ING confirms major clawback change

ING said the move recognises that property sales are ‘often outside a broker’s control’. Indeed, many brokers have reported having their commissions clawed back for the work they had completed when writing a loan because clients had needed to sell the house due to death, divorce, or redundancy, which meant they could no longer afford the repayments or needed to move for personal reasons.

Speaking of the change, Sergio Delvescovo, ING’s national sales manager – broker, said the commission structure changes reflect ING’s commitment to working closely with brokers and continually improving the experience of doing business with the bank.

“Customers may need to sell a property for a range of reasons, including relocation, changes in family circumstances or other significant life events. In these situations, brokers have often done everything right, yet may still be subject to clawbacks,” Delvescovo said.

“We believe our change is a more balanced approach, that doesn’t punish brokers for decisions beyond their control.”

As well as waiving clawbacks for property sales, the bank has also “simplified” its commission model so that there will be a flat 71.5-basis-point upfront commission across all loans – regardless of loan-to-value ratio (LVR) – and trail of 16.5 basis points for the life of the loan.

This removes the bank’s previous LVR-based upfront commission structure.

The bank also said it will increase its maximum loan limits for upfront commission from $2 million to $5 million, enabling brokers to earn upfront commission on more loans.

The new commission model applies to loan applications that settle from 1 August 2026.

Delvescovo said: “We’re committed to being the bank for brokers. Brokers play a vital role in helping Australians achieve their property goals, and these changes reflect the feedback we’ve heard about making it easier to do business with ING.”

The clawback controversy

The industry has long said that clawback structures should be made more equitable, with several lenders having moved to a pro-rata clawback structure in 2023.

However, calls to replace the system had been growing again recently, after the Finance Brokers Association of Australia (FBAA) last week urged the federal government to rein in what it described as unfair and anti‑competitive behaviour by lenders in its submission to Treasury’s June 2026 consultation on unfair trading practices protections for small businesses and franchisees.

The FBAA said that clawbacks were originally intended to prevent brokers from engaging in misconduct, yet noted that many current formulations were now triggered by borrowers’ choices – even when the broker had fully complied with their obligations. It told the government it was time to end anti-competitive and unfair commercial practices.

Noting ING’s incoming clawback policy, the FBAA commended ING for “taking an important step in the right direction”.

FBAA CEO Leo Gagic welcomed the lender’s changes, saying it is a major move that should be followed by all lenders.

He said every step forward that makes it fairer for brokers is a good step, and “if other lenders do what ING has done, it’s a positive start”.

However, he added that he hoped the company would also consider expanding the waiver to include the first 12 months, as “brokers shouldn’t be penalised at all for reasons beyond their control”.

Gagic broadly welcomed ING’s work with brokers, including its commitment that loans offered directly to customers are not at lower rates than those offered to the broking channel.

“Relationships like this are not only beneficial to both brokers and lenders, but to consumers through increased competition, better service and the knowledge that they will end up with the loan that best suits their circumstances,” Gagic said.

“We understand that these can be complex issues but I believe there is room for our industry to discuss these further with lenders.

“The relationship with lenders is important to me and the FBAA, and I want to always be considering ways we can do things better together.”

Many brokers have been demanding the end to clawbacks and the redesign of commissions. Last week, several brokers took to The Adviser website to outline their stance on how clawbacks should be structured, particularly when the loan is discharged for reasons outside of the broker’s control (and outside of the broker’s responsibility).

Some brokers have also taken matters into their own hands. In September 2024, Paula Parola, Western Australia-based finance broker and director of Alorap Creations, petitioned the government to overhaul the clawback regime as a result of the introduction of the best interests duty.

In the petition, which gathered more than 2,000 signatures, Parola said that the current design placed disproportionate strain on small- to medium-sized firms and risked undermining client trust.

The petition demanded three concrete changes, including:

• The immediate cancellation of all pending clawbacks since BID’s inception.

• Refunding clawed-back commissions that had already been collected.

• The government to provide clear transitional guidance to ensure compliant behaviour without retroactive penalties.

It also asked the Treasurer to allow all loan products to be offered by finance brokers to clients and further ensure that brokers were contacted and paid when their client took out any additional lending products.

However, Treasurer Jim Chalmers responded to a broker petition calling for the cancellation of clawbacks, insisting that amending the existing system “raises complexities” and framing the government’s position as a deliberate balance between consumer protection and market stability.

“Broker commissions are ultimately a commercial matter for negotiation between brokers and lenders and, subject to the existing regulatory framework, the government does not prescribe situations in which such arrangements should be entered into,” he said at the time.

“The clawback arrangements entered with each credit provider may vary and have adapted over time, driven by market competitive pressures and a desire by lenders to attract referrals from brokers.”

Charlmers emphasised that clawbacks were a tool to ensure ongoing compliance with the best interest duty and that abrupt cancellations or refunds could undermine deterrence, create confusion, and destabilise regulator expectations.

“Removing clawbacks could lead to adjustments in overall commission structures, potentially reducing the upfront or trailing commissions brokers receive or increasing costs for consumers. Similarly, retrospective refunds would require altering commercial agreements and introduce uncertainty for lenders and brokers,” he said.

[Related: Clawbacks under fire as FBAA slams lender tactics]