The case for further hikes has largely gone.
A month on from the Budget, with many unintended consequences still being debated, it is worth doing what a Budget of this consequence deserves: sitting with it properly and asking what it actually means - for housing, for asset prices, for the broader economy, and for the path of rates.
Our last Issue was written the morning after, when the reform was hours old and the RBA's framing justified market pricing that predicted a path toward 4.75 per cent by year-end, and "higher for longer" as the likely working equilibrium. With four weeks of data and the space to think past the headline, the picture has resolved differently, and the balance of risks has moved.
The short version: the case for further hikes has largely evaporated, the next move in the cash rate is more likely down than up, and it may come earlier than even the most dovish forecasters expect. That sounds like relief. It is not. An earlier cut in this cycle is not the all-clear it would normally be - it is the signal that the damage has arrived. That distinction is the argument of this issue.
What has not changed is the structural read on housing, tax and supply from last month. The shift in the rate outlook reinforces that read rather than rescuing it - and, as we set out below, the most sophisticated capital in the domestic market has spent the past month positioning for exactly the chain of events we described.
Until recently the hawkish case was coherent: above-trend growth, an economy operating beyond capacity, genuine doubt about whether policy was restrictive enough. The Budget landed into that frame, but the data over the last month has steadily drained the case.
The demand side has cooled faster than the May framing assumed. The March quarter national accounts show the economy losing momentum, with underlying household spending growth now annualising closer to 1.5 per cent. Business investment is weak outside data centres. The NAB business survey shows conditions easing through the year and a sharp second-quarter fall in capacity utilisation - a series that has historically been a reasonable lead on the direction of RBA policy. The capacity pressures the Bank was citing as recently as May are dissipating, and quickly.
The labour market has confirmed the drift we flagged last month. The April print, released on 21 May, lifted the unemployment rate to 4.5 per cent. That is not yet a break into the 4.7 to 5.0 per cent band we nominated as the level at which forced selling begins to bite, but the move is in the wrong direction at the wrong moment. The May figure is out on 25th June; if it confirms the trend, the swing variable is moving.
Crucially, the Budget itself belongs on the tightening side of the ledger, and that is clearer now than it was on the night. The reforms to investor housing taxation function as an exogenous tightening of financial conditions independent of the cash rate - and the market has not waited for the 2027 commencement to respond. The mechanism is worth being precise about, because it is doing more work than the headline suggests. Banks have historically grossed up an investor's borrowing capacity by treating the negative-gearing tax benefit as effective income in the servicing calculation. Strip that benefit out for established stock and assessable servicing income falls, which cuts the maximum loan the same borrower can write - regardless of where the cash rate sits. With roughly 40 cents in every dollar of mortgage lending flowing to investors, that is a material contraction in aggregate borrowing power, and it is live now.
Read properly, the Budget did some of the RBA's tightening work for it. A cash rate that looked like it needed to climb in May looks, a month later, like it is already being supplemented by a second instrument the Bank does not control.
The institutional view has moved the same way. As of 9 June, NAB removed its August hike call, now sees 4.35 per cent as the cycle peak, and has brought forward its expected easing. When a Big Four desk that was comfortable with the hawkish path in May reverses inside the month, it reflects the same recalibration the activity data forces.
On the revised balance, two things follow - one we hold with conviction, one with deliberate caution.
We are confident on direction. Further hikes are now the lower-probability outcome; the more likely next move in the cash rate is down, despite current pricing. The combination of cooling demand, a Budget that tightens financial conditions by its own mechanism, and capacity pressures unwinding has removed most of the case for additional tightening.
We are cautious on timing, and the caution cuts both ways. Trimmed mean inflation remains sticky and well above the 2 to 3 per cent band - on both the RBA's and NAB's forecasts, above target into the middle of 2027. As we flagged last month, a Q2 trimmed mean print in the order of 1.0 to 1.1 per cent quarterly would mean relief is some quarters away regardless. The Bank will not cut into above-target core until it is confident the run-rate is heading home. So while cuts may come earlier than the May path implied, "earlier" still likely means a period of rates held where they are first.
There is one risk that could invert this entire view, and it deserves naming rather than burying. The disinflation case rests on demand cooling faster than supply-side price pressure. But monetary policy is the wrong instrument for a supply shock - the Bank cannot pump oil, and further tightening does little against fuel-led inflation. If the Iran situation re-escalates and the Strait of Hormuz risk re-runs the fuel pulse, the RBA faces inflation it cannot cure with rates but is institutionally obliged to respond to. That is the stagflation scenario Deputy Governor Hauser called a "nightmare" - accelerating inflation into weakening growth - and it would force the Bank back toward the hawkish side against a contracting economy. We do not think it is the base case. We do think it is the single largest risk to the direction call above, and a sustained move higher in Brent would be the signal that it is crystallising.
The clearest evidence that this is not a contrarian read sits in the equity market, where the most sophisticated domestic capital has spent the past month positioning for precisely the chain of events described above.
Short positions against the four major banks have doubled in six months to almost $11 billion - the largest bet against the majors since ASIC began collecting the data in 2010, and by dollar value the biggest ever. Commonwealth Bank, just over half the total, and Westpac are the most targeted; reported short interest in CBA and NAB is at its highest of the decade, with both shorted more heavily in the month after the Budget specifically.
What matters for our purposes is not the size of the trade but its thesis, because it is the same one this newsletter has been building. This is not the old offshore "Australian property is a bubble" short that burned its backers for a decade. It is a domestic, near-term earnings call - run by managers including Firetrail, Regal, Sage and Blackwattle - and triggered by the Budget. Firetrail, short all four since mid-April, argues the banks are "priced to perfection" and that housing investment, which has underwritten their credit growth since the pandemic, could halve under the negative-gearing and CGT crackdown. Sage's framing is sharper still: you do not need to call a banking collapse to short an expensive stock with earnings downgrades ahead of it - the Budget is simply the trigger. The mechanism they are pricing is the one we set out: less lending, in lower absolute volume, against stalling asset prices and rising unemployment, feeding into bank earnings later this year.
Regal's portfolio manager put the wealth-effect channel in terms worth quoting directly, because it is the multiplier argument from our last two issues, stated by someone with money on it: if houses lose value, people feel less wealthy, spend less and invest less. The bank short is a leveraged bet on that multiplier running in reverse.
Two caveats keep this honest. First, this remains, historically, the "widowmaker" - shorting the majors has a graveyard of failed attempts behind it, and the supply constraint and high returns on equity that protected the banks before have not vanished. Second, the trade is so far domestically led; Barrenjoey's analysis sees no broad offshore campaign yet, though local managers report the brokers are in New York and Toronto trying to entice one. The signal is not that the banks are about to break. It is that, after a decade of failing, this trade is back at record size on an earnings thesis rather than a bubble thesis - and that tells you how far the risk balance has shifted. When the marginal price-setter in bank equity is a short-seller running the same logic as this newsletter, the reflex that Australian banks simply grind higher is, at the margin, breaking.
Here is the part that matters most for anyone holding or building stock, and the reason the improved rate outlook should not be read as a reprieve.
In a normal cycle, peak-then-cut is the all-clear. Falling rates lift borrowing capacity, ease serviceability stress, draw buyers back, and put a floor under prices. The conventional wisdom that nominal prices rarely fall for long rests substantially on that reflex, and it has worked for two decades. This cycle breaks it, for three reasons set out last month that a lower cash rate does not touch.
The tax shock is rate-insensitive. The restriction of negative gearing to new builds and the replacement of the 50 per cent CGT discount do not become less binding because the cash rate falls. A cut does nothing to restore the after-tax economics of a leveraged, loss-making position in established residential property, and nothing to reverse the cut to investor borrowing capacity that flows from stripping the gearing benefit out of servicing calculations. The redirection of investor capital toward new builds - the one cohort retaining both concessions - persists wherever the cash rate sits. The high-leverage, low-yield play in established stock has been structurally rewritten, not merely repriced, and cheaper money does not rewrite it back.
The feasibility wedge is a cost-and-delivery problem, not a finance-cost problem. The wedge described in Issue 2 - build costs rising 4 to 5.5 per cent into 2026 on top of a 40 per cent increase since 2020, completion times out roughly 40 per cent, a record 3,490 construction insolvencies in FY2024-25 - is a margin and counterparty problem. Lower project-finance rates help at the edges; they do not close a gap driven by tender prices, delivery risk, and an end-buyer borrowing capacity the tax changes have independently cut. The wedge is what locks in the supply scarcity now supporting existing prices, and rate relief barely reaches it.
The transmission now runs through employment, and that is the channel a cut arrives too late to protect. The labour market is the floor under housing and the swing variable for the rest of the year. If the slowing now in train pushes unemployment from 4.5 per cent toward the 4.7 to 5.0 per cent band, forced selling in the leveraged-investor cohort rises - and a cut that comes only after core inflation has rolled over is, by construction, too late to prevent the income shock driving those sales. People in jobs absorb rate pain; people without jobs default. A cutting cycle beginning in 2027 does not help the household that loses its income in 2026.
The cut is the lagging confirmation that things are bad, not the leading cause of recovery. Markets and commentators waiting for the first cut as the signal to re-enter are waiting for the wrong signal.
There is a deeper point underneath all of this that is easy to lose in the rates debate. Prices can stay elevated on input costs alone - we made that case at length last month for construction, where tender prices and delivery risk hold sale prices up regardless of demand. But a high price only matters if someone can pay it. A price the market cannot finance is not a clearing price; it is a stand-off. With investor borrowing capacity cut hard and the buyer pool thinned, the gap between what sellers ask and what the market can transact widens - and that gap is what eventually converts sticky high prices into low volumes and, in the exposed segments, forced repricing.
The same arithmetic is now bearing down on business, and the latest minimum wage decision sharpens it. From 1 July, modern award wages rise 4.75 per cent and the national minimum wage 6 per cent, to $26.44 an hour. The Fair Work Commission was explicit that it held back from a full real-wage catch-up precisely because of restrictive monetary policy and the Middle East "wild card" - it is aware of the bind. But the bind is real and it is two-sided. The increase is inflationary on costs, and it lands hardest on accommodation and food services, retail and health, which together account for two-thirds of award-reliant workers - the thin-margin, discretionary-facing sectors already absorbing the softest sales.
A cafe does not go under because wages rose or because sales fell; it goes under when both happen at once and the margin in between disappears.
And business failure is itself contractionary and disinflationary through the channel that matters most here: lost employment, feeding straight back into the labour market that is the floor under everything else. Higher wage floors in a weakening economy do not just raise costs; they pull forward the failures that turn a soft labour market into a cracking one.
The argument that kept Issue 2 from being a doom note holds, and the shift in the rate outlook does not weaken it. Listings remain below five-year averages across the major capitals. National vacancy near 1.0 per cent has no buffer to absorb a wave of investor exits without rents tightening further. Population growth, while decelerating, still outpaces net additions to stock. None of this moves on a Budget cycle or a rate decision, and all of it takes years to unwind. This is what stops the cycle becoming a 2008-style cleansing event and keeps double-digit national declines an outlier view. A lower cash rate adds a modest demand-side support to that floor - but the floor was already a supply story, not a rates story.
The destination from Issue 2 is broadly intact; what shifts is the rate assumption underneath it. We still see a market bifurcated by geography and segment, with the headline national index a poor guide through 2026: Sydney and Melbourne are in the midst of a likely larger 8-10% nominal decline; Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide most exposed to the tax shock; the labour market the swing variable that decides whether the central scenarios hold or the capital declines extend.
The case for further hikes has largely gone. The next move in the cash rate is more likely down than up - but an earlier cut in this cycle is not the all-clear it would normally be. It is the confirmation that the damage has arrived.
The Budget did the RBA's tightening work for it. The bank short - at record size and run on an earnings thesis, not a bubble thesis - is the market's verdict on what comes next. The labour market is the swing variable that decides whether the transition is orderly or forced. Watch unemployment through year-end: below 4.5 per cent, the system absorbs the shock; above 5 per cent, it does not.
The supply constraint still prevents a generational reset. But a rate cut that arrives only because the economy has weakened is the lagging confirmation, not the leading signal. The first cut will mark the damage, not the recovery.
The focus has not changed - these remain the variables that matter.
The single largest risk to the direction call. A sustained move higher in oil re-runs the fuel-led inflation pulse that monetary policy cannot cure but must respond to, reviving the hawkish path and the stagflation scenario. If this story returns to the front page, the rest of this issue is on watch.
The swing variable, and now more central than ever. The May print is out on 25th June; unemployment holding at or below 4.5 per cent keeps the scenarios intact, a sustained push toward 5 per cent thins the floor under prices and pulls forward forced selling. Watch underemployment and hours worked alongside the headline.
Still the pivot. A quarterly read in the order of 1.0 to 1.1 per cent confirms core is not yet home and that any cut remains some quarters off - the space between "peak is in" and "easing has begun" is where the next two quarters live.
Two things to watch together. Whether the near-term earnings weakness the short-sellers are pricing actually shows up in the majors' results later this year; and whether the one-sided incentive to crystallise gains under the 50 per cent regime before transition concentrates investor selling through late 2026 and the first half of 2027. How those interact with a softening labour market tells you whether the leveraged-investor cohort exits in an orderly way or a forced one.
The Long Game is published by Northcliffe Advisory. This issue reflects analysis as at 10 June 2026 and develops the outlook set out in Issue 2 (13 May 2026). Forecasts attributed to NAB are drawn from NAB Economics and Markets Research, "RBA Watch", 9 June 2026. Details of hedge fund short positioning in the major banks, including fund names and manager commentary, are drawn from The Australian Financial Review, 10 June 2026. This is general commentary, not financial, tax, or investment advice. Readers should consider its appropriateness to their own objectives, financial situation and needs, and seek advice, before acting.
No pitch. Just a conversation about your situation.
enquiries@northcliffeadvisory.comExpert commentary on macro and markets. Delivered when it matters.