Wachovia Bank Deposit Cutoff Times

The mortgage market in 2011: highlights from the data reported under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.

Since 1976, most mortgage lending institutions with offices in
metropolitan areas have been required under the Home Mortgage Disclosure
Act of 1975 (HMDA) to disclose detailed information about their
home-lending activity each year. The Congress intended that HMDA achieve
its legislative objectives primarily through the force of public
disclosure. (1) These objectives include helping members of the public
determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs
of their local communities and treating borrowers and loan applicants
fairly, providing information that could facilitate the efforts of
public entities to distribute funds to local communities for the purpose
of attracting private investment, and helping households decide where
they may want to deposit their savings. The data have also proven to be
valuable for research and are often used in public policy deliberations
related to the mortgage market.

The 2011 HMDA data consist of information reported by more than
7,600 home lenders, including all of the nation’s largest mortgage
originators. Together, the home-purchase, refinance, and
home-improvement loans reported represent the majority of home lending
nationwide and thus are broadly representative of all such lending in
the United States. (2) The HMDA data include the disposition of each
application for mortgage credit; the type, purpose, and characteristics
of each home mortgage that lenders originate or purchase during the
calendar year; the census-tract designations of the properties related
to those loans; loan pricing information; personal demographic and other
information about loan applicants, including their race or ethnicity and
income; and information about loan sales. (3)

On July 21,2011, rulemaking responsibility for HMDA was transferred
from the Federal Reserve Board to the newly established Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau. (4) The Federal Financial Institutions
Examination Council (FFIEC) continues to be responsible for collecting
the HMDA data from reporting institutions and facilitating public access
to the information. (5) In September of each year, the FFIEC releases
summary tables pertaining to lending activity from the previous calendar
year for each reporting lender as well as aggregations of home-lending
activity for each metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and for the nation
as a whole. (6) The FFIEC also makes available to the public a data file
containing virtually all of the reported information for each lending
institution. (7)

The main purpose of this article is to describe mortgage market
activity in 2011 and in previous years based on the HMDA data. (8) Our
analysis yields several key findings:

* The number of home loans of all types reported by covered lenders
declined between 2010 and 2011 from about 7.9 million loans to slightly
less than 7.1 million loans. Refinance loans fell more than
home-purchase loans, although refinancings surged toward the end of 2011
as interest rates dropped. The total of 7.1 million loans reported in
2011 is the lowest number of loans reported in the HMDA data since 6.2
million in 1995.

* Government-backed loans originated under programs such as the
Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage insurance program and the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) loan guarantee program accounted for
a slightly smaller share of home-purchase loans in 2011 relative to 2010
but continue to make up a historically large part of the owner-occupant
home-purchase mortgage market, at nearly 50 percent.

* Despite the surge in the government-backed share of home-purchase
loans, which historically have gone to borrowers with relatively low
credit scores, analysis of credit record data indicate that credit
scores of home-purchase borrowers are considerably higher now than at
any point in the past 12 years. The median score of such borrowers has
risen about 40 points since the end of 2006, and the 10th-percentile
score is up by about 50 points.

* Our analysis of the HMDA data suggests that, at the retail level,
the mortgage market has not become much more concentrated over the past
five years. The 10 most active organizations accounted for about 37
percent of all first-lien mortgage originations in 2011–only slightly
higher than the 35 percent share for the top 10 organizations in 2006.

* Consistent with the overall decline in home-purchase and
refinance lending, the HMDA data show that from 2010 to 2011, all income
and racial or ethnic groups experienced a drop in home-purchase lending,
although the extent of the decline varied some across groups. Only
low-income borrowers avoided a fall in refinance lending.

* The HMDA data suggest that lending activity has not yet rebounded
in neighborhoods experiencing high levels of distress. In fact,
home-purchase lending in census tracts identified by the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program (NSP) as being highly distressed declined by a
larger percentage since 2010 than such lending in less-distressed
tracts. This decline was particularly pronounced for lower- and
middle-income borrowers in these neighborhoods.

* The incidence of higher-priced lending across all products in
2011 was about 3.7 percent, up from 3.2 percent in 2010. Similar to
patterns observed in the past, black and Hispanic-white borrowers were
more likely, and Asian borrowers less likely, to obtain higher-priced
loans than were non-Hispanic white borrowers. These differences are
significantly reduced, but not completely eliminated, after controlling
for lender and borrower characteristics.

* Overall, loan denial rates in 2011 remained virtually unchanged
from 2010, at about 23 percent of all applications. Denial rates vary
across loan types and purposes, and across applicants grouped by race or
ethnicity, as in past years. The HMDA data do not include sufficient
information to determine the extent to which these differences reflect
illegal discrimination.

* Comparing home-purchase borrower incomes reported in the HMDA
data with income reported by homebuyers in household surveys suggests
that incomes on mortgage applications may have been significantly
overstated during the peak of the housing boom. In more recent years,
there is no evidence of overstated incomes.

* The change from using data from the 2000 decennial census (Census
2000) to using data from the 2010 census and the 2006-10 American
Community Survey (ACS) as the basis for deriving median family income
will affect how banking institutions fare in Community Reinvestment Act
(CRA) performance evaluations. Had the new census-tract relative-income
classifications been used in 2011, there would have been a net increase
in mortgage lending to low- and moderate-income (LMI) neighborhoods of
about 150,000 loans, about 22 percent higher than the number of LMI
loans in 2011 under current census-tract relative-income
classifications.

A Profile of the 2011 HMDA Data

For 2011, a total of 7,632 institutions reported on their
home-lending activity under HMDA: 4,497 banking institutions; 2,017
credit unions; and 1,118 mortgage companies, 812 of which were not
affiliated with a banking institution (these companies are referred to
in this article as “independent mortgage companies”) (table
1). The number of reporting institutions changes some from year to year.
Some of the fluctuation is due to changes in reporting requirements,
primarily related to increases in the minimum asset level used to
determine coverage. (9) Mergers, acquisitions, and failures also account
for some of the year-over-year changes. Finally, periodic changes in the
number and geographic footprints of metropolitan areas influence
reporting over time, as HMDA’s coverage is limited to institutions
that have at least one office in an MSA. For 2011, the number of
reporting institutions fell nearly 4 percent from 2010, continuing a
downward trend since 2006, when HMDA coverage included just over 8,900
lenders. (10)

Reporting Institutions by Size and Mortgage Lending Activity

Most institutions covered by HMDA are small, and most extend
relatively few loans. For 2011, 57 percent of the depository
institutions (banking institutions and credit unions) covered by HMDA
had assets under $250 million, and 76 percent of them reported
information on fewer than 100 loans (data derived from table 2). Among
all depository institutions, nearly 55 percent reported on fewer than
100 loans. Across different types of lenders, mortgage companies tend to
originate larger numbers of loans on a per-reporter basis than the other
institutions (38 percent of the mortgage companies reported more than
1,000 loans, a share equal to about six times that for depository
institutions).

In the aggregate, reporting institutions submitted information on
11.7 million applications for home loans of all types in 2011 (excluding
requests for preapproval), down about 10 percent from the total reported
for 2010 and far below the 27.5 million applications processed in 2006,
just before the housing market decline (data derived from table 3.A).
The majority of loan applications are approved by lenders, and most of
these approvals result in extensions of credit. In some cases, an
application is approved but the applicant decides not to take out the
loan; for example, in 2011, about 5 percent of all applications were
approved but not accepted by the applicant (data not shown in tables).
Overall, about 60 percent of the applications submitted in 2011 resulted
in an extension of credit (data derived from tables 3.A and 3.B), a
share little changed from 2010. The total number of loans reported in
2011, 7.1 million (as shown in table 3.B), was about 10 percent lower
than in 2010 and is the lowest number of mortgage loans reported under
HMDA since about 6.2 million loans were reported in 1995 (data prior to
2000 not shown in tables).

The HMDA data also include information on loans purchased by
reporting institutions during the reporting year, although the purchased
loans may have been originated at any point in time. For 2011, lenders
reported information on 2.9 million loans that they had purchased from
other institutions, a decline of nearly 9 percent from 2010. Finally,
lenders reported on roughly 186,000 requests for preapproval of
home-purchase loans that did not result in a loan origination (table
3.A); preapprovals that resulted in loans are included in the count of
loan extensions cited earlier.

Home-Purchase and Refinance Lending

In June 2006, the peak month for home-purchase lending that year,
nearly 712,000 home-purchase loans were extended, compared with only
254,000 such loans in June 2011, the most active month that year (figure
1). (11) On an annual basis, the number of home-purchase loans
(including both first and junior liens) reported in HMDA in 2011 was
down about 5 percent from 2010 and was 64 percent lower than in 2006
(data derived from table 3.B).

One factor that may help explain the drop in home-purchase lending
between 2010 and 2011 is the ending of the first-time homebuyer tax
credit program in April 2010. (12) The first-time homebuyer tax credit
program likely stimulated homebuying in the first half of 2010 as
individuals sought to purchase their homes before the sunset date. (13)
Data from the National Association of Realtors (NAR) support this view:
The NAR annual survey of home buyers and sellers indicates that
first-time buyers accounted for about 47 percent of all home purchases
in 2009 and half of home sales in 2010 before falling to a 37 percent
share in 2011. (14)

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

To a greater extent than for home-purchase borrowing, the volume of
refinance lending over time generally follows the path of interest rates
(typically with a fairly short lag), expanding as mortgage rates fall
and retrenching when rates rise. The interest rate environment over the
past few years has generally been quite favorable for well-qualified
borrowers who have sought to refinance. In some cases, the same
individuals have refinanced on more than one occasion to take advantage
of the declining interest rate environment. However, many other
individuals with outstanding loans have not been able to refinance,
either because they could not meet income-related or
credit-history-related underwriting standards or because of
collateral-related issues, including situations where the outstanding
balance on the loan exceeds the home value. (15)

Compared with 2010, the number of reported refinance loans in 2011
was down about 13 percent (table 3.B). Although the total volume of
refinancing in 2011 was down quite a bit from 2010, lenders experienced
much higher demand in some months than others. In 2011, the peak month
for refinance issuance was November, with nearly 504,000 loans, compared
with only 230,000 loans in May (figure 1). The surge in refinance
activity toward the end of 2011 reflects the steady drop in mortgage
rates over the course of the year, which by November and December saw
annual percentage offer rates on 30-year fixed-rate loans dip to about 4
percent.

Non-Owner-Occupant Lending

Individuals buying homes either for investment purposes or as
second or vacation homes are an important segment of the housing market
in general, and in some areas of the country, they are particularly
important. In the current period of high foreclosures and elevated
levels of short sales, investor activity helps reduce the overhang of
unsold and foreclosed properties. In some cases, investors or
second-home buyers are able to purchase their properties for cash; in
other cases, they choose to borrow and finance their purchases. Surveys
sponsored by the NAR find that in 2011, about half of investors paid
cash for their purchases and 42 percent of vacation-home buyers paid
cash for their properties. (16)

The HMDA data help document the role of non-owner-occupant lending
over time. The data show a sharp increase in non-owner-occupant lending
used to purchase one- to four-family homes (site-built and manufactured
properties) during the first half of the previous decade (table 4). The
volume of non-owner-occupant lending fell sharply beginning in 2007 and
has remained at comparably low levels through 2011. Although
non-owner-occupant lending in 2011 remained subdued compared with levels
reached in the middle of the previous decade, such lending did pick up
from 2010, increasing nearly 10 percent.

As shown in table 4, the post-2007 decline in non-owner-occupant
lending has been more severe than that in owner-occupant lending.
Between 2000 and 2005, the share of non-owner-occupant lending used to
purchase one- to four-family homes rose, increasing over this period
from about 9 percent to 16 percent (data derived from table 4). (17) The
share fell to about 11 percent in both 2009 and 2010 but rebounded to 13
percent in 2011.

Conventional versus Government-Backed Loans

Although the total number of home-purchase loans has fallen
substantially since 2005, virtually all of the decline has involved
conventional lending; the volume of nonconventional home-purchase loans
(sometimes referred to as “government backed”
loans)–including loans backed by insurance from the FHA or by
guarantees from the VA, the Farm Service Agency (FSA), or the Rural
Housing Service (RHS)–has increased markedly since the mid-2000s. From
2006 to 2009, the total number of reported conventional home-purchase
loans fell 77 percent, while the number of nonconventional home-purchase
loans more than tripled (table 4). Although the number of
nonconventional home-purchase loans has fallen since reaching its high
mark in 2009, such loans still accounted for about 43 percent of
home-purchase lending in 2011. The increase in nonconventional lending
in recent years reflects several factors, such as increased loan-size
limits allowed under the FHA and VA lending programs and reduced access
(including more-stringent underwriting and higher prices) to
conventional loans, particularly those that allow the borrower to
finance more than 80 percent of the property value. (18)

Nonconventional lending has also garnered a larger share of the
refinance market. In 2006, only 2 percent of refinance loans were
nonconventional, compared with 12 percent in 2011.

This share dropped some from 2010, as the number of nonconventional
refinance loans fell about 21 percent (table 4). (19)

The Private Mortgage Insurance Market

In the conventional loan market, lenders typically require that a
borrower seeking to purchase an owner-occupied property make a down
payment of at least 20 percent of a home’s value unless the
borrower obtains some type of third-party backing, such as mortgage
insurance. For a borrower seeking a conventional loan with a low down
payment, a lender can require that the borrower purchase mortgage
insurance from a private mortgage insurance (PMI) company to protect the
lender against default-related losses up to a contractually established
percentage of the principal amount. As a form of protection for lenders
against losses from defaulting borrowers, PMI competes with FHA
insurance and VA loan guarantees.

The seven companies that reported data for 2011 dominate the PMI
industry. (20) Thus, the reported data cover the vast majority of PMI
written in the United States. For 2011, the seven PMI companies reported
on nearly 409,000 applications for insurance leading to the issuance of
312,000 insurance policies, up from about 370,000 applications and
260,000 policies in 2010 (data derived from table 6). Reported volumes
of PMI issuance in 2011, as in recent years, have been substantially
smaller than levels prior to 2009. The large reduction in PMI issuance
reflects several factors, including tighter underwriting adopted by the
PMI companies in response to elevated claims and losses experienced
during the recent recession and the ongoing recovery. (21)

Overall, 64 percent of the PMI policies issued in 2011 covered
home-purchase loans, and the remainder covered refinance mortgages
(home-improvement loans are classified as refinance loans by the PMI
reporters). Virtually all of the applications for PMI policies issued
involved loans to purchase site-built properties, and almost all of the
applications for PMI related to owner-occupied units.

The data reported by the PMI industry over the years have
consistently shown that most applications for insurance are approved, as
lenders are very familiar with the underwriting policies of the insurers
and generally are not going to submit an application that is unlikely to
be approved. Overall, about 5 percent of PMI insurance applications were
denied in 2011, down from about 10 percent in 2010 and 12 percent in
2009 but still notably higher than in 2006 and 2007, when only about 2
percent of the requests for insurance were turned down (data not shown
in tables). (22) As with the HMDA data, PMI companies report the reason
for denial. The most commonly reported reason cited by lenders related
to an issue with the collateral, most likely property value.

Junior-Lien Lending

Junior-lien loans can be taken out either in conjunction with the
primary mortgage (a piggyback loan) or independently of the first-lien
loan. As noted, piggyback loans can be used by borrowers to avoid having
to pay for private or government mortgage insurance. Similarly,
piggyback loans can also be used to reduce the size of the first-lien
loan to be within the size limits required by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae
without requiring a larger down payment by the borrower. Junior-lien
loans that are taken out independently of a first lien can be used for
any number of purposes, including to finance home-improvement projects
or, in the case of open-ended home equity lines of credit, to provide a
readily available source of credit that can be drawn on at the time the
borrower needs the funds. Under the regulations that govern HMDA
reporting, most of these standalone junior-lien loans are not reported.
(23)

In 2006, close to 1.3 million junior liens used for the purchase of
owner-occupied properties were reported under HMDA (table 7). This
number fell by more than one-half in 2007, dropped sharply again in each
of the ensuing years, and decreased to less than 42,000 such loans in
2010 and 2011. More than 1 million junior-lien loans were taken out to
refinance loans backed by owner-occupied properties in 2006, and this
number also fell substantially starting in 2007 and continued to fall,
reaching a low point of less than 74,000 in 2011.

The HMDA data also include information on junior-lien loans used
for home-improvement purposes. In 2011, nearly 66,000 junior-lien loans
were used for such a purpose, down some from about 80,000 reported in
2010. Both the 2010 and 2011 totals are sharply below the historic high
mark of nearly 570,000 reached in 2006. Overall, junior-lien loans used
for home improvement accounted for 35 percent of junior-lien loans
reported under HMDA.

Loan Sales

For each loan origination reported under HMDA in a given year,
lenders report whether that loan was sold during the same year, and the
type of institution to which the loan was sold. (24) Broadly, these
purchaser types can be broken into those that are government
related–Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Farmer Mac–and those
that are not. Ginnie Mae and Farmer Mac focus on loans backed directly
by government guarantees or insurance, while Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
purchase conventional loans that meet certain loan-size and underwriting
standards.

Overall, about 78 percent of the first-lien home-purchase and
refinance loans for one- to four-family properties originated in 2011
were reported as sold during the year (data not shown in tables). The
share of originations that are sold varies some from year to year and by
type and purpose of loan (table 8). (25) For example, 69 percent of the
conventional loans extended in 2011 for the purchase of owner-occupied
one- to four-family dwellings were sold that year. In contrast, nearly
94 percent of the nonconventional loans used to purchase owner-occupied
homes were reported as sold in 2011. The share of conventional loans
made to non-owner occupants that are reported as sold is notably smaller
than that of such loans made to owner occupants. Also, the vast majority
of conventional loans extended for the purchase of manufactured homes
are held in portfolio; only about 10 percent of such loans were sold in
2011.

Borrower Incomes and Loan Amounts

Under HMDA, lenders report the loan amount applied for and the
applicant income that the lender relied on in making the credit
decision, if income was considered in the underwriting decision. Lenders
do not necessarily collect and report loan applicants’ entire
income, because in some cases borrowers have more income than is needed
to qualify for the loan.

Borrower Income

The vast majority of loan applications and loans reported under
HMDA include income information. For example, in 2011, income
information was not reported for less than 1 percent of the borrowers
purchasing a home with a nonconventional loan and for 3 percent of those
using a conventional loan (data not shown in tables). Income information
is reported less often for refinance loans, particularly those that are
nonconventional (about one-third of the FHA loans and 63 percent of the
VA loans), most likely because of streamlined refinance programs that do
not require current income to be considered in underwriting.

While the available information on amounts borrowed and applicant
income can be evaluated in many ways, we focus here on patterns by loan
product and purpose. For home-purchase or refinance lending, borrowers
using FHA and VA loans have lower mean or median incomes than borrowers
using other loans, despite the fact that the FHA (and VA) loan limits
were increased substantially in 2008, potentially allowing the program
to be used much more widely than by the LMI households that have been
the traditional focus of the program (table 9). Although the share of
FHA home-purchase borrowers with incomes above $100,000 has roughly
doubled since 2007 (the year before the increase in loan limits) to
about 15 percent, the median income of borrowers getting FHA
home-purchase loans was still about 30 percent lower than that of those
getting conventional loans (data derived from table 9). The relatively
low down-payment requirements on FHA-insured loans–the average
loan-to-value ratio for FHA home-purchase loans was over 95 percent in
2011–may be continuing to attract lower-income borrowers. (26)

Loan Amounts

Unlike the data on borrower incomes, loan amounts are provided for
all applications and loans reported in the HMDA data. Loan amounts
differ across loan types, with FHA or VA loans, on average, being
smaller than conventional loans (which make up most of the
“other” category in table 10). However, an upward shift in the
distribution of loan amounts for both FHA and VA home-purchase loans has
occurred in the past couple of years, continuing into 2011 (data for
only 2011 shown in tables). The shift reflects several factors,
including the higher loan limits allowed under these programs.

Application Disposition, Loan Pricing, and Status under the Home
Ownership and Equity Protection Act

In tables 11 and 12, we categorize every loan application and
request for preapproval reported in 2011 into 25 distinct product
categories characterized by type of loan and property, purpose of loan,
and lien and owner-occupancy status. Each product category contains
information on the number of total and preapproval applications,
application denials, originated loans, loans with prices above the
reporting thresholds established by HMDA reporting rules for identifying
higher-priced loans, loans covered by the Home Ownership and Equity
Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA), and the mean and median annual
percentage rate (APR) spreads for loans reported as higher priced.

Disposition of Applications

As noted, the 2011 HMDA data include information on 11.7 million
loan applications, nearly 86 percent of which were acted on by the
lender (data derived from table 11). With respect to the disposition of
applications, patterns of denial rates are largely consistent with what
had been observed in earlier years. (27) Denial rates on applications
for home-purchase loans are notably lower than those observed on
applications for refinance or home-improvement loans. Denial rates on
applications backed by manufactured housing are much higher than those
on applications backed by site-built homes. For example, the denial rate
for first-lien conventional home-purchase loan applications for
owner-occupied site-built properties was 14.8 percent in 2011, compared
with a denial rate of 52.7 percent for such applications for
owner-occupied manufactured homes.

Under the provisions of HMDA, reporting institutions may choose to
report the reasons they provide consumers whose applications are turned
down. Reporting institutions may cite up to three reasons for each
denied application, although most of those that provide this information
cite only one reason. An analysis of the reasons for denial provided to
prospective borrowers whose applications for conventional credit for the
purchase of owner-occupied homes were turned down finds that
collateral-related issues and debt-to-income considerations were the two
categories of reasons that have seen the largest increase since 2006
(data not shown in tables). Debt-to-income issues were also cited
somewhat more often for applications for FHA or VA home-purchase loans,
but collateral was the category that had the largest percentage
increase. These relationships are not surprising, given the changes in
underwriting practices and the widespread decline in home values since
2006.

In addition to the application data provided under HMDA, nearly
430,000 requests for preapproval were reported as acted on by the lender
in 2011, down about 3 percent from 2010 (table 12). The majority of
requests for preapprovals involved conventional loans. About 30 percent
of these requests for preapproval were denied by the lender in 2011, a
proportion that is higher than in 2010. Not unexpectedly, the number of
requests for preapproval is down substantially from the levels recorded
at the height of the housing boom, when market conditions favored home
sellers and preapproval letters were a factor that enhanced the position
of prospective homebuyers. In 2006, covered institutions reported that
they received nearly 1.2 million requests for preapproval on which they
took action (data not shown in tables).

The Incidence of Higher-Priced Lending

Price-reporting rules under HMDA since late 2009 define
higher-priced first-lien loans as those with an APR of at least 1.5
percentage points above the average prime offer rate (APOR) for loans of
a similar type (for example, a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage). (28) The
spread for junior-lien loans must be at least 3.5 percentage points to
be considered higher priced. The APOR, which is published weekly by the
FFIEC, is an estimate of the APR on loans being offered to high-quality
prime borrowers based on the contract interest rates and discount points
reported by Freddie Mac in its Primary Mortgage Market Survey (PMMS).
(29)

The data show that the incidence of higher-priced lending across
all products in 2011 was about 3.7 percent, up about 50 basis points, or
0.5 percentage point, from 2010 (table 11). (30) The incidence varies
across loan types, products, and purposes. First, in almost all cases,
nonconventional loans have a lower incidence of higher-priced lending
than do comparable conventional loan products, although the differences
in incidence are much smaller than in the period when many conventional
loans were subprime or near prime. In 2011, among first-lien
home-purchase loans for site-built homes, 3.9 percent of conventional
loans had APRs above the price-reporting threshold, versus 2.8 percent
of nonconventional loans. (Among nonconventional loans, those backed by
VA guarantees have a particularly low incidence of being higher priced:
In 2011, less than 0.04 percent of the VA-guaranteed first-lien
home-purchase loans were higher priced.)

Second, with few exceptions, first-lien loans have a lower
incidence of higher-priced lending than do junior-lien loans for the
same purposes. For example, in 2011, the incidence of higher-priced
lending for conventional first-lien refinance loans was 1.6 percent,
whereas for comparable junior-lien loans it was 13.4 percent. This
relationship is found despite the fact that the threshold for reporting
a junior-lien loan as higher priced is 2 percentage points higher than
it is for so reporting a first-lien loan. Third, manufactured-home loans
exhibit the greatest incidence of higher-priced lending across all loan
categories. For 2011, nearly 82 percent of the conventional first-lien
loans used to purchase manufactured homes were higher priced.

The HMDA data also show that the incidence of higher-priced lending
is related to borrower incomes and the amounts borrowed, with borrowers
with lower incomes and those receiving smaller loans more likely to
obtain a higher-priced loan. For example, 56 percent of home-purchase
loans were extended to borrowers with incomes under $75,000, while such
borrowers account for 72 percent of all higher-priced home-purchase
loans (table 9). Across loan amounts, 19 percent of home-purchase loans
were under $100,000, whereas 45 percent of higher-priced home-purchase
loans were under $100,000 (table 10).

Rate Spreads for Higher-Priced Loans

In 2011, the mean APOR spread reported for higher-priced first-lien
conventional loans for the purchase of an owner-occupied site-built home
was about 2.5 percentage points, compared with about 2.0 percentage
points for higher-priced first-lien nonconventional loans used for the
same purpose (table 11). Average spreads for first-lien conventional and
government-backed refinance loans were 2.5 percentage points and 2.6
percentage points, respectively.

It is worth noting that the vast majority of nonconventional loans
reported as higher priced in 2011 exceeded the HMDA price-reporting
thresholds by only a small amount: Specifically, 71 percent of the
higher-priced nonconventional first-lien home-purchase loans had
reported spreads within 50 basis points of the threshold. By comparison,
only about 42 percent of the comparable conventional loans reported as
higher priced had prices this close to the margin of reporting. In
contrast, the share of higher-priced nonconventional refinancing loans
with APORs close to the margin of reporting (32 percent) is a little
less than the share of higher-priced conventional refinancing loans with
such APORs (about 47 percent).

As expected, consistent with the higher reporting threshold of
junior-lien lending, higher-priced junior-lien loan products have higher
mean and median APOR spreads than do higher-priced first-lien loans.
Higher-priced loans for manufactured homes differ from other loan
products in that they generally have the highest mean spreads. In 2011,
the typical higher-priced conventional first-lien loan to purchase a
manufactured home had a reported spread of about 5.7 percentage points,
compared with an average spread of roughly 2.5 percentage points for
comparable higher-priced loans for site-built properties.

HOEPA Loans

The HMDA data indicate which loans are covered by the protections
afforded by HOEPA. Under HOEPA, certain types of mortgage loans that
have interest rates or fees above specified levels require additional
disclosures to consumers and are subject to various restrictions on loan
terms. (31) For 2011, 574 lenders reported extending 2,387 loans covered
by HOEPA (table 11; data regarding lenders not shown in tables). In
comparison, 655 lenders reported on about 3,400 loans covered by HOEPA
in 2010. In the aggregate, HOEPA-related lending made up less than 0.05
percent of all the originations of home-secured refinancings and
home-improvement loans reported for 2011 (data derived from tables).
(32)

Lender Concentration in the Mortgage Market

Recent press accounts have highlighted the outsized role of a few
larger lending organizations in the mortgage market. (33) Table 13 lists
the top 10 mortgage originating organizations (inclusive of their
reporting mortgage lending affiliates and subsidiaries) according to the
HMDA data. Wells Fargo tops the list, having originated over 900,000
loans in 2011, which translates into a market share of about 13 percent.
(34) JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America each had a market share of over
5 percent, followed by U.S. Bank and Quicken Loans with over 2 percent.
Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America had considerably larger
market shares in 2011 than in 2006, in part because of their
acquisitions of Wachovia, Washington Mutual, and Countrywide,
respectively. The remainder of the top 10 organizations had market
shares under 2 percent, and the top 10 collectively issued about 37
percent of all mortgage originations reported in the HMDA data in 2011,
roughly the same as in 2006.

Notably, market shares derived from the HMDA data differ markedly
from market shares recently reported in the press based on information
compiled by Inside Mortgage Finance.

It is important to note that for HMDA reporting purposes,
institutions report only mortgage applications in which they make the
credit decision. Under HMDA, if an application is approved by a third
party (such as a correspondent) rather than the lending institution,
then that party reports the loan as its own origination and the lending
institution reports the loan as a purchased loan. Alternatively, if a
third party forwards an application to the lending institution for
approval, then the lending institution reports the application under
HMDA (and the third party does not report anything). In contrast, Inside
Mortgage Finance considers loans to have been originated by the
acquiring institution even if a third party makes the credit decision.
Thus, many of the larger lending organizations that work with sizable
networks of correspondents report considerable volumes of purchased
loans in the HMDA data, while Inside Mortgage Finance considers many of
these purchased loans to be originations.

To be sure, both market share numbers are important for
understanding the supply side of the mortgage market. The HMDA data, by
focusing on the entity that makes the approval decision, highlight that
the mortgage market continues to be highly decentralized along certain
dimensions, with a large number of relatively small entities operating
at the retail level, working with mortgage applicants, evaluating their
applications, and making lending decisions. That said, overall credit
availability and pricing depend on a multitude of additional factors,
such as government-sponsored enterprise and FHA practices, lenders’
willingness and ability to take risk, competition between wholesale
lenders, and general credit conditions and investor appetite for risk.

Table 13 shows that among the top 10 organizations, many of them
reported a large number of purchased loans in 2011, particularly Wells
Fargo, Bank of America, and Ally Financial. As discussed earlier, many
of these purchases are likely to be from correspondents, though it is
not possible from the HMDA data to determine how many. It is also worth
noting that organizations often turn around and resell loans that they
purchased (see last two columns of table 13).

Finally, the HMDA data indicate that the business strategies among
the top 10 organizations appear to vary considerably. For example,
around 30 percent of Wells Fargo’s and Bank of America’s
originations were for home-purchase loans, compared with less than 10
percent for JPMorgan Chase and Quicken Loans. Citigroup and Ally
Financial concentrated relatively more heavily on refinance loans than
on home-purchase loans. These institutions also differ considerably in
terms of the fraction of loans held in portfolio beyond the year of
origination. (35) For example, U.S. Bancorp and Citigroup each held in
portfolio 40 percent or more of the conventional loans they originated,
compared with less than 10 percent for Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase.
The HMDA data also reveal considerable variation across these larger
lenders in the types of loans (conventional compared with FHA, VA, or
FSA) they tend to extend. For example, about half of the home-purchase
loans reported by Wells Fargo were conventional, whereas about 90
percent of those originated by Citigroup were of this type.

The Credit Scores of Home-Purchase Mortgage Borrowers

Additional information about individuals obtaining mortgages to
purchase homes can be gained by a review of credit record data collected
by credit-reporting agencies. These data can be used to identify
individuals taking out mortgages to finance a home purchase and, among
these, individuals who are first-time homebuyers. Because the credit
record data used here include the credit scores of individuals, we can
use this metric to gauge the credit risk profile of home-purchase
borrowers.

The data are from the FRBNY/Equifax Consumer Credit Panel. The
panel is a nationally representative longitudinal database of
individuals with detailed information, at a quarterly frequency
beginning in 1999, on consumer and mortgage debt and loan performance
drawn from the credit records collected and maintained by Equifax, one
of the three national credit bureaus. (36) The data include three key
pieces of information with respect to this analysis: (1) details on each
mortgage outstanding for a given consumer, including the year of
origination; (2) each consumer’s credit score as of the end of each
quarter; and (3) each consumer’s residential location at the level
of the census block (a subunit of a census tract). (37) The data used
here are through the end of 2011.

Home-purchase loans are not explicitly identified in credit record
data, but the panel nature of the data used here allows us to follow a
given individual over time and infer whether that borrower purchased a
home during any particular period. Specifically, we classify an
individual as a homebuyer if the credit record indicates that he or she
took out a new mortgage and moved to a different location (the credit
record shows that the individual moved from one census block to
another). First-time home-purchase borrowers are identified in a similar
manner, but their credit records must show no evidence of a previous
mortgage. The credit record data show that for home-purchase borrowers
in general, as well as for first-time homebuyers financing their
purchase, the median credit score has increased about 40 points since
2006. Furthermore, median scores now exceed by a considerable margin the
median scores for home-purchase borrowers at any time in the past 12
years (figure 2).

From the perspective of changes in access to credit, a particular
group to focus on is that consisting of individuals with scores in the
bottom decile of all home-purchase borrowers. Here the data show that
the score that delineates the bottom decile has increased nearly 50
points since the end of 2006. Individuals with scores below this
increased threshold are likely to have a very difficult time qualifying
for credit and, if they manage to qualify for a loan, are likely to pay
higher prices. Consistent with this observation, overall, the share of
home-purchase borrowers with scores below 620, a traditional demarcation
line for individuals who are typically characterized as having a credit
history that would be considered subprime, fell from about 19 percent of
borrowers at the end of 2006 to about 7 percent at the end of the third
quarter of 2011 (data not shown in tables).

Lending across Population Groups and Neighborhoods

One of the strengths of the HMDA data is that the annual data can
be merged to track changes in lending activity across population groups
and areas. In this section, we show changes in lending, from 2010 to
2011, to borrowers sorted by income, race, or ethnicity and by the
income or minority population characteristics of the areas where they
reside. We also present an analysis of lending in areas characterized by
their degree of economic distress.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Changes in Lending, 2010 to

2011

As noted earlier, both home-purchase and refinance lending fell
from 2010 to 2011. Virtually all population segments experienced these
declines, although the falloff in activity was more severe for some
groups than for others (table 14, memo items). (38) Across racial or
ethnic groups, all minority populations except Hispanic whites
experienced relatively large declines in activity; Hispanic whites and
non-Hispanic whites both experienced relatively smaller declines in
activity. Lower-income borrowers, those purchasing homes in lower-income
census tracts, and those residing in areas with larger minority
populations also experienced relatively large reductions in
home-purchase lending.

Patterns for refinancing differed from those for home-purchase
lending, as the largest declines were among non-Hispanic whites, middle-
and higher-income borrowers, and those residing in areas with smaller
shares of minorities and populations with relatively higher incomes. The
only group to experience an increase in refinance lending was low-income
borrowers; refinance lending to this population segment increased about
3 percent from 2010 to 2011.

Populations differ considerably in their use of various loan
products. Most notably, black, Hispanic white, and lower-income
borrowers, and those residing in areas with larger shares of minority
populations, use nonconventional loans to purchase homes to a greater
extent than other groups. Greater reliance on nonconventional loans may
reflect the relatively low down-payment requirements of the FHA and VA
lending programs. The HMDA data indicate that all groups were a little
less dependent on nonconventional loans in 2011 than in 2010. Reduced
reliance on nonconventional loans occurred for both home-purchase and
refinance lending.

Credit Circumstances in Distressed Neighborhoods

Since the start of the housing downturn, access to mortgage credit
has been an acute public policy concern, particularly for households
with lower incomes or in neighborhoods that have been hardest hit by
foreclosures. Mortgage originations have declined broadly since 2005,
and, as we discussed in the review of last year’s HMDA data, these
declines have been greater in highly distressed neighborhoods. To
determine if credit has yet begun to flow more freely in such
neighborhoods, we use the HMDA data to compare mortgage credit flows
from 2010 to 2011.

As in last year’s review, we identify distressed neighborhoods
using the scores produced by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) for the NSP. (39) The NSP was created by the Housing
and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 to provide funds for state and local
governments seeking to support neighborhoods with high levels of
property abandonment and foreclosure. In deciding which neighborhoods to
target, HUD uses a statistical model that estimates the likelihood that
the neighborhood is experiencing high rates of foreclosure and mortgage
delinquency. The outputs of this model are used to assign to each tract
an NSP score ranging from 1 to 20, with a higher score indicating a
greater likelihood of distress and with the scores scaled so that each
score point is given to 5 percent of census tracts. While an evaluation
of the success of the NSP itself is well beyond the scope of this
article, we can use these scores to classify census tracts according to
the degree of distress they face.

The change from 2010 to 2011 in home-purchase lending for
owner-occupied properties, broken down by quintiles of the NSP score, is
shown in table 15. Lending declined 7.2 percent overall, though the
declines were substantially greater in high-distress neighborhoods. In
tracts with NSP scores of 17 to 20, home-purchase lending decreased 13.8
percent, compared with 3.3 percent in tracts with NSP scores below 5.
The steeper decline in mortgage credit flows to highly distressed areas
continues a trend that has been observed since the onset of the housing
market downturn.

Differences in the extent of decline are also observed across
borrower income levels. Lending fell more substantially for lower- and
middle-income borrowers (12.3 percent and 11.3 percent, respectively)
than it did for high-income borrowers (3.8 percent). Indeed, for
high-income borrowers, the decline in lending appears unrelated to the
degree of neighborhood distress, as indicated by the nonmonotonic
relationship between lending declines and NSP score quintile. However,
for lower- and middle-income borrowers, the decreases were notably
larger when neighborhood distress increased. Somewhat surprisingly,
lending to middle-income borrowers fell more than it did for
lower-income borrowers in the bottom three quintiles of the NSP score
(scores of 1 to 12). In tracts with NSP scores above 12, lending to
lower-income borrowers fell off by a larger percentage than it did for
high-income borrowers.

Attributing these declines to supply- or demand-side factors is not
straightforward. As shown in table 15, the number of applications for
home-purchase loans fell by slightly more than the number of loan
originations, a pattern that holds for almost all NSP quintiles. The
sharper decline in applications suggests that reduced mortgage flows may
primarily reflect a drop in demand; however, since potential applicants
may have foregone applying because they suspected their application
would be denied, the sharper fall in applications is insufficient to
prove that these declines represent demand-side factors alone. Most
likely, these changes reflect a combination of changes in supply and
demand.

One supply factor that may be influencing how mortgage credit is
flowing is the mix of lenders extending credit. In percentage terms, the
largest changes involved thrift institutions, whose lending fell by
almost one-fourth in 2011, and credit unions, whose lending increased by
over 8 percent. While these institution types accounted for only a small
share of lending in 2011 (13 percent; data not shown in table), in
neither case was there a clear relationship between the change in
lending and the degree of neighborhood distress. Instead, the more rapid
decline in lending to distressed neighborhoods appears to involve
lending by commercial banks and independent mortgage companies. Both
institution types experienced larger declines in lending to tracts with
higher NSP scores. While lending by commercial banks was down in 2011
for all NSP quintiles, lending by independent mortgage companies
increased in tracts in the least amount of distress (the bottom quintile
of NSP scores) in 2011 and fell 11 percent in tracts in the most
distress. Nevertheless, both institution types had a spread of about 15
percentage points between the changes in lending in the highest and
lowest NSP quintiles.

In addition to types of lenders, we can also examine lending
activity by largest lenders. Home-purchase lending by the 10 largest
lenders in 2011 fell more sharply in 2011 (17 percent) than lending by
other financial institutions (2.6 percent). However, lending by both
declined more in highly distressed neighborhoods than in neighborhoods
experiencing less distress.

The results of this analysis suggest that highly distressed
neighborhoods continue to experience reduced mortgage flows, which
mirrors the pattern observed for the 2005-10 period discussed in last
year’s review. These declines were particularly pronounced for
lower-income borrowers. And while it is difficult to apportion these
declines to demand and supply considerations, the sharper declines in
distressed areas appear, for the most part, to have been widespread
across lenders.

Differences in Lending Outcomes by Race, Ethnicity, and Sex of the
Borrower

One reason the Congress amended HMDA in 1989 was to enhance its
value for fair lending enforcement by adding to the items reported the
disposition of applications for loans and the race, ethnicity, and sex
of applicants. A similar motivation underlay the decision to add pricing
data for higher-priced loans in 2004, although such data serve other
purposes, including to help identify lenders active in the higher-cost
or higher-risk segments of the mortgage market and provide information
on the volume and locations of borrowers receiving higher-priced loans.

Over the years, analyses of HMDA data have consistently found
substantial differences in the incidence of higher-priced lending and in
application denial rates across racial and ethnic lines, differences
that cannot be fully explained by factors included in the HMDA data.
(40) Analyses also have found that differences across groups in mean APR
spreads paid by those with higher-priced loans were generally small.
(41) Here we examine the 2011 HMDA data to determine the extent to which
these differences persist.

The analysis here presents aggregated lending outcomes across all
reporting institutions. Patterns for any given financial institution may
differ from those shown, and for any given financial institution,
relationships may vary by loan product, geographic market, and loan
purpose. Further, although the HMDA data include some detailed
information about each mortgage transaction, many key factors that are
considered by lenders in credit underwriting and pricing are not
included. Accordingly, it is not possible to determine from HMDA data
alone whether racial and ethnic pricing disparities reflect illegal
discrimination. However, analysis using the HMDA data can account for
some factors that are likely related to the lending process. Given that
lenders offer a wide variety of loan products for which basic terms and
underwriting criteria

can differ substantially, the analysis here can only be viewed as
suggestive.

Comparisons of average outcomes (both loan pricing and denials) for
each racial, ethnic, or gender group are made both before and after
accounting for differences in the borrower-related factors contained in
the HMDA data (income; loan amount; location of the property, or MSA;
and presence of a co-applicant) and for differences in borrower-related
factors plus the specific lending institution used by the borrower. (42)
Comparisons for lending outcomes across groups are of three types: gross
(or “unmodified”), modified to account for borrower-related
factors (or “borrower modified”), and modified to account for
borrower-related factors plus lender (or “lender modified”).43
The analysis here distinguishes between conventional and nonconventional
lending, reflecting the different underwriting standards and fees
associated with these two broad loan product categories. (44)

Incidence of Higher-Priced Lending by Race and Ethnicity and Sex

As noted earlier, 2010 was the first HMDA reporting year for which
all of the loans subject to higher-priced loan reporting used the new
Freddie Mac PMMS threshold (the PMMS threshold was also used for the
last three months of 2009). Before October 1, 2009, a Treasury-based
threshold was used. The change in threshold makes it problematic to
compare the reported incidence of higher-priced lending in 2010 or 2011
with the incidence reported for previous years. Nevertheless, in
previous articles, we have employed a methodology that adjusted the
Treasury-based spread to a spread over the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage
APOR reported in the PMMS. For almost all of the period from 2006 to
2009, this methodology gave a good approximation of the incidence of
loans with APOR spreads more than 1.75 percentage points above the PMMS
(25 basis points higher than the cutoff for higher-priced reporting in
2010). Calculations using the “adjusted spread” showed that
the estimated incidence of loans more than 1.75 percentage points above
the PMMS is significantly reduced from 2006 to 2008 for all racial and
ethnic groups and that the differences across groups are considerably
smaller since 2008 than in the years prior. (45) Data reported for the
last three months of 2009 using the new threshold showed only modest
differences across groups.

As noted earlier, the overall reported incidence of higher-priced
lending was about 50 basis points higher in 2011 than in 2010 (data for
2010 not shown in tables). Pricing relationships observed in the 2011
HMDA data are very similar to those found in the 2010 data. The 2011
HMDA data indicate that black and Hispanic-white borrowers are more
likely, and Asian borrowers less likely, to obtain conventional loans
with prices above the HMDA price-reporting thresholds than are
non-Hispanic white borrowers. These relationships hold both for
home-purchase and refinance lending and for nonconventional loans
(tables 16.A and 16.B). For example, for conventional home-purchase
lending in 2011, the incidence of higher-priced lending was 7.8 percent
for black borrowers, 7.3 percent for Hispanic white borrowers, and 1.3
percent for Asian borrowers, compared with 3.9 percent for non-Hispanic
white borrowers.

The gross differences in the incidence of higher-priced lending
between non-Hispanic whites and blacks or Hispanic whites in 2011 are
significantly reduced, but not completely eliminated, after controlling
for lender and borrower characteristics. For example, the gross 2011
difference in the incidence of higher-priced conventional lending for
home-purchase loans between Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic whites of
3.4 percentage points falls to only about 0.55 percentage point when the
other factors available within the HMDA data are accounted for. The
large gap in pricing between blacks and non-Hispanic whites is similarly
reduced when other factors are considered. The pricing disparities
across groups are significantly lower than the higher-priced incidence
disparities observed from 2004 to 2007 using both the old Treasury-based
threshold and our PMMS-based adjusted spread.

With regard to the gender of applicants, we find relatively small
differences in the incidence of higher-priced lending between single
applicants of different genders and dual applicants of different genders
once all available factors are taken into account.

Rate Spreads by Race, Ethnicity, and Sex

The 2011 data indicate that among borrowers with higher-priced
loans, the gross APOR spreads are similar across groups for both
home-purchase and refinance lending. This result holds for both
conventional (table 17.A) and nonconventional lending (table 17.B). For
example, for conventional home-purchase loans, the gross mean APOR
spread was 2.49 percentage points for black borrowers and 2.76
percentage points for Hispanic white borrowers, while it was 2.49
percentage points for non-Hispanic white borrowers and 2.41 percentage
points for Asian borrowers. Accounting for borrower-related factors or
the specific lender used by the borrowers has little effect on the
differences across groups.

Denial Rates by Race, Ethnicity, and Sex

Analyses of the HMDA data in previous years have consistently found
that denial rates vary across applicants grouped by race or ethnicity.
This continues to be the case in 2011. As in past years, blacks and
Hispanic whites had notably higher gross denial rates in 2011 than
non-Hispanic whites, while the differences between Asians and
non-Hispanic whites generally were fairly small by comparison (tables
18.A and 18.B). For example, the denial rates for conventional
home-purchase loans were 30.9 percent for blacks, 21.7 percent for
Hispanic whites, 14.8 percent for Asians, and 11.9 percent for
non-Hispanic whites. The pattern was about the same for nonconventional
home-purchase lending, although the gap in gross denial rates between
blacks or Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic whites was notably smaller
than for conventional home-purchase loans.

For both conventional and nonconventional home-purchase lending,
controlling for borrower-related factors in the HMDA data generally
reduces the differences among racial and ethnic groups. Accounting for
the specific lender used by the applicant reduces differences further,
although unexplained differences remain between non-Hispanic whites and
other racial and ethnic groups. An analysis of refinance loans shows
similar patterns, although the differences in gross denial rates between
blacks and non-Hispanic whites and between Hispanic whites and
non-Hispanic whites tend to be larger than for home-purchase lending.
For example, the gross difference between black and non-Hispanic-white
borrowers refinancing using a conventional loan was 20.5 percentage
points.

Some Limitations of the Data in Assessing Fair Lending Compliance

Previous research and experience gained in the fair lending
enforcement process show that unexplained differences in the incidence
of higher-priced lending and in denial rates among racial or ethnic
groups stem, at least in part, from credit-related factors not available
in the HMDA data, such as credit history (including credit scores),
loan-to-value ratios, and differences in loan characteristics.
Differential costs of loan origination and the competitive environment
also may bear on the differences in pricing, as may differences across
populations in credit-shopping activities.

Despite these limitations, the HMDA data play an important role in
fair lending enforcement. The data are regularly used by bank examiners
to facilitate the fair lending examination and enforcement processes.
When examiners for the federal banking agencies evaluate an
institution’s fair lending risk, they analyze HMDA price data and
loan application outcomes in conjunction with other information and risk
factors that can be drawn directly from loan files or electronic records
maintained by lenders, as directed by the Interagency Fair Lending
Examination Procedures. (46) The availability of broader information
allows the examiners to draw firm conclusions about institution
compliance with the fair lending laws.

It is important to keep in mind that the HMDA data, as currently
constituted, can be used only to detect differences in pricing across
groups for loans with APRs above the reporting threshold; pricing
differences may exist among loans below the threshold. This gap in the
loan pricing information will be addressed in coming years as the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau implements the expanded data
reporting requirements set forth in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, including the provision requiring
the reporting of rate spread information for all loans.

Assessing the Accuracy of Borrower Income Reported in the HMDA Data

During the housing boom of the 2000s, one underwriting practice
that proliferated was the granting of mortgages with little or no
documentation of income and assets. To investigate the extent to which
borrower incomes may have been overstated on mortgage applications as a
result of such practices, we compare the incomes reported for
home-purchase borrowers in the HMDA data with the incomes of homebuyers
taking out mortgages reported in Census 2000 and the ACS for 2005
through 2010. (47) While incentives to overstate income on mortgage
applications sometimes exist, no such incentive exists when reporting
income for the census or ACS. Thus, the Census 2000 and ACS data may
provide “true” measures of income of homebuyers with which to
gauge the accuracy of income reported on mortgage applications. (48)

The Census Bureau annually conducts the ACS, a household survey
gathering a wide variety of information, including overall family
income, homeownership status, and mortgage status. Because the survey
was conducted on a somewhat smaller scale prior to 2005, we use only ACS
data for 2005 and after, and we use Census 2000 data to measure borrower
income at the beginning of the decade. (49) For each year of the
analysis, we compute average family income at the state level for
home-purchase borrowers in the HMDA data and for families in the ACS and
Census 2000 data that appear to have recently purchased their home with
a mortgage (those that reported they own their home, have a mortgage,
and moved in the past year). (50) We then compute the ratio of HMDA
income to ACS income (or, from Census 2000, census income), state by
state and for three different periods: 2000, 2005 to 2006, and 2009 to
2010. Ratios substantially greater than 1 imply widespread overstatement
of income on mortgage applications.

Figure 3 suggests that income on mortgage applications was widely
overstated in a number of states in 2005 and 2006, particularly
California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nevada, and New York. In these
states, average borrower income as reflected in the HMDA data was 30
percent or more above the average ACS borrower income. In contrast, HMDA
borrower income was no more than 10 percent above borrower income as
reported in Census 2000 in almost all states. Finally, in 2009 and 2010,
we observe a return to consistent incomes across data sources, with
borrower incomes reported in HMDA and the ACS within 10 percent of each
other in almost every state.

Users of the HMDA data should be aware that borrower income was
likely significantly overstated during the peak of the housing boom,
particularly in some areas of the country. One potential implication of
this finding is that lending to lower-income borrowers, as measured in
the HMDA data, may be attenuated around the peak of the housing market.

Transition to the 2010 Census Data and Revised Census-Tract
Boundaries

Census data are used to evaluate the performance of lending
institutions in complying with the CRA and the nation’s fair
lending laws. For example, family income data derived from the census
are used to categorize census tracts by their relative median family
income, and race and ethnicity data are used to characterize the
minority population status of census tracts and other geographies. (51)
In the CRA context, the relative income of census tracts is used to
identify which census tracts are considered lower income (low or
moderate income) and, as a consequence, a focus of CRA attention. In the
fair lending enforcement context, census-tract minority population
characteristics are used, for example, to help detect potential
redlining behavior, where, for example, a lender has a policy or
practice that results in little or no lending in a geographic area
because of its racial or ethnic composition.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

Using census sources to identify income, population, and housing
characteristics of census tracts and broader areas has become more
complicated recently. Unlike Census 2000, which used a survey
questionnaire that asked a great many detailed questions (often referred
to as the “long form”), the 2010 census used a brief
questionnaire (referred to as the “short form”). In
particular, the 2010 census focused on gathering household population
counts and race, ethnicity, sex, and age characteristic information, but
it provides relatively little other information–and no data on
household or family income.

In lieu of collecting extensive detailed information from every
household once a decade in conjunction with the decennial census, the
Census Bureau now annually conducts the ACS. The ACS collects detailed
population, income, and housing information from a representative sample
of about 3 million households using a long-form questionnaire. Because
of a relatively small sample size, the annual ACS data do not provide
sufficient information to establish reliable estimates of census-tract
characteristics. However, the Census Bureau aggregates ACS data across
years and publishes data for each census tract based on the most recent
five-year combined ACS data. The first five-year ACS aggregate data made
available were derived from the 2005-09 annual surveys and used the
census-tract boundaries established for Census 2000. The more recent
2006-10 combined ACS data were released to the public in December 2011
and are available from the FFIEC at its HMDA website. The 2006-10 ACS
data use the census-tract boundaries created for the 2010 census. Using
five-year aggregated data derived from the ACS, it is possible to
categorize each census tract by its relative median family income.

FFIEC Treatment of Updated Census and ACS Data

The FFIEC has announced that, for purposes of preparing HMDA
disclosure reports and for CRA performance evaluations, the 2006-10 ACS
data will be used to classify census tracts by relative median family
income and that these classifications will not be changed for a period
of five years. (52) Five years hence, updated relative-income
information will be derived from the combined 2011-15 ACS data, and
census tracts will be reclassified according to their updated income
profiles. Although, in principle, annual updates from the ACS could be
used to reclassify census tracts by their relative incomes each year,
the potential movement of census tracts from one relative-income
category to another would greatly complicate CRA enforcement and make it
difficult for lending institutions to plan and monitor their own
activities.

A key aspect of the HMDA reporting rules is the requirement that
lenders identify the census-tract locations of the properties involved
in the applications and loans they report on each year. The 2011 HMDA
data used census tracts as enumerated for Census 2000 and do not reflect
any of the updated 2010 census or ACS data. Census-tract identifiers for
the forthcoming 2012 HMDA data will be those enumerated for the 2010
census: Analysis of these data will use the 2010 census data and the
2006-10 ACS data.

There were substantial changes in the number and boundaries of
census tracts between the 2000 and 2010 censuses. As a consequence of
population growth and migration, as well as other factors, such as new
road construction, the 2010 census includes many more census tracts than
Census 2000, and the geographic areas of many census tracts used for
Census 2000 have been altered. Overall, Census 2000 included about
66,300 census tracts; the 2010 census includes about 74,000 census
tracts. About 46 percent of the 2010 census tracts have the same
geographic boundaries as in 2000, and about 72 percent have a land area
that is 95 percent or more identical to the area in 2000. For purposes
of this article, the census tracts that have 2010 areas that are 95
percent or more the same as in 2000 are referred to as
“substantially similar” census tracts.

The shift from the 2000 to the 2010 census has important
implications for those using the HMDA data. Perhaps most important is
the possibility that a loan related to a given property may have been
identified as being in a census tract in a particular relative-income
group one year, but a loan on that same property may be reclassified
into a different relative-income category the next year simply because
of the shift from the income data based on Census 2000 to the income
data based on the 2006-10 ACS. Reclassification could occur because the
income profile of the population in the census tract has changed
(altering the numerator in the relative-income calculation), because the
income profile of the broader area has changed (altering the denominator
in the relative-income classification), or both.

Evaluating the Effects of Census Data Changes

In order to gauge the potential effects of census data changes on
the classification of lending activity, we undertook some simulations
using the 2011 HMDA data. The analysis here focuses on the
reclassification of census tracts due to changes in their relative
family incomes and the reclassification of home lending (of all types)
due to the reclassification of the census tracts where the properties
associated with the loans are located. Because the location of branch
offices may influence an institution’s home-lending activity and
because branch locations are an important component of CRA performance
evaluations, we also assess the effects of the census data changes on
branch office classification by census-tract income. Unlike lending,
where an institution can potentially alter the geographic pattern of the
home loan applications it receives by changes in marketing, outreach to
real estate agents and homebuilders, and other techniques, branch office
locations cannot be readily changed.

We evaluate the “pure” effects of updated population
income estimates by comparing census-tract income classifications using
Census 2000 data with classifications derived from the 2005-09 ACS
surveys. Both Census 2000 and the 2005-09 ACS use the same census-tract
boundaries. Also, to ensure that changes in MSA boundaries over the
course of the past decade do not affect the analysis, we use the
census-tract relative-income classifications as carried on the 2011
FFIEC HMDA data files. These files reflect the 2000 decennial estimates
of median family income for each census tract but use current MSA
boundary definitions. Thus, the only factors that can affect our
estimates of income reclassifications are the updates to census-tract or
broader area median family incomes that come about because of changes in
family income estimates from shifting from Census 2000 to the more
recent data based on the 2005-09 ACS. (53)

Census-Tract Reclassification

Our analysis indicates that the transition from the Census 2000 to
the 2005-09 ACS data for classifying census tracts by relative income
would result in significant changes in census-tract income category
classification. For example, 17 percent of the census tracts that were
classified as moderate income using the 2000 income data would be
reclassified as middle income, and 1 percent would be reclassified as
higher income (table 19). Because these census tracts would no longer be
classified as falling in the lower-income category, lending and other
activities, including branch office locations, in these census tracts
would no longer be a focus of CRA attention. However, about 15 percent
of middle-income census tracts would be reclassified as moderate income,
and activities in these census tracts would gain emphasis in CRA
performance evaluations.

Loan Reclassification

Results are similar when the analysis considers reclassification of
home loans instead of census tracts, but some of the transitions are
more pronounced. An analysis using the Census 2000 and the 2005-09 ACS
data indicates that about 24 percent of the home loans extended in 2011
and classified as falling in moderate-income census tracts would
transition and be reclassified as falling in a middle-income census
tract and that 2 percent of the loans would transition to a
higher-income census tract. At the same time, about 9 percent of the
loans falling in middle-income areas would be reclassified as falling in
moderate-income areas. However, in terms of the absolute number of
loans, had the new census-tract relative-income classifications been
used in 2011, there would have been a net increase in mortgage lending
to low- and moderate-income neighborhoods of about 150,000 loans, about
22 percent higher than the number of LMI loans in 2011 under current
census-tract relative-income classifications (data derived from table
19).

Branch Office Reclassification

For our analysis of the effects of the transition from the Census
2000 to the ACS-based data on the classification of branch offices by
census-tract relative income, we use the location of branch offices as
reported in the Summary of Deposits (SOD) as of June 30, 2011. The SOD
is an annual survey, compiled by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC), of branch office deposits for all FDIC-insured
banking institutions. (54) The data include the location (state, county,
and census tract) of each branch (and headquarters) office and the
dollar amount of deposits that are allocated to that branch by the
banking institution. For this exercise, we excluded the locations of
automated teller machines (ATMs). Although ATMs are considered in CRA
performance evaluations under the “services test,” it seems
unlikely that ATM locations have much influence on home-lending
activity, the main focus of this article. (55) In total, the branch
office analysis included about 98,000 branch offices.

As in the analysis of census tracts and home lending described
earlier, our analysis of branch office reclassification indicates that
the switch from Census 2000 data to the more recent ACS-based income
data would have a notable effect on the classification of branch offices
by census-tract relative income. For example, 20 percent of the branch
offices that were classified as located in a moderate-income census
tract using the 2000 income data would be reclassified as middle income,
and 2 percent would be reclassified as higher income, using the 2005-09
ACS data. Because these branch offices would no longer be classified as
located in lower-income census tracts, they would no longer be a focus
of CRA attention. However, about 14 percent of branches classified as
being located in middle-income census tracts based on Census 2000 data
would be reclassified as being located in moderate-income census tracts,
and consequently, these offices would gain emphasis in CRA performance
evaluations. Because there are more branch offices in middle-income
census tracts than in low- or moderate-income census tracts, the
transition to the updated census information will result in a net
increase of about 3,400 branch offices in areas that are the focus of
CRA attention.

Appendix A: Requirements of Regulation C

The Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation C requires lenders to
report the following information on home-purchase and home-improvement
loans and on refinancings:

For each application or loan

* application date and the date an action was taken on the
application

* action taken on the application

–approved and originated

–approved but not accepted by the applicant

–denied (with the reasons for denial–voluntary for some lenders)

–withdrawn by the applicant

–file closed for incompleteness

* preapproval program status (for home-purchase loans only)

–preapproval request denied by financial institution

–preapproval request approved but not accepted by individual

* loan amount

* loan type

–conventional

–insured by the Federal Housing Administration

–guaranteed by the Department of Veterans Affairs

–backed by the Farm Service Agency or Rural Housing Service

* lien status

–first lien

–junior lien

–unsecured

* loan purpose

–home purchase

–refinance

–home improvement

* type of purchaser (if the lender subsequently sold the loan
during the year)

–Fannie Mae

–Ginnie Mae

–Freddie Mac

–Farmer Mac

–private securitization

–commercial bank, savings bank, or savings association

–life insurance company, credit union, mortgage bank, or finance
company

–affiliate institution

–other type of purchaser

For each applicant or co-applicant

* race

* ethnicity

* sex

* income relied on in credit decision

For each property

* location, by state, county, metropolitan statistical area, and
census tract

* type of structure

–one- to four-family dwelling

–manufactured home

–multifamily property (dwelling with five or more units)

* occupancy status (owner occupied, non-owner occupied, or not
applicable)

For loans subject to price reporting

* spread above comparable Treasury security for applications taken
prior to October 1, 2010

* spread above average prime offer rate for applications taken on
or after October 1, 2010

For loans subject to the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act

* indicator of whether loan is subject to the Home Ownership and
Equity Protection Act

Robert B. Avery, Neil Bhutta, Kenneth P. Brevoort, and Glenn B.
Canner, of the Division of Research and Statistics, prepared this
article. Nicholas W. Henning and Shira E. Stolarsky provided research
assistance.

(1) A brief history of HMDA is available at Federal Financial
Institutions Examination Council, “History of HMDA,” webpage,
www.ffiec.gov/hmda/history2.htm.

(2) It is estimated that the HMDA data cover about 90 to 95 percent
of Federal Housing Administration lending and between 75 and 85 percent
of other first-lien home loans. See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Office of Policy Development and Research (2011), “A
Look at the FHA’s Evolving Market Shares by Race and
Ethnicity,” U.S. Housing Market Conditions (May), pp. 6-12,
www.huduser.org/portal/periodicals/ushmc/ spring11/USHMC_1q11.pdf.

(3) A list of the items reported under HMDA for 2011 is provided in
appendix A. The 2011 HMDA data reflect property locations using the
census-tract geographic boundaries created for the 2000 decennial
census. The 2012 HMDA data will use the census-tract boundaries
constructed for the 2010 decennial census. Thus, in this article,
census-tract population and housing characteristics reflect the
geographies established for the 2000 census data.

(4) For information about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
see www.consumerfinance.gov.

(5) The FFIEC (www.ffiec.gov) was established by federal law in
1979 as an interagency body to prescribe uniform examination procedures,
and to promote uniform supervision, among the federal agencies
responsible for the examination and supervision of financial
institutions. The member agencies are the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union
Administration, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and
representatives from state bank supervisory agencies. Under agreements
with these agencies and the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
the Federal Reserve Board collects and processes the HMDA data.

(6) For the 2011 data, the FFIEC prepared and made available to the
public 48,347 MSA-specific HMDA reports on behalf of reporting
institutions. The FFIEC also makes available to the public similar
reports about private mortgage insurance (PMI) activity. The costs
incurred by the FFIEC to process the annual PMI data and make reports
available to the public are borne by the PMI industry. All of the HMDA
and PMI reports are available on the FFIEC’s reports website at
www.ffiec.gov/reports.htm.

The designation of MSAs is not static. From time to time, the
Office of Management and Budget updates the list and geographic scope of
metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas. See Office of
Management and Budget, “Statistical Programs and Standards,”
webpage, www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_statpolicy.

(7) The only reported items not included in the data made available
to the public are the loan application number, the date of the
application, and the date on which action was taken on the application.

(8) Some lenders file amended HMDA reports, which are not reflected
in the initial public data release. A “final” HMDA data set
reflecting these changes is created two years following the initial data
release. The data used to prepare this article are drawn from the
initial public release for 2011 and from the “final” HMDA data
set for years prior to that. Consequently, numbers in this article for
the years 2010 and earlier may differ somewhat from numbers calculated
from the initial public release files.

(9) For the 2012 reporting year (covering lending in 2011), the
minimum asset size for purposes of coverage was $40 million. The minimum
asset size changes from year to year with changes in the Consumer Price
Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. See the FFIEC’s
guide to HMDA reporting at www.ffiec.gov/hmda/ guide.htm.

(10) There were 138 institutions that ceased operations and did not
report lending activity for 2011, but these non-reporting companies
accounted for only 0.89 percent of the 2010 loan application records
submitted under HMDA.

(11) Lenders report the date on which they took action on an
application. For originations, the “action date” is the
closing date or date of origination for the loan. This date is used to
compile data at the monthly level. Generally, the interest rate on a
loan is set at an earlier point, known as the “lock date.” The
interest rate series in the figure is constructed from the results of a
survey of interest rates being offered by lenders to prime borrowers.
Since a loan’s pricing likely reflects the interest rate available
at the time of the lock date, the timing of the loan volume and interest
rate series may be slightly misaligned in the figure.

(12) Those entering into binding contracts to purchase their homes
by April 30, 2010, were eligible for the tax credit. For more
information, see Internal Revenue Service, “First-Time Homebuyer
Credit,” webpage, www.irs.gov/
newsroom/article/0″id=204671,00.html.

(13) Our analysis in an earlier article suggested that one-half of
the home-purchase loans in 2009 qualified under the first-time homebuyer
tax credit program. See Robert B. Avery, Neil Bhutta, Kenneth P.
Brevoort, Christa Gibbs, and Glenn B. Canner (2010), “The 2009 HMDA
Data: The Mortgage Market in a Time of Low Interest Rates and Economic
Distress,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, vol. 96 (December), pp.
A39-A77.

(14) See National Association of Realtors (2011), “NAR Home
Buyer and Seller Survey Reflects Tight Credit Conditions,” news
release, November 11,
www.realtor.org/news-releases/2011/11/nar-home-buyer-and-seller-surveyreflects-tight-credit- conditions.

(15) See analysis of the factors influencing refinance activity in
Robert B. Avery, Neil Bhutta, Kenneth P. Brevoort, and Glenn B. Canner
(2011), “The Mortgage Market in 2010: Highlights from the Data
Reported under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act,” Federal Reserve
Bulletin, vol. 97 (December), pp. 1-60.

(16) See United Press International (2012), “Investor
Purchases Soar 65 Percent,” UPI.com, March 30, www.upi
.com/Business_News/Real-Estate/News/2012/03/30/Investor-Purchases-Soar-65-Percent/9321333117717.

(17) Research using credit record data suggests that in states that
experienced the largest run-up in home prices, investors accounted for
about one-half of the home-purchase loans. See Andrew Haughwout,
Donghoon Lee, Joseph Tracy, and Wilbert van der Klaauw (2011),
“Real Estate Investors, the Leverage Cycle, and the Housing Market
Crisis,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports 514 (New
York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, September),
www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr514.pdf.

(18) Nonconventional loans play a small role in certain segments of
the home-purchase market. For example, nonconventional loans accounted
for less than 1 percent of the loans extended to non-owner occupants for
the purchase of a home in 2011. Also, nonconventional loans made up a
relatively small share (about 24 percent) of the loans used to purchase
manufactured homes (data derived from table 5).

(19) For more-detailed analysis on the rise of government-backed
lending in recent years, see Avery and others, “The 2009 HMDA
Data.”

(20) In 1993, the Mortgage Insurance Companies of America, a trade
association, asked the FFIEC to process data from the largest PMI
companies on applications for mortgage insurance. These data largely
mirror the types of information submitted by lenders covered by HMDA.
However, because the PMI companies do not receive all of the information
about a prospective loan from the lenders seeking insurance coverage,
some items reported under HMDA are not included in the PMI data. In
particular, loan pricing information and requests for preapproval are
unavailable in the PMI data. In the PMI data, the reported disposition
of an application for insurance reflects the actions of the PMI
companies or, in the case of a withdrawal of an application, the action
of the lender.

(21) For a more detailed analysis of the decline in PMI issuance,
see Avery and others, “The 2009 HMDA Data.”

(22) For the other applications that did not result in a policy
being written, either the application was withdrawn, the application
file closed because it was not completed, or the request was approved
but no policy was issued.

(23) Unless a junior lien is used for home purchase or explicitly
for home improvements, or to refinance an existing lien, it is not
reported under HMDA. Further, home equity lines of credit, many of which
are junior liens, do not have to be reported in the HMDA data regardless
of the purpose of the loan.

(24) Although one of the few sources of information on loan sales,
the HMDA data tend to understate the importance of the secondary market.
HMDA reporters are instructed to record loans sold in a calendar year
different from the year originated as being held in portfolio, leading
the reported loan sales to understate the proportion of each year’s
originations that are eventually sold.

(25) Some loans recorded as sold in the HMDA data are sold to
affiliated institutions and thus are not true secondary-market sales. In
2011, 8.6 percent of the loans recorded as sold in the HMDA data were
sales to affiliates.

(26) See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2012),
Quarterly Report to Congress on FHA Single-Family Mutual Mortgage
Insurance Fund Programs, FY2011 Q4 (Washington: HUD, January 31),
http:// portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/rmra/oe/rpts/rtc/fhartcqtrly.

(27) The information provided in the tables is identical to that
provided in analyses of earlier years of HMDA data. Comparisons of the
numbers in the tables with those in tables from earlier years, including
statistics on denial rates, can be made by consulting the following
articles: Avery and others, “The Mortgage Market in 2010”;
Avery and others, “The 2009 HMDA Data”; and Robert B. Avery,
Neil Bhutta, Kenneth P. Brevoort, Glenn B. Canner, and Christa N. Gibbs
(2010), “The 2008 HMDA Data: The Mortgage Market during a Turbulent
Year,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, vol. 96 (April), pp. A169-A211.
Also see Robert B. Avery, Kenneth P. Brevoort, and Glenn B. Canner
(2008), “The 2007 HMDA Data,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, vol.
94 (December), pp. A107-A146; Robert B. Avery, Kenneth P. Brevoort, and
Glenn B. Canner (2007), “The 2006 HMDA Data,” Federal Reserve
Bulletin, vol. 93 (December), pp. A73-A109; Robert B. Avery, Kenneth P.
Brevoort, and Glenn B. Canner (2006), “Higher-Priced Home Lending
and the 2005 HMDA Data,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, vol. 92
(September), pp. A123-A166; and Robert B. Avery, Glenn B. Canner, and
Robert E. Cook (2005),”New Information Reported under HMDA and Its
Application in Fair Lending Enforcement,” Federal Reserve Bulletin,
vol. 91 (Summer), pp. 344-94.

(28) For more about the rule changes related to higher-priced
lending, see Avery and others, “The 2009 HMDA Data.”

(29) See Freddie Mac, “Weekly Primary Mortgage Market Survey
(PMMS),” webpage, www.freddiemac.com/ pmms; and Federal Financial
Institutions Examination Council, “New FFIEC Rate Spread
Calculator,” webpage, www.ffiec.gov/ratespread/newcalc.aspx.

(30) In previous articles exploring the distortions created by the
old loan pricing classification methodology (see Avery and others,
“The 2009 HMDA Data”), we used an adjustment technique that
tried to address those distortions. The adjustment technique was similar
to the new reporting rules, though it was also clearly inferior to them
and could not have been implemented without access to date information,
which is not part of the public use file. Without this adjustment,
comparison of higher-priced data for loans covered by the old reporting
rules with such data for loans covered by the new ones is not
appropriate. Even with the adjustment, it is not possible to adjust the
data for loans reported under the old rules to make them fully
comparable to data reported under the new rules. For this reason, we
restrict our discussion here to the 2010 and 2011 data.

(31) Unlike the threshold rules used to report higher-priced loans,
the threshold rules used to identify HOEPA loans did not change between
2009 and 2010, and thus the 2011 number of HOEPA loans is comparable to
those of earlier years.

(32) HOEPA does not apply to home-purchase loans.

(33) For example, see Dakin Campbell and Hugh Son (2012),
“Wells Fargo Dominates Home Lending as BofA Retreats:
Mortgages,” Bloomberg, May 3,
www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-03/wells-fargo-dominates-homelending-as-bofa- retreats-mortgages.html.

(34) We include all first-lien originations recorded in the HMDA
data, regardless of purpose, loan type, or property type.

(35) For this analysis, we consider only those loans originated in
the first three quarters of the year; loans originated in the last
quarter of the year are less likely to be reported as sold simply
because there is not much time to sell the loan.

(36) The data are drawn using a methodology to ensure that the same
individuals can be tracked over time, and that the data are
representative of all individuals with a credit record as of the end of
each quarter. For more information on these data, see Donghoon Lee and
Wilbert van der Klaauw (2010), “An Introduction to the FRBNY
Consumer Credit Panel,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff
Reports 479 (New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, November),
www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr479.pdf. It is important to
note that all individuals in the database are anonymous: Names, street
addresses, and Social Security numbers are not included in the data.
Individuals are distinguished and can be linked over time through a
unique, anonymous consumer identification number assigned by Equifax.

(37) This credit score is generated from the Equifax Risk Score 3.0
model. The Equifax Risk Score 3.0 is a credit score produced from a
general-purpose risk model that predicts the likelihood an individual
will become 90 days or more delinquent on any account within 24 months
after the score is calculated. The Equifax Risk Score 3.0 ranges from
280 to 850, with a higher score corresponding to lower relative risk
(for more information, see www.equifax.com). For the exercise here, we
track the credit score of each individual as of the quarter before he or
she took out a mortgage. Although the lender may have used a different
score to underwrite the loan, it is likely that the scores used here are
reflective of such scores.

(38) Changes in lending to different groups over the 2006-10 period
were presented in an earlier article. See Avery and others, “The
Mortgage Market in 2010.”

(39) See Avery and others, “The Mortgage Market in 2010.”

(40) See Avery, Brevoort, and Canner, “The 2006 HMDA
Data”; Avery, Brevoort, and Canner, “Higher-Priced Home
Lending and the 2005 HMDA Data”; and Avery, Canner, and Cook,
“New Information Reported under HMDA.”

(41) See, for example, Andrew Haughwout, Christopher Mayer, and
Joseph Tracy (2009), “Subprime Mortgage Pricing: The Impact of
Race, Ethnicity, and Gender on the Cost of Borrowing,” Federal
Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports 368 (New York: Federal Reserve
Bank of New York, April), www.newyorkfed.org/research/
staff_reports/sr368.pdf; and Marsha J. Courchane (2007), “The
Pricing of Home Mortgage Loans to Minority Borrowers: How Much of the
APR Differential Can We Explain?” Journal of Real Estate Research,
vol. 29 (4), pp. 399-439.

(42) Excluded from the analysis are applicants residing outside the
50 states and the District of Columbia as well as applications deemed to
be business related. Applicant gender is controlled for in the racial
and ethnic analyses, and race and ethnicity are controlled for in the
analyses of gender differences.

(43) For purposes of presentation, the borrower- and
lender-modified outcomes shown in the tables are normalized so that, for
the base comparison group (non-Hispanic whites in the case of comparison
by race and ethnicity and males in the case of comparison by sex), the
mean at each modification level is the same as the gross mean.

(44) Although results here are reported for nonconventional lending
as a whole, the analysis controls for the specific type of
government-backed loan program (FHA, VA, or FSA/RHS) used by the
borrower or loan applicant.

(45) See Avery and others, “The 2008 HMDA Data.”

(46) The Interagency Fair Lending Examination Procedures are
available at www.ffiec.gov/PDF/fairlend.pdf.

(47) Others have conducted similar research, comparing HMDA data
with American Housing Survey data for the years 1995 through 2007. Our
analysis confirms and expands on theirs by comparing HMDA data with a
different data source and by extending the analysis through 2010. See
McKinley L. Blackburn and Todd Vermilyea (2012), “The Prevalence
and Impact of Misstated Incomes on Mortgage Loan Applications,”
Journal of Housing Economics, vol. 21 (June), pp. 151-68.

(48) There are circumstances when applicants for mortgages do not
need to report all income to a prospective lender in order to qualify
for a home loan. As such, incomes reported on mortgage applications tend
to be lower than actual total household income in the absence of
deliberately overstated income.

(49) Census 2000 and ACS microdata were extracted from Steven
Ruggles, J. Trent Alexander, Katie Genadek, Ronald Goeken, Matthew B.
Schroeder, and Matthew Sobek (2010), Integrated Public Use Microdata
Series: Version 5.0 (machine-readable database) (Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota).

(50) We use data only for metropolitan counties reported in the ACS
and census microdata. This restriction helps ensure comparability
between the two data sources since the HMDA data provide much better
coverage of mortgage originations in metropolitan areas. In addition,
results were suppressed for states with fewer than 50 households
contributing to the statewide figure.

(51) Relative income is the ratio of the census-tract median family
income to the median family income of the broader area (either the MSA
or the nonmetropolitan portion of the state) where the census tract is
located.

(52) For a discussion of the shift to the 2006-10 ACS data for
census-tract relative-income classification, see Federal Financial
Institutions Examination Council (2011), “FFIEC Announces the Use
of American Community Survey Data in Its Census Data Files,” press
release, October 19, www.ffiec.gov/press/pr101911_ACS.htm. The
classification may change if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
establishes new MSAs or alters the boundaries of existing MSAs. The OMB
is scheduled to release new MSA delineations in 2013.

(53) Using the 2005-09 ACS income data in this exercise is not
ideal since the actual income estimates used for CRA and HMDA purposes
will be obtained from the 2006-10 ACS data. To address the possibility
that the 2005-09 ACS income data and the 2006-10 ACS income data for
individual census tracts differ significantly, and consequently affect
reclassification estimates, we conducted a second analysis that is
limited to the subset of census tracts that have substantially similar
boundaries as defined for the 2000 and 2010 censuses. Results are in the
final six columns of table 19. As shown in the table, the patterns are
very similar whether the analysis is done using the 2005-09 ACS data and
the 2000 census-tract boundaries or the 2006-10 ACS data using only the
substantially similar census tracts.

(54) See Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, “Summary of
Deposits,” webpage, www2.fdic.gov/sod.

(55) CRA compliance evaluations focus on three aspects of
performance: lending, services, and investment. For more information,
see Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, “CRA Rating
Search Frequently Asked Questions,” webpage,
www.ffiec.gov/craratings/ratings_faq.htm.

Table 1. Distribution of reporters covered by the Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act, by type of institution, 2000-11

Number

           Depository institution

           Banking     Credit
Year     institution   union     All

2000        4,721      1,691    6,412
2001        4,686      1,714    6,400
2002        4,698      1,799    6,497
2003        4,675      1,903    6,578
2004        4,962      2,030    6,992
2005        4,878      2,047    6,925
2006        4,846      2,037    6,883
2007        4,847      2,019    6,866
2008        4,855      2,026    6,881
2009        4,810      2,017    6,827
2010        4,677      2,041    6,718
2011        4,497      2,017    6,514

                 Mortgage company

                                                    All
Year     Independent   Affiliated (1)    All    institutions

2000          981           332         1,313      7,725
2001          962           290         1,252      7,652
2002          986           310         1,296      7,793
2003        1,171           382         1,553      8,131
2004        1,317           544         1,861      8,853
2005        1,341           582         1,923      8,848
2006        1,334           685         2,019      8,902
2007        1,132           638         1,770      8,636
2008          957           550         1,507      8,388
2009          925           399         1,324      8,151
2010          848           371         1,219      7,937
2011          812           306         1,118      7,632

Note: Here and in all subsequent tables, components may not sum to
totals because of rounding.

(1) Subsidiary of a depository institution or an affiliate of a bank
holding company.

Source: Here and in subsequent tables and figures, except as noted,
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, data reported
under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (www.ffiec.gov/hmda).

Table 2. Number and distribution of home lenders, by type of lender
and by number of loans, 2011

Type of lender,          Less than 50                   50-99
and subcategory
(asset size
in millions                   Percent of                 Percent of
of dollars)        Number   subcategory (1)   Number   subcategory (1)

Depository institution

Banking Institution

Less than 250      1,215         51.6           509         21.6
250-499              231         24.9           131         14.1
500-999              106         17.7            61         10.2
1,000 or more         66         11.1            25          4.2
  All              1,618         36.2           726         16.2

Credit Union

Less than 250        783         58.5           301         22.5
250-499               42         13.9            52         17.2
500-999               16          7.8            14          6.9
1,000 or more          0           .0             4          2.4
  All                841         41.9           371         18.5

All depository institutions

Less than 250      1,998         54.1           810         21.9
250-499              273         22.2           183         14.9
500-999              122         15.2            75          9.3
1,000 or more         66          8.7            29          3.8
  All              2,459         37.9         1,097         16.9

Mortgage company (2)

  All                185         17.0            68          6.2

All institutions   2,644         34.9         1,165         15.4

Type of lender,             100-249                    250-499
and subcategory
(asset size
in millions                   Percent of                 Percent of
of dollars)        Number   subcategory (1)   Number   subcategory (1)

Depository institution

Banking Institution

Less than 250        463         19.7          126           5.4
250-499              317         34.2          173          18.6
500-999              120         20.0          150          25.0
1,000 or more         67         11.3           68          11.4
  All                967         21.6          517          11.6

Credit Union

Less than 250        207         15.5           36           2.7
250-499              111         36.6           70          23.1
500-999               49         24.0           58          28.4
1,000 or more         13          7.9           28          17.1
  All                380         18.9          192           9.6

All depository institutions

Less than 250        670         18.1          162           4.4
250-499              428         34.8          243          19.7
500-999              169         21.0          208          25.9
1,000 or more         80         10.6           96          12.7
  All              1,347         20.8          709          10.9

Mortgage company (2)

  All                133         12.2          135          12.4

All institutions   1,480         19.5          844          11.1

Type of lender,             500-999                1,000 or more
and subcategory
(asset size
in millions                   Percent of                 Percent of
of dollars)        Number   subcategory (1)   Number   subcategory (1)

Depository institution

Banking Institution

Less than 250        24           1.0           17            .7
250-499              56           6.0           20           2.2
500-999             119          19.9           43           7.2
1,000 or more       129          21.7          239          40.2
  All               328           7.3          319           7.1

Credit Union

Less than 250        11            .8            0            .0
250-499              25           8.3            3           1.0
500-999              48          23.5           19           9.3
1,000 or more        40          24.4           79          48.2
  All               124           6.2          101           5.0

All depository institutions

Less than 250        35            .9           17            .5
250-499              81           6.6           23           1.9
500-999             167          20.8           62           7.7
1,000 or more       169          22.3          318          42.0
  All               452           7.0          420           6.5

Mortgage company (2)

  All               149          13.7          419          38.5

All institutions    601           7.9          839          11.1

Type of lender,               All
and subcategory
(asset size
in millions                   Percent of
of dollars)        Number   subcategory (1)

Depository institution

Banking Institution

Less than 250      2,354          100
250-499              928          100
500-999              599          100
1,000 or more        594          100
  All              4,475          100

Credit Union

Less than 250      1,338          100
250-499              303          100
500-999              204          100
1,000 or more        164          100
  All              2,009          100

All depository institutions

Less than 250      3,692          100
250-499            1,231          100
500-999              803          100
1,000 or more        758          100
  All              6,484          100

Mortgage company (2)

  All              1,089          100

All institutions   7,573          100

(1) Distribution sums horizontally. For example, the second column,
first row shows that 51.6 percent of banking institutions with assets
of less than $250 million originated less than 50 loans in 2011.

(2) Independent mortgage company, subsidiary of a depository
institution, or affiliate of a bank holding company.

Table 3. Home loan activity of lending institutions covered under the
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2000-11

A. Applications, requests for preapproval, and purchased loans

Number

        Applications received for home loans, by type of
                            property

                    1-4 family

          Home      Refinance       Home
Year    purchase                 improvement   Multifamily

2000    8,278,219    6,543,665    1,991,686      37,765
2001    7,692,870   14,284,988    1,849,489      48,416
2002    7,406,374   17,491,627    1,529,347      53,231
2003    8,179,633   24,602,536    1,508,387      58,940
2004    9,792,324   16,072,102    2,202,744      61,895

2005   11,672,852   15,898,346    2,539,158      57,668
2006   10,928,866   14,045,961    2,480,827      52,220
2007    7,609,143   11,566,182    2,218,224      54,230
2008    5,017,998    7,729,143    1,404,008      42,792
2009    4,216,589    9,982,768      831,504      26,141

2010    3,847,796    8,433,333      670,147      25,550
2011    3,630,284    7,390,690      686,788      35,048

        Requests for     Purchased
Year   preapproval (1)     loans       Total

2000        n.a.         2,398,292   19,249,627
2001        n.a.         3,767,331   27,643,094
2002        n.a.         4,829,706   31,310,285
2003        n.a.         7,229,635   41,579,131
2004       332,054       5,146,617   33,607,736

2005       396,686       5,874,447   36,439,157
2006       411,134       6,236,352   34,155,360
2007       432,883       4,821,430   26,702,092
2008       275,808       2,921,821   17,391,570
2009       216,865       4,301,021   19,574,888

2010       170,026       3,229,295   16,376,147
2011       185,943       2,944,662   14,873,415

Note: Here and in subsequent tables, except as noted, data include
first and junior liens, one- to four-family homes (site-built and
manufactured properties), and owner- and non-owner-occupant loans.

(1) Consists of requests for preapproval that were denied by the
lender or were accepted by the lender but not acted on by the
borrower. In this article, applications are defined as being for a
loan on a specific property; they are thus distinct from requests for
preapproval, which are not related to a specific property.
Information on preapproval requests was not required to be reported
before 2004.

n.a. Not available.

Table 3. Home loan activity of lending institutions covered under the
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2000-11

B. Loans

Number

                   Loans, by type of property

                     1-4 family
         Home                      Home
Year   purchase    Refinance    improvement   Multifamily     Total

2000   4,787,356    2,435,420      892,587      27,305       8,142,668
2001   4,938,809    7,889,186      828,820      35,557      13,692,372
2002   5,124,767   10,309,971      712,123      41,480      16,188,341
2003   5,596,292   15,124,761      678,507      48,437      21,447,997
2004   6,429,988    7,583,928      966,484      48,150      15,028,550

2005   7,382,012    7,101,649    1,093,191      45,091      15,621,943
2006   6,740,322    6,091,242    1,139,731      39,967      14,011,262
2007   4,663,267    4,817,875      957,912      41,053      10,480,107
2008   3,119,692    3,457,774      568,287      31,509       7,177,262
2009   2,792,939    5,772,078      389,981      18,974       8,973,972

2010   2,546,590    4,968,603      341,401      19,168       7,875,762
2011   2,416,854    4,311,870      339,427      27,111       7,095,262

Table 4. Home loan applications and home loans for one-to
four-family properties, by occupancy status of home and type
of loan, 2000-11

Number

                             Applications

            Owner occupied                Non-owner occupied

                          Non-                            Non-
Year  Conventional  conventional (1)  Conventional  conventional (1)

A. Hom purchase

2000    6,350,643      1,311,101         604,919         12,524
2001    5,776,767      1,268,885         627,598         19,688
2002    5,511,048      1,133,770         747,758         13,923
2003    6,212,915      1,014,865         943,248          8,623
2004    7,651,113        799,131       1,335,241          6,839

2005    9,208,214        610,650       1,850,174          3,814
2006    8,695,877        576,043       1,653,154          3,792
2007    5,960,571        599,637       1,044,112          4,823
2008    2,940,059      1,424,483         647,340          6,116
2009    2,017,982      1,966,335         442,409          6,711

2010    1,822,790      1,763,826         425,345          5,853
2011    1,791,526      1,558,447         461,481          4,768

B. Refinance

2000    6,051,484        110,380         379,299          2,502
2001   12,737,863        705,784         823,748         17,592
2002   15,623,327        742,208       1,111,588         14,504
2003   21,779,329      1,236,467       1,563,430         23,310
2004   14,476,350        497,700       1,084,536         13,516

2005   14,494,441        262,438       1,135,929          5,538
2006   12,722,112        208,405       1,112,891          2,553
2007   10,173,282        375,860       1,012,827          4,213
2008    5,829,633      1,240,472         650,042          8,996
2009    7,290,061      2,058,210         619,286         15,211

2010    6,325,488      1,449,925         642,401         15,519
2011    5,550,634      1,136,045         682,769         21,242

C. Home improvement

2000    1,833,277         91,575          65,286         1,548
2001    1,771,472         16,276          60,598         1,143
2002    1,459,049         11,582          58,080           636
2003    1,430,380         13,876          63,806           325
2004    2,081,528         11,887         109,105           224

2005    2,401,030         10,053         127,857           218
2006    2,335,338         12,645         132,694           150
2007    2,072,688         16,717         128,700           119
2008    1,294,162         26,544          83,036           266
2009      743,968         28,536          58,754           246

2010      583,892         34,449          51,415           391
2011      581,023         38,194          60,763         6,808

                                 Loans

            Owner occupied                Non-owner occupied

                          Non-                            Non-
Year  Conventional  conventional (1)  Conventional  conventional (1)

A. Hom purchase

2000   3,411,887        963,345         404,133          8,378
2001   3,480,441       1,003,795        440,498          14,128
2002   3,967,834        870,599         547,963          8,474
2003   4,162,412        761,716         667,613          4,560
2004   4,946,423        574,841         906,014          2,710

2005   5,742,377        438,419        1,199,509         1,707
2006   5,281,485        416,744        1,040,668         1,425
2007   3,582,949        423,506         655,916           896
2008   1,727,692        972,605         415,930          3,465
2009   1,174,648       1,323,966        290,560          3,765

2010   1,090,328       1,169,729        284,700          1,833
2011   1,076,446       1,025,827        313,138          1,443

B. Refinance

2000   2,170,162         64,882         198,695          1,293
2001   6,836,106        524,228         516,616          12,181
2002   9,058,654        535,370         706,570          9,377
2003   13,205,472       895,735        1,007,674         15,871
2004   6,649,588        304,591         621,667          8,082

2005   6,336,004        158,474         603,914          3,257
2006   5,382,950        122,134         585,142          1,016
2007   4,123,507        196,897         496,577           894
2008   2,593,793        522,243         337,914          3,824
2009   4,414,509       1,000,911        349,147          7,511

2010   3,948,746        655,574         356,183          8,100
2011   3,401,097        512,839         384,911          13,023

C. Home improvement

2000    843,884          10,896          37,047           760
2001    788,560          6,722           32,990           548
2002    676,515          4,878           30,533           197
2003    642,065          5,226           31,113           103
2004    904,492          5,557           56,341            94

2005   1,026,340         4,483           62,298            70
2006   1,067,730         6,115           65,842            44
2007    887,123          9,409           61,321            59
2008    516,612          12,347          39,170           158
2009    349,993          11,256          28,568           164

2010    303,344          11,810          26,190            57
2011    293,735          14,392          27,768          3,532

(1) Loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration or backed by
guarantees from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the Farm
Service Agency, or the Rural Housing Service.

Table 5. Loans on manufactured homes, by occupancy status of home and
type of loan, 2004-11

Number

               Owner occupied                 Non-owner occupied

                      Nonconventional                  Nonconventional
Year   Conventional         (1)         Conventional         (1)

A. Home purchase

2004     107,686          23,974           16,243            125

2005     101,539          27,229           17,927             56
2006     102,458          30,530           19,105            257
2007      95,584          28,554           13,963             92
2008      68,821          27,615           11,392             93
2009      43,543          20,630            7,920             29

2010      44,856          17,086            7,655             29
2011      40,312          14,663            7,482            218

B. Refinance

2004      79,838           6,922            6,507             57

2005      73,520           7,727            6,331             26
2006      64,969          11,750            6,240             68
2007      59,591          16,174            6,332             74
2008      44,342          21,926            6,817            177
2009      37,001          21,768            6,002             73

2010      26,340           9,751            5,024             69
2011      25,299           8,919            4,765            161

C. Home improvement

2004      17,119             128           1,269              5

2005      20,239             219           1,372              3
2006      20,886             490           1,425              2
2007      19,428             889           1,494              2
2008      12,621             681           1,324             36
2009       9,781             439           1,116              1

2010       8,012             427             999              2
2011       8,244             349             972             75

(1) See table 4, note 1.

Table 6. Private mortgage insurance applications and issuance for
one-to four-family properties, by occupancy status of home and
type of property, 2000-11

Number

                            Applications

           Owner occupied              Non-owner occupied

                    Manufactured                Manufactured
Year   Site-built   housing (1)    Site-built   housing (1)

A. Home purchase

2000   1,204,520        n.a.         95,549         n.a.
2001   1,266,440        n.a.        122,639         n.a.
2002   1,324,958        n.a.        153,277         n.a.
2003   1,315,221        n.a.        175,958         n.a.
2004   1,078,275       10,111       192,086        1,287

2005     886,749       10,470       174,174        1,480
2006     838,304        9,526       134,545        1,273
2007   1,260,666        7,928       148,057        1,113
2008     928,978        4,082       127,773          759
2009     341,311          535        14,372           92

2010     214,054          172         7,644           11
2011     245,677          219        11,547            8

B. Refinance (2)

2000     259,245        n.a.         14,771         n.a.
2001     856,112        n.a.         29,870         n.a.
2002   1,056,788        n.a.         40,771         n.a.
2003   1,372,551        n.a.         46,139         n.a.
2004     597,353        6,037        31,352          233

2005     438,019        3,702        23,217          136
2006     346,978        2,554        24,201          121
2007     507,137        2,108        36,508          104
2008     454,405        1,442        33,822          123
2009     275,541          429         3,611           15

2010     145,953          135         1,437            2
2011     149,480          196         1,664            0

                              Issuance

            Owner occupied              Non-owner occupied

                    Manufactured                Manufactured
Year   Site-built   housing (1)    Site-built   housing (1)

A. Home purchase

2000     955,988        n.a.         75,473         n.a.
2001   1,002,385        n.a.         90,929         n.a.
2002   1,022,754        n.a.        115,573         n.a.
2003   1,021,476        n.a.        134,677         n.a.
2004     807,480       7,508        143,917          984

2005     676,758       7,512        130,945        1,171
2006     659,755       6,655         98,744          993
2007   1,015,240       5,531        109,772          774
2008     591,108       2,012         66,842          367
2009     206,878         125          5,208           29

2010     154,716          55          4,750            0
2011     193,215          89          8,272            0

B. Refinance (2)

2000     185,721        n.a.         10,859         n.a.
2001     663,465        n.a.         17,453         n.a.
2002     775,020        n.a.         23,035         n.a.
2003   1,014,558        n.a.         27,116         n.a.
2004     389,563       3,956         17,243          138

2005     309,821       2,384         13,239           88
2006     234,587       1,567         14,187           78
2007     362,961       1,313         22,533           58
2008     257,189         695         11,519           34
2009     153,633         126          1,121            4

2010      99,598          56            587            0
2011     109,866          72            838            0

(1) Before 2004, property type was not collected; totals for
site-built and manufactured housing are shown in the "Site-built"
column.

(2) Includes home-improvement loans. Private mortgage insurance
companies do not distinguish between refinance loans and
home-improvement loans in reporting. Loan totals are the
summation of refinance and home-improvement loans.

n.a. Not available.

Table 7. Home loans for one-to four-family properties, by occupancy
status of home, type of loan, and lien status, 2004-11

Number

Year             Owner occupied

                  Conventional

                     Junior
       First lien     lien      Unsecured (2)

A. Home purchase

2004   4,209,787      736,636        ...

2005   4,520,378    1,221,999        ...
2006   4,013,196    1,268,289        ...
2007   3,031,606      551,343        ...
2008   1,636,194       91,498        ...
2009   1,132,424       42,224        ...

2010   1,049,990       40,338        ...
2011   1,036,112       40,334        ...

B. Refinance

2004   6,185,418      464,170        ...

2005   5,607,642      728,362        ...
2006   4,347,348    1,035,602        ...
2007   3,462,944      660,563        ...
2008   2,374,781      219,012        ...
2009   4,300,322      114,187        ...

2010   3,860,760       87,986        ...
2011   3,327,415       73,682        ...

C. Home improvement

2004     357,618      395,582      151,292

2005     409,947      468,375      148,018
2006     360,321      553,152      154,257
2007     301,078      435,187      150,858
2008     179,506      181,402      155,704
2009     166,865       84,414       98,714

2010     134,370       74,941       94,033
2011     129,851       60,423      103,461

Year            Owner occupied

              Nonconventional (1)

                    Junior
       First lien    lien    Unsecured (2)

A. Home purchase

2004     573,606    1,235         ...

2005     437,552      867         ...
2006     416,143      601         ...
2007     422,450    1,056         ...
2008     971,528    1,077         ...
2009   1,322,489    1,477         ...

2010   1,168,343    1,386         ...
2011   1,024,696    1,131         ...

B. Refinance

2004     304,298      293         ...

2005     158,198      276         ...
2006     121,761      373         ...
2007     196,544      353         ...
2008     521,863      380         ...
2009   1,000,422      489         ...

2010     655,334      240         ...
2011     512,629      210         ...

C. Home improvement

2004       2,697    2,243          617

2005       2,197    1,873          413
2006       3,957    1,735          423
2007       7,510    1,579          320
2008      10,477    1,610          260
2009       8,197    2,541          518

2010       8,218    2,663          929
2011       7,116    2,949        4,327

Year          Non-owner occupied

                 Conventional

                    Junior
       First lien    lien     Unsecured (2)

A. Home purchase

2004     853,490     52,524        ...

2005   1,049,555    149,954        ...
2006     878,325    162,343        ...
2007     605,714     50,202        ...
2008     410,377      5,553        ...
2009     288,526      2,034        ...

2010     283,017      1,683        ...
2011     311,831      1,307        ...

B. Refinance

2004     608,956     12,711        ...

2005     578,491     25,423        ...
2006     546,430     38,712        ...
2007     473,336     23,241        ...
2008     328,844      9,070        ...
2009     342,410      6,737        ...

2010     350,458      5,725        ...
2011     379,519      5,392        ...

C. Home improvement

2004      40,028      8,153       8,160

2005      42,544     10,756       8,998
2006      43,913     13,739       8,190
2007      41,670     11,508       8,143
2008      26,482      5,473       7,215
2009      19,961      3,193       5,414

2010      17,777      2,486       5,927
2011      18,491      2,257       7,020

Year           Non-owner occupied

               Nonconventional (1)

                     Junior
       First lien     lien     Unsecured (2)

A. Home purchase

2004      2,703         7           ...

2005      1,685        22           ...
2006      1,407        18           ...
2007        888         8           ...
2008      3,461         4           ...
2009      3,756         9           ...

2010      1,821        12           ...
2011      1,438         5           ...

B. Refinance

2004      8,069        13           ...

2005      3,236        21           ...
2006        989        27           ...
2007        879        15           ...
2008      3,814        10           ...
2009      7,495        16           ...

2010      8,092         8           ...
2011     13,004        19           ...

C. Home improvement

2004         30        54             10

2005         17        49              4
2006         18        20              6
2007         35        18              6
2008        135        13             10
2009         99        28             37

2010         35        17              5
2011         64        45          3,423

(1) See table 4, note 1.

(2) Unsecured loans are collected only for home-improvement
loans under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.

... Notapplicable.

Table 8. Distribution of home loan sales for one-to four-family
properties, by occupancy status of home and type of loan, 2000-11

Percent

                               Owner occupied

             Conventional                  Nonconventional (1)

                      Memo: Share                     Memo: Share
Year   Share sold   sold to GSEs (2)   Share sold   sold to GSEs (2)

A. Home purchase

2000      64.8            31.3            89.1            46.0
2001      66.8            34.6            86.1            46.2
2002      71.0            36.7            88.7            43.7
2003      72.3            33.1            91.2            40.7
2004      74.2            25.5            92.2            40.5

2005      75.9            18.7            89.9            32.6
2006      74.8            19.0            88.6            31.7
2007      70.1            29.1            87.6            32.5
2008      71.6            40.1            90.0            36.5
2009      70.1            40.1            91.4            35.0

2010      69.7            37.0            92.7            29.7
2011      68.9            34.2            93.5            33.4

B. Refinance

2000      47.4            18.0            84.5            50.0
2001      61.3            37.2            85.0            51.5
2002      66.8            40.4            85.7            45.0
2003      74.2            44.8            93.8            48.0
2004      69.0            27.6            93.2            44.2

2005      69.9            19.7            89.3            33.5
2006      65.7            15.2            86.8            31.8
2007      61.7            21.9            85.1            34.5
2008      65.3            38.0            88.8            35.4
2009      79.4            52.8            89.7            37.9

2010      76.8            46.1            90.2            37.8
2011      72.7            46.4            91.3            49.8

C. Home improvement

2000       6.3             1.1            15.6             4.7
2001       6.4             1.5            22.3             7.6
2002       5.9             1.4            28.4             7.1
2003      10.5              .8            43.8             6.7
2004      23.6             6.0            48.7            23.5

2005      27.2             7.0            46.2            25.3
2006      22.0             5.3            60.4            31.8
2007      19.1             6.4            70.6            30.8
2008      14.7             8.7            80.0            49.2
2009      24.9            17.8            63.4            38.9

2010      21.2            13.2            60.6            34.7
2011      19.1            11.4            45.3            26.8

                            Non-owner occupied

              Conventional                    Nonconventional (1)

                      Memo: Share                     Memo: Share
Year   Share sold   sold to GSEs (2)   Share sold   sold to GSEs (2)

A. Home purchase

2000      53.7            29.3            81.4            22.9
2001      57.9            34.0            92.2            23.0
2002      62.5            36.4            87.9            29.7
2003      63.1            31.8            80.8            21.6
2004      63.5            23.6            63.7            11.5

2005      69.7            18.0            49.7            16.3
2006      69.3            19.0            61.3            15.0
2007      61.4            26.9            74.9            27.6
2008      60.3            36.3            95.1            21.6
2009      56.4            34.7            88.9            35.2

2010      30.3            34.8            91.7            24.1
2011      61.9            34.5            80.3            35.2

B. Refinance

2000      47.3            21.7            86.3            42.8
2001      61.2            38.4            92.1            33.2
2002      65.9            43.2            81.3            45.4
2003      69.8            40.4            87.4            50.7
2004      62.2            22.6            88.0            35.9

2005      64.7            16.6            85.7            40.1
2006      64.9            15.7            79.0            29.6
2007      61.1            23.9            86.9            23.9
2008      56.8            33.0            95.7            20.4
2009      61.2            40.1            93.5            36.0

2010      65.4            40.3            90.5            43.8
2011      66.4            43.5            89.5            57.6

C. Home improvement

2000       4.4              .4            52.9              .5
2001       3.9              .8            73.7             1.1
2002       4.0              .9            55.3             3.6
2003       6.5              .7            35.0             3.9
2004      23.1             7.5            20.2             7.4

2005      30.2             8.8            27.1             8.6
2006      29.4             8.9            29.5            15.9
2007      26.4            12.1            39.0            11.9
2008      20.0            14.5            74.7             6.3
2009      17.7            13.4            56.1             9.8

2010      18.3            12.6            47.4            28.1
2011      19.8            13.4              .3              .1

(1) See table 4, note 1.

(2) Loans sold to government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) include
those with a purchaser type of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae,
or Farmer Mac.

Table 9. Cumulative distribution of home loans, by borrower income
and by purpose and type of loan, 2011

Percent

                                     Home purchase

Upper bound
of borrower                                                 Memo:
income (thousands                                           Higher
of dollars) (1)     FHA     VA   Conventional (2)  Total  priced (3)

24                   5.3    1.1         3.2         3.7       9.5
49                  41.5   23.2        25.4        31.0      48.3
74                  69.4   56.7        47.0        55.9      72.2
99                  84.9   77.0        62.6        71.9      83.9
124                 92.5   88.4        73.9        81.9      89.8
149                 96.1   94.0        81.3        87.8      92.9
199                 98.7   98.2        89.6        93.7      95.9
249                 99.4   99.4        93.7        96.3      97.2
299                 99.7   99.7        95.8        97.5      98.0
More than 299      100    100         100         100       100

Memo: Borrower income, by selected loan type (thousands of
dollars) (1)

Mean                66.3   79.0       111.1        92.1      73.2
Median              56     69          79          68        51

                                     Refinance

Upper bound
of borrower                                                 Memo:
income (thousands                                           Higher
of dollars) (1)     FHA     VA   Conventional (2)  Total  priced (3)

24                   3.5    2.3         2.4         2.4      10.2
49                  28.2   19.5        16.6        17.4      41.5
74                  58.1   48.0        36.8        38.4      67.2
99                  77.8   69.3        54.9        56.6      81.8
124                 88.6   83.1        68.9        70.4      89.4
149                 93.9   90.5        78.2        79.4      93.2
199                 98.0   96.6        88.4        89.2      96.4
249                 99.2   98.7        93.1        93.6      97.7
299                 99.6   99.4        95.4        95.8      98.3
More than 299      100    100         100         100       100

Memo: Borrower income, by selected loan type (thousands of
dollars) (1)

Mean                76. 9  88.0       121.9       118.3      76.5
Median              67     76          92          90        56

Note: First-lien mortgages for owner-occupied, one-to four-family,
site-built properties; excludes business loans. Business-related
loans are those for which the lender reported that the race,
ethnicity, and sex of the applicant or co-applicant are "not
applicable." For loans with two or more applicants, lenders covered
under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) report data on only
two. Income for two applicants is reported jointly.

(1) Income amounts are reported under HMDA to the nearest $1,000.

(2) Conventional loans plus some loans originated with a Farm Service
Agency or Rural Housing Service guarantee.

(3) Higher-priced loans are those with annual percentage rates 1.5
percentage points or more above the average prime offer rate for
loans of a similar type published weekly by the Federal Financial
Institutions Examination Council.

FHA Federal Housing Administration.

VA Department of Veterans Affairs.

Table 10. Cumulative distribution of home loans, by loan amount and
by purpose and type of loan, 2011 Percent

                                    Home purchase

Upper bound of
loan amount                                                   Memo:
(thousands of                                                 Higher
dollars) (1)      FHA     VA     Conventional (2)   Total   priced (3)

24                  .1      .0           .5            .3       2.8
49                 2.0      .4          3.2           2.5      13.9
74                 9.6     2.6          9.7           9.0      29.8
99                22.1     7.8         18.3          18.7      44.9
149               50.9    28.3         38.9          42.2      68.8
199               71.7    53.6         55.1          60.9      82.0
274               88.5    77.5         71.9          78.4      91.2
417               97.4    94.5         88.8          92.4      96.9
625               99.6    99.1         96.0          97.6      98.8
729               99.9    99.7         97.4          98.5      99.2
More than 799    100     100          100           100       100

Memo: Loan amount (thousands of dollars)

Mean             170.2   217.2        234.7         210.1     141.6
Median (1)       147     191          180           167       109

                 Refinance

Upper bound of
loan amount                                                   Memo:
(thousands of                                                 Higher
dollars) (1)      FHA     VA     Conventional (2)   Total   priced (3)

24                  .1      .0           .5            .5       4.3
49                 1.6      .7          3.3           3.0      16.8
74                 7.4     3.9         10.3           9.8      32.8
99                17.3    10.5         20.2          19.5      47.5
149               44.5    32.9         41.2          41.1      68.4
199               66.5    55.8         58.1          58.7      80.3
274               85.3    77.6         74.7          75.8      89.4
417               96.0    94.6         92.0          92.5      96.9
625               99.3    99.0         97.0          97.3      99.0
729               99.9    99.6         98.1          98.3      99.3
More than 799    100     100          100           100       100

Memo: Loan amount (thousands of dollars)

Mean             185.3   212.9        220.3         217.0     141.6
Median (1)       160     185          173           172       104

Note: First-lien mortgages for owner-occupied, one- to four-family,
site-built properties; excludes business loans. Business-related
loans are those for which the lender reported that the race,
ethnicity, and sex of the applicant or co-applicant are
"not applicable."

(1) Loan amounts are reported under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
to the nearest $1,000.

(2) See table 9, note 2.

(3) See table 9, note 3.

FHA Federal Housing Administration.

VA Department of Veterans Affairs.

Table 11. Disposition of applications for home loans, and origination
and pricing of loans, by type of home and type of loan, 2011

                                         Applications

                                            Acted upon by lender

                          Number                    Number    Percent
Type of home and loan    submitted     Number       denied     denied

1-4 FAMILY

Nonbusiness related
  (3)

Owner occupied

Site built

Home purchase
  Conventional
    First lien           1,438,327    1,260,646     186,025      14.8
    Junior lien             57,851       50,569       7,915      15.7
  Government backed
    First lien           1,450,709    1,274,493     203,893      16.0
    Junior lien              1,930        1,407         233      16.6

Refinance
  Conventional
    First lien           5,367,738    4,595,645   1,021,597      22.2
    Junior lien            122,890      113,873      36,232      31.8
  Government backed
    First lien           1,115,624      829,981     264,225      31.8
    Junior lien                354          262          57      21.8

Home improvement
  Conventional
    First lien             211,771      187,603      51,680      27.5
    Junior lien            131,977      123,254      57,825      46.9
  Government backed
    First lien              15,879       11,175       3,407      30.5
    Junior lien              8,455        6,705       3,476      51.8
  Unsecured
  (conventional
  or government
  backed)                  230,011      224,145     113,447      50.6

Manufactured

Conventional, first
    lien
  Home purchase            196,525      189,483      99,788      52.7
  Refinance                 51,727       46,960      18,555      39.5

Other                       70,033       62,119      22,064      35.5

Non-owner occupied
  (4)

Conventional, first
    lien
  Home purchase            417,027      368,926      58,290      15.8
  Refinance                648,094      548,887     161,447      29.4
Other                       98,538       88,891      36,593      41.2

Business related (3)

Conventional, first
    lien
  Home purchase             30,458       29,464       1,066       3.6
  Refinance                 31,687       30,609       1,813       5.9

Other                       10,157        8,904         983      11.0

Multifamily (5)

Conventional, first
    lien
  Home purchase             10,146        9,367       1,106      11.8
  Refinance                 19,588       18,303       2,410      13.2

Other                        5,314        4,904         719      14.7

Total                    11,742,810  10,086,575   2,354,846      23.3

                               Loans originated

                                     Loans with APOR
                                     spread above the
                                      threshold (1)

Type of home and loan     Number     Number   Percent

1-4 FAMILY

Nonbusiness related
  (3)

Owner occupied

Site built

Home purchase
  Conventional
    First lien            995,061    38,660       3.9
    Junior lien            39,943     5,465      13.7
  Government backed
    First lien          1,009,654    28,592       2.8
    Junior lien             1,115         4        .4

Refinance
  Conventional
    First lien          3,299,037    51,664       1.6
    Junior lien            71,341     9,550      13.4
  Government backed
    First lien            503,259    29,744       5.9
    Junior lien               190         6       3.2

Home improvement
  Conventional
    First lien            126,491    10,663       8.4
    Junior lien            59,607     6,781      11.4
  Government backed
    First lien              6,846     1,723      25.2
    Junior lien             2,914     2,472      84.8
  Unsecured
  (conventional
  or government
  backed)                 102,899       ...       ...

Manufactured

Conventional, first
    lien
  Home purchase            39,960    32,623      81.6
  Refinance                24,477     7,933      32.4

Other                      33,238     5,777      17.4

Non-owner occupied
  (4)

Conventional, first
    lien
  Home purchase           285,333    13,696       4.8
  Refinance               355,243    13,207       3.7
Other                      48,084     2,760       5.7

Business related (3)

Conventional, first
    lien
  Home purchase            27,589       564       2.0
  Refinance                28,177       549       1.9

Other                       7,693       119       1.5

Multifamily (5)

Conventional, first
    lien
  Home purchase             7,848       166       2.1
  Refinance                15,238       229       1.5

Other                       4,025        42       1.0

Total                   7,095,262   262,989       3.7

                                   Loans originated

                           Loans with APOR spread above the
                                    threshold (1)

                        Distribution, by percentage points of
                                     APOR spread

Type of home and loan   1.5-1.99   2-2.49   2.5-2.99   3-3.99

1-4 FAMILY

Nonbusiness related
  (3)

Owner occupied

Site built

Home purchase
  Conventional
    First lien              41.6     22.0       13.3     14.6
    Junior lien              ...      ...        ...     38.6
  Government backed
    First lien              71.3     21.5        3.2      1.1
    Junior lien              ...      ...        ...     25.0

Refinance
  Conventional
    First lien              46.8     16.6       11.0     13.6
    Junior lien              ...      ...        ...     30.0
  Government backed
    First lien              31.7     26.0       20.5     19.6
    Junior lien              ...      ...        ...      ...

Home improvement
  Conventional
    First lien              29.0     16.8       13.8     17.8
    Junior lien              ...      ...        ...     30.8
  Government backed
    First lien              18.8     23.0       26.2     25.5
    Junior lien              ...      ...        ...      3.0
  Unsecured
  (conventional
  or government
  backed)                    ...      ...        ...      ...

Manufactured

Conventional, first
    lien
  Home purchase              4.5      3.4        5.3     13.8
  Refinance                 17.1      9.7       10.8     21.9

Other                       32.9     15.6        9.9     14.0

Non-owner occupied
  (4)

Conventional, first
    lien
  Home purchase             46.4     16.6       11.2     13.6
  Refinance                 59.1     14.9        8.6     10.3
Other                       24.6     12.7        7.5     19.8

Business related (3)

Conventional, first
    lien
  Home purchase             24.8     24.5       22.9     24.3
  Refinance                 25.7     21.0       26.6     18.9

Other                       17.7     15.1       13.5     23.5

Multifamily (5)

Conventional, first
    lien
  Home purchase             27.7     28.3       19.3     18.1
  Refinance                 27.5     26.2       18.3     15.7

Other                       11.9     28.6       14.3     19.1

Total                       35.5     15.6        9.9     15.0

                                       Loans originated

                        Loans with APOR spread above the threshold (1)

                                                              Number
                         Distribution, by     APOR spread       of
                        percentage points     (percentage     HOEPA-
                          of APOR spread        points)       covered

Type of home and loan   4-4.99   5 or more   Mean   Median   loans (2)

1-4 FAMILY

Nonbusiness related
  (3)

Owner occupied

Site built

Home purchase
  Conventional
    First lien             5.8         2.9    2.5      2.1        ...
    Junior lien           48.1        13.3    4.5      4.2        ...
  Government backed
    First lien             2.1          .9    2.0      1.8        ...
    Junior lien           50.0        25.0    5.2      4.8        ...

Refinance
  Conventional
    First lien             6.0         6.1    2.6      2.1        735
    Junior lien           38.9        31.2    4.8      4.5        201
  Government backed
    First lien             1.7          .4    2.5      2.3         46
    Junior lien           66.7        33.3    4.9      4.8          0

Home improvement
  Conventional
    First lien             7.9        14.8    3.2      2.6        366
    Junior lien           33.5        35.7    4.9      4.5        187
  Government backed
    First lien             2.8         3.7    2.8      2.6         10
    Junior lien            5.9        91.1    7.0      7.1          0
  Unsecured
  (conventional
  or government
  backed)                  ...         ...    ...      ...        ...

Manufactured

Conventional, first
    lien
  Home purchase           16.2        56.7    5.7      5.4        ...
  Refinance               16.5        24.0    3.9      3.6        577

Other                     10.6        17.0    4.1      2.6        214

Non-owner occupied
  (4)

Conventional, first
    lien
  Home purchase            5.6         6.6    2.6      2.1        ...
  Refinance                4.5         2.7    2.3      1.8         32
Other                     17.5        17.9    3.5      3.4         13

Business related (3)

Conventional, first
    lien
  Home purchase            2.7          .9    2.6      2.5        ...
  Refinance                6.4         1.5    2.6      2.5          2

Other                     20.2        10.1    3.3      3.3        ...

Multifamily (5)

Conventional, first
    lien
  Home purchase            3.0         3.6    2.6      2.4        ...
  Refinance                6.6         5.7    2.7      2.4          1

Other                      7.1        19.1    3.5      2.9          3

Total                      9.6        14.4    3.2      2.5      2,387

(1) Average prime offer rate (APOR) spread is the difference between
the annual percentage rate on the loan and the APOR for loans of a
similar type published weekly by the Federal Financial Institutions
Examination Council. The threshold for first-lien loans is a spread
of 1.5 percentage points; for junior-lien loans, it is a spread of
3.5 percentage points.

(2) Loans covered by the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of
1994 (HOEPA), which does not apply to home-purchase loans.

(3) Business-related applications and loans are those for which the
lender reported that the race, ethnicity, and sex of the applicant or
co-applicant are "not applicable"; all other applications and loans
are nonbusiness related.

(4) Includes applications and loans for which occupancy status was
missing.

(5) Includes business-related and nonbusiness-related applications
and loans for owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied properties.

... Not applicable.

Table 12. Home-purchase lending that began with a request for
preapproval: Disposition and pricing, by type of home, 2011

                    Requests for preapproval

                   Number
                   acted
Type              upon by    Number   Percent
of home            lender    denied    denied

1-4 Family

Nonbusiness related (3)

Owner occupied

Site built

Conventional
  First lien      217,757    57,848        27
  Junior lien        7,396      945        13

Government
backed
  First lien      160,904    62,602        39
  Junior lie        n 146        17        12

Manufactured

Conventional,
first lien          3,392     1,008        30

Other               2,625     1,092        42

Non-owner occupied (4)

Conventional,
first lien         35,912     7,019        20
Other                 725       322        44

Business related (3)

Conventional,
first lien            499        27         5

Other                  90        12        13

Multifamily (5)

Conventional,
first lien             70         2         3
Other                   3         0         0

Total             429,519   130,894        30

                     Applications preceded
                          by requests
                      for preapproval (1)

                               Acted upon by
                                   lender

Type                Number             Number
of home           submitted   Number   denied

1-4 Family

Nonbusiness related (3)

Owner occupied

Site built

Conventional
  First lien        123,940   19,888   16,177
  Junior lien         5,820      354      147

Government
backed
  First lien         86,517   11,279   10,616
  Junior lie            126       32       11

Manufactured

Conventional,
first lien            2,282      322      469

Other                 1,474      227      172

Non-owner occupied (4)

Conventional,
first lien           22,454    3,355    2,372
Other                   361       91      135

Business related (3)

Conventional,
first lien              457       39       35

Other                    77       10       22

Multifamily (5)

Conventional,
first lien               65        6       10
Other                     3        1        0

Total               243,576   35,604   30,166

                    Loan originations whose
                  applications were preceded
                  by requests for preapproval

                             Lons with APOR
                            spread above the
                              threshold (2)

Type
of home            Number   Number   Percent

1-4 Family

Nonbusiness related (3)

Owner occupied

Site built

Conventional
  First lien       81,794    1,771       2.2
  Junior lien       5,184    1,058      20.4

Government
backed
  First lien       61,790    2,568       4.2
  Junior lie           83        2       2.4

Manufactured

Conventional,
first lien          1,252      729      58.2

Other               1,047       36       3.4

Non-owner occupied (4)

Conventional,
first lien         15,514      502       3.2
Other                 115       11       9.6

Business related (3)

Conventional,
first lien            361       14       3.9

Other                  42        1    2.4100

Multifamily (5)

Conventional,
first lien             48        5      10.4
Other                   2        1      50.0

Total             167,232    6,698       4.0

                   Loan originations whose applications were preceded
                               by requests for preapproval

                      Lons with APOR spread above the threshold (2)

                    Distribution, by percentage points of APOR spread

Type                                                              5 or
of home           1.51.99     22.49     2.52.99   33.99   44.99   more

1-4 Family

Nonbusiness related (3)

Owner occupied

Site built

Conventional
  First lien         44.5         19.6      10.1   11.2     9.9    4.7
  Junior lien         ...         ...       ...    29.1    61.8    9.1

Government
backed
  First lien         71.0        16.4       5.5     1.8     2.3    3.0
  Junior lie          ...         ...       ...     ...     100    ...

Manufactured

Conventional,
first lien            5.2         2.6       5.6     8.4    10.3   67.9

Other                83.3        11.1       5.6     ...     ...    ...

Non-owner occupied (4)

Conventional,
first lien           50.6        18.5       9.6    11.4     6.4    3.6
Other                36.4        36.4       9.1     9.1     ...    9.1

Business related (3)

Conventional,
first lien           21.4        21.4      21.4    35.7     ...    ...

Other                 ...         ...       ...     ...     ...    ...

Multifamily (5)

Conventional,
first lien            ...        40.0      20.0    40.0     ...    ...
Other                 ...         ...       ...     ...     100    ...

Total                43.9        13.3       6.2    10.1    14.9   11.5

                        Loan
                    originations
                       whose
                    applications
                   were preceded
                  by requests for
                     preapproval

                  Lons with APOR
                    spread above
                        the
                    threshold (2)

                    APOR spread
                    (percentage
                      points)

Type               Mean    Median
of home           spread   spread

1-4 Family

Nonbusiness related (3)

Owner occupied

Site built

Conventional
  First lien         2.6      2.1
  Junior lien        4.3      4.3

Government
backed
  First lien         2.1      1.8
  Junior lie         4.8      4.8

Manufactured

Conventional,
first lien           6.9      6.5

Other                1.8      1.8

Non-owner occupied (4)

Conventional,
first lien           2.4      2.0
Other                2.6      2.1

Business related (3)

Conventional,
first lien           2.6      2.7

Other                1.5      1.5

Multifamily (5)

Conventional,
first lien           2.9      2.6
Other                4.1      4.1

Total                3.1      2.2

(1) These applications are included in the total reported in table
11.

(2) See table 11, note 1.

(3) See table 11, note 3.

(4) See table 11, note 4.

(5) See table 11, note 5.

... Not applicable.

Table 13. Home loan originations and purchases by top 10 originators,
2011 and 2006

Percent except as noted

                                  Loans originated (1)

                                  Market     Home
Organization            Number     share   purchase   Refinance

2011

1. Wells Fargo &        908,962     13.4       31.2        67.1
Co.

2. JPMorgan Chase
& Co.                   470,760      6.9        8.1        91.6

3. Bank of America
Corp.                   343,471      5.1       28.7        69.9

4. U.S. Bancorp         164,937      2.4       24.6        72.4

5. Quicken Loans,       143,870      2.1        8.4        91.6
Inc.

6. Citigroup            113,468      1.7       13.0        84.3

7. Fifth Third
Bancorp                 101,956      1.5       26.8        72.4

8. Flagstar
Bank, FSB                92,875      1.4       39.2        58.8

9. Ally Financial        83,123      1.2       16.6        80.7

10. SunTrust Bank        80,375      1.2       36.1        63.9

Total                 2,503,797     36.9       23.7        74.9

Memo: All other
organizations         4,284,175     63.1       41.7        55.4

2006

1. Countrywide          872,732      8.1       50.4        45.9

2. Wells Fargo &        697,593      6.5       58.8        37.0
Co.

3. Bank of America
Corp.                   356,300      3.3       57.5        34.9

4. Wachovia Corp.       341,218      3.2       29.7        64.4

5. JPMorgan Chase
& Co.                   317,755      3.0       44.6        52.1

6. National City
Corp.                   278,426      2.6       60.9        36.5

7. Washington
Mutual Bank, FSB        270,278      2.5       29.8        66.0

8. GMAC Bank            248,050      2.3       41.6        58.3

9. Citigroup            215,454      2.0       30.2        62.3

10. HSBC
Holdings, PLC           194,308      1.8       27.7        58.0

Total                 3,792,114     35.2       46.7        48.5

Memo: All other
organizations         6,979,080     64.8       50.9        45.8

                                   Loans originated (1)

                                    Conventional only

                         Home
                       purchase    Refinance                 Held in
                        (as a        (as a                  portfolio
                       share of      share      Held in    or sold to
                       all home     of all     portfolio    affiliate
Organization          purchase)   refinance)      (3)          (3)

2011

1. Wells Fargo &           53.8         87.2         7.4          7.8
Co.

2. JPMorgan Chase
& Co.                      57.0         97.2         3.5         42.6

3. Bank of America
Corp.                      57.6         88.6        13.7         13.9

4. U.S. Bancorp            65.6         92.3        37.9         37.9

5. Quicken Loans,          42.6         64.2          .2           .2
Inc.

6. Citigroup               93.6         96.1        46.2         61.9

7. Fifth Third
Bancorp                    54.5         92.2        29.6         40.0

8. Flagstar
Bank, FSB                  49.8         82.0          .7           .7

9. Ally Financial          83.1         94.0         2.1         99.4

10. SunTrust Bank          69.1         92.8         5.9         12.5

Total                      57.4         89.3        11.7         25.5

Memo: All other
organizations              56.7         86.3        34.9         36.8

2006

1. Countrywide             92.1         98.6         3.5          13.5

2. Wells Fargo &           89.7         96.2        24.4         24.8
Co.

3. Bank of America
Corp.                      97.7         99.1        41.6         41.8

4. Wachovia Corp.          95.6         99.5        48.4         64.0

5. JPMorgan Chase
& Co.                      91.1         98.0         6.0        100.0

6. National City
Corp.                      92.1         94.2         4.2         52.1

7. Washington
Mutual Bank, FSB           98.7         98.9        40.7         42.8

8. GMAC Bank               92.1         97.7         2.3         73.6

9. Citigroup               97.0         98.5        48.0         60.6

10. HSBC
Holdings, PLC              95.5         99.4        40.7         48.8

Total                      92.9         98.1        22.6          43.5

Memo: All other
organizations              91.8         97.2        26.7          31.5

                         Loans purchased (2)

Organization            Number    Conventional

2011

1. Wells Fargo &        845,871           47.4
Co.

2. JPMorgan Chase
& Co.                   300,092           46.0

3. Bank of America
Corp.                   442,416           36.4

4. U.S. Bancorp         114,128           61.0

5. Quicken Loans,             0           n.a.
Inc.

6. Citigroup            252,128           91.2

7. Fifth Third
Bancorp                  15,014           68.7

8. Flagstar
Bank, FSB                32,249           43.2

9. Ally Financial       431,925           81.6

10. SunTrust Bank        31,433           74.1

Total                 2,465,256           56.8

Memo: All other
organizations           479,406           61.4

2006

1. Countrywide        1,409,623           95.6

2. Wells Fargo &        411,346           72.4
Co.

3. Bank of America
Corp.                   193,761           99.9

4. Wachovia Corp.        61,525           99.8

5. JPMorgan Chase
& Co.                   204,632           89.0

6. National City
Corp.                     6,206           95.8

7. Washington
Mutual Bank, FSB        415,199           96.7

8. GMAC Bank            862,978           96.7

9. Citigroup            616,319           91.4

10. HSBC
Holdings, PLC           306,585          100.0

Total                 4,488,174           93.4

Memo: All other
organizations         1,748,178           94.4

                          Loans purchased (2)

                           Conventional only

                                         Held in
                                        portfolio
                         Held in        or sold to
Organization          portfolio (3)   affiliate (3)

2011

1. Wells Fargo &                5.3             5.3
Co.

2. JPMorgan Chase
& Co.                           4.1            40.2

3. Bank of America
Corp.                          23.5            23.5

4. U.S. Bancorp                 1.5             1.5

5. Quicken Loans,              n.a.            n.a.
Inc.

6. Citigroup                   13.3            53.0

7. Fifth Third
Bancorp                         5.5             5.5

8. Flagstar
Bank, FSB                       6.4             6.4

9. Ally Financial                .5            38.3

10. SunTrust Bank              55.7            55.7

Total                           8.3            27.4

Memo: All other
organizations                  21.2            21.6

2006

1. Countrywide                  8.0            29.5

2. Wells Fargo &               17.0            17.0
Co.

3. Bank of America
Corp.                          58.6            58.6

4. Wachovia Corp.              55.0            83.3

5. JPMorgan Chase
& Co.                          37.8            99.4

6. National City
Corp.                            .0            95.2

7. Washington
Mutual Bank, FSB               12.1            12.7

8. GMAC Bank                   10.0            20.2

9. Citigroup                   54.1            70.8

10. HSBC
Holdings, PLC                  64.4            66.8

Total                          24.8            38.8

Memo: All other
organizations                  38.4            54.9

(1) First-lien mortgages for owner-occupied one- to
four-family homes.

(2) All liens are included because lien status is not always
available.

(3) "Held in portfolio" refers to loans held beyond the year of
origination or purchase; excludes loans originated or purchased
during the last quarter of the year.

n.a. Not available.

Table 14. Home lending to different populations, by characteristic
of borrower and of census tract and by type and purpose of loan,
2010-11

Percent except as noted

                                             2010

Characteristic
of borrower                                  Non-               Memo:
and of                                   conventional          Number
census tract               Conventional      (1)       Total  of loans

A. Home purchase

Borrower

Race other than white only (2)

American Indian or Alaska
Native                         33.8          66.2       100      11,183

Asian                          73.4          26.6       100     119,762

Black or African American      18.9          81.1       100     133,969

Native Hawaiian or other
Pacific Islander               32.4          67.6       100       7,671

White, by ethnicity (2)

Hispanic white                 26.5          73.5       100     207,108
Non-Hispanic white             50.3          49.7       100   1,504,464

Income ratio (percent of area median) (3)

Low                            38.3          61.7       100     281,788
Moderate                       34.9          65.1       100     552,928
Middle                         41.4          58.6       100     567,223
High                           63.0          37.0       100     816,394

Census tract of property

Racial or ethnic composition (minorities as a percent of population)

Less than 10                   54.3          45.7       100     806,008
10-49                          45.6          54.4       100   1,105,335
50-79                          37.5          62.5       100     197,401
80-100                         31.4          68.6       100     109,589

Income ratio (percent of area median) (4)

Low                            39.7          60.3       100      25,879
Moderate                       35.9          64.1       100     242,761
Middle                         41.6          58.4       100   1,107,033
High                           58.1          41.9       100     819,505

B. Refinance

Borrower

Race other than white only (2)

American Indian or Alaska
Native                         76.8          23.2       100      11,981

Asian                          95.3           4.7       100     232,177

Black or African American      58.1          41.9       100     129,828

Native Hawaiian or other
Pacific Islander               75.5          24.5       100       9,925

White, by ethnicity (2)

Hispanic white                 75.1          24.9       100     190,507
Non-Hispanic white             86.3          13.7       100   3,359,573

Income ratio (percent of area median) (3)

Low                            54.5          45.5       100     631,539
Moderate                       85.6          14.4       100     635,461
Middle                         87.7          12.3       100   1,017,330
High                           93.2           6.8       100   2,231,764

Census tract of property

Racial or ethnic composition (minorities as a percent of population)

Less than 10                   87.5          12.5       100   2,014,629
10-49                          84.7          15.3       100   2,114,604
50-79                          81.6          18.4       100     266,896
80-100                         72.9          27.1       100     119,965

Income ratio (percent of area median) (4)

Native                         74.6          25.4       100      23,202
Moderate                       77.0          23.0       100     301,623
Middle                         82.4          17.6       100   2,094,968
High                           90.0          10.0       100   2,066,948

C. Home improvement (5)

Borrower

Race other than white only (2)

American Indian or Alaska      96.2           3.8       100       1,749
Native

Asian                          98.0           2.0       100       5,771

Black or African American      91.3           8.7       100      17,993

Native Hawaiian or other
Pacific Islander               95.9           4.1       100         764

White, by ethnicity (2)

Hispanic white                 95.2           4.8       100      19,935
Non-Hispanic white             96.4           3.6       100     238,623

Income ratio (percent of area median) (3)

Low                            93.9           6.1       100      46,348
Moderate                       96.2           3.8       100      63,060
Middle                         96.2           3.8       100      78,086
High                           97.2           2.8       100     127,660

Census tract of property

Racial or ethnic composition (minorities as a percent of population)

Less than 10                   97.2           2.8       100     160,410
10-49                          95.7           4.3       100     117,947
50-79                          95.2           4.8       100      17,870
80-100                         92.9           7.1       100      18,927

Income ratio (percent of area median) (4)

Low                            92.2           7.8       100       3,263
Moderate                       95.0           5.0       100      36,461
Middle                         96.1           3.9       100     177,310
High                           96.9           3.1       100      92,906

                                             2011

Characteristic
of borrower                                  Non-               Memo:
and of                                   conventional          Number
census tract               Conventional      (1)       Total  of loans


A. Home purchase

Borrower

Race other than white only (2)

American Indian or Alaska
Native                         36.5          63.5       100       9,435

Asian                          74.3          25.7       100     104,626

Black or African American      21.6          78.4       100     113,591

Native Hawaiian or other
Pacific Islander               35.1          64.9       100       6,661

White, by ethnicity (2)

Hispanic white                 29.2          70.8       100     195,778
Non-Hispanic white             53.3          46.7       100   1,417,339

Income ratio (percent of area median) (3)

Low                            39.9          60.1       100     254,828
Moderate                       37.3          62.7       100     495,859
Middle                         43.9          56.1       100     519,898
High                           65.9          34.1       100     790,223

Census tract of property

Racial or ethnic composition (minorities as a percent of population)

Less than 10                   56.4          43.6       100     767,580
10-49                          48.8          51.2       100   1,025,746
50-79                          41.0          59.0       100     169,409
80-100                         33.7          66.3       100     98,073

Income ratio (percent of area median) (4)

Low                            45.0          55.0       100      21,128
Moderate                       39.8          60.2       100     206,299
Middle                         44.3          55.7       100   1,029,115
High                           60.7          39.3       100     791,254

B. Refinance

Borrower

Race other than white only (2)

American Indian or Alaska
Native                         77.6          22.4       100      10,991

Asian                          95.8           4.3       100     204,917

Black or African American      62.5          37.6       100     119,267

Native Hawaiian or other
Pacific Islander               77.3          22.8       100       8,595

White, by ethnicity (2)

Hispanic white                 79.0          21.0       100     176,431
Non-Hispanic white             87.7          12.3       100   2,826,443

Income ratio (percent of area median) (3)

Low                            62.4          37.6       100     648,323
Moderate                       87.9          12.1       100     529,877
Middle                         89.1          10.9       100     821,444
High                           93.7           6.3       100   1,840,400

Census tract of property

Racial or ethnic composition (minorities as a percent of population)

Less than 10                   88.6          11.4       100   1,662,511
10-49                          85.9          14.1       100   1,825,725
50-79                          83.5          16.5       100     241,937
80-100                         77.4          22.6       100     109,871

Income ratio (percent of area median) (4)

Native                         79.9          20.1       100      20,390
Moderate                       80.3          19.7       100     264,107
Middle                         83.8          16.2       100   1,779,036
High                           90.7           9.3       100   1,753,976

C. Home improvement (5)

Borrower

Race other than white only (2)

American Indian or Alaska      96.7           3.3       100       1,787
Native

Asian                          97.4           2.6       100       5,857

Black or African American      93.0           7.0       100      17,964

Native Hawaiian or other
Pacific Islander               95.9           4.1       100         752

White, by ethnicity (2)

Hispanic white                 95.8           4.2       100      20,733
Non-Hispanic white             96.6           3.4       100     227,534

Income ratio (percent of area median) (3)

Low                            93.0           7.0       100      45,672
Moderate                       95.1           4.9       100      61,778
Middle                         95.2           4.8       100      75,804
High                           96.4           3.6       100     124,873

Census tract of property

Racial or ethnic composition (minorities as a percent of population)

Less than 10                   96.2           3.8       100     154,798
10-49                          94.8           5.2       100     116,021
50-79                          92.8           7.2       100      17,742
80-100                         93.4           6.6       100      19,566

Income ratio (percent of area median) (4)

Low                            87.5          12.5       100       3,393
Moderate                       94.3           5.7       100      35,492
Middle                         95.7           4.3       100     170,938
High                           96.2           3.8       100      91,865

                             Memo:
                           Percentage
Characteristic             change in
of borrower                number of
and of                       loans,
census tract                2010-11

A. Home purchase

Borrower

Race other than white only (2)

American Indian or Alaska
Native                       -15.6

Asian                        -12.6

Black or African American    -15.2

Native Hawaiian or other
Pacific Islander             -13.2

White, by ethnicity (2)

Hispanic white                -5.5
Non-Hispanic white            -5.8

Income ratio (percent of area median) (3)

Low                           -9.6
Moderate                     -10.3
Middle                        -8.3
High                          -3.2

Census tract of property

Racial or ethnic composition (minorities as a percent of population)

Less than 10                  -4.8
10-49                         -7.2
50-79                        -14.2
80-100                       -10.5

Income ratio (percent of area median) (4)

Low                          -18.4
Moderate                     -15.0
Middle                        -7.0
High                          -3.4

B. Refinance

Borrower

Race other than white only (2)

American Indian or Alaska
Native                        -8.3

Asian                        -11.7

Black or African American     -8.1

Native Hawaiian or other
Pacific Islander             -13.4

White, by ethnicity (2)

Hispanic white                -7.4
Non-Hispanic white           -15.9

Income ratio (percent of area median) (3)

Low                            2.7
Moderate                     -16.6
Middle                       -19.3
High                         -17.5

Census tract of property

Racial or ethnic composition (minorities as a percent of population)

Less than 10                 -17.5
10-49                        -13.7
50-79                         -9.4
80-100                        -8.4

Income ratio (percent of area median) (4)

Native                       -12.1
Moderate                     -12.4
Middle                       -15.1
High                         -15.1

C. Home improvement (5)

Borrower

Race other than white only (2)

American Indian or Alaska      2.2
Native

Asian                          1.5

Black or African American      -.2

Native Hawaiian or other
Pacific Islander              -1.6

White, by ethnicity (2)

Hispanic white                 4.0
Non-Hispanic white            -4.6

Income ratio (percent of area median) (3)

Low                           -1.5
Moderate                      -2.0
Middle                        -2.9
High                          -2.2

Census tract of property

Racial or ethnic composition (minorities as a percent of population)

Less than 10                  -3.5
10-49                         -1.6
50-79                         -.7
80-100                         3.4

Income ratio (percent of area median) (4)

Low                            4.0
Moderate                      -2.7
Middle                        -3.6
High                          -1.1

Note: First-lien mortgages for owner-occupied one- to
four-family homes.

(1) See table 4, note 1.

(2) Categories for race and ethnicity reflect the revised standards
established in 1997 by the Office of Management and Budget.
Applicants are placed under only one category for race and ethnicity,
generally according to the race and ethnicity of the person listed
first on the application. However, under race, the application is
designated as joint if one applicant reported the single designation
of white and the other reported one or more minority races. If the
application is not joint but more than one race is reported, the
following designations are made: If at least two minority races are
reported, the application is designated as two or more minority
races; if the first person listed on an application reports two
races, and one is white, the application is categorized under the
minority race. For loans with two or more applicants, lenders covered
under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act report data on only two.

(3) Borrower income is the total income relied on by the lender in
the loan underwriting. Income is expressed relative to the median
family income of the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or statewide
non-MSA in which the property being purchased is located. "Low" is
less than 50 percent of the median; "moderate" is 50 percent to 79
percent (in this article, "lower income" encompasses the low and
moderate categories); "middle" is 80 percent to 119 percent; and
"high" is 120 percent or more.

(4) The income category of a census tract is the median family income
of the tract relative to that of the MSA or statewide non-MSA in
which the tract is located as derived from the 2000 census. "Low" is
less than 50 percent of the median; "moderate" is 50 percent to 79
percent; "middle" is 80 percent to 119 percent; and "high" is 120
percent or more.

(5) Consists of first- and junior-lien loans and loans without a
lien.

Table 15. Loan characteristics related to lending in areas grouped by
Neighborhood Stabilization

Percent change in home-purchase lending from 2010 to 2011

                                           NSP score (1)

Characteristic                  1-4    5-8  9-12   13-16  17-20   All

Memo
Loans                          -3.3   -7.1   -9.3   -9.9  -13.8   -7.2
Applications                   -3.9   -7.3   -9.0  -10.1  -15.4   -7.8

Borrower

Income ratio (percent of area median) (2)
  Lower                        -7.4   -9.6  -11.4  -13.6  -19.6  -12.3
  Middle                       -8.4  -10.4  -12.2  -12.9  -16.5  -11.3
  High                         -1.6   -5.1   -6.8   -5.1   -5.7   -3.8
Minority (3)                   -4.7  -10.1  -11.2  -13.1  -14.8  -10.1

Originating institution

Bank                           -2.9   -7.0   -9.7  -10.3  -17.6   -7.1
Thrift                        -20.2  -28.1  -30.2  -26.4  -18.0  -24.1
Credit union                    6.6   10.8    9.2    8.9   11.2    8.5
Independent mortgage bank       4.6    -.6   -3.2   -6.4  -11.2   -2.3

Top 10 organization           -14.4  -16.6  -19.3  -18.5  -22.6  -17.1
Non-top 10 organization         2.6   -2.9   -4.9   -6.1   -9.9   -2.6

Note: First and junior liens for owner-occupied one- to four-family
properties in metropolitan areas. Data are the percent change in the
dollar value of lending.

(1) The Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) score is based on
the NSP3 score created by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. The NSP score classifies census tracts into 5 percent
"buckets" on a range of 1 to 20, with 1 being the best tracts and 20
being the worst in terms of a variety of factors, such as foreclosure
rates. NSP scores determine eligibility for NSP funding; census
tracts with the highest scores are considered the tracts with the
greatest need for support. See text for further details.

(2) Borrower income is the total income relied upon by the lender in
the loan underwriting. Income is expressed relative to the median
family income of the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or statewide
non-MSA in which the property being purchased is located. "Lower" is
less than 80 percent of the median; "middle" is 80 percent to 119
percent; and "high" is 120 percent or more.

(3) See table 14, note 2. Minority borrowers are borrowers other than
non-Hispanic whites.

Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development; Federal
Financial Institutions Examination Council, data reported under the
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.

Table 16. Incidence of higher-priced lending, unmodified and modified
for borrower-and lender-related factors, by type and purpose of loan
and by race, ethnicity, and sex of borrower, 2011

A. Conventional loan

Percent except as noted

                                                 Modified incidence,
                                               by modification factor

                                                            Borrower-
Race, ethnicity,      Number of   Unmodified   Borrower-     related
and sex                 loans     incidence     related    plus lender

                                       Home purchase

Race other than white only (1)

American Indian or
Alaska Native            2,905       7.85        4.42          4.14

Asian                   77,211       1.32        3.28          3.70

Black or African
American                21,655       7.84        6.52          4.69

Native Hawaiian or
other Pacific
Islander                 2,285       2.76        3.98          4.23

Two or more
minority races             395       2.28        3.12          3.87

Joint                   15,158       2.91        4.17          4.16

Missing                 84,659       1.67        2.78          3.90

White, by ethnicity (1)

Hispanic white          43,569       7.25        5.68          4.40

Non-Hispanic white     736,713       3.85        3.85          3.85

Sex

One male               274,116       3.92        3.92          3.92

One female             192,796       3.55        3.27          3.63

Two males               10,304       7.00        7.00          7.00

Two females              7,924       4.76        5.41          6.97

                                                 Modified incidence,
                                               by modification factor

                                                            Borrower-
Race, ethnicity,       Number     Unmodified   Borrower-     related
and sex               of loans    incidence     related    plus lender

                                         Refinance

Race other than white only (1)

American Indian or
Alaska Native             8,313      3.14        2.46          1.82

Asian                   195,610       .31         .93          1.48

Black or African
American                 73,397      4.21        3.19          2.36

Native Hawaiian or
other Pacific
Islander                  6,593      1.18        1.88          2.26

Two or more
minority races            1,405       .85        2.06          1.96

Joint                    48,823       .97        1.67          1.72

Missing                 339,272       .74        1.09          1.64

White, by ethnicity (1)

Hispanic white          110,493      2.41        2.09          2.00

Non-Hispanic white    2,496,791      1.62        1.62          1.62

Sex

One male                655,790      1.79        1.79          1.79

One female              522,500      1.99        1.70          1.72

Two males                22,219      2.00        2.00          2.00

Two females              22,594      2.07        1.77          2.16

Note: First-lien mortgages for owner-occupied, one-to four-family,
site-built properties; excludes business loans. Business-related
loans are those for which the lender reported that the race,
ethnicity, and sex of the applicant or co-applicant are
not applicable. For definition of higher-priced lending and
explanation of modification factors, see text and table 9, note 3.
Loans taken out jointly by a male and female are not tabulated here
because they would not be directly comparable with loans taken out by
one borrower or by two borrowers of the same sex.

(1) See table 14, note 2.

Table 16. Incidence of higher-priced lending, unmodified and modified
for borrower-and lender-related factors, by type and purpose of loan
and by race, ethnicity, and sex of borrower, 2011

B. Nonconventional loan

Percent except as noted

                                                 Modified incidence,
                                               by modification factor

                                                            Borrower-
Race, ethnicity,        Number    Unmodified   Borrower-     related
and sex                of loans   incidence     related    plus lender

                                        Home purchase

Race other than white only (1)

American Indian or
Alaska Native            5,754       2.78        2.91          2.09

Asian                   26,746       2.09        2.01          2.02

Black or African
American                87,774       4.16        3.53          3.10

Native Hawaiian or
other Pacific
Islander                 4,288       2.64        2.46          2.57

Two or more
minority races             681        .88        1.35          1.59

Joint                   15,364       1.75        2.37          2.51

Missing                 74,377       2.89        3.57          2.30

White, by ethnicity (1)

Hispanic white         120,229       4.78        2.79          2.59

Non-Hispanic white     660,368       2.35        2.35          2.35

Sex

One male               359,311       2.91        2.91          2.91

One female             234,298       3.89        2.92          2.91

Two males               13,567       2.94        2.94          2.94

Two females             10,629       3.24        3.36          3.54

                                                 Modified incidence,
                                               by modification factor

                                                            Borrower-
Race, ethnicity,        Number    Unmodified   Borrower-     related
and sex                of loans   incidence     related    plus lender

                                          Refinance

Race other than white only (1)

American Indian or
Alaska Native            2,312       5.02        3.74         2.83

Asian                    8,577       4.03        3.92         4.06

Black or African
American                44,070      10.80        7.33         5.24

Native Hawaiian or
other Pacific
Islander                 1,913       3.50        3.58         4.06

Two or more
minority races             308       4.55        5.33         4.21

Joint                    9,617       2.67        4.50         4.58

Missing                 55,264       2.32        3.06         4.64

White, by ethnicity (1)

Hispanic white          28,384       6.50        4.20         4.23

Non-Hispanic white     344,076       5.94        5.94         5.94

Sex

One male               147,966       4.72        4.72         4.72

One female              81,252      12.04        6.03         5.56

Two males                3,692       2.76        2.76         2.76

Two females              3,261       4.60        4.07         4.66

Note: See notes to table 16.A.

Table 17. Mean average prime offer rate spreads, unmodified and
modified for borrower-and lender-related factors, for higher-priced
loans on one-to four-family homes, by type and purpose of loan and by
race, ethnicity, and sex of borrower, 2011

A. Conventional loan

Percent except as noted

                                                Modified mean spread,
                                               by modification factor

                     Number of
                      higher-                               Borrower-
Race, ethnicity,      priced     Unmodified    Borrower-     related
and sex              loans (1)   mean spread    related    plus lender

                                       Home purchase

Race other than white only (2)

American Indian or
Alaska Native             228        2.93         2.80         2.70

Asian                   1,016        2.41         2.49         2.46

Black or African
American                1,698        2.49         2.67         2.54

Native Hawaiian or
other Pacific
Islander                   63        2.26         2.95         2.63

Two or more
minority races              9        2.68         3.61         2.52

Joint                     441        2.49         2.48         2.49

Missing                 1,415        2.29         2.29         2.48

White, by ethnicity (2)

Hispanic white          3,160        2.76         2.71         2.55

Non-Hispanic white     28,356        2.49         2.49         2.49

Sex

One male                9,073        2.54         2.54         2.54

One female              5,767        2.48         2.48         2.51

Two males                 721        2.58         2.58         2.58

Two females               377        2.55         2.51         2.52

                                                Modified mean spread,
                                               by modification factor

                     Number of
                      higher-                               Borrower-
Race, ethnicity,      priced     Unmodified    Borrower-     related
and sex              loans (1)   mean spread    related    plus lender

                                         Refinance

Race other than white only (2)

American Indian or
Alaska Native             261        2.71         2.55         2.58

Asian                     601        2.43         2.36         2.49

Black or African
American                3,087        2.99         2.91         2.66

Native Hawaiian or
other Pacific
Islander                   78        2.42         2.62         2.61

Two or more
minority races             12        1.98         2.34         2.67

Joint                     476        2.48         2.56         2.56

Missing                 2,514        2.52         3.13         2.56

White, by ethnicity (2)

Hispanic white          2,660        2.84         2.56         2.55

Non-Hispanic white     40,456        2.53         2.53         2.53

Sex

One male               10,679        2.72         2.72         2.72

One female              9,937        2.80         2.73         2.72

Two males                 445        2.54         2.54         2.54

Two females               467        2.68         2.56         2.49

Note: For definition of higher-priced lending and explanation of
modification factors, see text. Loans taken out jointly by a male and
female are not tabulated here because they would not be directly
comparable with loans taken out by one borrower or by two borrowers
of the same sex. For definition of average prime offer rate spread,
see table 11, note 1.

(1) See table 9, note 3.

(2) See table 14, note 2.

B. Nonconventional loan

Percent except as noted

                                                Modified mean spread,
                                               by modification factor

                      Number of
                       higher-    Unmodified                Borrower-
Race, ethnicity,       priced        mean      Borrower-     related
and sex               loans (1)     spread      related    plus lender

                                       Home purchase

Race other than white only (2)

American Indian or
Alaska Native              160         1.78        1.91          1.95

Asian                      558         2.10        1.96          1.93

Black or African
American                 3,651         1.94        1.93          1.96

Native Hawaiian or
other Pacific
Islander                   113         1.91        1.95          1.95

Two or more
minority races               6         2.07        1.89          2.01

Joint                      269         1.97        2.00          1.97

Missing                  2,151         2.21        2.18          1.98

White, by ethnicity (2)

Hispanic white           5,749         1.88        1.92          1.96

Non-Hispanic white      15,531         1.96        1.96          1.96

Sex

One male                10,449         1.93        1.93          1.93

One female               9,114         1.99        1.95          1.93

Two males                  399         1.90        1.90          1.90

Two females                344         1.85        1.84          1.92

                                               Modified mean spread,
                                               by modification factor

                      Number of
                       higher-    Unmodified                Borrower-
Race, ethnicity,       priced        mean      Borrower-     related
and sex               loans (1)     spread      related    plus lender

                                         Refinance

Race other than white only (2)

American Indian or
Alaska Native              116         2.49        2.50          2.53

Asian                      346         2.35        2.30          2.38

Black or African
American                 4,758         2.63        2.55          2.49

Native Hawaiian or
other Pacific
Islander                    67         2.44        2.47          2.24

Two or more
minority races              14         2.25        2.23          2.22

Joint                      257         2.36        2.59          2.45

Missing                  1,281         3.33        4.42          2.32

White, by ethnicity (2)

Hispanic white           1,845         2.47        2.39          2.44

Non-Hispanic white      20,442         2.44        2.44          2.44

Sex

One male                 6,977         2.60        2.60          2.60

One female               9,785         2.63        2.65          2.64

Two males                  102         2.17        2.17          2.17

Two females                150         2.30        2.16          2.23

Note: See notes to table 17.A.

Table 18. Denial rates on applications, unmodified and modified for
borrower-and lender-related factors, by type and purpose of loan and
by race, ethnicity, and sex of applicant, 2011

A. Conventional loan application

Percent except as noted

                                                 Modified denial rate,
                                                by modification factor
                      Number of
                     applications                           Borrower-
Race, ethnicity,      acted upon   Unmodified   Borrower-    related
and sex               by lender    denial rate   related   plus lender

                                        Home purchase

Race other than white only (1)

American Indian or
Alaska Native              4,165       23.8        21.3        16.1

Asian                     99,848       14.8        14.8        13.5

Black or African
American                  34,475       30.9        24.2        21.3

Native Hawaiian or
other Pacific
Islander                   3,130       20.3        16.1        15.1

Two or more
minority races               576       24.0        24.7        19.7

Joint                     18,679       12.1        14.3        12.9

Missing                  115,081       18.6        18.7        14.9

White, by ethnicity (1)

Hispanic white            60,885       21.7        16.2        15.7

Non-Hispanic white       894,159       11.9        11.9        11.9

Sex

One male                 353,445       16.0        16.0        16.0

One female               245,656       15.6        14.3        14.8

Two males                 13,586       17.9        17.9        17.9

Two females               10,332       17.6        15.3        14.5

                                                 Modified denial rate,
                                                by modification factor
                      Number of
                     applications                           Borrower-
Race, ethnicity,      acted upon   Unmodified   Borrower-    related
and sex               by lender    denial rate   related   plus lender

                                          Refinance

Race other than white only (1)

American Indian or
Alaska Native             14,554       36.2        35.0        28.8

Asian                    266,844       19.3        23.1        23.4

Black or African
American                 138,918       40.5        36.3        32.1

Native Hawaiian or
other Pacific
Islander                  10,738       31.9        31.6        28.6

Two or more
minority races             2,349       32.8        36.7        31.3

Joint                     65,079       18.7        23.5        22.1

Missing                  529,019       29.2        28.6        24.4

White, by ethnicity (1)

Hispanic white           179,810       32.0        28.5        26.6

Non-Hispanic white     3,362,076       20.0        20.0        20.0

Sex

One male                 987,535       26.7        26.7        26.7

One female               767,689       25.8        24.4        24.6

Two males                 31,981       24.5        24.5        24.5

Two females               32,124       24.0        23.5        23.7

Note: First-lien mortgages for owner-occupied, one-to four-family,
site-built properties; excludes business loans. Business-related
loans are those for which the lender reported that the race,
ethnicity, and sex of the applicant or co-applicant are "not
applicable." For explanation of modification factors, see text.
Applications made jointly by a male and female are not tabulated here
because they would not be directly comparable with applications made
by one applicant or by two applicants of the same sex.

(1) See table 14, note 2.

B. Nonconventional loan application

Percent except as noted

                                                 Modified denial rate,
                                                by modification factor

                      Number of
                     applications                           Borrower-
Race, ethnicity,      acted upon   Unmodified   Borrower-    related
and sex               by lender    denial rate   related   plus lender

                                       Home purchase

Race other than white only (1)

American Indian or
Alaska Native              7,408       16.7        18.8        18.0

Asian                     35,278       18.6        17.1        15.6

Black or African
American                 120,493       22.0        20.2        19.2

Native Hawaiian or
other Pacific
Islander                   5,554       17.2        17.4        17.4

Two or more
minority races               939       20.0        19.5        18.5

Joint                     18,604       12.3        14.3        13.4

Missing                  101,560       20.7        21.4        18.0

White, by ethnicity (1)

Hispanic white           157,053       17.9        15.9        15.6

Non-Hispanic white       796,284       12.7        12.7        12.7

Sex

One male                 453,381       15.9        15.9        15.9

One female               295,544       16.0        14.7        15.0

Two males                 18,167       20.0        20.0        20.0

Two females               13,935       18.9        17.1        17.8

                                                 Modified denial rate,
                                                by modification factor

                      Number of
                     applications                           Borrower-
Race, ethnicity,      acted upon   Unmodified   Borrower-    related
and sex               by lender    denial rate   related   plus lender

                                         Refinance

Race other than white only (1)

American Indian or
Alaska Native              4,115       35.6        37.7        32.6

Asian                     14,906       32.6        33.6        32.3

Black or African
American                  83,469       38.9        39.6        36.5

Native Hawaiian or
other Pacific
Islander                   3,165       30.5        33.1        32.5

Two or more
minority races               632       39.6        39.8        31.0

Joint                     14,265       24.6        32.0        31.0

Missing                  110,551       42.6        40.9        31.1

White, by ethnicity (1)

Hispanic white            48,034       31.4        33.0        32.3

Non-Hispanic white       538,897       28.9        28.9        28.9

Sex

One male                 253,578       33.8        33.8        33.8

One female               144,648       36.3        32.6        32.5

Two males                  6,151       30.9        30.9        30.9

Two females                5,598       33.5        29.3        30.1

Note: See notes to table 18.A.

Table 19. Effect of the transition to updated census data on
classification of census tracts, home lending, and branch
offices, by census-tract relative-income reclassification

                             Census 2000 to 2005-09 ACS

Census-tract            Census tracts             Loans
relative-income
reclassification (1)   Number   Percent      Number   Percent

Low to low              2,888        74      40,675        64
Low to moderate           860        22      16,682        26
Low to middle             110         3       2,910         5
Low to high                44         1       2,856         5
Memo: Total             3,902       100      63,123       100

Moderate to low         2,323        16      56,946         9
Moderate to moderate    9,208        65     410,331        65
Moderate to middle      2,411        17     151,120        24
Moderate to high          153         1      11,099         2
Memo: Total            14,095       100     629,496       100

Middle to low             108         0       2,430         0
Middle to moderate      4,777        15     314,565         9
Middle to middle       23,710        74   2,590,180        76
Middle to high          3,359        11     500,753        15
Memo: Total            31,954       100   3,407,928       100

High to low                 8         0          64         0
High to moderate           36         0       1,342         0
High to middle          2,664        18     380,064        13
High to high           11,907        81   2,515,553        87
Memo: Total            14,615       100   2,897,023       100

                        Census 2000 to     Census 2000 to
                         2005-09 ACS        2006-10 ACS

Census-tract            Branch offices     Census tracts
relative-income
reclassification (1)   Number   Percent   Number   Percent

Low to low              1,966        63    2,213        76
Low to moderate           718        23      624        21
Low to middle             157         5       58         2
Low to high               260         8       21         1
Memo: Total             3,101       100    2,916       100

Moderate to low         2,078        13    1,955        18
Moderate to moderate   10,624        66    7,060        65
Moderate to middle      3,171        20    1,813        17
Moderate to high          268         2      100         1
Memo: Total            16,141       100   10,928       100

Middle to low             159         0       80         0
Middle to moderate      6,993        14    3,784        16
Middle to middle       37,884        75   17,496        73
Middle to high          5,360        11    2,577        11
Memo: Total            50,396       100   23,937       100

High to low                21         0        0         0
High to moderate           71         0       23         0
High to middle          4,516        16    2,076        19
High to high           22,791        83    8,750        81
Memo: Total            27,399       100   10,849       100

                             Census 2000 to 2006-10 ACS

Census-tract                   Loans          Branch offices
relative-income
reclassification (1)     Number    Percent   Number   Percent

Low to low                31,483        64    1,486        68
Low to moderate           13,270        27      478        22
Low to middle              2,441         5      118         5
Low to high                1,930         4      107         5
Memo: Total               49,124       100    2,189       100

Moderate to low           47,304        10    1,622        14
Moderate to moderate     301,313        65    7,912        67
Moderate to middle       104,672        23    2,139        18
Moderate to high           8,766         2      155         1
Memo: Total              462,055       100   11,828       100

Middle to low              1,795         0      113         0
Middle to moderate       237,760        11    4,967        14
Middle to middle       1,696,802        75   25,712        75
Middle to high           313,465        14    3,588        10
Memo: Total            2,249,822       100   34,380       100

High to low                    0         0        0         0
High to moderate           1,042         0       47         0
High to middle           253,190        14    3,052        17
High to high           1,530,101        86   14,399        82
Memo: Total            1,784,333       100   17,498       100

Note: For an explanation of the transition to updated census data,
see the text discussion "Transition to the 2010 Census Data and
Revised Census-Tract Boundaries." Census tracts are as defined in
the decennial censuses for 2000 (Census 2000) and 2010.

(1) For definitions of census-tract income categories, see table 14,
note 4.

ACS American Community Survey.

Source: For census-tract locations of properties related to home loans,
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, data reported under
the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act; for branch office locations, data
derived from the Summary of Deposits as of