The corporate regulator received 9,807 misconduct reports in the first half of 2026, with credit-related complaints accounting for 1,054 of those, a category worth watching if you’re tracking whether borrowers are genuinely hitting a serviceability wall or lenders are tightening defensively ahead of visible stress.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission released the figures this week, covering January to June 2026. Retail investor issues and corporate governance together made up more than 80 per cent of all reports. Within the financial services slice, credit sat second only to unlicensed lending and unregistered schemes, which drew 1,951 reports.
Scam-related conduct appeared in nearly one in five reports across the full dataset. The regulator shut down an average of 230 investment scam websites every week during the period, with pump-and-dump schemes using fake celebrity endorsements becoming more sophisticated.
What sits inside the credit complaint number
ASIC’s dataset does not break down the 1,054 credit reports by subcategory, hardship application denials, serviceability disputes, misleading loan terms and fraud-adjacent conduct all land in the same bucket. That makes it difficult to say whether the number reflects borrowers under genuine repayment pressure, lenders rejecting hardship claims more often, or a rise in scam-related loan applications that trigger misconduct reports when they unravel.
The distinction matters. If complaints skew toward hardship refusals or serviceability disputes, that would align with a borrower cohort hitting a cashflow ceiling after 13 rate rises and two years of elevated repayments. If complaints cluster around unlicensed intermediaries or documentation fraud, it suggests lenders are catching more suspect applications as they tighten verification, a defensive move that often precedes a rise in arrears.
Mortgage fraud rings exposed: hundreds of millions in fake loans covered how verification gaps let fraudulent loans through in volume; tighter checks now would show up as more misconduct reports before those loans ever settle.
Does this precede defaults by a measurable lag
Mortgage arrears data from the banks’ own disclosures sits around 1.5 per cent for 90-plus-day delinquencies as of mid-2026, up from 1.1 per cent a year earlier but still below pre-pandemic levels. Complaints about credit can precede formal arrears by months, a borrower denied hardship relief in March might not hit 90 days past due until June or later, depending on when repayments stop entirely.
If credit complaints track as a leading indicator, the 1,054 figure from H1 would suggest arrears could tick higher through the second half of 2026 and into early 2027. But the dataset does not separate consumer credit (mortgages, personal loans) from small business credit or buy-now-pay-later, so the predictive value depends on mix.
A cleaner test: compare credit complaint volumes from the same period in previous years. ASIC has not published that historical comparison in this release, which limits the ability to call this a spike versus normal churn.
Scam sophistication and what it means for verification
The 230-per-week scam site shutdown rate points to volume, not just complexity. Fake endorsements using deepfakes or manipulated footage lower the barrier for convincing schemes, which means more borrowers engage with unlicensed lenders or unregistered investment structures before realising the setup is fraudulent.
For mortgage brokers and advisers, this increases the odds a client arrives with pre-existing entanglement, part-paid deposits, signed contracts with unlicensed operators, or applications already submitted to fringe lenders who operate outside the credit code. Steering clients toward licensed, verifiable lenders has always been the baseline, but the sophistication jump makes verification checks more valuable as a risk filter.
Private credit property loans face audit crisis: what investors need to know explored how audit gaps in private credit create opacity for investors; scam growth adds another layer of due diligence.
The catch
ASIC’s misconduct reporting system is voluntary and complaint-driven, which means the 1,054 credit reports reflect only the subset of borrowers or intermediaries who filed a report. Plenty of serviceability stress, hardship denials and suspect lending happen without formal reports, so the published number undercounts actual incidents. The direction of change matters more than the absolute figure, if credit complaints double in the next six-month window, that would be a clearer signal than any single period’s count.
Scenarios for the next six to twelve months
Base case: credit complaints trend higher if the RBA holds rates through the rest of 2026 and wage growth stays below 4 per cent. Borrowers with offset buffers running low or those who refinanced at higher rates in 2025 start hitting serviceability limits, and hardship applications rise. Complaints follow if lenders tighten hardship criteria or reject more applications outright.
Upside: the RBA cuts twice before year-end, repayment buffers stabilise, and complaint volumes flatten or decline slightly. Scam reports stay elevated but credit-specific complaints ease as cashflow pressure lifts.
Downside: unemployment ticks above 4.5 per cent, forced sales accelerate in outer suburbs where prices fell hardest, and credit complaints spike alongside arrears. Lenders pull back on hardship approvals to protect capital ratios, and complaints double by mid-2027. If that scenario plays out, the 1,054 figure from H1 2026 will look like an early warning that got ignored.
What to watch from here
ASIC releases misconduct data every six months. The next dataset, covering July to December 2026, will show whether credit complaints accelerated, flattened or declined. If the number jumps above 1,500, that would suggest serviceability stress is broadening beyond the usual at-risk cohorts (interest-only refinancers, high-LVR borrowers in weak price markets).
Also worth tracking: ASIC’s corporate plan for 2026–27 flags scams as a standing enforcement priority and notes faster licensing turnaround times alongside sharper scrutiny of AI use in customer-facing financial services. If lenders deploy AI for hardship assessments or serviceability checks, expect more complaints about automated denials and a potential regulatory response if outcomes skew unfairly.
For advisers and brokers, the practical takeaway is verification weight. Licensed lenders, transparent fee structures, and verifiable documentation lower the chance a client ends up in the misconduct dataset, or worse, in a default they did not see coming because the product was never regulated properly to begin with.
Subscribe to the Australian Property Review newsletter for the weekly signal on credit conditions, policy moves and market shifts that matter for real decisions.
General info, not financial advice.
