Years after the best interests duty commenced, most mortgage brokers genuinely act in their clients' interests — and many still couldn't quickly show an auditor how a given recommendation served those interests. The gap between good conduct and good evidence is where compliance anxiety lives.
What reviewers actually look for
Strip RG 273 to its practical core and a defensible file answers four questions. What did the client need? Documented requirements and objectives in the client's own terms — not just a loan amount. What was considered? A reasonable set of options assessed, including whether products were compared on cost where relevant. Why this one? A recommendation rationale connecting the chosen product's features and pricing to this client's stated needs. Any conflicts? Remuneration, referrer and ownership interests recognised, and the client's interests demonstrably prioritised.
Evidence as a by-product, not a chore
The brokers who find BID light rather than heavy share one habit: the evidence is generated inside the workflow, not reconstructed afterwards. The fact find captures objectives verbatim. The comparison run is saved with the file. The "why this loan" note is written at recommendation time, in two or three honest sentences. Disclosures go out in sequence, automatically. Done this way, a compliant file costs minutes; done retrospectively before an audit, it costs weekends.
The upside nobody mentions
A clean evidence trail is also a service asset. The same comparison and rationale that satisfies a reviewer, presented in client-friendly language, is exactly what makes borrowers feel their broker was thorough — and thoroughness is what gets repeated at barbecues. Compliance and referrals, it turns out, are made of the same material.
General information for brokers only — not legal advice. Refer to ASIC RG 273 and your licensee's compliance framework for current requirements.
Published by the Oxcel Insights Team · 6 August 2026
