Question, page-4

There are a few things at play.

Firstly, regulatory. It hasn't been well communicated, but the agreements are changing form, because of the 3 year debt agreement limitation for those without a house.
There's also the senate enquiry recommendations that came out, limiting the fees a debt management firm can charge. If they're implemented, it means even more uncertainty. That said, FSA are prepared for this, should it eventuate.

In the consumer lending business, the proposed changes to mortgage brokers could have impacted, but it looks like this Hayne recommendation won't go through.

The drag on formal completion of the Westpac financing for personal loans also didn't help. They're putting all their eggs in one basket when it comes to financing the book, so any rejections here are meaningful. Luckily that didn't happen.
Actually, they dropped a nice hint in the most recent report stating they expect to get mezzanine funding for this book sooner. That means FSA only fund 10c per dollar, as opposed to 30. Big difference for returns on equity.

The AASB15 changes means revised profits, because revenue can only be shown when a performance obligation within a contract is met.
However, this does not impact cash flow (the important metric)

Also, cutting the dividend to fund personal loan growth was not well received. If it were me, I'd cut the dividend some more and buyback stock too.

I've probably missed something in there, but that's roughly my take.

edit: worth mentioning the increase in 30 day arrears. Although loss rates are still ridiculously low