The third-party lending channel now processes one in every nine new Australian home loans through a single aggregator platform, new half-year results show. At the same time, a captive non-bank lender tied to that aggregator grew its loan book 127% in six months to reach $7.5 billion.
The numbers confirm brokers are winning share from bank branches at pace. The harder question: does this shift tilt bargaining power toward borrowers via broker advocacy, or does it create a distribution bottleneck that could eventually reduce product diversity and competitive pressure on rates?
How the numbers stacked up
The aggregator’s managed loan book climbed 25% year-on-year to $193 billion in the first half of 2026, already exceeding its full-year target. Revenue per broker jumped 16% to $13,000 as the business culled 4% of its broker network to focus on productivity over headcount.
The platform now processes roughly $1 billion in loan applications each week and supports more than 165,000 consumers through its digital loan-origination system.
On the product side, the group’s non-bank lender expanded its portfolio from $3.3 billion to $7.5 billion in six months, driven by new prime and alternative-documentation loan products aimed at borrowers outside standard bank serviceability.
Net interest margin held at 1.33%, inside the target band of 1.2% to 1.4%. Updated guidance puts full-year profit between $25 million and $30 million.
Why concentration is accelerating
Three forces are compressing the market toward fewer, larger platforms.
First, regulatory and compliance costs have risen sharply since the royal commission. Smaller aggregators lack the scale to absorb technology, audit and legal infrastructure without eroding broker commissions. Larger players can spread fixed costs across bigger loan volumes and keep take rates competitive.
Second, digital origination platforms create network effects. Brokers gravitate toward systems that integrate with the most lenders, automate documentation and speed up settlement. Once a platform hits critical mass, switching costs for brokers rise and new entrants struggle to compete on features alone.
Third, captive non-bank lenders give aggregators a revenue hedge. When banks tighten credit or pull back from certain borrower segments, aggregators with in-house lending arms can still write loans and earn margin on both distribution and product. That dual revenue stream funds faster platform development, which attracts more brokers, which generates more loan flow.
The model is self-reinforcing. Scale funds better technology, which attracts productive brokers, which drives volume, which funds more product development.
The leverage question
Here’s where the trade-offs get real.
In theory, broker scale should strengthen borrower negotiating power. A platform processing $1 billion a week can credibly threaten to steer volume away from lenders that refuse to sharpen rates or relax criteria. That ought to deliver better deals for the borrowers those brokers represent.
In practice, the outcome depends on how aggregators use that leverage. If they negotiate harder upfront commissions or trailing fees for themselves rather than lower rates for borrowers, scale becomes a rent-extraction tool, not a borrower benefit. The incentive structure matters more than the raw market share.
There’s also a second-order risk. As aggregators grow, lenders may consolidate their own panel relationships to manage credit risk and reduce operational complexity. Instead of maintaining relationships with dozens of small aggregators, a bank might work with three or four large ones. That simplifies compliance but also creates dependency. If an aggregator decides to de-panel a lender or prioritise a captive product, brokers on that platform lose access to that lender’s rates overnight.
Borrowers end up with fewer options, not more, even though the broker channel itself has grown.
The catch
Broker market share is rising, but product diversity within broker channels could be narrowing. If aggregators direct flow toward their own non-bank products or negotiate exclusive deals with a handful of preferred lenders, the effective panel available to any given borrower shrinks. You might see ten lenders on a comparison sheet, but if the broker’s platform commercially favours three of them, your real choice is smaller than it looks.
How non-bank growth changes the mix
The 127% expansion in the non-bank lender’s book signals a structural shift in credit supply, not just a cyclical uptick.
Banks have tightened serviceability buffers and become more conservative on self-employed, contract and gig-economy borrowers since interest rates began rising in 2022. Non-banks, which fund via securitisation rather than deposits, can price for specific risk segments without destabilising a retail deposit base.
That creates genuine access for borrowers who fall outside bank scorecards but still have stable income and equity. It also means those borrowers pay a rate premium, typically 50 to 150 basis points above major-bank discounted variables, depending on documentation and loan-to-value ratio.
The risk is that as non-bank share grows, some borrowers get steered toward higher-cost credit not because they need it, but because the economics of the aggregator-broker-lender relationship make it the path of least resistance. Brokers earn commissions on non-bank loans just as they do on bank loans, and if the non-bank is part of the same corporate group as the aggregator, the incentive to prioritise that product is real.
Borrowers should ask directly: is this non-bank loan because I don’t qualify with a major, or because it’s easier for you to write? The answer changes the value equation.
Scenarios over the next 12 months
Base case: broker market share continues climbing toward 75% of new loans (currently around 72%), driven by better digital tools and banks pulling back branch footprints. Aggregator concentration holds near current levels. Borrowers see marginally better access and speed but no meaningful rate improvement unless the RBA cuts.
Upside: aggregators use scale to negotiate panel-wide rate cuts or fee waivers, particularly as banks compete harder for volume in a flat market. Non-bank competition disciplines major-bank pricing on near-prime segments. Borrowers capture 10 to 20 basis points more discount than they would via direct channels.
Downside: one or two large aggregators dominate 60%+ of broker flow within 18 months. Lenders reduce panel diversity to manage operational risk. Product choice narrows, particularly for complex or non-standard loans. Rate competition weakens as fewer aggregators control distribution, and captive non-bank products become the default for any borrower outside vanilla criteria.
The downside isn’t catastrophic, but it’s not hypothetical either. Concentration risk in financial distribution channels has historical form.
What borrowers should do now
If you’re using a broker, ask which aggregator they operate under and whether the lender they’re recommending is part of the same group. If it is, ask them to show you at least two comparable major-bank options for the same loan amount and features. Compare the rate, fees and serviceability calculation side by side.
If you’re refinancing or hunting a better deal, check whether your broker’s platform genuinely canvassed the full panel or defaulted to a shortlist of preferred lenders. You can verify this by running a parallel quote directly with one or two major banks. If the broker’s best offer is materially worse than what you can get yourself, the platform’s incentives may not be aligned with yours.
For investment loans or non-standard income situations, a non-bank may still be the right call, but the rate premium should reflect genuine credit risk, not distribution convenience. If the margin feels wide, push back or get a second opinion from a broker on a different platform.
Broker scale can work in your favour, but only if you treat the broker as an agent, not an oracle. The platform’s size doesn’t automatically make the loan it offers the best one available.
Interest rate cuts are pulling investor demand back into new builds, particularly in Queensland, where competition between investors and first-home buyers is reshaping presale dynamics. If you’re comparing broker-sourced construction loans against direct bank offers, the serviceability and progress-payment structures can differ enough to change the funding timeline.
Subscribe to the weekly Australian Property Review newsletter for credit market updates, rate changes and broker-channel developments that affect your borrowing capacity.
General info, not financial advice.
