iscover 
When Macquarie Bank began rapidly growing last year, I mulled the question of whether or not Macquarie Bank should be called a major bank. At the time, its huge growth in mortgage lending had seen its book grow 10 per cent over the year to March, taking it to $119.3 billion. Since then, its home loan book has grown rapidly again – by a huge 28 per cent – to sit at $153.7 billion as at 30 October 2025 (according to figures from the prudential regulator), while it has grown its total residents assets from $256 billion to $316 billion.
At the time, I was arguing that while Macquarie Bank has been calling itself a major bank for a few years now (and its market capitalisation certainly suggests it is), the main issue it faces in being called that by the general public is its lack of bank branches.
But now, it looks like the prudential regulator may settle the question for everyone – not through branding or market share metrics, but by literally rewriting the rulebook.
As reported by our sister brand The Adviser on Friday, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has unveiled its proposal for a new, three-tier prudential framework.
APRA is currently proposing a top tier for “Most Significant Financial Institutions” (MSFIs), reserved for banks with more than $300 billion in assets. That list currently comprises the four traditional pillars of banking in Australia – CBA, Westpac, NAB, and ANZ – plus one newcomer: Macquarie Bank.
APRA suggests that the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) has $1.34 trillion in total assets, Australia and New Zealand Bank (ANZ) has $1.22 trillion in total assets, Westpac has $1.13 trillion, and National Australia Bank (NAB) has $1.10 trillion. Macquarie Bank, meanwhile, has $379 billion in total assets (around $316 billion in resident assets), according to APRA figures.
On the surface, this might be about proportional regulation and reducing unnecessary red tape. But at its core, the proposal formalises something the market has already known for some time: Macquarie is no longer just an ambitious challenger nibbling at the edges of the majors. It belongs in the same regulatory club.
In other words, the prudential framework may soon have a big five built directly into it.
It’s a striking moment in the evolution of the Australian banking landscape. Macquarie already commands more than 6.4 per cent of the $2.3 trillion Australian mortgage market and has rapidly expanded its deposits and business banking presence. Its home loan book has surged over recent years, outpacing nearly all other non-majors and even challenging the majors on turnaround times and customer satisfaction.
By creating an explicit top regulatory tier – one that acknowledges not just size, but systemic significance – the regulator is effectively bringing Macquarie inside the tent. And unlike market share numbers or branding campaigns, prudential categorisation is not subjective. It is structural. It is official (if the consultation results in this proposal being finalised next year).
Rethinking the lay of the banking landscape
But it’s not just the ‘big five’ that will come into being in the new framework.
APRA is also proposing raising the threshold for a middle tier of significant financial institutions (SFIs), with the threshold raised from $20 billion to $30 billion. This will see some banks (what should we call these banks: middle banks?) drop out of the mid-tier cohort.
For example, currently, AMP, Rabobank, People First Bank, and Newcastle Greater Mutual Bank all have more than $20 billion under assets but – as they don’t have more than $30 billion – they would no longer fall in this category.
While APRA’s new regulatory tiers are intended to make the regulatory framework more proportionate – holding the biggest banks that are the bedrock of the financial system to more oversight and giving smaller players more breathing room – for me, the main takeaway is that it ends a long-running ambiguity.
Macquarie has spent years straddling two worlds: too big to be a challenger, yet not quite recognised as a peer of the majors in the public imagination.
Now – unless Macquarie shrinks dramatically (which is unlikely, given its trajectory) – Australia is on the cusp of something that would once have felt unthinkable: a prudentially recognised big five.
What do you think? Should Macquarie be formally embraced as a major bank – or does a “major” still need to have a branch on your local high street?