Imagine a lender, who is considering forking over hundreds of thousands of dollars, considering all factors when deciding whether to make a loan! We all know that children are free, that raising them for 18 years (or more) places no financial burden on parents. No, it is obviously discrimination to even ponder whether prospective parents can afford to take on a mortgage.

Would you like some cheese to go with that whine, Mr Donovan?

I think it's annoying because clearly this is a factor that only impacts limits women. You can't tell from looking at a man whether he's going to get sued for child support down the road for some baby that he's fathered, and that can definitely impact his ability to stay current on a mortgage. Sure, parenting costs money --- but if you're going to consider that factor, it's a test that should be applied equally to all loan applicants, not just those who possess ovaries.

going through this process now with a pregnant wife, i don't think her pregnancy should be a factor. But the only credit questions we were asked about is monthly rent, credit card bills, alimony or child support.

What about the other monthly bills most people have, groceries, utilities, cell phone bills, insurance bills, gas, cable, daycare possibly.

I don't think that the baby should factor into the application, but the other typical monthly bills that the companies currently ignore should factor in somehow.

Back in the 70's we were turned down for a mortgage because the lender would not consider my income unless I were a teacher or nurse (assuming I could always find a job, I suppose) or I could provide proof that I was sterile. Are we returning to the bad old days?

Another view...yikes. 'Nuff said.

This is politicizing garbage.

Bank is lending the money - they need to look at the entire picture. We now know what happens when they do not.

Such a shame when individuals resort to unborn children as tools to reinflate the housing bubble...

In 1973, when I was 3 months pregnant with our first child, my husband and I met with our real estate agent and lender to buy our first house. The lender asked if we intended to have children in the near future. I said no and never told the lender or our agent that I was already pregnant. We got the house and never had a problem making our mortgage payments. Ten months later, when our real estate agent stopped by for a visit, I proudly showed him our newborn son in his crib. Bah humbug and shame on lenders who mess with mothers-to-be.

So, the next thing they'll ask is whether you intend to get pregnant? Or how about if you engage in any risky activities that could put you on short-term disability?

I understand that having children is a costly proposition and could impact a decision to return to work, but at the same time, one party could just as easily get laid off in this environment or decide to buy an expensive car and have a similar impact on the couple's income. What about pregnant single women looking to buy a home. It's just none of their business and highly discriminatory.

1. If we take away any sort of evaluation for financial solvency, the fact that this test looks squarely at the fertility condition of a woman screams discrimination based on gender.

2. Is anyone really comfortable with a lender looking at what is essentially a health status issue, in deciding whether or not a candidate is qualified for a mortgage?

3. Pregnancy typically isn't a way to scam the system (nor is a woman on maternity leave), and prudent underwriting would recognize this, rather than look at this as a risk factor. The same brains making underwriting decisions that view pregnancy as a risk are the same folks who looked at NINJA and jumbo loans as good things when they thought they could make an easy buck.

From the NYT article:
“If you are not back at work, it’s a huge problem,” [...] “Banks only deal in guaranteed income these days."

There is no such thing as _guaranteed_ income. There is only risk and probability. And I think that a probability that future parents, who have good credit history and significant savings, are also responsible and smart enough to consider the changes (financial and otherwise) that baby will bring.

I am appalled that in this day and age anyone would even imagine that such discrimination is an acceptable practice.

If the banks have to anticipate income for the next 3 years, they cannot fairly single out new or expectant parents because a lot of people could move into that category over that length of time.

But it would not be horrible for us as a society if banks did not normally approve mortgages for which two incomes are necessary. Sometimes (or often) there will be no alternative; when it is expected that two incomes equal twice as much house, that puts a lot of people close to the edge from the very beginning.

Wow, talk about a risky move from a PR standpoint in publicly considering pregnancy as a factor. Sure seems to me that the last thing that someone is going to do with a newborn is default on a loan and get kicked out of their home. Totally understand the lenders in wanting to be careful but Wow. This is similar to lenders not being able to consider age as a factor when giving an older person a 30 year loan when it is more likely than not that they won't live for 30 more years. Interesting dilemma.