NAB now writes half its home loans through its own channels. In its full-year results for the year to 30 September 2026, the bank said direct drawdowns reached 50%, up from 41% in FY25. That means third-party brokers settle half its loans instead of 59%. Ubank is excluded from those figures.
The shift looks like trade-press channel-share news. It is more than that, because the channel a borrower comes through shapes the offers they see.
NAB’s number, and what sits behind it
The bank’s chief executive said NAB will still chase broker business, but with a narrower focus: lower loan-to-value ratios and larger loan sizes, sent by a select group of brokers who get faster, better service. That is a lender choosing which borrowers it wants, not walking away from brokers altogether.
The move has been building. NAB hired about 150 direct home lenders in early 2025. In October it announced up to 2,500 job cuts, around 6% of staff, by FY27. Whether broker-facing roles are affected is unknown, so that part of the picture is still open.
The backdrop is a softer market. NAB reported a 15% quarterly fall in applications in August. Even so, its Australian home lending grew 3.6% in FY26. Ubank balances rose 11.6% and its customers passed one million.
The big four are not moving together
The peers tell a more mixed story:
- CBA: direct share of 65%, down from 68%. It cites a 20 to 30% profitability gap in favour of direct loans.
- Westpac: 36%, up from 33%.
- ANZ: 31%, down from 33%.
- Macquarie: over 95% of its lending sourced through brokers.
So the sector is split. CBA and NAB lean on direct channels, ANZ is drifting the other way, and Macquarie is a broker-first lender. There is no single industry trend here, only different bets on where the margin sits.
Why borrowers should care
In plain English
- A broker can compare many lenders. A bank’s own channel usually shows you one.
- If banks keep pushing borrowers direct, fewer people will see a side-by-side comparison.
- Less comparison can mean less pressure on pricing, though that is a risk, not a certainty.
The catch is that CBA’s 20 to 30% profitability gap points to who benefits when a loan is written direct. Brokers are paid commission, and that cost sits in the bank’s margin. A bank that moves a borrower into its own channel keeps that spend. Whether it passes any of the saving back through sharper pricing is a separate question, and the figures here do not answer it.
Competition is the thing to watch. Lenders like Macquarie, writing almost entirely through brokers, give brokers a reason to keep pricing aggressive for the borrowers they send. If big banks narrow broker access to certain loan sizes and risk profiles, borrowers outside those boxes may find the best deals sit with smaller lenders.
For related reading, see our look at NAB’s 2,500 job cuts and its push into proprietary lending and why banks have struggled to win borrowers direct.
A practical way to approach it
The simple rule of thumb: get at least one comparison outside your own bank, whichever way you apply. If you walk into a bank branch or call its direct line, check that rate against what a broker can show from other lenders. If you use a broker, ask which lenders were compared and why one was chosen.
Our home loans, lenders and refinancing guide covers how to run that comparison step by step.
One small point of caution: this is one bank’s reported result plus peers’ figures. It does not prove that direct channels are cheaper or dearer for borrowers. It shows where lenders are placing their bets, and that is a prompt to shop around rather than assume.
Subscribe to the newsletter for the weekly read on rates, credit and lending competition.
General info, not financial advice.
