The Jefferson Avenue commercial district in Buffalo, New York, is anchored by a supermarket.
There are dozens of other businesses and services along the 12-block corridor — a couple of bank branches, a library, a coffee shop, gas stations, a small plaza with a dollar store and a primary care clinic and a business incubator for entrepreneurs of color.
But Tops Friendly Markets, the only grocery store on Buffalo’s vast East Side, is the center of activity. More than just a place to buy food, pick up medications and use an ATM, the store is a communal gathering space in a predominantly Black neighborhood that, for generations, has been segregated, isolated and disenfranchised from the wealthier — and whiter — parts of the city.
Which explains how it came to be the site of a mass shooting on a spring day in May of last year. On that Saturday, a gunman, who lived 200 miles away in another part of the state, drove to Jefferson Avenue and went into Tops, and in just a few minutes killed 10 people, injured three and inflicted mass trauma across the community.
It is a scenario that has sadly, and repeatedly, played out in other parts of the country that have experienced mass shootings. But this one came with a twist: The gunman’s intention was to kill as many Black people as possible.
To achieve that, he specifically targeted a ZIP code with one of the highest percentages of Black residents in New York state. All 10 who died that day were Black.
“The mere fact that someone can research, ‘Where will the greatest number of Black people be … on a Saturday morning,’ that’s not by chance,” said Franchelle Parker, a community organizer and executive director of Open Buffalo, a nonprofit focused on racial, economic and ecological justice. “That’s not a mistake. It’s a community that’s been deeply segregated for decades.”
The day of the shooting, Parker, who grew up in nearby Niagara Falls, was driving to Tops, where she planned to buy a donut and an unsweetened iced tea before heading into the Open Buffalo office, which is located a block away from Tops. The mother of two had intended to complete the mundane task of cleaning up her desk — “old coffee cups and stuff” — after a busy week.
She saw the news on Twitter and didn’t know if she should keep driving to Jefferson Avenue or turn around and go back home. She eventually picked the latter.
When she showed up the next day, there were thousands of people grieving in the streets. “The only way that I could explain my feeling, it was almost like watching an old war movie when a bomb had gone off and someone’s in, like, shell shock. That’s how it felt,” said Parker, vividly recounting the community’s collective trauma in a meeting room tucked inside of Open Buffalo’s second-story office on Jefferson Avenue.
Almost immediately following the May 14, 2022, massacre, which was the second-deadliest mass shooting in the United States last year, conversations locally and nationally turned to the harsh realities of the East Side and how long-standing factors that affect the daily life of residents — racism, poverty and inequity — made the community an ideal target for a white supremacist.
Now, more than a year after the tragedy, there is growing concern that not enough is being done fast enough to begin to dismantle those factors. And amid those conversations, there are mounting calls for the banking industry — whose historical policies and practices helped cement the racial segregation and disinvestment that ultimately shaped the East Side — to leverage its collective power and influence to band together in an effort to create systemic change.
The ideas about how banks should support the East Side and better embed themselves in the neighborhood vary by people and organizations. But the basic argument is the same: Banks, in their role as financiers and because of the industry’s history of lending discrimination, are obligated to bring forth economic prosperity in disinvested communities like the East Side.
I know banks are often looked upon sort of like a panacea, but I don’t particularly see it that way. I think others have a role to play in all of this.
Chiwuike Owunwanne, corporate responsibility officer at KeyBank
“Banks have been very good at providing charitable contributions to the Black community. They get an ‘A’ for that,” said The Rev. George Nicholas, an East Side pastor who is also CEO of the Buffalo Center for Health Equity, a four-year-old enterprise focused on racial, geographic and economic health disparities. “But doing the things that banks can do in terms of being a catalyst for revitalization and investment in this community, they have not done that.”
To be sure, banks’ ability to reverse the course of the community isn’t guaranteed — and there is no formula to determine how much accountability they should hold to fix deeply entrenched problems like racism. Several Buffalo-area bankers said that while the Tops shooting heightened the urgency to help the East Side, the industry itself cannot be the sole driver of change.
“There are a lot of institutions … that can certainly play a part in reversing the challenges that we see today,” said Chiwuike “Chi-Chi” Owunwanne, a corporate responsibility officer at KeyBank, the second-largest bank by deposits in Buffalo. “I know banks are often looked upon sort of like a panacea, but I don’t particularly see it that way. I think others have a role to play in all of this.”
A long history of segregation
How the East Side — and the Tops store on Jefferson Avenue — became the destination for a racially motivated mass murderer is a story about racism, segregation and disinvestment.
Even as it bears the nickname “the city of good neighbors,” Buffalo has long been one of the most racially segregated cities in the United States. Of the 114,965 residents who live on the East Side, 59% are Black, according to data from the 2021 U.S. Census American Community Survey. The percentage is even higher in the 14208 ZIP code, where the Tops store is located. In that ZIP code, among 11,029 total residents, nearly 76% are Black, the census data shows.
The city’s path toward racial segregation started in the early 20th century when a small number of job-seeking Black Americans migrated north to Buffalo, a former steel and auto manufacturing hub at the far northwestern end of New York state. Initially, they moved into the same neighborhoods as many of the city’s poorer immigrants and lived just east of what is today the city’s downtown district. As the number of Blacks arriving in Buffalo swelled in the 1940s, they were increasingly confronted with various housing challenges, including racist zoning laws and restrictive deed covenants that kept them from buying homes in more affluent white areas.
Black Buffalonians also faced housing discrimination in the form of redlining, the practice of restricting the flow of capital into minority communities. In 1933, as the Great Depression roiled the economy, a temporary federal agency known as the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation used government bonds to buy out and refinance mortgages of properties that were facing or already in foreclosure. The point was to try to stabilize the nation’s real estate market.
As part of its program, HOLC created maps of American cities, including Buffalo, that used a color coding scheme — green, blue, yellow and red — to convey the perceived riskiness of making loans in certain neighborhoods. Green was considered minimally risky; other areas that were largely populated by immigrant, Black or Latino residents were labeled red and thus determined to be “hazardous.”
“The goal was to free up mortgage capital by going to cities and giving banks a way to unload mortgages, so they could turn around and make more mortgage loans,” said Jason Richardson, senior director of research at the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, an association of more than 750 community-based organizations that advocates for fair lending. “It was kind of a radical concept and it has evolved over the decades into our modern mortgage finance system.”
The Federal Housing Administration, which was established as a permanent agency in 1934, used similar methods to map urban areas and labeled neighborhoods from “A” to “D,” with “A” considered to be the most financially stable and “D” considered the least. Neighborhoods that were largely Black, even relatively stable ones, were put in the “D” category.
The result was that banks, which wanted to be able to sell mortgage loans to the FHA, were largely dissuaded from making loans in “risky” areas. And Buffalo’s East Side, where the majority of Blacks were settling, was deemed risky. Unable to get loans, Blacks couldn’t buy homes, start businesses or build equity. At the same time, large industrial factories on the East Side were closing or moving away, limiting job opportunities and contributing to rising poverty levels.
“Today what we’re left with is the residue of this process where we’ve enshrined … a pattern of economic segregation that favors neighborhoods that had fewer Black people in them and generally ignores neighborhoods that had African Americans living in them,” Richardson said.
Case in point: Research by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition shows that three-quarters of neighborhoods that were once redlined are low- to moderate-income neighborhoods today, and two-thirds of them are majority minority communities.
Adding to the division between Blacks and whites in Buffalo was the construction of a highway called the Kensington Expressway. Built during the 1960s, the below-grade, limited-access highway proved to be a speedy way for suburban workers to get to their downtown jobs. But its construction cut off the already-segregated East Side even more from other parts of the city, displacing residents, devaluing houses and destroying neighborhoods and small businesses.
As a result of those factors and more, many Black residents have become “trapped” on the East Side, according to Dr. Henry Louis Taylor Jr., a professor of urban and regional planning at the University at Buffalo. In 1987, Taylor founded the UB Center for Urban Studies, a research, neighborhood planning and community development institute that works on eliminating inequality in cities and metropolitan regions. In September 2021, eight months before the Tops shooting, the Center for Urban Studies published a report that compared the state of Black Buffalo in 1990 to present-day conditions. The conclusion: Nothing had changed for Blacks over 31 years.
As of 2019, the Black unemployment rate was 11%, the average household income was $42,000 and about 35% of Blacks had incomes that fell below the poverty line, the report said. It also noted that just 32% of Blacks own their homes and that most Blacks in the area live on the East Side.
“Those figures remain virtually unchanged while the actual, physical conditions that existed inside of the community worsened,” Taylor told American Banker in an interview in his sun-filled office at the center, located on the University at Buffalo’s city campus. “When we looked upstream to see what was causing it, it was clear: It was systemic, structural racism.”
Banks’ moral obligations
As the East Side struggled over the decades with rampant poverty, dilapidated housing, vacant lots and disintegrating infrastructure, banks kept a physical presence in the community, albeit a shrinking one. In mid-2000, there were at least 20 bank branches scattered across the East Side, but by mid-2022, the number had fallen to around 14, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.’s deposit market share data. The 14 include four new branches that have opened since early 2019 — Northwest Bank, KeyBank, Evans Bank and BankOnBuffalo.
The first two branches, operated by Northwest in Columbus, Ohio, and KeyBank, the banking subsidiary of KeyCorp in Cleveland, were requirements of community benefits agreements negotiated between each bank and the National Community Reinvestment Coalition. In both cases, Northwest and KeyBank agreed to open an office in an underserved community.
Evans Bank opened its first East Side branch in the fall of 2021. The office is located in the basement of an $84 million affordable senior housing building that was financed by Evans, a $2.1 billion-asset community bank headquartered south of Buffalo in Angola, New York.
Banks have been very good at providing charitable contributions to the Black community. They get an ‘A’ for that. But doing the things that banks can do in terms of being a catalyst for revitalization and investment in this community, they have not done that.
The Rev. George Nicholas, an East Side pastor who is also CEO of the Buffalo Center for Health Equity
On the community and economic development front, banks have had varying levels of participation. Buffalo-based M&T Bank, which holds a whopping 64% of all deposits in the Buffalo market and is one of the largest private employers in the region, has made consistent investments in the East Side by supporting Westminster Community Charter School, a kindergarten through eighth-grade school, and the Buffalo Promise Neighborhood, a nonprofit organization focused on improving access to education in the city’s 14215 ZIP code.
Currently, Buffalo Promise Neighborhood operates four schools. In addition to Westminster, it runs Highgate Heights Elementary, also K-8, as well as two academies that serve children ages six weeks through pre-kindergarten. Twelve M&T employees are dedicated to the program, according to the Buffalo Promise Neighborhood website. The bank has invested $31.5 million into the program since its 2010 launch, a spokesperson said.
Other banks are making contributions in other ways. In addition to the Jefferson Avenue branch and as part of its community benefits plan, Northwest Bank, a $14.2 billion-asset bank, supports a financial education center through a partnership with Belmont Housing Resources of Western New York. Meanwhile, the $198 billion-asset KeyBank gave $30 million for bridge and construction financing for Northland Workforce Training Center, a $100 million redevelopment project at a former manufacturing complex on the East Side that was partially funded by the state.
BankOnBuffalo’s East Side branch is located inside the center, which offers KeyBank training in advanced manufacturing and clean energy technology careers. A subsidiary of $5.6 billion-asset CNB Financial in Clearfield, Pennsylvania, BankOnBuffalo’s office opened a month after the shooting. The timing was coincidental, but important, said Michael Noah, president of BankOnBuffalo.
“I think it just cemented the point that this is a place we need to be, to be able to be part of these communities and this community specifically, and be able to build this community up,” Noah said.
In terms of public-private collaboration, some banks have been involved in a deeper way. In 2019, New York state, which had already been pouring $1 billion into Buffalo to help revitalize the economy, announced a $65 million economic development fund for the East Side. The initiative is focused on stabilizing neighborhoods, increasing homeownership, redeveloping commercial corridors including Jefferson Avenue, improving historical assets, expanding workforce training and development and supporting small businesses and entrepreneurship.
In conjunction with the funding, a public-private partnership called East Side Avenues was created to provide capital and organizational support to the projects happening along four East Side commercial corridors. Six banks — Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America, the second-largest bank in the nation with $2.5 trillion of assets; M&T, which has $203 billion of assets; KeyBank; Warsaw, New York-based Five Star Bank, which has about $6 billion of assets; Northwest and Evans — are among the 14 private and philanthropic organizations that pledged a combined $8.4 million to pay for five years’ worth of operational support, governance and finance, fundraising and technical assistance to support the nonprofits doing the work.
Laura Quebral, director of the University at Buffalo Regional Institute, which is managing East Side Avenues, said the banks were the first corporations to step up to the request for help, and since then have provided loans and other products and education to keep the program moving.
Their participation “is a signal to the community that banks cared and were invested and were willing to collaborate around something,” Quebral said. “Being at the table was so meaningful.”
Richard Hamister is Northwest’s New York regional president and former co-chair of East Side Avenues. Hamister, who is based in Buffalo, said banks are a “community asset” that have a responsibility to lift up all communities, including those where conditions have arisen that allow it to be a target of racism like the East Side.
“We operate under federal charters, so we have an obligation to the community to not only provide products and services they need but also support when you go through a tragedy like that,” Hamister said. “We also have a moral obligation to try to help when things are broken … and to do what we can. We can’t fix everything, but we’ve got to fix our piece and try to help where we can.”
In the wake of a tragedy
After the massacre, there was a flurry of activity within banks and other organizations, local and out-of-town, to respond to the immediate needs of East Side residents. With the community’s only supermarket closed indefinitely, much of the response centered around food collection and distribution. Three of M&T’s five East Side branches, including the Jefferson Avenue branch across the street from Tops, became food distribution sites for weeks after the shooting. On two consecutive Fridays, Northwest provided around 200 free lunches to the community, using a neighborhood caterer who is also the bank’s customer. And BankOnBuffalo collected employee donations that amounted to more than 20 boxes of toiletries and other items that were distributed to a nonprofit.
At the same time, M&T, KeyBank and other banks began financial donations to organizations that could support the immediate needs of the community. KeyBank provided a van that delivered food and took people to nearby grocery stores. Providence, Rhode Island-based Citizens Financial Group, whose ATM inside Tops was inaccessible during the store’s temporary closure, installed a fee-free ATM near a community center located about a half-mile north of Tops, and later put a permanent ATM inside the center that remains there today. And M&T rolled out a short-term loan program to provide capital to East Side small-business owners.
One of the funds that benefited from banks’ support was the Buffalo Together Community Response Fund, which has raised $6.2 million to address the long-term needs of the East Side.
Bank of America and Evans Bank each donated $100,000 to the fund, whose list of major sponsors includes four other banks — JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, M&T and KeyBank. Thomas Beauford Jr., a former banker who is co-chair of the response fund, said banks, by and large, directed their resources into organizations where the dollars would have an immediate impact.
“Banks said, ‘Hey, you know … it doesn’t make sense for us to try to build something right now. … We will fund you in the work you’re doing,'” said Beauford, who has been president and CEO of the Buffalo Urban League since the fall of 2020. “I would say banks showed up in a big way.”
Fourteen months later, banks say they are committed to playing a positive role on the East Side. For the second year, KeyBank is sponsoring a farmers’ market on the East Side, an attempt to help fill the food desert in the community. Last fall, BankOnBuffalo launched a mobile “bank on wheels” truck that’s stationed on the East Side every Wednesday. The 34-foot-long truck, which is staffed by two people and includes an ATM and a printer to make debit cards, was in the works before the shooting, and will eventually make four stops per week around the Buffalo area.
Evans has partnered with the city of Buffalo to construct seven market-rate single family homes on vacant lots on the East Side. The relationship with the city is an example of how banks can pair up with other entities to create something meaningful and lasting, more than they might be able to do on their own, said Evans President and CEO David Nasca.
The bank has “picked areas” where it can use its resources to make a difference, Nasca said.
“I don’t think the root causes can be ameliorated” by banks alone, he said. “We can’t just grant money. It has to be within our construct of a financial institution that invests and supports the public-private partnership. … All the oars [need to be] pulling together or this doesn’t work.”
‘Little or no engagement with minorities’
All of these efforts are, of course, welcomed by the community, but there is still criticism that banks haven’t done enough to make up for their past contributions to segregating the city. And perhaps more importantly, some of that criticism centers on banks failing to do their most basic function in society — provide credit.
In 2021, the New York State Department of Financial Services issued a report about redlining in Buffalo. The regulator looked at banks and nonbank lenders and found that loans made to minorities in the Buffalo metro area made up 9.74% of total loans in Buffalo. Overall, Black residents comprise about 33% of Buffalo’s total population of more than 276,000, census data shows.
The department said its investigation showed the lower percentage was not due to “excessive denials of loan applications based on race or ethnicity,” but rather that “these companies had little or no engagement with minorities and generally made scant effort to do so.”
“The unsurprising result of this has been that few minority customers or individuals seeking homes in majority-minority neighborhoods have made loan applications … in the first instance.”
Furthermore, accusations of redlining persist today, even though the practice of discriminating in housing based on race was outlawed by the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
In 2014, Evans was accused of redlining by the New York State Attorney General, which said the community bank was specifically avoiding making mortgage loans on the East Side. The bank, which at the time had $874 million of assets, agreed to pay $825,000 to settle the case, but Nasca maintains that the charges were unfounded. He points to the fact that the bank never had a fair lending or fair housing violation, no specific incidents were ever claimed and that the bank’s Community Reinvestment Act exam never found evidence of discriminatory or illegal credit practices.
The bank has a greater presence on the East Side today, but that’s because it has grown in size, not because it is trying to make up for previous accusations of redlining, he said.
“Ten years ago, our involvement [on the East Side] certainly wasn’t what you’re seeing today,” Nasca said. “We were looking to participate more, but we were participating within our means and our reach. As we have grown, we have built more resources to be able to do more.”
Shortly after accusations were made against Evans, Five Star Bank, the banking arm of Financial Institutions in Warsaw, New York, was also accused of redlining by the state Attorney General. Five Star, which has been growing its presence in the Buffalo market for several years, wound up settling the charges for $900,000 and agreeing to open two branches in the city of Rochester.
KeyBank is currently being accused of redlining by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition. In a 2022 report, the group said that KeyBank is engaging in systemic redlining by making very few home purchase loans in certain neighborhoods where the majority of residents are Black. Buffalo is one of several cities where the bank’s mortgage lending “effectively wall[ed] out Black neighborhoods,” especially parts of the East Side, the report said.
KeyBank denied the allegations. In March, the coalition asked regulators to investigate the bank’s mortgage lending practices.
Beyond providing more credit, some community members believe that banks should be playing a larger role in addressing other needs on the East Side. And the list of needs runs the gamut from more grocery stores to safe, affordable housing to infrastructure improvements such as street and sidewalk repairs.
Alexander Wright is founder of the African Heritage Food Co-op, an initiative launched in 2016 to address the dearth of grocery store options on the East Side, where he grew up. Wright said that while banks’ philanthropic efforts are important, banks in general “need to be in a place of remediation” to fix underlying issues that the industry, as a whole, helped create. (After publication of this story, Wright left his job as CEO of the African Heritage Food Co-Op.)
Aside from charitable donations, banks should be finding more ways to work directly with East Side business owners and entrepreneurs, helping them with capital-building support along the way, Wright said. One place to start would be technical assistance by way of bank volunteers.
“Banks are always looking to volunteer. ‘Hey, want to come out and paint a fence? Want to come out and do a garden?'” Wright said. “No. Come out here and help Keshia with bookkeeping. Come out here and do QuickBooks classes for folks. Bring out tax experts. Because these are things that befuddle a lot of small businesses. Who is your marketing person? Bring that person out here. Because those are the things that are going to build the business to self-sufficiency.
“Anything short of the capacity-building … that will allow folks to rise to the occasion and be self-sufficient I think is almost a waste,” Wright added. “We don’t need them to lead the plan. What we need them to do is be in the community and [be] hearing the plan and supporting it.”
Parker, of Open Buffalo, has similar thoughts about the role that banks should play. One day, soon after the massacre, an ATM appeared down the street from Tops, next to the library that sits across the street from Parker’s office. Soon after the ATM was installed, Parker began fielding questions from area residents who were skeptical of the machine and wanted to know if it was legitimate. But Parker didn’t have any information to share with them. “There was no outreach. There was no community engagement. So I’m like, ‘Let me investigate,'” she said. “I think that’s a symptom of how investment is done in Black communities, even though it may be well-intentioned.”
As it turns out, the temporary ATM belonged to JPMorgan Chase. The megabank has had a commercial banking presence in Buffalo for years, but it didn’t operate a retail branch in the region until last year. Today it has four branches in operation and plans to open another two by the end of the year, a spokesperson said.
After the Tops shooting, the governor’s office reached out to Chase asking if the bank could help in some way, the spokesperson said in response to the skepticism. The spokesperson said that while the Chase retail brand is new to the Buffalo region, the company has been active in the market for decades by way of commercial banking, private banking, credit card lending, home lending and other businesses.
In addition to the ATM, the bank provided funding to local organizations including FeedMore Western New York, which distributes food throughout the region.
“We are committed to continuing our support for Buffalo and helping the community increase access to opportunities that build wealth and economic empowerment,” the spokesperson said in an email.
In the year since the massacre, there has been some progress by banks in terms of their interest in listening to the East Side community and learning about its needs, said Nicholas. But he hasn’t felt an air of urgency from the banking community to tackle the issues right now.
“I do experience banks being a little more open to figuring out what their role is, but it’s slow. It’s slow,” said Nicholas. The senior pastor of the Lincoln Memorial United Methodist Church, located about a mile north from Tops, Nicholas is part of a 13-member local advisory committee for the New York arm of Local Initiatives Support Coalition, or LISC. The group is focused on mobilizing resources, including banks, to address affordable housing in Western New York, specifically in the inner city, as well as training minority developers and connecting them to potential investors, Nicholas said.
Of the 13 members, seven are from banks — one each from M&T, Bank of America, BankOnBuffalo, Evans and KeyBank, and two members from Citizens Financial Group. One of the priorities of LISC NY is health equity, and the fact that banks are becoming more engaged in looking at health disparities is promising, Nicholas said. Still, they have more work to do, he said.
“I need them to think more on how to strengthen and build the economy on the East Side and provide leadership around that, not only to provide charitable things, but using sound business and banking and community development principles to say, ‘OK, if we’re going to invest in this community, these are the types of things that need to happen in this community,’ and then encourage their partners and other people they work with … to come fully in on the East Side.”
Some bankers agree with the community activists.
“Putting a branch in is great. Having a bank on wheels is great,” said Noah of BankOnBuffalo. “But if you’re not embedded in the community, listening to the community and trying to improve it, you’re not creating that wealth and creating a better lifestyle for everyone.”
What could make a substantial difference in terms of banks’ impact on the community is a combination of collaboration and leadership, said Taylor. He supports the idea of banks leading the charge on the creation of a comprehensive redevelopment and reinvestment plan for the East Side, and then investing accordingly and collaboratively through their charitable foundations.
“All of them have these foundations,” Taylor said. “You can either spend that money in a strategic and intentional way designed to develop a community for the existing population, or you can spend that money alone in piecemeal, siloed, sectorial fashion that will look good on an annual report, but won’t generate transformational and generational changes inside a community.”
Banks might be incentivized to work together because it could mean two things for them, according to Taylor: First, they’d have an opportunity to spend money in a way that would have maximum impact on the East Side, and second, if done right, the city and the banks could become a model of the way to create high levels of diversity, equity and inclusion in an urban area.
“If you prove how to do that, all that does is open up other markets of consumption all over the country because people want to figure out how to do that same thing,” Taylor said.
Some of that is already happening, at least on a bank-by-bank case, said KeyBank’s Owunwanne. Through the KeyBank Foundation, the company is able to leverage different relationships that connect nonprofits to other entities and corporations that can provide help.
“I see this as an opportunity for us to make not just incremental changes, but monumental changes … as part of a larger group,” Owunwanne said “Again, I say that not to absolve the bank of any responsibility, but just as a larger group.”
Downstairs from Parker’s office, Golden Cup Coffee, a roastery and cafe run by a husband and wife team, and some other Jefferson Avenue businesses are trying to build up a business association for existing and potential Jefferson-area businesses. Parker imagined what the group could accomplish if one of the banks could provide someone on a part-time basis to facilitate conversations, provide administrative support and coordinate marketing efforts.
“In the grand scheme of things, when we’re talking about a multimillion dollar [bank], a part-time employee specifically dedicated to relationship-building and building out coalitions, it sounds like a small thing,” Parker said. “But that’s transformational.”
City National Bank has agreed to pay $31 million to settle a U.S. Justice Department lawsuit alleging racial bias in its home mortgage lending in Los Angeles County.
The government’s complaint, filed Thursday in Los Angeles, accused the bank of violating federal housing and banking discrimination laws by avoiding loans to buyers of homes in neighborhoods that are majority Black or Latino.
City National Bank is the largest bank headquartered in L.A., but just one of the 11 branches it has opened in the county over the last 20 years is in a predominantly Black or Latino neighborhood. The county’s population of nearly 10 million is 49% Latino and 9% Black.
From 2017 to 2020, City National Bank maintained just three of its 37 branches in majority Black and Latino neighborhoods, the complaint said.
Advertisement
The bank relied on “relationship managers” to generate home loan applications from existing customers, who were predominantly white, the government alleged, and it failed to act on internal reports showing it risked running afoul of fair lending laws.
Other banks serving L.A. County received more than six times as many loan applications in Black and Latino areas, the government found.
City National Bank denied breaking discrimination laws, but said it agreed to settle the case to avoid prolonged litigation.
Under the proposed settlement, which was filed simultaneously with the complaint and requires court approval, the bank would provide $29.5 million in home loan subsidies to borrowers in Black and Latino areas, including interest-rate cuts and down-payment assistance.
Assistant Atty. Gen. Kristen Clarke and U.S. Atty. Martin Estrada announced the agreement at Second Baptist Church Los Angeles in Historic South Central, one of the city’s oldest Black churches. Nobody from the bank participated in the event.
“Through this agreement, we’re sending a strong message to the financial industry that we will not stand for unlawful barriers when it comes to residential mortgage lending,” Clarke said. “We will not stand for unlawful modern-day redlining.”
Advertisement
City National Bank released a statement saying it supports the Justice Department’s efforts to ensure equal access to loans regardless of race.
“At City National, we are committed to ensuring that all consumers have an equal opportunity to apply for and obtain credit,” it said.
Founded in Beverly Hills in 1953, City National Bank has deep ties to the entertainment industry. It was acquired in 2015 by the Royal Bank of Canada.
As part of the settlement agreement, City National Bank has agreed to spend $500,000 on advertising targeting residents of Black and Latino neighborhoods and $500,000 on a consumer financial education program to enhance their access to credit.
The bank also said it planned to open a new branch in a majority Black or Latino neighborhood and ensure that at least four loan officers are dedicated to serving those areas.
Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland launched a program in 2021 to step up enforcement of housing discrimination laws. It has yielded $75 million in relief to borrowers in Houston, Memphis, Philadelphia, Newark and Los Angeles.
Mortgages are essential financial tools that create a pathway to homeownership for millions of Americans each year. In recent years, however, many homebuyers have struggled to obtain small mortgages to purchase low-cost homes, those priced under $150,000.1 This problem has garnered the attention of federal regulators, including the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), who view small mortgages as important tools to increase wealth-building and homeownership opportunities in financially undeserved communities.2
Research has explored mortgage access at different loan amounts, such as below $100,000 or $70,000, and found that small mortgages are scarce relative to larger home loans. Those analyses show that applications for small mortgages are more likely to be denied than those for larger loans, even when applicants have similar credit scores.3 Although the existing research has identified several possible contributing factors to the shortage of small mortgages, the full spectrum of causes and their relative influence are not well understood.4
The Pew Charitable Trusts set out to fill that gap by examining the availability of small mortgages nationwide, the factors that impede small mortgage lending, and the options available to borrowers who cannot access these loans. Pew researchers compared real estate transaction and mortgage origination data from 2018 to 2021 in 1,440 counties across the U.S.; looked at homeownership statistics; and reviewed the results from Pew’s 2022 survey of homebuyers who have used alternative financing methods, such as land contracts and rent-to-own agreements.5 (See the separate appendices document for more details.) This examination found that:
Small mortgages became less common from 2004 to 2021. Nationally, much of the decline in small mortgage lending is the result of home price appreciation, which continually pushes properties above the price threshold at which small mortgages could finance them. However, even after accounting for price changes, small mortgages are less available nationwide than they were two decades ago, although the decline varies by geography.
Most low-cost home purchases do not involve a mortgage. Despite rising prices, sales of low-cost homesremain common nationwide, accounting for more than a quarter of total sales from 2018 to 2021. However, just 26% of properties that sold for less than $150,000 were financed using a mortgage, compared with 71% of higher-cost homes.
Borrowers who cannot access small mortgages typically experience one of three undesirable outcomes. Some households cannot achieve homeownership, which deprives them of one of this nation’s key wealth-building opportunities. Others pay for their home purchase using cash, though this option is challenging for all but the most well-resourced households and is almost never available to first-time homebuyers. And, finally, some resort to alternative financing arrangements, which tend to be riskier and costlier than mortgages, because in most states they are poorly defined and not subject to robust—or sometimes any—consumer protections.
Structural and regulatory barriers limit the profitability of small mortgage lending. The most significant of these barriers is that the fixed costs of originating a mortgage are disproportionally high for smaller loans. Federal policymakers can help address these challenges by identifying opportunities to modernize certain regulations in ways that reduce lenders’ costs without compromising borrower protections.
Mortgages are the main pathway to homeownership
In the United States, homeownership remains a priority for most families: In one nationally representative survey, 74% of respondents said owning a home is an integral part of the American Dream.6 Some Americans value homeownership for personal reasons, citing it as a better option for their family, their sense of safety and security, and their privacy.7 Still others emphasized homeownership’s financial benefits, noting that owning makes more economic sense than renting, enables them to take advantage of their home’s resale value, and can provide substantial tax benefits.8
But regardless of their reasons for buying homes, most American families rely on mortgages to gain access to homeownership because they cannot afford to purchase a home with cash. According to a survey conducted from July 2021 to June 2022, 78% of homebuyers financed their purchases with mortgages, most of which were fixed-rate loans. Mortgages are even more prevalent among first-time homebuyers: 97% used a mortgage to purchase their starter home.9 Given the predominance of mortgages, it is no surprise that changes in mortgage availability have closely correlated with shifts in the nation’s homeownership rate over the past two decades.10 (See Figure 1.)
Mortgages not only enable homeownership, but they also enhance its financial benefits. In most cases, these loans help borrowers purchase larger or more valuable homes than they could otherwise afford. Fixed-rate mortgages also serve as a hedge against inflation and offer borrowers housing cost certainty in the form of a predictable schedule of payments for the duration of the loan.
In addition, mortgages are subject to robust consumer protections. Most mortgages include inspection and appraisal contingencies, which ensure that homes meet minimum habitability standards and that the sale price reflects the home’s true market value, respectively.11 Further, real estate transactions involving mortgages typically include a clear process for transferring the property’s title from seller to buyer, which is a crucial step in guaranteeing that borrowers can demonstrate ownership of their property. And in the event of default, CFPB rules contain clear foreclosure and delinquency processes that give mortgage borrowers an opportunity to make any missed payments and retain their homes.12
Because of these advantages, financing a home purchase with a mortgage is almost always in buyers’ best interest. However, homebuyers seeking loans under $150,000 are often unable to find a mortgage and so are deprived of the benefits of homeownership, of mortgages, or both.
Small mortgages are scarce
Small mortgages are less common today than they were before the Great Recession, when lenders issued small and large mortgages in roughly equal measure. In 2004, for example, lenders originated 2.7 million mortgages for less than $150,000 (in 2004 dollars) and 2.9 million large mortgages—those of $150,000 or more. But Pew estimates that from 2004 to 2021, small mortgage lending fell by nearly 70% to 830,000 loans a year, while large mortgage lending grew by 52% to 4.4 million loans annually. The decline was more acute in certain parts of the country. For instance, the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia found that small mortgages declined by only 28% in Pennsylvania and Delaware from 2019 to 2021 but fell by 43% in New Jersey over the same span.13
Some of the decrease in small mortgage lending can be explained by rising home prices. As homes become more expensive, fewer properties can be purchased using a small mortgage. And the issue of housing affordability has grown more acute over the past two decades. According to the Zillow Home Value Index, single-family home prices rose faster than the rate of inflation from 2004 to 2021. Furthermore, those increases were largest among lower-priced homes.14 Still, home price appreciation does not fully account for the decline in small mortgage lending. (See Figure 2.)
Although low-cost properties are scarcer than they once were, they continue to be bought and sold in large numbers across the country. But the share of those homes purchased with a mortgage is far lower than that for higher-priced properties. From 2018 to 2021, the 1,440 counties Pew studied collectively recorded about 20 million home sales, of which 5.3 million were for less than $150,000. Although the share of low-cost properties varied based on local market conditions, every county in this analysis recorded at least one low-cost sale. During the same period, lenders originated about 12.1 million mortgages in the counties Pew studied, including roughly 1.4 million for purchases under $150,000.15 Based on these mortgage origination and home sale figures, Pew estimates that about 71% of homes priced at $150,000 or more were financed using a mortgage, compared with just 26% of lower-cost homes. (See Figure 3.) This amounts to a financing gap of 44 percentage points, or about 560,000 home purchases that were not financed with small mortgages.
Importantly, however, this analysis probably overstates the magnitude of the financing gap for two key reasons. First, Pew is unable to observe the physical quality of the homes purchased in the studied counties. Evidence suggests that low-cost homes are more likely than higher-cost homes to have structural deficiencies that disqualify them from mortgage financing. Second, even if small mortgages are readily available, many sellers, and probably some buyers, are likely to prefer cash transactions. (See “Cash purchases” below for more details.) Still, these factors do not fully account for the gap in small mortgage financing.
What happens when people cannot get a small mortgage?
When prospective buyers of low-cost homes cannot access a small mortgage, they typically have three options: turn to alternative forms of financing such as land contracts, lease-purchases, or personal property loans; purchase their home using cash; or forgo owning a home and instead rent or live with family or friends. Each of these outcomes has significant disadvantages relative to buying a home using a small mortgage.
Alternative financing
Many alternative financing arrangements are made directly between a seller and a buyer to finance the sale of a home and are generally costlier and riskier than mortgages.16 For example, personal property loans—an alternative arrangement that finances manufactured homes exclusive of the land beneath them—have median interest rates that are nearly 4 percentage points higher than the typical mortgage issued for a manufactured home purchase.17 Further, research in six Midwestern states found that interest rates for land contracts—arrangements in which the buyer pays regular installments to the seller, often for an agreed upon period of time—ranged from zero to 50%, with most above the prime mortgage rate.18 And unlike mortgages, which are subject to a robust set of federal regulations, alternative arrangements are governed by a weak patchwork of state and federal laws that vary widely in their definitions and protections.19
But despite the risks, millions of homebuyers continue to turn to alternative financing. Pew’s first-of-its-kind survey, fielded in 2021, found that 36 million people use or have used some type of alternative home financing arrangement.20 And a 2022 follow-up survey on homebuyers’ experiences with alternative financing found that these arrangements are particularly prevalent among buyers of low-cost homes. From 2000 to 2022, 50% of borrowers who used these arrangements purchased homes under $150,000. (See the separate appendices document for survey toplines.)
Further, the 2022 survey found that about half of alternative financing borrowers applied—and most reported being approved or preapproved—for a mortgage before entering into an alternative arrangement. Pew’s surveys of borrowers, interviews with legal aid experts, and review of research on alternative financing shed some light on the advantages of alternative financing—despite its added costs and risks—compared with mortgages for some homebuyers:
Convenience. Alternative financing borrowers do not have to submit or sign as many documents as they would for a mortgage, and in some instances, the purchase might close more quickly.21 For example, Pew’s 2022 survey found that just 67% of respondents said they had to provide their lender with bank statements, pay stubs, or other income verification and only 60% had to furnish a credit report, credit score, or other credit check, all of which are standard requirements for mortgage transactions.
Upfront costs. Some alternative financing arrangements have lower down payment requirements than do traditional mortgages.22 Borrowers who are unable to afford a substantial down payment or who want small monthly payments may find alternative financing more appealing than mortgages, even if those arrangements cost more over the long term. For example, in Pew’s 2022 survey, 23% of respondents said they did not pay a down payment, deposit, or option fee. And among those who did have a down payment, 75% put down less than 20% of the home price, compared with 59% of mortgage borrowers in 2021.23
Specifics of a home. Borrowers who prioritize the location or amenities of a specific home over the type, convenience, and cost of financing they use might agree to an alternative arrangement if the seller insists on it, rather than forgo purchasing the home.
Familiarity with seller. Borrowers buying a home from family or friends might agree to a transaction that is preferable to the seller because they trust that family or friends will give them a fair deal, perhaps one that is even better than they would get from a mortgage lender.
However, regardless of a borrower’s reasons, the use of alternative financing is cause for concern because it is disproportionately used—and thus the risks and costs are inequitably borne—by racial and ethnic minorities, low-income households, and owners of manufactured homes. Among Americans who have financed a home purchase, 34% of Hispanic and 23% of Black households have used alternative financing at least once, compared with just 19% of White borrowers. (See Figure 4.) Further, families earning less than $50,000 are seven times more likely to use alternative financing than those earning more than $50,000. And nearly half of surveyed manufactured home owners reported using a personal property loan.24 In all of these cases, expanding access to small mortgages could help reduce historically underserved communities’ reliance on risky alternative financing arrangements.
Cash purchases
Other homebuyers who fail to obtain a small mortgage instead choose to pay cash for their homes. In 2021, about a quarter of all home sales were cash purchases, and that share grew in 2022 amid an increasingly competitive housing market.25 The share of cash purchases is larger among low-cost than higher-cost property sales, which may partly be a consequence of the lack of small mortgages.26 However, although cash purchases are appealing to some homebuyers and offer some structural advantages, especially in competitive markets, they are not economically viable for the vast majority of first-time homebuyers, 97% of whom use mortgages.27
Purchasing a house with cash gives buyers a competitive advantage, compared with using a mortgage. Sellers often prefer to work with cash buyers over those with financing because payment is guaranteed, and the buyer does not need time to secure a mortgage. Cash purchases also enable simpler, faster, and cheaper sales compared with financed purchases by avoiding lender requirements such as home inspections and appraisals. In essence, cash sales eliminate “financing risk” for sellers by removing the uncertainties and delays that can accompany mortgage-financed sales. Indeed, as the housing supply has tightened and competition for the few available homes has increased, purchase offers with financing contingencies have become less attractive to sellers. As a result, some financing companies have stepped in to make cash offers on behalf of buyers, enabling those borrowers to be more competitive but often saddling them with additional costs and fees.
However, most Americans do not have the financial resources to pay cash for a home. In 2019, the median home price was $258,000, but the median U.S. renter had just $15,750 in total assets—far less than would be necessary to buy a house.28 Even households with cash on hand may be financially destabilized by a cash purchase because investing a substantial sum of money into a home could severely limit the amount of money they have available for other needs, such as emergencies or everyday expenses. Perhaps because of the financial challenges, homes purchased with cash tend to be smaller and cheaper than homes bought using a mortgage.29
These challenging economic factors limit the types of homebuyers who pursue cash purchases. Investors—both individual and institutional—make up a large share of the cash-purchase market, and are more likely than other buyers to purchase low-cost homes and then return the homes to the market as rental units.30
Researchers have questioned whether cash purchases are truly an alternative to mortgage financing or whether they fundamentally change the composition of homebuyers. One study conducted in 2016 determined that tight credit standards enacted in the aftermath of the 2008 housing market crash resulted in a large uptick in cash purchases, mostly by investor-buyers.31 More recent evidence from 2020 through 2021 suggests that investor purchases are more common in areas with elevated mortgage denial rates, low home values, and below-average homeownership rates.32 In each of these cases, a lack of mortgage access tended to benefit investors, possibly at the expense of homeowners.
No homeownership
Some prospective homebuyers who are unable to access a small mortgage simply forgo homeownership entirely. Instead of buying, these families may choose to rent or live with friends or family. And although these are not necessarily bad outcomes, they lack the financial advantages of homeownership.
On average, homeowners have a net worth that is more than 40 times that of renters, largely because of the equity they accrue from paying down their mortgage balances and from their homes’ appreciation over time.33 In 2019, the median homeowner had $225,000 of equity, accounting for almost 90% of their overall net worth.34
Further, in rental markets with few vacancies and commensurately high costs, owning a home can cost less per month than renting. Recent evidence suggests that, particularly when mortgage interest rates are low, a mortgage payment for a three-bedroom house can be cheaper than the monthly rent for a three-bedroom apartment.35 Likewise, some evidence suggests that buying an inexpensive starter home costs less than renting in some metropolitan areas in the South and Midwest.36
Importantly, the financial benefits of homeownership are not shared equally throughout the country. Historical patterns of discrimination in mortgage lending and government policy have prevented Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous households from accessing homeownership at the same rate as White households. And many of those structural barriers persist, as evidenced by the Black-White homeownership gap, which was wider in 2020 than it was in 1970.37
Mortgage Denials Play a Small Role in Low Access to Credit
Lenders deny applications for small mortgages more often than those for larger loans. From 2018 to 2021, lenders received about 700,000 small mortgage applications per year for site-built single-family homes, of which they denied 11.8%. In contrast, lenders denied just 7.8% of the roughly 3.6 million applications submitted annually for larger mortgages during the same period.
These differences do not entirely reflect applicants’ creditworthiness, as measured by debt-to-income ratio (a person’s monthly debt divided by their income), loan-to-value ratio (dollar amount of a mortgage as a share of the subject property’s appraised value), or credit scores. Research demonstrates that, even for applicants with similar credit profiles, denial rates are much higher for small mortgages than large ones.38 Pew’s analysis confirms these findings. Lenders denied small mortgage applicants with low debt-to-income ratios (36% and below) 8.8% of the time, compared with 4.7% of the time for larger loan applicants with a similar profile. Likewise, applicants with loan-to-value ratios under 80% were more likely to be denied for a small mortgage than a large one.
However, mortgage denials are not the primary cause of the small mortgage shortage. Pew’s analysis found that if lenders denied applications for small mortgages at the same rate as those for larger mortgages, they would originate about 31,000 more small mortgages each year. Although thousands of borrowers would benefit from lower small mortgage denial rates, those additional loans would increase the share of low-cost properties financed with a mortgage by only about 3 percentage points. These findings suggest that lowering the denial rate is not sufficient to increase access to safe and affordable mortgage financing and that regulators need to do more to improve incentives for lenders to originate small mortgages and boost awareness among borrowers.
Small mortgage lending is not profitable for lenders
Policymakers, consumer advocates, and industry agree that increasing the supply of small mortgages could boost homeownership—especially in underserved, low-cost communities.39 But many mortgage lenders simply do not offer small home loans to borrowers. Of the more than 5,000 lenders that originated mortgages from 2018 to 2021, 38% did not issue a single small mortgage.40
In conversations with Pew, lenders, consumer advocates, and government officials identified several potential structural and regulatory obstacles to small mortgage lending. These include the high fixed cost of origination, commission-based compensation for loan officers, the poor physical quality of many low-cost housing units, and various rules and regulations that help protect consumers but may add cost or complexity to the origination process and could be updated to maintain safety at lower cost to lenders.
Structural barriers
Lenders have repeatedly identified the high fixed cost of mortgage originations as a barrier to small mortgage lending because origination costs are roughly constant regardless of loan amount, but revenue varies by loan size. As a result, small mortgages cost lenders about as much to originate as large ones but produce much less revenue, making them unprofitable. Further, lenders have reported an increase in mortgage origination costs in recent years: $8,243 in 2020, $8,664 in 2021, and $10,624 in 2022.41 In conversations with Pew, lenders indicated that many of these costs stem from factors that do not vary based on loan size, including staff salaries, technology, compliance, and appraisal fees.
Lenders typically charge mortgage borrowers an origination fee of 0.5% to 1.0% of the total loan balance as well as closing costs of roughly 3% to 6% of the home purchase price.42 Therefore, more expensive homes—and the larger loans usually used to purchase them—produce higher revenue for lenders than do small mortgages for low-cost homes.
In addition, standard industry compensation practices for loan officers may limit the availability of small mortgages. Lenders typically employ loan officers to help borrowers choose a loan product, collect relevant financial documents, and submit mortgage applications—and pay them wholly or partly on commission.43 And because larger loans yield greater compensation, loan officers may focus on originating larger loans at the expense of smaller ones, reducing the availability of small mortgages.
Finally, lenders must contend with an aging and deteriorating stock of low-cost homes, many of which need extensive repairs. Data from the American Housing Survey shows that 6.7% of homes valued under $150,000 (1.1 million properties) do not meet the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s definition of “adequacy,” compared with just 2.6% of homes valued at $150,000 or more (1.7 million properties).44 The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia estimates that, despite some improvement in housing quality overall, the total cost of remediating physical deficiencies in the nation’s housing stock nevertheless increased from $126.2 billion in 2018 to $149.3 billion in 2022.45
The poor physical quality of many low-cost properties can limit lenders’ ability to originate small mortgages for the purchase of those homes. For instance, physical deficiencies threaten a home’s present and future value, which makes the property less likely to qualify as loan collateral. And poor housing quality can render many low-cost homes ineligible for federal loan programs because the properties cannot meet those programs’ strict habitability standards.
Regulatory barriers
Regulations enacted in the wake of the Great Recession vastly improved the safety of mortgage lending for borrowers and lenders. But despite this success, some stakeholders have called for streamlining of regulations that affect the cost of mortgage origination to make small mortgages more viable. The most commonly cited of these are certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act), the Qualified Mortgage rule (QM rule), the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA), and parts of the CFPB’s Loan Originator Compensation rule.46
The Dodd-Frank Act requires creditors to make a reasonable, good-faith determination of a consumer’s ability to repay a mortgage. This provision has significantly increased the safety of the mortgage market and protected borrowers from unfair and abusive loan terms—such as unnecessarily high interest rates and fees—as well as terms that could strip borrowers of their equity. Lenders can meet Dodd-Frank’s requirements by originating a “qualified mortgage” (QM), which is a loan that meets the CFPB’s minimum borrower safety standards, including limits on the points, fees, and annual percentage rate (APR) the lender can charge.47 In return for originating mortgages under this provision, known as the QM rule, the act provides protection for lenders from any claims by borrowers that they failed to verify the borrower’s ability to repay and so are liable for monetary damages in the event that the borrower defaults and loses the home.
Some lenders and researchers have suggested that the QM rule has increased the cost of mortgage origination because lenders had to establish new processes to verify borrowers’ ability to repay and adhere to stricter compliance requirements.48 In addition, lenders who cannot keep their charges within the QM rule limits often have to offer credits to lower the borrower-facing fees, which can result in lenders originating the loan at a loss.49 And although 2020 revisions to the QM rule gave lenders more flexibility in calculating a borrower’s ability to repay, the extent to which those changes help lenders keep origination costs in check remains unclear.
Another regulation that lenders and researchers have cited as possibly raising the cost of origination is the CFPB’s Loan Originator Compensation rule. The rule protects consumers by reducing loan officers’ incentives to steer borrowers into products with excessively high interest rates and fees. However, lenders say that by prohibiting compensation adjustments based on a loan’s terms or conditions, the rule prevents them from lowering costs for small mortgages, especially in underserved markets. For example, when making small, discounted, or reduced-interest rate products for the benefit of consumers, lenders earn less revenue than they do from other mortgages, but because the rule entitles loan officers to still receive full compensation, those smaller loans become relatively more expensive for lenders to originate. Lenders have suggested that more flexibility in the rule would allow them to reduce loan officer compensation in such cases.50 However, regulators and researchers should closely examine the effects of this adjustment on lender and borrower costs and credit availability. Although such changes would lower lenders’ costs to originate small mortgages for underserved borrowers, they also could further disincline loan officers from serving this segment of the market and so potentially do little to address the small mortgage shortage.
Lastly, some lenders have identified HOEPA as another deterrent to small mortgage lending. The law, enacted in 1994, protects consumers by establishing limits on the APR, points and fees, and prepayment penalties that lenders can charge borrowers on a wide range of loans. Any mortgage that exceeds a HOEPA threshold is deemed a “high-cost mortgage,” which requires lenders to make additional disclosures to the borrower, use prescribed methods to assess the borrower’s ability to repay, and avoid certain loan terms. Changes to the HOEPA rule made in 2013 strengthened the APR and points and fees standards, further protecting consumers but also limiting lenders’ ability to earn revenue on many types of loans. Additionally, the 2013 revision increased the high-cost mortgage thresholds, revised disclosure requirements, restricted certain loan terms for high-cost mortgages, and imposed homeownership counseling requirements.
Many lenders say the 2013 changes to HOEPA increased their costs and compliance obligations and exposed them to legal and reputational risk. However, research has shown that the changes did not significantly affect the overall loan supply but have been effective in discouraging lenders from originating loans that fall above the high-cost thresholds.51 More research is needed to understand how the rule affects small mortgages.
Regulators and lenders have taken some action to expand access to small mortgages
A diverse array of stakeholders, including regulators, consumer advocates, lenders, and researchers, support policy changes to safely encourage more small mortgage lending.52 And policymakers have begun looking at various regulations to identify any that may inadvertently limit borrowers’ access to credit, especially small mortgages, and to address those issues without compromising consumer protections.
Some regulators have already introduced changes that could benefit the small mortgage market by reducing the cost of mortgage origination. For example, in 2022, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) announced that to promote sustainable and equitable access to housing, it would eliminate guarantee fees (G-fees)—annual fees that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac charge lenders when purchasing mortgages—for loans issued to certain first-time, low-income, and otherwise underserved homebuyers.53 Researchers, advocates, and the mortgage industry have long expressed concern about the effect of G-fees on the cost of mortgages for borrowers, and FHFA’s change may lower costs for buyers who are most likely to use small mortgages.54
Similarly, FHFA’s decision to expand the use of desktop appraisals, in which a professional appraiser uses publicly available data instead of a site visit to determine a property’s value, has probably cut the amount of time it takes to close a mortgage as well as appraisal costs for certain loans, which in turn should reduce the cost of originating small loans without materially increasing the risk of defaults.55
At the same time, some lenders have been exploring the use of special purpose credit programs (SPCPs) to increase access to mortgage financing for low-cost homebuyers from historically disadvantaged communities.56 SPCPs allow lenders to design loan products that address the unique needs of borrowers of color, manufactured home buyers, and residents of areas where alternative financing is prevalent, all of whom have typically been underserved by the mortgage industry.
Other entities, such as nonprofit organizations and community development financial institutions (CDFIs), are also developing and offering small mortgage products that use simpler, more flexible underwriting methods than other mortgages, thus reducing origination costs.57 Where these products are available, they have increased access to small mortgages and homeownership, especially for low-income families and homebuyers of color.
Although these initiatives are encouraging, high fixed costs are likely to continue making small mortgage origination difficult, and the extent to which regulations governing loan origination affect—or might be safely modified to lower—these costs is uncertain. Unless policymakers address the major challenges—high fixed costs and their drivers—lenders and regulators will have difficulty bringing innovative solutions to scale to improve access to small mortgages. Future research should continue to explore ways to reduce costs for lenders and borrowers and align regulations with a streamlined mortgage origination process, all while protecting borrowers and maintaining market stability.
Solutions to small mortgage challenges in underserved communities
Structural barriers such as high fixed origination costs, rising home prices, and poor home quality partly explain the shortage of small mortgages. But borrowers also face other obstacles, such as high denial rates, difficulty making down payments, and competition in housing markets flooded with investors and other cash purchasers. And although small mortgages have been declining overall, the lack of credit access affects some communities more than others, driving certain buyers into riskier alternative financing arrangements or excluding them from homeownership entirely.
To better support communities where small mortgages are scarce, policymakers should keep the needs of the most underserved populations in mind when designing and implementing policies to increase access to credit and homeownership. No single policy can improve small mortgage access in every community, but Pew’s work suggests that structural barriers are a primary driver of the small mortgage shortage and that federal policymakers can target a few key areas to make a meaningful impact:
Drivers of mortgage origination costs. Policymakers should evaluate federal government compliance requirements to determine how they affect costs and identify ways to streamline those mandates without increasing risk, particularly through new financial technology. As FHFA Director Sandra L. Thompson stated in April 2023: “Over the past decade, mortgage origination costs have doubled, while delivery times have remained largely unchanged. When used responsibly, technology has the potential to improve borrowers’ experiences by reducing barriers, increasing efficiencies, and lowering costs.”58
Incentives that encourage origination of larger rather than smaller mortgages. Policymakers can look for ways to discourage compensation structures that drive loan officers to prioritize larger-balance loans, such as calculating loan officers’ commissions based on individual loan values or total lending volume.
The balance between systemic risk and access to credit. Although advocates and industry stakeholders agree that regulators should continue to protect borrowers from the types of irresponsible lending practices that contributed to the collapse of the housing market from 2005 to 2007, underwriting standards today prevent too many customers from accessing mortgages.59 A more risk-tolerant stance from the federal government could unlock access to small mortgages and homeownership for more Americans. For example, the decision by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (known collectively as the Government Sponsored Enterprises, or GSEs) and FHA to include a positive rent payment record—as well as Freddie Mac’s move to allow lenders to use a borrower’s positive monthly bank account cash-flow data—in their underwriting processes will help expand access to credit to a wider pool of borrowers.60
Habitability of existing low-cost housing and funding for repairs. Restoring low-cost homes could provide more opportunities for borrowers—and the homes they wish to purchase—to qualify for small mortgages. However, more analysis is needed to determine how to improve the existing housing stock without increasing loan costs for lenders or borrowers.
In addition to reducing structural and regulatory barriers to small mortgage lending, a robust policy response on home financing should focus on borrowers who are acutely affected by the lack of small mortgages. Federal policymakers should look for opportunities to expand existing programs and policies for communities that have historically been excluded from homeownership and mortgage access, particularly:
The Duty to Serve rule, which directs the GSEs to improve access to mortgage financing for borrowers of modest means in three underserved markets: manufactured housing, rural communities, and areas requiring funds to preserve affordable housing. Homebuyers in these markets often require a small mortgage to purchase a home, so the GSEs could seek to link their Duty to Serve obligations with small mortgage lending in these markets.
Equitable Housing Finance Plans, which are three-year strategies that the GSEs develop to promote equitable access to affordable and sustainable housing for disadvantaged groups, particularly Black and Hispanic communities. People in these communities are less likely to own a home and more likely to use alternative financing than the overall population, which probably indicates an unmet demand for mortgages. The GSE leadership should consider adding an objective to their plans related to refinancing alternative financing arrangements—which the plans’ target communities disproportionally use—into mortgages.
SPCPs, which can help lenders better serve specific populations that would otherwise be denied credit or receive it on less favorable terms. Policymakers should encourage the creation and use of these programs for underserved populations in low-cost areas where there is a special need for small mortgages and measure the impacts.
Future Pew research will explore not only important questions about the barriers to small mortgage origination but also the strategies that policymakers can use to expand the nation’s affordable housing stock, improve the habitability of existing low-cost homes, and ensure that small mortgages are more accessible and competitive in the marketplace.
Conclusion
Mortgages are vital financial tools that enable homeownership and wealth-building opportunities for millions of Americans each year. However, the scarcity of small mortgages deprives some prospective borrowers of homeownership opportunities and drives others to buy their homes with cash or risky alternative financing arrangements.
To address this problem, policymakers should aim to expand mortgage access and the overall safety of financing for low-cost homes by reducing the structural and regulatory constraints that increase lenders’ costs and make small mortgages unprofitable, and establishing strong consumer protections for alternative arrangements. In addition, federal agencies and lawmakers can reduce racial disparities in mortgage lending by prioritizing Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous households in the development and implementation of small mortgage and alternative financing programs. Together, these initiatives would help bring homeownership opportunities to more Americans.
This brief also benefited from the valuable insights of Dan Gorin, lead supervisory policy analyst, Federal Reserve Board of Governors; Roberto Quercia, professor, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Craig Richardson, professor, Winston-Salem State University; and Sabiha Zainulbhai, senior policy analyst, New America. Although they reviewed drafts of the brief, neither they nor their institutions necessarily endorse the findings or conclusions.
This brief was researched and written by Pew staff members Tracy Maguze, Tara Roche, and Adam Staveski. The project team thanks current and former colleagues Nick Bourke, Ryan Canavan, Jennifer V. Doctors, David East, Anne Holmes, Alex Horowitz, Dave Lam, Omar Antonio Martínez, Cindy Murphy-Tofig, Tricia Olszewski, Reagan Ortiz, Travis Plunkett, Andy Qualls, Ryland Staples, Drew Swinburne, and Mark Wolff for providing important communications, creative, editorial, and research support for this work.
Endnotes
Pew defines small mortgages as loans under $150,000. For the purposes of this study, loan values are adjusted for inflation to reflect 2021 dollars unless otherwise noted. This value is based on conversations with mortgage lenders and on an observed decline in lending below that threshold over the past decade. Additionally, for the purposes of this paper, low-cost homes are those priced at less than $150,000, also in 2021 dollars. This price range is consistent with the majority of purchases financed with small mortgages. The median down payment among small mortgage borrowers is just 5%, and as a result, 75% of small mortgages are used to purchase a home under $157,500, although some borrowers do pair small mortgages with larger down payments to purchase higher-cost homes.
Request for Information Regarding Small Mortgage Lending, 87 Fed. Reg. 60186-87 (Oct. 4, 2022); Request for Information Regarding Mortgage Refinances and Forbearances, 87 Fed. Reg. 58487-92 (Sept. 27, 2022).
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Financing Lower-Priced Homes: Small Mortgage Loans” (2022), https://www.huduser.gov/portal/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Financing-Lower-Priced-Homes-Small-Mortgage-Loans.pdf.
S. Zainulbhai et al., “The Lending Hole at the Bottom of the Homeownership Market” (New America, 2021), https://www.newamerica.org/future-land-housing/reports/the-lending-hole-at-the-bottom-of-the-homeownership-market/; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Financing Lower-Priced Homes”; A. McCargo et al., “Small-Dollar Mortgages for Single-Family Residential Properties” (Urban Institute, 2018), https://www.urban.org/research/publication/small-dollar-mortgages-single-family-residential-properties; E. Goldstein and K. DeMaria, “Small-Dollar Mortgage Lending in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware” (Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, 2022), https://www.philadelphiafed.org/community-development/credit-and-capital/small-dollar-mortgage-lending-in-pennsylvania-new-jersey-and-delaware; L. Goodman, B. Bai, and W. Li, “Real Denial Rates: A Better Way to Look at Who Is Receiving Mortgage Credit” (working paper, Urban Institute, 2018), https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/98823/real_denial_rates_1.pdf; A. McCargo, B. Bai, and S. Strochak, “Small-Dollar Mortgages: A Loan Performance Analysis” (Urban Institute, 2019), https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99906/ small_dollar_mortgages_a_loan_performance_analysis_2.pdf.
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2018-2021, https://ffiec.cfpb.gov/data-browser/; Zillow Group Inc., Zillow Transaction and Assessment Database, 2018-21, https://www.zillow.com/research/ztrax/. This analysis uses data on mortgage transactions from the HMDA database, the most comprehensive source of information on mortgage lending in the United States. Mortgage lenders report application-level information directly to the CFPB, which compiles and republishes the data for public use. Data on home sales was provided by Zillow through Zillow’s Transaction and Assessment Database (ZTRAX). More information on accessing the data can be found at https://www.zillow.com/research/ztrax/. The results and opinions are those of the authors and do not reflect the position of Zillow Group.
Bankrate, “Nearly Two-Thirds Say Affordability Factors Are Holding Them Back From Homeownership” (Bankrate.com, 2022), https://www.bankrate.com/pdfs/pr/20220330-march-fsp.pdf.
D. Sackett and K. Handel, The Tarrance Group, letter to Woodrow Wilson Center, “Key Findings From National Survey of Voters,” May 21, 2012, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/article/keyfindingsfromsurvey.pdf.
Ibid.
National Association of Realtors, “Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers” (2022), https://www.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/documents/2022-highlights-from-the-profile-of-home-buyers-and-sellers-report-11-03-2022_0.pdf.
A. Acolin, L. Goodman, and S.M. Wachter, “Accessing Homeownership With Credit Constraints,” Housing Policy Debate 29, no. 1 (2019): 108-25, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2018.1452042?casa_token=5ZjHGNxo1VoAAAAA%3AtLKWk_xn7JT3Uz2G7T_zziEuPZa0NlarhJ-tGl6m83DgxB6rq-IYSU7eZNI9mIwBAFx5o7BGbulINcjA.
N. Bourke, T. Roche, and C. Hatchett, “Homeowners With Risky Alternatives to Traditional Mortgages Eligible for COVID-19 Relief Money,” The Pew Charitable Trusts, Nov. 1, 2021, https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2021/11/01/homeowners-with-risky-alternatives-to-traditional-mortgages-eligible-for-covid19-relief-money.
Goldstein and DeMaria, “Small-Dollar Mortgage Lending in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.”
Zillow Group Inc., “Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI),” 2000-22, https://www.zillow.com/research/data/.
Some borrowers use small mortgages to purchase properties valued at more than $150,000, but Pew is primarily interested in expanding homeownership opportunities to underserved populations, so this analysis considers only low-cost properties.
The Pew Charitable Trusts, “What Has Research Shown About Alternative Home Financing in the U.S.?” (2022), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2022/04/what-has-research-shown-about-alternative-home-financing-in-the-us.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Manufactured Housing Finance: New Insights From the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data” (2021), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_manufactured-housing-finance-new-insights-hmda_report_2021-05.pdf.
A. Carpenter, T. George, and L. Nelson, “The American Dream or Just an Illusion? Understanding Land Contract Trends in the Midwest Pre- and Post-Crisis” (Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2019), 9, https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/media/imp/harvard_jchs_housing_tenure_symposium_carpenter_george_nelson.pdf.
The Pew Charitable Trusts, “What Has Research Shown?”; National Consumer Law Center, “Summary of State Land Contract Statutes” (2021), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/white-papers/2022/02/less-than-half-of-states-have-laws-governing-land-contracts.
The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Millions of Americans Have Used Risky Financing Arrangements to Buy Homes” (2022), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2022/04/millions-of-americans-have-used-risky-financing-arrangements-to-buy-homes.
H.K. Way, “Informal Homeownership in the United States and the Law,” Saint Louis University Public Law Review XXIX, no. 113 (2010): 113-92, https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/hway/informal-homeownership.pdf.
Ibid.
HMDA data for 2022 was not available at time of publication.
The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Millions of Americans Have Used Risky Financing Arrangements to Buy Homes.”
National Association of Realtors, “Realtors Confidence Index Survey” (2022), https://cdn.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/documents/2022-09-realtors-confidence-index-10-20-2022.pdf; D. Anderson, “Share of Homes Bought With All Cash Hits Highest Level Since 2014,” Redfin, https://www.redfin.com/news/all-cash-home-purchases-fha-loans-october-2022/.
T. Malone, “Single-Family Investor Activity Bounces Back in the First Quarter of 2022” (CoreLogic, 2022), https://www.corelogic.com/intelligence/single-family-investor-activity-bounces-back-in-the-first-quarter-of-2022/.
Federal Reserve Board, Survey of Consumer Finances, 1989-2019, https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scf/dataviz/scf/table/#series:Transaction_Accounts;demographic:agecl;population:all;units:median. In 2019, the median balance in the checking and savings accounts of Americans younger than 35 was just $3,240; it jumps to $5,620 for accountholders ages 55 to 64.
Ibid.
S. Riley, A. Freeman, and J. Dorrance, “Alternatives to Mortgage Financing for Manufactured Housing” (The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Center for Community Capital, 2021), https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2022/03/alternatives-to-mortgage-financing-for-manufactured-housing.pdf.
L. Goodman, J. Zhu, and B. Bai, “Overly Tight Credit Killed 1.1 Million Mortgages in 2015,” Urban Wire (blog), Urban Institute, Nov. 21, 2016, https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/overly-tight-credit-killed-11-million-mortgages-2015.
E. Dowdall et al., “Investor Home Purchases and the Rising Threat to Owners and Renters: Tales From 3 Cities” (Nowak Metro Finance Lab, 2022), https://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/nowak-lab/220923_InvestorHomePurchases_Final.ashx?la=en.
Federal Reserve Board, Survey of Consumer Finances, 2019, https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scfindex.htm.
Ibid.
ATTOM Data Solutions, “Owning a Home More Affordable Than Renting in Nearly Two Thirds of U.S. Housing Markets,” Jan 7, 2021, https://www.attomdata.com/news/market-trends/home-sales-prices/attom-data-solutions-2021-rental-affordability-report/.
D. Olick, “Here’s Where Owning a Home Is Cheaper Than Renting One,” CNBC, Feb. 7, 2020, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/07/where-owning-a-home-is-cheaper-than-renting-one.html.
The Pew Charitable Trusts, “What Has Research Shown?,” 5.
Goodman, Bai, and Li, “Real Denial Rates.”
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Request for Information: Mortgage Refinances and Forbearances,” Sept. 27, 2022, https://www.regulations.gov/document/CFPB-2022-0059-0001/comment; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Request for Information Regarding Small Mortgage Lending,” Oct. 4, 2022, https://www.regulations.gov/docket/HUD-2022-0076/comments.
Alan S. Kaplinsky et al., “DOJ Fair Lending Focus Continues in Settlement of Case Challenging Lender’s Minimum Loan Amount Policy by the Consumer Financial Services and Mortgage Banking Groups,” Casetext, https://casetext.com/analysis/doj-fair-lending-focus-continues-in-settlement-of-case-challenging-lenders-minimum-loan-amount-policy-by-the-consumer-financial-services-and-mortgage-banking-groups. Although some lenders might not originate small mortgages mainly because they operate primarily in high-cost areas, others may require minimum loan sizes, either formally or informally, that exclude low-cost borrowers. The U.S. Department of Justice ruled in 2012 that setting minimum loan sizes of $400,000 or more violates the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, but whether minimum thresholds of $150,000 are unlawful remains unclear.
Mortgage Bankers Association, “Chart of the Week—July 23, 2021 Retail Production Channel: Cost to Originate ($ Per Closed Loan),” July 23, 2021, https://newslink.mba.org/mba-newslinks/2021/july/mba-newslink-monday-july-26-2021/mba-chart-of-the-week-july-23-2021-retail-production-channel-cost-to-originate/; Mortgage Bankers Association, “MBA: 2022 IMB Production Profits Fall to Series Low,” MBA Newslink, https://newslink.mba.org/mba-newslinks/2023/april/mba-2022-imb-production-profits-fall-to-series-low/.
K. Graham, “Mortgage Origination Fee: The Inside Scoop,” Rocket Mortgage LLC, https://www.rocketmortgage.com/learn/mortgage-origination-fee; M. Crace, “Closing Costs: What Are They, and How Much Will You Pay?,” Rocket Mortgage LLC, https://www.rocketmortgage.com/learn/closing-costs.
Zillow Inc., “How Is Your Loan Officer Paid?,” https://www.zillow.com/blog/how-is-your-loan-officer-paid-500/.
U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey (2021), https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/2021/ahs-2021-public-use-file–puf-/ahs-2021-national-public-use-file–puf-.html.
E. Divringi, “Updated Estimates of Home Repairs Needs and Costs and Spotlight on Weatherization Assistance” (Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, 2023), https://www.philadelphiafed.org/community-development/housing-and-neighborhoods/updated-estimates-of-home-repairs-needs-and-costs-and-spotlight-on-weatherization-assistance.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “MBA Response to FHA RFI Regarding Small Mortgage Lending,” Dec. 5, 2022, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HUD-2022-0076-0025; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “New America and CSEM Response to Docket No FR-6342-N-01 on Small Mortgage Lending,” Dec. 5, 2022, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HUD-2022-0076-0015.
To qualify, loans must meet three criteria: They cannot have negative amortization, interest-only payments, or balloon payments; the total points and fees charged cannot exceed 3% of the loan amount; and the term must be 30 years or less. They also must satisfy at least one of the following three criteria: The borrower’s total monthly debt-to-income ratio must be 43% or less; the loan must be eligible for purchase by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or insured by the FHA, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, or U.S. Department of Agriculture; or the loan must be originated by insured depositories with total assets of less than $10 billion, but only if the mortgage is held in portfolio.
F. D’Acunto and A.G. Rossi, “Regressive Mortgage Credit Redistribution in the Post-Crisis Era,” The Review of Financial Studies 35, no. 1 (2022): 482-525, https://academic.oup.com/rfs/article-abstract/35/1/482/6136188?redirectedFrom=fulltext; Freddie Mac, “Cost to Originate Study: How Digital Offerings Impact Loan Production Costs” (2021), https://sf.freddiemac.com/content/_assets/resources/pdf/report/cost-to-originate.pdf; T. Hogan, “Costs of Compliance With the Dodd-Frank Act” (Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, 2019), https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/dodd-frank-costs-compliance.
K. Berry, “Fed’s Rate Hikes Are Tanking the Mortgage Market,” American Banker, Oct. 24, 2022, https://www.americanbanker.com/news/feds-rate-hikes-are-tanking-the-mortgage-market.
Mortgage Bankers Association, “MBA Members Urge Bureau to Change Loan Originator Compensation Rule,” MBA Newslink, Oct. 24, 2018, https://newslink.mba.org/mba-newslinks/2018/october/mba-newslink-wednesday-10-24-18/mba-members-urge-bureau-to-change-loan-originator-compensation-rule/.
Y. Benzarti, “Playing Hide and Seek: How Lenders Respond to Borrower Protection,” TheReview of Economics and Statistics (2022): 1-25, https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/doi/10.1162/rest_a_01167/109257/Playing-Hide-and-Seek-How-Lenders-Respond-to?redirectedFrom=fulltext; Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Manufactured Housing Finance,” 25-27.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Request for Information: Mortgage Refinances and Forbearances.”
Federal Housing Finance Agency, “FHFA Announces Targeted Pricing Changes to Enterprise Pricing Framework,” news release, Oct. 24, 2022, https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/FHFA-Announces-Targeted-Pricing-Changes-to-Enterprise-Pricing-Framework.aspx. G-fees are based on the individual mortgage’s product type and credit risk attributes and help Fannie and Freddie cover administrative costs and credit losses from borrower defaults. However, these fees also increase loan origination costs.
Americans for Financial Reform, “Joint Letter: FHFA RFI on PACE Loans,” March 16, 2020, https://ourfinancialsecurity.org/2020/03/joint-letter-fhfa-rfi-pace-loans/; G. Kromrei, “Industry to Congress: G-Fees Aren’t Your ‘Piggybank,’” HousingWire, July 23, 2021, https://www.housingwire.com/articles/industry-to-congress-g-fees-arent-your-piggybank/; L. Goodman et al., “Guarantee Fees—an Art, Not a Science” (Urban Institute, 2014), https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/22841/413202-Guarantee-Fees-An-Art-Not-a-Science.PDF.
Federal Housing Finance Agency, “FHFA Announces Two Measures Advancing Housing Sustainability and Affordability,” news release, Oct. 18, 2021, https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/FHFA-Announces-Two-Measures-Advancing-Housing-Sustainability-and-Affordability.aspx.
S. Lee, “How Mortgage, Housing Industries Tackled Affordability in 2022,” National Mortgage News, Dec. 29, 2022, https://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/list/how-mortgage-housing-industries-tackled-affordability-in-2022; Wells Fargo, “Wells Fargo Announces Strategic Direction for Home Lending: A Smaller, Less Complex Business Focused on Bank Customers and Minority Communities,” news release, Jan. 10, 2023, https://newsroom.wf.com/English/news-releases/news-release-details/2023/Wells-Fargo-Announces-Strategic-Direction-for-Home-Lending-A-Smaller-Less-Complex-Business-Focused-on-Bank-Customers-and-Minority-Communities/default.aspx.
A. McCargo et al., “The MicroMortgage Marketplace Demonstration Project: Building a Framework for Viable Small-Dollar Mortgage Lending” (Urban Institute, 2020), https://www.urban.org/research/publication/micromortgage-marketplace-demonstration-project; Hurry Home, “A New Way to Be a Homeowner,” https://www.hurryhome.io/.
Federal Housing Finance Agency, “FHFA Announces Inaugural Housing Finance TechSprint,” news release, April 4, 2023, https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/FHFA-Announces-Inaugural-Housing-Finance-TechSprint.aspx.
L. Goodman, J. Zhu, and T. George, “Four Million Mortgage Loans Missing from 2009 to 2013 Due to Tight Credit Standards,” Urban Wire (blog), Urban Institute, April 2, 2015, https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/four-million-mortgage-loans-missing-2009-2013-due-tight-credit-standards.
Fannie Mae, “Fannie Mae Introduces New Underwriting Innovation to Help More Renters Become Homeowners,” news release, Aug. 11, 2021, https://www.fanniemae.com/newsroom/fannie-mae-news/fannie-mae-introduces-new-underwriting-innovation-help-more-renters-become-homeowners; Freddie Mac, “Freddie Mac Takes Further Action to Help Renters Achieve Homeownership,” news release, June 29, 2022, https://freddiemac.gcs-web.com/news-releases/news-release-details/freddie-mac-takes-further-action-help-renters-achieve; Freddie Mac, “Freddie Mac Announces Underwriting Innovation to Help Lenders Qualify More Borrowers for a Mortgage,” news release, Oct. 17, 2022, https://freddiemac.gcs-web.com/news-releases/news-release-details/freddie-mac-announces-underwriting-innovation-help-lenders; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Federal Housing Administration Expands Access to Homeownership for First-Time Homebuyers Who Have Positive Rental History,” news release, Sept. 27, 2022, https://www.hud.gov/press/press_releases_media_advisories/HUD_No_22_187.
Editor’s note: This brief was updated July 3, 2023, to recognize the peer reviewers and Pew staff members who contributed to its development.
“The Underserved Mortgage Markets Coalition (UMMC) has long advocated for a rule making on the Equitable Housing Finance Plans and the undersigned coalition members are pleased to see a proposed rule to ensure the longevity of the EHFPs,” said the UMMC, which counts 29 member organizations as part of its collective. “The coalition has long expressed that for the EHFPs to be effective and to continue after this administration, it is critical that FHFA promulgate a rule that will be closely modeled on FHFA’s “Duty to Serve” (DTS) regulation and create a pattern of practice of releasing similarly robust amounts of the EHFP performance data.”
The UMMC and other groups have for months been lobbying FHFA Director Sandra Thompson to discuss formalizing the equitable housing finance plans.
Following multiple revisions, the GSEs in early April announced updates to the equitable housing finance plans, which included Freddie Mac expanding special purpose credit programs, increasing the availability of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and manufactured homes, as well as the launch of a correspondent lending program to assist smaller financial institutions with access to Freddie Mac’s multifamily financing.
For Fannie Mae, it too is looking to expand the special credit purpose programs geared toward helping people in majority Black and Latino communities. Fannie also touted a “social index” to help translate investor interest in socially conscious investing into savings for underserved borrowers and its series of changes to valuation modernization, which it says will reduce bias, improve accuracy and reduce costs.
Industry stakeholders have 60 days to comment on the proposed rule.
At an event marking the 55th anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) during the National Fair Housing Alliance 2023 National Conference, Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision Michael Barr delivered remarks urging for the evolution of both the FHA and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) to reflect realities and dangers posed by emerging technologies in the mortgage space.
“As our financial system evolves, it is critical that we adapt our application of the Fair Housing Act and ECOA to deal with technological change and other developments,” Barr said in his speech.
There are potentially positive implications that come with such technological advances, including providing “a window” into the creditworthiness of a person who may not have a “standard credit history,” he said. New artificial intelligence technologies, including machine learning, could also make use of such data “at scale and at low cost to expand credit to people who otherwise can’t access it,” Barr added.
However, there is also the potential for these technologies to exacerbate existing issues related to lending equality, Barr explained.
“While these technologies have enormous potential, they also carry risks of violating fair lending laws and perpetuating the very disparities that they have the potential to address,” he said. “Use of machine learning or other artificial intelligence may perpetuate or even amplify bias or inaccuracies inherent in the data used to train the system or make incorrect predictions if that data set is incomplete or nonrepresentative. There are also risks that the data points used could be correlated with a protected class and lack a sufficient nexus to creditworthiness.”
Barr called “digital redlining in marketing” — defined as “the use of criteria to exclude majority-minority communities or minority applications” — one such risk that could come with the advent of these technologies in lending, something that has already been the “subject of several settlements,” he said.
Additionally, if lenders select their target audiences based on the characteristics commonly associated with a protected class, then a form of “digital redlining” becomes more possible.
“New technologies can also result in ‘reverse redlining,’ or steering in the advertisement of more expensive or otherwise inferior products to minority communities,” he said. “These risks are amplified when a model is opaque and lacks a sufficient degree of explainability—the degree to which the bank can understand how data, variables, and other features inform the credit decisions.”
The banking and lending ecosystems themselves are still navigating these emerging technologies, he said. As a result, the Fed is aiming to ensure that its oversight of such practices “keeps pace” with the implementation,
“Through our supervisory process, we evaluate whether firms have proper risk management and controls, including with respect to those new technologies,” he said.
The Obama Administration launched sweeping financial regulatory reform late Tuesday, while launching a so-called “Consumer Financial Protection Agency” to protect consumers in credit, savings, and payment markets.
There’s a lot to it, so I’ll just focus on the mortgage-related stuff, some of it rather significant, assuming it’s actually enforced.
The CFPA will require increased transparency, with a single, simply integrated federal mortgage disclosure and adequately presented risks and benefits of a mortgage program (GFE).
The newly-formed agency will also require timely collection and publication of loan performance data so steps can be taken to protect consumers, if necessary.
For example, if another high-risk program like the option arm surfaces and defaults begin to pile up, the program could be eliminated.
Firms will also be required to offer “plain vanilla” mortgage programs with straightforward terms, but will allow consumers to opt-out for other higher-risk products, subject to stringent protections.
Mortgage brokers will be obligated to sell the best available mortgage loans to avoid conflicts of interest between themselves and borrowers, while also determining the mortgages they sell are affordable to borrowers.
Yield spread premiums will also be “banned,” and mortgage brokers will be paid over time based on loan performance rather than a lump sum at closing; it’s unclear how compensation will be treated for retail loan originators.
Prepayment penalties will be limited or banned to avoid locking borrowers into bad loans.
The originator of a securitized loan, or the sponsor of a securitization, will be required to retain five percent of the credit risk of securitized exposures.
The agency will also ensure that all banks, non-banks, and independent mortgage brokers play by the same rules and are supervised and enforced equally.
The new rules also aim to better enforce the Community Reinvestment Act and fair lending laws, while ensuring that underserved communities have access to “prudent financial services, lending and investment.”
The big question is whether all this new regulation will actually make a difference, or simply lead to new abuses as laws are quickly circumvented.
United Wholesale Mortgage (UWM) on Wednesday announced two new home-affordability mortgage products designed to help underserved borrowers become homeowners.
UWM, America’s top mortgage lender, is offering Special Purpose Credit Programs (SPCP) for Fannie Mae‘s HomeReady and Freddie Mac’s BorrowSmart Geo-Target programs.
These offerings will be available in select metro areas including Detroit, Baltimore and Chicago for Freddie Mac’s BorrowSmart and Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, Atlanta, Memphis and Philadelphia for Fannie’s HomeReady program.
The lender said qualified buyers will receive up to $10,000 toward their downpayment/closing costs with BorrowSmart Geo-Target, or $5,000 toward their downpayment/closing costs and up to $1,000 toward home warranty and appraisal costs with the HomeReady SPCP.
In early 2022, seven agencies, including the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, gave lenders the green light to develop SPCPs and increase credit access to historically disadvantaged individuals without worrying that they’d violate fair lending laws.
UWM is one among a growing number of lenders turning to Fannie and Freddie’s special purpose programs to narrow the homeownership gap. The programs are key to the GSEs’ equitable housing finance plans.
“The Equitable Housing Finance Plans represent a commitment to sustainable approaches that will meaningfully address the racial and ethnic disparities in homeownership and wealth that have persisted for generations,” Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Sandra Thompson said last year in announcing the landmark plans. “We look forward to working with the enterprises, lenders, and other housing industry participants to further develop the ideas described in these plans.”
Profitability Analysis, Closed-End 2nd Products; Ginnie Ticket Primer for Government Program Lenders
<meta name="smartbanner:author" content="We now have a native iPhone and Android app. Download the NEW APP”>
This website requires Javascrip to run properly.
Profitability Analysis, Closed-End 2nd Products; Ginnie Ticket Primer for Government Program Lenders
By: Rob Chrisman
1 Hour, 19 Min ago
Hey, I’ve got news for you: 2023 is half over. Sometimes reality bites, and vendors and lenders can’t sit there, wringing their hands, waiting for things to get better on their own. Are lenders suddenly going to make huge margins on lots of volume in the second half? Are LOs who were doing 2-3 loans a month in the first half suddenly going to do 4-6? Are vendor reps suddenly going to double their clients? Are rates going to plummet? Is the number of houses for sale going to skyrocket? Banks, credit unions, and depositories are certainly doing something. An analysis of call reports shows that mortgage banking income at banks and thrifts increased by 36 percent on a sequential basis. JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo individually more than doubled their MB income from the fourth quarter to the first. Others, like Truist and PNC followed, as Inside Mortgage Finance points out. That said, to the surprise of no one, mortgage-banking income at banks and thrifts was down 38 percent from the first quarter of 2022. (Today’s podcast can be found here and this week’s is sponsored by Gallus, the premier business intelligence tool for the mortgage industry. With hassle-free insights and user-friendly functionality, Gallus empowers you to make faster, data-driven decisions for enhanced profitability. Hear an interview with Gallus Insights’ Augie Del Rio on how mortgage companies are best leveraging data in a high-rate environment.)
Lender and Broker Software, Services, and Products
Artificial intelligence (AI) is here, and as everyone works to determine how AI can enhance business processes, many are also scratching their heads over the new challenges. If you’re attending the American Legal and Financial Network (ALFN) Answers 2023, don’t miss the panel on Tuesday, July 18, “AI: Like It or Not, It’s Here. Are You Ready? Ethical and Business Challenges to the Utilization of Technology in a Default World.” This lunch session will cover current and future AI uses for industry law firms, service providers and others. Black Knight SVP of Servicing Technologies & Product Innovation Dana Federspiel will participate in this informative discussion to share her expertise in default processing within the mortgage industry. Take advantage of this opportunity to gain a better understanding of the intersection between AI and its potential uses in our industry. Contact Black Knight to learn more about solutions for today’s market challenges.
“I love chasing borrowers down for appraisal fees” said no one ever. With Fee Chaser by LenderLogix, you definitely won’t be saying that. Give your borrowers an easy, secure way to pay their appraisal, lock-in and condo doc fees with Fee Chaser’s seamless integration into Encompass® by ICE Mortgage Technology™. It can even handle first mortgage payments. Head over to LenderLogix and get a demo texted to your phone.
“Did you know that by yearend 2022, a remarkable 82 percent of homeowners enjoyed an interest rate below 5 percent, and an impressive 92 percent of homeowners had an interest rate below 6 percent? Consequently, there has been a decline in the demand for traditional cash-out refinancing. This is exactly where Vista Point’s Closed-End Second loan proves valuable! Rather than discarding the original low interest rate, a second loan creates a blended rate giving your borrower a lower payment solution while tapping their built-up equity. Discover the potential savings for your specific situation by visiting here and see how much your borrower can reduce their monthly mortgage payment by using our Closed-End Second Cash-Out Equity Solution. Give your borrower access to the cash they need without sacrificing their advantageous interest rate, with second line amounts up to $550K and combined lien amounts up to $2.5M. For more information, please contact us.”
Does your mortgage accounting team dream about having the ability to analyze the profitability of each loan the company originates? For Smartfi Home Loans, this dream came true with its new, industry-focused finance system, Loan Vision. Smartfi found they were able to gain efficiency and improve their processes with the help of Loan Vision’s immense drill down capabilities. “With Loan Vision, there is this wealth of information at your fingertips,” says Bill Berg, Finance, Technology, and Servicing Leader at Smartfi®. “To understand the ins and outs at the loan level, there’s a tremendous amount of analytical power there. I’m not sure how you would be able to successfully understand your business without it.” Interested in learning more about how your General Ledger should be helping you maximize efficiencies in your accounting department and gain access to financials faster? Contact Carl Wooloff to schedule a call today.
Government Loans and Servicing
Traditionally FHA and VA loans have a higher profit margin than other loan types. But originating them is not a walk in the park. James Hedvall, Chief Capital Markets Officer with Doorway Home Loans, put down some notes he titled a, “GNMA Primer.”
“I’ve been in this business for many years and have seen things done well and things done poorly. And I receive a fair number of questions regarding secondary execution. One typical question is whether a lender should pursue obtaining their ‘Ginnie Ticket,’ or to become a GNMA Approved Issuer.
“Having the ability to take FHA, VA, and USDA loans, turn them into securities, is a powerful tool for well-equipped secondary groups. Why? Well, first it allows you to underwrite straight to AUS findings, manual underwrites and originating loans that are outside correspondent overlays, provide competitive pricing and service to underserved communities, as well as allowing for efficient execution into the capital markets. However, there are a few considerations that need to be understood, because it’s not for every originator.”
James writes, “There are approximately 350 issuers spread across large and small depositories, credit unions, servicers, and independent mortgage bankers. The approval process, sometimes referred to sarcastically within capital markets circles as the GNMA Denial Department, can be long and challenging. There are plenty of cases out there where relatively large originators, with good balance sheets, are rejected by Ginnie Mae. I have witnessed first-hand the approval process a few times, and my best piece of advice is that ‘all battles are won, before they’re ever fought.’ Successful applicants have a few things in common: good financial standing, very competent Secondary and Accounting departments, plenty of operational redundancies, strong quality control oversight, last but not least, updated and complete Policies and Procedures which cover the entire origination cycle.
“For those interested in servicing, when you’re approved to issue GNMA bonds, you will be servicing your loans (PIIT agreements aside). This is why you deliver to the GSEs and issue GNMA bonds in the first place; originators should have a strategy with servicing and its intricate oversite, even if they are utilizing a sub-servicer. Historically, servicing GNMA loans (primarily FHA & VA) is costlier than its conforming cousin. A good sub-servicer can minimize this financial burden.
“In terms of keeping, maintaining, and tracking documents, if you’re FNMA/FHLMC approved, you certainly know what a document custodian does. More times than not, when I hear complaints about a custodian, it has to do with a problem on GNMA loans, as they will be the ones who review your loan collateral and initially certifies your pools for trade (most pools are traded after getting initial certification, although not a requisite).
“Ideally, a good custodian will perform a single document review that accommodates all requirements at once. This eliminates “exception surprises” at the time of sale due to different requirements delaying settlement. Choosing your custodian wisely can save headaches down the road, headaches which normally cause delays in settlements, resulting in an erosion of gain-on-sale.
“In the capital markets, broker/dealers come into play. Outside Secondary Marketing, Broker/Dealers are normally given very little thought by originators. If you’re hedging a pipeline for mandatory execution, broker/dealers are the ones your Secondary group trades forward TBA contracts with, that off-set interest rate exposure from the time the loan is locked, until the time the loan funds and gets committed. But for Issuers, they play an important role in the execution of GNMA pools as they are the ones who are buying them from the Issuer. A good relationship with your broker/dealer goes further than just execution. They can also help with pool formation and optimization. Without going down the rabbit-hole on coupons vs note rates vs high balance di-minimus requirements, B/D’s can help you build out pools that can increase the spread that is willing to be paid above (and sometimes below) what TBA’s are trading at; what you hear as the ‘spec pool pay up.’
“Lenders must pay attention to operations within the Originator. A strong Secondary Marketing team is imperative. Having a good Secondary Manager who understands the entire process: what can be pooled, when can it be pooled, when to create a pool in GinnieNet, and purview into the whole mortgage pipeline not just funded loans, helps in the dozens of moving parts in the process. A strong CFO/Accounting Dept who understands the financial risk of issuing GNMA securities pays dividends.
“Some may not know, but part of the financial risk in issuing has to do with covering P&I shortages every month. GNMA doesn’t buy loans directly like FNMA & FHLMC do. They act primarily as an insurance company, guaranteeing that bond holders receive timely payments of cash flow (for this service GNMA charges 6 bps on every loan, referred to as their Guarantee Fee, or G-Fee). When borrowers are late with payments, or miss payments, it’s the responsibility of the issuer to make up for the missed P&I payment to the holder of that security. This can be a huge outflow of cash per month considering your responsibility is to EVERY bond that has ever been issued by the originator. Anyone issuing GNMA securities back in early 2020 when COVID hit, and the term “forbearance” went mainstream, remembers that moment. Possessing the capital to weather P&I shortages is an absolute must.
“Most often overlooked is your Trailing/Final Docs department. Your last responsibility as an issuer is to make sure that trailing docs (final title/deed or mortgage) get to your custodian for final certification. This needs to be done within 365 days of issuance. This may not be a huge problem for some, but states like Hawaii come to mind, where turn times of county recorders are historically slow and getting a certified copies of anything may take months.”
James wrapped up with, “Everything above is scrutinized by GNMA during the approval process. As I mentioned before, possessing the right individuals, having strong relationships with vendors, and possessing very strong operational controls should be viewed as a requirement before submitting your application.” Thank you, James!
Capital Markets
Many mortgage rates are firmly in the 7 percent range now, and certainly 6 and 6.5 percent pass through mortgage securities are the norm for hedging. We might just be here for the remainder of 2023. The solid economic news certainly doesn’t point to lower rates any time soon.
Monday was a quiet day for those in the mortgage industry, with few locks, many people out of the office, and an early close ahead of the Independence Day holiday. Markets shook off warnings about cooling growth and a slowdown in manufacturing, likely because the highlight of the week will be Friday’s fresh look at the labor market, with June Nonfarm Payroll data following May’s big upward payroll surprise. U.S. IHS Markit Manufacturing PMI remained in contractionary territory for the eighth consecutive month in the final reading for June while the ISM Manufacturing Index fell further into contractionary territory. The manufacturing sector continues to operate in a state of contraction as optimism about the second half of 2023 weakens amid recession concerns. Some would argue that investors are still too optimistic about the prospects for economic growth and the ability of the Fed to stamp out inflation.
There was a better-than-expected Construction Spending report for May, in at +0.9 percent month-over-month. On a year-over-year basis, total construction spending was up 2.4 percent due to renewed strength in new single-family construction despite a jump in mortgage rates. Economic data over the last week continued to show a resilient U.S. economy. The final estimate of first quarter GDP was unexpectedly revised higher from 1.3 percent to 2.0 percent as additional data on consumer expenditures contributed to the increase. The personal consumption expenditures index (4.1 percent) remained well above the Fed’s target. Home price data from Case-Shiller indexes showed increasing prices in April while building permits increased 5.6 percent to an annualized rate of 1.496 million units in May. The lack of existing homes for sale has led to price increases on the limited available for sale inventory as well as an increase in new construction. Consumer confidence reached its highest level since January 2022 due to a strong labor market and receding fears of recession. We also learned last week that consumer confidence rose to its highest level in 17 months in June amid a brighter take on the current situation and a less dire assessment of the future.
Markets return to a relatively quiet calendar today, though there is some potential market moving potential from the release of the minutes from the June 13/14 FOMC meeting, Redbook same store sales, May factory orders, and remarks from New York Fed President Williams. We begin Wednesday with Agency MBS prices little changed from Monday and the 10-year yielding 3.86 after closing Monday at 3.86 percent; the 2-year is up to 4.91 percent.
Jobs
“In our most recent Chrisman post, MWF announced our Growth Strategy into the mid-west and Southeast markets. Most recently, we are pleased to announce the addition of Jeff Hemm RVP in Idaho and the Pacific NW, and the expansion of our new Branch in North Carolina. Jeff is a well-known leader in our industry and will bring a strong leadership presence in our new markets. MWF is excited to have TJ Powell on our team and the entire North Carolina team as we grow in new markets and expand in Florida. “I’m proud of our Team and the efforts to expand the MWF family in new areas. This is part of our written growth strategy and an important part of our overall company expansion,” Ed Adams, SVP Production. For information about our growth plans and career opportunities, contact Ed Adams.”
“Is your firm interested in launching a wholesale mortgage enterprise that’s mission-driven? Our group has a combined 100-year history in mortgage banking (operations, sales, underwriting, and capital markets) with a proven track record of generating over $2 billion annually over the last three decades. There are two participation opportunities: investment or joint venture. Our team includes an experienced and trusted sales force, operators, tech stack, warehouse lines, and take-out investors. Although we are currently based in California, we are actively working towards expanding to the East Coast and Southeast regions. Our expertise lies in Non-QM; however, we offer conventional and will offer government loans as well. Our focus is on serving underserved communities, and our long-term goal is to become a CDFI to ensure fair lending practices. If interested, please reach out to Chrisman LLC’s Anjelica Nixt to forward your note.
Download our mobile app to get alerts for Rob Chrisman’s Commentary.
Share via Social Media:
All social media shares will include the image and link to this page.
Despite the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, Federal Reserve Chair Pro Tempore Jerome Powell plans to raise rates by 25 basis points this month.
The first rate increase is expected in a little less than two weeks, coinciding with the March Federal Open Markets Committee meeting, scheduled for March 15 and 16.
President Joe Biden also outlined a plan to reduce inflation including by reducing prescription drug and childcare costs, and creating affordable housing, at the State of the Union address. Biden said he would “go into more detail later.”
In the short-term, however, the federal government’s primary toolkit to reduce inflation is rate reductions by the Federal Reserve. That was the focus of a marathon House Financial Services Committee hearing Wednesday.
At the three-plus hour hearing, Powell said he would “support a 25 basis point rate hike.”
He also said that it’s possible the central bank would move even more aggressively, by raising rates more than 25 basis points, if inflation remains elevated. Analysts had previously predicted rate hikes of as much as 50 basis points in March.
Here’s how to proactively maintain fair lending
As economic factors continue to affect borrowers and the risk of delinquency rises, mortgage servicers need to be proactive in helping borrowers navigate their situation and loss mitigation options.
Presented by: ACES
Lawmakers also questioned Powell on how the conflict in Ukraine would impact the Fed’s policy.
Economists have said that the conflict in Ukraine could bring a short-term reduction in mortgage rates, as investors flock to safe haven assets like mortgage-backed securities and bonds. But longer term inflation brought on by the conflict will cause mortgage rates to rise.
Powell, in his testimony, said the “near-term effects on the U.S. economy of the invasion of Ukraine, the ongoing war, the sanctions, and of events to come, remain highly uncertain.”
“Making appropriate monetary policy in this environment requires a recognition that the economy evolves in unexpected ways,” Powell said.
Powell also took questions from lawmakers about housing affordability. While housing policy is not the realm of the Fed, controlling inflation is part of its dual mandate. Since housing costs make up a large portion of indices measuring inflation, the Federal Reserve is concerned with rising home prices.
Home prices, Powell said, will grow more slowly as the federal funds rate rises, pulling mortgage rates up with it. But he has no expectation that home prices would return to pre-pandemic levels, he said.
“We won’t get back to pre-pandemic levels,” said Powell. “We’re not trying to get prices back down, we’re trying to limit future prices.”
Some members of Congress also commented on the future of Powell’s re-nomination to the Federal Reserve, which hit a snag two weeks ago when Republican Senate Banking Committee members refused to show up for a vote.
Republican members blamed the debacle on Democrats for refusing to split up the slate of nominees, to allow some of the nominees to be confirmed. Republican members have said they will not allow the vote to proceed until Sarah Bloom Raskin answers questions about business dealings.
Biden, in his Tuesday evening address, urged lawmakers to go ahead with the nominations in light of concerns over rising prices.
“And while you’re at it, confirm my nominees for the Federal Reserve, which plays a critical role in fighting inflation,” Biden said.
Powell will also testify before the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) this week announced that it had secured a settlement of more than $3 million from Philadelphia, Penn.-based ESSA Bank & Trust over allegations that the company engaged in redlining majority Black and Hispanic communities from access to credit services around the Philadelphia area.
According to a complaint filed by DOJ in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, ESSA “failed to provide mortgage lending services and did not serve the credit needs of majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Philadelphia metropolitan area” from 2017 to 2021.
“For too long, residents of communities of color have been unlawfully denied equal access to credit and shut out of economic opportunities,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the DOJ Civil Rights Division in the DOJ announcement. “When banks engage in redlining, they perpetuate existing patterns of segregation and widen the racial wealth gap in our country. This resolution makes clear our commitment to holding banks and financial institutions accountable for modern-day redlining while ensuring access to fair lending in communities of color.”
Under a consent order still subject to court approval, ESSA has agreed to invest $2.92 million in a designated loan subsidy fund designed to increase access to credit for home mortgage, improvement and refinance loans, as well as home equity loans and lines of credit, in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods within the bank’s lending area.
ESSA has also agreed to spend $125,000 on community partnerships and $250,000 on advertising, outreach, consumer financial education and credit counseling to the impacted communities specified in the complaint and consent order.
“The consent order also requires the bank to hire two new mortgage loan officers to serve its existing branches in West Philadelphia and conduct a research-based market study to help identify the needs for financial services in communities of color,” the DOJ added.
In a statement announcing the settlement, ESSA “categorically denies violating any fair lending laws or engaging in ‘redlining,’” according to a press release.
“ESSA and its Board of Directors believe this is a constructive resolution to a dispute that has lasted several years,” said Gary Olsen, ESSA’s president and CEO. “It is consistent with our guiding principles and longstanding commitment to provide equal lending opportunities to all of the communities we are privileged to serve. We plan on using these loan subsidy funds to expand opportunities for qualified borrowers who can benefit from this assistance. We’re happy and pleased to help families purchase homes. It is simply the right thing to do.”
Olsen added that during the the time period covered by the government’s complaint, “ESSA did not receive a single fair lending complaint from any customer or potential customer.” He also said that the company opened a branch and business center in downtown Allentown, “in a majority minority census tract.”
DOJ opened the investigation into ESSA after being referred by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
“ESSA fully cooperated with the department’s investigation and worked expeditiously to resolve these allegations,” DOJ said.
ESSA’s redlining settlement agreement is the latest in a series of cases brought by the DOJ. In January, Los Angeles-headquartered City National Bank agreed to pay $31 million to settle a case that alleged it avoided providing mortgage services to majority Black and Hispanic neighborhoods between 2017 and 2020.
In July, the DOJ and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced a $24.4 million consent order with Trident Mortgage Co., a subsidiary of Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway.
In September, the DOJ also reached a $12 million-plus settlement with Lakeland Bank over claims the lender engaged in redlining in the Newark, New Jersey metropolitan area.