Macquarie Reached a Decision in 1.7 Days in July. One Lender in the Same Survey Took 11.6

The number that should is the distance between the top of the table and the bottom of it. Macquarie reached an initial credit decision in an average of 1.7 business days on broker-reported files in July. In the same survey, in the small ADI group, People First Bank averaged 11.6. That is a spread of almost ten business days — two working weeks — inside a single month’s data, from the same 353 brokers, submitting under the same market conditions.

A gap that size is not a service-quality footnote. It is a variable you carry into every lender conversation, every pre-approval expiry, every 42-day finance clause. And because it is a variable, ASIC has already written down the conditions under which you are allowed to let it drive a recommendation. Those conditions are narrower than most brokers assume, and the survey that produced the 1.7 and the 11.6 is one of the few things that can help you meet them.

What the July data actually says

The methodology matters, so take it first. Agile Market Intelligence surveyed 353 residential mortgage brokers between 1 and 17 August 2026, asking about their experience submitting applications through July 2026. Turnaround time in this survey is the number of business days taken to reach an initial credit decision — not to unconditional approval, and not to settlement. These are broker-reported averages, and because only a share of the 353 used any given lender, the sub-sample behind each individual lender’s figure is smaller than the headline number.

With that framing, the July table looked like this.

• Large ADIsMacquarie averaged 1.7 business days, Bankwest 2.9, and CBA 3.7 — the quickest of the majors.
• Small ADIsubank averaged 2.7 days, P&N Bank 2.8, MyState 3.3, and People First Bank — listed by Broker Pulse as People’s First Bank — 11.6.
• Non-ADIsConnective Home Loans averaged 3.4 days, RedZed 4.3, First Federal 5.2, and Firstmac 5.6.

Read the categories carefully, because the lazy version of this story — banks fast, non-banks slow — does not survive contact with the table. The slowest number in the July data belonged to an ADI, and a non-ADI — Connective Home Loans at 3.4 days — came in ahead of the quickest major bank in the table. The useful distinction in July was not bank versus non-bank; it was lender by lender.

The share numbers, and what they are not telling you

Broker usage in July ran Macquarie 48 per cent, ANZ 44 per cent, CBA 35 per cent and Westpac 29 per cent. Among the non-majors, Bankwest sat at 20 per cent and ING at 19 per cent. Among non-banks, Firstmac was at 8 per cent, with Pepper Money and Liberty Financial at 7 per cent each.

It is tempting to read that top line as the market rewarding speed. Compare it with the March 2026 edition of the same survey — 321 brokers, fieldwork 1 to 16 April — and Macquarie’s usage was 45 per cent on a 1.6-day average turnaround. Four months later its turnaround is fractionally slower, at 1.7 days, and its share of broker flow is three points higher. Speed and share moved in opposite directions, slightly, which is a reminder that usage is a lagging measure of a lot of things at once: accreditation, panel position, habit, and where the deal actually fits.

The service metrics underneath tell a more textured story than turnaround alone. On broker experience, Macquarie led the large ADIs at 96 per cent, with Bankwest at 91 and ING at 89. Broker Daily, reporting the same release on 14 September, also put Westpac and NAB at 88 per cent. Among small ADIs, P&N Bank scored 96 per cent and Great Southern Bank 91. Among non-ADIs, AFG Home Loans led at 85 per cent with Connective Home Loans at 84.

On BDM experience, the leader was not Macquarie. Bendigo Bank scored 100 per cent among commonly used ADIs, ahead of Bankwest at 95 and Macquarie at 94. On credit assessor experience, Macquarie was back at the front on 95 per cent, with Bankwest at 91.

Why brokers said they recommended what they recommended

Broker Daily’s report of the July release included a breakdown that is directly relevant here. Among major banks, 72 per cent of brokers said client circumstances drove the recommendation and 39 per cent said product pricing. Among non-banks, client circumstances ran at 87 per cent and pricing at 13 per cent. Among non-major banks, the order flipped: pricing at 64 per cent, client circumstances at 52 per cent.

That is a self-reported measure from one outlet’s reading of the data, and it should be treated as such. But it describes something most brokers would recognise. The non-bank file goes to the non-bank because of who the client is. The non-major file often goes there because of what the loan costs. Neither of those reasons is “because they are quick.”

Where ASIC sits on speed

The best interests duty sits in sections 158LA and 158LE of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009. ASIC’s guidance on it is Regulatory Guide 273, and it deals with turnaround times more directly than most brokers realise.

RG 273.77 accepts the premise outright. ASIC states that “in some situations, features which do not relate to the cost of the product will be highly relevant,” and gives as its example that “some consumers will prioritise approval time and compromise on cost because of a time-sensitive transaction, such as an impending settlement date.” So speed is a legitimate factor. There is no reading of the guide in which recommending a faster lender is inherently a problem.

RG 273 then works the point through a scenario. Example 3, headed “Considering other factors—Application processing times,” describes Tim, a broker who regularly recommends one credit provider’s products, tells consumers he has a strong relationship with that lender’s BDM and can get applications processed “much faster,” and assumes clients are happy to concede on cost to be pre-approved at short notice.

ASIC’s commentary sets out what it expects of him. Tim should consider each consumer’s individual circumstances to work out whether timely processing is relevant and valuable for that consumer. He should only weigh timeliness above other factors, including cost, where that consumer’s information and circumstances indicate it is of significant importance and could offer them good value. He should be able to substantiate his claims about processing times. He should be able to demonstrate that he considered and presented a range of options. And — the line that matters most in practice — “Tim should also keep a record of this process.”

Two paragraphs either side sharpen it further. RG 273.75 quotes the Replacement Explanatory Memorandum: a broker “should not recommend a loan by prioritising factors that cannot be substantiated as delivering benefits to that particular consumer (such as the broker’s relationship with the [credit provider]), over factors and features which affect the cost of the product or are more relevant to the consumer.” And RG 273.78 warns that there is an increased risk of non-compliance “if your processes typically lead to a ‘one-size-fits-all’ outcome for consumers.”

The substantiation gap — and what the survey does about it

Put those together and the compliance question is not “can I use turnaround as a reason?” It is “when the file is reviewed in eighteen months, what evidence shows that this client needed speed, and what evidence shows the lender I chose actually delivers it?”

Most brokers have a confident answer to neither. The first half is a client-conversation problem: the settlement date, the finance clause, the bridging position, the expiring pre-approval, the vendor who will not extend. That belongs in the file note, in the client’s own terms, before the recommendation — not reconstructed afterwards.

The second half is exactly what industry turnaround data is for. A dated, published, independently collected average from 353 brokers is a materially better basis for a processing-time claim than “my BDM tells me they’re quick at the moment.” It is not perfect — it is self-reported, it is one month, and the per-lender sub-samples are small. But RG 273.77 asks for claims that are evidence-based and able to be substantiated, and a citable industry survey meets that description in a way that a relationship anecdote does not.

The practical implication is unglamorous: if turnaround is part of your reasoning, name the source and the period in the file note. “Macquarie averaged 1.7 business days to initial credit decision in the July 2026 Broker Pulse residential survey, against 3.7 for the next-fastest option we considered; the client’s finance clause expires on [date]” is a substantiated claim. “Macquarie is faster” is a habit.

Before you write off the 11.6

One point of fairness, because a single number in a single month is not a verdict on a lender.

People First Bank — formed from the 2023 merger of Heritage Bank and People’s Choice — announced on 11 September that it had launched a new digital banking platform built on Backbase’s banking operating system, serving roughly 750,000 customers and rolling out to former People’s Choice customers first. In the same announcement the bank said the broker channel “remained a core part of the business,” pointed to improvements in loan assessment, documentation and processing, and flagged a new loan origination platform with Simpology and a Loanapp rollout with aggregator partners. Chief Technology and Transformation Officer Andy Weir said digital banking “is the primary way most customers engage with their bank, so getting that experience right is extremely important.”

That work postdates the July submissions the survey measured. Whether it moves the number is something the next few Broker Pulse editions will show, not something anyone can assert today. The broader lesson holds for every lender in the table: a turnaround figure is a snapshot of one month, and integration programs, credit-team hiring and platform changes all move it. Your obligation is to substantiate the claim you make at the time you make it — which means the data you cite should be current, not the figure you memorised in autumn.

What to review this week

• 1. Check your last ten submissions against the table.Not to second-guess the recommendations, but to see whether your lender mix is a considered spread or a default. RG 273.78’s “one-size-fits-all” warning is about process, and process is visible in a batch of files in a way it is not in any single one.
• 2. Find the files where speed was the reason.Read the note. Does it record why this client needed a fast decision — a dated event, a contractual deadline — or does it record that the lender is quick? The first is evidence. The second is a description of the lender.
• 3. Add a source line to your turnaround reasoning.One sentence, with the publication and the month. It costs nothing at the time and is close to unreproducible later.
• 4. Separate speed from service in your own head.The July data shows the fastest large ADI is not the best BDM experience, and the best small-ADI broker experience score belongs to a lender that is not the fastest in its group. When you tell a client “they’re good to deal with,” be clear with yourself about which of those you mean, because only one of them has a number attached.

The point

A near-ten-day spread between the fastest and slowest lender in a single month’s data is a genuine commercial asymmetry, and brokers are right to trade on it. ASIC has not asked you to stop. It has asked you to establish that the client in front of you actually needs speed, to be able to prove that the lender you chose provides it, and to write both of those down at the time.

The July Broker Pulse release makes the second of those three easier than it has ever been. The first and the third are still on you — and they are the two that a file review will test.