So how about that Zimmerman trial?

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Buyers rarely interact directly with sellers. There is usually at least one agent involved and frequently two.

Let's imagine for a moment that Bob opens up Bob's Pretty Good Black and Latino Loan Store. Bob starts making enough loans to show up on the radar of First National Loan Gougers of Omaha. They crunch the numbers and they'll make more money by buying Bob out. They don't even have to pull in favors from Mayor Corruption or Governor How Much You Got. Bob gets a couple mil, First National goes back to gouging. No conspiracy required.

Barkingturtle, I'm pretty stubborn. Not as stubborn as HBB, but I'll waste quite a bit of time before I realize the futility of something. But what if even one person says, "Hey, I hadn't looked at it that way?"

from the abstract that was posted, the 3% premium seems to be related to purchase price, not loan rates. i'd quibble with your suggestion that buyers/sellers rarely interact, but even granting that most transactions are driven by agents, you're suggesting small-scale actors as diverse as real estate agents are summarily and invariably hiking prices on minority buyers by 3% in all markets. that just doesn't strike me as a tenable interpretation of the data -- it's more of a shifting of the goal posts. the study found no differences based on race of seller or racial composition of neighborhood. you're shrugging off those measures and doubling down on the race of the real estate agent(s), which went unrecorded.

i won't venture a guess as to those numbers, but assuming real estate agents were to fall in line with the people they're representing or the neighborhood(s) they are active in, you'd be back to looking at the buyers

[Splorf22]

In your scenario Bob walks away with a million bucks after a few years of work. Don't you think there would be a lot of Bob's out there?

[Alawen]

Sure, all the Bobs with experience in banking, knowledge to navigate the bureaucracy, and enough capital to finance a bank. It's not like cost of entry exists or anything.

I'm really not interested in continuing this conversation where I cite empirical data and you argue vaguely defined idealized principles. The counterpoint to my evidence is your own evidence, not supposition.

Yes, but what does that MEAN?

[Splorf22]

BTW, I'm with Daldoma: I think most people are racist. It's natural and human and probably a factor. I just think they value their pocketbooks more. Even the authors suggest that racial prejudice is not the primary factor.

[Splorf22]

This paper uses unique panel data covering over two million repeat-sales housing transactions from four metropolitan areas to test for the presence of racial price differentials in the housing market. Drawing on the strengths of these data, our research design controls carefully for unobserved differences in the quality of neighborhoods and the homes purchased by buyers of each race. We find that black and Hispanic homebuyers pay premiums of about three percent on average across the four cities, differences that are not explained by variation in buyer income, wealth or access to credit. Further, the estimated premiums do not vary significantly with the racial composition of the neighborhood; nor, strikingly, do they vary with the race of the seller. This latter finding suggests that racial prejudice on the part of sellers is not the primary explanation for the robust premiums we uncover. The results have implications for the evolution of racial differences in wealth and home ownership and the persistence of residential segregation.

It seems your data doesn't say what you think it says. Anyway if you aren't having fun then forget it. I don't take this stuff seriously and its not fun when other people do.

[Alawen]

I'm not doubling down on the race of anyone. The race of the real estate agent or loan officer is irrelevant. Systemic racism is SYSTEMIC.

Here's another study that shows blacks paying higher interest rates AT ALL INCOME LEVELS: Minorities pay more.

Here's another study showing minorities getting jacked in New York.

Here's an academic paper from an older study.

This one is from Harvard.

Not to be outdone, Yale weighs in.

Do you have enough links yet? While we're at it, do you know that data and analysis are not synonyms? Will it confuse the issue if I also mention that women also receive fewer loan approvals with identical financial information, pay more for their homes, and pay higher interest rates?

[Hasbinfat]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not doubling down on the race of anyone. The race of the real estate agent or loan officer is irrelevant. Systemic racism is SYSTEMIC.

Here's another study that shows blacks paying higher interest rates AT ALL INCOME LEVELS: Minorities pay more.

Here's another study showing minorities getting jacked in New York.

Here's an academic paper from an older study.

This one is from Harvard.

Not to be outdone, Yale weighs in.

Do you have enough links yet? While we're at it, do you know that data and analysis are not synonyms? Will it confuse the issue if I also mention that women also receive fewer loan approvals with identical financial information, pay more for their homes, and pay higher interest rates?

This might have something to do with the fact that blacks and hispanics are far more likely to default on their loans, even when controlling for borrower and property characteristics.

Drawing racial discrimination as an having an ironclad causal relationship with the data is intellectually irresponsible. The science supporting that causation is very murky, and there are many intervening variables.

Bias in Estimates of Discrimination and Default in Mortgage Lending:
http://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrefec/...3p197-215.html

What Constitutes Evidence of Discrimination in Lending?
http://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jfinan/...i2p739-48.html

And you're forgetting that in 2002, President Bush pledged to add 5.5 million minority home-owners, and this was accomplished by targeted subprime-type deals, zero-down-payment purchases, and other shady shit that was intended to inflate minority home ownership without much regard to their financial soundness down the road. It was designed to get as many minorities into homes as quickly as possible.

So at least some of what appears to be predatory, racist behavior by banks is actually a shitty, hamfisted form of affirmative action, with much of the impetus to perform this kind of lending coming from subsidies by the federal government.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Hasbinfat [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This might have something to do with the fact that blacks and hispanics are far more likely to default on their loans, even when controlling for borrower and property characteristics.

but... that would be racist to assume :O

no

no it wouldn't

bankers take risks when they give you money. it's a fact, not racism, that minorities like blacks and mexicans cannot pay their bills as reliably as everybody else.

sorry [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Malice_Mizer]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

but... that would be racist to assume :O

no

no it wouldn't

bankers take risks when they give you money. it's a fact, not racism, that minorities like blacks and mexicans cannot pay their bills as reliably as everybody else.

sorry [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're drawing generalized conclusions based on a person's ethnicity or race. There's been so many laws enacted over the past 50 years to deny banks the ability to engage in redlining, block busting, or any of the discriminatory practices that you condone as "common sense." It doesn't even matter if, statistically, black people default on their loans more than other "races." In our individualistic society, it shouldn't matter what group you're born into, you should get a fair shake if your files are in order. You conservatives leap back and forth between collectivist and hyper-individualistic societal philosophies as it suits your fancy, and it's really very annoying.

What if my father or other relative was a huge debtor and criminal? Would it be okay for a bank to say, "Well, it looks like you have horrible qualities in your blood, innately, so we're going to make a judgment call about you despite the contrary evidence you're providing us."

But I'm sure you're also in favor of across-the-board racial profiling in all cases because you're a proud idiot.

[Splorf22]

Originally Posted by Malice_Mizer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What if my father or other relative was a huge debtor and criminal? Would it be okay for a bank to say, "Well, it looks like you have horrible qualities in your blood, innately, so we're going to make a judgment call about you despite the contrary evidence you're providing us."

Why not? I brought up the free market point before and it was never refuted. 1) There is no reason for banks to do dumb shit that would cost them money and 2) All it takes is 1 bank in your city that isn't full of bigots for you to get your loan. There is no need for the government to step in.