Racism is dead!

[ElFenix]

Clearly now that we've had a black president there's no more invidious racism in the US and people of equal situations get treated equally by institutions regardless of their skin color

https://www.revealnews.org/article/for-people-of-color-banks-are-shutting-the-door-to-homeownership/

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Clearly now that we've had a black president there's no more invidious racism in the US and people of equal situations get treated equally by institutions regardless of their skin color

https://www.revealnews.org/article/for-people-of-color-banks-are-shutting-the-door-to-homeownership/

But it’s the laws that ensure they get treated fairly which are the truly racist ones.

 

[Jaskalas]

Clearly now that we've had a black president there's no more invidious racism in the US and people of equal situations get treated equally by institutions regardless of their skin color

https://www.revealnews.org/article/for-people-of-color-banks-are-shutting-the-door-to-homeownership/

All this hooting and hollering over home... loans.
With Basic Income, $1000 /mo going into a nest egg, when a person turns 18 years old they'd have $216,000. Double that for a couple looking to buy a house. Who the hell would need a loan? I suggest we eliminate the root of the problem. Give them (give EVERYONE) the wealth it takes to never need a white man's loan ever again.

But that's just me. If you'd like to win hard fought battles to earn table scraps, a loan that'll be turned to dust the moment one of them falls sick, or loses a job... well, carry on then. Let's fight to get banks to loan to folks who don't have very much to begin with, with fewer prospects of keeping it. I'm sure the banks are looking forward to fighting that and skirting the laws even if you do win. Cause let's face it, you want banks to loan to folks who are generally disadvantaged, and they will never want to do that. If only there was a way to turn the tables....

 

[Greenman]

The one piece of information not used in the study was credit score. Did you all read that way down at the bottom? They didn't include credit scores when looking at rejection numbers. Do you think there might be a connection between credit score and getting a loan? It's almost like they won't lend money to people that have a history of not paying it back.

 

[HomerJS]

The one piece of information not used in the study was credit score. Did you all read that way down at the bottom? They didn't include credit scores when looking at rejection numbers. Do you think there might be a connection between credit score and getting a loan? It's almost like they won't lend money to people that have a history of not paying it back.

Unless your name is Trump

 

[glenn1]

Well actual mortgage default rates may show those "racial" lending decisions were actually correct. If the hypothesis was that blacks were discriminated against for loans, the implication is they would need be even more creditworthy than whites to get the same mortgage and thus their default rates should be lower. On the contrary their default rates are higher, thus the logical deduction is that the underwriting standards for blacks might not be strong enough or that they're collectively picking a poor portfolio of housing stock on aggregate which is driving higher default rates.

 

[justoh]

Racism pretty much is dead. There are a few holdouts in America, because of religion, but elsewhere that statement is probably true.

 

[Phynaz]

Funny, I've never seen a mortgage application that asked me my race.

 

[glenn1]

Funny, I've never seen a mortgage application that asked me my race.

The mortgage application doesn't, the government forms the mortgage originator completes does.

https://www.zillow.com/mortgage-learning/hmda/

https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/27061-H.PDF

 

[Chromagnus]

The one piece of information not used in the study was credit score. Did you all read that way down at the bottom? They didn't include credit scores when looking at rejection numbers. Do you think there might be a connection between credit score and getting a loan? It's almost like they won't lend money to people that have a history of not paying it back.

One of the major arguments against the use of credit score in the insurance business, which is what I work in, is that credit scores are unfairly discriminatory based on race. Certain states don't allow credit scoring to be used, or severely limit it's use, do to that. Banks use slightly different metrics for credit score than insurers but I'd be willing to bet the same problems exist.

Using a variable like credit score that can indirectly be used as a proxy for race is something that many people have a problem with and is something that contributes to this issue.

 

[Greenman]

One of the major arguments against the use of credit score in the insurance business, which is what I work in, is that credit scores are unfairly discriminatory based on race. Certain states don't allow credit scoring to be used, or severely limit it's use, do to that. Banks use slightly different metrics for credit score than insurers but I'd be willing to bet the same problems exist.

Using a variable like credit score that can indirectly be used as a proxy for race is something that many people have a problem with and is something that contributes to this issue.

How does that work? I thought the entire point of a credit score was to measure the persons ability to repay a debt. How does race fit into that? More to the point, how do you tell someones race by their credit score?

 

[SlowSpyder]

They should just affirmative action fix it. Randomly deny 25% of white males that apply and give those mortgages to minorities. To the liberals that's how you fix racism.

 

[Chromagnus]

How does that work? I thought the entire point of a credit score was to measure the persons ability to repay a debt. How does race fit into that? More to the point, how do you tell someones race by their credit score?

It's not that you can tell someone's race exactly by their credit score it's just that credit scores are highly correlated with race. It would be like if we used height as a variable to determine who can or can't get a loan. Sure, you are not using someone's race directly but you are indirectly going to have a correlation between height and race.

As a society we have basically said that we are not ok with people being discriminated against financially because of their race but credit scores have been shown to be highly correlated with race so their use has seen a bit of backlash. So if you are using credit scores as a way of deciding what interest rate to charge a person, or in my case what insurance premiums you can charge them, you are indirectly discriminating against certain racial groups.

It's not necessarily just race though. Early on credit scores were fairly discriminatory against the elderly since a lot of older people at the time didn't have any credit history to speak of. Some people were pretty upset that a variable was being used that would negatively impact the elderly.

 

[1prophet]

It's not that you can tell someone's race exactly by their credit score it's just that credit scores are highly correlated with race. It would be like if we used height as a variable to determine who can or can't get a loan. Sure, you are not using someone's race directly but you are indirectly going to have a correlation between height and race.

As a society we have basically said that we are not ok with people being discriminated against financially because of their race but credit scores have been shown to be highly correlated with race so their use has seen a bit of backlash. So if you are using credit scores as a way of deciding what interest rate to charge a person, or in my case what insurance premiums you can charge them, you are indirectly discriminating against certain racial groups.

It's not necessarily just race though. Early on credit scores were fairly discriminatory against the elderly since a lot of older people at the time didn't have any credit history to speak of. Some people were pretty upset that a variable was being used that would negatively impact the elderly.

So should banks then loan to everyone equally but charge an extra fee on those that have the ability to pay in order to cover the losses for those that can't or won't?

 

[sweenish]

They should just affirmative action fix it. Randomly deny 25% of white males that apply and give those mortgages to minorities. To the liberals that's how you fix racism.

I mean, I've always viewed it as a stopgap measure to force interracial interactions. Insert 1984 quote about actually meeting the enemy.

But the thing that's funny is "to the liberals." "To the conservatives," being racists is still perfectly acceptable. Look at how those blanket false stereotypes go both ways. I mean, the issue is on all sides, is it not?

 

[umbrella39]

They should just affirmative action fix it. Randomly deny 25% of white males that apply and give those mortgages to minorities. To the liberals that's how you fix racism.

The poor persecuted white male and his eroding rights! Who will come to their aid and be their champion! When will limp wristed beta cucks finally get the protected class status they desire and deserve... When will these poor white males finally ask to switch places with the black men that have got it so much better than them!

 

[glenn1]

I mean, I've always viewed it as a stopgap measure to force interracial interactions. Insert 1984 quote about actually meeting the enemy.

But the thing that's funny is "to the liberals." "To the conservatives," being racists is still perfectly acceptable. Look at how those blanket false stereotypes go both ways. I mean, the issue is on all sides, is it not?

Are default data racist also? Like I posted earlier blacks have higher default rates despite facing discrimination. It would be preferable and more honest to say to achieve your social policy aims, you’d be OK with making originators use looser lending standards for blacks to achieve loan parity. With the acknowledged understanding that per previously obtained statistics we know their default rates will be higher and thus likely losses higher as well. That’s not being racist or patronizing, it’s being honest with reality.

 

[woolfe9998]

The one piece of information not used in the study was credit score. Did you all read that way down at the bottom? They didn't include credit scores when looking at rejection numbers. Do you think there might be a connection between credit score and getting a loan? It's almost like they won't lend money to people that have a history of not paying it back.

Yes, I read it all the way to the bottom. I think you missed the fact that the banks have tried to block the release of this information. And you might have also missed this rather glaring contradiction from the banks:

Lenders and their trade organizations do not dispute the fact that they turn away people of color at rates far greater than whites. But they maintain that the disparity can be explained by factors the industry has fought to keep hidden, including the prospective borrowers’ credit history and overall debt-to-income ratio. They singled out the three-digit credit score – which banks use to determine whether a borrower is likely to repay a loan – as especially important in lending decisions.

“While quite informative regarding the state of the lending market,” the records analyzed by Reveal do “not include sufficient data to make a determination regarding fair lending,” the Mortgage Bankers Association’s chief economist, Mike Fratantoni, said in a statement.

Summary: banks are saying that this analysis cannot identity discrimination because it doesn't include the credit scores.

Then:

Credit score was not included because that information is not publicly available. That’s because lenders have deflected attempts to force them to report that data to the government, arguing it would not be useful in identifying discrimination.

Banks have blocked the release of the information because it isn't relevant to identifying discrimination.

See the problem?

 

[glenn1]

Banks have blocked the release of the information because it isn't relevant to identifying discrimination.

See the problem?

Probably a smart position for them to take considering the information would be used against them given disparate impact results despite their lending criteria being race blind. You might not like that reality but it is reality, just like the reality that blacks commit homicude at rates multiples of whites. Statistics aren’t racist, ignoring them because you don’t like the implications of them to your social policy can be however.

 

[HomerJS]

Probably a smart position for them to take considering the information would be used against them given disparate impact results despite their lending criteria being race blind. You might not like that reality but it is reality, just like the reality that blacks commit homicude at rates multiples of whites. Statistics aren’t racist, ignoring them because you don’t like the implications of them to your social policy can be however.

Actually middle and upper class blacks don't commit homicides at a higher rate then their white counterparts. You statement is highly skewed and misleading to make it appear blacks commit more crime because they are black.

 

[HomerJS]

Racism pretty much is dead. There are a few holdouts in America, because of religion, but elsewhere that statement is probably true.

Stop hogging the crack pipe and pass it over to Taj

 

[woolfe9998]

Probably a smart position for them to take considering the information would be used against them given disparate impact results despite their lending criteria being race blind. You might not like that reality but it is reality, just like the reality that blacks commit homicude at rates multiples of whites. Statistics aren’t racist, ignoring them because you don’t like the implications of them to your social policy can be however.

Care to explain why they would say on the one hand, we don't want to release the scores because it isn't relevant in determining discrimination, then on the other, your study can't show discrimination because it isn't taking into account the credit scores? I am having a hard time vesting these institutions with any credibility whatsoever when they play these kinds of games.

If their criteria truly are race neutral as you claim, then analyzing the full data set will allow us to control for all other variables in the application process to determine if race can or cannot be isolated as a determinative variable in and of itself. If banks are denying loans to blacks with the same income, assets, credit scores etc. as white applicants who are being approved, then "disparate impact results" aren't relevant here because discrimination is happening at the front end based on race. If not, then not. Either way, we need the full data set for proper analysis. If it proves no discrimination, the banks should be willing to release it as it will only exonerate them. OTOH, it could only be used "against them" as you say if the credit scores fill in the final piece of a puzzle which proves racial discrimination.

 

[glenn1]

Actually middle and upper class blacks don't commit homicides at a higher rate then their white counterparts. You statement is highly skewed and misleading to make it appear blacks commit more crime because they are black.

The statistics don’t say anything about causation. My statement says exactly what the dead bodies say, that blacks are both victimized and commit homicide at rates several multiples of whites, something like 6 or 8 times. Likewise the higher default rates for blacks doesn’t suggest causal factor.

 

[Greenman]

Yes, I read it all the way to the bottom. I think you missed the fact that the banks have tried to block the release of this information. And you might have also missed this rather glaring contradiction from the banks:



Summary: banks are saying that this analysis cannot identity discrimination because it doesn't include the credit scores.

Then:



Banks have blocked the release of the information because it isn't relevant to identifying discrimination.

See the problem?

I think I understand what you're saying, but it I have trouble understanding why a bank would not want to lend money to someone that pay's their bills. It's been my experience that banks are actually eager to lend money, they make substantial profits from home loans. It's difficult for me to believe that they would deny themselves those profits simply because they don't like people of color.
It also seems as though the information that becomes one's credit score is the same for everyone, so it shouldn't have any bias.
I'm not trying to argue against the concept, I'm trying to understand how any of it is race oriented.

 

[glenn1]

Care to explain why they would say on the one hand, we don't want to release the scores because it isn't relevant in determining discrimination, then on the other, your study can't show discrimination because it isn't taking into account the credit scores? I am having a hard time vesting these institutions with any credibility whatsoever when they play these kinds of games.

If their criteria truly are race neutral as you claim, then analyzing the full data set will allow us to control for all other variables in the application process to determine if race can or cannot be isolated as a determinative variable in and of itself. If banks are denying loans to blacks with the same income, assets, credit scores etc. as white applicants who are being approved, then "disparate impact results" aren't relevant here because discrimination is happening at the front end based on race. If not, then not. Either way, we need the full data set for proper analysis. If it proves no discrimination, the banks should be willing to release it as it will only exonerate them. OTOH, it could only be used "against them" as you say if the credit scores fill in the final piece of a puzzle which proves racial discrimination.

Again neutral criteria don’t necessarily lead to neutral results. Credit scores could be designed to be “racially neutral” yet still adversely impact blacks, just as our justice system and bill of rights are meant to be racially neutral yet we still find that blacks comprise an extremely outsized percentage of the prison population. We use similar processes and safeguards for all yet blacks are still more likely to be in jail, why would we think the banks do anything differently? Which is wasier to believe, all banks are systematically willing to forgo profits and risk possible criminal prosecution to indulge their racism, or using the best designed system to maintain race neutrality still doesn’t result in perfectly equal loan acceptance rates?