Illustrative scenarios

What an assessment looks like, 36 times over.

Every illustrative scenario from the service pages, gathered in one place so the working can be read side by side. Some are hypothetical positions with rounded figures written for the page; others are adapted and combined from internal finance briefs with the figures and circumstances changed. Each group says which, beside its own disclaimer. None is a client result, approval, quote or promise.

Start a finance review Guides

Regenerated from the service pages on 8 September 2026; the build fails if any scenario or disclaimer is missing. Lender policies, government schedules and regulations change; every application is subject to lender assessment, valuation, documentation and applicable law.

2010Established

$1B+Lending settled

50+Lenders through our lender and aggregator network

PremiumBroker status with leading banks

5.0From 196 Google reviews

All36 Home loans3 First home buyers3 Investment property loans3 Medical professionals3 Self-employed and low doc3 SMSF lending3 Car finance3 Personal loans3 Equipment and asset finance3 Business and commercial3 Development and private lending3 $10m+ Portfolio Review3

Showing all 36 scenarios, in 12 categories.

Home loans

Hypothetical positions with rounded figures, written for the page.

Illustrative scenario

A refinance where the saving does not clear the cost

Borrower: Salaried couple, one loan
Loan balance: ~$420,000
Years left on the term: ~24
Fixed period: Ends in 7 months
Rate difference found on the market: About 0.35 of a percentage point
Discharge, application and valuation costs: ~$1,100
Break cost if they moved today: Quoted by the lender, not estimated here
Time to recover the switching cost from the rate alone: About 9 months, before any break cost

The saving is real and the costs are also real, and on this loan the costs eat most of the first year of it. The useful answer is to ask the current lender for a rate review now, which costs nothing and often closes most of the gap, and to reassess at the end of the fixed period when there is no break cost to pay. We put the date in the diary and come back to it. A refinance that pays for itself in the tenth month is a worse outcome than a phone call that pays for itself immediately.

Illustrative scenario

A fixed rate ending, and what happens if nothing is done

Borrower: Salaried, one owner-occupied loan
Loan balance: ~$610,000
Fixed period: Ends within 3 months
What happens automatically: The loan reverts to the lender's variable rate for existing borrowers
Option A: Do nothing and accept the revert rate
Option B: Ask the current lender to reprice, which needs no application
Option C: Refinance, which needs a full application and costs time
What decides between them: The gap between the revert rate and what the same lender will offer to keep the loan

The revert rate is not a penalty and it is not a secret; it is simply the rate the loan falls to when nobody asks for anything else. Most of the value in this decision is captured by asking, and asking costs one call and no application. We do that first, and only look at moving if the answer is poor. The date the fixed period ends is the only thing that needs to be in a diary.

Illustrative scenario

Upsizing, and whether to buy before selling

Borrower: Family, one owner-occupied loan
Current home value: ~$1.15m
Current loan: ~$430,000
Next purchase: ~$1.6m
Buy first: Needs bridging or a longer settlement, and the lender assesses both loans
Sell first: Needs somewhere to live in between, and removes the bridging cost
What the lender tests either way: Servicing on the end debt, not the peak debt, where the sale is contracted
Deposit available without selling: ~$190,000, from savings and available equity

The choice is usually decided by the family rather than the lender, and the lender's job is to make the chosen order possible rather than to choose. Bridging is assessed on what the debt will be once the first property sells, so a contracted sale changes the assessment more than any other single fact. Where the sale is not contracted, the assessment is harsher and the case for selling first is stronger. We set out both before anyone commits to an auction date.

Illustrative scenarios. Figures are hypothetical and rounded. These are not client results, approvals, quotes or promises. Rates are not quoted; where a rate matters, the reader brings their own. Finance remains subject to lender assessment, valuation, documentation and applicable law.

First home buyers

Hypothetical position with rounded figures, written for the page.

Illustrative scenario

Established unit under the duty threshold, 5% deposit

Buyers: Couple, both salaried
Purchase price: ~$590,000
Savings: ~$35,000
Deposit at 5%: ~$29,500
Left from those savings before buying costs: ~$5,500
Scheme: 5% Deposit Scheme, subject to the price cap for the location
LMI: Not payable
Transfer duty: Nil, under $600,000
Registration fees and costs: Conveyancing, inspections and registration still to be met, and a cash buffer beyond them
Outcome considered: Purchase with the deposit held

The scheme removes lenders mortgage insurance; the state removes the duty under $600,000. The lender still assesses the full loan at its assessment rate. A small deposit can make a purchase worth exploring; it does not establish that the price is affordable, and $5,500 does not go far against conveyancing, inspections, registration and an owners corporation. The work is choosing a participating lender whose policy suits two salaried incomes and a unit of this age.

Illustrative scenario

New townhouse with Help to Buy and the grant

Buyer: Single, salaried, under the income cap
Purchase price: ~$720,000, new
Deposit saved: ~$20,000 (about 3%)
Help to Buy share: Up to 40%, new home
Loan required: The balance after deposit and share
First Home Owner Grant: $10,000, new home under $750,000
Transfer duty: Concession applied, between $600,000 and $750,000
Outcome considered: Serviceable loan on one income

The government share is repaid on sale or bought out over time, and places are limited. The grant and the duty concession are applied through the lender at settlement where it is an approved agent. Whether the buyer's income services the remaining loan at the assessment rate is the question the lender answers.

Illustrative scenario

A parent guarantee instead of lenders mortgage insurance

Buyers: Couple, both salaried
Purchase price: ~$780,000, established house
Deposit saved: ~10%
Guarantee: Parents' home secures a limited amount, about 15% of the price
LMI: Not payable, the loan is under 80% against both securities
Transfer duty: Full duty, over the $750,000 concession limit
Guarantee release: Reviewed when the loan falls to 80% of the home on its own; release needs the lender's agreement and a valuation
Outcome considered: Purchase now, guarantee released later

The guarantee is limited to a stated amount, and the parents are taking a real risk for that amount: a guarantor can lose money if the borrower does not pay. Lenders require them to get independent advice before they sign. Release is a review at a point, not a date, and it depends on the lender and the valuation at the time. It is worth comparing eligible government support, or paying lenders mortgage insurance, before putting a parent’s home behind the loan.

Illustrative scenarios. Figures are hypothetical and rounded and reflect scheme rules verified on 7 September 2026. These are not client results, approvals, quotes or promises. Scheme eligibility is confirmed by the lender and the scheme administrator. Finance remains subject to lender assessment, valuation, documentation and applicable law.

Investment property loans

Hypothetical position with rounded figures, written for the page.

Illustrative scenario

A first investment unit funded from home equity

Investor: Couple, two salaries
Home value: ~$1.2m
Home loan: ~$520,000
Headroom at 80% of the home: ~$440,000, which is the ceiling, not the amount drawn
Unit purchase: ~$650,000
Deposit and costs actually needed: ~$130,000 plus buying costs
Rent counted: ~75% of gross
Structure considered: Separate securities, no cross-collateralisation
Outcome considered: Investment debt clearly identified

The useful question is how much borrowing fits the purchase and the household budget, not how much equity could theoretically be released. The equity facility is written as its own loan and is still secured against the home. Either property can usually be sold or refinanced on its own later, subject to the lender’s consent and the position at the time, and the investment borrowing is identifiable for the accountant from day one. Tax treatment follows actual use and is for the accountant.

Illustrative scenario

A third property against the debt to income limit

Investor: Salaried, two properties held
Total debt after purchase: ~$2.4m
Verified gross income, before serviceability shading: ~$380,000
Debt to income: ~6.3 times
Lender A: No allocation available at six times or more this quarter
Lender B: Allocation available; serviceability passes with rent shaded at 80%
Structure considered: Third lender, own security
Outcome considered: Purchase funded, buffer kept

From 1 February 2026 each APRA-regulated ADI may write at most 20% of its new mortgage lending at a debt to income ratio of six or more, measured separately for investor lending. The ratio is total debt against verified gross income before serviceability shading, so rental shading does not move it; shading decides serviceability, which is a separate test. A borrower near the line is not refused everywhere; the lender with allocation available, and a serviceability calculation that passes, is the one to approach.

Illustrative scenario

Two interest-only periods ending in the same year

Investor: Salaried, two units held
Loans: ~$1.1m combined, both interest-only, periods ending within months
Rents: ~$62,000 a year combined
If nothing is done: Both revert to principal and interest over the years left
Option A: Renew interest-only with the current lender, if policy allows
Option B: Refinance one loan to a new lender, reset the term
Assessed on: Principal and interest over the remaining term, whatever the label
Outcome considered: One loan reset, one moved to principal and interest

Every lender assesses an interest-only loan as if it were principal and interest over the years that remain after the interest-only period, so a shorter remaining term is what makes the repayment jump. Resetting the term is often the larger lever.

Illustrative scenarios. Figures are hypothetical and rounded. These are not client results, approvals, quotes or promises. Tax treatment depends on your circumstances and is a matter for your accountant. Finance remains subject to lender assessment, valuation, documentation and applicable law.

Medical professionals

Hypothetical position with rounded figures, written for the page.

Illustrative scenario

First home for a registrar with a rotation income

Position: Second-year registrar, salaried
Overtime and on-call history: 12 months
Purchase price: ~$950,000
Deposit available: ~10%
Standard treatment: LMI at 90% LVR
Medical policy treatment: LMI reduced or waived, some lenders
Income counted: Base plus a share of overtime
Outcome considered: Less cash at settlement

Whether lenders’ mortgage insurance is reduced or waived depends on the profession list, registration and lender policy at the time. The saving is real where it applies; it is not a discount on the assessment.

Illustrative scenario

Buying into a practice while keeping the home separate

Position: Specialist, seven years in practice
Buying: A one-third share
Purchase price of the share: ~$600,000
Practice earnings: Consistent, three years
Home offered as security: No
Structure considered: Practice loan on the practice entity
Equipment: Separate asset finance
Outcome considered: Home stays clear

Some lenders ask for property security by default. One of the things we assess is whether the practice can carry the facility on its own. Where it can, we structure the application that way and say so to the lender.

Illustrative scenario

An investment property at 90% with no lenders mortgage insurance

Position: Specialist, six years in private practice
Purchase: Investment apartment, ~$1.4m
Deposit: ~10%, home not offered as security
Standard treatment: LMI on the full loan at 90%
Medical policy treatment: LMI waived to 90% with some lenders, profession list applies
Rent counted: ~80% of gross
Structure considered: Own security, separate loan, no cross-collateralisation
Outcome considered: Purchase without the premium or the home

The waiver applies to the profession and the registration, not to the purpose, so it is available on an investment purchase with the lenders that offer it. The assessment is unchanged; the cash at settlement is what changes.

Illustrative scenarios. Figures are hypothetical and rounded. These are not client results, approvals, quotes or promises. Lender policies for medical professions vary and change; eligibility is confirmed with the lender before anything is lodged. Finance remains subject to lender assessment, valuation, documentation and applicable law.

Self-employed and low doc

Hypothetical position with rounded figures, written for the page.

Illustrative scenario

Two years of returns, read three ways

Position: Electrical contractor, company, six years trading
Year one net profit plus salary: ~$145,000
Year two: ~$190,000
Add-backs available: Depreciation, one-off vehicle cost
Lender A reads: Average of two years
Lender B reads: Latest year, growth capped
Lender C reads: Lower year only
Outcome considered: Lender chosen after the map

The difference between the readings is not a trick; each lender has a policy and applies it. The work is knowing which policy suits the position before the application is written, so it is written once.

Illustrative scenario

Refinance with the financials not yet prepared

Position: Café owner, sole trader, four years trading
Home loan to refinance: ~$620,000
Property value: ~$1.05m
Financial year: Not yet closed
Evidence: 12 months of BAS, bank statements
Accountant confirmation: Available
Loan to value: ~59%
Outcome considered: Alternative-doc facility, some lenders

Alternative-documentation lending exists for exactly this position and is useful. It narrows the lenders and can change the cost; it does not remove the assessment. Where the full financials will be ready within months, waiting can be the better answer, and we say so.

Illustrative scenario

A director who leaves most of the profit in the company

Position: Director and sole shareholder, company, nine years trading
Company profit before the director's salary: ~$320,000
Salary drawn: ~$120,000
Retained in the company: ~$200,000
Lender A reads: Salary only, the retained profit does not count
Lender B reads: Salary plus the retained profit, because the director owns it all
Purchase: Home, ~$1.5m, 20% deposit
Outcome considered: The lender whose policy reads the accounts

It is the same money on the same accounts. The figures are stated before the director’s salary, so salary and retained profit together are the $320,000 and are not added twice. What differs is whether a lender’s policy attributes retained company profit to a sole shareholder, and that decides the borrowing capacity before anything else is looked at. The accountant’s reconciliation, and whether the profit is sustainable, come first.

Illustrative scenarios. Figures are hypothetical and rounded. These are not client results, approvals, quotes or promises. Lender policies for self-employed and low-documentation lending vary and change. Finance remains subject to lender assessment, valuation, documentation and applicable law.

SMSF lending

Hypothetical position with rounded figures, written for the page.

Illustrative scenario

A fund with an existing loan, and a rule change in the background

Position: The fund holds a property under an existing limited recourse borrowing arrangement
What prompted the question: Reported changes to what new SMSF borrowing can be used for
What the trustees want to know: Whether a refinance is possible, and on what terms
What the fund’s advisers confirm: When the arrangement was entered, and what the rules in force say applies to it
What we confirm with lenders: Which lenders will refinance an existing arrangement, and what evidence they ask for
What we do not do: Give the legal answer, or assume one. Nothing is lodged before the fund’s advisers have put their position in writing
Outcome considered: A documented position first, then the lending

This area changed recently and the detail of how a particular arrangement is treated is a question for the fund’s own advisers, not for a broker and not for a website. So this page does not state what the rules say. It states the order of work: the advisers settle the fund’s position in writing, and we arrange the lending once that is settled. Where a fund is buying premises its own business occupies, that is business real property, which is the kind of purchase the reported change keeps rather than removes.

Illustrative scenario

Premises bought by the fund and leased to the members’ business

Fund balance: ~$900,000
Premises purchase price: ~$1.1m
Deposit from the fund: ~35%
Tenant: The members’ trading business
Lease: Market rent, written, arm’s length
Business rent cover: Assessed on the business’s accounts
Guarantees: Members personally
Outcome considered: Commercial lender, commercial terms

Business real property leased to a related party is permitted in defined circumstances under the superannuation rules. The lease, the rent and the valuation must all be at arm’s length, and the fund’s advisers confirm the strategy before we arrange the lending.

Illustrative scenario

A fund that would be left with too little cash after settlement

Fund balance: ~$520,000, mostly cash and shares
Premises: Business real property, ~$600,000
Deposit and costs from the fund: ~40%, about $240,000
Lender's liquidity rule: Cash or listed assets after settlement of at least 10% of the property value, about $60,000
Position after settlement: About $280,000 remains, which clears that rule but leaves the fund thin for repayments, pensions and a vacancy
Option A: A smaller premises, or a larger deposit from contributions within the caps
Option B: Members contribute over time, purchase deferred
Outcome considered: A purchase the fund can carry, not the one first proposed

The 10% figure is one lender’s policy, not the law, and clearing it is not the same as being comfortable. A fund still has to meet repayments, pay any pensions and carry a vacancy without selling the property. Whether contributions can rebuild the buffer, and by when, is a question for the fund’s advisers before a lender is approached.

Illustrative scenarios. Figures are hypothetical and rounded. These are not client results, approvals, quotes or promises. SMSF lending is subject to the lender’s policy, the fund’s trust deed, the superannuation rules and advice from the fund’s own advisers. Finance remains subject to lender assessment, valuation, documentation and applicable law.

Car finance

Hypothetical position with rounded figures, written for the page.

Illustrative scenario

A family car with a dealer offer on the table

Buyer: Couple, two salaries
Vehicle: New SUV, ~$62,000
Dealer offer: Low rate, fixed price, balloon
Alternative: Secured car loan, negotiated price
Compared on: Total cost over five years
Balloon: Avoided
Home loan top-up: Considered, longer term
Outcome considered: The lower total cost, in writing

A manufacturer rate is often real and sometimes recovered in the drive-away price. Putting the two offers side by side on total cost, with the price negotiated separately from the finance, is the whole comparison.

Illustrative scenario

A ute for a sole trader, mostly business use

Buyer: Electrician, sole trader, three years trading
Vehicle: Dual-cab ute, ~$78,000 incl. GST
Business use: ~90%
Structure considered: Chattel mortgage
GST: Claimed on the purchase, accountant to confirm
Term: Five years, balloon set to resale
Documents: Low doc on ABN, GST and bank statements
Outcome considered: Deductible interest and depreciation

A chattel mortgage suits a business that owns its vehicles and claims GST on the cash basis. Whether that is this business is the accountant's call; ours is the lender, the term and the balloon against the vehicle's working life.

Illustrative scenario

A four-year-old car from a private seller

Buyer: Salaried, first car loan
Vehicle: Four-year-old hatchback, ~$34,000, private sale
Lender requirements: PPSR check, inspection, proof of the seller's title
Structure considered: Secured car loan, the car as security
Rate: Higher than dealer-new, lower than unsecured
Term: Five years, no balloon
Payment: Direct to the seller at settlement, never in cash
Outcome considered: The cheaper car, financed properly

A private sale removes the dealer's margin and adds the checks a dealer would have done. The lender does them before it pays, and it pays the seller, which is the protection for both sides.

Personal loans

Hypothetical position with rounded figures, written for the page.

Illustrative scenario

Three cards into one loan with an end date

Borrower: Salaried, renting
Debts: Three cards, ~$28,000 combined
Current position: Minimum payments, balances flat
Structure considered: Unsecured consolidation loan
Term: Four years
Cards: Closed at settlement
Home loan: None available
Outcome considered: One repayment, a finish date

The saving is in the rate and the end date. It survives only if the cards close, which the lender may require and which we build into the settlement.

Illustrative scenario

A kitchen renovation with a home loan in place

Borrowers: Couple, owner-occupiers
Quote: ~$45,000
Home loan: Variable, equity available
Option A: Personal loan, five years
Option B: Top-up split, repaid over five years
Compared on: Total interest and fees
Also checked: Offset balance, redraw
Outcome considered: The lower total cost, with the debt kept short

A top-up is usually cheaper per year and dearer over 30 years. Kept in a separate split and repaid over the life of the renovation, it keeps the saving. That comparison is the review.

Illustrative scenario

A wedding and a car in the same year: one loan or two

Borrower: Salaried, renting
Wedding costs: ~$25,000
Car: ~$30,000, new
Option A: One unsecured loan, ~$55,000
Option B: Secured car loan for the car, smaller personal loan for the rest
Compared on: Total interest, and what happens if one is repaid early
Term: Five years on the car, three on the rest
Outcome considered: The debt matched to the asset

A loan secured by the car is cheaper than the same money unsecured, which is why the car sits on its own loan. A wedding is not something a lender can take security over, so it is funded separately and over a shorter term. The comparison that matters is the total cost over the time you actually intend to take, not the monthly payment: the lowest payment is usually the longest term and the most interest.

Illustrative scenarios. Figures are hypothetical and rounded. These are not client results, approvals, quotes or promises. Finance remains subject to lender assessment, responsible lending obligations, documentation and applicable law.

Equipment and asset finance

Hypothetical position with rounded figures, written for the page.

Illustrative scenario

A second truck for a growing transport business

Business: Transport, four years trading, GST registered
Asset: New rigid truck, ~$240,000 incl. GST
Existing finance: One truck, clean conduct
Documents: Low doc: ABN, GST, bank statements
Structure considered: Chattel mortgage
Term: Five years, balloon set to resale
Property security: Not required
Outcome considered: The truck carries itself

A standard asset from a dealer for a business with a clean record on its first facility is where low doc asset finance does its job. The balloon is set to what the truck will be worth, not to what makes the repayment look small.

Illustrative scenario

Fit-out and equipment for a new dental practice

Business: Dentist, new practice, existing income
Equipment: Chairs and imaging, ~$320,000
Fit-out: Cabinetry and plumbing, ~$180,000
IT and software: ~$40,000
Equipment structure: Chattel mortgage, seven years
Fit-out structure: Practice loan on the entity
IT structure: Operating lease, three years
Outcome considered: Each asset on its own life

Equipment holds value and can carry itself; fit-out does not and is a practice cost; technology dates and suits a lease. Financing all three on one facility secured by the home would be simpler and worse.

Illustrative scenario

An imported machine with a deposit due before delivery

Business: Precision manufacturer, twelve years trading
Asset: CNC machining centre, ~$480,000, imported
Supplier terms: 30% on order, balance on delivery, sixteen weeks
Structure considered: Chattel mortgage, drawn on delivery
The deposit: Bridged from working capital or a short facility
Term: Seven years, no residual
Property security: Not required
Outcome considered: The machine funded on the day it arrives

Asset finance funds an asset that exists, so a supplier deposit paid months earlier is a working-capital question, not a chattel mortgage question. Settling both on the same plan is the work.

Illustrative scenarios. Figures are hypothetical and rounded. These are not client results, approvals, quotes or promises. Tax and accounting treatment is a matter for your accountant. Finance remains subject to lender assessment, documentation and applicable law.

Business and commercial

Adapted and combined from internal finance briefs, with figures and circumstances changed.

Illustrative scenario

Buying the premises the business already rents

Business: Engineering services, eight years trading, two directors
Premises: The warehouse it rents, offered by the landlord at ~$1.6m
Rent today: ~$95,000 a year, reviewed annually
Deposit: 30%, from retained earnings and director equity
Structure considered: Commercial owner-occupier loan, 70% LVR, 15 years
Ownership: A separate entity, leasing to the trading company at market rent
Interest cover: Assessed on the trading company's accounts, not the rent
Outcome considered: Repayment against rent, on the same page

An owner-occupier commercial loan is assessed on the business that will occupy the building, so the accounts carry the application. Which entity holds the property is the accountant's call; the lender and the term are ours.

Illustrative scenario

Increasing capacity without over-leveraging a commercial portfolio

Commercial property portfolio: ~$46m
Existing property debt: ~$13.4m
Starting LVR: ~29%
Net property income: ~$1.75m a year
Interest cover at the assumed rate: ~2.25 times
Interest cover if the rate rose two points: ~1.67 times
Additional acquisition capacity considered: $6m to $9m

Capacity subject to valuation and servicing, and never presented as an offer or approval. The structural objective is to retain two banking relationships and avoid unnecessary security over unrelated trading businesses.

Illustrative scenario

Property-backed business cash-flow facility

Established service business, turnover: ~$4.8m a year
Temporary working-capital requirement: $500,000
Cause: Customers pay in 45 to 60 days
Property security: ~$2.4m
Existing first mortgage: ~$650,000
Combined debt against security if funded: ~48%

Evidence available: BAS, business bank statements, management accounts, debtor ageing and accountant confirmation. Structures considered: a revolving facility, a commercial line of credit or a property-backed alternative-documentation facility. Low doc is never no assessment.

Illustrative scenarios. Figures and circumstances have been changed and combined from internal finance briefs. These are not client results, approvals, quotes or promises. Finance remains subject to lender assessment, valuation, documentation and applicable law. No business, borrower, lender or valuer is identified.

Development and private lending

Adapted and combined from internal finance briefs, with figures and circumstances changed.

Illustrative scenario

Development funding assessed against GRV and cost

Site value: ~$4.2m
Total development cost: ~$12.5m
Completed value (GRV): ~$16.8m
Facility considered: ~$9.1m
Indicative loan to cost: ~73%
Indicative loan to GRV: ~54%

Planning permit assumed issued. Assessed on borrower equity, cost to complete, contingency, presales, builder experience, valuation and exit. GRV alone does not determine approval.

Illustrative scenario

Urgent short-term development bridge

Unencumbered land: ~$3.6m
Business-purpose requirement: ~$650,000
Term: 6 to 12 months
Indicative starting LVR: ~18%
Intended exit: Senior facility

Funds for planning, consultant and early project costs. Exit by refinance into a senior facility after permits, valuation and cost verification. Assessed on ownership, priority, existing caveats, legal purpose, exit evidence and borrower capacity. No funding-within-days promise is made.

Illustrative scenario

Industrial portfolio refinance with a staged sell-down

Separately titled industrial units: 9
Existing private facility: Expiring
Facility considered: ~$15.2m
Indicative net security cover: ~$27.4m
Gearing against net security: ~55%
Units for sale over the term: 8 over 12 months

Exit based on agreed release prices and multiple settlements rather than one asset sale. Key analysis: security ranking, existing lender payouts, lease position, sale order, release mechanics and downside cover.

$10m+ Portfolio Review

One adapted and combined from internal finance briefs with figures and circumstances changed; two hypothetical positions with rounded figures.

Illustrative scenario

Restructuring a substantial portfolio

Properties: 12
Indicative portfolio value: $18.4m
Existing lending, 9 facilities, 3 lenders: $8.9m
Proposed total facility: $11.9m
Indicative post-transaction LVR: ~65%
0.60 point reduction on the refinanced balance: ~$53,000 a year

Prepared under Dayan Kasturiratna and discussed with you before any application is lodged. Enquiries above $10 million go to Ian Webbe, Mortgage Development Manager.

Illustrative scenario

Nine securities with one lender, one of them needed for sale

Properties, all with the one lender: 9
Indicative portfolio value: $14.2m
Existing lending, 6 facilities, all cross-secured: $7.6m
Property the owner wants to sell: ~$1.6m
Indicative portfolio LVR before: ~54%
Structure considered: Securities separated into stand-alone facilities
Outcome considered: Sale proceeds released to the owner

Cross-securing is not a fault in itself. It becomes one the day a single property has to move, because every loan in the group has an interest in that sale. Separating securities is a refinance rather than a variation, so it is assessed on today’s income, not the income that got the original loans approved. The work is sequencing it so a settlement date is never waiting on a lender’s consent.

Illustrative scenario

One lender holds the whole position and will not go further

Properties, five investment, one home, one commercial: 7
Indicative portfolio value: $11.8m
Existing lending, 6 facilities, 1 lender: $6.9m
Share of the position with that lender: 100%
Next purchase contemplated: ~$1.9m
Structure considered: Two securities moved to a second lender
Indicative lending after the purchase: ~$8.9m, including purchase costs
Indicative portfolio LVR after the purchase: ~65% against $13.7m of property

A lender declining to go further on one borrower is usually a policy limit rather than a view on the file. A second lender can address one lender’s concentration limit. It does not create income, improve security or reduce total debt, so it is not an answer where the constraint is capacity rather than concentration. The commercial security usually sets the pace, because commercial terms and valuations run on a different clock from residential ones.

Illustrative scenarios. One is adapted and combined from internal finance briefs with figures and circumstances changed; the other two are hypothetical positions with rounded figures. None is a client result, approval, quote or promise. Finance remains subject to lender assessment, valuation, documentation and applicable law. Any saving shown is before fees and other costs.

Gearing your future

When the reading raises a question, ask it.

A finance review starts with a conversation and a written position from Dayan Kasturiratna, who provides the credit assistance on every file. No credit check to start.

Start a finance review Call 1300 001 551

The Learn section is general information about lending in Australia. It does not take account of your objectives, financial situation or needs, is not credit assistance, and is not tax, legal or financial advice. Lender policies, government schedules and regulations change; check the current position with the relevant body or with us before relying on it.