Australian Property Network (APN) is an independent property intelligence platform. It carries no commercial affiliations, accepts no advertising revenue, and maintains no relationships with real estate industry bodies, developers, or financial institutions. Its sole purpose is to provide honest, evidence-based analysis of the Australian property market, a domain where commercially conflicted voices predominate and genuinely independent research is scarce.

The analytical foundation of APN is the APN Codex, a structured framework that assigns discrete numbered nodes to every relevant domain of property and macroeconomic knowledge. Two series are operative in this report. The 21000 Series comprises objective data inputs drawn exclusively from authoritative official sources, including the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, APRA, and ASIC. The 24000 Series comprises APN’s proprietary indices, analytical constructs derived from official data through APN’s own research methodology.

This report applies Credit Velocity (21270) and First Home Buyer Lending Share (21660) from the 21000 Series, alongside the APN Credit Rationing Index™ (24230) from the 24000 Series, to the question of whether the Australian mortgage broking sector is structurally overserved by licensed operators relative to credit conversion volumes under current macroprudential settings, and what the empirical evidence indicates regarding its structural trajectory into the second half of 2026. Findings are presented as the data dictates, not as any commercial interest would prefer them to be.

The Australian mortgage broking sector is presently navigating a period of material structural adjustment, characterised by the strict convergence of unprecedented intermediary market share and material deterioration in transactional efficiency. Empirical data indicates that the sector has expanded its licensed headcount to historical highs, reaching 22,265 active professionals.¹ Concurrently, the proportion of residential mortgage lending facilitated through the third-party channel escalated to a record 77.6 per cent in the June 2025 quarter before experiencing a minor structural consolidation to 76.7 per cent in the December 2025 quarter.³
However, this superficial aggregate growth in intermediary market share masks a material underlying deterioration in operational productivity, capital velocity, and baseline viability for the median practitioner. The empirical evidence demonstrates a sustained systemic contraction in application-to-settlement conversion rates, which have decayed from a cyclical peak of 87.3 per cent in mid-2022 to 76.1 per cent by late 2024.⁶ This continuous degradation signifies an elevated System Friction Index™ reading, wherein brokers are expending unprecedented volumes of unremunerated labour hours navigating increasingly rigid macroprudential constraints and fragmented lender policies.
The implementation of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority’s (APRA) 3.00 percentage point serviceability buffer, compounded by the activation of the 20 per cent limit on high debt-to-income (DTI ≥ 6x) lending effective February 2026, has mathematically decoupled a material cohort of borrowers from available credit.⁷ These regulatory interventions function as a binding credit exclusion mechanism. By shifting the regulatory architecture from price-based constraint (dictated organically by interest rates) to quantity-based rationing (dictated by hard DTI caps), APRA has engineered a structural ceiling on total deliverable credit volume.
Consequently, the broker population is mathematically overserved relative to the available pool of viable, convertible credit applications. The presence of a 15 per cent inactive broker cohort⁶, alongside accelerating sub-aggregator consolidation events such as the exit of Hai Money¹¹ and heightened Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) enforcement activity¹², signals an impending phase of structural attrition. The sector is transitioning from a prolonged era of unconstrained volume acquisition to a structurally constrained environment where yield-maximising behaviour relies heavily on commercial diversification and institutional-grade compliance architecture rather than raw numerical headcount expansion.

The fundamental operational capacity of the mortgage intermediary sector is captured by the national licensed headcount. Evaluating this baseline demonstrates a sustained trajectory of population expansion that appears increasingly decoupled from the mathematical realities of the prevailing credit cycle and the systemic liquidity contraction observed across broader macroeconomic indicators.
As of the Mortgage and Finance Association of Australia (MFAA) Industry Intelligence Service (IIS) 19th Edition report, which covers the six-month period to 30 September 2024, the total population of active mortgage brokers reached a historic peak of 22,265.¹ This represents a 12 per cent year-on-year escalation from the 19,872 brokers recorded in September 2023.¹ Over a broader five-year longitudinal baseline, the sector’s total headcount has expanded by 34 per cent, driving the national consumer-to-broker ratio to approximately one broker for every 1,211 Australian residents.⁶
However, a granular examination of the composition reveals material structural inefficiencies embedded within this aggregate growth. The MFAA data confirms that approximately 15 per cent of the registered broker population is entirely inactive, having failed to settle a single loan during the reporting period.⁶ This dormant cohort functions as deadweight within the aggregator networks, distorting the true productive capacity of the sector and indicating that the regulatory and educational barriers to initial entry remain structurally lower than the operational barriers to long-term commercial sustainability.
The demographic composition of the sector also exhibits pronounced rigidity, resisting broader societal shifts. Despite targeted industry initiatives, the proportion of female brokers has stagnated. As of September 2024, the industry recorded 3,746 female brokers, representing just 26.8 per cent of the surveyed aggregator cohort.¹ This metric has remained relatively static since 2017¹³, highlighting entrenched structural barriers regarding professional retention, workplace flexibility, and institutional capital support for female intermediaries. While year-on-year female representation grew by 5.61 per cent in absolute terms, the number of new women recruits actually fell 6.46 per cent over the same period, indicating a material retention and acquisition friction point.²
A material secondary observation derived from the headcount data is the velocity of commercial diversification. Recognising the impending margin compression, falling conversion rates, and volume constraints within residential lending, structurally advantaged brokers are actively reallocating their operational focus. The number of brokers actively writing commercial loans escalated by 24.21 per cent year-on-year to 7,023, meaning 31.54 per cent of the broker population is now cross-functioning in the commercial credit space.¹ This diversification yielded a record $22.68 billion in settled commercial loans during the six-month period 1, demonstrating a clear capital reallocation strategy designed to offset the frictions present in the heavily regulated residential sector.
State-level distribution aligns predictably with demographic gravity wells and established capital centres. For the April to September 2024 reporting period, the distribution of home loan lodgements (as a proxy for geographic activity) placed New South Wales at the forefront with 130,672 applications, followed by Victoria with 99,632, Queensland with 76,507, Western Australia with 46,619, South Australia with 32,600, Tasmania with 1,696, and the Northern Territory with 358.² However, isolating exact licensed headcount by state requires official MFAA and ASIC register data rather than the lodgement-volume proxy above. That state-by-state headcount breakdown is not publicly available for the most recent 2025/2026 reporting period, so it is recorded as a nil return in the table below rather than estimated.

The empirical reality of the headcount data is that the sector is expanding numerically precisely at the moment the underlying addressable market is experiencing structural macroprudential constraint. This dynamic inherently dilutes the per-capita capital available to the median broker, establishing a fiercely competitive environment where survival depends entirely on capturing a larger share of a shrinking total credit pool.

Evaluating whether the sector is structurally overserved requires benchmarking the intermediary population against the total addressable market of new credit originations. This requires an objective analysis of Credit Velocity (21270). Where specific historical baseline data points are not publicly available, a nil return is applied rather than a speculative estimate.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 5601.0 Lending Indicators provide the definitive sovereign baseline for measuring this credit velocity. A forensic examination of the most recent available data (March Quarter 2026) demonstrates a material systemic contraction in credit origination, consistent with the APN Credit Rationing Index™ thesis.
In the March quarter of 2026, the total number of new loan commitments for dwellings contracted by 6.2 per cent against the preceding quarter, falling to 139,794.¹⁴ Correspondingly, the aggregate value of these commitments declined by 3.8 per cent to $103.0 billion.¹⁴
This contraction was uniformly distributed across all key demographic segments, signalling a broad-based structural liquidity constraint rather than an isolated cyclical dip or seasonal variance. New owner-occupier loan commitments contracted by 6.9 per cent in volume and 4.3 per cent in value (settling at $61.4 billion).¹⁴ The highly leveraged investor cohort, which is materially sensitive to the DTI caps implemented by APRA in February 2026, recorded a 5.3 per cent volume contraction and a 3.0 per cent value contraction (settling at $41.6 billion).¹⁴
Notably, first-home buyer commitments also deteriorated, falling 4.3 per cent in volume and 6.7 per cent in value to $17.9 billion.¹⁴ This indicates that state and federal government subsidy frameworks—including various stamp duty concessions and guarantee schemes—are failing to overcome the mathematical barriers established by the APRA serviceability floor. When the structural cost of capital exceeds the raw income capacity of the entry-level cohort, government stimuli function merely as theoretical constructs unable to force actual credit conversion.
The table below outlines the ABS 5601.0 data for calendar years 2019 to 2025, alongside the verified Q1 2026 data. The complete, aggregated historical calendar-year series is not publicly available, so nil returns are applied in the table below.

The observed 6.2 per cent contraction in total volume in Q1 2026 against a backdrop of a mathematically static (and highly populated) broker network provides the primary empirical evidence of overcapacity. The denominator (active broker headcount) remains elevated at record levels, while the numerator (total viable loan volume) is actively shrinking under the weight of sustained macroprudential pressure. This mathematical asymmetry guarantees that the average volume of executable credit available per broker is experiencing sustained downward variance, driving the sector toward a mandatory structural adjustment.

The contradiction at the core of the Australian mortgage broking sector is the simultaneous deterioration of systemic credit velocity and the relentless escalation of third-party market share. Brokers are capturing an unprecedented slice of a structurally constrained pie, revealing a material shift in consumer behavioural data captured by First Home Buyer Lending Share (21660).
Historical baseline data from the MFAA reveals that in the December 2019 quarter, prior to the onset of the pandemic-era monetary expansion, brokers facilitated 55.3 per cent of all new residential mortgages.¹⁵ Over the subsequent years, this share expanded systematically, demonstrating remarkable resilience against fluctuating interest rate environments. By the June 2023 quarter, this metric had escalated to 67.2 per cent.³ The trajectory continued its upward variance, breaching the 70 per cent threshold to record 74.1 per cent in March 2024 16 and 74.6 per cent by September 2024.¹
The sector achieved a historic zenith in the June 2025 quarter, capturing 77.6 per cent of all new residential lending.³ In nominal terms, this represented $121.58 billion in settled loans for that single quarter—a 21.46 per cent year-on-year escalation.⁴ Subsequent quarters demonstrated a slight structural stabilisation. The market share receded marginally to 77.3 per cent in the September 2025 quarter 19, and further settled at 76.7 per cent by the December 2025 quarter (recording $142.20 billion in quarterly settled value).⁵

This sustained accumulation of market share is not inherently indicative of a buoyant macroeconomic environment; rather, it reflects a “Complexity Premium”. As the APN Regulatory Velocity Multiplier™ increases through the imposition of stringent Best Interests Duty (BID) legislation, complex serviceability buffers, and the fragmentation of individual lender credit policies, the cognitive and administrative burden placed upon the consumer becomes overwhelming.
Borrowers are mathematically forced into the broker channel not merely for convenience or relationship management, but because direct-to-institution navigation is structurally unviable in a highly rationed credit environment. The average consumer lacks the proprietary algorithms and policy matrix access required to ascertain which ADI possesses available capacity under the APRA DTI caps, or which institution’s specific internal risk appetite aligns with their employment structure.
Consequently, while major bank proprietary branch networks experience material attrition—with the major banks’ share of broker-originated lending dropping below 40 per cent (falling to 39.9 per cent in the July-September 2024 quarter)¹—the intermediary channel monopolises the origination flow. The market share data does not signal a booming property market; it signals that the market has become too structurally complex to navigate without an institutional-grade intermediary.

The intersection of record broker headcount and record aggregate market share necessitates a rigorous examination of the implied per-capita productivity—the broker-to-settlement ratio. This metric isolates whether the influx of new licensed practitioners is generating accretive volume for the sector, or simply diluting the existing capital pool across a wider population base.
Utilising the MFAA’s aggregated settlement data, the sector processed $203.8 billion in residential home loans over the six months from April to September 2024.¹ Over the trailing twelve months to September 2024, total settlements reached $378.87 billion.¹ Applying the 22,265 active headcount figure 1 from September 2024, the mathematical productivity yields can be clearly derived.
The formal mathematical derivation for mean broker productivity over a defined period is expressed as:

Where represents total settlement value and denotes the active licensed headcount.
According to the MFAA, the national average value of home loans settled per broker during the April to September 2024 period was $9.2 million.² This represented a measurable increase from the $8.1 million average recorded in the preceding October 2023 to March 2024 period.² Furthermore, the average value of a broker’s total home loan portfolio (trail book) escalated by 4.8 per cent, rising from $45.7 million to $47.9 million over the same timeframe.²
However, comparing this to the peak of the property cycle in 2021–2022 reveals the structural constraints currently operating on the sector. While nominal per-broker settlement values have experienced upward variance due to underlying asset price inflation (the fundamental expansion of individual loan sizes), the actual velocity of settlements per broker faces material friction.
In the elite echelons of the industry, the concentration of volume is material, indicating material capital allocation asymmetry within the broker workforce itself. The top 100 brokers in 2025 averaged 294 settled loans each, with an average loan size of $724,227, necessitating a minimum settlement threshold of $143 million merely to enter the top decile (up from $123 million in 2024 and $113 million in 2023).²¹
This dynamic creates a highly bifurcated market. A concentrated cohort of structurally advantaged, high-volume operators is processing substantial capital flow, while the remaining bulk of the 22,265 brokers—particularly the 15 per cent inactive cohort⁶—are absorbing the mathematical dilution. The implied ratio confirms that the sector does not structurally require an expanding headcount to service the current transaction volume; rather, the existing volume is being inefficiently dispersed across an overpopulated baseline. The median practitioner is fighting for fractional market share in a capital pool that is being actively restricted by the sovereign regulator.

The most definitive empirical evidence of the APN System Friction Index™ operating within the mortgage sector is the sustained deterioration of application-to-settlement conversion rates. A declining conversion rate explicitly measures the volume of unremunerated labour expended by the intermediary network, acting as a direct tax on operational efficiency and overall profitability.
The MFAA data demonstrates a progressive, structural decay in conversion efficacy. From a cyclical zenith of 87.3 per cent in mid-2022, the conversion rate has consistently degraded over four consecutive reporting periods, settling at a constrained 76.1 per cent by late 2024.¹ This represents a material 11.2 percentage point contraction from the peak, and a 2.0 percentage point decline year-on-year from 2023.⁶
To appropriately quantify this structural inefficiency: if the sector lodged roughly $500 billion in gross application value to achieve the $378.87 billion in settled loans in the 12 months to September 2024¹, a 76.1 per cent conversion rate implies that nearly one-quarter of all labour hours, compliance documentation, Best Interests Duty justifications, and credit assessment work performed by brokers was ultimately unviable and unfunded. This is the precise definition of a structurally overserved market. The operational cost of goods sold—in this case, the broker’s time—has escalated without a commensurate increase in remunerable output.
At the apex of the market, the top 100 brokerages managed to sustain an average conversion rate of 82.57 per cent in 2025 21, alongside some elite operators reaching 84 per cent.²² However, this outperformance is strictly predicated on elite pipeline management, highly stringent pre-qualification screening, and institutional-grade administrative support—resources that are structurally unavailable to the median sole operator (who comprise 42 per cent of the broking sector).⁶
The primary driver of this conversion decay is not a sudden deterioration in broker competence, but the algorithmic rigidity of institutional credit assessment. Escalating compliance mandates, highly variable application-to-decision timelines across different ADIs, and the underlying mathematical reality of static serviceability buffers have created a landscape where applications are increasingly subjected to structural rejection.
Brokers report systemic failure points in the assessment pipeline, including unstable digital portals, assessment outcomes that vary drastically by individual credit assessor, and digital processing steps that increase administrative effort without accelerating approval speeds.¹⁹ The disparity between pre-approval optimism and settlement reality is widening, forcing brokers to process significantly more raw application volume merely to maintain baseline revenue.

When a highly fragmented sector experiences peak headcount, declining conversion efficiency, and looming macroprudential credit rationing, the mathematical inevitability is structural attrition and network consolidation. The empirical data spanning 2024 through 2026 exhibits explicit signals that this contraction phase has actively commenced.
The baseline vulnerability is established by the 15 per cent of the broker population (approximately 3,300 individual licensees or credit representatives) classified as entirely inactive.⁶ In a heightened regulatory environment, maintaining an Australian Credit Licence (ACL) or operating as a credit representative incurs material fixed costs. These include mandatory Professional Indemnity insurance, substantial aggregator technology and support fees, and continuous professional development (CPD) obligations (minimum 30 hours annually).²³ The economic viability of dormant or exceedingly low-volume operators is mathematically unsupportable under these conditions, guaranteeing an impending wave of licence surrenders and deregistrations as personal capital buffers are exhausted.
Aggregator consolidation and systemic compliance enforcement have fundamentally altered the risk landscape for parent institutions. A defining systemic event occurred in early 2026 with the sudden exit of Hai Money, a sub-aggregator network previously operating under the Finsure umbrella. Triggered by the arrest of an independent broker for alleged mortgage fraud (associated with the Penthouse Syndicate), the subsequent internal investigation and immediate termination of 14 brokers reported to ASIC precipitated the termination of the sub-aggregator’s commercial viability.¹¹ The event left approximately 220 brokers structurally displaced and entirely unable to write loans.¹¹
This incident acts as a material APN Regulatory Velocity Multiplier™ indicator. It demonstrates how quickly institutional lenders and primary aggregators will sever ties with sub-networks exhibiting elevated compliance friction. In the contemporary regulatory environment, the reputational and financial risk of harbouring non-compliant operators vastly outweighs the marginal revenue generated by their settlement volumes.
Furthermore, the operational environment is being permanently tightened by sovereign regulatory mandate. From 1 March 2025, ASIC enforced the mandatory transition to the updated Reference Checking and Information Sharing Protocol (INFO 257) under ASIC Corporations and Credit Instrument 2024/647.¹² This protocol compels rigorous, mandatory performance, conduct, and compliance data sharing between former and prospective licensees. By institutionalising a permanent, easily accessible compliance footprint, ASIC has effectively eradicated the historical capacity for low-performing or non-compliant brokers to migrate quietly between aggregator networks.
Simultaneously, ASIC’s direct monitoring of the Best Interests Duty (BID) in 2026—examining broker conduct, complaints handling, and audit practices, and carrying material statutory penalties of up to $1.05 million per individual breach—has established compliance as a fundamental barrier to entry and retention.²¹ Brokers cannot contract out of this obligation through standard disclosure or client consent.²¹ Aggregators are restructuring their business models, shifting from unconstrained volume aggregation toward risk mitigation. Consequently, the evidence indicates a material escalation in forced deregistrations and network contraction throughout the remainder of 2026, as aggregators proactively purge low-volume, high-risk operators to protect their master ACL frameworks.

The overarching macroeconomic force dictating the forward trajectory of the mortgage broking sector is the sovereign regulatory architecture, specifically the macroprudential settings enforced by APRA. These settings represent the ultimate manifestation of the APN Credit Rationing Index™ (24230), fundamentally re-engineering the mechanics of capital allocation within the Australian property market and actively constraining the intermediary sector’s operational volume.
Throughout the measured period, APRA has maintained a fixed minimum serviceability buffer of 3.00 percentage points above the prevailing loan rate, alongside a floor rate of typically 5.75 per cent.⁷ Originally calibrated as a temporary macroprudential shield against escalating cash rates, the retention of the 3.00pp floor in a stabilised (or even marginally easing) monetary policy environment acts as a permanent, mathematical suppression of raw consumer purchasing power. For median-income cohorts, this buffer structurally constrains their maximum borrowing capacity (reducing borrowing power by approximately 5 per cent compared to the previous 2.5 per cent buffer)⁷, rendering them mathematically unviable for average-priced dwellings in primary metropolitan zones.
More materially, the regulatory landscape shifted drastically in late 2025 with the announcement of a hard cap on high debt-to-income (DTI) lending. Effective February 2026, APRA imposed a strict 20 per cent limit on new ADI lending where the borrower’s DTI ratio is equal to or greater than six times (≥ 6x) their gross income.⁸ This cap is applied independently to both owner-occupier and investor portfolios and is stringently measured on a quarterly basis.⁹
While crucial exemptions exist designed specifically to protect the future physical supply pipeline—exempting the construction of new dwellings, the purchase of newly built stock, and owner-occupied bridging finance⁸—the restriction fundamentally alters the liquidity of the established secondary housing market. Non-bank lenders currently remain outside the scope of this specific cap, creating a structural arbitrage opportunity²⁶, yet the systemic impact on total credit velocity is material.
The imposition of the DTI cap effectively terminates the historical investment strategy of “Sequential Equity Extraction”. For over two decades, the Australian property wealth accumulation model relied heavily on leveraged investors utilising the unearned, inflated equity of an existing asset base to secure subsequent high-LVR, high-DTI loans for portfolio expansion, irrespective of proportional increases in their baseline PAYG income. By implementing a hard quota on ≥ 6x DTI loans, APRA has structurally shifted the market from organic risk pricing to systemic rationing. Once an ADI reaches its 20 per cent allocation limit, it is legally compelled to defer or outright decline further high-DTI applications, regardless of the borrower’s pristine repayment history, substantial equity buffers, or vast net wealth.⁸
The structural implications for the mortgage broking sector are material. The traditional broker workflow is being radically reconfigured by this constraint. Applications that were previously classified as standard, highly viable transactions are now exceedingly complex, quota-dependent propositions. Brokers are forced to act not merely as credit intermediaries matching product to consumer, but as highly strategic rationing navigators—attempting to perfectly time the submission of high-DTI clients with the few ADIs that have not yet breached their quarterly APRA limits.
This introduces material systemic friction into the daily operational workload of the broker. It directly exacerbates the application-to-settlement conversion decay noted in Section 1.6, as high-DTI applications are increasingly subjected to extensive manual review, heavily delayed processing times, and sudden, unexpected declines if a lender hits its regulatory ceiling mid-assessment. The operational workload required to process a single file increases exponentially, while the statistical probability of achieving a remunerable settlement decreases, further validating the premise that the sector is mathematically overserved relative to the execution capacity of the credit market.

Returning to the primary analytical question posed by this research brief: Is the Australian mortgage broking sector structurally overserved by licensed brokers relative to credit conversion volumes under current macroprudential settings, and what does the empirical evidence indicate about the trajectory?
The empirical evidence dictates an affirmative conclusion. The sector presents a case of structural supply-demand asymmetry, wherein the supply of intermediary capacity (evidenced by the record 22,265 active brokers) has expanded well beyond the mathematical carrying capacity of a heavily rationed and closely monitored credit market.
The convergence of the 3.00 percentage point serviceability floor, the February 2026 implementation of the 20 per cent DTI cap, and the verified 6.2 per cent contraction in new mortgage commitments (Q1 2026) mathematically dictates a shrinking pool of viable, convertible credit. Simultaneously, the structural frictions embedded in the credit assessment process have driven conversion rates down to 76.1 per cent, destroying the operational efficiency and baseline viability of the marginal broker.
While the record market share of 77.6 per cent indicates that consumers are entirely dependent on the third-party broker channel to successfully navigate this labyrinthine credit environment, this macro-level dominance does not guarantee micro-level viability for the average practitioner. The volume is migrating upward, concentrating heavily in the hands of elite, technologically integrated brokerages and commercially diversified operators who possess the infrastructure to insulate themselves against the residential contraction.
Looking forward into the latter half of 2026, the 15 per cent inactive broker cohort faces imminent eradication. Driven by the unrelenting fixed costs of operating, ASIC’s rigorous INFO 257 reference checking protocols, rigid Best Interests Duty compliance enforcement, and the withdrawal of aggregator support for low-yielding, high-risk representatives, the sector is positioned for a period of material, structural attrition. The Australian mortgage broking industry is not facing an uncontrolled failure, but rather a necessary and mathematically inevitable structural consolidation, transitioning rapidly from an era of unchecked numerical expansion to one of highly regulated, capital-efficient oligopoly.

1. Brokers’ market share hits record high: MFAA, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://www.brokernews.com.au/news/breaking-news/brokers-market-share-hits-record-high-mfaa-287441.aspx
2. Broker numbers hit record high, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://www.brokerdaily.au/broker/20545-broker-numbers-hits-record-height
3. Mortgage broker usage at record-high, written home loans now at $121.58 billion, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://www.brokerpulse.com.au/news/mortgage-broker-usage-at-record-high-written-home-loans-now-at-121-58-billion
4. Market share hits record 77.6% as Aussies flock to brokers – Broker Daily, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://www.brokerdaily.au/lender/20917-market-share-hits-record-77-6-as-aussies-flock-to-brokers
5. Blog – Naked Finance, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://nakedfinance.com.au/blog/
6. Mortgage broker conversion rates continue to fall – MFAA, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://www.mpamag.com/au/mortgage-industry/industry-trends/mortgage-broker-conversion-rates-continue-to-fall-mfaa/540347
7. APRA tightens lending criteria, but not how experts predicted | Savings.com.au, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://www.savings.com.au/news/apra-serviceability-increase
8. Debt-To-Income Ratio Calculator – Home Loan Experts, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://www.homeloanexperts.com.au/home-loan-articles/debt-to-income-ratio/
9. APRA to limit high debt-to-income home loans | Global Regulation Tomorrow, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://www.regulationtomorrow.com/2025/11/apra-to-limit-high-debt-to-income-home-loans/
10. Australia’s Pre-Emptive Lending Limits to Contain Housing Market Risks – Fitch Ratings, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://www.fitchratings.com/research/banks/australia-pre-emptive-lending-limits-to-contain-housing-market-risks-26-11-2025
11. ‘My whole business is gone’: Hai Money collapses following Finsure fallout, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://www.mpamag.com/au/news/general/my-whole-business-is-gone-hai-money-collapses-following-finsure-fallout/572814
12. ASIC reference checking and information sharing protocol, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://www.asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/financial-services/reference-checking-directory-for-financial-services-and-credit-industries/asic-reference-checking-and-information-sharing-protocol/
13. MFAA pursues gender equity as Women in Finance Broking program gets underway, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://www.mpamag.com/au/mortgage-industry/dei/mfaa-pursues-gender-equity-as-women-in-finance-broking-program-gets-underway/546916
14. Lending indicators, March Quarter 2026 – Australian Bureau of Statistics, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/finance/lending-indicators/latest-release
15. Mortgage broker workforce continues to shrink | Australian Broker News, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://www.brokernews.com.au/news/breaking-news/mortgage-broker-workforce-continues-to-shrink-273691.aspx
16. Mortgage industry continues to grow: MFAA report, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://www.mpamag.com/au/mortgage-industry/industry-trends/mortgage-industry-continues-to-grow-mfaa-report/522561
17. More Aussies Are Turning to Brokers, But Are You Equipped to Keep Up? – Koruna Assist, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://korunaassist.com/more-aussies-are-turning-to-brokers-but-are-you-equipped-to-keep-up/
18. Broker share of mortgage market surges to new record, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://www.mpamag.com/au/news/general/broker-share-of-mortgage-market-surges-to-new-record/552722
19. Brokers on Banks 2026 | Mortgage Professional Australia, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://www.mpamag.com/au/best-in-mortgage/brokers-on-banks-2026/567847
20. Brokers dominate mortgage market as banks try to win back share – Prime Capital, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://www.primecapital.com/insights/brokers-dominate-mortgage-market-as-banks-try-to-win-back-share/
21. 5 Mortgage Broker Revenue & Retention Strategies | Arrow Equities, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://www.arrowequities.com.au/single-post/mortgage-broker-revenue-retention-2026
22. Australia’s Fastest-Growing Mortgage Brokerages | Fast Mortgage Brokerages – Australian Broker News, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://www.brokernews.com.au/best-in-mortgage/australias-fastestgrowing-mortgage-brokerages–fast-mortgage-brokerages-288043.aspx
23. How To Become A Mortgage Broker | The Pros And Cons – Home Loan Experts, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://www.homeloanexperts.com.au/become-mortgage-broker/
24. 2025 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Australia; IMF, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/cr/2026/english/1ausea2026001-source-pdf.pdf
25. National RMBS 2026-1 – NAB Capital, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://capital.nab.com.au/content/dam/nab-capital/documents/debt-investor-presentations/NRMBS-2026-1-Investor-Update-February-2026.pdf
26. Maximising Your Borrowing Capacity: Expert Guidance and Lender Insight, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://hudsonfinancialplanning.com.au/resources/education-reports/maximising-borrowing-capacity/
27. APRA applies speed limit to high debt-to-income loans to keep investors in check – Canstar, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://www.canstar.com.au/finance-news/apra-applies-speed-limit-to-high-debt-to-income-loans-to-keep-investors-in-check/
28. Financial Stability Review – Reserve Bank of Australia, accessed on July 1, 2026, https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/fsr/2022/apr/pdf/financial-stability-review-2022-04.pdf