IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/refreg/v5y2019i1p91-100..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Should Fair-lending Investigators Better Mix Qualitative and Quantitative Methods?

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher E Cosans

Abstract

The author examines a controversy over the methods used by federal agencies to enforce fair-lending laws. Some hold that investigators should use primarily qualitative reviews of documents in loan files in their investigations. Others hold that the qualitative methodology of file reviews is inadequate and needs to be supplemented or replaced by quantitative statistical methods. The author argues that the methods in the federal Interagency Fair Lending Examination Procedure should be revised to use a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods in a better way so that they complement each other. Investigations should rely primarily on quantitative methods to investigate institutional discrimination, but use the qualitative methods of file reviews in the investigation of individual agents for their discriminatory decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher E Cosans, 2019. "Should Fair-lending Investigators Better Mix Qualitative and Quantitative Methods?," Journal of Financial Regulation, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 91-100.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:refreg:v:5:y:2019:i:1:p:91-100.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jfr/fjy008
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:oup:refreg:v:5:y:2019:i:1:p:91-100.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jfr .

    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.