(2003) Great Divide 2003

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

1/57

The Great Divide

Home Purchase Mortgage Lending

Nationally and in 115 Metropolitan Areas

October 2003

ACORN Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now739 8

th Street S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003

202-547-2500www.acorn.org

ACORN Housing Corporation650 S. Clark, Chicago, IL 60605

312-939-1611www.acornhousing.org

ACORN Fair Housing A Project of the American Institute of Social Justice825 Park Avenue. Baltimore, MD 21201410-752-4103

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

2/57

THE GREAT DIVIDE: Home Purchase Mortgage Lending Nationally and in 115 Metropolitan Areas

ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is the nation's largest community organization of low- andmoderate-income families, with over 150,000 member families organizedinto 700 neighborhood chapters in 60 cities across the country. Since1970 ACORN has taken action and won victories on issues of concern to

our members. Our priorities include: better housing for first timehomebuyers and tenants, living wages for low-wage workers, moreinvestment in our communities from banks and governments, and better public schools. We achieve these goals by building communityorganizations that have the power to win changes -- through direct

action, negotiation, legislation, and voter participation. ACORN's website is at http://www.acorn.org.

In 1986, ACORN Housing originated from neighborhood-based campaigns conducted by ACORN, anational organization formed by low-income members to improve neglected, impoverishedcommunities. ACORN Housing creates affordable housing opportunities by acquiring andrehabilitating affordable housing units, developing single-family homes, providing homeownershipcounseling, coordinating sweat-equity programs, creating groundbreaking mortgage financing programs, and securing homebuyer subsidies. Since its inception, ACORN Housing’shomeownership and counseling program has grown to 32 cities and provides free mortgagecounseling to more individuals than any other organization in the country. ACORN Housing is also

the national leader in assisting victims of predatory lending by providing refinancing at improvedterms, through loan modification, and by providing outreach that teaches individuals to identify andavoid predatory loans.

ACORN Fair Housing

ACORN Fair Housing fights housing discrimination by conducting research, providing training forcommunity organizations, and conducing outreach and education efforts on the Federal Fair HousingAct. ACORN Fair Housing has worked against insurance and mortgage redlining and is currentlyworking to identify victims of discrimination who have obtained predatory mortgage loans. ACORNFair Housing is a project of the American Institute for Social Justice.

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

3/57


Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1

Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................ 5

FindingsRejection Ratios of Conventional Purchase Loans by Borrower Race ..............................9Rejection Rates of Conventional Purchase Loans by Borrower Race ............................... 14Denial Rates by Race Accounting for Income..................................................................... 18Originations for Conventional Purchase Loans by Borrower Race....................................24Applications for Conventional Purchase Loans by Borrower Race ................................... 29Share of Loans to Minorities Compared to Population Share ............................................32Loan Originations by Neighborhood Income ...................................................................... 36

Rejection Rates by Neighborhood Income.......................................................................... 38Minority Share of Government-backed Loans

Compared to Conventional Purchase Loans ............................................................... 40Government-Backed Loan Portion of Purchase Loans to Minorities................................. 43Minority Rejection Ratios for Government-Backed Loans................................................. 46

Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 49

Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 52

Data Tables and Individual City Summaries

Available at www.acorn.org/hmda

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

4/57


8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

5/57


1

INTRODUCTION

The homeownership rate in the United States rose slightly to 68.1% in 2002, as it has risen every year since1993. This national figure, however, masks continued sharp disparities between the experiences ofAmericans of different races. There remains a 26.5 percentage point difference between white and AfricanAmerican rates of homeownership, a gap that is the same size it was last year, and only less than one half a

percent smaller than it was five years ago. Hispanic families have made more progress, but they started fromeven further behind, and still have the lowest rates of homeownership in the country. In 2002, 74.7% ofwhite families owned their own homes, compared to only 48.2% of African-Americans and 47.5% ofLatinos. If minority families owned homes at the same rates as whites of similar ages and incomes, theUnited States would have an additional 3.2 million minority homeowners.i

A major factor contributing to the home ownership gap is that minority and lower income familiesexperience continuing, and in many cases growing, inequalities in obtaining the financing necessary to purchase a home. In addition, the prevalence in minority communities of subprime refinance lending, withits inflated prices and attendant predatory abuses, puts an increasing number of homeowners at risk of losingtheir homes.

This report looks in detail at the denial rates and ratios for borrowers of different races and incomes whenthey apply for conventional and government backed home purchase loans, as well as at numbers oforiginations and applications for such loans. It considers the most up to date data available – that for 2002 –and also provides comparisons to the previous year, and to 1997 – five years back. A subsequent report willlook more closely at the volume and distribution of subprime loans, both for home purchase and refinance.

***

In 2002, African-American applicants for conventional purchase loans were two and one third timesmore likely to be turned down for a mortgage than white applicants, and Latinos were rejected morethan one and a half times as often as white applicants. These figures are of even greater concernbecause the disparities between white and minority denial rates have increased over time. The

disparities in 2002 were greater than those the previous year and greater than they were in 1997 for bothAfrican American and Latino borrowers. Furthermore, specific areas of the country continue to demonstrateespecially alarming disparities in their lending markets. In Milwaukee and Chicago, for example, African-Americans were more than four times more likely than whites to be denied a conventional purchase loan lastyear.

Disparities in denial rates persisted and grew despite the fact that denial rates themselves fell significantly forall borrowers between 2001 and 2002, because denial rates fell more quickly for white applicants than forminority applicants.

The disparity between minority and white denial rates is present even when comparing minorityapplicants with white applicants of the same income. In fact, the disparity is even more pronounced for borrowers at higher income levels. Nationally, upper-income African-Americans were turned down almost

three times more often than upper-income whites, and upper income Latinos were turned down more thantwice as often. Even more disturbing, across the country as a whole, upper income African-Americans andLatinos were rejected more frequently than moderate-income whites - applicants whose incomes were onlyabout half as large.

The number of conventional loan originations to Latino borrowers increased substantially while theincreases to African-Americans and whites weren’t as large. The increase in the number ofconventional home purchase loans made to African American borrowers was 14.13%, which made up some

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

6/57


2

ground lost the year before. However, we must take into account the fact that a growing portion of theseoriginations are from higher cost subprime lenders. During the same 2001-2002 period, originations to white borrowers increased 6.33%. Over the longer period from 1997 to 2002, originations to African-Americans increased by 36.03% and originations to white borrowers increased by 6.33%

Better news, is that conventional loan originations to Latino borrowers rose 24.95% from last year.And they rose 137% over the longer period between 1997 and 2002. Our experience suggests that oneof the factors contributing to this improvement has been the effort by community organizations to makelenders more responsive to the needs of the Latino community and to remove underwriting barriers that penalized immigrant borrowers. Despite these improvements, as we have noted above, Latino borrowerscontinue to be rejected considerably more often than white applicants, and Latinos still face unnecessaryobstacles when trying to purchase a home.

The share of conventional loans made to African-Americans and Latinos continues to lag far behindthe percentage of the population that they make up. African-Americans comprise almost 13% of thecountry’s population, yet they received just 5.1% of the conventional purchase loans originated in 2002.Latinos likewise account for 13.3% of the national population, but received just 8.5 % of such loans.

These numbers should not be misinterpreted as evidence that lower income whites face no difficulties in

accessing credit for home purchase. Traditional lending institutions continue to fail to adequately servelow and moderate-income communities of all races. Low and moderate- income neighborhoods comprise26% of the country, yet these neighborhoods received just 11% of the conventional loans. As shown in thisreport, residents of low, moderate, and even middle income neighborhoods all have a harder time inobtaining a loan than residents of upper income areas.

***

Given that homeownership remains the single most important source of accumulated wealth for minority andlower income American households, it is impossible to overstate the damage caused by the continuinginequalities in access to mortgage credit. Home equity accounts for two-thirds of the net wealth of familieswith annual incomes below $20,000 and half of the net wealth of families with annual incomes between

$20,000 and $50,000.

For low and moderate income families, the difference between renting and owning a home marks aseparation between getting by from day to day and building up the equity that may be later used as collateralfor an investment in higher education or starting a business, to guarantee a secure retirement, and to pass onincreased wealth and security to the next generation. For communities, it is often the difference betweenabsentee landlords and committed neighbors. Without access to credit on fair terms, communities have nohope of emerging into strong, stable, and safe neighborhoods.

It is also important to note that more detailed analysis suggests that the continued disparity in access tomortgage loans cannot be explained away by the argument that minority applicants have less good credit. Inthe most thorough study available of the issue, researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston examined

individual applications, controlling for credit, income, and other factors. They found that even oncedifferences in credit were taken out of the picture, black and Latino applicants were significantly more likelyto be denied a mortgage loan than similarly situated white applicants.ii

Paired testing studies of mortgage lending institutions have similarly found that minorities are treateddifferently even at the earliest stages of the home buying process, and that they are less likely to be helped toapply despite possible barriers, and to make the most successful possible application. Indeed paired testingstudies such as those carried out by the Urban Institute for HUD suggest that the HMDA data may undercountlending disparities, since it does not record those who were discouraged from even applying.

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

7/57


3

*** The different experiences of minority as opposed to white applicants for mortgage credit becomes stillclearer if we consider the quality as well as the quantity of loans. The numbers cited above, for‘conventional purchase loans’ include both ‘A’ and subprime loans, but minority borrowers are much morelikely to be offered the latter. In recent years, lower-income and minority homebuyers, primarilyAfrican-Americans, have become more and more reliant on subprime loans when buying a home. Thedata on denial rates and number of loans extended obscures increasingly evident differences in the types andterms of loans made in different communities. Precisely because traditional banks and mortgage companieshave excluded too many lower income and minority families from the economic mainstream, and failed to provide the necessary credit, this need has been filled by subprime lenders offering loans with higher interestrates, more fees, and less beneficial terms.

In 2002, subprime loans made up 26.4% of the conventional home purchase loans received byAfrican-Americans and 20% of the conventional purchase loans to Latinos, as compared to 7.5% ofthe conventional purchase loans to whites. These figures have steadily increased since 1993 whensubprime loans made up 2% of the conventional purchase loans to African-Americans and Latinos and 1%of the conventional loans to whites.iii

The best possible outcome for new homebuyers who purchase a home with a subprime rather than a primeloan is that they pay significantly more each month, and tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands ofdollars, more over the life of the loan. The worst case is that the high interest and fees is only the tip of a predatory lending iceberg in which the loan contains other harmful terms that can combine to result inforeclosure. The added costs are a particularly unfair burden when we consider that a significant portion(as many as 30 to 50 percent, according to comments by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) of borrowersreceiving subprime loans could have qualified for cheaper A credit.

In addition, subprime purchase loans are the financing mechanism of choice for carrying out “propertyflipping” scams, which unfortunately have become a common occurrence in too many cities. Propertyflipping involves investors’ purchasing often extremely distressed properties at a low price, making minimal

cosmetic repairs, and then colluding with appraisers, and often lenders, to sell properties for much more thanthey are worth. The victims of property flipping are often unsuspecting low-income, minority first-timehomebuyers. Similar scams involving newly developed properties where developers, brokers, appraisers,and lenders collude to sell shoddily constructed homes, often with flaws in basic systems, for much morethan they are worth also are financed with subprime loans. ACORN members have unfortunatelyexperienced developments like these where 1/2 of the properties were abandoned or foreclosed on within afew years of having been built.

While there are no hard numbers about how many families have been victimized by property flipping, the problem reached epidemic proportions in many cities before the authorities were even aware that a problemexisted, and in other cities it continues unchecked.

***

The advantages of a standard prime loan over a subprime loan are extremely clear, but a more subtle, thoughstill significant, disparity can also be seen in the numbers of minorities who are given government-backedmortgages, primarily FHA loans. FHA loans make up a disproportionate share of the financing used byAfrican-American and Latino homebuyers. In 2002, government-backed loans accounted for 34.9% of allhome purchase originations to African-Americans and 30% of the purchase loans to Latinos nationally, ascompared to 15.5% of the purchase loans to whites.

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

8/57


4

Nationally, African-Americans received a more than two and a quarter times greater share of all government- backed mortgages than of conventional ones, and Latinos received a two times greater share of government- backed loans. Furthermore, although minorities are rejected more frequently than whites for government- backed loans, the disparity is much less than with conventional loans.

This data suggests that African-American and Latino homebuyers may be pushed towards government- backed loan products, rather than conventional products. Mortgage testing has found that lenders offer FHAloan products more frequently or more forcefully to African Americans and Latinos than to whites. iv Additionally, the rise of credit scoring has made FHA products easier for lenders to use for clients with morecomplex credit histories. Regardless of the rationale, the result is that banks still appear to be much morewilling to loan money to African Americans and Latinos when the government guarantees that they will nottake a loss on the loan.

In addition, in recent years, HUD has uncovered a substantial amount of abuse in the FHA program bylenders and sellers seeking to take advantage of first-time homebuyers and using FHA loans to carry out the property flipping scams described above. In response, HUD has begun to tighten scrutiny of lender andappraiser participants in the FHA program.

FHA loans play an important and valuable role in helping to boost homeownership in lower income and

minority communities. For some borrowers, an FHA loan may be the loan product that best meets theirneeds. The numbers of both minority and white families who have purchased homes with FHA loans is, in part, a testament to the success of the program in filling the void left by conventional lenders. HUD has alsorecently taken steps to make FHA loans less costly for the borrower.

However, for those borrowers who could and should have received a conventional loan, FHA loans do alsohave disadvantages, such as being more costly due to an upfront mortgage insurance premium. (In the pastFHA loans required borrowers to continue mortgage insurance for the life of the loan, regardless of theamount of equity held by the owner, but this changed beginning Jan. 1, 2002.) In addition, communities cansuffer from a concentration of FHA loans since foreclosed FHA homes remain vacant longer due to a slow process of reselling these properties.v Thus, there are negative consequences when lenders disproportionatelysteer minority borrowers to FHA loans.

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

9/57


5

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Minority applicants for conventional loans are rejected significantly more often than

whites, and the disparity has grown over time, with rejection ratios in 2002 higher

than last year, and higher than they were five years ago.

? ? African-Americans were denied 2.38 times more frequently than whites in 2002, up from 2.31times more frequently in 2001, and from 2.06 times more frequently in 1997.

? ? Latinos were turned down 1.63 times more often then whites in 2002, up from 1.53 times in 2001and from 1.49 times in 1997.

Denial rates for conventional purchase loans declined for borrowers of all races

between 2001 and 2002, while having grown from 1997 until 2001. However, denial

rates for all minority borrowers fell at a slower rate than did rates for white

borrowers, and those for African American borrowers fell more slowly than did those

for Latino borrowers. Because there was a greater decrease in denial rates from2001 to 2002 than the increases from 1997 and 2001, denial rates fell over the whole

five year period.

? ? Close to one out of three African-American applicants, 29.83%, were denied conventional home purchase loans in 2002, down from 39.73% in 2001 and down from 56.76% in 1997.

? ? One out of every five Latino applicants, 20.48%, were denied a conventional home purchaseloan in 2002, also a decrease from 26.24% in 2001 and a decrease from 41.06% in 1997.

? ? In comparison, almost one out of eight white applicants, 12.55%, were turned down in 2002,

down from 17.17% in 2001 and a large decrease from 27.53% in 1997.

Minorities of all incomes are rejected more often than whites of the same income for

conventional purchase loans, and the disparity increases as the income level

increases. Minorities with higher incomes are denied more often than whites with

lower incomes.

? ? Upper-Income African-Americans were 2.83 times more likely to be turned down than upper-income whites, upper-middle income African-Americans were 2.61 times more likely to bedenied than upper-middle income whites, moderate income African-Americans were 2.06 times

more likely to be denied than moderate-income whites and low-income African-Americans were1.55 times more likely to be turned down than low-income whites.

? ? Upper Income Latinos were 2.13 times more likely to be turned down than upper-income whites,upper-middle income Latinos were 2.07 times more likely to be turned down than upper-middleincome whites, moderate-income Latinos were 1.63 times more likely to be turned down thanmoderate-income whites, while low-income Latinos were 1.26 times more likely to be turneddown than low-income whites.

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

10/57


6

The number of conventional purchase loans made to all borrowers increased from

2001 to 2002, as well as over the longer five year time period from 1997 to 2002, with

the greatest increase in lending to Latino borrowers, and the percentage increase to

African American borrowers also greater than that to white borrowers. However, a

large portion of the increased originations to African American borrowers in

particular came from higher-cost subprime lenders.

? ? From 2001 to 2002, the number of conventional purchase loans made to African-Americansincreased 14.13% from 166,321 loans to 189,817. The number of conventional home purchaseloans to Latinos increased by 24.95% from 252,057 loans in 2001 to 314,951 loans in 2002. Thenumber of conventional home purchase loans to whites increased 6.33% from 2,654,809 loans in2001 to 2,822,776 loans in 2002.

? ? From 1997 to 2002, loans to African-Americans increased 36.03% from 139,544 loans in 1997while conventional loans to Latinos increased 137.15% from 132,808 and conventional loans towhites increased 17.51% from 2,402,232.

? ? Subprime lenders1 originated 50,046 or 26.4% of the conventional home purchase loansoriginated to African-Americans in 2002, 19.96% of the loans to Latinos (62,858 loans) and7.50% of the loans to white borrowers (211,832 loans). This is an increased share of loans to all borrowers from 2001 and double the share of loans since 1997.

Despite the substantial increase in the number of loans to Latinos, the share of

conventional loans received by both African Americans and Latinos remains much

lower than the share each group makes up of the population of the United States. The

share of conventional loans going to African American borrowers increased slightly

between 2001 and 2002, but it has decreased since 1997.

? ? African-Americans received 5.1% of the conventional loans originated in the United States in2002, a slight increase from the 4.94% of the conventional loans originated to African-Americansin 2001, but still almost two and a half times smaller than the 13% of the population that African-Americans make up nationally.

? ? While the African-American share of the population has declined only slightly (1.5%) since 1997when they represented 12.8% of the population, their share of conventional purchase loans hasdecreased 7% since 1997, from 5.5% to 5.1% of the conventional home purchase loans.

? ? The share of conventional mortgages received by Latinos rose from 7.5% of the conventionalloans in 2001 to 8.5% in 2002, but still falls far short of the 13.3% of the population that Latinos

make up.

? ? The share of conventional loans received by Latinos has increased 60% since 1997 when theyreceived 5.3% of the conventional home purchase loans originated. According to the U.S.Census Bureau, the Latino share of the population in the United States has increased 19.8% from11.1% of the population in 1997 to 13.3% of the population in 2002.

1 Subprime lenders are those identified by HUD in 2001 since the 2002 list has not been issued as of the release of this

study.

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

11/57


7

? ? If we look at conventional loans originated by prime, rather than subprime lenders, the share ofloans going to minority borrowers is still smaller; 4.24% for African-American homebuyers and7.67% for Latino homebuyers.

While the number of conventional loan applications from Latinos increased from 2001

to 2002, applications from African-Americans dropped and applications from whitesslightly decreased. A similar but more dramatic pattern persists over the longer

period from 1997 to 2002 when applications to Latinos increased by over fifty

percent, applications from whites declined somewhat, and applications from African

Americans declined more.

? ? From 2001 to 2002, applications from African-Americans fell 3.46%from 384,688 to371,386. Latino applications increased 15.49% from 444,007 to 512,786 whileapplications from whites slightly decreased 0.11% from 3,867,228 in 2001 to 3,862,930applications in 2002.

? ? Since 1997, applications from African-Americans for conventional home purchase loansfell 19.52% from 461,438 applications in 1997 to 371,386 in 2002. Applications fromLatinos increased 67.67% from 305,829 to 512,786 while applications from whitesdecreased 6.24% from 4,120,221 to 3867,228.

Low and moderate-income neighborhoods continue to be underserved by

conventional lenders.

? ? Low and moderate income census tracts account for 25.67% of the country but received just12.31% of the conventional loans in 2002, up slightly from 11.68% in 2001.

? ? In contrast, upper-income neighborhoods make up 20.74% of the country but received 38.24%of the conventional home purchase loans.

Applicants from low, moderate, and middle-income neighborhoods were significantly

more likely to be rejected than applicants from upper income neighborhoods.

? ? Residents of low-income neighborhoods were three times more likely to be denied for aconventional home purchase loan than residents of upper-income neighborhoods.

? ? Residents of moderate-income neighborhoods were more than two times more likely to be

denied than residents of upper income neighborhoods.

? ? Residents of middle-income neighborhoods were one and a half times more likely to be deniedas residents of upper-income neighborhoods.

The African-American and Latino share of government-backed loans is substantially

larger than their share of conventional loans, and is more proportionate to their

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

12/57


8

share of the population. African-American and white borrowers are receiving a

smaller portion of the government-backed loans than in 1997 while Latinos are

receiving an increased portion.

? ? In 2002, African-Americans received 11.67% of government-backed loans – more than one anda half times their share of conventional loans, a decrease from receiving 12.82% of the

government-backed loans in 1997.

? ? Latinos received 15.48% of the government-backed loans in 2002, more than one and half timestheir share of conventional loans but an increase from receiving 13.25% of the government- backed loans in 1997.

? ? In contrast, whites received a greater share of conventional loans, 78.88%, than of governmentloans, 59.55%. Whites received 34.82% of the government-backed loans originated in 1997.

? ? The total number of conventional loans originated is far greater than the number of governmentloans, so that minority borrowers larger share of these loans have only a limited impact on theirshare of all purchase loans. If we combine both government backed and conventional

originations, African-Americans received 6.4% of all home purchase originations, still almosttwo times less than their share of the population and Latinos received 9.9% of all home purchaseoriginations, well below their share of the population.

Government backed loans make up a far greater portion of purchase loans to African-

Americans and Latinos than of those to white borrowers.

? ? Government-backed loans accounted for 34.88% of home purchase loans received by African-Americans in 2002 and 29.99% of those received by Latinos as compared to 15.53% of the loansto whites.

African-Americans and Latinos were rejected more frequently than white applicants

for government-backed loans, but these denial disparities are less than for

conventional loans.

? ? African-American applicants for government-backed mortgages were denied 1.82 times moreoften than white applicants, a very slight decrease from 2001 when African-Americans wereturned down 1.84 times more often than whites. In comparison, African-Americans were turneddown 2.38 times more frequently that whites for conventional home purchase loans.

? ? Latino applicants for government-backed loans were 1.58 times more likely to be denied than

whites in 2002, the same as 2001. Latinos were 1.63 times more likely to be denied than whiteswhen applying for a conventional home purchase loan in 2002.

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

13/57


9

FINDINGS

Minority applicants for conventional loans are rejected significantly more often than

whites, and the disparity has grown over time, with rejection ratios in 2002 higher

than last year, and higher than they were five years ago.

National

In 2002, African-American homebuyers were 2.38 times more likely to be denied a conventional purchaseloan than whites were. This was up 3.03% from 2001 when African-American were 2.31 times more likelyto be denied than whites, and up 15.53% from 1997 when African-Americans were 2.06 times more likely to be denied.

In 2002, Latinos were rejected 1.63 times more often than whites, a 6.54% increase from 2001 when Latinoswere rejected 1.53 times more often than whites, and a 9.4% rise from 1997 when Latinos were turned down1.49 times more often than whites.

Change in Rejection Ratios2 for Conventional Home Purchase Mortgages

Race 1996 1997 2000 2001 2002Change1997 -2002

Change2001 -2002

African-American 2.02 2.06 2.07 2.31 2.38 +14.36% +11.6%

Latino Rejection 1.46 1.49 1.45 1.53 1.63 +4.8% +5.5%

Individual Metropolitan Areas

In 48 of the metropolitan areas in this study, the disparity between African-American and white rejectionsgrew from 2001 to 2002. In no metropolitan area were African-Americans rejected less frequently thanwhite applicants, nor were there any Metropolitan areas where African-Americans were rejected at a rateeven close to that at which whites were rejected.3

The highest rejection ratios for African-Americans were found in Milwaukee and Chicago, where African-Americans were 4.79 and 4.18 times, respectively, more likely to be rejected than whites. In Milwaukee andChicago, almost one in four black applicants were turned down compared to less than one in 21 whiteapplicants and one in 16 white applicants respectively.

The lowest African-American rejection ratio was in Pine Bluff, Arkansas where African-American applicantswere 1.36 times more likely to be rejected than white applicants.

The disparity between Latino and white rejections grew from 2001 to 20021 in 54 of the Metropolitan areasstudied.4

2 The rejection ratio is the denial rate for African-American or Latino applicants divided by the denial rate for white

applicants. It measures the increased likelihood that minorities are rejected for loans in comparison to whites.3 There were fewer than 100 applications by African-Americans for conventional purchase loans in Anchorage,

Brownsville, Corpus Christi, El Paso, Laredo, Las Cruces, Lincoln, Salinas, San Juan, and Sioux Falls in 2002.4 Comparison rankings for conventional purchase lending to Latinos excludes the following cities with fewer than 100

applications made by Latinos in 2002: Akron, Anchorage, Houma, Jackson, Lake Charles, Lincoln, Mobile, Montgomery,Pine Bluff, Shreveport, Sioux Falls, and Springfield.

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

14/57


10

Madison and Las Cruces had the highest Latino rejection ratios, 4.15 and 4.06 respectively. In Madison, onein five Latinos were rejected compared to one out of twenty white applicants. In Las Cruces, one out ofthree Latinos were rejected compared to almost one out of eleven white applicants.

Pittsburgh had the lowest Latino rejection ratio of 0.99. In Pittsburgh just very slightly fewer than one in tenLatinos were rejected compared to one out of ten whites.

Highest Rejection Ratios:

The ten metropolitan areas with the highest rejection ratios, that is, the greatest disparity between African-American and white denial rates were: Milwaukee, WI (African-Americans were 4.79 times more likely thanwhites to be rejected); Chicago, IL (4.18 times more likely); Tallahassee, FL (3.72); Buffalo, NY (3.69);Cleveland, OH (3.61); Newark, NJ (3.57); Richmond, VA (3.51); Raleigh, NC (3.47); Baltimore, MD (3.46);and Norfolk, VA (3.30).

Greatest Disparity in 2002 Denial Rates Between African-Americans and WhitesFor Conventional Home Purchase Mortgages

MSA African-American

Rejection Ratio

African-AmericanRejection Rate

White RejectionRate

Milwaukee 4.79 22.60% 4.72%

Chicago 4.18 26.63% 6.37%

Tallahassee 3.72 43.02% 11.57%

Buffalo 3.69 28.55% 7.74%

Cleveland 3.61 27.59% 7.65%

Newark 3.57 23.75% 6.66%

Richmond 3.51 24.01% 6.84%

Raleigh 3.47 35.84% 10.32%

Baltimore 3.46 21.05% 6.09%

Norfolk 3.30 25.44% 7.70%

In eight additional cities African Americans were more than three times as likely as white applicants to bedenied conventional purchase loans (Rejection Ratio > 3.0). In 83 cities, African-Americans were at leasttwice as likely as whites to be denied.

The ten metropolitan areas with the greatest disparity between Latino and white denial rates were: Madison,WI (Latinos were 4.15 times more likely than whites to be denied); Las Cruces, NM (4.06); Stamford, CT(3.97); Richmond, VA (3.48); Omaha, NE (3.37); Raleigh, NC (3.33); Hartford, CT (3.26): Buffalo, NY(3.20); Austin, TX (2.93); and Fort Wayne, IN (2.93).

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

15/57


11

Greatest Disparity in 2002 Denial Rates Between Latinos and WhitesFor Conventional Home Purchase Mortgages

MSALatino

Rejection RatioLatino Rejection

RateWhite Rejection

Rate

Madison 4.15 20.71% 4.99%

Las Cruces 4.06 37.53% 9.25%

Stamford 3.97 27.10% 6.82%

Richmond 3.48 23.77% 6.84%

Omaha 3.37 25.00% 7.42%

Raleigh 3.33 34.32% 10.32%

Hartford 3.26 20.49% 6.29%

Buffalo 3.20 24.80% 7.74%

Austin 2.93 37.65% 12.84%

Fort Wayne 2.93 29.37% 10.04%

In 52 cities, Latinos were at least two times more likely than whites to be denied a conventional home purchase loan.

Lowest Rejection Ratios

The ten Metropolitan areas with the lowest rejection ratios, that is the least disparity between African-American and white denial rates were: Pine Bluff, AR (African-Americans were 1.36 times more likely thanwhites to be denied); Honolulu, HI (1.49 times more likely);Lake Charles, LA (1.49); Des Moines, IA (1.52);Salt Lake City, UT (1.56); Lansing, MI (1.62); Tacoma, WA (1.65); Chattanooga, TN (1.69); Bakersfield, CA(1.69); and Louisville, KY (1.78).

Least Disparity in 2002 Denial Rates Between African-Americans and WhitesFor Conventional Home Purchase Mortgages

MSA

African-

AmericanRejection Ratio

African-American

Rejection Rate

White Rejection

Rate

Pine Bluff 1.36 49.40% 36.22%

Honolulu 1.49 11.11% 7.46%

Lake Charles 1.49 38.81% 26.01%

Des Moines 1.52 14.93% 9.85%

Salt Lake City 1.56 24.30% 15.62%

Lansing 1.62 19.28% 11.88%

Tacoma 1.65 22.09% 13.39%

Chattanooga 1.69 31.83% 18.86%

Bakersfield 1.69 16.06% 9.49%

Louisville 1.78 21.07% 11.86%

In only one city, Pittsburgh, PA, was there no disparity in Latino and white denial rates. The tenMetropolitan areas with the least disparity between Latino and white denial rates in 2002 were: Dayton, OH(Latinos were 1.13 times more likely than whites to be denied); Wilmington, DE (1.25); Miami, FL (1.29);Fort Lauderdale, FL (1.39); Baton Rouge, LA (1.40); Chattanooga, TN (1.41); Modesto, CA (1.44); Laredo,TX (1.44); Tulsa, OK (1.47); and Stockton, CA (1.47).

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

16/57


12

Least Disparity in 2002 Denial Rates Between Latinos and WhitesFor Conventional Home Purchase Mortgages

MSALatino

RejectionRatio

LatinoRejection

Rate

WhiteRejection

Rate

Dayton 1.13 11.21% 9.88%

Wilmington 1.25 9.52% 7.63%

Miami 1.29 15.21% 11.83%

Fort Lauderdale 1.39 13.65% 9.82%

Baton Rouge 1.40 19.82% 14.15%

Chattanooga 1.41 26.67% 18.86%

Modesto 1.44 16.10% 11.17%

Laredo 1.44 20.06% 13.92%

Tulsa 1.47 25.62% 17.42%

Stockton 1.47 15.90% 10.83%

Greatest Increases in Disparity Between Minority and White Rejections

The ten metropolitan areas in which the disparity between denial rates for African-American and whiteapplicants increased the most from 2001 to 2002 were: Columbus, OH (25% increase); San Antonio, TX(23.38%); Austin, TX (22.85%); Rochester, NY (21.01%); San Jose, CA (20.6%); Stockton, CA (19.78%);Seattle, WA (19.63%); Springfield, IL (19.23%); Oklahoma City, OK (17.13%); and Stamford, CT (17.09%).

Largest Increases in African-American Rejection RatioFor Conventional Home Purchase Mortgages from 2001 to 2002

MSA2001Ratio

2002Ratio

RatioChange

Columbus 2.00 2.50 25.00%

San Antonio 2.01 2.48 23.38%

Austin 2.67 3.28 22.85%

Rochester 2.57 3.11 21.01%San Jose 1.99 2.40 20.60%

Stockton 1.82 2.18 19.78%

Seattle 2.14 2.56 19.63%

Springfield 2.60 3.10 19.23%

Oklahoma City 1.81 2.12 17.13%

Stamford 2.34 2.74 17.09%

The ten metropolitan areas in which the disparity between Latino and white denial rates increased the mostfrom 2001 to 2002 were: San Juan, PR (136.54%); Chattanooga, TN (71.95%); Little Rock, AR (64.39%);Harrisburg, PA (63.40%); Norfolk, VA (63.33%); Fort Wayne, IN (47.24%); Des Moines, IA (44.85%); LasCruces, NM (42.46%); Stamford, CT (41.28%); and Omaha, NE (39.83%).

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

17/57


13

Largest Increases in Latino Rejection RatioFor Conventional Home Purchase Mortgages from 2001 to 2002

MSA2001Ratio

2002Ratio

RatioChange

San Juan 1.04 2.46 136.54%

Chattanooga 0.82 1.41 71.95%

Little Rock 1.32 2.17 64.39%

Harrisburg 1.53 2.50 63.40%

Norfolk-Virginia Beach 1.50 2.45 63.33%

Fort Wayne 1.99 2.93 47.24%

Des Moines 1.94 2.81 44.85%

Las Cruces 2.85 4.06 42.46%

Stamford-Norwalk 2.81 3.67 41.28%

Omaha 2.41 3.37 39.83%

The ten metropolitan areas in which the disparity between African-American and white denial ratesdecreased the most from 2001 to 2002 were: Madison, WI (45.24% decrease); Honolulu, HI (40.40%);

Colorado Springs, CO (35.96%); Des Moines, IA (35.32% decrease); Springfield, MA (34.80%); Bakersfield,CA (33.20%); Bergen-Passaic, NJ (26.19%); Memphis, TN (23.77%); Wichita, KS (20.00%); and Brockton,MA (19.20%).

Largest Decreases in African-American Rejection RatioFor Conventional Home Purchase Mortgages from 2001 to 2002

MSA 2001 Ratio 2002 Ratio Decrease

Madison 4.31 2.36 45.24%

Honolulu 2.50 1.49 40.40%

Colorado Springs 3.42 2.19 35.96%

Des Moines 2.35 1.52 35.32%

Springfield, MA 3.19 2.08 34.80%

Bakersfield 2.53 1.69 33.20%Bergen-Passaic 2.94 2.17 26.19%

Memphis 3.45 2.63 23.77%

Wichita 2.25 1.80 20.00%

Brockton 2.50 2.02 19.20%

The ten metropolitan areas in which the disparity between Latino and white denial rates decreased the mostfrom 2001 to 2002 were: Dayton, OH (54.62% decrease); Pittsburgh, PA (47.37%); Memphis, TN (38.91%);Brownsville, TX (36.30%); Baton Rouge, LA (35.48%); Brockton, MA (30.61%), Wilmington, DE (29.38%),Honolulu, HI (27.43%); Tulsa, OK (26.50%); and Atlanta, GA (20.45%).

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

18/57


14

Largest Decreases in Latino Rejection RatioFor Conventional Home Purchase Mortgages from 2001 to 2002

MSA 2001 Ratio 2002 Ratio Decrease

Dayton 2.49 1.13 54.62%

Pittsburgh 1.71 0.90 47.37%

Memphis 2.93 1.79 38.91%Brownsville 2.81 1.79 36.30%

Baton Rouge 2.17 1.40 35.48%

Brockton 2.45 1.70 30.61%

Wilmington 1.77 1.25 29.38%

Honolulu 2.26 1.64 27.43%

Tulsa 2.00 1.47 26.50%

Atlanta 2.20 1.75 20.45%

Denial rates for conventional purchase loans declined for borrowers of all races

between 2001 and 2002, while having grown from 1997 until 2001. However, denialrates for all minority borrowers fell at a slower rate than did rates for white

borrowers, and those for African American borrowers fell more slowly than did those

for Latino borrowers. Because there was a greater decrease in denial rates from

2001 to 2002 than the increases from 1997 and 2001, denial rates fell over the whole

five year period.

National

From 2001 to 2002 and from 1997 to 2002, denial rates for conventional purchase loans declined more forwhites than for minorities. From 2001 to 2002, the white denial rate fell 27%, the Latino denial rate fell 22%,

and the African-American denial rate dropped by 25%. From 1997 to 2002, the white denial rate declined54%, the Latino rate fell 50%, and the African-American denial rate dropped 47%.

Change in Denial Rates for Conventional Home Purchase Mortgages – Nationally

Race1997 Denial

Rate

2001

Denial

Rate

2002

Denial

Rate

Change

1997-2002

Change 2001-

2002

Whites 27.53% 17.17% 12.55% -54.41% -26.91%

African-Americans 56.76% 39.73% 29.82% -47.46% -24.94%

Latinos 41.06% 26.24% 20.48% -50.12% -21.95%

As the above numbers show, despite decreases in rejection rates to all borrowers, minority applicants forconventional home purchase loans continue to be significantly more likely than whites applicants to berejected. Because denial rates to white borrowers have decreased somewhat more quickly, the disparity between denial rates has only increased over time.

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

19/57


15

2002 Denial Rate for Conventional Home Purchase Loans by Borrower Race

12.55%

29.82%

20.48%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

White African-American Latino


Greatest Denial Rates

At least one out of every three African-Americans were denied for a conventional home purchase loan in 12cities included in this report. More than one out of two African-American applicants were denied in Houma,the city with the greatest African-American denial rate of 56.59%. The cities with the highest African-American denial rate were: Houma, LA (56.59% denial rate); Pine Bluff, AR (49.40%); Tallahassee, FL

(43.02%); Austin, TX (42.08%); Shreveport, LA (41.35%); Greensboro, NC (39.42%); Lake Charles, LA(38.81%); Baton Rouge, LA (38.41%); Jackson, MS (38.13%); and San Antonio, TX (37.46%).

Highest African-American Denial Rates for Conventional Home

Purchase Loans 2002

City African-AmericanApplications

Denial Rate

Houma 196 56.59%Pine Bluff 263 49.40%Tallahassee 1,081 43.02%Austin 1,166 42.08%Shreveport 765 41.35%Greensboro-Winston-Salem 3,200 39.42%

Lake Charles 355 38.81%Baton Rouge 1,732 38.41%Jackson 1,743 38.13%San Antonio 1,038 37.46%

At least one out of every three Latino applicants were denied a conventional home purchase loan in fourcities: Greensboro-Winston-Salem, Austin, Las Cruces, and Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill. At least one out ofevery four Latino applicants were denied in 24 cities. The cities with the highest Latino denial rate were:Greensboro-Winston-Salem, NC (36.69% Latino denial rate); Greensboro-Winston Salem (39.69% denial

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

20/57


16

rate); Austin (37.65); Las Cruces (37.53%); Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill (34.32%); Little Rock (32.65%); SaltLake City (31.83%); Oklahoma City (3172%); Charlotte (31.53%); San Antonio (31.27%); Grand Rapids(30.44%).

Highest Latino Denial RatesConventional Home Purchase Loans 2002

City LatinoApplications

Denial Rate

Greensboro-Winston-Salem 1,149 39.69%Austin 4,920 37.65%Las Cruces 969 37.53%Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill 885 34.32%Little Rock 108 32.65%Salt Lake City 1,286 31.83%Oklahoma City 786 31.72%Charlotte 1,306 31.53%San Antonio 8,622 31.27%Grand Rapids 794 30.44%

Increases in Minority Denial Rates

The African-American denial rate increased from 2001 to 2002 in only six of the cities included in thisreport: Pine Bluff, AR (15.6%); Stockton, CA (15.4%); Austin, TX (6.0%); Greensboro, NC (4.8%); Seattle,WA (3.7%); and Modesto, CA (1.0%)

Greatest Increases in African-American Denial Rates for Conventional Loansfrom 2001-2002

MSA 2001 Denial Rate 2002 DenialRate

Increase

Pine Bluff 42.7% 49.4% 15.6%

Stockton 20.4% 23.6% 15.4%

Austin 39.7% 42.1% 6.0%Greensboro-Winston-Salem 37.6% 39.4% 4.8%

Seattle 21.9% 22.7% 3.7%

Modesto 21.6% 21.8% 1.0%

The Latino denial rate for conventional loans increased from 2001 to 2002 in 52 of the cities considered inthis study. The ten greatest increases in Latino loan denial rates occurred in: Shreveport, LA (354.9%increase); Lake Charles, LA (171.6%); Springfield, IL (110.6%); Norfolk, VA (83.6%); Tallahassee, FL(75.8%); Chicago, IL (64.2%); Chattanooga, TN (62.7%); New Orleans, LA (58.1%); Houma, LA (55.6%);and Montgomery, AL (50.9%).

Greatest Increases in Latino Denial Rates for Conventional Home PurchaseLoans

MSA 2001 Denial Rate 2002 Denial Rate Increase

Shreveport 9.1% 30.0% 354.9%

Lake Charles 14.3% 35.7% 171.6%

Springfield, IL 11.1% 21.4% 110.6%

Norfolk 13.9% 18.9% 83.6%

Tallahassee 24.5% 20.4% 75.8%

Chicago 16.2% 17.5% 64.2%

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

21/57


17

Chattanooga 19.6% 26.7% 62.7%

New Orleans 20.8% 21.6% 58.1%

Houma 36.4% 25.0% 55.6%

Montgomery 24.1% 22.2% 50.9%

Decreases in Minority Denial Rates

The ten Metropolitan areas which had the largest decreases in the African-American Denial Rate from 2001to 2002 were: Madison, WI (49.9% decrease); Colorado Springs, CO (42.8%), Bakersfield, CA (40.1%); DesMoines, IA (38.7%); Grand Rapids, MI (36.2%); Fort Wayne, IN (35.1%); Bergen-Passaic, NJ (33.7%);Wichita, KS (33.0%); Dayton, OH (32.6%); and Springfield, MA (31.1%).

Largest Decreases in African-American Denial Rates for Conventional Loansfrom 2001 to 2002

MSA 2001 Denial Rate 2002 DenialRate Decrease

Madison 23.5% 11.8% 49.9%

Colorado Springs 38.2% 21.9% 42.8%

Bakersfield 26.8% 16.1% 40.1%

Des Moines 24.4% 14.9% 38.7%

Grand Rapids 35.6% 22.7% 36.2%

Fort Wayne 42.3% 27.4% 35.1%

Bergen-Passaic 23.6% 15.6% 33.7%

Wichita 45.1% 30.2% 33.0%

Dayton 34.6% 23.3% 32.6%

Springfield, MA 27.3% 18.8% 31.1%

The ten Metropolitan areas which had the largest decrease in Latino denial rates from 2001 to 2002 were:Akron, OH (35.0% decrease); Louisville, KY (34.5%); Salt Lake City, UT (34.1%); Tacoma, WA (33.7%);Grand Rapids, MI (33.2%); Lansing, MI (32.0%); Madison, WI (30.0%); Des Moines, IA (25.9%); Reno, NV(25.5%); and Oklahoma City, OK (23.9%).

Largest Decreases in Latino Denial Rates for Conventional Loans

MSA 2001 DenialRate

2002 DenialRate

Decrease

Akron 29.1% 29.0% 35.0%

Louisville 32.2% 25.3% 34.5%

Salt Lake City 36.9% 31.8% 34.1%Tacoma 33.3% 26.7% 33.7%

Grand Rapids 34.0% 30.4% 33.2%

Lansing 28.4% 20.4% 32.0%

Madison 16.8% 20.7% 30.0%

Des Moines 20.1% 27.7% 25.9%

Reno 24.0% 15.3% 25.5%

Oklahoma City 38.2% 31.7% 23.9%

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

22/57


18

Minority applicants for conventional purchase loans are rejected more often than

whites applicants in the same income categories, and the disparity increases for

borrowers with higher incomes. Minorities with higher incomes are also denied more

often than whites with lower incomes.

National

Minority applicants for conventional purchase loans are consistently more likely to be denied loans than arewhite applicants at the same income level. This disparity grows for borrowers at higher income levels; whiledenial rates were higher, and more similar - although still disparate - for borrowers at lower income levels.5

Low-income African-Americans were 1.55 times more likely to be turned down than low-income whites,moderate income African-Americans were 2.06 times more likely to be turned down than moderate-incomewhites, lower-middle income African-Americans were 2.33 times more likely to be turned down than lower-middle income whites, upper-middle income African-Americans were 2.61 times more likely to be turned

down than upper-middle income whites, and upper income African-Americans were 2.83 times more likelyto be turned down than upper income whites.

Low-income Latinos were denied 1.26 times more often than low-income whites. Moderate income Latinoswere 1.63 times as likely to be denied as moderate-income whites, lower-middle income Latinos were 1.82times more likely to be denied than lower-middle income whites, upper-middle income Latinos were denied2.07 times more often than upper-middle income whites, and upper-income Latinos were denied 2.13 timesas often as upper-income white borrowers.

Minority applicants at higher income levels were also denied more often than white applicants at lowerincome levels. Upper-income African-Americans and Latinos were more likely to be turned down thanmoderate-income whites, as were upper-middle income African-Americans and Latinos.

Denial Rates and Rejection Ratios by Borrower Race Within Income Categories2002 Conventional Home Purchase Mortgages

Income Level Denial Rates Denial Ratio

White Black Latino Black Latino

Low IncomeBelow 50% median

25.77% 39.92% 32.37% 1.55 1.26

Moderate Income 50%-79% median

13.88% 28.53% 22.61% 2.06 1.63

Lower-Middle Income80%-99% median

10.27% 23.96% 18.68% 2.33 1.82

Upper -Middle Income100%-119% median 8.41% 21.96% 17.43% 2.61 2.07

Upper Income Above 120% median

6.84% 19.35% 14.60% 2.83 2.13

5 Low income applicants have an annual income below 50% of the median income. Moderate income applicants have an

annual income between 50%-79% of the median income. Middle income applicants are divided into two categories –earning between 80%-99% of the median income and earning between 100-119% of the median income. Upper-incomeapplicants earn 120%or greater than the median income.

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

23/57


19

2002 Conventional Home Purchase Loan Denial Rates by Borrower Income and

Race

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Upper-Income White Upper-Income African-American

Upper-Income Latino Moderate-IncomeWhite


As noted previously, when comparing African-American applicants of all incomes to white applicants of allincomes, African-Americans in two of the Metropolitan areas were over four times more likely to be rejectedthan whites. However, when comparing upper-income African-American applicants to upper-income whiteapplicants, African-Americans in thirteen of the Metropolitan areas were over four times more likely to berejected than the white applicants.

The ten Metropolitan areas with the greatest disparity between the denial rates of upper-income African-Americans and upper-income whites were: Cleveland, OH (5.84 times more likely); Montgomery, AL (5.29);Omaha, NE (5.28); Gary, IN (4.80); Albany, NY (4.74); Chicago, IL (4.64); Tallahassee, FL (4.56); St. Louis,MO (4.51); Milwaukee, WI (4.48), and Raleigh, NC (4.45).

Greatest Disparity Between Denial Rates for Conventional Purchase ApplicationsBy Upper-income African-Americans and Whites 2002

MSAUpper Income

African-AmericanDenial Rate

Upper IncomeWhites Denial

RateDisparity

Cleveland 25.42% 4.35% 5.84

Montgomery 18.82% 3.56% 5.29

Omaha 15.58% 2.95% 5.28

Gary 23.17% 4.83% 4.80

Albany 25.00% 5.27% 4.74

Chicago 23.72% 5.11% 4.64

Tallahassee 18.62% 4.08% 4.56

St. Louis 20.25% 4.49% 4.51

Milwaukee 13.65% 3.05% 4.48

Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill 16.98% 3.82% 4.45

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

24/57

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

25/57


21

Least Disparity Between Denial Rates for Conventional PurchaseApplications

Upper-income African-Americans and Upper-Income Whites 2002

MSAAfrican-

AmericanDenial Rate

White DenialRate

Disparity

Des Moines 5.26% 4.90% 1.07

Stamford- Norwalk

6.06% 5.40% 1.12

Wichita 6.67% 5.85% 1.14

Bakersfield 12.18% 8.70% 1.40

Harrisburg 5.77% 4.02% 1.44

Pine Bluff 27.27% 18.26% 1.49

Lansing 10.23% 6.84% 1.50

Honolulu 9.88% 6.46% 1.53

Lake Charles 19.35% 11.54% 1.68

Salt Lake City 21.05% 11.90% 1.77

Upper-income Latinos were less likely to be denied a conventional purchase loan than upper-income whitesin only six cities—Des Moines, Wilmington, Dayton, Baton Rouge, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. The otherfour cities with the least disparity in denial rates between upper-income Latinos and upper-income whiteswere: Toledo (1.27), Louisville (1.29), Forth Lauderdale (1.33) and Miami (1.35).

Least Disparity Between Denial Rates for Conventional PurchaseApplications

By Upper-income Latinos and Whites 2002

MSALatino Denial

Rate

Whites

Denial Rate

Disparity

Des Moines 0% 4.90% 0

Wilmington 0% 3.38% 0

Dayton 0% 4.60% 0

Baton Rouge 3.57% 6.25% 0.57

Cincinnati 3.70% 5.31% 0.70

Pittsburgh 4.26% 5.29% 0.81

Toledo 6.45% 5.48% 1.27

Louisville 6.06% 4.70% 1.29

Fort Lauderdale 10.67% 8.05% 1.33

Miami 13.79% 10.21% 1.35

Low-income African-Americans were at least two times more likely to be rejected than low-income whites inseventeen of the metropolitan areas in the study. The ten cities with the greatest disparity between rejectionrates of low-income African-Americans and low-income whites were: Honolulu, HI (African-Americanswere 4.05 times more likely to be denied); Milwaukee, WI (3.37); San Francisco, CA (3.22); Chicago, IL(3.06); Stamford, CT (2.73); Modesto, CA (2.37); Omaha, NE (2.36); Madison, WI (2.35); Bridgeport, CT(2.29); and New Haven, CT (2.23).

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

26/57


22

Greatest Disparity Between Denial Rates for Conventional PurchaseApplications

By Low-income African-Americans and Whites 2002

MSALow-Income

African-AmericanRejection Rate

Low-Income WhiteRejection Rate

Rejection Ratio

Honolulu 40.00% 9.88% 4.05Milwaukee 28.57% 8.47% 3.37

San Francisco 44.44% 13.81% 3.22

Chicago 31.66% 10.33% 3.06

Stamford 26.53% 9.73% 2.73

Modesto 66.67% 28.13% 2.37

Omaha 40.35% 17.10% 2.36

Madison 30.00% 12.76% 2.35

Bridgeport 28.24% 12.31% 2.29

New Haven 32.97% 14.81% 2.23

Low-income Latinos were at least two times more likely to be rejected than low-income whites in thirteencities. The ten cities with the greatest disparity between the rejection rates of low-income Latinos and low-income whites were: Worcester, MA (low-income Latinos were 2.89 times more likely to rejected); SanFrancisco, CA (2.85); Madison, WI (2.61); Stamford, CT (2.46); Las Cruces, NM (2.35); Buffalo, NY (2.25);Seattle, WA (2.24); Chicago, IL (2.11); Denver, CO (2.05); and Minneapolis, MN (2.03).

Greatest Disparity Between Denial Rates for Conventional PurchaseApplications

By Low-income Latinos and Whites 2002

MSALow-Income

Latino Rejection

Rate

Low-IncomeWhite Rejection

Rate

Rejection Ratio

Worcester 36.36% 12.56% 2.89

San Francisco 39.34% 13.81% 2.85

Madison 33.33% 12.76% 2.61

Stamford 23.89% 9.73% 2.46

Las Cruces 57.27% 24.32% 2.35

Buffalo 46.88% 20.82% 2.25

Seattle 37.80% 16.89% 2.24

Chicago 21.80% 10.33% 2.11

Denver 38.54% 18.83% 2.05

Minneapolis 27.70% 13.62% 2.03

In 19 metropolitan areas, upper-income African-Americans (earning more than 120% of the median income)were more likely to be turned down than low income whites (earning less than 50% of the median income):

In ten of these metropolitan areas, upper-income African-Americans were more than 1.25 times more likelyto be denied than low-income whites:

In Chicago, African-Americans earning more than $90,480 were 2.30 times more likely to be turneddown than whites earning less than $37,700.

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

27/57


23

In San Francisco, African-Americans earning more than $103,320 were 1.63 times more likely to beturned down than whites earning less than $43,050

In Newark, African-Americans earning more than $94,440 were 1.60 times more likely to be turneddown than whites earning less than $39,350.

In New Haven, African-Americans earning more than $76,200 were 1.52 times more likely to beturned down than whites earning less than $31,750.

In Bridgeport, African-Americans earning more than $90,000 were 1.50 times more likely to beturned down than whites earning less than $37,500.

In Worcester, African-Americans earning less than $70,080 were 1.50 times more likely to be turneddown than whites earning less than $29,200.

In Cleveland, African-Americans earning more than $72,000 were 1.39 times more likely to beturned down than whites earning less than $30,000.

In Seattle, African-Americans earning more than $93,480 were 1.39 times more likely to be turned

down than whites earning less than $38,950.

In Hartford, African-Americans earning more than $79,920 were more 1.30 times more likely to beturned down than whites earning less than $33,300.

In Gary, African-Americans earning more than $68,160 were 1.27 times more likely to be turneddown than whites earning less than $29,900.

In 16 Metropolitan areas, upper-income Latinos (earning 120% or more than the median income) were morelikely to be turned down than low-income whites (earning less than 50% of the median income). In six ofthose cities, upper-income Latinos were at least 1.25 times more likely to be denied than low-income whites.

In Bridgeport, Latinos earning more than $90,000 were 1.64 times more likely to be denied thanwhites earning less than $37,500.

In Stamford-Norwalk Latinos earning more than $138,600 were 2.42 times more likely to be deniedthan whites earning less than $57,750.

In Chicago, Latinos earning more than $90,480 were 1.51 times more likely to be denied than whitesearning less than $37,700.

In Worcester, Latinos earning more than $70,080 were 1.45 times more likely to be denied thanwhites earning less than $29,200.

In Providence, Latinos earning more than $64,920 were 1.27 times more likely to be denied thanwhites earning less than $27,050.

In Milwaukee, Latinos earning more than $80,640 were 1.69 times more likely to be denied thanwhites earning less than $33,600.

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

28/57


24

The number of conventional purchase loans made to all borrowers increased from

2001 to 2002, as well as over the longer five year period from 1997 to 2002, with the

greatest increase in lending to Latino borrowers, and the percentage increase to

African American borrowers also greater than that to white borrowers. However, a

large portion of the increased originations to African American borrowers in

particular came from higher cost subprime lenders.

National

From 2001 to 2002, there was an 14% increase in the number of conventional loans made to African-Americans, a 25% increase in the number of conventional loans made to Latinos, and a 6% increase in thenumber of conventional loans made to whites. From 1997 to 2002, there was a 137% increase in the numberof conventional loans made to Latinos, a 36% increase in the number of conventional loans made to African-Americans, and an 18% increase in the number of conventional loans made to whites.

Of course, it must be noted that because there was, and is, a significantly smaller total volume of lending toAfrican American and Latino borrowers, smaller numerical increases represent larger percentage increases tothese groups – thus, as noted below, the portion of conventional loans going to African Americans hasshrunk since 1997, while the much larger percentage increase to Latino borrowers means that the total portion of conventional loans going to Latino borrowers has increased.

Change in Conventional Home Purchase Originations by Borrower Race

Race 1997 2001 2002Change

1997-2002Change

2001-2002

African-American 139,544 166,321 189,817 36.03% 14.13%

Latino 132,808 252,057 314,951 137.15% 24.95%

White 2,402,232 2,654,809 2,822,776 17.51% 6.33%

Change in Conventional Loan Orignations from 2001 to 2002

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

African-American Latino White

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

29/57


25

It is also important to note that some of the increased lending, and in particular a large portion of theincreased originations to African American borrowers, came from higher cost subprime lenders. In 2002subprime lenders originated 50,046 or 26.37% of the conventional purchase loans made to AfricanAmericans, 19.96% of those made to Latinos (62,858 loans) and 7.5% of the conventional purchase loansmade to white borrowers (211,832 loans). This is an increase from 2001 when subprime lenders originated30,474 conventional home purchase loans to African-Americans, 18.3% of the conventional purchase loans,12.2% of those made to Latinos (31,721 loans) and 4.7% of those made to whites (125,048). It’s a muchgreater increase from 1997 when subprime lenders originated only 10% of the conventional home purchaseloans to African-Americans (14,018 loans), 8% of those to Latinos (10,675 loans) and 3.8% of those towhites (90,632 loans).

Subprime lenders account for most of the increased lending to African-Americans since 1997. Out of the50,273 additional loans originated to African-Americans, 36,028 or 71.66% were from subprime lenders.Subprime lenders account for more than one-fourth of the increased lending to Latinos, 52,183 out of182,143 and about the same portion of the increased lending to whites, 121,200 out of 420,544.

If you subtract the subprime lender loans and only consider lending by prime lenders, there was an increaseof 11.35% in ‘A’ loans to African-Americans and a 12.95% increase in ‘A’ loans to whites but a dramaticincrease of 106.41% in such loans to Latinos.

36,028

14,24552,183

129,960

121,200

299,344

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

African-American Latino White

Change in Conventional Home Purchase Loans 1997-2002 by Borrower Race and Lender Type

Prime Lenders

Subprime Lenders

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

30/57


26


Increases in Minority Originations

Conventional home loan originations to African-Americans increased from last year by at least 25% in 31cities and increased by at least 50% in 3 cities. The cities with the greatest increase in conventional home

purchase originations to African-Americans from last year were: Honolulu (55.22% increase from 2001 to2002); Orange County (55.06%); Providence (50.26%); Riverside-San Bernardino (49.15%); ColoradoSprings (47.24%); Grand Rapids (43.17%); Sacramento (41.60%); Albany (41.57%); Fresno (41.55%);Trenton (40.43%).

Largest Increase in African-American Conventional Loan Originations 2001-2002

MSA 2001

Originations

2002

Originations

Increase

Honolulu 67 104 55.22%

Orange County 356 552 55.06%

Providence 195 293 50.26%

Riverside-San Bernardino 2,185 3,259 49.15%

Colorado Springs 127 187 47.24%Grand Rapids 271 388 43.17%

Sacramento 1,178 1,668 41.60%

Albany 166 235 41.57%

Fresno 219 310 41.55%

Trenton 235 330 40.43%

Conventional home loan originations to Latinos increased by 50% since last year in 12 cities and doubled infour cities in this report. The cities with the greatest increases in conventional home loan originations toLatinos were: Dayton (141.67% increase from 2001); Memphis (126.87%); Baton Rouge (110.53%); Honolulu(104.65%); Chattanooga (104.65%); Providence (72.40%); Riverside-San Bernardino (40.40%); Wilmington(65.22%); Tallahassee (32.07%); and Washington, D.C. (56.22%).

Largest Increase in Latino Conventional Loan Originations 2001-2002

MSA 2001

Originations

2002

Originations

Increase

Dayton 36 87 141.67%

Memphis 134 304 126.87%

Baton Rouge 38 80 110.53%

Honolulu 86 176 104.65%

Chattanooga 29 51 75.86%

Providence 413 712 72.40%Riverside-San Bernardino 9,757 16,626 70.40%

Wilmington 115 190 65.22%

Tallahassee 58 94 62.07%

Washington, D.C. 4,413 6,894 56.22%

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

31/57


27

In 29 cities, the number of loans originated to African-Americans more than doubled from 1997 to 2002.The cities with the greatest increases were: Modesto (619.23% increase); Stockton (601.11%); Worcester(487.88%); Brockton (387.95%); Sacramento (350.81%); Riverside-San Bernardino (338.04%); Fresno(330.56%); Bakersfield (294.23%); San Diego (199.39%); Reno (186.96%).

Largest Increase in African-American Conventional Loan Originations 1997-2002

MSA 1997

Originations

2002

Originations

Increase

Modesto 26 187 619.23%

Stockton-Lodi 90 631 601.11%

Worcester 33 194 487.88%

Brockton 83 405 387.95%

Sacramento 370 1,668 350.81%

Riverside-San Bernardino 744 3,259 338.04%

Fresno 72 310 330.56%

Bakersfield 52 205 294.23%

San Diego 330 988 199.39%

Reno 23 66 186.96%

Conventional home loan originations to Latinos more than doubled from 1997 to 2002 in 70 cities in thisstudy. The cities with the greatest increases since 1997 were: Modesto (685.27% increase); Stockton(627.37%); Memphis (575.56%); Bakersfield (564.22%); Riverside-San Bernardino (507.90%); Sacramento(427.05%); Washington, D.C. (392.08%); Baltimore (387.88%); Fresno (355.19%); Albany (300.00%).

Largest Increase in Latino Conventional Loan Originations 1997-2002

MSA 1997Originations 2002Originations Increase

Modesto 319 2,505 685.27%

Stockton 369 2,684 627.37%

Memphis 45 304 575.56%

Bakersfield 313 2,079 564.22%

Riverside-San Bernardino 2,735 16,626 507.90%

Sacramento 562 2,962 427.05%

Washington 1,401 6,894 392.08%

Baltimore 99 483 387.88%

Fresno 578 2,631 355.19%

Albany 33 132 300.00%

Conventional loan originations to African-Americans decreased from 2001 to 2002 in 12 cities. The 10 citieswith the greatest decrease were: Austin (25.88% decrease); Stamford-Norwalk (15.31%); Harrisburg(10.91%); Houma (8.96%); Montgomery (8.35%); Tallahassee (8.04%); Tucson (7.53%); Buffalo (4.00%);Lansing (3.72%); and St. Louis (3.57%).

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

32/57


28

Greatest Decrease in African-American Conventional Loan

Originations 2001-2002

MSA 2001

Originations

2002

Originations

Decrease

Austin 599 444 25.88%

Stamford-Norwalk 196 166 15.31%

Harrisburg 165 147 10.91%Houma 67 61 8.96%

Montgomery 503 461 8.35%


Tucson 146 135 7.53%

Buffalo 375 360 4.00%

Lansing 215 207 3.72%

St. Louis 2,798 2,698 3.57%

Conventional loan originations to Latinos decreased from 2001 to 2002 in only eight cities: LittleRock (18.57%); Waterbury (7.28%); Austin (6.05%); Buffalo (4.35%); Stamford-Norwalk (3.10%);Grand Rapids (2.41%); Colorado Springs (2.07%); Kansas City (1.59%).

Decrease in Latino Conventional Loan Originations 2001-2002

MSA 2001

Originations

2002

Originations

Decrease

Little Rock 70 57 18.57%

Waterbury 151 140 7.28%

Austin 2,314 2,174 6.05%

Buffalo 92 88 4.35%

Stamford-Norwalk 420 407 3.10%

Grand Rapids 456 445 2.41%

Colorado Springs 387 379 2.07%

Kansas City 567 558 1.59%

The number of conventional loans originated to African-Americans decreased from 1997 to 2002 in12 cities. The 10 cities with the biggest decrease were: Houma (39.60% decrease); Tallahassee(37.10% decrease); Montgomery (26.24%); Springfield, Ill. (22.58%); Mobile (16.67%); San Jose(14.24%); Salt Lake City (12.31%); San Francisco (10.00%); Greensboro-Winston-Salem (9.95%);Shreveport (4.87%).

Largest Decrease in African-American Conventional Loan Originations 1997-2002

MSA 1997

Originations

2002

Originations

Decrease

Houma 101 61 -39.60%

Tallahassee 655 412 -37.10%Montgomery 625 461 -26.24%

Springfield, Ill. 124 96 -22.58%

Mobile 540 450 -16.67%

San Jose 316 271 -14.24%

Salt Lake City 65 57 -12.31%

San Francisco 270 243 -10.00%

Greensboro--Winston-Salem 1,547 1,393 -9.95%

Shreveport 349 332 -4.87%

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

33/57


29

Conventional loan originations to Latinos decreased from 1997 to 2002 in only two cities: Cleveland and LasCruces. The other eight cities with the smallest increase in loans to Latinos were: Laredo (10.29% increase);Albuquerque (17.90%); Salt Lake City (17.90%); Toledo (23.93%); Philadelphia (29.91%); El Paso (32.00%);Grand Rapids (42.63%); Baton Rouge (50.94%).

Largest Decrease in Latino Conventional Loan Originations 1997-2002MSA 1997

Originations

2002

Originations

Decrease/Increas

eLas Cruces 885 442 -50.06%

Cleveland 487 453 -6.98%

Laredo 904 997 10.29%

Albuquerque 2,006 2,365 17.90%

Salt Lake City 507 613 20.91%

Toledo 117 145 23.93%

Philadelphia 1,043 1,355 29.91%

El Paso 2,053 2,710 32.00%

Grand Rapids 312 445 42.63%

Baton Rouge 53 80 50.94%

Despite the increase in the number of loans to Latinos, the share of conventional

loans received by both African Americans and Latinos remains much lower than the

share each group makes up of the population of the United States.

National

In 2002 African-Americans received 189,189 conventional loans, or 5.1% of the conventional purchase loansmade in the United States. This is a slight increase from the previous year when African-Americans received4.94% of the conventional purchase loans but a decrease of 7% from 1997 when they received 5.5% ofconventional purchase loans. African-Americans make up 13% of the U.S. population, so the 5.1% share ofconventional loans is almost two and a half times smaller than their share of the population.6 (The African-American share of the population has remained fairly steady since 1997 when they represented 12.8% of the population in the United States. )

In 2002 Latinos received 314,951 conventional purchase loans, or 8.5% of all such loans made in the UnitedStates. This was an increase of 13.3% from 7.5% in 2001 and an even greater 60% increase from 1997 whenLatinos received only 5.3% of the conventional loans originated. However, it remains far below the 12.5%which Latinos now make up of the U.S. population.

The Latino share of the population has also increased over time, but not at as fast a rate as the share ofconventional purchase loans going to Latino borrowers. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Latino

share of the population increased 19.8% from 11.1% of the population in 1997 to 13.3% of the population in2002.

The disparities in lending to minority borrowers are in some respects still greater than they appear in thesefigures because of the larger number of subprime loans – which are included in the figure for conventional purchase loans – that are made to African-American and Latino borrowers. If we look only at conventional

6Population data was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau.

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

34/57


30

loans originated by prime, rather than subprime lenders, the share of loans going to minority borrowers isstill smaller; 4.25% for African American borrowers, and 7.67% for Latino borrowers.

African-AmericanLatino

Share of Conventional Home Purchase

Loans

13.0%12.5%

5.1%

8.5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

Disparity in Share of Loans Received Compared to Share of Population

Individual Metropolitan areas

Most Disparate Metropolitan areas

The ten Metropolitan areas with the greatest disparity between the percentage of the population which isAfrican-American and the share of conventional loans received by African-Americans were: Austin

(African-Americans made up a 5.72 times greater percentage of the MSA’s population than of the share ofthe MSA’s conventional loans); San Francisco (5.42 times greater percentage of population than of loans);Lincoln (4.64); Omaha (4.48); Harrisburg (4.47); Chattanooga (4.47); Madison (4.34); Mobile (4.27); FortWayne (4.26); and Houma (4.18).

Greatest Disparity Between African-American Share of Population and Share ofConventional Loans

MSA Share of PopulationShare of

Conventional LoansDisparity

Austin 9.98% 1.74% 5.72

San Francisco 5.34% 0.99% 5.42

Lincoln 2.82% 0.61% 4.64

Omaha 9.34% 2.08% 4.48Harrisburg 7.86% 1.76% 4.47

Chattanooga 18.81% 4.21% 4.47

Madison 4.00% 0.92% 4.34

Mobile 27.38% 6.41% 4.27

Fort Wayne 7.54% 1.77% 4.26

Houma 15.40% 3.69% 4.18

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

35/57


31

The ten Metropolitan areas with the greatest disparity between the percentage of the population which isLatino and the share of conventional loans received by Latinos were: Honolulu, HI. (Latinos made up a 3.97times greater percentage of the MSA’s population than of their share of the MSA’s conventional loans);Portland, OR (3.91 times greater percentage of population than of loans); St. Louis, MO (3.36); Raleigh, NC(3.30); Salt Lake City, UT (3.12); Lansing, MI (3.08); Columbus, OH (3.03); Dallas, TX (3.01); Harrisburg,PA (3.00); Fort Wayne, IN (2.91).

2002 Greatest Disparity Between Latino Share of Population and Share ofConventional Loans

MSAShare of

PopulationShare of

Conventional LoansDisparity

Honolulu 6.70% 1.69% 3.97

Portland-Vancouver 7.43% 1.90% 3.91

St. Louis 2.13% 0.63% 3.36

Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill 6.11% 1.85% 3.30

Salt Lake City 10.84% 3.48% 3.12

Lansing 4.74% 1.54% 3.08

Columbus 1.83% 0.60% 3.03

Dallas 23.03% 7.64% 3.01Harrisburg 3.09% 1.03% 3.00

Fort Wayne 3.33% 1.15% 2.91

Least Disparate Metropolitan areas:

In 2002 there was only one metropolitan area of those included in this report in which the share ofconventional loans received by African-Americans was greater than their share of the population: Brockton,Mass. where the African-American share of conventional loans was over two times more than the African-American share of the population.

In addition to Brockton, MA, the other nine Metropolitan areas with the least disparity between the

percentage of the population made up by African-Americans and the share of conventional purchase loansreceived by African-Americans were: Stockton-Lodi (African-Americans make up a 1.32 times greater percentage of the population than of the share of conventional loans they received); Modesto, CA (1.33);Atlanta, GA (1.34 times greater); Bridgeport, CT (1.57); Springfield, MA (1.70); Orange County, CA (1.79); Nassau-Suffolk, NY (1.88); Ft. Lauderdale, FL (1.88);and New Haven, CT (1.91).

2002 Smallest Disparity Between African-American Share of Population and Share ofConventional Loans

MSAShare of

PopulationShare of Conventional

LoansDisparity

Brockton 3.20% 10.45% 0.39

Stockton-Lodi 6.69% 5.06% 1.32

Modesto 2.28 1.95 1.33Atlanta 20.88 15.55 1.34

Bridgeport 10.01 6.32 1.57

Springfield, Mass. 5.98 3.52 1.70

Orange County 1.67 0.93 1.79

Nassau-Suffolk 8.47 4.52 1.88

Fort Lauderdale 20.54 10.94 1.88

New Haven 10.22 5.34 1.91

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

36/57


32

In four cities, Latinos made up a greater share of the conventional loan originations than their share of the population: Ft. Lauderdale, Miami, Brockton and Cleveland.

The other cities with the least disparity between Latino proportion of the population and the share ofconventional loans received by Latinos were: San Juan, PR (Latinos make up 1.08 times greater share of the population than the share of loans they received); Orlando, FL (1.09); Laredo, TX (1.17); Memphis, TN(1.20); Modesto, CA (1.22); El Paso, TX (1.27).

Least Disparity Between Latino Share of Population and Share ofConventional Loans 2002

MSAShare of

Population

Share ofConventional

Purchase LoansDisparity

Ft. Lauderdale 16.74% 21.21 0.79

Brockton 2.58 3.10 0.83

Cleveland 1.28 1.47 0.87

Miami 57.32 60.75 0.94

San Juan 98.32 90.75 1.08

Orlando 16.52 15.19 1.09

Laredo 94.28 80.79 1.17

Memphis 2.42 2.02 1.20

Modesto 31.74 26.08 1.22

El Paso 78.23 61.47 1.27

While the number of conventional loan applications from Latinos increased from 2001

to 2002, applications from African-Americans dropped and applications from whites

slightly decreased. A similar but more dramatic pattern persists over the longer

period from 1997 to 2002 when applications to Latinos increased by over fifty

percent, applications from whites declined somewhat, and applications from African-

Americans declined more.

From 1997 to 2002, conventional loan applications from Latinos increased by 68%--an increase of over200,000 loan applications. During the same time period, applications from African-Americans decreased19.5%, meaning that there were more than 100,000 fewer applications in 2002 than in 1997. Meanwhile,applications from white homebuyers decreased by 6.2%, a decline of over 200,000 applications. From 2000to 2001 applications from Latinos increased by 15.5% while applications from African-Americans decreased by 3.5% and applications from whites remained unchanged.

Change in Conventional Home Purchase Applications By Borrower Race

Race 1997 2001 2002Change

1997-2002Change

2001-2002

African-American 461,438 384,688 371,386 -19.52% -3.46%

Latino 305,829 444,007 512,786 67.67% 15.49%

White 4,120,221 3,867,228 3,862,930 -6.24% -0.11%

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

37/57


33

Individual Metropolitan areas

Increases in Minority Applications

The number of African-American applications increased between 2001 and 2002 in 71 of the examinedMetropolitan areas. The ten MSAs with the greatest increase in African American applications were:

Honolulu, HI (52.53% increase); Waterbury, CT (51.40%); Riverside, CA (44.87%); Providence, RI(40.98%); Worcester, MA (37.50%); Fresno, CA (37.01%); Sacramento, CA (34.10%); Orange County, CA(32.83%); Minneapolis, MN (31.97%); and Brockton, MA (30.20%)

Largest Increases in African-American Conventional Home PurchaseApplications 2001 to 2002

MSA 2001 2002 Increase

Honolulu 99 151 52.53%

Waterbury 107 162 51.40%

Riverside 4,038 5,850 44.87%

Providence 327 461 40.98%

Worcester 208 286 37.50%Fresno 381 522 37.01%

Sacramento 2,003 2,686 34.10%

Orange County 664 882 32.83%

Minneapolis 1,636 2,159 31.97%

Brockton 457 595 30.20%

The number of Latino applications for conventional purchase loans increased in 84 of the examined areas.The ten Metropolitan areas with the largest increase in the number of Latino applications for conventional purchase loans from 2001 to 2002 were: Honolulu, HI (a 91.20% increase); Memphis, TN (87.30%);

Chattanooga, TN (82.46%); Riverside, CA (66.39%); Providence, RI (60.55%); Des Moines, IA (59.51%); Norfolk, VA (57.46%); Dayton, OH (57.33%); Washington, D.C. (51.31%); and Tallahassee, FL (50.00%).

Largest Increases in Latino Conventional Home Purchase Applications 2001-2002

MSA 2001 2002 Increase

Honolulu 125 239 91.20%

Memphis 244 457 87.30%

Chattanooga 57 104 82.46%

Riverside 16,347 27,200 66.39%

Providence 692 1,111 60.55%

Des Moines 163 260 59.51%

Norfolk 228 359 57.46%

Dayton 75 118 57.33%

Washington, D.C. 6,084 9,206 51.31%


Since 1997, African-American conventional loan applications more than doubled in 22 of the metropolitanareas and more than tripled in eight. The cities with the largest increases in applications from African-

8/17/2019 (2003) Great Divide 2003

38/57


34

Americans were: Stockton (589.09% increase); Modesto (536.17%); Sacramento (338.89%); Brockton(337.50%); Worcester(333.33%); Fresno (301.54%); Riverside-San Bernardino (301.23%); Bakersfield(268.97%); Honolulu (174.55%); San Diego (165.48%).

Largest Increase in African-American Loan Applications 1997-2002

MSAApplications

in 2002Applications in

1997 Change

Stockton 1137 165 589.09%

Modesto 299 47 536.17%

Sacramento 2686 612 338.89%

Brockton 595 136 337.50%

Worcester 286 66 333.33%

Fresno 522 130 301.54%

Riverside-San Bernardino 5850 1458 301.23%

Bakersfield 321 87 268.97%

Honolulu 151 55 174.55%

San Diego 1638 617 165.48%

Conventional loan applications by Latinos more than tripled between 1997 and 2002 in 17 of the examinedmetropolitan areas and more than doubled in 55 metropolitan areas. The ten cities with the largest increasein Latino applications were: Stockton (654.61% inc

(2003) Great Divide 2003

Documents

Transcript of (2003) Great Divide 2003