r/AskAnAussieBroker

Hi everyone,

Just wanted to get some opinions on whether buying around the $650k mark is realistic for me in the current market, and what I could improve to make it happen sooner.

I’m a 27-year-old single male working as a Registered Nurse with NSW Health. No dependents. I’d be using the First Home Owner schemes/grants available.

Current situation:

RN income: around $110k/year including overtime

Additional Uber income: roughly $10k–15k/year

Savings for deposit: about $35k

Salary sacrificed around $10k into super this year

Car loan: $1,000/month repayments, about $25k remaining
(Car is also used for Uber driving, but I could refinance to lower repayments if needed)

Credit card: $12k limit, currently owing around $3k

Mainly trying to understand:
Whether banks would realistically lend close to $650k in my position

How much the car loan and credit card limit would affect borrowing power

Whether I should focus on increasing savings first or paying down debt

Any strategies that helped other nurses/first home buyers get approved recently

Happy to hear honest opinions or experiences from brokers or people in similar situations.

Thanks heaps for your time.

Context, 28F, single income 84k, only 25k saved

I’m so sick of paying someone else’s rent and want to get into the market as soon as possible. Feasibly with the 5% deposit scheme and borrowing power I could look at a small apartment or unit 350-450k~
I’m not necessarily concerned about it as an investment more just I want somewhere to live that isn’t paying off someone else’s mortgage, currently renting a two bedroom unit when I feel my money could be better used paying my own mortgage. I’m in Victoria so stamp duty exemption should apply, as this would be my first property and to live in myself. Would also be looking at smaller apartment blocks/units to keep strata fees low. Mostly just looking for general guidance, it really dumb to approach lenders right now with such a little deposit saved? Should I wait longer? Will they even take me seriously?

I have no debt (apart from HELP), I am single, and I am not eligible for first home buyers.

I have recieved two different quotes from two different mortgage brokers. One says I can get a property for $550k, and another says I can get one for $500k. Which one is correct? Do you know why two brokers would have such a large difference

(Hope the first one is correct, I am in Perth and you can't get much for under that)

TL;DR: Offset doesn’t lower your monthly repayments. It reduces the interest charged, which means more of your repayment goes toward the principal. That’s how it saves you money - paying more principal, over time, reduces your loan term, and thus saves you interest.

This isn't just common amongst first home buyers, I also see it amongst more experienced homeowners.

The simple idea it to think of your loan like this... if your loan is $500,000 and you have $50,000 in your offset account, then the bank doesn’t charge interest on $500k - they charge it on $500,000 - $50,000 = $450,000.

Example Scenario

Let’s say your $500k loan is at 5.85% for 30 years, so the monthly repayment is around $2,948.

• Without offset: Interest = $2,417, Principal = $522
• With $50k in offset: Interest = $2,194, Principal = $754

If you're a visual learner - have a look at the below. Yes, I did use ChatGPT for generating this image... but I think it works well enough to explain it.

https://preview.redd.it/qssukwx2tfzg1.png?width=1536&format=png&auto=webp&s=942f53ffd7d8fb8dac936e03a5e0d92616fa181c

As you can see - it's the same repayment… but you’re paying off the loan faster. That extra $232 towards your principal counts as an "extra repayment" and usually goes into redraw. As the redraw grows in size (with consistent extras due to offset benefit) it 'snowballs' and continues to make more of your repayment go towards the principal, not the interest.

So, to be clear - you haven’t changed the repayment, but you have increased how much it actually pays down your loan.

Over a full 30-year term, this $50k in offset (if it stays there) would mean the loan would reach a balance of zero after 24 years and 9 months. This reduction of 5 years and 3 months would mean an interest saving of around $186,871.

With Offset (Package) vs Without Offset (Basic)

Often, lenders will offer a basic loan at a lower rate, something like

• Loan A: 5.85% with offset
• Loan B: 5.75% without offset

So you’re paying 0.10% extra for the offset, but how much money do you need in offset for it to be worth it?

In the above example, Loan A has 5.75% without offset - which means it would have repayments of $2,918/month. $2,396 of this would be interest and $522 of this would be principal. If you chose to give up cash (savings) and pay extra into redraw manually, then you would be getting the benefits.

If you had Loan B instead with 5.85% as your interest rate and $50k in offset - it would mean repayments of $2,948/month. This is $30/month higher. But, the effective interest (due to offset benefits) becomes $2,194 and the effective principal becomes $754. This means you're paying $202 less in interest and $232 more against your principal.

At about $8k of savings in offset, for a $500k loan, you're breaking even on the 0.10% higher rate. If you have more than $8k saved, you're doing better and paying off your loan faster than what the additional offset is costing you.

In simpler terms, offset works best if you:

• Get your income paid into it
• Keep savings sitting there
• Don’t constantly drain it

But if you spend everything each month and keep the balance near zero (or below $8k, in this example) then you’re paying for a feature you’re not using.

Getting fked by NAB atm. 7.76% variable on approx 320k with 24yrs left. (Recently come off fixed)

No offset or redraw.

They offered today 6.7% fixed 1yr.

I am needing to add 30k for renovations, which in total will be 50-60k. I have the cash there for all of it but don't want to use all my money... so thought do a partial cash/loan.

They suggested adding an offset.

I don't really know anything about loans but was always under the impression offsets were not good.

Purchased for $400k. Worth minimum 880k.

Thoughts? What are my options please...

One thing I always try to explain to first home buyers is that there are basically two separate gateways you need to get through.

1. Do you have enough money to complete the purchase?

2. Can you actually afford the loan repayments?

They sound connected, but they are not always the same problem.

You can have great income and strong borrowing capacity, but if you don’t have enough deposit, it still doesn’t work.

You can also have a decent deposit saved, but if your income, debts and expenses don’t support the loan size you need, it also doesn’t work.

This is where people get caught out.

They’ll say something like:

“If I save another $20k, how much more will the bank lend me?”

The annoying answer is usually: not much.

Extra deposit can absolutely help with the first gateway.

It can help with:

• funds to complete
• LMI
• genuine savings
• stamp duty
• grants and concessions
• fitting into things like the First Home Guarantee or Help to Buy

But once you have enough money to complete the purchase you want, that box is basically ticked.

From there, saving more cash doesn’t magically increase what the bank thinks you can afford.

That second gateway is serviceability.

That’s things like:

• income
• debts
• credit card limits
• HECS
• dependants
• living expenses
• employment type
• lender policy
• the lender’s assessment rate

So if your income, debts and expenses mean the bank will only let you borrow $700k, then saving another $20k doesn’t suddenly make the bank lend you $750k.

It just means you have $20k more cash.

That can still be very useful.

More buffer is good.

Lower loan amount is good.

Less stress is good.

But it is not the same thing as increasing your borrowing power.

A simple way to think about it is:

Max purchase price = max borrowing capacity + usable deposit

But you can be limited by either side.

Some buyers are deposit-limited.

Some buyers are servicing-limited.

Some are both.

A lot of the strategy is working out which one is actually stopping you.

If you’re deposit-limited, then schemes, grants, concessions, family guarantees, genuine savings policy and LMI rules matter a lot.

If you’re servicing-limited, then the focus is more on income, debts, credit limits, HECS, dependants, lender choice and how different banks assess your situation.

This is where brokers can be useful, because different lenders don’t all assess things the same way.

One bank might treat your overtime differently.

One bank might be harsher on your living expenses.

One bank might have a better policy for your type of income.

One bank might give you more room on borrowing capacity, while another might have a better rate but not quite get you where you need to go.

So the goal is not just “save more deposit.”

The goal is to work out which gateway is actually blocking you.

General info only, obviously, but this is one of the biggest mindset shifts for first home buyers.

A bigger deposit helps.

But it does not automatically mean the bank will lend you more.

Every broker says they work with self-employed clients all the time, but it still feels like the second someone mentions ABN income the whole process gets ten times harder. Is it actually a massive pain behind the scenes compared to PAYG applicants or is that a bit exaggerated from the outside?

Hi, I'm a first time home buyer and have been talking to a few brokers. But I have a crazy schedule and can only get on emails on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. I've noticed that brokers I've been talking to don't respond to emails on Wednesdays (today). Is there something happening collectively that stops brokers from checking their email on Wednesdays?

Hello just wondering if banks would take us seriously with our current financial situation. We are hoping to buy an apartment in Melb hopefully next year does that look likely?
Income 1: 85k
Income 2: 25k (part time student)
Deposit: 70k
Current debt: HECS debt for both people also but no other debt.
Thank you!

Okay so we purchased our peppery in 2024 and fixed the interest rate for 2 years, we went through a broker who I liked. I then fixed it for 12 months in January, long story short we have the house on the market as we were separated. Now we are considering keeping it and refinancing to do a few things, went to the broker to ask him to assist he said no?? He said we should talk to ANZ about it.
***home loan is with ANZ 436,000
***house “worth” 800,000
***want to refinance for maybe 550,000
Income one - 135k roughy this goes up not down
Income two - self employed part time 50-60k roughly

Hey alI
It has been the talk of the town, and many clients have been asking me about it today, so I thought I'd make a quick post.

Keeping this simple, because there’s already plenty of noise around it.

The main change is that negative gearing is being limited to new builds from 1 July 2027.

That does not mean negative gearing is gone for everyone.

From what’s been announced:

• If you already owned the property before 7:30pm AEST on 12 May 2026, existing arrangements stay in place.
• If you had already signed a contract before that time, but had not settled yet, that also appears to be protected.
• If you buy an established investment property after that point, you may not be able to offset rental losses against wages from 1 July 2027.
• New builds are treated differently, because the government is trying to push investors toward adding housing supply.

So if you signed a contract before Budget night, the negative gearing side appears to be secured for that property.

That means I would not expect this announcement, by itself, to suddenly blow up an ongoing application.

The more interesting bit is what happens next.

Banks have not announced how they will change servicing off the back of this. So right now, we do not know exactly how each lender will treat it.

But I’d be very surprised if this does not eventually flow through to borrowing capacity for investors.

A lot of investor servicing already comes down to rental income, shading, assessment rates, existing debts, buffers and the assumed tax position.

If an established investment property no longer gives the same yearly tax benefit against wages, the after-tax cash flow can look worse.

And if the cash flow looks worse, borrowing capacity can come down.

My guess is lenders will start caring even more about rental yield.

Not just “does the property grow long term?”

More like:

“Does this property actually carry itself well enough under the new rules?”

That’s a different question.

CGT is also changing from 1 July 2027.

The 50% CGT discount is being replaced with a new system based around inflation/indexation and a minimum 30% tax on gains. Existing gains up to 30 June 2027 appear to keep the old treatment, but future gains after that may fall under the new system.

So the short version is:

Negative gearing is more heavily grandfathered. CGT is only partly grandfathered.

That distinction matters.

This is not advice. It is just a quick summary of what has been announced so far.

We still need legislation, ATO guidance and lender policy updates before anyone can be too definitive.

For now, the main thing I’d be watching is this:

Established investment properties probably need to stack up more on rental yield and cash flow than they used to.

There's still a lot unknown about where things will land from a lender policy perspective at this stage. We've been told today, as brokers, that it's business as usual, but I suspect change is on the way.

General info only, obviously.

Corrected: My friend just had their home loan On Hold by the bank because their broker flagged their payslip as AI generated...

it wasnt!!! like what is even happening out there??

has anyone else had a perfectly legit document get rejected like this and how did you deal with it?

Update: Bank approved the loan post income proof submissions. Although, They did not reveal why they marked the document incorrectly as AI generated. So The banks system is not fool proof.

Because of personal+ health issues I have decided to not work full time for the foreseeable future. My income is via a permanent role and is 90 K. I don't see income becoming more than 110 K per year for the next 10 years. I am in my early 40s. Should be able to work for at least next 20 years. No kids or partner. living a frugal simple life.

Current ppor is worth 700 K and fully paid . Have a IP which is rented for $600/ week. It is worth 800k and owing to bank 250k. I have cash of 300 K which can go towards initial deposit.

I would like to buy bigger ppor but that would be in the range of 1.5 million.

Obviously I can't afford it as ppor, if I buy it as a ip and rent for the first 5 years, what's the maximum borrowing I can get ? Provided it will be rented for $900 a week. Eventually I will sell current ppor and IP. What can I do to maximise borrowing and also try and hold on to current properties as long as I can

How much is equity taken into account when looking to get an investment loan?

For reference, I want to buy an investment property for about $650k. I have about $100k left on my PPR mortgage, on a property worth $1.8M. What income level would be required to service this?

70% LVR lend, currently IO with ANZ 6.62%. Gotta be some other lenders more competitive for an oz citizen working in Switzerland - suggestions appreciated.

Hi everyone,

I'm in a position (as a FHB) where I can put down 20% towards an $800k property in the next 12 months.

My serviceability checked out, but I am planning on getting reassessed in the next few months as I aim to change jobs and increase my income.

I'm wondering whether I should take advantage of the 5% deposit scheme and have the rest available in offset if needed, or if I should put down the whole 20%.

What are the pros and cons of putting down 5% versus 20%, if you have 20% available?

Hey all, looking for some advice/opinions as we’re trying to figure out the best strategy to enter the market later this year.

Our situation:

• Couple (F31, M35)
• Household income: ~$196k pre-tax
• Current savings: ~$120k
• Expect to save another ~$20k by end of August (so ~$140k total)
• Super: ~$66k each (this includes FHSS contributions)
• Can withdraw ~$25k each after tax from FHSS (~$50k combined)

Plan:
We’re looking to buy around August/September in Adelaide, ideally a new build under $900k to:

• Access First Home Owner Grant ($15k)
• Get stamp duty exemption (SA)
• Potentially use the 5% deposit scheme (Home Guarantee Scheme)

We’re aware of the property price caps (~$900k in Adelaide) and that we meet eligibility (no income cap issues etc).

The dilemma:

Does it make sense to:
👉 Withdraw the ~$50k from FHSS and boost our deposit
OR
👉 Just use the 5% deposit scheme and leave our super alone?

Things we’re weighing up:

• Our super is already relatively low for our age, so withdrawing FHSS feels like a setback long-term
• But adding FHSS could:
  • Reduce LVR
  • Lower repayments
  • Possibly avoid LMI outside the scheme (or just give more flexibility)
• If we go with 5% scheme, we preserve super but take on a bigger loan

What we’re trying to figure out:

• Is FHSS withdrawal actually worth it in our case?
• Or is using the 5% scheme + keeping super intact the smarter move long-term?
• Has anyone been in a similar position and regretted (or been glad about) using/not using FHSS?

Would really appreciate any thoughts, especially from people who’ve gone through FHSS or bought in Adelaide recently.

Used ChatGPT to tidy this up so it actually makes sense 😅

I used a family guarantee to buy my first place while I was studying, but now that I’ve finished my degree and my income’s improved, I’m keen to refinance and get my parents off the loan; from what I gather it depends on hitting a certain LVR so the bank will drop the guarantee without charging LMI, just not sure what that number actually is in practice or how strict lenders are, so keen to hear from anyone who’s done it recently