(2003) Great Divide 2003

The Great Divide
Home Purchase Mortgage Lending

Nationally and in 115 Metropolitan Areas
October 2003
ACORN
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
th
739 8 Street S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003
202-547-2500
www.acorn.org
ACORN Housing Corporation

650 S. Clark, Chicago, IL 60605
312-939-1611
www.acornhousing.org
ACORN Fair Housing

A Project of the American Institute of Social Justice
825 Park Avenue. Baltimore, MD 21201
410-752-4103
ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform

Now, is the nation's largest community organization of low- and
moderate-income families, with over 150,000 member families organized
into 700 neighborhood chapters in 60 cities across the country. Since
1970 ACORN has taken action and won victories on issues of concern to
our members. Our priorities include: better housing for first time
homebuyers and tenants, living wages for low-wage workers, more
investment in our communities from banks and governments, and better
public schools. We achieve these goals by building community
organizations 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, a

national organization formed by low-income members to improve neglected, impoverished
communities. ACORN Housing creates affordable housing opportunities by acquiring and
rehabilitating affordable housing units, developing single-family homes, providing homeownership
counseling, coordinating sweat-equity programs, creating groundbreaking mortgage financing
programs, and securing homebuyer subsidies. Since its inception, ACORN Housings
homeownership and counseling program has grown to 32 cities and provides free mortgage
counseling 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 improved
terms, through loan modification, and by providing outreach that teaches individuals to identify and
avoid predatory loans.
ACORN Fair Housing

ACORN Fair Housing fights housing discrimination by conducting research, providing training for
community organizations, and conducing outreach and education efforts on the Federal Fair Housing
Act. ACORN Fair Housing has worked against insurance and mortgage redlining and is currently
working to identify victims of discrimination who have obtained predatory mortgage loans. ACORN
Fair Housing is a project of the American Institute for Social Justice.
THE GREAT DIVIDE: Home Purchase Mortgage Lending Nationally and in 115 Metropolitan Areas
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................ 5
Findings
Rejection Ratios of Conventional Purchase Loans by Borrower Race .............................. 9
Rejection Rates of Conventional Purchase Loans by Borrower Race ............................... 14
Denial Rates by Race Accounting for Income..................................................................... 18
Originations for Conventional Purchase Loans by Borrower Race.................................... 24
Applications for Conventional Purchase Loans by Borrower Race ................................... 29
Share of Loans to Minorities Compared to Population Share ............................................ 32
Loan Originations by Neighborhood Income ...................................................................... 36
Rejection Rates by Neighborhood Income.......................................................................... 38
Minority Share of Government-backed Loans
Compared to Conventional Purchase Loans ............................................................... 40
Government-Backed Loan Portion of Purchase Loans to Minorities................................. 43
Minority Rejection Ratios for Government-Backed Loans................................................. 46
Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 49
Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 52
Data Tables and Individual City Summaries
Available at www.acorn.org/hmda
INTRODUCTION
The homeownership rate in the United States rose slightly to 68.1% in 2002, as it has risen every year since
1993. This national figure, however, masks continued sharp disparities between the experiences of
Americans of different races. There remains a 26.5 percentage point difference between white and African
American 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 from
even further behind, and still have the lowest rates of homeownership in the country. In 2002, 74.7% of
white families owned their own homes, compared to only 48.2% of African-Americans and 47.5% of
Latinos. If minority families owned homes at the same rates as whites of similar ages and incomes, the
United 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 families
experience 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, with
its inflated prices and attendant predatory abuses, puts an increasing number of homeowners at risk of losing
their homes.
This report looks in detail at the denial rates and ratios for borrowers of different races and incomes when
they apply for conventional and government backed home purchase loans, as well as at numbers of
originations 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 will
look 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 times
more likely to be turned down for a mortgage than white applicants, and Latinos were rejected more
than one and a half times as often as white applicants. These figures are of even greater concern
because 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 both
African American and Latino borrowers. Furthermore, specific areas of the country continue to demonstrate
especially alarming disparities in their lending markets. In Milwaukee and Chicago, for example, AfricanAmericans were more than four times more likely than whites to be denied a conventional purchase loan last
year.
Disparities in denial rates persisted and grew despite the fact that denial rates themselves fell significantly for
all borrowers between 2001 and 2002, because denial rates fell more quickly for white applicants than for
minority applicants.
The disparity between minority and white denial rates is present even when comparing minority
applicants 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 than
twice as often. Even more disturbing, across the country as a whole, upper income African-Americans and
Latinos were rejected more frequently than moderate-income whites - applicants whose incomes were only
about half as large.
The number of conventional loan originations to Latino borrowers increased substantially while the
increases to African-Americans and whites werent as large. The increase in the number of
conventional home purchase loans made to African American borrowers was 14.13%, which made up some
ground lost the year before. However, we must take into account the fact that a growing portion of these
originations 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 AfricanAmericans 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 one
of the factors contributing to this improvement has been the effort by community organizations to make
lenders 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 borrowers
continue to be rejected considerably more often than white applicants, and Latinos still face unnecessary
obstacles when trying to purchase a home.
The share of conventional loans made to African-Americans and Latinos continues to lag far behind
the percentage of the population that they make up. African-Americans comprise almost 13% of the
countrys 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 serve
low and moderate-income communities of all races. Low and moderate- income neighborhoods comprise
26% of the country, yet these neighborhoods received just 11% of the conventional loans. As shown in this
report, residents of low, moderate, and even middle income neighborhoods all have a harder time in
obtaining a loan than residents of upper income areas.
***
Given that homeownership remains the single most important source of accumulated wealth for minority and
lower income American households, it is impossible to overstate the damage caused by the continuing
inequalities in access to mortgage credit. Home equity accounts for two-thirds of the net wealth of families
with 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 a
separation between getting by from day to day and building up the equity that may be later used as collateral
for an investment in higher education or starting a business, to guarantee a secure retirement, and to pass on
increased wealth and security to the next generation. For communities, it is often the difference between
absentee landlords and committed neighbors. Without access to credit on fair terms, communities have no
hope 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 to
mortgage loans cannot be explained away by the argument that minority applicants have less good credit. In
the 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 once
differences in credit were taken out of the picture, black and Latino applicants were significantly more likely
to be denied a mortgage loan than similarly situated white applicants.ii
Paired testing studies of mortgage lending institutions have similarly found that minorities are treated
differently even at the earliest stages of the home buying process, and that they are less likely to be helped to
apply despite possible barriers, and to make the most successful possible application. Indeed paired testing
studies such as those carried out by the Urban Institute for HUD suggest that the HMDA data may undercount
lending disparities, since it does not record those who were discouraged from even applying.
2
***
The different experiences of minority as opposed to white applicants for mortgage credit becomes still
clearer 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 more
likely to be offered the latter. In recent years, lower-income and minority homebuyers, primarily
African-Americans, have become more and more reliant on subprime loans when buying a home. The
data on denial rates and number of loans extended obscures increasingly evident differences in the types and
terms of loans made in different communities. Precisely because traditional banks and mortgage companies
have 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 interest
rates, more fees, and less beneficial terms.
In 2002, subprime loans made up 26.4% of the conventional home purchase loans received by
African-Americans and 20% of the conventional purchase loans to Latinos, as compared to 7.5% of
the conventional purchase loans to whites. These figures have steadily increased since 1993 when
subprime 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 prime
loan is that they pay significantly more each month, and tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of
dollars, 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 in
foreclosure. 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 borrowers
receiving subprime loans could have qualified for cheaper A credit.
In addition, subprime purchase loans are the financing mechanism of choice for carrying out property
flipping scams, which unfortunately have become a common occurrence in too many cities. Property
flipping 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 than
they are worth. The victims of property flipping are often unsuspecting low-income, minority first-time
homebuyers. 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 more
than they are worth also are financed with subprime loans. ACORN members have unfortunately
experienced developments like these where 1/2 of the properties were abandoned or foreclosed on within a
few 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 problem
existed, 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, though
still significant, disparity can also be seen in the numbers of minorities who are given government-backed
mortgages, primarily FHA loans. FHA loans make up a disproportionate share of the financing used by
African-American and Latino homebuyers. In 2002, government-backed loans accounted for 34.9% of all
home purchase originations to African-Americans and 30% of the purchase loans to Latinos nationally, as
compared to 15.5% of the purchase loans to whites.
Nationally, African-Americans received a more than two and a quarter times greater share of all governmentbacked mortgages than of conventional ones, and Latinos received a two times greater share of governmentbacked loans. Furthermore, although minorities are rejected more frequently than whites for governmentbacked loans, the disparity is much less than with conventional loans.
This data suggests that African-American and Latino homebuyers may be pushed towards governmentbacked loan products, rather than conventional products. Mortgage testing has found that lenders offer FHA
loan 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 more
complex credit histories. Regardless of the rationale, the result is that banks still appear to be much more
willing to loan money to African Americans and Latinos when the government guarantees that they will not
take a loss on the loan.
In addition, in recent years, HUD has uncovered a substantial amount of abuse in the FHA program by
lenders 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 and
appraiser 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 their
needs. 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 also
recently 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 also
have disadvantages, such as being more costly due to an upfront mortgage insurance premium. (In the past
FHA loans required borrowers to continue mortgage insurance for the life of the loan, regardless of the
amount of equity held by the owner, but this changed beginning Jan. 1, 2002.) In addition, communities can
suffer 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 disproportionately
steer minority borrowers to FHA loans.
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 2.31
times 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 2001
and 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 from
2001 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 purchase
loan 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 upperincome whites, upper-middle income African-Americans were 2.61 times more likely to be
denied 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 were
1.55 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-middle
income whites, moderate-income Latinos were 1.63 times more likely to be turned down than
moderate-income whites, while low-income Latinos were 1.26 times more likely to be turned
down than low-income whites.
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-Americans
increased 14.13% from 166,321 loans to 189,817. The number of conventional home purchase
loans to Latinos increased by 24.95% from 252,057 loans in 2001 to 314,951 loans in 2002. The
number of conventional home purchase loans to whites increased 6.33% from 2,654,809 loans in
2001 to 2,822,776 loans in 2002.
? ? From 1997 to 2002, loans to African-Americans increased 36.03% from 139,544 loans in 1997
while conventional loans to Latinos increased 137.15% from 132,808 and conventional loans to
whites increased 17.51% from 2,402,232.
? ? Subprime lenders1 originated 50,046 or 26.4% of the conventional home purchase loans
originated to African-Americans in 2002, 19.96% of the loans to Latinos (62,858 loans) and
7.50% 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 in
2002, a slight increase from the 4.94% of the conventional loans originated to African-Americans
in 2001, but still almost two and a half times smaller than the 13% of the population that AfricanAmericans make up nationally.
? ? While the African-American share of the population has declined only slightly (1.5%) since 1997
when they represented 12.8% of the population, their share of conventional purchase loans has
decreased 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 conventional
loans 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 they
received 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% from
11.1% 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.
6
? ? If we look at conventional loans originated by prime, rather than subprime lenders, the share of
loans going to minority borrowers is still smaller; 4.24% for African-American homebuyers and
7.67% 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 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 2001 to 2002, applications from African-Americans fell 3.46%from 384,688 to
371,386. Latino applications increased 15.49% from 444,007 to 512,786 while
applications from whites slightly decreased 0.11% from 3,867,228 in 2001 to 3,862,930
applications in 2002.
? ? Since 1997, applications from African-Americans for conventional home purchase loans
fell 19.52% from 461,438 applications in 1997 to 371,386 in 2002. Applications from
Latinos increased 67.67% from 305,829 to 512,786 while applications from whites
decreased 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 just
12.31% 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 a
conventional 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 denied
as 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
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 and
a 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 times
their share of conventional loans but an increase from receiving 13.25% of the governmentbacked loans in 1997.
? ? In contrast, whites received a greater share of conventional loans, 78.88%, than of government
loans, 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 government
loans, so that minority borrowers larger share of these loans have only a limited impact on their
share of all purchase loans. If we combine both government backed and conventional
originations, African-Americans received 6.4% of all home purchase originations, still almost
two times less than their share of the population and Latinos received 9.9% of all home purchase
originations, well below their share of the population.
Government backed loans make up a far greater portion of purchase loans to AfricanAmericans and Latinos than of those to white borrowers.
? ? Government-backed loans accounted for 34.88% of home purchase loans received by AfricanAmericans in 2002 and 29.99% of those received by Latinos as compared to 15.53% of the loans
to 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 more
often than white applicants, a very slight decrease from 2001 when African-Americans were
turned down 1.84 times more often than whites. In comparison, African-Americans were turned
down 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 whites
when applying for a conventional home purchase loan in 2002.
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 purchase
loan than whites were. This was up 3.03% from 2001 when African-American were 2.31 times more likely
to 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 Latinos
were rejected 1.53 times more often than whites, and a 9.4% rise from 1997 when Latinos were turned down
1.49 times more often than whites.
Change in Rejection Ratios2 for Conventional Home Purchase Mortgages
Change
Change
Race
1996
1997
2000
2001
2002
1997 2001 2002
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 rejections
grew from 2001 to 2002. In no metropolitan area were African-Americans rejected less frequently than
white applicants, nor were there any Metropolitan areas where African-Americans were rejected at a rate
even close to that at which whites were rejected.3
The highest rejection ratios for African-Americans were found in Milwaukee and Chicago, where AfricanAmericans were 4.79 and 4.18 times, respectively, more likely to be rejected than whites. In Milwaukee and
Chicago, almost one in four black applicants were turned down compared to less than one in 21 white
applicants and one in 16 white applicants respectively.
The lowest African-American rejection ratio was in Pine Bluff, Arkansas where African-American applicants
were 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 areas
studied.4
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.
Madison and Las Cruces had the highest Latino rejection ratios, 4.15 and 4.06 respectively. In Madison, one
in five Latinos were rejected compared to one out of twenty white applicants. In Las Cruces, one out of
three 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 ten
Latinos 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 AfricanAmerican and white denial rates were: Milwaukee, WI (African-Americans were 4.79 times more likely than
whites 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 Whites
For Conventional Home Purchase Mortgages
MSA
AfricanAfrican-American
White Rejection
American
Rejection Rate
Rate
Rejection Ratio
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 be
denied conventional purchase loans (Rejection Ratio > 3.0). In 83 cities, African-Americans were at least
twice 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).
10
Greatest Disparity in 2002 Denial Rates Between Latinos and Whites

Latino
Latino Rejection White Rejection
MSA
Rejection Ratio
Rate
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 AfricanAmerican and white denial rates were: Pine Bluff, AR (African-Americans were 1.36 times more likely than
whites 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 Whites
AfricanAfrican-American White Rejection
MSA
American
Rejection Rate
Rate
Rejection Ratio
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 ten
Metropolitan 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).
11
Least Disparity in 2002 Denial Rates Between Latinos and Whites

Latino
Latino
White
MSA
Rejection
Rejection
Rejection
Ratio
Rate
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 white
applicants 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 Ratio
For Conventional Home Purchase Mortgages from 2001 to 2002
2001
2002
Ratio
MSA
Ratio
Ratio
Change
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 most
from 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%); Las
Cruces, NM (42.46%); Stamford, CT (41.28%); and Omaha, NE (39.83%).
12
Largest Increases in Latino Rejection Ratio

2001
2002
Ratio
MSA
Ratio
Ratio
Change
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 rates
decreased 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 Ratio
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 most
from 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%).
13
Largest Decreases in Latino Rejection Ratio

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, 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 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 for
whites 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 declined
54%, the Latino rate fell 50%, and the African-American denial rate dropped 47%.
Change in Denial Rates for Conventional Home Purchase Mortgages Nationally
Race
1997 Denial
Rate
Whites
African-Americans
Latinos
27.53%
56.76%
41.06%
2001
Denial
Rate
17.17%
39.73%
26.24%
2002
Denial
Rate
12.55%
29.82%
20.48%
Change
1997-2002
-54.41%
-47.46%
-50.12%
Change 20012002
-26.91%
-24.94%
-21.95%
As the above numbers show, despite decreases in rejection rates to all borrowers, minority applicants for
conventional home purchase loans continue to be significantly more likely than whites applicants to be
rejected. Because denial rates to white borrowers have decreased somewhat more quickly, the disparity
between denial rates has only increased over time.
14
2002 Denial Rate for Conventional Home Purchase Loans by Borrower Race
35%
29.82%
30%
25%
20.48%
20%
15%
12.55%
10%
5%
0%
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 12
cities 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 AfricanAmerican 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-American Denial Rate
Applications
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 four
cities: Greensboro-Winston-Salem, Austin, Las Cruces, and Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill. At least one out of
every 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
15
rate); Austin (37.65); Las Cruces (37.53%); Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill (34.32%); Little Rock (32.65%); Salt
Lake City (31.83%); Oklahoma City (3172%); Charlotte (31.53%); San Antonio (31.27%); Grand Rapids
(30.44%).
Highest Latino Denial Rates
Conventional Home Purchase Loans 2002
City
Austin
Las Cruces
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill
Little Rock
Salt Lake City
Oklahoma City
Charlotte
San Antonio
Grand Rapids
Latino
Applications
1,149
4,920
969
885
108
1,286
786
1,306
8,622
794
Denial Rate
39.69%
37.65%
37.53%
34.32%
32.65%
31.83%
31.72%
31.53%
31.27%
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 this
report: 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 Loans
from 2001-2002
MSA
2001 Denial Rate
2002 Denial
Increase
Rate
Pine Bluff
42.7%
49.4%
15.6%
Stockton
20.4%
23.6%
15.4%
Austin
39.7%
42.1%
6.0%
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 in
this 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 Purchase
Loans
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%
16
Chattanooga
New Orleans
Houma
Montgomery
19.6%
20.8%
36.4%
24.1%
26.7%
21.6%
25.0%
22.2%
62.7%
58.1%
55.6%
50.9%
Decreases in Minority Denial Rates

The ten Metropolitan areas which had the largest decreases in the African-American Denial Rate from 2001
to 2002 were: Madison, WI (49.9% decrease); Colorado Springs, CO (42.8%), Bakersfield, CA (40.1%); Des
Moines, 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 Loans

from 2001 to 2002
MSA
Madison
Colorado Springs
Bakersfield
Des Moines
Grand Rapids
Fort Wayne
Bergen-Passaic
Wichita
Dayton
Springfield, MA
2001 Denial Rate

23.5%
38.2%
26.8%
24.4%
35.6%
42.3%
23.6%
45.1%
34.6%
27.3%
2002 Denial
Rate
11.8%
21.9%
16.1%
14.9%
22.7%
27.4%
15.6%
30.2%
23.3%
18.8%
Decrease
49.9%
42.8%
40.1%
38.7%
36.2%
35.1%
33.7%
33.0%
32.6%
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 Denial
2002 Denial
Decrease
Rate
Rate
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%
17
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 are
white applicants at the same income level. This disparity grows for borrowers at higher income levels; while
denial 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-income
whites, lower-middle income African-Americans were 2.33 times more likely to be turned down than lowermiddle 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 likely
to be turned down than upper income whites.
Low-income Latinos were denied 1.26 times more often than low-income whites. Moderate income Latinos
were 1.63 times as likely to be denied as moderate-income whites, lower-middle income Latinos were 1.82
times more likely to be denied than lower-middle income whites, upper-middle income Latinos were denied
2.07 times more often than upper-middle income whites, and upper-income Latinos were denied 2.13 times
as often as upper-income white borrowers.
Minority applicants at higher income levels were also denied more often than white applicants at lower
income levels. Upper-income African-Americans and Latinos were more likely to be turned down than
moderate-income whites, as were upper-middle income African-Americans and Latinos.
Denial Rates and Rejection Ratios by Borrower Race Within Income Categories
2002 Conventional Home Purchase Mortgages
Income Level
Denial Rates
Denial Ratio
White
Black
Latino
Black
Latino
Low Income
25.77%
39.92%
32.37%
1.55
1.26
Below 50% median
Moderate Income
50%-79% median
Lower-Middle Income
80%-99% median
Upper -Middle Income

100%-119% median
Upper Income
Above 120% median
13.88%
28.53%
22.61%
2.06
1.63
10.27%
23.96%
18.68%
2.33
1.82
8.41%
21.96%
17.43%
2.61
2.07
6.84%
19.35%
14.60%
2.83
2.13
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-income
applicants earn 120%or greater than the median income.
18
2002 Conventional Home Purchase Loan Denial Rates by Borrower Income and
Race
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Upper-Income White
Upper-Income African- Upper-Income Latino

American
Moderate-Income
White

As noted previously, when comparing African-American applicants of all incomes to white applicants of all
incomes, African-Americans in two of the Metropolitan areas were over four times more likely to be rejected
than whites. However, when comparing upper-income African-American applicants to upper-income white
applicants, African-Americans in thirteen of the Metropolitan areas were over four times more likely to be
rejected than the white applicants.
The ten Metropolitan areas with the greatest disparity between the denial rates of upper-income AfricanAmericans 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 Applications
By Upper-income African-Americans and Whites 2002
Upper Income
Upper Income
MSA
African-American Whites Denial Disparity
Denial Rate
Rate
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
16.98%
3.82%
4.45
19
When comparing Latino applicants of all incomes to white applicants of all incomes, there were two
metropolitan areas in which Latino applicants were over four times more likely than white applicants to be
denied. However, when comparing upper-income Latino applicants to upper-income white applicants,
Latinos in six of the Metropolitan areas were over four times more likely to be rejected than the white
applicants.
The ten Metropolitan areas with the greatest disparity between the denial rates for upper-income Latinos and
upper-income whites are: Grand Rapids, MI (6.77 times more likely); Fort Wayne, IN (5.83); Columbus, OH
(4.96); Milwaukee, WI (4.69); Stamford, CT (4.36); Providence, RI (4.00); Bridgeport, CT (3.93); Las Cruces,
NM (3.92); Gary, IN (3.84); and Boston, MA (3.76).
Greatest Disparity Between Denial Rates for Conventional Purchase Applications
By Upper-income Latinos and Whites 2002
MSA
Latinos
Whites
Disparity
Grand Rapids-Muskegon31.48%
4.65%
Holland
6.77
Fort Wayne
23.08%
3.96%
5.83
Columbus
22.45%
4.53%
4.96
Milwaukee-Waukesha
14.29%
3.05%
4.69
Stamford-Norwalk
23.53%
5.40%
4.36
Providence-Fall River24.05%
6.01%
Warwick
4.00
Bridgeport
20.21%
5.14%
3.93
Las Cruces
23.08%
5.89%
3.92
Gary
18.57%
4.83%
3.84
Boston
19.61%
5.22%
3.76
Springfield, Mass.
21.85%
5.81%
3.76
Upper-income African-Americans were less than two times more likely to be denied than upper-income
whites in 17 cities. The ten Metropolitan areas with the least disparity between the denial rates of upperincome African-Americans and upper-income whites were: Des Moines, IA (African-Americans were 1.07
times more likely to be denied than whites); Stamford-Norwalk, CT (1.12); Wichita, KS (1.14); Bakersfield,
CA (1.40); Harrisburg, PA (1.44); Pine Bluff, AR (1.49); Lansing, MI (1.50); Honolulu, HI (1.53); Lake
Charles, LA (1.68); Salt Lake City (1.77).
20
Least Disparity Between Denial Rates for Conventional Purchase

Applications
Upper-income African-Americans and Upper-Income Whites 2002
AfricanWhite Denial
MSA
American
Disparity
Rate
Denial Rate
Des Moines
5.26%
4.90%
1.07
Stamford6.06%
5.40%
1.12
Norwalk
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 whites
in only six citiesDes Moines, Wilmington, Dayton, Baton Rouge, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. The other
four cities with the least disparity in denial rates between upper-income Latinos and upper-income whites
were: Toledo (1.27), Louisville (1.29), Forth Lauderdale (1.33) and Miami (1.35).
Least Disparity Between Denial Rates for Conventional Purchase

Applications
By Upper-income Latinos and Whites 2002
Latino Denial
Whites
MSA
Disparity
Rate
Denial Rate
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 in
seventeen of the metropolitan areas in the study. The ten cities with the greatest disparity between rejection
rates of low-income African-Americans and low-income whites were: Honolulu, HI (African-Americans
were 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).
21
Greatest Disparity Between Denial Rates for Conventional Purchase

Applications
By Low-income African-Americans and Whites 2002
Low-Income
Low-Income White
MSA
African-American
Rejection Ratio
Rejection Rate
Rejection Rate
Honolulu
40.00%
9.88%
4.05
Milwaukee
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 thirteen
cities. The ten cities with the greatest disparity between the rejection rates of low-income Latinos and lowincome whites were: Worcester, MA (low-income Latinos were 2.89 times more likely to rejected); San
Francisco, 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 Purchase

Applications
By Low-income Latinos and Whites 2002
Low-Income
Low-Income
MSA
Latino Rejection White Rejection Rejection Ratio
Rate
Rate
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 likely
to be denied than low-income whites:
In Chicago, African-Americans earning more than $90,480 were 2.30 times more likely to be turned
down than whites earning less than $37,700.
22
In San Francisco, African-Americans earning more than $103,320 were 1.63 times more likely to be
turned 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 turned
In New Haven, African-Americans earning more than $76,200 were 1.52 times more likely to be
turned down than whites earning less than $31,750.
In Bridgeport, African-Americans earning more than $90,000 were 1.50 times more likely to be
In Worcester, African-Americans earning less than $70,080 were 1.50 times more likely to be turned
In Cleveland, African-Americans earning more than $72,000 were 1.39 times more likely to be
In Seattle, African-Americans earning more than $93,480 were 1.39 times more likely to be turned
In Hartford, African-Americans earning more than $79,920 were more 1.30 times more likely to be
In Gary, African-Americans earning more than $68,160 were 1.27 times more likely to be turned
In 16 Metropolitan areas, upper-income Latinos (earning 120% or more than the median income) were more
likely to be turned down than low-income whites (earning less than 50% of the median income). In six of
those 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 than
whites earning less than $37,500.
In Stamford-Norwalk Latinos earning more than $138,600 were 2.42 times more likely to be denied
than whites earning less than $57,750.
In Chicago, Latinos earning more than $90,480 were 1.51 times more likely to be denied than whites
earning less than $37,700.
In Worcester, Latinos earning more than $70,080 were 1.45 times more likely to be denied than
In Providence, Latinos earning more than $64,920 were 1.27 times more likely to be denied than
In Milwaukee, Latinos earning more than $80,640 were 1.69 times more likely to be denied than
23
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 AfricanAmericans, a 25% increase in the number of conventional loans made to Latinos, and a 6% increase in the
number of conventional loans made to whites. From 1997 to 2002, there was a 137% increase in the number
of conventional loans made to Latinos, a 36% increase in the number of conventional loans made to AfricanAmericans, 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 to
African American and Latino borrowers, smaller numerical increases represent larger percentage increases to
these groups thus, as noted below, the portion of conventional loans going to African Americans has
shrunk 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
2002
Change
1997-2002
Change
2001-2002
African-American
139,544
166,321
189,817
36.03%
14.13%
Latino
White
132,808
2,402,232
252,057
2,654,809
314,951
2,822,776
137.15%
17.51%
24.95%
6.33%
Change in Conventional Loan Orignations from 2001 to 2002
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
African-American
24
Latino
White
It is also important to note that some of the increased lending, and in particular a large portion of the
increased originations to African American borrowers, came from higher cost subprime lenders. In 2002
subprime lenders originated 50,046 or 26.37% of the conventional purchase loans made to African
Americans, 19.96% of those made to Latinos (62,858 loans) and 7.5% of the conventional purchase loans
made to white borrowers (211,832 loans). This is an increase from 2001 when subprime lenders originated
30,474 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). Its a much
greater increase from 1997 when subprime lenders originated only 10% of the conventional home purchase
loans to African-Americans (14,018 loans), 8% of those to Latinos (10,675 loans) and 3.8% of those to
whites (90,632 loans).
Subprime lenders account for most of the increased lending to African-Americans since 1997. Out of the
50,273 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 of
182,143 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 increase
of 11.35% in A loans to African-Americans and a 12.95% increase in A loans to whites but a dramatic
increase of 106.41% in such loans to Latinos.
Change in Conventional Home Purchase Loans 1997-2002 by Borrower Race and Lender Type
450,000
Prime Lenders
400,000
Subprime Lenders
350,000
300,000
299,344
250,000
200,000
150,000
129,960
100,000
50,000
121,200
14,245
36,028
52,183
African-American
Latino
White
25

Increases in Minority Originations
Conventional home loan originations to African-Americans increased from last year by at least 25% in 31
cities 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 to
2002); Orange County (55.06%); Providence (50.26%); Riverside-San Bernardino (49.15%); Colorado
Springs (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
2002
Increase
Originations
Originations
Honolulu
Orange County
Providence
Riverside-San Bernardino
Colorado Springs
Grand Rapids
Sacramento
Albany
Fresno
Trenton
67
356
195
2,185
127
271
1,178
166
219
235
104
552
293
3,259
187
388
1,668
235
310
330
55.22%
55.06%
50.26%
49.15%
47.24%
43.17%
41.60%
41.57%
41.55%
40.43%
Conventional home loan originations to Latinos increased by 50% since last year in 12 cities and doubled in
four cities in this report. The cities with the greatest increases in conventional home loan originations to
Latinos 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
2002
Increase
Originations
Originations
Dayton
Memphis
Baton Rouge
Honolulu
Chattanooga
Providence
Wilmington
Tallahassee
Washington, D.C.
26
36
134
38
86
29
413
9,757
115
58
4,413
87
304
80
176
51
712
16,626
190
94
6,894
141.67%
126.87%
110.53%
104.65%
75.86%
72.40%
70.40%
65.22%
62.07%
56.22%
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
2002
Increase
Originations
Originations
Modesto
Stockton-Lodi
Worcester
Brockton
Sacramento
Fresno
Bakersfield
San Diego
Reno
26
90
33
83
370
744
72
52
330
23
187
631
194
405
1,668
3,259
310
205
988
66
619.23%
601.11%
487.88%
387.95%
350.81%
338.04%
330.56%
294.23%
199.39%
186.96%
Conventional home loan originations to Latinos more than doubled from 1997 to 2002 in 70 cities in this
study. 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
1997
2002
Increase
Originations
Originations
Modesto
Stockton
Memphis
Bakersfield
Sacramento
Washington
Baltimore
Fresno
Albany
319
369
45
313
2,735
562
1,401
99
578
33
2,505
2,684
304
2,079
16,626
2,962
6,894
483
2,631
132
685.27%
627.37%
575.56%
564.22%
507.90%
427.05%
392.08%
387.88%
355.19%
300.00%
Conventional loan originations to African-Americans decreased from 2001 to 2002 in 12 cities. The 10 cities
with 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%).
27
Greatest Decrease in African-American Conventional Loan

Originations 2001-2002
MSA
2001
2002
Decrease
Originations
Originations
Austin
Stamford-Norwalk
Harrisburg
Houma
Montgomery
Tallahassee
Tucson
Buffalo
Lansing
St. Louis
599
196
165
67
503
448
146
375
215
2,798
444
166
147
61
461
412
135
360
207
2,698
25.88%
15.31%
10.91%
8.96%
8.35%
8.04%
7.53%
4.00%
3.72%
3.57%
Conventional loan originations to Latinos decreased from 2001 to 2002 in only eight cities: Little
Rock (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
2002
Decrease
Originations
Originations
Little Rock
Waterbury
Austin
Buffalo
Stamford-Norwalk
Grand Rapids
Colorado Springs
Kansas City
70
151
2,314
92
420
456
387
567
57
140
2,174
88
407
445
379
558
18.57%
7.28%
6.05%
4.35%
3.10%
2.41%
2.07%
1.59%
The number of conventional loans originated to African-Americans decreased from 1997 to 2002 in
12 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
2002
Decrease
Originations
Originations
Houma
Tallahassee
Montgomery
Springfield, Ill.
Mobile
San Jose
Salt Lake City
San Francisco
Greensboro--Winston-Salem
Shreveport
28
101
655
625
124
540
316
65
270
1,547
349
61
412
461
96
450
271
57
243
1,393
332
-39.60%
-37.10%
-26.24%
-22.58%
-16.67%
-14.24%
-12.31%
-10.00%
-9.95%
-4.87%
Conventional loan originations to Latinos decreased from 1997 to 2002 in only two cities: Cleveland and Las
Cruces. 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 1997-2002

MSA
1997
2002
Decrease/Increas
Originations
Originations
e
Las Cruces
Cleveland
Laredo
Albuquerque
Salt Lake City
Toledo
Philadelphia
El Paso
Grand Rapids
Baton Rouge
885
487
904
2,006
507
117
1,043
2,053
312
53
442
453
997
2,365
613
145
1,355
2,710
445
80
-50.06%
-6.98%
10.29%
17.90%
20.91%
23.93%
29.91%
32.00%
42.63%
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 loans
made in the United States. This is a slight increase from the previous year when African-Americans received
4.94% of the conventional purchase loans but a decrease of 7% from 1997 when they received 5.5% of
conventional purchase loans. African-Americans make up 13% of the U.S. population, so the 5.1% share of
conventional loans is almost two and a half times smaller than their share of the population.6 (The AfricanAmerican 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 United
States. This was an increase of 13.3% from 7.5% in 2001 and an even greater 60% increase from 1997 when
Latinos 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 of
conventional 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 in
2002.
The disparities in lending to minority borrowers are in some respects still greater than they appear in these
figures 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
6
Population data was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau.

29
loans originated by prime, rather than subprime lenders, the share of loans going to minority borrowers is
still smaller; 4.25% for African American borrowers, and 7.67% for Latino borrowers.
Disparity in Share of Loans Received Compared to Share of Population
15%
13.0%
12.5%
10%
8.5%
5%
5.1%
Share of Conventional Home Purchase

Loans
0%
African-American
Latino
Individual Metropolitan areas

Most Disparate Metropolitan areas
The ten Metropolitan areas with the greatest disparity between the percentage of the population which is
African-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 MSAs population than of the share of
the MSAs 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); Fort
Wayne (4.26); and Houma (4.18).
Greatest Disparity Between African-American Share of Population and Share of
Conventional Loans
Share of
MSA
Share of Population
Disparity
Conventional Loans
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%
4.48
Harrisburg
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
30
The ten Metropolitan areas with the greatest disparity between the percentage of the population which is
Latino and the share of conventional loans received by Latinos were: Honolulu, HI. (Latinos made up a 3.97
times greater percentage of the MSAs population than of their share of the MSAs 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 of
Conventional Loans
Share of
Share of
MSA
Disparity
Population
Conventional Loans
Honolulu
6.70%
1.69%
3.97
Portland-Vancouver
7.43%
1.90%
3.91
St. Louis
2.13%
0.63%
3.36
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%
3.01
Harrisburg
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 of
conventional 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 AfricanAmerican 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 loans
received 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 of
Conventional Loans
Share of
Share of Conventional
MSA
Disparity
Population
Loans
Brockton
3.20%
10.45%
0.39
Stockton-Lodi
6.69%
5.06%
1.32
Modesto
2.28
1.95
1.33
Atlanta
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
31
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 of
conventional 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 of
Conventional Loans 2002
Share of
Share of
MSA
Conventional
Disparity
Population
Purchase Loans
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 AfricanAmericans declined more.
From 1997 to 2002, conventional loan applications from Latinos increased by 68%--an increase of over
200,000 loan applications. During the same time period, applications from African-Americans decreased
19.5%, 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 2000
to 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
2002
Change
1997-2002
Change
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%
-6.24%
-0.11%
White
32
4,120,221 3,867,228 3,862,930

Increases in Minority Applications
The number of African-American applications increased between 2001 and 2002 in 71 of the examined
Metropolitan 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 Purchase

Applications 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%
Tallahassee
104
156
50.00%
Since 1997, African-American conventional loan applications more than doubled in 22 of the metropolitan
areas and more than tripled in eight. The cities with the largest increases in applications from African-
33
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
Applications Applications in
MSA
Change
in 2002
1997
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%
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 examined
metropolitan areas and more than doubled in 55 metropolitan areas. The ten cities with the largest increase
in Latino applications were: Stockton (654.61% increase); Modesto (556.40%); Memphis (517.57%);
Riverside-San Bernardino(476.03%); Bakersfield (455.65%); Sacramento (412.94%); Washington, D.C.
(332.21%); San Juan (306.70%); Baltimore (296.07%); Fresno (295.74%).
Largest Increase in Latino Conventional Loan Applications 1997-2002
2002
1997
MSA
Increase
Applications
Applications
Stockton
4094
616
654.61%
Modesto
3643
555
556.40%
Memphis
457
74
517.57%
27200
4722
476.03%
Bakersfield
3095
557
455.65%
Sacramento
4360
850
412.94%
Washington, DC
9206
2130
332.21%
San Juan
18826
4629
306.70%
Baltimore
705
178
296.07%
Fresno
3902
986
295.74%
Largest Decreases in Minority Applications

The ten Metropolitan areas with the largest decrease in the number of African-American conventional
purchase applications from 2001 to 2002 were: Houma (22.83% decrease); Wichita (20.04%); Harrisburg
(18.65%); Austin (18.63%); Buffalo (18.58%); Tucson (15.97%); Montgomery (15.93%); Little Rock
(15.52%); Shreveport (15.38%); Stamford-Norwalk (14.84%).
34
Largest Decreases in African-American Conventional Home Purchase Applications 2001-2002

MSA
2001
2002
Decrease
Houma
254
196
22.83%
Wichita
474
379
20.04%
Harrisburg
311
253
18.65%
Austin
1433
1166
18.63%
Buffalo
748
609
18.58%
Tucson
263
221
15.97%
Montgomery
1149
966
15.93%
Little Rock
1231
1040
15.52%
Shreveport
904
765
15.38%
Stamford-Norwalk
337
287
14.84%
The ten cities with the largest decrease in the number of Latino applications for conventional purchase loans
from 2001 to 2002 were: Laredo (33.26% decrease); Las Cruces (27.96%); Little Rock (21.17%); Austin
(9.19%); Buffalo (6.80%); Grand Rapids (6.48%); Waterbury (6.22%); Charlotte (4.81%); Nashville (4.04%);
Albuquerque (3.79%).
Largest Decreases in Latino Conventional Home Purchase Applications 2001-2002
MSA
2001
2002
Decrease
Laredo
2276
1519
33.26%
Las Cruces
1345
969
27.96%
Little Rock
137
108
21.17%
Austin
5418
4920
9.19%
Buffalo
147
137
6.80%
Grand Rapids
849
794
6.48%
Waterbury
241
226
6.22%
Charlotte
1372
1306
4.81%
Nashville
446
428
4.04%
Albuquerque
4007
3855
3.79%
In 21 cities, there was a decrease in conventional loan applications by African-Americans from 1997 to 2002.
The cities with the largest decrease in African-American applications were: Houma (60.08% decrease);
Tallahassee (58.85%); Montgomery (58.25%); Mobile (48.68%); Lake Charles (42.65%); Shreveport
(41.42%); Pine Bluff (40.50%); Raleigh-Durham (35.20%); Greensboro-Winston-Salem (32.15%);
Albuquerque (22.80%); Jackson (20.63%); Austin (18.58%).
Decrease in African-American Conventional Loan Applications from 1997 to 2002
MSA
2002
1997
Decrease
Houma
196
491
60.08%
Tallahassee
1081
2627
58.85%
Montgomery
966
2314
58.25%
Mobile
873
1701
48.68%
Lake Charles
355
619
42.65%
Shreveport
765
1306
41.42%
Pine Bluff
263
442
40.50%
Raleigh-Durham
4215
6505
35.20%
3200
4716
32.15%
Albuquerque
196
250
22.80%
Jackson
1743
2196
20.63%
Austin
1166
1432
18.58%
35
There was a decline in conventional loan applications by Latinos from 1997 to 2002 in only eight of the
examined cities: Las Cruces (64.54% decrease); Laredo (53.33%): Albuquerque (44.19%); Austin (17.86%);
San Antonio (9.01%); El Paso (5.42%); Corpus Christi (3.06%); Brownsville (0.93%).
Smallest Increase/Largest Decrease in Latino Conventional Loan Applications 1997-2002
2002
1997Applicati
MSA
Decrease
Applications
ons
Las Cruces
696
2733
64.54%
Laredo
1519
3255
53.33%
Albuquerque
3855
6907
44.19%
Austin
4920
5990
17.86%
San Antonio
8622
9476
9.01%
El Paso
4747
2049
5.42%
Corpus Christi
1489
1536
3.06%
Brownsville
2668
2693
0.93%
Low and moderate-income neighborhoods continue to be underserved by

conventional lenders.
National
The share of conventional loans going to low and moderate-income neighborhoods increased slightly from
2001 to 2002, having also increased in the period from 1997 to 2001.
Low and moderate-income neighborhoods make up 25.67% of the country, but received just 12.31% 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 loans, a very slight decrease from
2001 when upper-income neighborhoods received 39.32% of the conventional purchase loans.7
In 1997 low and moderate-income communities received 10.81% of all the conventional purchase loans.
Upper income neighborhoods received 41.49% of all the conventional loans in 1997.
Neighborhood Income
Low and Moderate Income
Middle Income
Upper Income
Share of
Census Tracts
25.67%
50.25%
20.74%
Share of
Loans 2002
12.31%
49.45%
38.24%
Share of
Loans 2001
11.68%
48.99%
39.32%
Share of
Loans 1997
10.81%
47.71%
41.49%
Low-income neighborhoods are census tracts which have a median family income below 50% of the area median family
income for the metropolitan area. Moderate-income neighborhoods are census tracts which have a median family income
between 50%-79% of the metropolitan area median. Middle-income neighborhoods are census tracts which have a
median family income between 80% - 119% of the metropolitan area median. Upper-income neighborhoods are census
tracts which have a median family income above 120% of the metropolitan area median.
36
Most Disparate Metropolitan areas

The ten metropolitan areas with the greatest disparity between the percentage of the MSA that low and
moderate income neighborhoods comprise and the share of conventional purchase loans these
neighborhoods received were: Mobile, AL; Las Vegas, NV; Fort Wayne, IN; El Paso, TX; Buffalo, NY;
Shreveport, LA; Chattanooga, TN; Pine Bluff, AR, and Gary, IN.
2002 Greatest Disparity Between Percentage of Metropolitan Area Census Tracts that are Low
Or Moderate Income and the Percentage Of Conventional Loans Originated in Low or
Moderate Income Neighborhoods
Percentage of Low and
Percentage of
Disparity Between
MSA
Moderate-Income (LMI)
Conventional Loans Made
Percentage of MSA
Census Tracts in MSA
in LMI Census Tracts
and Share of Loans
Mobile
29.86%
3.35%
8.92
Las Vegas
23.02%
4.29%
5.37
Fort Wayne
32.00%
6.76%
4.73
El Paso
36.46%
8.06%
4.52
Buffalo
28.72%
6.47%
4.44
Shreveport
36.56%
8.67%
4.22
Chattanooga
33.77%
8.07%
4.18
Pine Bluff
32.14%
7.73%
4.16
Gary
28.80%
7.09%
4.06
Baton Rouge
35.96%
9.05%
3.97
Least Disparate Metropolitan areas
In only one metropolitan area, Nassau-Suffolk, low and moderate-income neighborhoods received a slightly
larger share of the conventional loans than the share of the MSA that they make up. The other nine
metropolitan areas with the least disparity between the percentage of the MSA that low and moderate-income
neighborhoods comprise and the share of conventional purchase loans these neighborhoods received were:.
Salinas (1.12); Stamford-Norwalk (1.13); Brockton (1.28); Cincinnati (1.36); San Francisco (1.39); Jersey
City (1.47); Modesto (1.55); Boston (1.56); and Seattle (1.57).
2002 Smallest Disparity Between Percentage of MSA That Is Low Or Moderate Income
And The Percentage Of Conventional Loans Received By Those Neighborhoods
Percentage of Low and
Percentage of
Disparity Between
MSA
Moderate-Income (LMI) Conventional Loans Made Percentage of MSA
Census Tracts in MSA
in LMI Census Tracts
and Share of Loans
Nassau-Suffolk
14.09%
15.95%
0.88
Salinas
19.44%
17.31%
1.12
Stamford-Norwalk
28.05%
24.79%
1.13
Brockton
20.75%
16.20%
1.28
Cincinnati
32.50%
23.93%
1.36
San Francisco
23.89%
17.20%
1.39
Jersey City
19.88%
13.49%
1.47
Modesto
16.16%
10.42%
1.55
Boston
29.19%
18.70%
1.56
Seattle
12.85%
20.23%
1.57
37
Applicants from low, moderate, and middle-income neighborhoods were significantly

more likely to be rejected than applicants from upper income neighborhoods.
National
Residents of low-income neighborhoods were 2.98 times more likely to be denied for a conventional home
purchase loan than were residents of upper income neighborhoods in 2002. This was a small decrease from
2001 when residents of low-income neighborhoods were 3.14 times more likely to be rejected than residents
of upper-income neighborhoods. The denial disparity in 2002 was slightly higher than 1997 when applicants
from low-income neighborhoods were 2.96 times more likely to be denied than residents of upper-income
neighborhoods.
Residents of moderate-income neighborhoods were 2.38 times more likely to be denied than residents of
upper-income neighborhoods in 2002, down from 2001 when residents of moderate-income neighborhoods
were 2.69 times more likely to be rejected than residents of upper-income neighborhoods. The disparity in
2002 fell from 1997 when residents of moderate-income neighborhoods were 2.7 times more likely to be
denied than residents of upper-income neighborhoods.
Even residents of middle-income neighborhoods were one and a half times more likely to be denied as
residents of upper-income neighborhoods in 2002, 1.6 times more likely, down slightly from 2001 when they
were 1.79 times more likely to be denied and down from 1997 when they were 1.94 times more likely to be
denied.
Denial Rates for Conventional Home Purchase Loans by Neighborhood Income

Level
Neighborhood
Income Level
2001 Denial
Rate
Disparity to
Upper-Income
2002 Denial
Rate
Disparity to
Upper-Income
Low-Income
Moderate-Income
Middle-Income
Upper-Income
31.87%
27.32%
18.17%
10.16%
3.14
2.69
1.79
26.94%
21.52%
14.50%
9.05%
2.98
2.38
1.60
Most Disparate Metropolitan areas:

The ten metropolitan areas with the greatest disparity between the denial rates of applicants from low-income
neighborhoods and those of applicants from upper-income neighborhoods in 2002 were: Buffalo, NY
(applicants from low-income neighborhoods were 8.25 times more likely to be turned down than applicants
from upper-income neighborhoods); Madison, WI (7.77); Rochester, NY (7.48); Tallahassee, FL (7.23); Fort
Wayne, IN (5.82); Gary, IN (5.76); Omaha, NE (5.72); Milwaukee, WI (5.58); Albany, NY (5.48); and
Harrisburg, PA (5.45).
38
Greatest Disparity Between Denial Rates for Conventional Home

Purchase Mortgages
Upper
Low-income
Income
MSA
Disparity
Census Tracts
Census
Tracts
Buffalo
38.27
4.64
8.25
Madison
26.74
3.44
7.77
Rochester
34.55
4.62
7.48
Tallahassee
47.77
6.61
7.23
Fort Wayne
34.04
5.85
5.82
Gary
38.37
6.66
5.76
Omaha
31.09
5.44
5.72
Milwaukee
23.67
4.24
5.58
Albany
39.29
7.17
5.48
Harrisburg
29.60
5.43
5.45
Least Disparate Metropolitan areas8
The ten metropolitan areas with the least disparity between the denial rates of applicants from low-income
neighborhoods and those of applicants from upper income neighborhoods in 2002 (excluding cities where
there were fewer than 100 applications from low-income census tracts) were: San Juan, PR (applicants from
low-income neighborhoods were 1.18 times as likely to be turned down than applicants from upper-income
neighborhoods); Jersey City, NJ (1.34); Portland, OR (1.40); Colorado Springs, CO (1.55); San Francisco,
CA (1.87); Bakersfield, CA (1.95); Sacramento, CA (2.03); New York, NY (2.07); Miami, FL (2.15); and San
Diego, CA (2.18).
Smallest Disparity Between Denial Rates for Conventional Home Purchase Mortgages
Denial Rate in
Denial Rate in
MSA
Low-income
Upper Income
Disparity
Census Tracts
Census Tracts
San Juan
7.64%
6.47%
1.18
Jersey City
16.95%
12.69%
1.34
Portland
11.55%
8.24%
1.40
Colorado Springs
13.41%
8.65%
1.55
San Francisco
13.80%
7.37%
1.87
Bakersfield
18.12%
9.30%
1.95
Sacramento
17.52%
8.62%
2.03
New York
23.88%
11.54%
2.07
Miami
26.14%
12.15%
2.15
San Diego
21.29%
9.76%
2.18
Ten cities with fewer than 50 applications from low-income census tracts are excluded from this comparison ranking:
Houma, Reno, Sioux Falls, Laredo, Pine Bluff, Las Cruces, Brownsville, Honolulu, Salinas, Nassau.
39
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 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.
National
The share of government-backed loans (FHA, VA, FMHA) made to African Americans and Latinos is
significantly higher than their share of conventional loans. In 2002, 11.67% of government-backed loans
went to African Americans, more than one and a half times their share of conventional loans, and 15.48%
went to Latinos, more than one and a half times their share of conventional loans. In contrast, whites
received 59.55% of the government-backed loans, and 72.88% of conventional loans.
Disparity in Type of Home Purchase Loan Received by Minorities

Borrower Race
Share of
Population
Share of
Govt Backed
Loans
Share of
Conventional
Loans
Share of all
Purchase
Loans
African-American
12.3%
11.67%
7.01%
6.38%
Latino
12.5%
15.48%
9.67%
9.85%
The total number of conventional loans originated is far greater than the total number of government-backed
loans, so that minority borrowers larger share of these loans have only a limited impact on their share of all
purchase loans. In 2002, lenders made over 3.6 million conventional purchase loans, compared to less than
one million government-backed purchase loans. Even with their larger share of government-backed loans,
African-Americans only received 6.38% of all home purchase originations, still almost two times less than
their share of the population. Latinos received 9.85% of all home purchase originations, well below their
share of the population.

In 68 cities, African-Americans received at least a two times greater share of government-backed loans in the
city than they received of conventional home purchase loans. The cities with the greatest disparity between
the share of government-backed loans made to African-Americans and the share of conventional loans made
to African Americans were: New York (African-Americans received a 4.99 times greater share of
government-backed loans than conventional purchase loans); Austin (4.65 disparity); Philadelphia (4.31);
Trenton (4.17); Jersey City (4.14); Nassau-Suffolk (3.77); Harrisburg (3.73); Worcester (3.68); Newark (3.66);
Milwaukee (3.66).
40
Greatest Disparity Between the Share of Government-Backed Loans and Share

of Conventional Loans Received by African-Americans 2002
Share of
Share of
MSA
GovernmentConventional
Disparity
Backed Loans
Purchase Loans
New York
47.52
9.52
4.99
Austin
8.10
1.74
4.65
Philadelphia
23.99
5.57
4.31
Trenton
24.32
5.83
4.17
Jersey City
14.52
3.51
4.14
Nassau-Suffolk
17.03
4.52
3.77
Harrisburg
6.56
1.76
3.73
Worcester
9.04
2.46
3.68
Newark
26.50
7.24
3.66
Milwaukee
20.26
5.71
3.55
In 63 metropolitan areas, Latinos received at least a two times greater share of government-backed loans in
the city than they received of conventional loans. The cities with the greatest disparity between the share of
government-backed loans to Latinos and the share of conventional loans to Latinos were: Grand Rapids
(5.90 disparity); Bergen-Passaic (5.05); Fort Wayne (4.66); Portland (4.52); Salt Lake City (4.49); NassauSuffolk (4.39); Boston (4.24); Indianapolis (4.19); Providence (4.01); Denver (3.84).
Greatest Disparity Between the Share of Government-Backed Loans and Share

of Conventional Loans Received by Latinos 2002
Share of
Share of
MSA
Disparity
Backed Loans
Purchase Loans
Grand Rapids
15.58%
2.64%
5.90
Bergen-Passaic
50.19%
9.93%
5.05
Fort Wayne
5.36%
1.15%
4.66
Portland
8.58%
1.90%
4.52
Salt Lake City
15.63%
3.48%
4.49
Nassau-Suffolk
31.91%
7.27%
4.39
Boston
14.64%
3.45%
4.24
Indianapolis
3.98%
0.95%
4.19
Providence
17.76%
4.43%
4.01
Denver
27.03%
7.03%
3.84
In only once city, Fresno, did African-Americans receive a greater portion of the conventional home
purchase loans than they did of government-backed loans. The other nine cities with the least disparity
between the share of government-backed loans to African-Americans and the share of conventional loans to
African-Americans were: Bakersfield (1.28 disparity); Modesto (1.32); Dayton (1.39); Memphis (1.42):
Houston (1.45); Riverside-San Bernardino (1.55); Kansas City (1.61); Minneapolis (1.63); Denver (1.70).
41
Least Disparity Between the Share of Government-Backed Loans and Share of

Conventional Loans Received by African-Americans 2002
Share of
Share of
MSA
Disparity
Backed Loans
Purchase Loans
Fresno
2.41%
2.47%
0.97
Bakersfield
2.79%
2.18%
1.28
Modesto
2.57%
1.95%
1.32
Dayton
9.01%
6.49%
1.39
Memphis
29.99%
21.12%
1.42
Houston
10.55%
7.29%
1.45
6.21%
4.00%
1.55
Kansas City
6.75%
4.20%
1.61
Minneapolis
3.44%
2.11%
1.63
Denver
3.77%
2.22%
1.70
The cities with the lowest disparity between Latino share of government-backed loans and the Latino share
of conventional purchase loans were: Houston (1.01 disparity); San Juan (1.05); Laredo (1.11); Fort
Lauderdale (1.13); Brownsville (1.15); Miami (1.20); El Paso (1.21); Rochester (1.47); Modesto (1.48);
Orlando (1.55).
Least Disparity Between the Share of Government-Backed Loans and Share of

Conventional Loans Received by Latinos 2002
Latino Share of
Latino Share of
MSA
Government
Conventional
Disparity
Backed Loans
Purchase Loans
Houston
16.54%
1.01
16.31%
San Juan
95.34%
1.05
90.75%
Laredo
89.63%
1.11
80.79%
Fort Lauderdale
23.93%
1.13
21.21%
Brownsville
72.83%
1.15
63.20%
Miami
73.07%
1.20
60.75%
El Paso
74.86%
1.21
61.47%
Rochester
2.91%
1.47
1.98%
Modesto
38.63%
1.48
26.08%
Orlando
23.47%
1.55
15.19%
42
Government backed loans make up a far greater portion of purchase loans to AfricanAmericans and Latinos than of those to white borrowers.
National
In 2002, government-backed loans accounted for 34.88% of the purchase loans received by AfricanAmericans and 29.99% of those received by Latinos, as compared to 15.53% of the purchase loans made to
whites. African-Americans and Latinos were both twice as likely as whites to receive a government loan
(compared to a conventional loan) when buying a house.
Home Purchase Loans By Borrower Race and Type of Loan
Race
Government-Backed
Loans Originated
All Purchase
Loans
Originated
%
GovernmentBacked Loans
White
African-American
518,956
101,674
3,341,732
291,491
15.53%
34.88%
2.25
Latino
134,942
449,893
29.99%
1.93
Disparity from
White Share
Metropolitan areas
Over half of the home purchase loans made to African-Americans were government-backed loans in 18 of
the metropolitan areas included in this report. The cities where government-backed loans make up the
largest portion of home purchase loans to African-Americans were: El Paso (64.67% were government
backed); Anchorage (60.43%); San Antonio (59.70%); Austin (59.20%); Colorado Springs (58.24%);
Norfolk-Virginia Beach (57.40%); Shreveport (53.72%); Baltimore (53.49%); Columbus (53.40%); Little
Rock (53.03%).
Government-Backed Loan Share of Purchase Loans to African-Americans

2002
MSA
El Paso
Anchorage
San Antonio
Austin
Colorado Springs
Shreveport
Baltimore
Columbus
Little Rock
GovernmentBacked Loans
to AfricanAmericans
All Purchase
Loans to AfricanAmericans
% GovernmentBacked Loans
88
129
64.67%
114
851
678
277
2949
463
3762
1306
583
170
1316
1122
464
4981
795
6554
2431
1090
60.43%
59.70%
59.20%
58.24%
57.40%
53.72%
53.49%
53.40%
53.03%
43
Government-backed loans were at least half of all purchase loans received by Latinos in 16 of the cities in
this report. The cities where government-backed loans make up the largest portion of home purchase loans
to Latinos were: Indianapolis (67.95% loans to Latinos were government-backed); Salt Lake City (66.72%);
Norfolk-Virginia Beach (64.04%); Denver (63.91%); Fort Wayne (60.10%); Little Rock (59.57%); Omaha
(55.72%); Nashville (55.01%); Bakersfield (54.15%); Grand Rapids (52.56%).
Government-Backed Loan Share of Purchase Loans to Latinos 2002

Government
All Purchase
%
Backed Loans
MSA
Loans Originated GovernmentOriginated to
to Latinos
Backed Loans
Latinos
Indianapolis
475
699
67.95%
Salt Lake City
1229
1842
66.72%
406
634
64.04%
Denver
5330
8340
63.91%
Fort Wayne
119
198
60.10%
Little Rock
84
141
59.57%
Omaha
258
463
55.72%
Nashville
291
529
55.01%
Bakersfield
2455
4534
54.15%
Grand Rapids
493
938
52.56%
Metropolitan areas
In 64 cities, government-backed loans represented at least a two times greater share of the purchase loans
originated to African-Americans than to white borrowers. The ten cities with the greatest disparity were:
New York (government-backed loans represented 18.85 times greater share of loans made to AfricanAmericans than to white borrowers); Jersey City (3.93 disparity); Bergen Passaic (8.36); Newark (5.23);
Nassau-Suffolk (5.78); Miami(2.79); Bridgeport (3.97); Trenton (3.74); Honolulu (2.28); Milwaukee (2.56).
Greatest Disparity Between Government-Backed Loan Share of Loans to AfricanAmericans and Share to Whites 2002
Government-Backed Share of Purchase
Loans
MSA
African-American
White
Disparity
New York
22.06%
1.17%
10.94
Jersey City
27.78%
4.24%
3.93
Bergen Passaic
19.17%
3.36%
8.36
Newark
32.10%
6.15%
5.23
Nassau-Suffolk
22.16%
4.30%
5.78
Miami
18.96%
3.74%
2.79
Bridgeport
28.68%
6.77%
3.97
Trenton
35.17%
8.38%
3.74
Honolulu
27.78%
6.94%
2.28
Milwaukee
21.45%
5.71%
2.56
44
In 56 cities, government-backed loans represented at least a two times greater portion of the purchase loans
originated to Latino than to white borrowers. The ten cities with the greatest disparity were: New York
(10.94 disparity); Bergen-Passaic (8.36); Salinas (8.36); Nassau-Suffolk (6.77); Newark (5.23): San Jose
(5.13); Los Angeles-Long Beach (4.35); Boston (4.32); Chicago (4.08); Bridgeport (3.97).
Greatest Disparity Between Government-Backed Loan Share of Loans to Latinos and

Share to Whites 2002
Government-Backed Share of All Purchase
Loans
MSA
Latino
White
Disparity
New York
12.80%
1.17%
10.94
Bergen-Passaic
28.05%
3.36%
8.36
Salinas
5.82%
0.86%
6.77
Nassau-Suffolk
24.87%
4.30%
5.78
Newark
32.15%
6.15%
5.23
San Jose
2.46%
0.48%
5.13
Los Angeles-Long Beach
21.88%
5.03%
4.35
Boston
15.43%
3.57%
4.32
Chicago
37.22%
9.12%
4.08
Bridgeport
26.85%
6.77%
3.97
The cities with the least disparity between the government share of loans to African-Americans and the
government share of loans to whites were: Dayton (1.28 disparity); Houston (1.29); Memphis (1.30); Kansas
City (1.42); Minneapolis-St. Paul (1.46); Bakersfield (1.46); Wichita (1.50); Fresno (1.51); Anchorage (1.54);
Omaha (1.54).
Least Disparity Between Government-Backed Loan Share of Loans to AfricanAmericans and Share to Whites 2002
Government-Backed Share of Purchase
Loans
MSA
African-Americans
Whites
Disparity
Dayton
32.51%
25.41%
1.28
Houston
19.60%
15.20%
1.29
Memphis
36.03%
27.82%
1.30
Kansas City
26.61%
18.77%
1.42
Minneapolis-St. Paul
22.52%
15.43%
1.46
Bakersfield
42.25%
28.87%
1.46
Wichita
39.26%
26.22%
1.50
Fresno
19.48%
12.87%
1.51
Anchorage
67.06%
43.46%
1.54
Omaha
41.23%
26.72%
1.54
In Houston, government-backed loans represented a smaller portion of purchase loans made to Latinos than
to whites. The other nine cities with the least disparity between the government-backed share of purchase
45
loans to Latinos and the government-backed share of loans to whites were: Anchorage (1.27 disparity);
Rochester (1.34); Brownsville (1.39); Fort Lauderdale (1.49); Modesto (1.50); Oklahoma City (1.52);
Colorado Springs (1.54); El Paso (1.58); Orlando (1.60).
Least Disparity Between Government-Backed Loan Share of Loans to Latinos

and Share to Whites 2002
Government-Backed Share of All Purchase
Loans
MSA
Latino
White
Disparity
Houston
14.58%
15.20%
0.96
Anchorage
55.24%
43.46%
1.27
Rochester
29.00%
21.65%
1.34
Brownsville
24.33%
17.47%
1.39
Fort Lauderdale
8.77%
5.90%
1.49
Modesto
16.53%
10.99%
1.50
Oklahoma City
47.21%
31.06%
1.52
Colorado Springs
51.60%
33.46%
1.54
El Paso
43.87%
27.76%
1.58
Orlando
22.67%
14.14%
1.60
African-Americans and Latinos were rejected more frequently than white applicants
for government-backed loans. The African-American and Latino denial disparities
are less than for conventional loans.
National
In 2002, African-American homebuyers were 1.82 times more likely to be denied for a government-backed
home purchase loan than whites were. This was a very slight increase from 2001 when African-Americans
were 1.84 times more likely to be denied than whites, but down from 1997 when they were 1.90 times more
likely to be denied. In 2002, Latinos were rejected 1.58 times more often than whites for government-backed
loans, the same disparity as 2001 but an increase from 1997 when they were 1.27 times more likely to be
denied.
Change in Rejection Ratios for Government-Backed Home Purchase

Mortgages
Change
Change
Borrower Race
1997
2001
2002
from 1997 from 2001
African-American
1.90
1.84
1.82
-4.21%
-1.09%
Latino
1.27
1.58
1.58
24.41%
0
Denial rates for government-backed loans were lower than for conventional loans for all borrowers,
although denial rates for African American and Latino borrowers were higher than for white applicants.
14.62% of African American applicants for government-backed loans were denied in 2002, compared to
12.68% of Latino applicants, and 8.02% of white applicants.
46
Denial rates increased between 2001 and 2002 for all applicants, although the decrease in denials was greatest
for whites. The denial rate increased 15.80% for Latinos, 14.67% for African-Americans, and 15.40% for
whites. Between 1997 and 2002, denial rates for government-backed mortgages decreased for white and
African-American applicants, but rose for Latinos. The denial rate fell 8.74% for African-Americans and
4.98% for whites, but rose 18.73% for Latinos.
Change in Denial Rates by Borrower Race for Government-Backed Home

Purchase Mortgages
1997
2001 Denial
2002
Change
Change
Race
Denial
Rate
Denial Rate 1997-2002 2001-2002
Rate
African16.02%
12.75%
14.62%
-8.74%
14.67%
Americans
Latinos
10.68%
10.95%
12.68%
18.73%
15.80%
Whites
8.44%
6.95%
8.02%
-4.98%
15.40%
Metropolitan areas
African-Americans were at least two times more likely than whites to be denied for a government-backed
loan in 39 cities. The cities with the greatest disparity9 between the African-American and white denial rates
for government backed loans were: Buffalo (3.20); Omaha (3.14); Harrisburg (2.95); Seattle (2.82);
Richmond (2.77); Cleveland (2.72); Norfolk (2.68); Rochester (2.64); Bakersfield (2.59); Memphis (2.58).
Greatest Disparity in 2002 Denial Rates Between African-Americans and Whites
For Government-Backed Purchase Mortgages
AfricanAfricanWhite Denial
MSA
American Denial
American
Rate
Rate
Denial Ratio
Buffalo
18.10%
5.66%
3.20
Omaha
11.73%
3.74%
3.14
Harrisburg
11.85%
4.02%
2.95
Seattle
13.40%
4.75%
2.82
Richmond
11.71%
4.22%
2.77
Cleveland
14.93%
5.49%
2.72
Norfolk
9.33%
3.48%
2.68
Rochester
15.17%
9.52%
2.64
Bakersfield
14.44%
5.57%
2.59
Memphis
16.36%
6.35%
2.58
Latinos were at least two times more likely than whites to be denied a government-backed loan in 20 cities
included in this study. The cities with the greatest disparity10 between the Latino and white denial rates for
government backed loans were: Minneapolis-St. Paul (Latinos were 2.93 times more likely to be denied than
whites); Salt Lake City (2.82); Milwaukee (2.75); Brownsville (2.71); Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill (2.68);
Richmond (2.55); Tucson (2.50); Kansas City (2.49); Omaha (2.47); Nashville (2.44); Orange County (2.44).
9
Excludes 21 cities with fewer than 100 applications by African-Americans for conventional purchase or governmentbacked loans. For the list of cities excluded, see the Methodology section of this report.
10
Rankings exclude 29 cities with fewer than 100 applications by Latinos for either government-backed or conventional
purchase loans. For the list of cities excluded, see the Methodology section of this report.
47
Greatest Disparity in 2002 Denial Rates Between Latinos and Whites

For Government-Backed Purchase Mortgages
Latino
White Denial
Latino Denial
MSA
Denial Rate
Rate
Ratio
Minneapolis-St. Paul
10.56%
3.61%
2.93
Salt Lake City
20.78%
7.37%
2.82
Milwaukee
15.22%
5.53%
2.75
Brownsville
15.84%
5.84%
2.71
12.81%
4.78%
2.68
Richmond
10.78%
4.22%
2.55
Tucson
12.77%
5.11%
2.50
Kansas City
12.64%
5.07%
2.49
Omaha
9.25%
3.74%
2.47
Nashville
24.30%
9.94%
2.44
Orange County
14.80%
6.07%
2.44
48
RECOMMENDATIONS
Congress is presently in the midst of considering legislation to reauthorize the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, legislation which impacts in a number of crucial ways the accuracy and
transparency of the credit reporting and scoring processes. Since credit scores play a huge, and
growing, role in determining both access to credit and the price of credit, the outcomes of this debate
will be important for helping or hindering progress towards equity for low and moderate income and
minority borrowers.
With regard to this legislation, Congress should:
-
Not make permanent the various preemptions of state regulation. States should have the
freedom to take additional steps to protect borrower privacy, to require accuracy, and to put
tools in consumers hands which allow them to identify credit score problems and solve them.
This is especially true because the bill which Congress is considering does so much less than
is needed in a number of key areas.
Do more to help improve the accuracy and completeness of credit reports. Requirements
that information be reported fully and completely should be tightened, and borrowers right
to take legal action to enforce such requirements should be clear. Clear and accurate
information reporting alone will not solve the problem as long as credit scoring systems have
a disparate impact, and only some, but not other kinds of financial transactions are reported
to credit reporting agencies, but clear, complete, and accurate reporting would help.
Do more to make sure that borrowers know if and when they have been made or offered a
loan at a higher rate, rather than lower rates the lender may have available. The Federal
Trade Commission has recommended a new requirement that when consumers are offered
credit on less than favorable terms they be given notice that this is the case, along with the
reason why, and the opportunity to review their credit report without charge, just as they
now must get such adverse action notice when they are turned down for credit. Only an
extremely watered down version of this proposal has made it into the bill thus far. Borrowers
who are made offers at higher rates should at the very least get adverse action notices that
this is the case.
Retain the language added to the bill in the Senate Banking Committee (through
approval of an amendment proposed by Senator Corzine ) which requires the FTC and
HUD (through OFHEO ) to study the effects of credit scores on the availability and
affordability of financial products and offer recommendations for legislative or
administrative action.
The federal banking regulators should set higher standards for banks Community
Reinvestment Act (CRA) lending performance and give closer scrutiny to banks involvement
in predatory lending. Regulators should correct the grade inflation that results in satisfactory, and
even outstanding, CRA ratings for institutions with lackluster lending records. They should correct
the erosion of standards which has assured that virtually every merger request is granted, even where
49
there are serious problems with the involved lenders community lending performance. The
regulators should also consider not just the number of loans the bank originates to low- and
moderate-income borrowers, but also the quality of those loans, and the distribution of prime as
opposed to subprime loans. In addition, banks that purchase high-cost loans with predatory terms
should be penalized under CRA for buying those loans, not rewarded.
The Federal Bank Regulators should set a moratorium on bank mergers for lenders whose
lending shows marked patterns of racial disparities. The lending industry has been transformed by a
continuing wave of mega-mergers, consolidating capital among a diminishing number of financial
institutions and exerting downward pressure on credit availability for minority and low-income
borrowers. Unless the failure to make credit truly equally available to qualified borrowers has serious
consequences, the situation will only get worse.
Congress should strengthen the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). In light of continuing,
and in some cases worsening, racial disparities in the mortgage industry, Congress should be looking
at ways to make CRA more effective and require lenders with discriminatory lending patterns to
improve their business practices. Sadly for minorities and all resident of lower-income communities,
Congress did just the opposite in 1999, passing financial modernization legislation that seriously
weakened CRA. Congress should remedy this mistake by enacting legislation to extend CRA
coverage to affiliates of banks or thrifts, downgrade CRA ratings for institutions that engage in
predatory lending abuses, and require insurance companies to report data on where they make
policies available and at what prices.
Congress should increase funding for HUD's Housing Counseling program from the $40
million appropriated for FY 2003 to $50 million for next year. To come closer to meeting the
demand for such services, the annual funding level should be increased in future years to $100
million. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, mortgage lenders, and state and local governments should
mandate and expand funding for programs that provide basic information about lending and enable
people to protect themselves from predatory practices. The most effective tool for helping minority
and lower-income families to become successful homeowners is high-quality loan counseling and
homebuyer education by community organizations. The failure by the industry and public agencies
to adequately support housing counseling has left lower-income and minority homebuyers
vulnerable to all the worst aspects of an already confusing system.
Congress and state legislatures should pass strong anti-predatory lending legislation to protect
consumers from abusive practices, which have been especially targeted at lower-income and minority
communities. A number of states, including New York, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina,
California and more, have passed bills that provide new and strengthened protections for borrowers.
More states and the Federal Government should follow suit. Massachusetts is in the midst of
considering such legislation now, and it should adopt a strong measure.
A matched testing program should be implemented for all lenders to identify banks that screen
minority and lower-income borrowers out of their lending business. Such a testing program could
determine if banks are steering certain borrowers into more expensive, alternate lending products or
50
even discouraging them from submitting applications. This last item is a concern because lenders are
required to report HMDA information on all applicants, but if a bank discourages a person from ever
submitting an application, there is no disclosure of any information on the applicant.
Fair lending laws should be strongly enforced and violators punished with civil money penalties
and cease and desist orders. If lenders do not improve performance themselves the Justice
Department and HUD should have a higher profile in investigating mortgage discrimination. In
addition, Congress should increase funding for HUD's fair housing programs, rather than providing
the level funding of $46 million which has been provided since 2002. Also, a greater share of this
money should go to the Fair Housing Initiatives Program, which provides for independent
assessments of lenders fair housing performance.
Lenders should be more active in making good loans in minority and low-income communities,
and in eradicating any possible discrimination in their lending and outreach practices. Lenders
should expand their partnerships with community-based organizations to make home purchase credit
available in underserved communities.
Lenders that offer both prime and subprime products must establish uniform pricing and
underwriting guidelines for all of their lending subsidiaries, and for all of the communities in
which they do business so that consumers in lower-income and minority communities do not
receive worse terms simply because of who they are or where they live.
HUD, State Regulators, Congress, and State Legislatures must all do more to prevent property
flipping and other appraisal fraud, which is a particularly damaging problem in the subprime
and FHA purchase loan market. Many parts of the country have experienced extremely serious
problems with large numbers of homes being sold for significantly more than they are worth, leaving
borrowers with negative equity, and often with severely damaged properties which they cannot
afford to repair.
51
METHODOLOGY
This report analyzes data released by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) about
the lending activity of more than 7,700 institutions covered by the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA).
HMDA requires depository institutions with more than $32 million in assets as well as mortgage companies
which make substantial numbers of home loans to report data annually to one of the member agencies of the
FFIEC--the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
the National Credit Union Administration, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of
Thrift Supervision--and to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The reporting
includes the number and type of loans correlated by the race, gender, income, and census tract of the
applicants, and the disposition of those applications, in each Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) where
loans are originated.
The report examines figures for the nation as a whole, as well as for 115 individual metropolitan areas:
Anchorage, AK
Birmingham, AL
Mobile, AL
Montgomery, AL
Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR
Pine Bluff, AR
Phoenix-Mesa, AZ
Tucson, AZ
Bakersfield, CA
Fresno, CA
Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA
Modesto, CA
Oakland, CA
Orange County, CA
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA
Sacramento, CA
Salinas, CA
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
San Jose, CA
Stockton-Lodi, CA
Colorado Springs, CO
Denver, CO
Bridgeport, CT
Hartford, CT
New Haven-Meriden, CT
Stamford-Norwalk, CT
Waterbury, CT
Washington, DC
Wilmington-Newark, DE
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Jacksonville, FL
Miami, FL
Orlando, FL
Tallahassee, FL
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL
Atlanta, GA
Honolulu, HI
Chicago, IL
Springfield, IL
Fort Wayne, IN
Gary, IN
Indianapolis, IN
Wichita, KS
Louisville, K, KY
Baton Rouge, LA
Houma, LA
Lake Charles, LA
New Orleans, LA
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
Boston, MA
Brockton, MA
Springfield, MA
Worcester, MA
Baltimore, MD
Detroit, MI
Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland, MI
Lansing-East Lansing, MI
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
Kansas City, MO
St. Louis, MO
Jackson, MS
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC
Greensboro--Winston-Salem--High Point, NC
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC
Lincoln, NE
Omaha, NE
Bergen-Passaic, NJ
Jersey City, NJ
Newark, NJ
Trenton, NJ
Albuquerque, NM
Las Cruces, NM
Las Vegas, NV
Reno, NV
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY
Nassau-Suffolk, NY
New York, NY
Rochester, NY
Akron, OH
Cincinnati, Oh-K, OH
Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, OH
Columbus, OH
Dayton-Springfield, OH
Toledo, OH
Oklahoma City, OK
Tulsa, OK
Portland-Vancouver, OR
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, PA
Philadelphia, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
San Juan-Bayamon, PR
Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI
Sioux Falls, SD
Chattanooga, TN
Memphis, TN
Nashville, TN
Austin-San Marcos, TX
Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito, TX
Corpus Christi, TX
Dallas, TX
El Paso, TX
Fort Worth-Arlington, TX
Houston, TX
Laredo, TX
San Antonio, TX
Salt Lake City-Ogden, UT
Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA
Richmond-Petersburg, VA
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA
Tacoma, WA
Madison, WI
Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI
For each lending category in this report, we first analyze the national data and then identify specific
metropolitan areas which show the greatest and least disparity for that category. In making these ranked
lists, we have excluded from consideration those metropolitan areas which had fewer than 100 applications
from the borrower group in question. As a result, comparisons for African-American conventional loan
52
applications exclude Anchorage, AK: Salinas, CA; Lincoln, NE; Las Cruces, NM; San Juan, PR; Sioux Falls,
SD; Brownsville, TX; Corpus Christi, TX; El Paso, TX; and Laredo, TX. Comparisons for Latino
conventional loan applications exclude: Anchorage, AK; Mobile, AL; Montgomery, AL; Pine Bluff, AR;
Springfield, IL; Houma, LA; Lake Charles, LA; Shreveport, LA; Jackson, MS: Lincoln, NE; Akron, OH; and
Sioux Falls, SD.
Excluded from the comparisons for African-American government-backed loan applications are: Modesto,
CA; Orange County, CA; Salinas, CA; San Francisco, CA; San Jose, CA; Stamford-Norwalk, CT; Honolulu,
HI; Des Moines, IA; Houma, LA; Lake Charles, LA; Springfield, MA; Lincoln, NE; Las Cruces, NM; Reno,
NV; San Juan, PR; Sioux Falls, SD; Brownsville, TX; Corpus Christi, TX; Laredo, TX; Salt Lake City, UT;
Madison, WI.
Excluded from the comparisons for Latino government-backed loan applications are: Birmingham, AL;
Mobile, AL; Montgomery, AL; Pine Bluff, AR; San Francisco, CA; Stamford-Norwalk, CT; Tallahassee, TN;
Honolulu, HI: Des Moines, IA; Springfield, IL; Baton Rouge, LA; Houma, LA; Lake Charles, LA; Shreveport,
LA; Brockton, MA; Lansing, MI; Jackson, MS: Lincoln, NE: Albany, NY; Buffalo, NY; Akron, OH;
Cincinnati, OH; Dayton, OH; Toledo, OH; Harrisburg, PA; Pittsburgh, PA; Sioux Falls, SD; Chattanooga, TN;
and Madison, WI.
Excluded from the comparison of applications from low-income census tracts were cities with fewer than 50
applications from low-income census tracts: Houma, LA; Reno, NV; Sioux Falls, SD; Laredo, TX; Pine Bluff,
AR; Las Cruces, NM; Brownsville, TX; Honolulu, HI; Salinas, CA; and Nassau-Suffolk, NY.
For data about individual metropolitan areas included in this report

www.acorn.org/hmda
or call ACORNs national office
202-547-2500
U.S. Census Bureau American Housing Survey 1997, 2001, 2002.

Alicia H. Munnell, Geoffrey M.B. Tootell, Lynn E. Browne, and James McEneaney. 1996. "Mortgage Lending in
Boston: Interpreting HMDA Data," American Economic Review 86(March): 25-53.
iii
These figures use the most recent subprime lender list available from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development for 2001.
iv
The Urban Institute, All Other Things Being Equal: A Paired Testing Study of Mortgage Lending Institutions, April
2002.
v
Crisis in Dj Vu: A Profile of the Racial Patterns in Home Purchase Lending in the Baltimore Market, Dr. Calvin
Bradford and The Public Justice Center, May 2000.
ii
53

(2003) Great Divide 2003

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

(2003) Great Divide 2003

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Great Divide

Home Purchase Mortgage Lending

ACORN Housing Corporation

ACORN Fair Housing

ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform

In 1986, ACORN Housing originated from neighborhood-based campaigns conducted by ACORN, a

ACORN Fair Housing

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

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

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

Individual Metropolitan Areas

Greatest Disparity in 2002 Denial Rates Between Latinos and Whites

Least Disparity in 2002 Denial Rates Between Latinos and Whites

Largest Increases in Latino Rejection Ratio

Largest Decreases in Latino Rejection Ratio

Individual Metropolitan Areas

Increases in Minority Denial Rates

Decreases in Minority Denial Rates

Largest Decreases in African-American Denial Rates for Conventional Loans

2001 Denial Rate

Largest Decreases in Latino Denial Rates for Conventional Loans

Upper -Middle Income

Upper-Income African- Upper-Income Latino

Individual Metropolitan Areas

Least Disparity Between Denial Rates for Conventional Purchase

Least Disparity Between Denial Rates for Conventional Purchase

Greatest Disparity Between Denial Rates for Conventional Purchase

Greatest Disparity Between Denial Rates for Conventional Purchase

Change in Conventional Loan Orignations from 2001 to 2002

Individual Metropolitan Areas

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

Largest Increase in Latino Conventional Loan Originations 2001-2002

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

Largest Increase in Latino Conventional Loan Originations 1997-2002

Greatest Decrease in African-American Conventional Loan

Largest Decrease in Latino Conventional Loan Originations 1997-2002

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

Share of Conventional Home Purchase

Individual Metropolitan areas

4,120,221 3,867,228 3,862,930

Individual Metropolitan areas

Largest Increases in African-American Conventional Home Purchase

Largest Decreases in Minority Applications

Largest Decreases in African-American Conventional Home Purchase Applications 2001-2002

Low and moderate-income neighborhoods continue to be underserved by

Most Disparate Metropolitan areas

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

Denial Rates for Conventional Home Purchase Loans by Neighborhood Income

Individual Metropolitan areas

Most Disparate Metropolitan areas:

Greatest Disparity Between Denial Rates for Conventional Home

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

Disparity in Type of Home Purchase Loan Received by Minorities

Individual Metropolitan Areas

Greatest Disparity Between the Share of Government-Backed Loans and Share

Greatest Disparity Between the Share of Government-Backed Loans and Share

Least Disparity Between the Share of Government-Backed Loans and Share of

Least Disparity Between the Share of Government-Backed Loans and Share of

Government-Backed Loan Share of Purchase Loans to African-Americans

Government-Backed Loan Share of Purchase Loans to Latinos 2002

Greatest Disparity Between Government-Backed Loan Share of Loans to Latinos and

Least Disparity Between Government-Backed Loan Share of Loans to Latinos

Change in Rejection Ratios for Government-Backed Home Purchase