{"title":"辨别风险:20世纪的美国抵押贷款行业","authors":"M. Allen","doi":"10.5860/choice.41-1678","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Discriminating Risk: The U.S. Mortgage Lending Industry in the Twentieth Century. Guy Stuart. 248 pages. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, 2003. The title of Guy Stuart's book suggests that it would provide an objective summary of the evolution of the lending decisions of the American mortgage lending industry in the twentieth century. Instead, the primary focus of the book is on the way lenders ''construct risk'' in ways that discriminate against racial and ethnic minorities- namely, blacks and Hispanics. Stuart's book begins with an explanation of his concept of risk construction in which cultural, institutional, and spatial issues affect the lending decision in a manner that discriminates against certain minority groups. He distinguishes [following Keynes (1921) and Knight (1921)] between the concepts of uncertainty and risk by explaining that uncertain decisions are those in which the decision maker is not aware of the probability distribution of future events, whereas risk decisions are made when decision makers attempt to translate uncertainty into risk by evaluating the probability distribution of future events. Cultural, institutional, and spatial issues affect the way lenders construct risk in the face of uncertainty. Without delving into the quagmire of whether lenders engage in blatant discrimination, as implied by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston study (Munnell, Browne, McEneaney, and Tootell, 1992), Stuart argues that the ways lenders construct risk result in unfair treatment of minority loan applicants. In particular, he suggests that lenders construct risk in an implicit social context that affects the way they receive and process information and thereby develop lending rules. Furthermore, he suggests that the lending guidelines promulgated by the dominant institutions in the mortgage industry [the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)] continue to put minority borrowers at a disadvantage in mortgage lending decisions. Lastly, he argues that the manner in which appraisers and lenders identify and delineate neighborhoods makes the conclusions lenders reach regarding changes in property value a self-fulfilling prophecy. Chapter 1 of the book considers the ''meaning of value'' and the role that appraisers play in the mortgage lending decision. Stuart provides an interesting discussion of the progress made by the appraisal profession (largely at the urging of the Department of Justice) toward reducing explicit racial and ethnic discrimination. He comments on Frederick Babcock's writings in the Federal Housing Administration's Underwriting Manual (1936), used for many years after the FHA's inception under the Roosevelt administration, and concludes (p. 58) that the ''. . . (misguided) genius of Babcock's solution'' that calls for the careful delineation of ''neighborhoods'' from which comparables should be chosen in the sales comparison process created a class and race sensitive appraisal process. Eventually in 1976 the Department of Justice and the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and the Society of Real Estate Appraisers agreed to strike all racist-like language from their training materials. The passage of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 brought transparency to the lending industry, which helped expose explicit racial discrimination in the lending decision process. Today, the dominant players in the mortgage lending industry explicitly prohibit discrimination against neighborhoods based on the race of the inhabitants. But, Stuart (p. 187) argues, ''. . . the logic of the appraisal process dictates that segregation [continues to] be tacitly acknowledged in the selection of comparable properties.'' Chapter 2, ''Rules for Assessing the Borrower and Managing Behavioral Risk'' considers how loan-to-value (LTV) ratios, debt-to-income ratios, and credit records help lenders construct risk. …","PeriodicalId":35888,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Real Estate Literature","volume":"28 1","pages":"464"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"85","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discriminating Risk: The U.S. Mortgage Lending Industry in the Twentieth Century\",\"authors\":\"M. Allen\",\"doi\":\"10.5860/choice.41-1678\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Discriminating Risk: The U.S. Mortgage Lending Industry in the Twentieth Century. Guy Stuart. 248 pages. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, 2003. The title of Guy Stuart's book suggests that it would provide an objective summary of the evolution of the lending decisions of the American mortgage lending industry in the twentieth century. Instead, the primary focus of the book is on the way lenders ''construct risk'' in ways that discriminate against racial and ethnic minorities- namely, blacks and Hispanics. Stuart's book begins with an explanation of his concept of risk construction in which cultural, institutional, and spatial issues affect the lending decision in a manner that discriminates against certain minority groups. He distinguishes [following Keynes (1921) and Knight (1921)] between the concepts of uncertainty and risk by explaining that uncertain decisions are those in which the decision maker is not aware of the probability distribution of future events, whereas risk decisions are made when decision makers attempt to translate uncertainty into risk by evaluating the probability distribution of future events. Cultural, institutional, and spatial issues affect the way lenders construct risk in the face of uncertainty. Without delving into the quagmire of whether lenders engage in blatant discrimination, as implied by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston study (Munnell, Browne, McEneaney, and Tootell, 1992), Stuart argues that the ways lenders construct risk result in unfair treatment of minority loan applicants. In particular, he suggests that lenders construct risk in an implicit social context that affects the way they receive and process information and thereby develop lending rules. Furthermore, he suggests that the lending guidelines promulgated by the dominant institutions in the mortgage industry [the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)] continue to put minority borrowers at a disadvantage in mortgage lending decisions. Lastly, he argues that the manner in which appraisers and lenders identify and delineate neighborhoods makes the conclusions lenders reach regarding changes in property value a self-fulfilling prophecy. Chapter 1 of the book considers the ''meaning of value'' and the role that appraisers play in the mortgage lending decision. Stuart provides an interesting discussion of the progress made by the appraisal profession (largely at the urging of the Department of Justice) toward reducing explicit racial and ethnic discrimination. He comments on Frederick Babcock's writings in the Federal Housing Administration's Underwriting Manual (1936), used for many years after the FHA's inception under the Roosevelt administration, and concludes (p. 58) that the ''. . . (misguided) genius of Babcock's solution'' that calls for the careful delineation of ''neighborhoods'' from which comparables should be chosen in the sales comparison process created a class and race sensitive appraisal process. Eventually in 1976 the Department of Justice and the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and the Society of Real Estate Appraisers agreed to strike all racist-like language from their training materials. The passage of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 brought transparency to the lending industry, which helped expose explicit racial discrimination in the lending decision process. Today, the dominant players in the mortgage lending industry explicitly prohibit discrimination against neighborhoods based on the race of the inhabitants. But, Stuart (p. 187) argues, ''. . . the logic of the appraisal process dictates that segregation [continues to] be tacitly acknowledged in the selection of comparable properties.'' Chapter 2, ''Rules for Assessing the Borrower and Managing Behavioral Risk'' considers how loan-to-value (LTV) ratios, debt-to-income ratios, and credit records help lenders construct risk. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":35888,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Real Estate Literature\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"464\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"85\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Real Estate Literature\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.41-1678\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Real Estate Literature","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.41-1678","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 85
摘要
辨别风险:20世纪的美国抵押贷款行业。盖·斯图尔特,248页。康奈尔大学出版社,伊萨卡,纽约,2003年。盖伊·斯图尔特(Guy Stuart)这本书的标题表明,它将对20世纪美国抵押贷款行业的贷款决策演变进行客观总结。相反,这本书的主要焦点是贷款人如何以歧视种族和少数民族(即黑人和西班牙裔)的方式“构建风险”。斯图尔特的书首先解释了他的风险构建概念,其中文化、制度和空间问题以歧视某些少数群体的方式影响贷款决策。他(遵循凯恩斯(1921)和奈特(1921))区分了不确定性和风险的概念,解释说不确定性决策是决策者不知道未来事件的概率分布的决策,而风险决策是决策者试图通过评估未来事件的概率分布将不确定性转化为风险时做出的决策。文化、制度和空间问题影响贷款人在面对不确定性时构建风险的方式。斯图尔特没有深入研究波士顿联邦储备银行的研究(Munnell, Browne, McEneaney, and Tootell, 1992)所暗示的出借人是否公然歧视的困境,而是认为出借人构建风险的方式导致了对少数族裔贷款申请人的不公平待遇。他特别指出,出借人在一种隐性的社会背景下构建风险,这种社会背景会影响他们接收和处理信息的方式,从而制定贷款规则。此外,他认为,抵押贷款行业的主要机构[联邦住房管理局(FHA)、联邦全国抵押贷款协会(房利美)、联邦住房贷款抵押公司(房地美)]颁布的贷款指导方针,继续使少数族裔借款人在抵押贷款决策中处于不利地位。最后,他认为,评估师和贷款人识别和划定社区的方式,使得贷款人对房地产价值变化的结论成为一种自我实现的预言。本书的第一章考虑了“价值的意义”和评估师在抵押贷款决策中所扮演的角色。斯图尔特对评估行业(主要是在司法部的敦促下)在减少明显的种族和民族歧视方面所取得的进展进行了有趣的讨论。他评论了弗雷德里克·巴布科克(Frederick Babcock)在《联邦住房管理局承保手册》(1936)中的著作,该书在罗斯福政府下联邦住房管理局成立多年后仍被使用,并得出结论(第58页):“……(被误导的)巴布科克解决方案的天才”,该方案要求仔细划定“社区”,在销售比较过程中应该从中选择可比性,这创造了一个阶级和种族敏感的评估过程。最终在1976年,司法部、美国房地产估价师协会和房地产估价师协会同意从他们的培训材料中删除所有带有种族主义色彩的语言。1975年《住房抵押贷款披露法》和1977年《社区再投资法》的通过为贷款行业带来了透明度,这有助于揭露贷款决策过程中明显的种族歧视。今天,抵押贷款行业的主要参与者明确禁止基于居民种族的社区歧视。但是,斯图尔特(第187页)认为,“……评估过程的逻辑决定了,在选择可比房产时,隔离(继续)被默认。第2章“评估借款人和管理行为风险的规则”考虑了贷款价值比(LTV)、债务收入比和信用记录如何帮助贷款人构建风险。...
Discriminating Risk: The U.S. Mortgage Lending Industry in the Twentieth Century
Discriminating Risk: The U.S. Mortgage Lending Industry in the Twentieth Century. Guy Stuart. 248 pages. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, 2003. The title of Guy Stuart's book suggests that it would provide an objective summary of the evolution of the lending decisions of the American mortgage lending industry in the twentieth century. Instead, the primary focus of the book is on the way lenders ''construct risk'' in ways that discriminate against racial and ethnic minorities- namely, blacks and Hispanics. Stuart's book begins with an explanation of his concept of risk construction in which cultural, institutional, and spatial issues affect the lending decision in a manner that discriminates against certain minority groups. He distinguishes [following Keynes (1921) and Knight (1921)] between the concepts of uncertainty and risk by explaining that uncertain decisions are those in which the decision maker is not aware of the probability distribution of future events, whereas risk decisions are made when decision makers attempt to translate uncertainty into risk by evaluating the probability distribution of future events. Cultural, institutional, and spatial issues affect the way lenders construct risk in the face of uncertainty. Without delving into the quagmire of whether lenders engage in blatant discrimination, as implied by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston study (Munnell, Browne, McEneaney, and Tootell, 1992), Stuart argues that the ways lenders construct risk result in unfair treatment of minority loan applicants. In particular, he suggests that lenders construct risk in an implicit social context that affects the way they receive and process information and thereby develop lending rules. Furthermore, he suggests that the lending guidelines promulgated by the dominant institutions in the mortgage industry [the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)] continue to put minority borrowers at a disadvantage in mortgage lending decisions. Lastly, he argues that the manner in which appraisers and lenders identify and delineate neighborhoods makes the conclusions lenders reach regarding changes in property value a self-fulfilling prophecy. Chapter 1 of the book considers the ''meaning of value'' and the role that appraisers play in the mortgage lending decision. Stuart provides an interesting discussion of the progress made by the appraisal profession (largely at the urging of the Department of Justice) toward reducing explicit racial and ethnic discrimination. He comments on Frederick Babcock's writings in the Federal Housing Administration's Underwriting Manual (1936), used for many years after the FHA's inception under the Roosevelt administration, and concludes (p. 58) that the ''. . . (misguided) genius of Babcock's solution'' that calls for the careful delineation of ''neighborhoods'' from which comparables should be chosen in the sales comparison process created a class and race sensitive appraisal process. Eventually in 1976 the Department of Justice and the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and the Society of Real Estate Appraisers agreed to strike all racist-like language from their training materials. The passage of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 brought transparency to the lending industry, which helped expose explicit racial discrimination in the lending decision process. Today, the dominant players in the mortgage lending industry explicitly prohibit discrimination against neighborhoods based on the race of the inhabitants. But, Stuart (p. 187) argues, ''. . . the logic of the appraisal process dictates that segregation [continues to] be tacitly acknowledged in the selection of comparable properties.'' Chapter 2, ''Rules for Assessing the Borrower and Managing Behavioral Risk'' considers how loan-to-value (LTV) ratios, debt-to-income ratios, and credit records help lenders construct risk. …
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Real Estate Literature (JREL) is a publication of the American Real Estate Society (ARES). This journal offers a comprehensive source of information about real estate research and encourages research and education in industry and academia. The scope of the journal goes beyond that of traditional literature journals that only list published research. This journal also includes working papers, dissertations, book reviews and articles on literature reviews on specialized topics, real estate information technology and international real estate.