Doma Finance

20/05/2026

13/05/2026

The investor lending market in Australia is changing, but it is certainly not disappearing. If you look at the budget without эмоции and through a practical lens, the picture is quite rational, even if slightly more complex than before.

Let’s start with the key changes. The most significant shift relates to negative gearing and capital gains tax. From 1 July 2027, negative gearing is effectively being redirected toward new builds. Existing arrangements remain unchanged for properties already held, but investors purchasing established properties after the budget will no longer be able to offset losses against their personal income, such as wages. Losses can only be applied against rental income and carried forward.

Now to CGT. The current 50 percent discount will be replaced with an inflation-based model, along with a minimum 30 percent tax on gains. These changes apply only to future gains, while investors in new builds will be able to choose between the existing system and the new one. On paper, this creates flexibility. In reality, it adds another layer of decision-making.

If you expect this to push investors out of the market entirely, it will not. What changes is the type of investor. Those relying purely on tax benefits may step back. Those focused on yield, capital structure, and long-term strategy will remain active.

New builds, on the other hand, are clearly being supported. And this is where things become more relevant for buyers. The conversation is no longer about simply “getting into the market.” It is about specifics. House and land packages, off-the-plan purchases, construction timelines, valuation risks, contract conditions including sunset clauses. These are no longer secondary details, they are central to the decision.

The transition period leading up to 1 July 2027 creates a window of opportunity. Some buyers may move sooner to take advantage of the current rules. Others may reassess, restructure, or wait. The market during this period becomes more dynamic, but also less forgiving of poor planning.

Now consider this from your position as a buyer. Are you planning to enter the market before 2027, or are you comfortable operating under the new tax settings? How important is the ability to offset losses against your income, and are you relying on that, or are you selecting a property based on its actual cash flow?

First-home buyers may find a slightly clearer path, particularly if investor demand softens in the established market. But this does not make the process simple. Understanding borrowing capacity, deposit strategies, guarantor options, HECS/HELP implications, and lender policies becomes essential.

The question is no longer whether you can get a loan. The real question is how prepared you are for the purchase. Do you have a full financial picture that includes all ongoing costs, or are you focused only on the purchase price? Have you compared new builds and established properties not just on price, but on long-term financial impact, including tax and maintenance?

Infrastructure is another factor that should not be overlooked. The government has allocated $2 billion toward local infrastructure, aiming to support tens of thousands of new homes. This will drive growth in specific areas and create new entry points into the market.

So the question becomes straightforward. Are you buying in an area because it has already grown, or because you understand what will drive its growth over the next five to ten years?

As for cost of living relief, there are minor tax benefits, but they do not change the overall equation. Mortgage repayments, rent, insurance, utilities, and daily expenses remain the dominant factors. Serviceability is still at the center of every lending decision.

How resilient is your budget if interest rates or living costs increase? Do you have a financial buffer, or are you stretching to enter the market with minimal margin for error?

Small business support measures may also have an indirect impact. Greater confidence among business owners can translate into more activity in both residential purchases and investment. However, this brings another consideration. Is your income stable and predictable, or does it fluctuate based on external factors?

If you reduce all of this to one idea, the market is not becoming easier. It is becoming more deliberate.

Buying property today is no longer an impulsive decision or a simple bet on growth. It is a structured financial decision that requires clarity, planning, and a long-term view.

Which leads to a more important question. Are you buying because you feel you need to enter the market now, or because the property genuinely aligns with your long-term financial strategy?

05/05/2026

The Reserve Bank of Australia has lifted rates to 4.35% for the third time this year.

04/05/2026

National home value growth is clearly losing momentum, with Sydney and Melbourne now acting as the primary drag on overall performance.

According to Cotality, the national Home Value Index rose just 0.3% in April, marking the slowest pace of growth since January 2025. The headline number was weighed down by monthly declines of 0.6% in both Sydney and Melbourne.

Sydney values are now 1.0% below their November peak, while Melbourne has fallen further, sitting 1.9% below its most recent high and 2.3% below the March 2022 peak.

Every capital city recorded a slowdown in growth, although calling this a uniform market would be misleading since conditions remain highly fragmented.

In Perth, growth is clearly moderating but still robust, with values rising 2.1% in April and adding over $21,000 to the median dwelling price.

Brisbane, Adelaide and Darwin also saw a slowdown, though from a high base, with each market still recording monthly gains above 1%.

Tim Lawless notes that this easing trend has been building since late last year, as affordability and borrowing capacity constraints began to weigh on demand. More recently, higher interest rates, weakening sentiment and persistent inflation have added further downward pressure.

Buyer activity reflects this shift. Estimated home sales across the capitals over the past three months are down 5.4% year-on-year and sit 7.4% below the five-year average. At the same time, advertised supply is rising in softer markets, with listings in Sydney running 9.4% above the five-year average and Melbourne 2.2% above.

Mid-sized capitals continue to experience tighter supply, although listings are gradually increasing there as well, albeit from a low base and still below typical seasonal levels.

This imbalance between supply and demand is now evident in auction markets, where clearance rates have remained below 55% since late March.

Another structural shift is becoming more pronounced: growth is increasingly concentrated in the more affordable segments. Across every capital city, the lower quartile is outperforming, as demand gravitates toward price points supported by lending constraints and first-home buyer incentives.

The divergence is most visible in Sydney, where lower-tier house values are up 2.9% year-to-date, while the top quartile has declined by 3.3%.

Regional markets continue to show greater resilience, supported by relatively lower price points and strong internal migration. Over the first four months of the year, regional values have risen 4.2%, compared to a 1.8% increase across the combined capitals. Even so, momentum is easing, with April’s 0.9% rise marking the slowest monthly gain in nine months.

At the sub-regional level, the strongest growth has been recorded in Bunbury at +9.8%, Darling Downs-Maranoa at +7.9%, and Far West and Orana at +7.5%. Notably, no regional markets have recorded a decline so far this year.

So the real question is no longer whether the market is growing, but where and at what price point that growth still holds. Are you positioning for momentum, or for resilience?

27/04/2026

Budgeting isn’t about restriction, it’s about control. And this is where most people get it wrong. They assume a budget limits them. In reality, the lack of a budget is what limits you, just quietly and without obvious warning signs.

When you don’t have a budget, you’re not managing your money. Your money is managing you. It disappears into small, everyday decisions that feel harmless in the moment. Coffee, subscriptions, impulse purchases. Nothing dramatic individually, but together they create that familiar feeling of “I earn well, so where is it all going?”

Let’s make this practical rather than theoretical.

A budget solves three very specific problems.

First, clarity. You start seeing facts instead of assumptions. How much actually goes to living expenses, debt, lifestyle. Without this, every financial decision is guesswork.

Second, priorities. Money is always finite, even with a high income. The real question isn’t whether you earn enough, it’s where you direct it. A budget forces an honest answer to a slightly uncomfortable question: what actually matters to you right now?

Third, speed. Want to get into an investment property on the Gold Coast or in Brisbane? Without a budget, that’s just a conversation. With a budget, it becomes a plan with numbers and timelines.

Now, an important point most people overlook. A bad budget is worse than no budget.

If it’s too detailed, you’ll abandon it within a week. If it’s too vague, it’s useless. A working budget always sits somewhere in the middle.

A simple, effective structure looks like this:
fixed expenses
variable expenses
savings and investments

That’s it. No 50-line spreadsheets unless you’re an accountant.

And let’s be honest. A budget won’t increase your income. But it will show you where you’re already losing money that could be working for you.

So here’s the real question.
Do you actually know your monthly numbers and what’s left at the end, or is it more of a rough “somewhere around there”?

14/04/2026

90% of people end up paying MORE after refinancing.

Even though they believe they’re saving.

It’s a typical scenario.

Someone reduces their rate by 0.5%
The bank happily recalculates the loan
The repayments go down

Everyone’s happy.

Except for one detail:
👉 a couple of years later, the loan balance has barely moved

Sound familiar?

⸻

Where you actually lose

The bank isn’t making a mistake.
The bank is doing business.

Here’s what happens with a standard refinance:
• the loan term is stretched back to 25–30 years
• the minimum repayment is reduced
• most of your money still goes toward interest

Result:
👉 you pay for longer
👉 you pay more interest
👉 just with less monthly pressure

Comfort? Yes.
Wealth? Not really.

⸻

Same loan. Two different outcomes.

Let’s use realistic Australian numbers (nothing exaggerated):
• Balance: $600,000
• Rate: 6.20% → 5.70%
• Remaining term: 25 years

⸻

Scenario 1: The “bank way”
• repayments go down
• term stays at 25 years

👉 Savings: ~ $50–60k over the life of the loan

Sounds good.
But that’s the minimum possible outcome.

⸻

Scenario 2: The smart strategy

(yes, the one no one really explains)
• DO NOT extend the term
• keep your repayments the same
• direct the difference into the principal

👉 Savings: ~ $150k–$200k
👉 5–7 years off your loan

Same rate.
Same banks.
Different strategy.

⸻

What this is actually called

I keep it simple:
👉 Fixed Repayment Strategy

The idea is basic:

Your rate drops?
Great. Act like it didn’t.

Let the difference work for your loan,
not your lifestyle.

⸻

Why no one talks about this

Because banks benefit from the opposite:
• longer terms
• lower repayments
• relaxed clients

And more interest paid over time.

No one is stopping you from paying extra.
They’re just not motivated to explain it.

⸻

Where else you’re losing money
• Offset accounts used like everyday spending accounts
• Cashback offers that come with higher rates
• Monthly repayments instead of fortnightly

Individually small.
Together? Tens of thousands.

⸻

When refinancing is actually NOT worth it

Yes, that happens too.

Don’t refinance if:
• the rate difference is less than ~0.3%
• you’ll reduce your repayments anyway
• you plan to sell within 1–2 years

In these cases, “savings” are mostly an illusion.

⸻

Short version, no theory

If after refinancing you:
• extended your term
• reduced your repayments
• relaxed

👉 you lost, even with a lower rate

If you:
• kept your repayments the same
• reduced your term
• use your offset properly

👉 that’s where real savings begin

⸻

Next step: calculate or guess

I can run two scenarios for you:
1. the bank way
2. the strategy that actually reduces your loan

And you’ll immediately see
whether refinancing makes sense for you
or it’s just unnecessary movement.

If the difference is small — I’ll tell you not to bother.
If there’s $100k+ on the table — I’ll show you exactly where.

⸻

Now be honest.

Would you lower your repayments just because you can…
or keep them the same if you saw the real savings?

19/03/2026

What is an addback?

Addbacks are expenses that can be added back to an applicant’s income when assessing serviceability for a self-employed loan application.

These expenses are typically found in tax returns or profit and loss statements. When reviewed correctly, and in line with a lender’s policy, they can be treated as income by an experienced broker.

⸻

Types of addbacks

When assessing serviceability (or affordability), lenders take different approaches to addbacks. What one lender accepts, another may ignore.

Common addbacks include:
• Depreciation
• Instant asset write-off
• Interest amortisation
• Non-compulsory superannuation
• Non-recurring expenses
• Abnormal expenses
• One-off expenses
• Director’s fees
• Director salaries
• Payments to family members
• Rent (if paid to yourself)
• Ceased finance commitments
• Certain leasing contracts
• Home office expenses
• Bad debts

⸻

Do all lenders accept addbacks?

No. Lenders assess addbacks differently.

Some will accept only a limited number of addbacks (typically 2–4 categories). Others take a more flexible approach, provided there is a clear and reasonable explanation.

Certain credit departments apply what can be described as a “common sense” approach — if the addback is logical, well-supported, and genuinely reflects the applicant’s financial position, they may consider it.

This is where working with an experienced broker matters — someone who can interpret financials properly and present them clearly to an underwriter.

⸻

Can addbacks increase borrowing capacity?

Yes.

When accepted and properly justified, addbacks can significantly increase an applicant’s borrowing capacity by providing a more accurate view of their true cash flow.

⸻

Which lenders consider addbacks?

For full documentation (full doc) loans, most lenders will consider addbacks as part of their serviceability assessment.

However, not all lenders accept all types of addbacks, and their policies can vary widely.

⸻

Depreciation as an addback

Depreciation is the most commonly accepted addback.

This is because it is a non-cash expense — it reduces taxable profit but does not impact actual cash flow.

Depreciation may include:
• Vehicle depreciation
• Machinery depreciation
• Plant and equipment
• Property depreciation

⸻

Where deals usually fall apart

These are the most common mistakes:
• addbacks are taken “from a checklist” without proper explanation
• no evidence that the expenses are one-off
• no proof that a liability has been ceased
• business structure is ignored (especially with family payments)

And the most common issue is when
the application is submitted to the wrong lender.

⸻

What actually works

If you simplify it into practice:
1. Analyse the P&L like a credit analyst, not an accountant
2. Identify relevant addbacks
3. Prepare justification for each one
4. Match the lender to the scenario, not the other way around

Only then submit the application.

⸻

Bottom line

Addbacks are not a hack.
They’re a tool.

In the wrong hands it’s just a list of expenses.
In the right hands it’s a way to increase borrowing capacity without manipulation.

If you have a real case, bring the numbers.
We can look at what can realistically be “brought back to life” and what’s better left untouched to avoid issues with credit.

16/03/2026

The Strangest Bank Decline I’ve Seen Recently

Recently we were reviewing a case with a client who wanted to buy an apartment.
The income was solid, and the deposit was in place. At first glance, it looked like a straightforward application.

But the bank identified a problem: insufficient serviceability.

The reason turned out to be unexpected. The bank calculated 100% of the household expenses, even though the client shared them with a partner.

Formally, it looked like this:

The client’s income was fine.
But the entire household expense load was attributed to them.

As a result, the assessment suggested that servicing the loan would be difficult.

And this is where an interesting nuance of credit policy comes into play.

⸻

What is Apportioning of Commitments

In some situations, banks can apply the principle of apportioning of commitments.

This means that when calculating serviceability, the bank may consider only the borrower’s share of expenses, rather than the full household budget.

For example:

Total household expenses
$4,000 per month

If the bank counts the full amount
→ serviceability looks weaker

If apportioning is applied
→ only the borrower’s share is counted, for example $2,000

The difference in the calculation can be significant.

⸻

What Can Be Shared Between Partners

Depending on the bank’s credit policy, this may apply to:

• Household living expenses
• Repayments on joint loans
• Other shared financial commitments

Each bank interprets these situations slightly differently. Major lenders such as Commonwealth Bank, Westpac, and ANZ may apply different approaches when assessing serviceability.

That’s why one bank may decline an application, while another may approve the exact same borrower.

⸻

How the Client’s Situation Was Resolved

When we recalculated the client’s serviceability using apportioning of expenses, the picture changed.

Expenses that had initially been counted in full were redistributed between the partners.

After that adjustment, the client’s serviceability met the bank’s requirements.

Situations like this happen more often than people think.

⸻

Why Buyers Rarely Know About This

Most people assume the mortgage calculation is very simple:

income – expenses = ability to service the loan

In reality, banks use far more complex assessment models. These frameworks are influenced by regulatory guidelines from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA).

Within those models, there are many nuances in each lender’s credit policy.

⸻

What Property Buyers Should Keep in Mind

If one bank says your serviceability isn’t strong enough, it doesn’t always mean the loan is impossible.

Sometimes the issue isn’t income — it’s how the expenses are assessed.

The right application structure and the right choice of lender can completely change the outcome.

⸻

If you’re interested, I can share a few more less obvious credit policy nuances that sometimes make the difference between a decline and an approval.

In the comments, let me know which topics you’d like me to cover next.