Bondi Vet star Dr Kate Adams recounts mortgage broker's OnlyFans remark, fueling debate on finance sexism

In a case that has drawn fresh attention to perceived bias in lending, Bondi Vet Hospital founder and television star Dr Kate Adams says a mortgage broker told her banks would not consider income earned from OnlyFans as valid employment when she applied for a multi‑million‑dollar home loan. Adams, who also appears on The Real Housewives of Sydney, said the broker jumped to a conclusion about her income before learning her identity or credentials, and suggested the loan would be rejected on that basis alone.

Adams had already paid a sizable deposit on the property and was seeking financing for the remainder when she contacted a recommended broker. She said she called the broker without a formal introduction, and after he confirmed interest in helping, the broker paused to deliver the objection that would frame the rest of the conversation. Adams recalled that the broker told her, "The bank will not loan any money to any woman who takes her clothes off on the internet." She then disclosed that she is a doctor and a self-made business owner, not an OnlyFans performer, but the moment highlighted what she described as a broader industry pattern she has long observed.

The exchange, Adams said, led her to question the broader banking system and how women’s work is treated in lending decisions. After the moment of identifying herself, she said the broker’s remarks continued to underscored a mindset she found jarring and demeaning. Her public sharing of the incident aimed to shed light on what she described as persistent misogyny that can permeate financial services, particularly when women’s income comes from nontraditional sources.

The discussion resonated with industry colleagues who weighed in on the role of mortgage brokers in navigating bank policies. Grace Bowe, a mortgage broker with Coastal Home Loans, told the Daily Mail she was not surprised by Adams’s account and described it as part of a broader, gendered tension within the broking field. Bowe characterized the broker’s language as emblematic of a male‑dominated industry that too often patronizes clients instead of advocating on their behalf.

"A broker’s job is to be solution‑oriented, and to be our client’s advocate to the bank to make the compelling case as to why they’d be a good bank client," Bowe said. She noted that while some banks impose restrictions tied to specific industries, income from OnlyFans is still self‑employed income that can count if properly documented in tax returns. She added that the challenge often lies in how banks classify earnings under industry codes, with some codes associated with adult entertainment potentially complicating loan approvals, even if those codes do not reflect the borrower’s broader qualifications or stability.

Adams’s experience has reinforced a broader conversation about how banks assess income from unconventional sources and the degree to which gendered assumptions influence lending decisions. She has described the episode as indicative of a system that can invalidate women’s work and financial independence when it does not fit traditional templates. Adams said she remains proud of her professional achievements—her work as a physician and her role as a business owner—and emphasized that many women earn substantial incomes from a wide range of legitimate ventures, including but not limited to traditional employment.

The incident also drew attention to the responsibilities of mortgage brokers in presenting bank options and managing client expectations. While Adams’s case involved a single broker, supporters argue that the broader industry should ensure fair treatment and consistent application of lending criteria, rather than defaulting to stereotypes about women’s earnings. Some lenders, observers say, can be flexible when income is clearly documented and linked to tax records, though practices vary by institution.

Adams’s public account underscores a persistent tension between modernization in women’s work and the traditional frameworks used by financial institutions. It also spotlights the intersection of entertainment and real estate, as a well-known public figure leverages her platform to advocate for financial equity. For viewers and readers following Culture & Entertainment, the episode illustrates how public figures with media exposure can catalyze discussion beyond a single loan encounter, turning a personal frustration into a broader critique of lending norms.

While Adams has continued to pursue her purchase, her story has prompted other professionals in the industry to reaffirm commitments to fair lending practices. Bowe emphasized that brokers should be advocates, not gatekeepers, and that successful loan outcomes depend on transparent documentation and precise alignment with bank policies. In the wake of the exchange, Adams noted that the debate extends beyond her own case and speaks to wider questions about access to financial independence for women in a rapidly evolving economy. The choice to share her experience publicly reflects a belief that accountability within lending circles can lead to meaningful improvements for borrowers who do not fit conventional career molds.

The conversation around this incident remains ongoing among industry observers, consumer advocates, and audiences who consume culture through television and social media. As Adams continues to balance her roles in medicine and reality television, her account serves as a reminder that entertainment figures are not immune to structural biases and that visibility can drive attention toward policy and practice changes within financial services. The image and the conversation it has sparked underscore the broader cultural moment in which financial access, gender norms, and public profiles intersect in the modern landscape of Culture & Entertainment.