The regulator has announced a review of how lenders manage broker relationships, pay commissions and oversee referral channels. The timing matters: fraud allegations totalling billions have swept through mortgage origination since February, and ASIC’s language is deliberately non-specific about scope, targets or methodology.
What’s notable is what the announcement leaves out. No named lenders. No detail on what “oversight” will actually measure. No timeline beyond “third quarter of the financial year”. When a regulator flags a systemic review without naming the problem it’s solving, the signal is usually that the problem is broader than any single case.
What’s under the hood
The review covers three distinct channels: how lenders use referrers, how they structure broker remuneration, and how they monitor broker conduct. Those aren’t random categories. Each maps to a different fraud vector that’s surfaced in the past twelve months.
Referrer programs, where real estate agents, accountants or other third parties introduce clients to lenders in exchange for commissions, have drawn criticism for weaker due diligence than broker channels. Two of the major banks still run introducer schemes; two closed theirs years ago. The difference in risk exposure is material.
Broker remuneration structures influence behaviour. If upfront commissions reward volume over quality, and clawback periods are short, the incentive is to push marginal deals through and move on. Trail commissions create a longer accountability window, but they’re a smaller share of total income for many brokers.
Oversight is the catch-all: how lenders verify documentation, track red flags across multiple brokers or aggregators, and share intelligence when someone moves between entities. The industry’s own working group is building referrer risk standards because cross-organisational visibility is currently poor.
The enforcement gap
Brokers already operate under licensing, responsible lending obligations and a best-interests duty. The framework exists. What’s missing is consistent enforcement and information flow.
A broker who leaves one aggregator under a cloud can surface at another without the second entity knowing the history. That’s not a regulatory gap, it’s an intelligence-sharing gap. The review may push lenders to formalise how they track high-risk individuals across the ecosystem, which would mean stricter onboarding checks and potentially slower approvals for new brokers entering the channel.
For borrowers, the practical effect depends on how lenders interpret stricter oversight. If it means more documentation requests, longer verification timelines, or tighter scrutiny of income and deposit sources, investor loans, already subject to higher serviceability buffers, would feel the impact first.
The catch
- Fraud cases totalling billions have surfaced since February, but the regulator’s review language is vague on scope and targets
- Broker channels are already heavily regulated; the gap is intelligence-sharing when high-risk individuals move between entities
- Stricter lender verification could slow approvals and hit investor loans hardest, even though most brokers operate within the rules
- The review starts in Q3 of the financial year, no detail on how long it runs or what threshold triggers regulatory action
Who carries the cost
Every industry cleans up after bad actors, but the cost falls unevenly. Compliant brokers face longer onboarding, more documentation requirements, and potentially lower commission structures if lenders decide current models create perverse incentives. Borrowers using brokers may see approval timelines stretch if lenders add verification layers to meet regulatory expectations.
The alternative, direct-to-lender applications, doesn’t eliminate fraud risk, it just shifts it. Banks’ own employee fraud cases have surfaced in the same investigation cycle. The question isn’t whether brokers or banks are riskier, it’s whether the system as a whole has enough friction to catch fabricated income, inflated deposits or phantom employment before a loan settles.
Offset account failures are instructive here. ASIC’s recent review found more than $55 million in compensation paid for accounts that were never linked, never opened, or stopped working without the customer noticing. The common thread: systemic process failures that compounded over time because no single entity owned the end-to-end customer outcome.
If lender oversight of brokers follows the same pattern, each party assumes someone else is checking, the review’s real target may be accountability gaps, not broker conduct specifically.
What changes next
Three scenarios over the next twelve months, each with different implications for how credit flows:
Base case: The review identifies specific process weaknesses, documentation standards, verification protocols, referrer due diligence, and lenders adopt industry-wide minimum standards without material impact on approval volumes. Timelines stretch by a week or two for complex cases. Investor loans see marginally tighter scrutiny but no major policy shift.
Tighter: ASIC finds systemic control failures and mandates stricter broker oversight as a condition of maintaining referral and broker channels. Lenders respond by cutting the number of accredited brokers, raising onboarding requirements, and adding verification steps that slow approvals by two to four weeks. Investor loan appetite drops as lenders re-price risk. Some smaller aggregators exit.
Looser (low probability): The review concludes the current framework is adequate and recommends better intelligence-sharing without new rules. Approval timelines and broker accreditation requirements stay where they are. This only happens if fraud cases plateau and no new systemic failures surface.
The base case is most likely, but the review’s vague scope leaves room for a wider crackdown if ASIC finds more than it’s publicly signalling now.
Bottom line for borrowers and brokers
If you’re applying for a loan in the next six months, expect lenders to ask more questions about income sources, deposit history and employment verification than they did a year ago. That’s not new policy yet, it’s lenders pre-empting regulatory expectations. If you’re using a broker, ask how long they’ve been accredited and whether their aggregator has flagged any recent compliance changes, tenure and track record matter more in a tightening environment.
For brokers, the practical move is documentation hygiene now, before the review sets new baselines. If a loan file wouldn’t survive a line-by-line audit, it won’t survive the next twelve months. The industry’s own working group is building referrer risk standards, which means self-regulation is running ahead of ASIC’s timeline, a signal that the sector expects scrutiny to intensify whether or not the review mandates it.
The review won’t publish findings until late 2026 at the earliest, but lender behaviour shifts faster than regulatory announcements. Watch approval timelines, documentation requests and broker accreditation rates as leading indicators of where the system is heading.
Subscribe to the newsletter for the next regulatory signal as ASIC’s review unfolds.
General info, not financial advice.
