Whether or not there is discrimination in the mortgage lending market is one of the most extensively debated issues in the civil rights arena. Because many early studies were flawed and the results misinterpreted on both sides of the debate, there is little agreement as to the next essential steps in either research or enforcement. This comprehensive volume seeks to clarify the debate by including rigorous review of fair lending research, applied projects, and enforcement activities to date, as well as recommendations for research needed to resolve unanswered questions. The intent of the authors is to help the housing industry, regulators, advocates, and the research community to better understand the issue of discrimination in an important area of American life -- the right to take out a mortgage to buy a home based on one's credit worthiness, not on one's race or ethnic group.

An analysis of current findings on mortgage-lending discrimination and suggestions for new procedures to improve its detection. In 2000, homeownership in the United States stood at an all-time high of 67.4 percent, but the homeownership rate was more than 50 percent higher for non-Hispanic whites than for blacks or Hispanics. Homeownership is the most common method for wealth accumulation and is viewed as critical for access to the most desirable communities and most comprehensive public services. Homeownership and mortgage lending are linked, of course, as the vast majority of home purchases are made with the help of a mortgage loan. Barriers to obtaining a mortgage represent obstacles to attaining the American dream of owning one's own home. These barriers take on added urgency when they are related to race or ethnicity. In this book Stephen Ross and John Yinger discuss what has been learned about mortgage-lending discrimination in recent years. They re-analyze existing loan-approval and loan-performance data and devise new tests for detecting discrimination in contemporary mortgage markets. They provide an in-depth review of the 1996 Boston Fed Study and its critics, along with new evidence that the minority-white loan-approval disparities in the Boston data represent discrimination, not variation in underwriting standards that can be justified on business grounds. Their analysis also reveals several major weaknesses in the current fair-lending enforcement system, namely, that it entirely overlooks one of the two main types of discrimination (disparate impact), misses many cases of the other main type (disparate treatment), and insulates some discriminating lenders from investigation. Ross and Yinger devise new procedures to overcome these weaknesses and show how the procedures can also be applied to discrimination in loan-pricing and credit-scoring.

The U.S. home mortgage industry first formalized risk criteria in the 1920s and 1930s to determine which applicants should receive funds. Over the past eighty years, these formulae have become more sophisticated. Guy Stuart demonstrates that the very concepts on which lenders base their decisions reflect a set of social and political values about "who deserves what." Stuart examines the fine line between licit choice and illicit discrimination, arguing that lenders, while eradicating blatantly discriminatory practices, have ignored the racial and economic-class biases that remain encoded in their decision processes. He explains why African Americans and Latinos continue to be at a disadvantage in gaining access to loans: discrimination, he finds, results from the interaction between the way lenders make decisions and the way they shape the social structure of the mortgage and housing markets.Mortgage lenders, Stuart contends, are embedded in and shape a social context that can best be understood in terms of rules, networks, and the production of space. Stuart's history of lenders' risk criteria reveals that they were synthesized from rules of thumb, cultural norms, and untested theories. In addition, his interviews with real estate and lending professionals in the Chicago housing market show us how the criteria are implemented today. Drawing on census and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data for quantitative support, Stuart concludes with concrete policy proposals that take into account the social structure in which lenders make decisions.

Equal treatment in access to credit has long been a fundamental social goal in the United States. However, despite the passage of several laws in the U.S. prohibiting discrimination in the provision of financial services on the basis of race, gender, and marital status, among other factors, questions concerning the existence of racial discrimination in such areas as home mortgage loans and small business credit continue, and confound public policy makers. This book is composed of nine articles and a panel discussion, originally published as a special issue of the Journal of Financial Services Research. These contributions explore the complex issue of discrimination in financial services.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Human Development (HUD) presents the report "What We Know About Mortgage Lending Discrimination in America." The report outlines how discrimination can affect access to mortgage capital for minorities.

LONGLISTED FOR THE 2019 NATIONAL BOOK AWARD FINALIST, 2020 PULITZER PRIZE IN HISTORY By the late 1960s and early 1970s, reeling from a wave of urban uprisings, politicians finally worked to end the practice of redlining. Reasoning that the turbulence could be calmed by turning Black city-dwellers into homeowners, they passed the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, and set about establishing policies to induce mortgage lenders and the real estate industry to treat Black homebuyers equally. The disaster that ensued revealed that racist exclusion had not been eradicated, but rather transmuted into a new phenomenon of predatory inclusion. Race for Profit uncovers how exploitative real estate practices continued well after housing discrimination was banned. The same racist structures and individuals remained intact after redlining's end, and close relationships between regulators and the industry created incentives to ignore improprieties. Meanwhile, new policies meant to encourage low-income homeownership created new methods to exploit Black homeowners. The federal government guaranteed urban mortgages in an attempt to overcome resistance to lending to Black buyers – as if unprofitability, rather than racism, was the cause of housing segregation. Bankers, investors, and real estate agents took advantage of the perverse incentives, targeting the Black women most likely to fail to keep up their home payments and slip into foreclosure, multiplying their profits. As a result, by the end of the 1970s, the nation's first programs to encourage Black homeownership ended with tens of thousands of foreclosures in Black communities across the country. The push to uplift Black homeownership had descended into a goldmine for realtors and mortgage lenders, and a ready-made cudgel for the champions of deregulation to wield against government intervention of any kind. Narrating the story of a sea-change in housing policy and its dire impact on African Americans, Race for Profit reveals how the urban core was transformed into a new frontier of cynical extraction.