Since the early 1990s, there has been a very large growth in mortgages made by so-called subprime lenders, which specialize in lending to borrowers with credit history problems. One reason for concern about this trend is that it has been associated with a large and simultaneous rise in foreclosures, which can entail significant costs not just for those directly affected but also for surrounding neighborhoodsand larger communities. This study usesmultivariate estimations to quantify the impact of subprime lending on neighborhood foreclosure levels. After controlling for neighborhood demographics and economic conditions, the authors find that subprime loans lead to foreclosures at far greater rates than do prime loans. Moreover, subprime lending appears to account for a substantial share of foreclosure activity in high-foreclosure neighborhoods.
American Association of Retired Persons. 1997. Progress in the housing of older persons. http://research.aarp.org/il/d16376_toc.html%23Acknol (Accessed May 22, 2003).
2.
Avery, R., R. Bostic, P. Calem, and G. Canner. 1997. Changes in the distribution of banking offices. Federal Reserve Bulletin83:708–725.
3.
Burnett, K., C. Herbert, and B. Kaul. 2002. Subprime originations and foreclosures in New York State: A case study of Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
4.
Calem, P., K. Gillen, and S. Wachter. Forthcoming. The neighborhood distribution of subprime mortgage lending. Forthcoming. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics.
5.
Canner, G., T. Durkin, and C. Luckett. 1998. Recent developments in home equity lending. Federal Reserve Bulletin84:241–251.
6.
Collins, M. 2003. Chicago's homeownership preservation challenge: Foreclosures. Unpublished manuscript.
7.
Crews Cutts, A., and R. A. Van Order. 2003. On the economics of subprime lending. McLean, VA: Freddie Mac.
8.
Fannie Mae. 2001. 2001 national housing survey. Washington, DC: Author.
9.
Freddie Mac. 1996. Automated underwriting: Making mortgage lending simpler and fairer for America's families. Washington, DC: Freddie Mac.
10.
Gale, D. E. 2001. Subprime and predatory mortgage refinancing: Information technology, credit scoring and vulnerable borrowers. Paper presented at the housing and the new economy sessions of the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association Midyear Meeting, Washington, DC.
11.
Gruenstein, D., and C. Herbert. 2000a. Analyzing trends in subprime originations and foreclosures: A case study of the Atlanta metro area. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
12.
Gruenstein, D., and C. Herbert. 2000b. Analyzing trends in subprime originations and foreclosures: A case study of the Boston metro area. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
13.
Immergluck, D.2004. Credit to the community: Community reinvestment and fair lending policy in the U.S.Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
14.
Kim-Sung, K., and S. Hermanson. 2003. Experiences of older refinance mortgage loan borrowers: Broker-and lender-originated loans. Washington, DC: AARP Public Policy Institute.
15.
McCarthy, G., S. VanZandt, and W. Rohe. 2001. The economic benefits and costs of homeownership: A critical assessment of the research. Working Paper 01-02. Washington, DC: Research Institute for Housing America.
16.
Moreno, A.1995. The cost-effectiveness of mortgage foreclosure prevention. Minneapolis, MN: Family Housing Fund.
17.
National Community Reinvestment Coalition. 2003. The broken credit system: Discrimination and unequal access to affordable loans by race and age. Washington, DC: National Community Reinvestment Coalition.
18.
NationalTraining and Information Center. 1999. Preying on neighborhoods: Subprime mortgage lenders and Chicagoland foreclosures. Chicago: Author.
19.
Newman, K., and E. Wyly. 2004. Geographies of mortgage market segmentation: The case of Essex County, New Jersey. Housing Studies19:53–83.
20.
Pennington-Cross, A., A. Yezer, and J. Nichols. 2000. Credit risk and mortgage lending: Who uses subprime and why? Working Paper 00-03. Washington, DC: Research Institute for Housing America.
21.
Phillips-Patrick, E. Hirschhorn, J. Jones, and J. LaRocca. 2000. What about subprime mortgages?Mortgage Market Trends4 (1). Washington, D.C.: Office of Thrift Supervision Research and Analysis.
22.
Quercia, R., M. Stegman, and W. Davis. 2003. The impact of North Carolina's anti-predatory lending law: A descriptive assessment. Chapel Hill, NC: Center for Community Capitalism, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
23.
Simons, R. A., R. G. Quercia, and I. Maric. 1998. The value of residential construction and neighborhood disinvestment in residential sales price. Journal of Real Estate Research15 (1/2): 147–161.
24.
Skillern, P.2000. Comments for the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Government-Sponsored Enterprises hearing. June 15, 2000. http://financialservices.house.gov/banking/61500ski.htm (accesed May 3, 2003).
25.
Stein, K., and M. Libby. 2001. Stolen wealth: Inequities in California's subprime mortgage market. San Francisco: California Reinvestment Committee.
26.
Stock, R. D.2001. Predation in the subprime lending market: Montgomery County. Dayton, Ohio: Center for Business and Economic Research, University of Dayton.
27.
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2000. Unequal burden in Baltimore: Income and racial disparities in subprime lending. Washington, DC: Author.
28.
U. S. Department of Treasury and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2000. Curbing predatory home mortgage lending. Washington, DC: Author.
29.
Walters, N., and S. Hermanson. 2001. Subprime mortgage lending and older borrowers. AARP Data Digestno. 57. Washington, DC: AARP, March.
30.
Zimmerman, K., E. Wyly, and H. Botein. 2002. Predatory lending in New Jersey: The rising threat to low-income homeowners. Newark: New Jersey Institute for Social Justice.
