Women pay higher mortgage rates in 49 states

In Mississippi, single women on average paid 3.47% on a 30-year, conventional fixed-rate mortgage in 2019. But single men on average paid 3.37%, according to the latest HMDA data available. Over the lifespan of the mortgage, the single woman in this instance will have roughly $7,000 more in mortgage payments than the single man.

Patrick Boyaggi, CEO and founder of Massachusetts-based lending startup OwnUp, says this issue hasn’t drawn enough attention in the mortgage space. His analysis of HMDA data found that women paid higher mortgage rates than men in 49 out of 50 states, the lone exception being Alaska (the analysis assumes that the loan size averaged $345,000 and the prime rate was 3.00%).

“The latest HMDA data makes it startlingly clear – women are largely being left out of the conversation,” Boyaggi said. “Recent HMDA data confirms that discrimination in the home-financing process is very real.
The main reason? Many female borrowers simply fail to shop around for the best possible rate, which translates into losing thousands of dollars over the total life of their loan.”

Boyaggi admits his analysis is not exactly revelatory – it’s been well documented that women pay higher mortgage rates, and the reasons for it are many and complex.

He said he didn’t intend to undertake a sociological study to determine all of the reasons women pay more. It’s more important to acknowledge there’s a problem and take action, he said.


Should lenders look to non-QM when the refi boom slows?

HousingWire recently sat down with Tom Hutchens, Angel Oak EVP of production, who shared how non-QM lending could be an effective way for lenders to replace lost business in the event of a refi boom slowdown.

Presented by: Angel Oak

“I am not certain everybody is aware of it or believes it’s a real issue,” Boyaggi said. “We believe it is a systemic-wide problem…women are not being treated fairly…For us, it’s really about it not being 50-50. And therefore, it’s a systemic problem. Let’s bring that to light first and let’s start worrying about the solutions versus trying to nitpick as to why it is an issue. It is an issue. We know it’s an issue. How do we make it better, versus trying to justify it or come up with some kind of rationale for it.”

According to Boyaggi’s analysis of HMDA data, the five states where women overpay most on a mortgage were Mississippi (delta of $7,077 over the course of the mortgage), Alabama (delta of $6,006), Ohio (delta of $5,856), Florida (delta of $5,591) and New Jersey (delta of $5,515).

Single women typically paid between 8 and 10 basis points higher on a mortgage. In Alaska, single women paid an average of 3.21% while single men paid 3.23%, Boyaggi found. The four other best states for women applying for mortgages were Maine, Wyoming, Montana and Oregon. Single women paid between 1 and 3 basis points more on mortgage rates in those states than single men.

An Urban Institute study from 2016 found that single women were better at paying their mortgages than single men, even though they paid higher rates. The study also found that single borrowers, particularly women, are more likely to be minorities, from lower-income areas, and they are more likely to have a mortgage that eats up a higher percentage of their income.

“One possible explanation is that women, particularly minority women, experience higher rates of subprime lending than their male peers,” the UI study said. “Another explanation is that women tend to have weaker credit profiles. We find that both these explanations are true and largely account for the higher rates.”

Though subprime lending has declined since the study’s publication, mortgage underwriting standards in general are much tougher since the financial crisis, and aren’t particularly flexible.

“There is somewhat of a plain vanilla, one-size-fits-all mortgage underwriting standard, and that’s not very good at accommodating minority borrowers in general, or anybody with any sort of a non-typical, non-generic credit profile,” Guy Cecala, CEO of Inside Mortgage Finance, told Wharton Business Radio in 2016. “Minority buyers in general are getting fewer mortgages than they did before. The good news is that they’re not getting subprime loans, because the subprime market has dried up completely, but they’re not getting mortgages at all in many cases.”

Asked if there could be a potential level of bias against women borrowers, Cecala said in the same interview, “I think there can be. The mortgage market prides itself on being color blind, and essentially using a black box, but any sort of black box basically discriminates against single borrowers, lower-income borrowers and borrowers with lower credit scores. If those happen to be predominantly women, you have to assume that they are getting that kind of treatment from the mortgage market.”

Boyaggi, whose firm Own Up helps consumers shop for mortgages and negotiates prices on their behalf, said more awareness simply needs to be raised.

“There’s a lot of things that happen in this industry where if you just looked at it you’d be like, ‘Oh 10 basis points, .010%. What are we talking about?’” he said. “But if you were to say, ‘Hey, this gas station charges women 10 cents more than men,’ we would be in an uproar. There would be stories about it everywhere, right? People would vilify that gas station, and rightly so.”

Source: housingwire.com

‘How Can We Catch Up?’ Mortgage Denials Stack the Deck Against Black and Hispanic Buyers

The American dream of homeownership is not an equal opportunity ambition.

Black and Hispanic home buyers are more frequently denied mortgages than white buyers—even when their financial pictures are similar, according to a realtor.com® analysis of 2019 mortgage data. When they are able to secure mortgages, Black and Hispanic borrowers are more likely to pay higher fees and interest rates on their loans than white and Asian borrowers.

“What we call it in my community is the ‘Black tax,'” says Donnell Williams. He is president of the National Association of Real Estate Brokers, an organization for Black real estate professionals, and a broker with Destiny Realty in Morristown, NJ.

“Even if we have a college degree, we’re still getting the same treatment as a white high-school dropout,” he says.

Black buyers were twice as likely to be refused mortgages than whites, according to the realtor.com analysis of 7.2 million loan applications in 2019. Only about 5.5% of whites had their loan applications rejected, compared with 6.8% of Asians, 9.3% of Hispanics, 11.7% of Blacks, and 10.8% of multi-minority race individuals hoping to be approved. These denials were only for applicants where all the data was available for fully completed applications that weren’t withdrawn.

Decades of discrimination against people of color have resulted in lower homeownership rates among minorities than among whites in America. And that has a deep, long-term impact on wide swaths of America, since homeownership is traditionally how generations have catapulted themselves into the middle class, as their properties appreciate in value over time.

Nearly three-quarters of whites, 74.5%, owned their homes in the last quarter of 2020, according to a quarterly report from the U.S. Census Bureau. However, just 44.1% of Blacks, 49.1% of Hispanics, and 59.5% of Asians were homeowners in the last three months of the year.

“There are a lot of obstacles that are working against buyers of color,” says Brett Theodos, a senior fellow at Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research group based in Washington, DC.

On top of racial discrimination, “they’re less likely to get help with the down payment from the bank of Mom and Dad,” says Theodos. “They’ve also [often] entered adulthood with higher student loan debt, less inheritance, and are on average in professions that earn lower wages.”

Many of these problems took root generations ago. Whites who served in World War II were offered low-cost mortgages for single-family homes in newly built suburbs when they returned. Blacks and other minorities were often denied access to these loans. In many cases, Blacks, in particular, were explicitly barred from living in white communities through a toxic combination of racial covenants written in deeds and government-supported redlining.

Black Americans, like these Tuskegee Airmen, served their country in World War II but returned home to face discrimination.
Black Americans, like these Tuskegee Airmen, served their country in World War II but returned home to face discrimination.

Bettmann/Getty Images

So Blacks who wanted to become homeowners often had to buy homes at inflated prices in less desirable areas. If they were able to get mortgages at all, they typically paid more for them. And homes in these areas haven’t appreciated nearly as much as homes in white areas, except in the places that have seen significant gentrification. As homeownership is used to catapult folks into the middle class and build wealth, that’s left many minorities with less money to pass down to future generations in the form of college tuition assistance or a down payment.

“How can we catch up? How can we be on par? We didn’t have that head start of generational wealth,” laments the National Association of Real Estate Brokers’ Williams. “You want a piece of the American dream, and it’s hard. You feel like your efforts are in vain.”

Realtor.com took a hard look at which races are most likely to be denied mortgages and the reasons provided for those rejections as well as who is paying the most for those loans. To do so, we analyzed 2019 mortgage application data available through the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. The act, passed in 1975, requires most larger lenders to collect mortgage data and make it public. We looked at only first-lien mortgages on purchases of one- to four-family homes built on site, so manufactured homes wouldn’t be included.

When possible, we compared borrowers with similar financial profiles to see who was getting loans—and who wasn’t. However, our analysis doesn’t take into account certain discrepancies like credit scores.

Blacks most likely to be denied mortgages—even with good-sized down payments

According to our analysis, even aspiring home buyers of color with sizable down payments are more likely to be denied mortgages.

Black borrowers with 10% to 20% to put down were more than twice as likely to be denied than whites offering the same down payments. Lenders rejected 6% of whites and 9% of Asians—compared with 11% of Hispanics and multi-minority race borrowers and 13% of Blacks.

These higher denial rates may be due to minority borrowers having lower credit scores, more debt, or some other financial black mark. But lending experts believe that racial discrimination also plays a part.

For example, a loan officer might tell white borrowers to improve their credit before submitting an application, be more understanding of alternative forms of income, such as a family member contributing or a side gig, or wait until mortgage rates fall a little so their monthly payment is lower. The latter would increase such borrowers’ shot at getting a loan. But a loan officer may not do the same for customers of color.

“Some of it is decisions being made by the lending officers,” says sociology professor Lincoln Quillian of Northwestern University in Evanston, IL. “They have powerful stereotypes of who is likely to repay loans.”

Black and Hispanic borrowers often pay more for their mortgages

Black and Hispanic borrowers were more likely to receive higher mortgage interest rates on their loans—which can add up to big money over time.

About 59% of white borrowers and 52% of Asian borrowers received rates within 1 percentage point of the best (i.e., lowest) possible rate. However, only 51% of multi-minority race borrowers, 47% of Hispanics, and 44% of Blacks fared as well. (It’s unknown whether some of these borrowers pre-paid or bought down their interest rates during the closing process.)

Even the smallest differences in rates can really add up. A single percentage point difference can lead to a larger monthly mortgage payment and tens of thousands of dollars more paid out over the life of a 30-year fixed-rate loan. (The exact difference depends on the purchase price of the home, the exact mortgage rates, and the size of the down payment.)

A recent study found that wealthier Blacks were given higher mortgage rates than low-income whites.

Black households making between $75,000 and $100,000 a year were saddled with a median 4.215% mortgage interest rate in 2019, according to a report from the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. However white households earning $30,000 or less had a lower median mortgage rate of 4.16%. The study looked at 2019 U.S. Census Bureau data.

Even Black households raking in $100,000 a year or more paid slightly higher interest rates, 4.169%, than low-income whites. Whites with six-figure incomes had median 3.946% rates—about 22 basis points less than Blacks who were also earning $100,000 or more.

“We have some deep problems in the mortgage market,” Raheem Hanifa, a research analyst at the center who wrote the study.

“Some of the differences in mortgage [costs] is due to differences in who the lenders are. There’s evidence that Black and Hispanic buyers are more likely to be marketed to by lenders who are higher-cost,” says sociology professor Quillian. “White and Asian borrowers are more likely to go to traditional banks.”

Predatory lending and the proliferation of subprime mortgages doled out to communities of color led to the last housing crash, and plunged the world into a financial crisis more than a decade ago. But at least some of today’s pricier lenders may simply be smaller operations that need to charge more since they’re not dealing with the economies of scale of the bigger banks.

People of color more likely to be denied loans due to debt

Minorities are more likely to be denied mortgages due to their debt. Before deciding whether to grant loans, lenders look closely at potential borrowers’ debt loads. Their goal is to make sure borrowers can afford to pay back their credit card, student loan, car, and other payments—on top of a mortgage.

Only 1.6% of potential whites borrowers had their applications rejected because of their debt loads—compared with 2.5% of Asians, 3.1% of Hispanics, and 3.8% of Blacks. About 3.7% of multi-minority race applicants were also rejected.

While that does not sound like that much of a difference, it means that 1 in 64 white applicants is denied versus 1 in 26 Blacks.

Some minority borrowers may simply carry more debt than white borrowers. Many face discrimination in the workplace that can manifest in lower salaries and fewer promotions. Also, they may not receive the same level of financial help from their families when they get into a tough financial spot.

Black households were more than twice as likely to have student loan debt than white households, according to a recent report from the National Association of Realtors®. About 43% of Black households had student debt, at a median $40,000, compared with 21% of whites, at a median $30,000 in student debt. (The report was based on a survey of more than 8,200 home buyers who purchased a primary home from July 2019 to June 2020.)

Employment and credit histories also led to higher mortgage denial rates for minorities

Blacks and Hispanics were also more likely to be denied a loan due to their employment history. One in 568 white applicants was rejected due to their work history, compared with 1 in 282 Blacks.

“People of color, notably Native Americans, Blacks, and Hispanics, face higher rates of discrimination in hiring,” says the Urban Institute’s Theodos. “It can be more difficult to be promoted or advanced.”

That plays a big part in how much they’re earning. In 2019, Asian households had the highest median incomes of $98,174, followed by non-Hispanic white households at $76,057, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. Hispanic households had a median income of $56,113, while Black households brought in the least, at $45,438.

Blacks and Hispanics are also more likely to lose out on a loan due to their credit scores. About 0.6% of Asians and 1% of whites were denied due to their credit histories compared with 1.6% of Hispanics, 2.9% of Blacks, and 2.4% of multi-minority races.

Typically, people build good credit by paying off their student loans, car loans, and credit card bills on time each month. However, many lower-income Americans are less likely to have graduated from college or have credit cards. And what folks do pay every month—their rent, utility, and cellphone payments—often aren’t counted toward credit profiles.

“It’s not just discrimination today that is why we see denials at higher rates for Blacks and Hispanics. It’s the byproduct of generations of systemic racism,” says Theodos. “We have a long way to go in overcoming the deep, historical divide of opportunity for people of color in this country.”

Source: realtor.com

Acting CFPB head calls out industry for slow complaint response times

The new interim leader of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau pledged to take action against firms that are slow to respond to customer complaints during the pandemic.

Consumers submitted 42,774 complaints to the CFPB portal in April 2020 as COVID-19 was spreading, the highest monthly tally ever. The CFPB received 187,547 complaints from Jan. 1, 2020 to May 31.

But in a blog post, acting CFPB Director Dave Uejio expressed concern that financial institutions have dragged their feet in addressing complaints, and said the agency was working on an upcoming report highlighting response issues. The bureau typically requires a financial company to respond to the consumer within 15 days of a complaint.

The bureau will specifically analyze disparities in how companies address complaints from minorities, he said Wednesday.

“Some companies have been lax in meeting their obligation to respond to complaints,” Uejio wrote. “Consumer advocates have found disparities in some companies’ responses to Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities. This is unacceptable.”

In a blog post, acting CFPB Director Dave Uejio expressed concern that financial institutions have dragged their feet in addressing complaints, and said the agency was working on an upcoming report highlighting response issues.

In a blog post, acting CFPB Director Dave Uejio expressed concern that financial institutions have dragged their feet in addressing complaints, and said the agency was working on an upcoming report highlighting response issues.

Uejio warned that companies doing a poor job of responding to consumers will be identified in its annual consumer response report that typically gets released in the first quarter.

Uejio has wasted no time focusing on two areas in the early days of the Biden administration: consumers’ financial hardships resulting from the coronavirus and racial equity issues.

The CFPB is also updating its web site and expanding its social media presence to reach more consumers, Uejio said.

“Elevating the voices of those consumers who are suffering due to the pandemic and from racial inequity is the most important way to ensure that the CFPB is doing the best we can for those who need our help the most at this moment in history,” he said. “The Bureau must transition from treating consumer input as mere anecdotes or stories to a world in which the experience of our neighbors, our families, and our communities serve as crucial data that drives our policymaking.”

The CFPB also is moving aggressively to rebuild and repair relationships with consumer, civil rights, racial justice, and tribal and Indigenous rights groups that have found gaps in how the bureau treats consumers.

“I have asked Consumer Response to prepare a report highlighting the companies with a poor track record on these issues,” Uejio wrote. “We will be publishing this analysis and the senior leadership of these companies can expect to be hearing from me.”

Complaints about financial products and services — and any documents a consumer provides — are sent directly to financial firms that generally must respond within 15 days. The CFPB also refers some complaints to other federal agencies. The CFPB has traditionally used its complaint database to identify companies for enforcement actions.

During the pandemic, the bureau has issued bulletins analyzing thousands of complaints it has received mentioning coronavirus and related terms. Complaints about mortgages, credit cards and credit reports have topped the list during the pandemic.

In 2019, the bureau received 352,400 consumer complaints and 81% were sent to companies for review and response. In its report last year, the bureau said that more than 3,200 companies responded to complaints sent to them in 2019.

“It is the Bureau’s expectation that companies provide substantive responses that address the issues consumers describe in their complaints,” Uejio wrote.

Source: nationalmortgagenews.com

President Biden could reduce FHA mortgage insurance premiums. Here’s what it means for you

FHA mortgage insurance might get cheaper this year

“Mortgage industry abuzz with speculation of FHA MIP cut,” stated one trade magazine on January 28. And that journalist was right.

Many insiders are confidently predicting a big cut in the Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA’s) annual mortgage insurance rates.

FHA borrowers currently pay 0.85% annually in mortgage insurance premiums (MIP). That’s $1,700 per year, or $140 per month, on a $200,000 mortgage.

So it’s no wonder a possible MIP rate cut is big news. It could help new home buyers and refinancing homeowners save big on their housing payments.

Verify your FHA loan eligibility (Feb 8th, 2021)

Why experts think Biden will lower mortgage insurance premiums

Lowering FHA mortgage insurance rates isn’t a new idea from President Biden. It’s a holdover from former President Obama’s agenda.

American Banker magazine explains “The Department of Housing and Urban Development under former President Barack Obama had announced a scheduled 25-basis-point [0.25%] reduction in the FHA’s annual mortgage insurance premiums just before President Donald Trump took office.”

But Trump reversed this change at the start of his term, leaving FHA MIP rates at 0.85% per year.

Now, says American Banker, “observers expect the Biden administration to follow through on that 25-basis-point cut and potentially go even further.”

Lowering FHA MIP costs would be right in line with President Biden’s goals of expanding affordable housing opportunities for low- and middle-income families.

Of course, this is only speculation for now. No official announcements have been made.

But the pervasiveness of the rumor — and the absence of denials from the administration — mean a change seems likely.

So potential home buyers and FHA homeowners should be aware of what the (potential) change would mean for them.

What an MIP reduction could mean for you 

There’s good news and bad news.

The bad news is that if you already have an FHA loan if and when the reduction takes effect, you won’t see any savings. You would have to refinance into a new FHA loan to see the reduction.

The good news is that if you haven’t applied for an FHA loan yet if/when the cut is announced, you can likely take advantage of the new, lower fees.

But just how much would home buyers and refinancers stand to save?

A 25-basis-point reduction means MIP rates would fall by 0.25%. So you’d be paying 0.6% of your loan balance each year instead of the 0.85% that nearly all FHA borrowers now pay now.

These mortgage insurance rates are calculated annually but charged monthly.

Example: 0.25% MIP rate cut

Let’s say you plan to borrow $200,000 with an FHA loan. Your MIP rate at current levels would be 0.85%, making an annual charge of $1,700 — or $140 per month.

Now let’s assume the new MIP rate falls to 0.6%.

Your annual charge tumbles to $1,200. And your new monthly MIP cost would be exactly $100 per month.

That’s a saving of $500 a year, which few of us would sneeze at. But there’s a possibility that the savings could be even bigger.

Example: 0.50% MIP rate cut

American Banker wondered whether the Biden administration might “potentially go even further.”

So how does the math work if annual MIP rates were to be cut a little more — to 0.5%?

Assuming the same $200,000 loan, a 0.5% rate would reduce the annual payment to $1,000. And that would make the monthly payment just $83 versus $140 per month at current levels.

That would save you $700 a year over your current payment.

Rates haven’t changed yet…

Remember: this is just speculation. Unless and until an official announcement is made, you should continue to budget for your full, existing 0.85% MIP rate.

But if you’re considering a home purchase or refinance later this year, you should keep an eye out for news from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

If a change is announced, it could be worth waiting on that application until you can secure the lower rate.

Verify your FHA loan eligibility (Feb 8th, 2021)

What happens to existing FHA loans?

Homeowners with an existing FHA loan may not benefit from lower mortgage insurance premiums right away.

An MIP rate reduction likely would not change the terms of your current mortgage.

So if a change is announced, you’d have to refinance into a new FHA loan to take advantage of MIP savings.

Keep Streamline Refinancing in mind

The good news is that FHA borrowers may well be in line for an FHA Streamline Refinance — a simplified, low-doc refi program.

FHA Streamline loans typically come with minimum paperwork, low costs, and no credit check. You likely won’t need a new home appraisal or income verification.

However, you’ll have to pay closing costs yourself — only the upfront mortgage insurance charge can be rolled into the loan balance.

And cashing out is not allowed with the FHA Streamline program. If you want cash-back with your refinance, you’ll need the FHA cash-out loan, which requires full underwriting.

How the MIP cut could contribute to the FHA Streamline “net tangible benefit” rule

Right now, FHA Streamline Refinances have a requirement that you gain a ‘net tangible benefit’ (some clear monetary advantage) as a result of using one.

This typically means you need to lower your ‘combined rate’ (mortgage interest plus mortgage insurance) by at least 0.5%.

Say the Biden administration does cut MIP rates by 0.25%. Under the current rule, you’d also need to lower your mortgage interest rate by 0.25% to be eligible for Streamline Refinancing.

But with rates trending downward through 2020 and into 2021, it’s quite likely that a 0.25% reduction is in reach.

But do keep in mind that your current FHA loan has to be at least 210 days old before you’re allowed to refinance.

When could the change take place?

Some mortgage industry insiders are expecting an announcement during President Joe Biden’s first 100 days in office. And they may be proved right.

But there’s a reason we rarely quote speculation from mortgage industry insiders. They’re often wrong.

And the fact is, nobody outside the government knows whether there will be an announcement at all, let alone its likely date. Which raises an important question: What are you supposed to do with this information?

What are you supposed to do with this information?

We wouldn’t be sharing this speculation with you if we didn’t think there was a good chance of the rate cut really happening. But there’s no guarantee it will.

So you probably shouldn’t change immediate plans to purchase a home or refinance.

Today’s FHA mortgage rates are at historic lows — and your interest rate has a much bigger impact on your total loan cost than your mortgage insurance rate.

If you wait on a rate cut and miss today’s low interest rates, it could negate your savings. You could also risk losing out on your dream home by waiting for financing.

Keep in mind, you only need to wait 210 days — about 7 months — from your FHA home purchase or refinance before you can refinance again.

If Biden does cut MIP rates, the change will be long-term. So you can always refinance if it makes financial sense for you to do so later on.

Verify your FHA loan eligibility (Feb 8th, 2021)

Will other aspects of FHA loans change?

Most people who opt for an FHA loan do so because it’s the easiest, most affordable path to homeownership that’s open to them.

American Banker describes FHA borrowers as, “traditionally first-time homebuyers and largely minorities and lower-income earners.”

And they choose FHA loans because they can get approved with lower credit scores and higher existing debts than Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other conventional loans usually allow.

None of that’s likely to change if the Biden administration comes through with the rumored changes.

The only difference should be the amount these borrowers have to pay for their annual mortgage insurance.

Remember, there’s also an upfront mortgage insurance (UFMIP) fee equal to 1.75% of the loan amount. Most borrowers roll this into their loan balance so they don’t have to pay it at closing.

So far, we haven’t heard talk of the UFMIP rate changing — only the annual mortgage insurance premium of 0.85%.

The bottom line

An FHA MIP reduction would be a great win for borrowers, helping to keep monthly housing costs low.

If you plan to buy a home or refinance via an FHA loan later this year, there’s a good chance you could see lower mortgage insurance premiums.

But if you’re already in the process of buying or refinancing, we don’t recommend waiting on news of lower MIP rates. You’re likely to see bigger savings by taking advantage of today’s ultra-low mortgage rates.

Verify your new rate (Feb 8th, 2021)

Source: themortgagereports.com

Rental Affordability Is Worst in Minority Communities

Renters living in predominantly Hispanic or black neighborhoods have to spend more of their income on rent than those in white communities.

Housing has become less affordable for all renters since 2011 as rent appreciation greatly outpaced income growth. But for renters living in predominately black or Hispanic neighborhoods, the situation is decidedly worse.

New data shows that, on average, residents of predominantly white neighborhoods spend 30.7 percent of their income on rent, in line with the generally accepted standard of 30 percent. Renters living in predominately black neighborhoods spend 43.7 percent of their income on rent, and renters in largely Hispanic communities spend 48.1 percent.

For renters in minority communities, devoting such a large share of income to rent limits their ability to save for a down payment, which would allow them to transition their costly rent to more affordable mortgage payments.

And when rents are unaffordable, renters begin making sacrifices like forgoing necessary medical or dental care and contributions to retirement accounts.

Tougher all around

In markets where rents overall are high for all residents, minority neighborhoods are hit even harder than white communities. In Los Angeles, renters in white communities spend 50 percent of their income on rent — well above the recommended 30 percent, but still far less than renters in black or Hispanic neighborhoods, who pay a premium of 63.7 percent and 63 percent, respectively.

In expensive San Francisco, rent in largely black communities requires the greatest share of the median income (74.8 percent), followed by rents in primarily Hispanic communities (62.5 percent) and then, after a sizable gap, rents in predominantly white communities (48.8 percent).

Boston follows a similar trend, with residents in black communities paying 71.2 percent of the median income, followed by 59.5 percent in Hispanic communities and 34.8 percent in white communities.

“This research sheds light on another example of inequality in the housing market,” said Zillow Chief Economist Dr. Svenja Gudell. “Renters in African-American or Hispanic neighborhoods find themselves in a catch-22 situation: While owning a home is a great way to build wealth, you need to save up some cash to be able to buy. If you’re spending close to half of your income on rent, saving for that down payment is going to be incredibly difficult.”

These differences shift for homeowners, with mortgage payments requiring the greatest share of income from owners in Hispanic neighborhoods, at 22.8 percent. Homeowners in white communities allocate more of their incomes to their mortgage payments (15.2 percent) than owners in primarily black communities (13.6 percent).

Still, transitioning from renting to owning remains a challenge for minorities, not only because they have less income left over to save for a down payment, but also because race impacts minorities’ ability to get approved for a mortgage. Home values in predominantly black communities also tend to be much lower than home values in predominantly white communities, contributing to this difference.

Related:

Source: zillow.com

Majority of Home Buyers Expected to be Hispanics, African-Americans, and Other Minorities

A very significant change in homebuyer demographics is expected during the next 20 years. Will it also have a significant effect on home values? The January 2021 Urban Institute report (The Future of Headship and Homeownership) finds:

Net growth in the number of homeowners from 2020 to 2040 will be entirely among people of color, especially Hispanic homeowners. Between 2020 and 2040, there will be 6.9 million net new homeowner households, a 9 percent increase. Hispanic homeowners will grow by 4.8 million, homeowners of other races (mostly Asian homeowners) will grow by 2.7 million, and Black homeowners will grow by 1.2 million. The total number of white homeowners will decline by 1.8 million.”

Latin Americans

If this proves to be true, it will require changes for the entire residential real estate industry. Just to begin with, what implications will it have for future home values? Many studies conducted over the past several decades continue to show that neighborhood racial composition still drives unequal home values. Many laws have been in effect for over 50 years that prohibit real estate professionals from explicitly using race when evaluating a property’s value. But change has been very slow.

Appraisers continued to value homes in white neighborhoods as worth more than similar homes in Black and Latino communities. Research shows that since 1980, in similar social-economic neighborhoods, dominantly white home values have appreciated an average of $200,000 more than in neighborhoods of color. If this continues, home value appreciation will be suppressed as white homeownership declines and minority ownership increases.

One fact supporting the probability that Hispanic homeownership will increase is that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced in January that it is extending eligibility for FHA mortgages to immigrants under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. This means that “Dreamers” who are legally permitted to work in the U.S., are now eligible to apply for FHA-backed mortgages. Dreamers make up the age demographic most active in home purchases. DACA participants include undocumented immigrants that arrived in the U.S. before their 16th birthday and were less than 31 years old when the program was established on June 15, 2012. In addition to 4.8 million new homeowners, the number of Hispanic rental households is expected to increase by 3.8 million.

More changes will be needed in the real estate lending industry. According to a MarketWatch analysis of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data, African-Americans make up 13% of the country’s population, but they only received 6% of the mortgages that were originated in 2016. Furthermore, as a result of the Great Depression, lending requirements became much more stringent and that disproportionately causes even fewer black and Latino mortgage applicants to be approved. Less access to loans is likely to further obstruct price increases.

Homeownership trends, demographics, and lending policies are at a crossroads. Without meaningful change, the long steep climb in home value appreciation can be expected to slow significantly. As the largest asset owned by the vast majority of Americans, this endangers wealth accumulation.

Please leave your comment.

Also, our weekly Ask Brian column welcomes questions from readers of all experience levels with residential real estate. Please email your questions, inquiries, or article ideas to askbrian@realtybiznews.com.

Author bio: Brian Kline has been investing in real estate for more than 35 years and writing about real estate investing for 12 years. He also draws upon 30 plus years of business experience including 12 years as a manager at Boeing Aircraft Company. Brian currently lives at Lake Cushman, Washington. A vacation destination, near a national and the Pacific Ocean.

Source: realtybiznews.com