AG 2015 09 21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Prosperity Unlimited, a local nonprofit and CHDO in Cabarrus County identified new lending products as an impediment to homeownership. New mortgage products require higher credit scores and larger amounts of down payment. This combination is moving potential buyers out of the homeowner buyer market. Additionally, recent changes in HUD programs that decrease up front mortgage insurance costs and increase the monthly costs for mortgage insurance are also eliminating potential buyers from eligibility for home loans. Mortgage modifications are not happening fast enough to save many homes. In some cases, lenders are taking so long to move through the required steps that the mortgage becomes unsalvageable. Finally, the economic recovery is creating a rise in sales prices that may be pricing many families out of the market in Cabarrus County. C. Discrimination in Financing 1. Examine the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act information in your area. Is there evidence of higher denial rates for minorities and low- income individuals: Appendix E contains information from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council on the Charlotte MSA, where Cabarrus County is located. The information included in Appendix E of this document tied many of the denial rates to debt to income ratios, credit history and the availability of collateral. The overall denial rates for conventional loans (Table 4 -2 in Appendix E) are as follows: American Indian 9 %, Asian 8 %, Black/African American 22.8 %, Hispanic 11.3% and Caucasian 6.7 %. All of the denials have dropped significantly since the last Analysis of Impediments in 2011. Of the loan denials for Black/African American applicants on government backed loans such as FHA, 30% were denied based on their credit history, similarly, 26% of Caucasians and 23% Hispanics were denied for the same reason (See Table 8 -1 in Appendix E). On government backed loans, the Debt to Income ratio was the cause for denial for 27% of Black/African Americans and for Caucasians the rate was 21% (Table 8 -1 in Appendix E). It appears that denial rates are very similar in most cases. The outlier being Native Americans at 67 %, however, the sample was statistically too small to fairly evaluate the information. For low income persons, insufficient cash and debt to income ratio were the only appreciable differences in reasons for denial. On government backed loans, the less than 50% of median had 31% of the denials for debt to income ratio versus only 13% for the more than 120% of median (See Table 8 -1 in Appendix E). Employment history accounted for 5% of the denials for less than 50% of the median income, whereas 4% of the 120% of medians were denied for the same reason in government backed loans (See Table 8 -1 in Appendix E). Overall, it appears that most of the statistics are very similar. Appendix E contains the full charts for information on the disposition of conventional and government sponsored loans, the disposition of applications by race, gender, income, and summary information in the Charlotte- Gastonia -Rock Hill MSA for 2013. When searching the FFIEC's website for Community Reinvestment Act performance, eleven banks appear with Satisfactory ratings, according to the FFIEC's website (www.ffiec.gov) (See Appendix F). 291Page Analysis of Impediments September 2015 Attachment number 2 \n F -6 Page 121