Jump to content

Banks find loopholes to deny blacks and Latinos home loans at twice the rate of whites


IvyMgmt
 Share

The last post in this topic was posted 1700 days ago. 

 

We strongly encourage you to start a new post instead of replying to this one.

Recommended Posts

 

 

While the article unwisely excludes the holy trinity of mortgage approvals: Fico Score, Down Payment and DTI, two to one odds of denial is a pretty huge coincidence particularly when the differentiating factor is race. The problem with discarding the presumption of bias under the header "not enough Information" is that people who literally have skin in the game don't have the luxury of shrugging their shoulders at a problem that has long term financial consequences for them.

 

Wanting to know that you're being treated fairly is not entitlement. The article is incomplete but it scratches the surface of something that needs further investigation.

 

Your wish is my command but be prepared for some "inconvenient truths".

 

First off, one needs to know how the lending system works before they make such statements. Almost all underwriting approval and denials of residential Real Estate loans is done with AU, automated underwriting. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,and FHA all use these systems. Hopefully you do not think that computers are discriminating.

 

Additionally, numbers do not lie. The average FICO score of a Black home buyer is 677, the average FICO for Hispanic home buyer is 701, and the average is 734 for Whites. So, Blacks average home buyer FICO is 57 points lower than Whites and Hispanics are 33 points lower.

 

Further, 21.3% of black home buyers have a FICO of less than 620, Hispanics are at 11.2%, and Whites are at 5.4%.

 

The numbers clearly show why the approval numbers are so low for Blacks and Hispanics. 21.3% and 11.2% home buyers with a FICO under 620 is clearly telling as to why the approval numbers are so low for these groups.

 

The author chose to omit these zingers because it does not fit with their intentionally misleading agenda. Please do your research before being tricked or manipulated into the racism trap.

 

 

Twirls hair, tilts head at a flattering angle and bats eyelashes at all the big scary statistics and number thingies. Gosh, let me dust off my thinking cap and see what I can come up with.

 

Did you notice that the African American woman referenced in the article was not declined for FICO, DTI or Down Payment when you based your arguement on FICO, DTI and Down Payment? Did you notice that she did not receive a denial via auto generated computer letter/email when you noted the neutrality of algorthim based decisions?

 

There are alot of inconvenient truth's to go around. Here's a handy one: Noone is above confirmation bias.

 

I look forward to reading more Credit Board discussions defending approval practices this adamantly in future threads.

 

 

Quit weaseling.

 

The title of this thread AND the title of that article is "Banks find loopholes to deny blacks and Latinos home loans at twice the rate of whites". Notice the plurals for Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics? When I responded to your post, you were talking about the original article and and theme of this thread, not one ladies experience from another article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Brokers are mentioned in the article which is why I'm mentioning them here. No need to "splain" the role of mortgage brokers or financial institutions. I got it."

 

Ummm, no, you don't. The mere fact that you insist on talking about back doors shows your glaring ignorance of how the current real estate lending environment works.

 

Further, subprime has been RIP for over a decade now. Trying to validate your current day FNMA/FHLMC/FHA discrimination insinuation by quoting an event from an entirely different time period, about a totally different loan product that does not even exist any more, is nonsense, like everything else you have stated. This is just more weaseling by you.

 

Any rational human being after seeing the statistics I posted would clearly see why Blacks and hispanics would be declined at a much higher rate than Whites. It is not even disputable in any way whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am surprised no one, including myself, caught this "Inconvenient truth" earlier. From the article itself:

 

"Petworth is perhaps a prime example of the way gentrification and rapid demographic change are shifting the housing landscape in DC. In an area where upwardly-mobile, white newcomers are entering the housing market..."

 

Bingo. So, this is an area of gentrification. Affluent whites come to into these neighborhoods as stated in the article. So we know this "cherry picked" group of whites is not representative to the general white population in the following ways:

 

1. There is strong positive correlation between income and credit scores. Therefore, this "cherry picked" group of affluent whites have an even larger FICO disparity over Blacks and Hispanics than the numbers I previously listed.

2. This "cherry picked" group of whites also have substantially higher income as well.

 

3. Affluent people also have more liquid assets, therefore the "cherry picked" whites downpayments were larger, potentially vastly larger.

 

Allkindabroke's "holy trinity of mortgage approvals" laid out right in front of him/her. I can't wait for the nonsensical responses. This manipulating article seems to be at least partially written for anti-gentrification agendas in addition to the more obvious general racial agitation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those looking for race will always find something they feel justifies their claim. This article tried to do that but fails miserably. Qualified applicants are qualified, regardless of color and unqualified applicants are poor risks, again regardless of color.

 

These articles almost ALWAYS fail to provide information that suggest the profiled applicants were, in fact, qualified for a long-term debt instrument. Instead they almost ALWAYS try to point to approval numbers while tossing out every single other factor that is actually relevant to a decisioning process by prudent lenders.

The bolded is a curious statement considering we are posting in a forum that tracks back door numbers for people to talk their way into becoming qualified candidates after a denial. If qualified/unqualified is qualified/unqualified regardless, then how does a phone call change an unqualified applicant on paper into a qualified one via conversation? The answer is that room for bias is built into the credit system whether it happens through the front door or the back door.

 

I appreciate those backdoor numbers, at times my phone sex voice has changed hearts, minds and my credit line when my Fico Score couldn't.

1) anybody who calls a 'back door' is typically offering additional information that was not available to an automated decisioning process

2) there is nothing in your statement that shows that the use of discretion by an executive in that scenario is any sort of indicator of bias.

3) Room for the use of discretion is NOT the same as what you label as 'room for bias'

4) A person who is not qualified for a mortgage is not qualified...that they were a minority does not change this reality given that there are plenty of 'minorities' who ARE qualified and are in homes that their responsible financial management has allowed them to meet the criteria to obtain. Similarly, a white applicant who lacks the resources is still an applicant who lacks the resources to be qualified. As long as banks continue to heed the lesson learned with the nonsense such as NINJA loans, then we might continue to see mortgages only going to those who really CAN afford the monthly nut AND everything else that comes with the responsible home ownership elements.

1. The computer automated decision process is what is being deferred to in this thread as the foundation of neutrality. As I have been told in this thread "Numbers don't lie" so if you were unqualified before the phone call then it stands to reason that short of a typo there's no algorithm related reason to make the "truth teller" numbers work.

 

2. Stalemate. There's nothing in my statement that the discretion by an executive in that scenario is not an indicator of bias. Only the executive in the scenario can cofirm and he or she is not talking and even if the no brainer incentive is self preservation.

 

3. Of course the use of discretion opens itself to room for bias. Many have chosen to ignore the posts of Marv Bear and a few others because they acknowledges the existence of racism in lending but I'm not one of them.

 

4. Repeating what I said in the other post, the applicant used as an example in the article was not initially denied for FICO, DTI or Down Payment. People are so used to their own confirmation bias that they can't, won't or don't see it when the situation does not fit their expectation. Do "you" really believe that mortgage companies are flooded with applications from minimum wage earning minorities believing they are going to get approved with a 627 FICO score, $5 down payment and $100K debt? Yes, I am sure that there are many unqualified borrowers of all races.

 

The point of interest that this article sparked in me is whether there is a racial bias with qualified borrowers? It is not an inappropriate or unimportant questions.

Carry your agenda elsewhere. I have no interest in further discussions that have their basis in race baiting and fake news.

 

However, as to #4...considering that I had a client who actually was one of the people 'verifying' fake jobs and incomes during the boom, yes there were people in precisely that scenario...and that $5 you reference was five bucks more than many put down on the NINJA loans that ALSO existed in that era. People of ALL races seem to believe there is an entitlement to home ownership. Just look at the incessant whining from the Left Coast.

My agenda is comfortable exactly where it is, therefore, your request much like mortgage applications to the minorities in the article is denied.

There is government regulation of FICO scoring models and minimum scores for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac compliant mortgages.

 

Those regulations do not exist for CCs.

 

Nobody is calling a backdoor number to bypass those requirements for a mortgage.

 

Ahh, I see the decade(s) long underwriting practices leading up to the subprime mortgage crisis of the previous decade was a mass hallucination. No backdoor action could have possibly happened on "Fanny" Mae and Freddie Mac's watch. Am I the only one who remembers why Countrywide no longer exists? Perhaps borrowers couldn't acces backdoor numbers but brokers certainly did. Or is the DOJ fake news as well?

 

The United States’ complaint also alleges that, as a result of Countrywide’s policies and practices, qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers were placed in subprime loans rather than prime loans even when similarly-qualified non-Hispanic white borrowers were placed in prime loans. The discriminatory placement of borrowers in subprime loans, also known as “steering,” occurred because it was Countrywide’s business practice to allow mortgage brokers and employees to place a loan applicant in a subprime loan even when the applicant qualified for a prime loan . In addition, Countrywide gave mortgage brokers discretion to request exceptions to the underwriting guidelines, and Countrywide’s employees had discretion to grant these exceptions.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/dojcountrywide-settlement-information

 

Brokers are mentioned in the article which is why I'm mentioning them here. No need to "splain" the role of mortgage brokers or financial institutions. I got it.

 

Over ten years on this board and I'm simply amazed at the seemingly unflappable faith in lender infallibility.

 

 

Why are you comparing the laws, rules and regulations of TODAY with 10 years ago? You think NOTHING has changed?

 

You could also easily argue that the lending practices that led to the mortgage debacle 10 years ago were done in the interest of the type of "fairness" you are discussing that instead of being color blind, does the reverse of discrimination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

While the article unwisely excludes the holy trinity of mortgage approvals: Fico Score, Down Payment and DTI, two to one odds of denial is a pretty huge coincidence particularly when the differentiating factor is race. The problem with discarding the presumption of bias under the header "not enough Information" is that people who literally have skin in the game don't have the luxury of shrugging their shoulders at a problem that has long term financial consequences for them.

 

Wanting to know that you're being treated fairly is not entitlement. The article is incomplete but it scratches the surface of something that needs further investigation.

 

Your wish is my command but be prepared for some "inconvenient truths".

 

First off, one needs to know how the lending system works before they make such statements. Almost all underwriting approval and denials of residential Real Estate loans is done with AU, automated underwriting. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,and FHA all use these systems. Hopefully you do not think that computers are discriminating.

 

Additionally, numbers do not lie. The average FICO score of a Black home buyer is 677, the average FICO for Hispanic home buyer is 701, and the average is 734 for Whites. So, Blacks average home buyer FICO is 57 points lower than Whites and Hispanics are 33 points lower.

 

Further, 21.3% of black home buyers have a FICO of less than 620, Hispanics are at 11.2%, and Whites are at 5.4%.

 

The numbers clearly show why the approval numbers are so low for Blacks and Hispanics. 21.3% and 11.2% home buyers with a FICO under 620 is clearly telling as to why the approval numbers are so low for these groups.

 

The author chose to omit these zingers because it does not fit with their intentionally misleading agenda. Please do your research before being tricked or manipulated into the racism trap.

 

 

Twirls hair, tilts head at a flattering angle and bats eyelashes at all the big scary statistics and number thingies. Gosh, let me dust off my thinking cap and see what I can come up with.

 

Did you notice that the African American woman referenced in the article was not declined for FICO, DTI or Down Payment when you based your arguement on FICO, DTI and Down Payment? Did you notice that she did not receive a denial via auto generated computer letter/email when you noted the neutrality of algorthim based decisions?

 

There are alot of inconvenient truth's to go around. Here's a handy one: Noone is above confirmation bias.

 

I look forward to reading more Credit Board discussions defending approval practices this adamantly in future threads.

 

 

Quit weaseling.

 

The title of this thread AND the title of that article is "Banks find loopholes to deny blacks and Latinos home loans at twice the rate of whites". Notice the plurals for Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics? When I responded to your post, you were talking about the original article and and theme of this thread, not one ladies experience from another article.

 

The topic evolved. Keep up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those looking for race will always find something they feel justifies their claim. This article tried to do that but fails miserably. Qualified applicants are qualified, regardless of color and unqualified applicants are poor risks, again regardless of color.

 

These articles almost ALWAYS fail to provide information that suggest the profiled applicants were, in fact, qualified for a long-term debt instrument. Instead they almost ALWAYS try to point to approval numbers while tossing out every single other factor that is actually relevant to a decisioning process by prudent lenders.

The bolded is a curious statement considering we are posting in a forum that tracks back door numbers for people to talk their way into becoming qualified candidates after a denial. If qualified/unqualified is qualified/unqualified regardless, then how does a phone call change an unqualified applicant on paper into a qualified one via conversation? The answer is that room for bias is built into the credit system whether it happens through the front door or the back door.

 

I appreciate those backdoor numbers, at times my phone sex voice has changed hearts, minds and my credit line when my Fico Score couldn't.

1) anybody who calls a 'back door' is typically offering additional information that was not available to an automated decisioning process

2) there is nothing in your statement that shows that the use of discretion by an executive in that scenario is any sort of indicator of bias.

3) Room for the use of discretion is NOT the same as what you label as 'room for bias'

4) A person who is not qualified for a mortgage is not qualified...that they were a minority does not change this reality given that there are plenty of 'minorities' who ARE qualified and are in homes that their responsible financial management has allowed them to meet the criteria to obtain. Similarly, a white applicant who lacks the resources is still an applicant who lacks the resources to be qualified. As long as banks continue to heed the lesson learned with the nonsense such as NINJA loans, then we might continue to see mortgages only going to those who really CAN afford the monthly nut AND everything else that comes with the responsible home ownership elements.

1. The computer automated decision process is what is being deferred to in this thread as the foundation of neutrality. As I have been told in this thread "Numbers don't lie" so if you were unqualified before the phone call then it stands to reason that short of a typo there's no algorithm related reason to make the "truth teller" numbers work.

 

2. Stalemate. There's nothing in my statement that the discretion by an executive in that scenario is not an indicator of bias. Only the executive in the scenario can cofirm and he or she is not talking and even if the no brainer incentive is self preservation.

 

3. Of course the use of discretion opens itself to room for bias. Many have chosen to ignore the posts of Marv Bear and a few others because they acknowledges the existence of racism in lending but I'm not one of them.

 

4. Repeating what I said in the other post, the applicant used as an example in the article was not initially denied for FICO, DTI or Down Payment. People are so used to their own confirmation bias that they can't, won't or don't see it when the situation does not fit their expectation. Do "you" really believe that mortgage companies are flooded with applications from minimum wage earning minorities believing they are going to get approved with a 627 FICO score, $5 down payment and $100K debt? Yes, I am sure that there are many unqualified borrowers of all races.

 

The point of interest that this article sparked in me is whether there is a racial bias with qualified borrowers? It is not an inappropriate or unimportant questions.

Carry your agenda elsewhere. I have no interest in further discussions that have their basis in race baiting and fake news.

 

However, as to #4...considering that I had a client who actually was one of the people 'verifying' fake jobs and incomes during the boom, yes there were people in precisely that scenario...and that $5 you reference was five bucks more than many put down on the NINJA loans that ALSO existed in that era. People of ALL races seem to believe there is an entitlement to home ownership. Just look at the incessant whining from the Left Coast.

My agenda is comfortable exactly where it is, therefore, your request much like mortgage applications to the minorities in the article is denied.

There is government regulation of FICO scoring models and minimum scores for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac compliant mortgages.

 

Those regulations do not exist for CCs.

 

Nobody is calling a backdoor number to bypass those requirements for a mortgage.

 

Ahh, I see the decade(s) long underwriting practices leading up to the subprime mortgage crisis of the previous decade was a mass hallucination. No backdoor action could have possibly happened on "Fanny" Mae and Freddie Mac's watch. Am I the only one who remembers why Countrywide no longer exists? Perhaps borrowers couldn't acces backdoor numbers but brokers certainly did. Or is the DOJ fake news as well?

 

The United States’ complaint also alleges that, as a result of Countrywide’s policies and practices, qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers were placed in subprime loans rather than prime loans even when similarly-qualified non-Hispanic white borrowers were placed in prime loans. The discriminatory placement of borrowers in subprime loans, also known as “steering,” occurred because it was Countrywide’s business practice to allow mortgage brokers and employees to place a loan applicant in a subprime loan even when the applicant qualified for a prime loan . In addition, Countrywide gave mortgage brokers discretion to request exceptions to the underwriting guidelines, and Countrywide’s employees had discretion to grant these exceptions.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/dojcountrywide-settlement-information

 

Brokers are mentioned in the article which is why I'm mentioning them here. No need to "splain" the role of mortgage brokers or financial institutions. I got it.

 

Over ten years on this board and I'm simply amazed at the seemingly unflappable faith in lender infallibility.

 

 

Why are you comparing the laws, rules and regulations of TODAY with 10 years ago? You think NOTHING has changed?

 

You could also easily argue that the lending practices that led to the mortgage debacle 10 years ago were done in the interest of the type of "fairness" you are discussing that instead of being color blind, does the reverse of discrimination.

 

I have highlighted where YOU quoted another poster referencing the "boom years" ask him why he introduced what happened 10 years ago to the discussion and that will have the answer to why I referenced the laws and regulations from that period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Brokers are mentioned in the article which is why I'm mentioning them here. No need to "splain" the role of mortgage brokers or financial institutions. I got it."

 

Ummm, no, you don't. The mere fact that you insist on talking about back doors shows your glaring ignorance of how the current real estate lending environment works.

 

Further, subprime has been RIP for over a decade now. Trying to validate your current day FNMA/FHLMC/FHA discrimination insinuation by quoting an event from an entirely different time period, about a totally different loan product that does not even exist any more, is nonsense, like everything else you have stated. This is just more weaseling by you.

 

Any rational human being after seeing the statistics I posted would clearly see why Blacks and hispanics would be declined at a much higher rate than Whites. It is not even disputable in any way whatsoever.

con·fir·ma·tion bi·as
noun
noun: confirmation bias
  1. the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those looking for race will always find something they feel justifies their claim. This article tried to do that but fails miserably. Qualified applicants are qualified, regardless of color and unqualified applicants are poor risks, again regardless of color.

 

These articles almost ALWAYS fail to provide information that suggest the profiled applicants were, in fact, qualified for a long-term debt instrument. Instead they almost ALWAYS try to point to approval numbers while tossing out every single other factor that is actually relevant to a decisioning process by prudent lenders.

The bolded is a curious statement considering we are posting in a forum that tracks back door numbers for people to talk their way into becoming qualified candidates after a denial. If qualified/unqualified is qualified/unqualified regardless, then how does a phone call change an unqualified applicant on paper into a qualified one via conversation? The answer is that room for bias is built into the credit system whether it happens through the front door or the back door.

 

I appreciate those backdoor numbers, at times my phone sex voice has changed hearts, minds and my credit line when my Fico Score couldn't.

1) anybody who calls a 'back door' is typically offering additional information that was not available to an automated decisioning process

2) there is nothing in your statement that shows that the use of discretion by an executive in that scenario is any sort of indicator of bias.

3) Room for the use of discretion is NOT the same as what you label as 'room for bias'

4) A person who is not qualified for a mortgage is not qualified...that they were a minority does not change this reality given that there are plenty of 'minorities' who ARE qualified and are in homes that their responsible financial management has allowed them to meet the criteria to obtain. Similarly, a white applicant who lacks the resources is still an applicant who lacks the resources to be qualified. As long as banks continue to heed the lesson learned with the nonsense such as NINJA loans, then we might continue to see mortgages only going to those who really CAN afford the monthly nut AND everything else that comes with the responsible home ownership elements.

1. The computer automated decision process is what is being deferred to in this thread as the foundation of neutrality. As I have been told in this thread "Numbers don't lie" so if you were unqualified before the phone call then it stands to reason that short of a typo there's no algorithm related reason to make the "truth teller" numbers work.

 

2. Stalemate. There's nothing in my statement that the discretion by an executive in that scenario is not an indicator of bias. Only the executive in the scenario can cofirm and he or she is not talking and even if the no brainer incentive is self preservation.

 

3. Of course the use of discretion opens itself to room for bias. Many have chosen to ignore the posts of Marv Bear and a few others because they acknowledges the existence of racism in lending but I'm not one of them.

 

4. Repeating what I said in the other post, the applicant used as an example in the article was not initially denied for FICO, DTI or Down Payment. People are so used to their own confirmation bias that they can't, won't or don't see it when the situation does not fit their expectation. Do "you" really believe that mortgage companies are flooded with applications from minimum wage earning minorities believing they are going to get approved with a 627 FICO score, $5 down payment and $100K debt? Yes, I am sure that there are many unqualified borrowers of all races.

 

The point of interest that this article sparked in me is whether there is a racial bias with qualified borrowers? It is not an inappropriate or unimportant questions.

Carry your agenda elsewhere. I have no interest in further discussions that have their basis in race baiting and fake news.

 

However, as to #4...considering that I had a client who actually was one of the people 'verifying' fake jobs and incomes during the boom, yes there were people in precisely that scenario...and that $5 you reference was five bucks more than many put down on the NINJA loans that ALSO existed in that era. People of ALL races seem to believe there is an entitlement to home ownership. Just look at the incessant whining from the Left Coast.

My agenda is comfortable exactly where it is, therefore, your request much like mortgage applications to the minorities in the article is denied.

There is government regulation of FICO scoring models and minimum scores for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac compliant mortgages.

 

Those regulations do not exist for CCs.

 

Nobody is calling a backdoor number to bypass those requirements for a mortgage.

 

Ahh, I see the decade(s) long underwriting practices leading up to the subprime mortgage crisis of the previous decade was a mass hallucination. No backdoor action could have possibly happened on "Fanny" Mae and Freddie Mac's watch. Am I the only one who remembers why Countrywide no longer exists? Perhaps borrowers couldn't acces backdoor numbers but brokers certainly did. Or is the DOJ fake news as well?

 

The United States’ complaint also alleges that, as a result of Countrywide’s policies and practices, qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers were placed in subprime loans rather than prime loans even when similarly-qualified non-Hispanic white borrowers were placed in prime loans. The discriminatory placement of borrowers in subprime loans, also known as “steering,” occurred because it was Countrywide’s business practice to allow mortgage brokers and employees to place a loan applicant in a subprime loan even when the applicant qualified for a prime loan . In addition, Countrywide gave mortgage brokers discretion to request exceptions to the underwriting guidelines, and Countrywide’s employees had discretion to grant these exceptions.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/dojcountrywide-settlement-information

 

Brokers are mentioned in the article which is why I'm mentioning them here. No need to "splain" the role of mortgage brokers or financial institutions. I got it.

 

Over ten years on this board and I'm simply amazed at the seemingly unflappable faith in lender infallibility.

 

 

Why are you comparing the laws, rules and regulations of TODAY with 10 years ago? You think NOTHING has changed?

 

You could also easily argue that the lending practices that led to the mortgage debacle 10 years ago were done in the interest of the type of "fairness" you are discussing that instead of being color blind, does the reverse of discrimination.

 

I have highlighted where YOU quoted another poster referencing the "boom years" ask him why he introduced what happened 10 years ago to the discussion and that will have the answer to why I referenced the laws and regulations from that period.

 

 

There is NO evidence that the discrimination being claimed in the article exists today. Zero, nada, zilch! Provide proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the article unwisely excludes the holy trinity of mortgage approvals: Fico Score, Down Payment and DTI, two to one odds of denial is a pretty huge coincidence particularly when the differentiating factor is race. The problem with discarding the presumption of bias under the header "not enough Information" is that people who literally have skin in the game don't have the luxury of shrugging their shoulders at a problem that has long term financial consequences for them.

 

Wanting to know that you're being treated fairly is not entitlement. The article is incomplete but it scratches the surface of something that needs further investigation.

It's fascinating that such an innocuous post set so many timbers a-shiver. I acknowledged that the article was flawed and that further investigation might clear things up for the people impacted. It's curious that would turn out to be a controversial stance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Ahh, I see the decade(s) long underwriting practices leading up to the subprime mortgage crisis of the previous decade was a mass hallucination. No backdoor action could have possibly happened on "Fanny" Mae and Freddie Mac's watch. Am I the only one who remembers why Countrywide no longer exists? Perhaps borrowers couldn't acces backdoor numbers but brokers certainly did. Or is the DOJ fake news as well?

 

The United States’ complaint also alleges that, as a result of Countrywide’s policies and practices, qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers were placed in subprime loans rather than prime loans even when similarly-qualified non-Hispanic white borrowers were placed in prime loans. The discriminatory placement of borrowers in subprime loans, also known as “steering,” occurred because it was Countrywide’s business practice to allow mortgage brokers and employees to place a loan applicant in a subprime loan even when the applicant qualified for a prime loan . In addition, Countrywide gave mortgage brokers discretion to request exceptions to the underwriting guidelines, and Countrywide’s employees had discretion to grant these exceptions.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/dojcountrywide-settlement-information

 

Brokers are mentioned in the article which is why I'm mentioning them here. No need to "splain" the role of mortgage brokers or financial institutions. I got it.

 

Over ten years on this board and I'm simply amazed at the seemingly unflappable faith in lender infallibility.

 

 

Why are you comparing the laws, rules and regulations of TODAY with 10 years ago? You think NOTHING has changed?

 

You could also easily argue that the lending practices that led to the mortgage debacle 10 years ago were done in the interest of the type of "fairness" you are discussing that instead of being color blind, does the reverse of discrimination.

 

I have highlighted where YOU quoted another poster referencing the "boom years" ask him why he introduced what happened 10 years ago to the discussion and that will have the answer to why I referenced the laws and regulations from that period.

 

 

There is NO evidence that the discrimination being claimed in the article exists today. Zero, nada, zilch! Provide proof.

 

Your proof is below. What is your basis for disagreeing with the Department of Justice?

 

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, May 8, 2018
Justice Department Reaches Settlement with Minnesota Bank to Resolve Allegations of Lending Discrimination

The Justice Department today settled its suit against KleinBank, resolving allegations that the bank engaged in lending discrimination by “redlining” predominantly minority neighborhoods in and around the Twin Cities of Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota. “Redlining” is a term describing the illegal practice in which lenders intentionally avoid providing services to individuals living in predominantly minority neighborhoods because of the race or national origin of the residents of those neighborhoods.

 

As part of the settlement, the parties have agreed to jointly seek dismissal of the lawsuit, which the Department filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota in 2017. The Department’s complaint alleged that KleinBank violated the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which prohibit financial institutions from discriminating on the basis of race and national origin in their mortgage lending services. The lawsuit alleged that, from 2010 to at least 2015, KleinBank engaged in unlawful redlining in the Twin Cities area by intentionally avoiding providing lending services to residents of predominantly minority neighborhoods because of the race or national origin of the people living in those neighborhoods.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-reaches-settlement-minnesota-bank-resolve-allegations-lending

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flawed is an understatement. It is factually incorrect and intentionally misleads readers to support a politically motivated agenda.

As per the warnings at the top of the page, political discussions are not allowed on Creditboards. I was under the impression that this discussion was about discriminatory mortgage lending and have kept my posts related to that topic. If other posters are talking about something else that is not within my control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2015 is not today.

You do know that the article in the OP wasn't written today either, right?

 

Edited to add quote from the referenced article

 

"Between 2015-16, as many as 262 home mortgage loans were awarded to white applicants in Petworth, compared to 21 loans awarded to African American applicants and 29 loans made to Latinos. The racial disparity clearly leans in favor of white residents in this neighborhood, despite the fact that whites make up just 20% of its population."

Edited by Allkindabroke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Ahh, I see the decade(s) long underwriting practices leading up to the subprime mortgage crisis of the previous decade was a mass hallucination. No backdoor action could have possibly happened on "Fanny" Mae and Freddie Mac's watch. Am I the only one who remembers why Countrywide no longer exists? Perhaps borrowers couldn't acces backdoor numbers but brokers certainly did. Or is the DOJ fake news as well?

 

The United States’ complaint also alleges that, as a result of Countrywide’s policies and practices, qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers were placed in subprime loans rather than prime loans even when similarly-qualified non-Hispanic white borrowers were placed in prime loans. The discriminatory placement of borrowers in subprime loans, also known as “steering,” occurred because it was Countrywide’s business practice to allow mortgage brokers and employees to place a loan applicant in a subprime loan even when the applicant qualified for a prime loan . In addition, Countrywide gave mortgage brokers discretion to request exceptions to the underwriting guidelines, and Countrywide’s employees had discretion to grant these exceptions.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/dojcountrywide-settlement-information

 

Brokers are mentioned in the article which is why I'm mentioning them here. No need to "splain" the role of mortgage brokers or financial institutions. I got it.

 

Over ten years on this board and I'm simply amazed at the seemingly unflappable faith in lender infallibility.

 

Why are you comparing the laws, rules and regulations of TODAY with 10 years ago? You think NOTHING has changed?

 

You could also easily argue that the lending practices that led to the mortgage debacle 10 years ago were done in the interest of the type of "fairness" you are discussing that instead of being color blind, does the reverse of discrimination.

I have highlighted where YOU quoted another poster referencing the "boom years" ask him why he introduced what happened 10 years ago to the discussion and that will have the answer to why I referenced the laws and regulations from that period.

There is NO evidence that the discrimination being claimed in the article exists today. Zero, nada, zilch! Provide proof.

Your proof is below. What is your basis for disagreeing with the Department of Justice?

 

 

 

Department of Justice

Office of Public Affairs

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

 

Tuesday, May 8, 2018 Justice Department Reaches Settlement with Minnesota Bank to Resolve Allegations of Lending Discrimination

 

 

 

The Justice Department today settled its suit against KleinBank, resolving allegations that the bank engaged in lending discrimination by “redlining” predominantly minority neighborhoods in and around the Twin Cities of Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota. “Redlining” is a term describing the illegal practice in which lenders intentionally avoid providing services to individuals living in predominantly minority neighborhoods because of the race or national origin of the residents of those neighborhoods.

 

As part of the settlement, the parties have agreed to jointly seek dismissal of the lawsuit, which the Department filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota in 2017. The Department’s complaint alleged that KleinBank violated the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which prohibit financial institutions from discriminating on the basis of race and national origin in their mortgage lending services. The lawsuit alleged that, from 2010 to at least 2015, KleinBank engaged in unlawful redlining in the Twin Cities area by intentionally avoiding providing lending services to residents of predominantly minority neighborhoods because of the race or national origin of the people living in those neighborhoods.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-reaches-settlement-minnesota-bank-resolve-allegations-lending

I said it could happen at some very small banks and CUs but not consistently at the major banks. I lived in the Twin Cities for years and have never heard of KlienBank. It has to be tiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"KleinBank is a Minnesota-based bank owned by Klein Financial, Inc. KleinBank is headquartered in Chaska, Minnesota, which operates 21 bank branches. KleinBank is the largest family-owned state bank in Minnesota with assets over $1.9 billion." - Wikipedia - and while there...

 

Discriminatory Lending Practices[edit]

On January 13, 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against KleinBank for alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act by structuring its home mortgage lending business to avoid serving neighborhoods where a majority of residents were racial and ethnic minorities. The lawsuit asserted that the bank's service area was in a horseshoe shape around the urban areas of Minneapolis and St. Paul (which had higher minority populations) and targeted its mortgage advertising solely toward white neighborhoods. The lawsuit also claimed that from 2010 to 2015, other comparable lenders generated 5.58% of their single-family residential loan applications related to residential property located in the majority-minority census tracks compared to KleinBank's 1.06%. The bank's website at the time indicated that it had 21 branches in suburbs west of Minneapolis and St. Paul and in western Minnesota—regions which, according to census data, were predominantly white.[6]

Irony then reared its head:

  • BBB International Torch Award for Ethics (2015)[9]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the article is not recent, its not relevant.

 

Im still waiting for real evidence of widespread discrimination as claimed in the article.

 

Edit: the example with Klein Bank doesnt prove very much. I dont think they are required to have branches anywhere, and it makes sense to target the areas where you have branches for products like mortgages.

Edited by mendelssohn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2015 is not today.

You do know that the article in the OP wasn't written today either, right?

 

Edited to add quote from the referenced article

 

"Between 2015-16, as many as 262 home mortgage loans were awarded to white applicants in Petworth, compared to 21 loans awarded to African American applicants and 29 loans made to Latinos. The racial disparity clearly leans in favor of white residents in this neighborhood, despite the fact that whites make up just 20% of its population."

That means nothing because it looks at race as the only factor when approving mortgages. What about credit, income, debt to income, work history, etc?

 

As CV reminded us way earlier in this thread, correlation does not mean causation.

Edited by mendelssohn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"Brokers are mentioned in the article which is why I'm mentioning them here. No need to "splain" the role of mortgage brokers or financial institutions. I got it."

 

Ummm, no, you don't. The mere fact that you insist on talking about back doors shows your glaring ignorance of how the current real estate lending environment works.

 

Further, subprime has been RIP for over a decade now. Trying to validate your current day FNMA/FHLMC/FHA discrimination insinuation by quoting an event from an entirely different time period, about a totally different loan product that does not even exist any more, is nonsense, like everything else you have stated. This is just more weaseling by you.

 

Any rational human being after seeing the statistics I posted would clearly see why Blacks and hispanics would be declined at a much higher rate than Whites. It is not even disputable in any way whatsoever.

con·fir·ma·tion bi·as
noun
noun: confirmation bias
  1. the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.

 

 

Ob-tuse

 

1. Lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect.

 

Synonyms: stupid, slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent, ignorant, simpleminded, witless, uncomprehending

 

Used in a sentence: Anyone who fails to comprehend this article is intentionally misleading and manipulative through use of an extreme "cherry picked" dataset is very obtuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

2015 is not today.

You do know that the article in the OP wasn't written today either, right?

 

Edited to add quote from the referenced article

 

"Between 2015-16, as many as 262 home mortgage loans were awarded to white applicants in Petworth, compared to 21 loans awarded to African American applicants and 29 loans made to Latinos. The racial disparity clearly leans in favor of white residents in this neighborhood, despite the fact that whites make up just 20% of its population."

That means nothing because it looks at race as the only factor when approving mortgages. What about credit, income, debt to income, work history, etc?

 

As CV reminded us way earlier in this thread, correlation does not mean causation.

 

There ya go again, trying to force people to look at actual fact. Don't you realize you are harshing on their agenda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

2015 is not today.

You do know that the article in the OP wasn't written today either, right?

 

Edited to add quote from the referenced article

 

"Between 2015-16, as many as 262 home mortgage loans were awarded to white applicants in Petworth, compared to 21 loans awarded to African American applicants and 29 loans made to Latinos. The racial disparity clearly leans in favor of white residents in this neighborhood, despite the fact that whites make up just 20% of its population."

That means nothing because it looks at race as the only factor when approving mortgages. What about credit, income, debt to income, work history, etc?

 

As CV reminded us way earlier in this thread, correlation does not mean causation.

There ya go again, trying to force people to look at actual fact. Don't you realize you are harshing on their agenda?

Many people are guilty of spinning things, trying to fit agendas and narratives, though.

 

 

 

"Brokers are mentioned in the article which is why I'm mentioning them here. No need to "splain" the role of mortgage brokers or financial institutions. I got it."

 

Ummm, no, you don't. The mere fact that you insist on talking about back doors shows your glaring ignorance of how the current real estate lending environment works.

 

Further, subprime has been RIP for over a decade now. Trying to validate your current day FNMA/FHLMC/FHA discrimination insinuation by quoting an event from an entirely different time period, about a totally different loan product that does not even exist any more, is nonsense, like everything else you have stated. This is just more weaseling by you.

 

Any rational human being after seeing the statistics I posted would clearly see why Blacks and hispanics would be declined at a much higher rate than Whites. It is not even disputable in any way whatsoever.

con·fir·ma·tion bi·as

 

 

noun

noun: confirmation bias

  •  

     

     

    the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.

Ob-tuse

 

1. Lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect.

 

Synonyms: stupid, slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent, ignorant, simpleminded, witless, uncomprehending

 

Used in a sentence: Anyone who fails to comprehend this article is intentionally misleading and manipulative through use of an extreme "cherry picked" dataset is very obtuse.

 

 

 

Better used in a sentence: "How can you be so obtuse?"

 

This seems like a monster thread forming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"KleinBank is a Minnesota-based bank owned by Klein Financial, Inc. KleinBank is headquartered in Chaska, Minnesota, which operates 21 bank branches. KleinBank is the largest family-owned state bank in Minnesota with assets over $1.9 billion." - Wikipedia - and while there...

 

Discriminatory Lending Practices[edit]

On January 13, 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against KleinBank for alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act by structuring its home mortgage lending business to avoid serving neighborhoods where a majority of residents were racial and ethnic minorities. The lawsuit asserted that the bank's service area was in a horseshoe shape around the urban areas of Minneapolis and St. Paul (which had higher minority populations) and targeted its mortgage advertising solely toward white neighborhoods. The lawsuit also claimed that from 2010 to 2015, other comparable lenders generated 5.58% of their single-family residential loan applications related to residential property located in the majority-minority census tracks compared to KleinBank's 1.06%. The bank's website at the time indicated that it had 21 branches in suburbs west of Minneapolis and St. Paul and in western Minnesota—regions which, according to census data, were predominantly white.[6]

Irony then reared its head:

  • BBB International Torch Award for Ethics (2015)[9]

 

 

ieLlh4r.gif

 

Under the settlement, KleinBank will take a number of steps to remedy the harm alleged in the complaint and to ensure that its mortgage lending services are made available on a non-discriminatory basis. The bank will expand its banking services in predominantly minority neighborhoods in the Minneapolis area in a variety of ways. For example, it will invest $300,000 in a loan subsidy fund to increase the amount of credit that KleinBank extends to residents of predominantly minority neighborhoods, and another $300,000 in advertising, outreach, financial education, and credit repair in order to improve the bank’s visibility in, and successful expansion into, its new service area.

 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-reaches-settlement-minnesota-bank-resolve-allegations-lending

 

DOJ > BBB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theme here is that it's based on the "location". So my neighbor owns a 600K home. I know he has a mortgage cause he's told me. He's black. SO according to "this". He moves to DC - he gets instantly denied because of the zip code, and his color? Sorry - not buying it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theme here is that it's based on the "location". So my neighbor owns a 600K home. I know he has a mortgage cause he's told me. He's black. SO according to "this". He moves to DC - he gets instantly denied because of the zip code, and his color? Sorry - not buying it.

Because its not true. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The theme here is that it's based on the "location". So my neighbor owns a 600K home. I know he has a mortgage cause he's told me. He's black. SO according to "this". He moves to DC - he gets instantly denied because of the zip code, and his color? Sorry - not buying it.

Because its not true. ;)

 

Bingo. Mendel, as always, hits the nail on the head...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last post in this topic was posted 1700 days ago. 

 

We strongly encourage you to start a new post instead of replying to this one.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share





  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      185294
    • Most Online
      2046

    Newest Member
    Tara19
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines