told AAP.
"Most people, especially all the mums, didn't have any idea about investing."
At the time, Ms Bennett's husband was overseas and had asked her to sell the shares on his behalf.
But she soon began trading for herself.
"I was very popular at dinner parties and everybody wanted tips." she said.
Ms Bennett collected information through newspapers and word-of-mouth and her trades were done over the phone and using fax machines.
"It was really hard to know and, trust me, I had a few losses," she said.
Now 65, she was one of CommSec's earliest customers.
The online trading platform, parented by the CBA, is this week celebrating its 30th anniversary, having paved the way for Australian investors.
In 1997, CommSec became the first Australian broker to launch a share trading website, and in 2008, the first to have its own iPhone trading app.
The company now facilitates 40,000 trades per day, worth a total of $575 million.
It's a far cry from their opening day in 1995, where a total of four trades were put through, worth $75 each.
Market analyst Tom Piotrowski started working for CommSec more than 20 years ago, back when the company's team fitted onto a single floor.
He has worked through the vast majority of the biggest days on the ASX, entering the company just after the volatile Y2K period, swiftly followed by the Global Financial Crisis, then most recently the COVID-19 pandemic.
"I don't know if it was me turning up that translated to this run of bad luck, but it certainly made it interesting to be a participant in communicating these things to audiences," he said.
"It's that type of environment that serves as education for people."
The periods acted as catalysts for change according to Mr Piotrowski, who has overcome his camera shyness to feature on television, and social media videos providing information to customers.
"I'd never appeared in front of a television camera before I worked with CommSec, that was very obvious to anyone who may have seen my early efforts," he said.
"Terror is probably a personal feeling that I experienced quite a bit."
CommSec services form just one part of the information now readily available to investors across multiple trading websites and apps.
Ms Bennett didn't know any other women who traded when she started, but has noticed a shift with the increase in accessibility.
The amount of CommSec investors under 40 have more than doubled over the past 10 years, while the percentage of women who invest has almost tripled over the past five years.
"All my children trade, my daughter included," Ms Bennett said.
"They're all confident enough to do it, they know what they're doing and they can get more information."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
3 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Parents back push to expand child care subsidy options
A push to expand Australia's childcare subsidy to include more care options has the support of parents, advocates and politicians as the government remains focused on improving standards at existing centres. A bill empowering authorities to strip funding from childcare operators who fail to meet safety standards, among other measures, was this week fast-tracked during the first sitting of the 48th federal parliament. Operators who fall down on quality, safety and compliance standards could be cut out of subsidies, which typically cover a large proportion of parents' fees, and also blocked from opening new centres. Education Minister Jason Clare says he doesn't want to see funding removed and that the legislation should more compel providers to improve standards in the wake of recent abuse cases. The crackdown is part of the government's promise to guarantee universal access to early education and while welcomed by parents and advocates, there are also calls for a national early-childhood commission to ensure consistent oversight and accountability. Advocacy group For Parents has gone a step further, launching a petition calling on the government to provide equitable support for families who choose alternatives to centre-based care. In an economy where most families need both parents to work, there should be more choice when it comes to childcare, says co-founder Cecelia Cobb. "This is about giving families more freedom because the way that the subsidy currently works is that centre-based childcare is the only option many can afford," she told AAP. "There is a huge potential for additional workplace participation, as lots of people delay going back to work until they can get into their preferred centre." The childcare subsidy is predicted to exceed $16.2 billion in 2025/26 and helps families manage childcare costs but access and the amount depend on specific eligibility criteria. Yet services such as BubbaDesk and CoWork Creche, which combine co-working spaces with flexible childcare, are not supported by the subsidy. While the price per day is based on the average of local daycare centres, the lack of subsidy means many parents cannot afford to use the service. "The demand is huge as traditional daycare doesn't always fit with people's needs," BubbaDesk founder Lauren Perrett said. "When you become a parent, you wonder why close-proximity care hasn't been built into traditional office spaces - it's a no-brainer. "Parents are delaying their return to work and considering not returning at all because they don't feel their kids are safe in out-of-home care and the instinct is to keep our babies close." Illawarra-based mum Jenna Bush placed her baby girl Grace on multiple childcare waitlists when she was born but received few placement offers. The one place she was offered and toured gave her the "ick" and she could not bring herself to enrol Grace there. Instead, she started using BubbaDesk as she was able to work remotely from the co-working space. "Being in close proximity and having that contact to her throughout the day gives me that peace of mind," she said. "But financially, even though I can claim some of the co-working part through tax, reducing that fortnightly payment would be really helpful if the subsidy was expanded." Liberal senator Maria Kovacic is among those backing the For Parents petition. She says it's not about "tearing down" formal childcare centres. "Expanding the subsidy in the way these families are calling for would not only deliver flexibility," she told parliament on Wednesday. "It would (also) begin to recognise in a tangible way the value of informal care and the unpaid labour that holds up our economy and our communities." A push to expand Australia's childcare subsidy to include more care options has the support of parents, advocates and politicians as the government remains focused on improving standards at existing centres. A bill empowering authorities to strip funding from childcare operators who fail to meet safety standards, among other measures, was this week fast-tracked during the first sitting of the 48th federal parliament. Operators who fall down on quality, safety and compliance standards could be cut out of subsidies, which typically cover a large proportion of parents' fees, and also blocked from opening new centres. Education Minister Jason Clare says he doesn't want to see funding removed and that the legislation should more compel providers to improve standards in the wake of recent abuse cases. The crackdown is part of the government's promise to guarantee universal access to early education and while welcomed by parents and advocates, there are also calls for a national early-childhood commission to ensure consistent oversight and accountability. Advocacy group For Parents has gone a step further, launching a petition calling on the government to provide equitable support for families who choose alternatives to centre-based care. In an economy where most families need both parents to work, there should be more choice when it comes to childcare, says co-founder Cecelia Cobb. "This is about giving families more freedom because the way that the subsidy currently works is that centre-based childcare is the only option many can afford," she told AAP. "There is a huge potential for additional workplace participation, as lots of people delay going back to work until they can get into their preferred centre." The childcare subsidy is predicted to exceed $16.2 billion in 2025/26 and helps families manage childcare costs but access and the amount depend on specific eligibility criteria. Yet services such as BubbaDesk and CoWork Creche, which combine co-working spaces with flexible childcare, are not supported by the subsidy. While the price per day is based on the average of local daycare centres, the lack of subsidy means many parents cannot afford to use the service. "The demand is huge as traditional daycare doesn't always fit with people's needs," BubbaDesk founder Lauren Perrett said. "When you become a parent, you wonder why close-proximity care hasn't been built into traditional office spaces - it's a no-brainer. "Parents are delaying their return to work and considering not returning at all because they don't feel their kids are safe in out-of-home care and the instinct is to keep our babies close." Illawarra-based mum Jenna Bush placed her baby girl Grace on multiple childcare waitlists when she was born but received few placement offers. The one place she was offered and toured gave her the "ick" and she could not bring herself to enrol Grace there. Instead, she started using BubbaDesk as she was able to work remotely from the co-working space. "Being in close proximity and having that contact to her throughout the day gives me that peace of mind," she said. "But financially, even though I can claim some of the co-working part through tax, reducing that fortnightly payment would be really helpful if the subsidy was expanded." Liberal senator Maria Kovacic is among those backing the For Parents petition. She says it's not about "tearing down" formal childcare centres. "Expanding the subsidy in the way these families are calling for would not only deliver flexibility," she told parliament on Wednesday. "It would (also) begin to recognise in a tangible way the value of informal care and the unpaid labour that holds up our economy and our communities." A push to expand Australia's childcare subsidy to include more care options has the support of parents, advocates and politicians as the government remains focused on improving standards at existing centres. A bill empowering authorities to strip funding from childcare operators who fail to meet safety standards, among other measures, was this week fast-tracked during the first sitting of the 48th federal parliament. Operators who fall down on quality, safety and compliance standards could be cut out of subsidies, which typically cover a large proportion of parents' fees, and also blocked from opening new centres. Education Minister Jason Clare says he doesn't want to see funding removed and that the legislation should more compel providers to improve standards in the wake of recent abuse cases. The crackdown is part of the government's promise to guarantee universal access to early education and while welcomed by parents and advocates, there are also calls for a national early-childhood commission to ensure consistent oversight and accountability. Advocacy group For Parents has gone a step further, launching a petition calling on the government to provide equitable support for families who choose alternatives to centre-based care. In an economy where most families need both parents to work, there should be more choice when it comes to childcare, says co-founder Cecelia Cobb. "This is about giving families more freedom because the way that the subsidy currently works is that centre-based childcare is the only option many can afford," she told AAP. "There is a huge potential for additional workplace participation, as lots of people delay going back to work until they can get into their preferred centre." The childcare subsidy is predicted to exceed $16.2 billion in 2025/26 and helps families manage childcare costs but access and the amount depend on specific eligibility criteria. Yet services such as BubbaDesk and CoWork Creche, which combine co-working spaces with flexible childcare, are not supported by the subsidy. While the price per day is based on the average of local daycare centres, the lack of subsidy means many parents cannot afford to use the service. "The demand is huge as traditional daycare doesn't always fit with people's needs," BubbaDesk founder Lauren Perrett said. "When you become a parent, you wonder why close-proximity care hasn't been built into traditional office spaces - it's a no-brainer. "Parents are delaying their return to work and considering not returning at all because they don't feel their kids are safe in out-of-home care and the instinct is to keep our babies close." Illawarra-based mum Jenna Bush placed her baby girl Grace on multiple childcare waitlists when she was born but received few placement offers. The one place she was offered and toured gave her the "ick" and she could not bring herself to enrol Grace there. Instead, she started using BubbaDesk as she was able to work remotely from the co-working space. "Being in close proximity and having that contact to her throughout the day gives me that peace of mind," she said. "But financially, even though I can claim some of the co-working part through tax, reducing that fortnightly payment would be really helpful if the subsidy was expanded." Liberal senator Maria Kovacic is among those backing the For Parents petition. She says it's not about "tearing down" formal childcare centres. "Expanding the subsidy in the way these families are calling for would not only deliver flexibility," she told parliament on Wednesday. "It would (also) begin to recognise in a tangible way the value of informal care and the unpaid labour that holds up our economy and our communities." A push to expand Australia's childcare subsidy to include more care options has the support of parents, advocates and politicians as the government remains focused on improving standards at existing centres. A bill empowering authorities to strip funding from childcare operators who fail to meet safety standards, among other measures, was this week fast-tracked during the first sitting of the 48th federal parliament. Operators who fall down on quality, safety and compliance standards could be cut out of subsidies, which typically cover a large proportion of parents' fees, and also blocked from opening new centres. Education Minister Jason Clare says he doesn't want to see funding removed and that the legislation should more compel providers to improve standards in the wake of recent abuse cases. The crackdown is part of the government's promise to guarantee universal access to early education and while welcomed by parents and advocates, there are also calls for a national early-childhood commission to ensure consistent oversight and accountability. Advocacy group For Parents has gone a step further, launching a petition calling on the government to provide equitable support for families who choose alternatives to centre-based care. In an economy where most families need both parents to work, there should be more choice when it comes to childcare, says co-founder Cecelia Cobb. "This is about giving families more freedom because the way that the subsidy currently works is that centre-based childcare is the only option many can afford," she told AAP. "There is a huge potential for additional workplace participation, as lots of people delay going back to work until they can get into their preferred centre." The childcare subsidy is predicted to exceed $16.2 billion in 2025/26 and helps families manage childcare costs but access and the amount depend on specific eligibility criteria. Yet services such as BubbaDesk and CoWork Creche, which combine co-working spaces with flexible childcare, are not supported by the subsidy. While the price per day is based on the average of local daycare centres, the lack of subsidy means many parents cannot afford to use the service. "The demand is huge as traditional daycare doesn't always fit with people's needs," BubbaDesk founder Lauren Perrett said. "When you become a parent, you wonder why close-proximity care hasn't been built into traditional office spaces - it's a no-brainer. "Parents are delaying their return to work and considering not returning at all because they don't feel their kids are safe in out-of-home care and the instinct is to keep our babies close." Illawarra-based mum Jenna Bush placed her baby girl Grace on multiple childcare waitlists when she was born but received few placement offers. The one place she was offered and toured gave her the "ick" and she could not bring herself to enrol Grace there. Instead, she started using BubbaDesk as she was able to work remotely from the co-working space. "Being in close proximity and having that contact to her throughout the day gives me that peace of mind," she said. "But financially, even though I can claim some of the co-working part through tax, reducing that fortnightly payment would be really helpful if the subsidy was expanded." Liberal senator Maria Kovacic is among those backing the For Parents petition. She says it's not about "tearing down" formal childcare centres. "Expanding the subsidy in the way these families are calling for would not only deliver flexibility," she told parliament on Wednesday. "It would (also) begin to recognise in a tangible way the value of informal care and the unpaid labour that holds up our economy and our communities."
The Age
4 hours ago
- The Age
Trump stumbled on Epstein, and Rupert Murdoch has pounced
Trump needs these viewers to help him stay in power – aided by the fawning Fox talent who are so attuned to his cause that many have been recruited to senior roles at the White House, including Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth. Murdoch also needs these viewers if he wants to remain such a rich and powerful political force in the US. It means Murdoch has had to draw careful battle lines between his own media fiefdoms. News Corp offered the full-throated defence of the WSJ story: 'We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit,' it said. The WSJ doubled down, reporting that Attorney General Pam Bondi informed President Donald Trump in May that his name appeared multiple times in the government's files on Epstein. The message from inside News Corp is Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch are determined not to cave in to Trump and will go to court if necessary. Loading The Washington Post quoted Rupert telling associates: 'I'm 94 years old, and I will not be intimidated.' Meanwhile at Fox, the lawsuit and allegations have warranted a tepid mention at best. Australian columnist Miranda Divine, now at News Corp's Republican mouthpiece, the New York Post, described the WSJ reports as a 'nothingburger'. And if this delicate dance can be maintained, it will be lucrative for Murdoch. Both News Corp and Fox shares hit record highs in February, just weeks after Trump's inauguration. And there was no hiding Trump's role in the success of Fox News – the most profitable Fox Corp business – when Lachlan presented its most recent quarterly results in May. 'Nowhere is Fox's leadership more evident than Fox News,' he told analysts and investors. Ratings were up 30 per cent for the network in April, and it clinched top spot on prime-time ratings last week over mainstream networks such as CBS and ABC. This is a feat unheard of for a cable news network. 'The momentum that we're seeing within Fox News, obviously driven first by really sort of record-setting audience and share, that's flown through nicely to the revenue line,' Lachlan said. The problem for Rupert is that pandering to his Fox audience means pandering to Trump, and he has never been a fan of Trump's political aspirations. Murdoch publicly supported other candidates during the 2016 campaign before embracing Trump when his candidacy became inevitable. He has tolerated Trump's White House, and maintained close ties, but quickly tried to move the Republican base on to fresh leadership after the 2020 election loss. Murdoch said at the time: 'We want to make Trump a non-person.' That manoeuvre ended badly when Fox's acceptance of the result led to viewers defecting in droves to channels more loyal to Trump's claims that the election was stolen. It promised to be a financial disaster and Fox scrambled back into favour with an about-face supporting the stolen election theory. It is still counting the cost. In 2023, Fox paid Dominion Voting Systems $US787 million to settle claims the network promoted lies about the 2020 presidential election. It still faces a multibillion-dollar lawsuit from another voting systems provider, Smartmatic, which will go to court next year if Fox does not make an offer to settle. For Murdoch, the Epstein scandal serves as another opportunity to test Trump's hold on the Republican Party, and it should not prove as costly as the $US10 billion Trump headline suggests. A quick look at the details of his case reveals problems, starting with the fact that it appears to fall over at the first hurdle of failing to notify the WSJ of the lawsuit at least five days before filing it. Loading But that is the least of Trump's issues. 'The complaint is full of sound and fury but lacks legal merit,' Leonard M. Niehoff, a University of Michigan law professor who specialises in media law, told The Washington Post. 'It shouldn't intimidate a news organisation with good lawyers. The Wall Street Journal has those.' The high hurdles for Trump include having to meet the 'actual malice' standard which means proving the WSJ knew the information they published was false. Ironically, this is what Fox was accused of doing in promoting Trump's stolen election claim in 2020. That legal battle taught Murdoch a lesson on the damage that can be done by the legal discovery process, which produced embarrassing and costly revelations – including the contempt both Murdoch and Fox held for Trump's stolen election claims and the man himself. A text surfaced from Tucker Carlson – a Fox network star at that time – referring to Trump saying, 'I hate him passionately'. If Trump continues to pursue this case, the legal discovery process on his relationship with Epstein could further inflame his support base. A clear opportunity to fatally damage Trump's political standing with the Epstein scandal could be the avenue Murdoch is looking to exploit. And if it doesn't damage Trump? Both men are ruthlessly transactional and have made up before. 'We don't want to antagonise Trump further,' Murdoch said in a memo uncovered by the Dominion case. Murdoch explained in a later deposition relating to that matter: 'He had a very large following, and they were probably mostly viewers of Fox, so it would have been stupid.' And we know Trump's proven ability to chicken out and distract. Loading As he posted to Truth Social followers this week, survival comes first. 'Winning is important, but survival is even more important. If you don't survive, you don't get to fight the next battle.' Wise words for both sides as his latest battle with Murdoch gathers a head of steam.
Sydney Morning Herald
4 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Trump stumbled on Epstein, and Rupert Murdoch has pounced
Trump needs these viewers to help him stay in power – aided by the fawning Fox talent who are so attuned to his cause that many have been recruited to senior roles at the White House, including Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth. Murdoch also needs these viewers if he wants to remain such a rich and powerful political force in the US. It means Murdoch has had to draw careful battle lines between his own media fiefdoms. News Corp offered the full-throated defence of the WSJ story: 'We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit,' it said. The WSJ doubled down, reporting that Attorney General Pam Bondi informed President Donald Trump in May that his name appeared multiple times in the government's files on Epstein. The message from inside News Corp is Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch are determined not to cave in to Trump and will go to court if necessary. Loading The Washington Post quoted Rupert telling associates: 'I'm 94 years old, and I will not be intimidated.' Meanwhile at Fox, the lawsuit and allegations have warranted a tepid mention at best. Australian columnist Miranda Divine, now at News Corp's Republican mouthpiece, the New York Post, described the WSJ reports as a 'nothingburger'. And if this delicate dance can be maintained, it will be lucrative for Murdoch. Both News Corp and Fox shares hit record highs in February, just weeks after Trump's inauguration. And there was no hiding Trump's role in the success of Fox News – the most profitable Fox Corp business – when Lachlan presented its most recent quarterly results in May. 'Nowhere is Fox's leadership more evident than Fox News,' he told analysts and investors. Ratings were up 30 per cent for the network in April, and it clinched top spot on prime-time ratings last week over mainstream networks such as CBS and ABC. This is a feat unheard of for a cable news network. 'The momentum that we're seeing within Fox News, obviously driven first by really sort of record-setting audience and share, that's flown through nicely to the revenue line,' Lachlan said. The problem for Rupert is that pandering to his Fox audience means pandering to Trump, and he has never been a fan of Trump's political aspirations. Murdoch publicly supported other candidates during the 2016 campaign before embracing Trump when his candidacy became inevitable. He has tolerated Trump's White House, and maintained close ties, but quickly tried to move the Republican base on to fresh leadership after the 2020 election loss. Murdoch said at the time: 'We want to make Trump a non-person.' That manoeuvre ended badly when Fox's acceptance of the result led to viewers defecting in droves to channels more loyal to Trump's claims that the election was stolen. It promised to be a financial disaster and Fox scrambled back into favour with an about-face supporting the stolen election theory. It is still counting the cost. In 2023, Fox paid Dominion Voting Systems $US787 million to settle claims the network promoted lies about the 2020 presidential election. It still faces a multibillion-dollar lawsuit from another voting systems provider, Smartmatic, which will go to court next year if Fox does not make an offer to settle. For Murdoch, the Epstein scandal serves as another opportunity to test Trump's hold on the Republican Party, and it should not prove as costly as the $US10 billion Trump headline suggests. A quick look at the details of his case reveals problems, starting with the fact that it appears to fall over at the first hurdle of failing to notify the WSJ of the lawsuit at least five days before filing it. Loading But that is the least of Trump's issues. 'The complaint is full of sound and fury but lacks legal merit,' Leonard M. Niehoff, a University of Michigan law professor who specialises in media law, told The Washington Post. 'It shouldn't intimidate a news organisation with good lawyers. The Wall Street Journal has those.' The high hurdles for Trump include having to meet the 'actual malice' standard which means proving the WSJ knew the information they published was false. Ironically, this is what Fox was accused of doing in promoting Trump's stolen election claim in 2020. That legal battle taught Murdoch a lesson on the damage that can be done by the legal discovery process, which produced embarrassing and costly revelations – including the contempt both Murdoch and Fox held for Trump's stolen election claims and the man himself. A text surfaced from Tucker Carlson – a Fox network star at that time – referring to Trump saying, 'I hate him passionately'. If Trump continues to pursue this case, the legal discovery process on his relationship with Epstein could further inflame his support base. A clear opportunity to fatally damage Trump's political standing with the Epstein scandal could be the avenue Murdoch is looking to exploit. And if it doesn't damage Trump? Both men are ruthlessly transactional and have made up before. 'We don't want to antagonise Trump further,' Murdoch said in a memo uncovered by the Dominion case. Murdoch explained in a later deposition relating to that matter: 'He had a very large following, and they were probably mostly viewers of Fox, so it would have been stupid.' And we know Trump's proven ability to chicken out and distract. Loading As he posted to Truth Social followers this week, survival comes first. 'Winning is important, but survival is even more important. If you don't survive, you don't get to fight the next battle.' Wise words for both sides as his latest battle with Murdoch gathers a head of steam.
