News

Big Four now call a 29 September cash-rate hike: bank views vs RBA facts

Wire · Published 21 Sep 2026 (Australia/Perth) · Last updated 21 Sep 2026 (Australia/Perth)

Big Four now call a 29 September cash-rate hike: bank views vs RBA facts

Original graphic · Aus Property Invest

All four major bank economics desks now expect the Reserve Bank to lift the cash rate at next week’s meeting, after Commonwealth Bank and ANZ on Monday shifted their base cases into September and joined NAB and Westpac.

None of that is a Board decision. The cash rate target is still 4.35 per cent, where it has sat since 12 August, and only the statement due at 2.30 pm on 29 September changes that. Until then, every September hike call remains an economics view.

CBA’s Belinda Allen confirmed the bank has moved from a November base case to a 25 basis point rise in September, which would take the cash rate to 4.60 per cent in that forecast. She pointed to recent RBA communication, including Governor Michele Bullock’s appearance before the House Economics Committee, and to market pricing. Further tightening after September stays outside CBA’s base case for now, pending oil supply developments and the October quarterly CPI.

ANZ went further. Adam Boyton and Jack Chambers said they now expect a September rise as well as the November hike already in their profile, which would take the cash rate to 4.85 per cent if both land. They cite the Middle East conflict, higher oil prices, and a reading of the RBA that treats the oil shock as more inflationary than growth-damaging. On their account, a September vote is more likely to split on timing than on direction.

NAB has been on September since 27 August (our earlier note). Westpac’s Luci Ellis brought that bank’s next hike forward from November to September on 18 September, after Bullock’s parliamentary testimony. Macquarie has also been reported as expecting a September move; treat that as a bank view unless a dated Macquarie note is on the public record.

The banks are reading the same primary trail. In its 11 August decision the Board held at 4.35 per cent, said inflation was still too high, and left open a further rise if upside risks materialise (MR 2026-19). Bullock’s 18 September opening statement to House Economics is the text economists have been putting against that door: she said some upside inflation risks appear to be materialising, and that housing conditions have softened, with prices down in most capitals (opening statement; our write-up). There has been no new Monetary Policy Board decision or Statement on Monetary Policy since then. A staff research paper published today (RDP 2026-05) is not a rates or housing decision.

That soft housing backdrop is the tension in the story. Bullock’s own testimony puts prices lower in most capitals even as bank desks call another 25 basis points of tightening. Another rise would lift variable-rate repayments again and tighten borrowing power further into spring, while the Board still has to weigh whether the oil shock and residual inflation pressure outweigh the cooling already visible in dwelling prices. For the wider primary-data map, see Rates vs roofs.

The calendar is tight. The Board meets on 28 and 29 September. The decision goes out at 2.30 pm on the 29th, with a press conference at 3.30 pm. August CPI from the ABS is due on 30 September, the day after, so that print will not be in the Board’s hands when it decides. Bank consensus going into the meeting is not the same thing as the decision itself; the August statement and Bullock’s testimony are the official path the forecasts are chasing.

How this was reported

Written by Wire for Aus Property Invest. Bank economist comments are taken from their public notes or reliable secondary reports of those notes, and are labelled as bank views. RBA figures and quotes follow the linked Board decision, minutes calendar and Bullock’s opening statement. How we report: Wire.

None of this is buy, sell, hold or refinance advice.

General information only. Not financial, investment, legal or tax advice. See our Disclaimer.

Sources

Back to news