A deeper statistical analysis performed by CNN found that Black applicants to Navy Federal were more than twice as likely to be denied as White applicants even when more than a dozen different variables – including income, debt-to-income ratio, property value, downpayment percentage, and neighborhood characteristics – were the same.
This is the important bit, so someone can’t argue differences in loan applications.
There’s more variables than just the ones listed that are considered when giving out loans.
For example, this article doesn’t mention anything about credit score or collection accounts being the same. Credit score is THE biggest factor, this article is pure speculation.
Not going to lie, my first thought was to wonder whether and how they controlled for this.
But I took a step back and reminded myself that REDLINING HAPPENED. Well into the modern day. It was only outlawed in 1968, and there's evidence that banks continued to do it through the 70s.
It's absolutely no surprise that there are still disparities, and I would be further unsurprised to find out that the deciding factor was zip code.
Same for car insurance. I moved down the road and that resulted me crossing a zip code line. New zip code is less white so my rates hiked. Of course they denied everything.
And as long as people like me have a heartbeat we will crucify shit dicks like that until they flip their accounts private and cry about needing a safespace.
TBH, this was my first thought when I read the headline. Surely they can’t be so bald-faced racist as to just deny someone because they’re black, they’d be caught easily. So I assumed it must be something like lower credit scores or some other confounding factor, which, to be clear, is still the result of racism. But like a deeper, more systemic racism. That it’s apparently not feels more concerning to me, like they just didn’t think it would be a problem if they got caught.
I noticed the article indicated that the analysis didn't include credit score, available cash deposit, and relationship history with the lender. Honestly, it is usually credit score and cash on hand that gets you approved to receive a loan, debt to income ratio to determine maximum loan amount, and property value to pass underwriting requirements.
CNN's response is basically, we don't have the credit scores because it isn't in the public data, and sort of glosses over it from there.
Now, I'm all for rooting out implicit and systematic bias, especially with systems that have profound effects on life trajectory, and I think credit scores are particularly prone to disadvantage minorities, but I feel like CNN really could have done better here. I know they asked the bank for credit score data, but the bank can't release that information to a third party like that. I would have liked to see CNN being in some more expertise on the subject.
I'm contrast both NPR and NYT have done much more thorough investigative journalism on these topics. NPR in particular did a great podcast on how black home owners were routinely having their homes appraised for markedly less than white peers, and NYT covered discrepancies in underwriting outcomes even when credit history was the same.
I think CNN saw the easy article against this particular bank and took it to fill column space.
Also, how does that compare with other financial institutions?
It’s a well known fact that black people are more likely to live in poverty or to at least be raised in it, that’s not very good to build a credit score!
Also, mortgages are approved by computers, not humans, the computer doesn’t know your skin colour, it knows your financial situation.
While many banks also approved White applicants at higher rates than Black Sborrowers, the nearly 29-percentage-point gap in Navy Federal’s approval rates was the widest of any of the 50 lenders that originated the most mortgage loans last year.
It’s the widest but what’s the rate for the other institutions? Is 29% the worst but the best is only a 4% difference or is it a 20% difference? I’m sure you know exactly what I’m saying, I just find it frustrating that it’s always the best or the worst that gets talked about when it’s the whole portrait that’s important.
Yeah. The concern I have with these things is when a constellation of metrics is assembled for the purpose of decision making, each data element on its own innocuous seeming, but together they manage to encourage training bias. Which is part of the concern around machine learning models being used to make real world decisions.
In this case there may well be a structural issue with the navy credit union, but I don't think CNN showed that as well as they think.
Credit unions in particular still give some weight to how long you have been a member. Banks don't so much, and even with credit unions it only goes so far.
Nope. There is zero evidence that a long-standing, mutually-beneficial financial relationship works out.
FFS, of course working with people over time is beneficial. Of course, both parties view one another more favorably, and act on that favoritism. You’re like some kind of financial incel.
Been with my credit union for 15-years or so. We have a solid relationship. If I need a thing, bet they stand up for me. No one has as clue what the other looks like, but here we are.
Had 3 car loans, couple of personal loans, saving and checking accounts, and a credit card with them. They helped me with financial needs, I repaid as agreed. It’s been a mutually beneficial relationship.
If your take on business relationships is built on schmoozing, you’re gonna fail every time.
that’s not what’s meant. they mean, how long you’ve had an account with them, whether you have multiple accounts or loans with the institution, if you’ve been late in paying or carried very minimal balances or have a history of harassing customer service to the point customer service felt the need to record it.
it’s your relationship with the institution, not the ceo, and whether you’ve been a good customer or not really.
“Notably, Navy Federal approved a slightly higher percentage of applications from White borrowers making less than $62,000 a year than it did of Black borrowers making $140,000 or more.”
I don’t know man. Like, I agree that data is missing, but the data they did pull is very damning. Like how is there a higher approval % of white applicants making less than half the yearly salary of black applicants?
That's a good point, though the whole thing is weird. I went back and reread the article and this jumped out at me as well:
By some measures, Navy Federal has been successful at lending to minority borrowers: A fourth of its conventional mortgage applicants are Black, and about 18% of the conventional loans it originated went to Black borrowers – a larger portion than almost any other large lender.
It feels like they have some biased criteria in their approval process, but would really need the data to show it. They originate a higher percentage of conventional loans to black borrowers, but possibly as an artifact of having more apply.
One possible reason for the discrepancy with approval rates and income could also be cost of living areas. It would make sense that higher salaries also correlate to more expensive areas.
It would be nice if they shared their statistical results that they talk about being embedded in their processes to prevent bias so we could see what they are keying off of.
Pearson said that CNN’s analysis “does not accurately reflect our practices” because it did not account for “major criteria required by any financial institution to approve a mortgage loan.” Those factors included “credit score, available cash deposits and relationship history with lender,” he said.
This is the important bit. They didn’t even account for the most basic of approval criteria. CNN didn’t even deny it. Just said that the banks refused to provide that information (because, duh, it’s private).
There are federal lending regulations that require strict numbers-based criteria. There are no personal opinions involved in the underwriting process.
Ignoring basic criteria because “well they wouldn’t give it to us!” is just dishonest and more of your typical race-baiting “journalism”.
It's disheartening to hear about the challenges faced by Black applicants in accessing conventional mortgages, especially when striving for homeownership is a fundamental part of the American dream. While this issue underscores systemic disparities within the lending industry, it also highlights the importance of exploring alternative financial solutions.
In situations where traditional lending avenues may pose obstacles, options like a 25 dollar cash advance can offer immediate relief for minor expenses or unforeseen financial hurdles. While it may not address the larger issue of mortgage access directly, it can provide temporary assistance in navigating financial challenges.
However, it's crucial to recognize that systemic inequalities require comprehensive solutions that address underlying issues of discrimination and inequity in lending practices. Efforts to promote fair lending practices, improve financial literacy, and expand access to homeownership opportunities for marginalized communities are essential steps toward achieving economic justice and equality.
Whew. Racist content coming from noagendasocial.com, how am I not surprised? I used to listen and foolishly believe they really had no agenda before they went mask off.
Thank you Kbin for allowing me to block entire instances all on my own, and thank you amerika for reminding me to do so.
Do folks still refer to that instance as alt-right nazi dragoons? I remember hearing Adam melt down about it.
LOL look at this ad from the sidebar of that article. What fearful lives conservatives live, it must be horrifying to watch the rest of the world grow slowly and painfully into a better place while you all just have to get dragged along by the hair.
Add comment