IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/houspd/v30y2020i1p46-60.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the Community Reinvestment Act Still Relevant to Mortgage Lending?

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Calem
  • Lauren Lambie-Hanson
  • Susan Wachter

Abstract

The market share of conforming-size, home purchase mortgage originations has shifted from banking institutions to nonbank lenders. In 2017, nonbanks originated more than 1.8 million purchase mortgages (53% of the market), compared with 1.4 million by banks. Nonbanks originated 30% of purchase-money mortgages in 2000 and 24% in 2007. Does the declining role of banking institutions imply that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) is becoming less relevant to mortgage lending, since only they are subject to the requirements of the CRA? We address this question by exploring the changing composition of home purchase mortgage originations since 2000. We focus on the share of FHA and conforming-sized conventional loans to low- or moderate-income (LMI) households or to finance properties in LMI neighborhoods, and provide a more detailed examination of shifts in market composition than previous studies. Our analysis suggests that the CRA continues to be relevant to maintaining broad access to mortgage credit. We find that the overall share of loans to LMI borrowers has decreased compared with pre-2004, which we view as a reasonable benchmark period. However, this decrease has mostly been offset by an increased share to borrowers (broadly distributed by income) purchasing properties in LMI neighborhoods.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Calem & Lauren Lambie-Hanson & Susan Wachter, 2020. "Is the Community Reinvestment Act Still Relevant to Mortgage Lending?," Housing Policy Debate, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(1), pages 46-60, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:houspd:v:30:y:2020:i:1:p:46-60
    DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2019.1665831
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10511482.2019.1665831
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10511482.2019.1665831?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:houspd:v:30:y:2020:i:1:p:46-60. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RHPD20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.