Click to return to BOL home page
 


MAIN CONTENT 
Compliance

    Agency Road Maps

    Alphabet Soup

    Compliance Tools

    FACTA/FCRA

    OFAC

Lending

    Article 9

    FACTA/FCRA

    HMDA Heaven

    Lending Tools

    SCRA

Marketing

Operations

    Check 21

    Disaster Updates

    Disaster Recovery

    HR Corner

    IRA Season

    Money Matters

    Operations Tools

    SARResearchGuide

Security

    AML/BSA

    Bank Robbery

    Counterfeits

    ID Fraud/Phishing

    Security Tools

Technology/eBanking

    Disaster Updates

    Disaster Recovery

    Info Security


SPECIAL AREAS 
BOL Archives

BOL Blogs

Briefing Archive

Calendar

Court Watch

Disaster Issuances

Em@il Education

Examiner's Corner

Executive Briefing

Infovault

Launch Pad

Lessons Learned

Monthly Roundup

Risk Management

Site Map

Site Orientation

Top Stories


~ ~ ~
SERVICES 
Background Check
BOL Conferencing

CrimeDex

Em@il Education

ID Verification

Record Retention


~ ~ ~
SHOP 

Banker Store

Bankers Info Ntwk
Books
Vendor Connect

CONNECT 

Career Connect

Learning Connect

Vendor Connect

Guru Central

INTERACT 

Ask a Guru
Bankers Threads

Contact Us

Give Us Feedback


TOOLS 

60 Second Solutions

Alphabet Soup

Banker Tools

BOL Forms

FUN 

Banker Humor

Banker Memories

BOL Recipes

eCard Exchange

LEARN MORE 

About Advertising
About Our Sponsors
About Us

Print Friendly! Email This Article! Discuss NOW!

What's Wrong?

The HMDA data of 2004 is not very different from the information collected in 1974. African Americans are turned down for loan applications significantly more often than whites. Hispanics fare slightly better than African Americans but not as well as white Americans. Asians fare well or poorly depending on their market. For three decades, the banking industry has worked to change this picture. Why does the 2004 snapshot look so much like the one taken in 1974?

To find the answer, let's look at what we have done. The first step was stopping differential treatment (on a conscious level) and conducting affirmative advertising. The approach amounted to saying "the door is open; come and get it!" Some did come. Most lenders who have conducted energetic affirmative advertising programs can show an increase in minority applicants and in minority lending.

Next came the question: is the door really open all the way? Over the past decades we have conducted training, performed self-assessments, and been carefully examined for fair treatment of customers. Each year, something is found that fails the smell test - or worse. But these problems do not seem to be any sort of industry standard. Quite the contrary: they are the exception. In fact, the most recent problem trends identified by examiners, discriminatory treatment of unmarried co-applicants, does not even appear as a small bump in the data even though examiners have found this to be a trend.

Another important piece was CRA. Special lending programs were designed, flexible underwriting was introduced, and new applicant groups were reached.

In fact, when we pile up what we have done in the past three decades, the pile is impressive. We have done a lot. Lending practices and treatment of customers have changed significantly since 1974. Gone are color-coded application forms. Gone are the "baby" letters. And, judging by the HMDA reports, redlining has been reduced to almost nothing - almost.

Advertising practices have changed and are now designed to open doors instead of close them. Products are more diverse, having features such as low down payments, graduated payments, and variable rates.

There are more opportunities for customers than ever before. But the numbers stay the same. Why? In spite of all the effort to stop discrimination, the self-enforcement and regulatory enforcement of fair lending laws does not seem to be the key to change. It is important for fairness and has clearly made a significant difference. But much is still the same - the numbers.

In looking over three decades of fair lending activities, there is really only one area that has not been included: consumer education. Finance and borrowing are complicated. The formulas that lenders use are mysterious and confusing. Consumers of all education and experience levels are at a disadvantage. What consumers do not know can be surprising to those of us in the lending business. But what they don't know or understand is precisely what gets them into trouble - and what disqualifies them for credit.

The picture painted by the HMDA data is not likely to change until consumers know more. Knowing more means that they will manage their finances in ways that improve their qualifications for credit. Consumers need to understand when to borrow and when to pay cash. They need to know that making regular payments counts and catching up later doesn't.

Thanks to the FACT Act, there is now a lot of educational material out there and there is more to come. This is what consumers (and their lenders) have needed. Hopefully this education process will prove to be the missing piece. So use it!

Copyright © 2005 Compliance Action. Originally appeared in Compliance Action, Vol. 10, No. 12, 10/05




Print Friendly! Email This Article! Discuss NOW!



Privacy Policy    Disclaimer   Recommend This Site !   Contact Us


BankersOnline is a free service made possible by the generous support of our advertisers and sponsors. Advertisers and sponsors are not responsible for site content. Please help us keep BankersOnline FREE to all banking professionals. Support our advertisers and sponsors by clicking through to learn more about their products and services.