The resurgence of denial rates for home loans: an examination of disparate effects on groups of applicants in the upper Midwest

Mortgage application denial rates have increased since 2002, but it is unclear to what extent this increase in denials has differentially affected “non-traditional” mortgage applicants that do not resemble “traditional” white, non-Hispanic opposite-sex couple applicants. This article uses augmented Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data to investigate disparities in denial rates between traditional and non-traditional mortgage applicants between 2004 and 2008 in the Federal Reserve Bank's ninth district. We find evidence that lenders became more cautious in lending decisions between 2004 and 2008, treating applicants with the same incomes and requested loan amounts differently over time. After accounting for a variety of loan, applicant, lender, and environmental characteristics, we find that many “non-traditional” applicant groups across the ninth district experienced persistently higher mortgage application denial rates when compared to white, non-Hispanic opposite-sex couples. In some cases, the gap in the mortgage application denial rates between non-traditional and traditional applicants has actually increased over time.     

The Changing Relationship Between Housing and Inequality, 1980–2010

Inequality in both income and wealth has grown rapidly in the United States since the 1970s. Over the same period, homeownership rates increased in step with expansionist government policies and the development of subprime and other exotic loan products, and housing affordability challenges emerged as the most prevalent housing problem for owners and renters alike. The subprime lending and foreclosure crises of the 2000s stretched households financially, threatening the traditional economic benefits of homeownership, bringing into stark relief the ways in which housing and inequality mutually influence one another, and implicating homeownership, housing affordability, and subprime lending in the widening gap between the rich and the poor. This article examines the changing roles of homeownership, housing affordability, and subprime lending in contemporary U.S. inequality by, first, describing trends in county inequality and housing characteristics and, second, modeling inequality as a function of the previous decade's housing characteristics over the period of 1980–2010. We build upon past models of county inequality by more explicitly considering causal order, place characteristics, and state and regional fixed effects. The results confirm that homeownership, affordability, and subprime lending not only reflect existing inequalities but also perpetuate those inequalities over time. Homeownership promotes equality, affordability problems undermine it, and subprime lending has the potential to ameliorate inequality in certain contexts, but these effects shift significantly over time, particularly as a result of widespread foreclosures and economic recession. Our analysis establishes the importance of housing in explaining contemporary inequality, highlights how place characteristics and causal ordering may improve county inequality models, and provides a foundation for future studies examining inequality in light of the Great Recession and the foreclosure crisis.     

Comment on Michael A. Stegman et al.’s “Preventive servicing is good for business and affordable homeownership policy”: What prevents loan modifications?

Abstract

After discussing the article by Stegman et al., this comment describes the barriers to preventive servicing for securitized residential loans and assesses the importance of loan modifications, given the recent increases in default and foreclosure rates for subprime loans. Several hurdles slow or reduce such modifications, even those that help borrowers and investors alike. For example, self‐interest may reduce servicers’ willingness to modify loans rapidly. In addition, underlying securitization agreements may impede servicers’ ability and discretion in this area. Further, tax laws that govern a common securitization entity may limit modifications, as may accounting standards. Finally, “tranche warfare,” the sometimes contradictory fiduciary duties servicers have toward investors holding different tranches of securitized pools, may decrease their ability or their willingness to modify loans.

This comment concludes that barriers to effective loan modifications should be reduced or eliminated where feasible, but that the securitization of subprime loans creates risks for borrowers.     

The reverse mortgage as an asset management tool

Abstract

Reverse mortgages are usually seen as a vehicle for increasing the income of poor, elderly households. This perspective, coupled with the relatively slow growth of reverse mortgage programs, has led some observers to question the growth potential of the reverse mortgage market. This article presents a more expansive view of reverse mortgages as a financial tool for tapping housing equity for various purposes and at various stages in the life cycle.

Three market segments for reverse mortgages are discussed: elderly persons living alone, other elderly households, and non‐elderly households. Potential uses include turning housing equity into personal human capital investment accounts, enabling children to provide care for their disabled parents, funding elderly households’ long‐term care insurance, and sustaining consumption. Recent progress in product development and availability and political pressures to find private financing for health and long‐term care suggest that the reverse mortgage market has considerable growth potential.