MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W246766421

The Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the Community Reinvestment Act: Past Accomplishments and Future Regulatory Challenges. (Session 4: Housing Subsidies and Finances)

2003· article· en· W246766421 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William C. Apgar, Mark Duda

Bibliographic record

VenueFederal Reserve Bank of New York Economic policy review · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommunity Reinvestment ActSubsidyBusinessMetropolitan areaFinanceFair Housing ActScrutinyQuarter (Canadian coin)IncentiveSmall businessEconomicsPolitical scienceLawMarket economy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY (1) The U.S. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in 1977 to encourage depository institutions to meet the credit needs of lower income neighborhoods. The CRA was built on the simple proposition that deposit-taking banking organizations have a special obligation to serve the credit needs of the communities in which they maintain branches. At the time of the CRA's passage, banks and thrifts originated the vast majority of home purchase loans. The CRA's initial focus on areas where CRA-regulated institutions maintained branches made sense because restrictions on interstate banking and branching activities were limiting the geographic scope of mortgage lending operations. Today, the CRA continues to provide significant incentives for CRA-regulated institutions to expand the provision of credit to lower income and/or to minority communities where those institutions maintain deposit-taking operations. Yet in the quarter century since the act's passage, dramatic changes have transformed the financial services landscape, especially in home mortgage lending. These changes have combined to weaken the link between mortgage lending and the branch based deposit gathering on which the CRA was based. Today, less than 30 percent of all home purchase loans are subject to intensive review under the CRA. In some metropolitan areas, this share is less than 10 percent. With a substantial portion of home purchase lending no longer subject to detailed scrutiny under the CRA, the issue of how best to modernize the CRA has emerged as an important public policy challenge. Some argue that the CRA's costs exceed its benefits. Others advocate expanding regulatory oversight. Congress considered changes to the CRA in the debate leading up to the passage of the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act (GLBA), but in the end it did little to make the CRA conform to the realities of the financial services marketplace. Although the CRA continues to provide significant benefits to lower income households and communities, reform is needed for the act to encourage financial services providers to meet the continuing needs of the communities they serve. 1.1 Summary of Key Findings This paper draws on a more extensive Joint Center for Housing Studies assessment of the CRA, funded by the Ford Foundation. The larger study not only assesses the impact of the CRA on home purchase and home refinance lending, it also presents commentary on the CRA's impact on small-business and multifamily lending, as well as on the provision of financial services more generally. In addition, the Ford Foundation study presents qualitative findings concerning the CRA's impact on the operation of banks and mortgage lenders as well as the impact on the relationship between mortgage lenders and community-based advocacy organizations. Our paper focuses on the regulatory and legislative challenges that confront the act at age twenty-five. In addition to providing a brief review of the evolution of CRA regulations, we document the impact that the CRA has had on home mortgage lending to lower income people and communities and assess changes in industry structure. We conclude with a discussion of current legislative and regulatory challenges. The CRA Has Expanded Access to Mortgage Capital Working in combination with the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) and the closely related Fair Housing and Fair Lending Legislation, the CRA continues to expand access to capital for CRA-eligible borrowers. Here, CRA-eligible borrowers include those with an income of less than 80 percent of the area median income and/or those living in census tracts with a median income of less than 80 percent of the area median. CRA-regulated lenders refer to federally regulated banks and thrifts as well as their mortgage company and finance company affiliates. * In both 1993 and 2000, CRA-regulated lenders operating in their assessment areas (areas where they maintain deposit-taking operations) had shares of conventional, conforming prime home purchase loans to CRA-eligible borrowers that exceeded the equivalent shares for out-of-area lenders or noncovered organizations. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0180.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0430.022

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFederal Reserve Bank of New York Economic policy reviewSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207