COMPREHENSIVE REPORT: Examining the Lending Practices …Econsult Corporation Maria Frizelle Roberts...

COMPREHENSIVE REPORT:

Calendar Year 2009Office of the City Treasurer1401 JFK Boulevard, Room 640Philadelphia, PA 19102

Examining the Lending Practices of Authorized Depositories for the City of Philadelphia

SUBMITTED BY:

Stephen P. MullinSenior Vice Presidentand PrincipalEconsult Corporation

Maria Frizelle RobertsPresident/CEOMFR Consultants, Inc. February 2011

Table of Contents

ExecutiveSummary 4

1.0 Background 19

2.0 StatisticalAnalysisofResidentialMortgageLendingPracticesinPhiladelphia 47

3.0 PrimeandSubprimeHomeLendinginPhiladelphia 57

4.0 PhiladelphiaComparedtoOtherAreas 83

5.0 HomeLendingtoNon-Owner-OccupiedBorrowersinPhiladelphia 99

6.0 CityDepositoriesandHomeLending 107

7.0 SmallBusinessLending 127

8.0 RankingsofDepositories–SmallBusinessLending 135

9.0 BankBranchAnalysis 141

10.0 NeighborhoodAnalysis 147

Appendix1–RegressionTables 157

Appendix2–Tables 175

Appendix3–Maps 271

Appendix4–Methodology 289

Lending Practices of Authorized Depositories for the City of Philadelphia Calendar Year 20094.

Executive Summary EconsultCorporationandMFRConsultants,Inc.(“theEconsultteam”)arepleasedtopresentthisanalysisofthehomelendingperformance,smallbusinesslendingperformance,andbankbranchingpatternsofthe13authorizeddepositoriesoftheCityofPhiladelphiain2009(seeTableES.1).SuchareportispertheCity’sResolutionNo.051161,whichisarequestbyCityCouncilfortheOfficeoftheCityTreasurertocommissionanannualreportoflendingactivityanddisparitiesbyCitydepositories.

Table ES.1: City of Philadelphia 2009 Authorized Depositories at a Glance

TOTALASSETS TOTALEMPLOyEES PHILADELPHIAOFFICES

MOSTRECENTCRARATINg(yEAR)

ADvANCEBANk $76M 39 1 OuTSTANDINg(2008)

BANkOFAMERICA $2,223B 311INPHILA 19 OuTSTANDINg(2008)

CITIBANk $1,857B 175INPHILA 7 OuTSTANDINg(2006)

CITIZENSBANk $148B 1.2kINPHILA 60 OuTSTANDINg(2009)

CITyNATIONALBANk $466M 103 1 OuTSTANDINg(N/A)

BANkOFNEWyORkMELLON $212B 42k 5 OuTSTANDINg(2009)

M&TBANk $69M 63INPHILA 7 OuTSTANDINg(2007)

PNCBANk $269B 2.5kINPHILA 39 OuTSTANDINg(2006)

REPuBLICFIRSTBANk $1B 134 6 SATISFACTORy(2008)

SOvEREIgNBANk $75M 9k 14 OuTSTANDINg(2008)

TDBANk $565B 737INPHILA 20 OuTSTANDINg(2008)

uNITEDBANk $68M 30 3 OuTSTANDINg(2006)

WELLSFARgOBANk $1,244B 2.8kINPHILA 42 OuTSTANDINg(2008)

TheCityiscommittedtoensuringthattheinstitutionsselectedasauthorizeddepositoriesofCityfundsprovidefinancialproductsandservicesinafairandunbiasedmannertothecitizensofPhiladelphia,andthisreportisanimportantresourceinthateffort.Specifically,thisreportprovidesrankingsoftheauthorizeddepositoriesinkeyfairlendingcategories,aswellasacompositerankingofthedepositoriesacrossallcategories,basedonourstatisticalanalysisoftheirhomelendingperformanceinthesevariouscategories.TogethertherankingswillprovidetheCitywithguidanceontheperformanceofthesebanks.


Executive Summary

ES.1 Background

Theaforementionedordinanceisbestunderstoodwithintheoverallfederal,state,andlocallegislativecontextinwhichbanksoperateandthatprovidespolicymakerswithtoolsandinfor-mationtoprovideoversightandaccountabilityintheareaoffairlending.Thisisparticularlythecase,giventherecessionthatcommencedinDecember2007,whichincludedsignificantdistressinthefinancialandhousingmarkets,andwhichresultedinunprecedentedinterventionbythefederalgovernment,aswellaslegislaturesatalllevelsdebatingpolicymodificationstobetterregulatelendingpractices.

» Inresponsetothefinancialcrisisof2008,theFederalgovernmentenactedseveralnewpoliciestohelpmediatethestrugglingrealestatemarketandprotectborrowers:theAmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentActof2009,theHelpingFamiliesSaveTheirHomesActof2009,andtheFraudEnforcementandRecoveryAct.

» TheCommonwealthofPennsylvaniahasalsoenactedseverallawstoensurefairlendingpractices,includingthePennsylvaniaLoanInterestandProtectionLaw,theSecondaryMortgageLoanActof1980,andmultiplemortgage-lendinglicensingreformsin2008.

» Locally,theCityofPhiladelphiahasestablisheditsownlegislationinanefforttocombatunfairlendingpractices,includingResolutionNo.051161,Chapter9-2400(“ProhibitionagainstPredatoryLending”),andseveralanti-predatorylendinghotlines.

ES.2 Philadelphia Home Lending and Discrimination

Lendingtransactionsandresidentialdatawasexaminedtodetermineifdiscriminatorypracticesmightexist,andifthesubsetofPhiladelphiadepositoriesdiffersfromtheentiresampleoflenders.Inotherwords,doesthedataindicatepracticesofracialorethnicdiscriminationbyalllendersand/orbyCitydepositories?We,thus,consider1)denialratesbyloantype,and2)less-favorablelendingterms(e.g.subprimeversusprimeloans).

Theregressionanalysiscontrolledforfactorsthatwerelikelytoinfluencelendingdecisions,butwasconstrainedbythelackofpotentiallyexplanatorydatasuchasborrowers’creditscore,wealth,andexistingdebtload.Still,theexistinginformationindicatesthefollowingstatisticallysignificantresults:

» Controllingforotheravailabledemographiccharacteristics,amongtheuniverseofalllenders,AfricanAmericansandHispanicsweremorelikelytobedeniedahomepurchase,homerefinance,andhomeimprovementloan,aswellastobeofferedasubprimeloan,ascomparedtonon-HispanicWhites.

» WithinCitydepositories,AfricanAmericansexperiencedlessdiscriminationforhomepurchaseloans,homerefinanceloans,andhomeimprovementloans,butweremorelikelytoreceiveasubprimeloan,ascomparedtothesampleofalllenders.

» Red-liningdidnotappeartobetakingplaceeitheramongtheuniverseofalllendersoramongCitydepositories.


Executive Summary

ES.3 Prime and Subprime Home Lending in Philadelphia

All Loans (see Table ES.2)

» Primeloansmadeup94percentofloansmade,withsubprimeloanscomprisingtheremaining6percentin2009.In2006,64percentofloanswereprimeand36percentweresubprime.

» Theoverallnumberofloanshaddecreasedsteadilyfrom2006through2008,yetincreasedfromtheprioryearin2009,toabout26,000.

» Theoveralldenialrate(25percent)decreasedforthefirsttimesince2006,afterincreasingineachofthethreepriorstudyyears.

» From2006to2009,primeloansforAfrican-Americanborrowersdecreasedby25percent,whilesubprimeloansdecreasedby89percent.

» Allincomecategoriessawadecreaseinthenumberofsubprimeloansgrantedfrom2008to2009,withthemiddleincomegroupseeingthegreatestdecline,at66percent.

» Thenumberofloansmadetohomesincensustractswithlessthan50percentminorityresidents(non-minoritytracts)increasedby27percent,whileloansmadetohomesincensustractswithmorethan50percentminorityresidents(minoritytracts)decreasedby15percent.

» In2009,moreloansweremadeinupperincomeandmiddleincome(MuI)tracts(51percent)thaninlowincomeandmoderateincome(LMI)tracts(49percent).TheLMI/MuIsplitwas63/37in2006.

Table ES.2: All Loan Applications and Originations in Philadelphia

yEAR APPLICATIONS DENIALS DENIALRATE LOANSORIgINATED

PRIMELOANS

SuBPRIMELOANS

TOTALLOANAMOuNT

2009 50,114 12,440 24.8% 26,159 24,490 1,669 $4.54B

2008 53,913 18,147 33.7% 23,633 19,638 3,995 $3.72B

2008-2009DIFFERENCE -7% -31% -26% +11% +25% -58% +22%


Executive Summary

By Loan Type

» In2009,therewereabout14,500applicationsforhomepurchaseloans,a13percentdecreasefrom2008.From2006to2009,thetotalnumberofhomepurchaseloansdecreasedby42percent(seeTableES.3).

» In2009,therewereabout33,000applicationsforhomerefinanceloans,anincreaseof2percentfrom2008.Thenumberofprimehomerefinanceloansincreasedby56percentfrom2008to2009andby39percentfrom2006to2009.Thenumberofsubprimehomerefinanceloansdeclinedby62percentfrom2008to2009andby91percentfrom2006to2009(seeTableES.4).From2007to2008,homeimprovementloanapplicationsdecreasedby39percent,andloansoriginateddecreasedby47percent(primeloansby49percentandsubprimeloansby39percent)(seeFigureES.5).

» In2009,therewereabout5,600applicationsforhomeimprovementloans,a42percentdeclinefromtheyearbefore.From2006to2009,thenumberofprimehomeimprovementloansdecreasedby75percent,whilethenumberofsubprimehomeimprovementloansdecreasedby76percent(seeTableES.5).

Table ES.3: Home Purchase Loan Applications and Originations in Philadelphia

APPLICATIONS DENIALS DENIALRATE LOANS PRIMELOANS SuBPRIMELOANS

2009 14,479 2,077 14.3% 9,976 9,356 620

2008 16,620 2,639 15.9% 10,729 9,462 1,267

2008-2009DIFFERENCE -13% -21% -10% -7% -1% -51%

Table ES.4: Home Refinance Loan Applications and Originations in Philadelphia


2009 33,030 9,008 27.3% 15,395 14,569 826

2008 32,489 12,841 39.5% 11,568 9,370 2,198

2008-2009DIFFERENCE +2% -30% -31% +33% +56% -62%


Executive Summary

Table ES.5: Home Improvement Loan Applications and Originations in Philadelphia


2009 5,635 3,060 54.3% 1,728 1,435 293

2008 9,638 5,171 53.7% 3,043 2,354 689

2008-2009DIFFERENCE -42% -41% +1% -43% -39% -58%

ES.4 Philadelphia Compared to Other Areas

Philadelphia vs. Suburbs

LendingtoPhiladelphiaresidentswascomparedtolendingtoresidentsoftheCity’sfoursuburbancounties(seeTableES.6):

» DenialrateswerehigherintheCityversusthesuburbsforeachracialcategory,aconsistentfindingwithprioryearstudies.

» Inthesuburbs,thehighertheincomegroup,thehighertheproportionofallloansandprimeloans.ThiswasunliketheCitypattern,wherethemoderate-incomegroupconsistentlyreceivedboththemostloansandthemostprimeloans.

» In2009,suburbanborrowersinminoritytractswere4.1timesmorelikelytogetsubprimeloansthanborrowersinnon-minoritytracts,comparedto2.5timesintheCity.In2008,thesuburbanratiowas4.6andtheCityratiowas2.4.

» OfallloanstosuburbanLMItracts,8percentweresubprime,comparedto3percentofloansforMuItracts.

Table ES.6: 2009 Home Lending Activity – Philadelphia Suburbs

BORROWERRACE PERCENTOFPRIMELOANS

PERCENTOFSuBPRIMELOANS

PERCENTOFALLHOuSEHOLDS DENIALRATE

WHITE 91% 87% 88% 14%

AFRICAN-AMERICAN 3% 8% 7% 29%

ASIAN 5% 2% 3% 15%

HISPANIC 2% 2% 2% 20%

BORROWERINCOME PERCENTOFPRIMELOANS



LMI(<80%MSAINCOME) 22% 40% 39% 22%

MuI(>80%MSAINCOME) 78% 60% 62% 13%


Executive Summary

TRACTMINORITy

LEvELPERCENTOFPRIME

LOANSPERCENTOF

SuBPRIMELOANSPERCENTOFALLHOuSEHOLDS DENIALRATE

0-49%MINORITy 99% 97% 97% 15%

50-100%MINORITy 1% 3% 3% 34%

TRACTINCOMELEvEL PERCENTOFPRIMELOANS



LMI(<80%MSA)INCOME 3% 9% 6% 26%

MuI(>80%MSAINCOME) 97% 92% 94% 15%

BORROWERgENDER PERCENTOFPRIMELOANS



MALE 22% 22% 18% 18%

FEMALE 17% 24% 29% 18%

JOINT 61% 54% 57% 13%


Executive Summary

Philadelphia vs. Comparison Cities

Between2006and2009,lendingdecreasedinallfourcities,particularlyinDetroit(whichsawa93percentdeclineduringthattimeperiod)andparticularlyforsubprimeloans(whichsawdeclinesfrom75percentto98percent,dependingonthecity)(seeTableES.7).

» Philadelphiahadthegreatestdisparityinsubprimelending,withLMIborrowers2.4timesaslikelytoreceiveasubprimeloancomparedtoanMuIborrower.

» Inallfourcities,borrowersinminoritytractsreceivedprimeloansatasmallerproportionthantheirshareofhouseholds.

» ThecitywiththehighestdenialrateforborrowersinLMItractsin2009wasDetroit,where56percentreceiveddenials.Pittsburghfollowedwith32percent,thenPhiladelphiawith30percentandBaltimorewith26percent.

» IneverycityexceptPhiladelphia,femaleapplicantshadthehighestdenialratesofanygroup.InPhiladelphia,thedenialratesformaleandfemaleapplicantswereaboutthesame.

Table ES.7: 2008 Home Lending Activity – Philadelphia vs. Comparison Cities

2009 PRIMELOANS SuBPRIMELOANS TOTALLOANS

PHILADELPHIA 24,490 1,699 26,159

BALTIMORE 8,985 592 9,577

DETROIT 1,038 273 1,311

PITTSBuRgH 4,265 402 4,667

2006-2009DIFFERENCE PRIMELOANS SuBPRIMELOANS TOTALLOANS

PHILADELPHIA -3% -88% -33%

BALTIMORE -62% -95% -72%

DETROIT -80% -98% -93%

PITTSBuRgH +20% -75% -10%

ES.5 Home Lending to Non-Owner-Occupied Borrowers

In2009,8percentofallloansweremadetonon-occupantinvestors,adecreasefrom15percentin2008.Thenumberofnon-owner-occupiedloansdecreasedby46percentfrom2008to2009.Subprimeloanscomprised8percentofallnon-owner-occupiedloans(adecreasefrom23percentin2008).


Executive Summary

» Asin2007and2008,Asianborrowersreceivedmorethanthreetimestheshareofnon-occupantloansthantheirpercentageofCityhouseholdsin2009.

» ThedisparitybetweentheshareofprimeloansandtheshareofhouseholdswaslowerforMuIowner-occupiedborrowers(0.8)thanfornon-occupantMuIinvestors(2.4).

» Minoritycensustractsreceived46percentofprimeloans(adecreasefrom51percentin2008)and62percentofsubprimeloans(adecreasefrom70percentin2008).

» From2006to2009,subprimeloanstoallgroupsdecreased.BorrowersinLMItractssawadecreaseof96percent,andborrowersinMuItractssawadecreaseof94percent.

» Maleandfemaleinvestorsbothreceivedprimeloans91percentofthetime.Thisisincomparisontothelikelinessof2008,whichwas71percentformalesand68percentforfemales.

ES.6 City Depositories and Home Lending

Citydepositoriesinaggregatereceivedabout17,000loanapplicationsandoriginatedabout8,000primeloansand640subprimeloanstotaling$1.5billionin2009.Thus,these13depositoriestogetherrepresentedaboutathirdofallapplications,loans,andloanamountswithintheCity(seeTableES.8).ThetotalamountoflendingatallinstitutionsintheCitywas$4.5billion,upfrom$3.7billionthepreviousyear.

Table ES.8: Loan Applications and Originations for the 13 City Depositories

APPLICATIONS PRIMELOANS SuBPRIMELOANS TOTALLOANAMOuNT

2009-DEPOSITORIES 16,994 7,990 640 $1.5B

2009–ALLBANkS 50,114 24,490 1,669 $4.5B

2008-DEPOSITORIES 16,836 6,166 1,245 $1.0B

2008–ALLBANkS 53,913 19,638 3,995 $3.7B

2009PROPORTIONOFDEPOSITORIESTOALLBANkS

34% 33% 38% 33%


31% 31% 31% 27%

Inaggregate,CitydepositoriesmadealargerpercentageofloansthanalllenderstoAfrican-Americanborrowersandtoborrowersinminoritytracts.Thiswastrueofhomepurchaseloans,homerefinanceloans,andhomeimprovementloans(seeTableES.9).


Executive Summary

Table ES.9: Selected 2009 Home Lending Results for City Depositories

HOMEPuRCHASELOANS

PERCENTOFLOANSTOAFRICANAMERICANS

PERCENTOFLOANSTOHISPANICS

PERCENTOFLOANSINMINORITyTRACTS

PERCENTOFLOANSTOLMIBORROWERS

PERCENTOFLOANSINLMI

TRACTS

ALLDEPOSITORIES 24% 7% 36% 64% 59%

ALLLENDERS 18% 9% 31% 61% 56%

HOMEREFINANCELOANS





PERCENTOFLOANSIN

LMITRACTS


ALLLENDERS 12% 3% 25% 36% 42%

HOMEIMPROvEMENTLOANS





PERCENTOFLOANSIN

LMITRACTS


ALLLENDERS 20% 4% 6% 57% 56%

Thirteenfactorswerecombinedtocreateacompositescoreforprimehomepurchaselendingperformanceforeachdepository.Foreachfactor,adepositoryreceivedascoreaccordingtohowdifferentitwasfromtheaveragelenderinPhiladelphia.Ifthedepositorywasbetterthanaverage,thescoreispositive;ifitwasbelowaverage,thescoreisnegative.OnlylendersinPhiladelphiathatoriginated25loansormorein2009wereincludedinthecalculations.

In2009,WellsFargorankedfirst,followedbyBancoSantander,whichrankedfirstin2008.Noneofthedepositoriesmeasuredhadnegativecompositescores,suggestingthatallperformedbetterthantheaveragehomemortgagelenderintheCityin2009(seeTableES.10).

Table ES.10: 2009 Ranking of City Depositories – Home Purchase Lending

2009RANkINg CITyDEPOSITORy 2009COMPOSITESCORE 2008RANkINg

1 WELLSFARgO(WACHOvIA) 28.30 5

2 BANCOSANTANDER(SOvEREIgNBANCORP,INC.) 19.81 1

3 BANkOFAMERICA 11.75 2

4 CITIZENSFINANCIALgROuP,INC. 9.88 3

5 PNCFINANCIALSERvICESgROuP 2.84 6

6 TDBANkNORTH 2.53 4

7 M&TBANk 0.23 N/A


Executive Summary

ES.7 Small Business Lending in Philadelphia

» About12,400loanswithanaggregatevalueofabout$580millionweremadetosmallbusinessesinPhiladelphiaduring2009.About3,900ofthoseloansweremadetosmallbusinesseswithannualrevenuesoflessthan$1million.Allofthesetotalsweredownfrom2006,2007,and2008totals(seeTableES.11).

» FiftypercentofloansmadetosmallbusinessesinPhiladelphiaweremadetothoselocatedinlowandmoderateincomeareas.

» Fifty-fourpercentofloansmadetobusinesseswithlessthan$1millioninrevenueweremadetothosebusinesseslocatedinlowandmoderateincomeareas.

» In2009,29percentofallsmallbusinessloansintheCitywereinminorityareas,comparedto1.4percentforthesuburbancounties.

Table ES.11: Small Business Lending Activity in Philadelphia

TOTALDOLLARSLOANEDTOSMALLBuSINESSESIN

PHILADELPHIA($M)

TOTALSMALLBuSINESSLOANSINPHILADELPHIA

TOTALLOANSTOSMALLBuSINESSESINPHILADELPHIA

WITHANNuALREvENuESOFLESSTHAN$1MILLION

2009 $581 12,365 3,870

2008 $802 28,533 8,216

2008-2009DIFFERENCE -28% -57% -53%

ES.8 Ranking of Depositories - Small Business Lending

SmallbusinesslendinginallcategoriesamongtheCitydepositoriesrepresentedover40per-centofthetotalsmallbusinesslendingreportedinPhiladelphia.Therewerefivefactors,equal-lyweighted,consideredintherankingofthebanks.Thesefivefactorswereselectedbecausetheyshowperformanceinrelationtotheentirecityandamongthedepositoriesonkeylendingpracticesaffectinglow-andmoderate-incomeandminoritybusinesses.

» Marketshareofloanstosmallbusinesses

» Marketshareofloanstothesmallestofsmallbusinesses

» Lendingtosmallbusinesseslocatedinlowandmoderateincomeareas

» Rankingamongdepositoriesforsmallbusinesslendingtothesmallestbusinesses

» Rankingamongdepositoriesforsmallbusinesslendinginlowandmoderateincomeareas


Executive Summary

In2009,PNCrankedfirst,comparedtosecondin2008.Thehighestrankedfrom2008and2007,Citigrouprankedsecondin2009.WellsFargoadvancedfromsixthplacetothird(seeTableES.12).

Table ES.12: 2009 Ranking of City Depositories in Small Business Lending

INSTITuTION 2009RANkINg 2008RANkINg 2007RANkINg 2006RANkINg

PNCBANk 1 2 2 1

CITIgROuP 2 1 1 N/A

WELLSFARgO 3 6 T4 3

BANkOFAMERICA 4 3 3 5

CITIZENS 5 T4 7 2

SOvEREIgNBANk 6 T4 T4 N/A

TDBANk 7 7 N/A N/A

M&TBANk 8 N/A N/A N/A

REPuBLICFIRSTBANk 9 8 6 N/A

BANkOFNEWyORk/MELLON 10 9 9 6


Executive Summary

ES.9 Bank Branch Analysis

Therewere338bankbranchesinPhiladelphiain2009,downfrom354in2008.232branches,oraround69percent,wereownedbyCitydepositories(seeTableES.13).

» Over26percentofthedepositorybrancheswerelocatedinminorityareasin2009,upfrom25percentin2008andhigherthanthecitywideratioof23percentofallbranchesinareasthatweremorethan50percentminority.Sevenofthe13Citydepositoriessurpassedthecitywidebenchmark.

» 58percentofCitydepositorieshadbranchesinLMIareasin2009,comparedto57percentofallbankbranchesCitywide.Eightofthe13Citydepositoriessurpassedthecitywidebenchmark.

Table ES.13: Number of Branches in Philadelphia

BANkS 2009BRANCHES %OFALL2009BRANCHES 2008BRANCHES %OFALL2008

CITyBRANCHES

ALLDEPOSITORIES 232 69% 236 66%

NON-DEPOSITORIES 106 31% 119 34%

ES.10 Neighborhood Analysis

Weexaminedhomeandbusinesslendingpracticesinnineneighborhoodsthatcontaincensustractsclassifiedasminorityandlowtomoderateincomeandthatarelocatedinareaswherecommunitydevelopmentcorporationsandempowermentzoneshavebeenestablished(seeTableES.14).


Executive Summary

Table ES.14: 200 Home and Small Business Lending Activity – Selected Philadelphia Neighborhoods

ORgANIZATION LOCATIONMAJORETHNICgROuP

2000 MEDIANINCOMEASA%OFREgIONALMEDIANINCOME

#LOANS

%LOANSTHATWERE

SuBPRIME

NuMBEROFSMALLBuSINESSLOANS

%OFLOANSTOSMALLBuSINESSES

WITHANNuALREvENuES<$1

MILLION

APM NPHILA HISP 36% 2 50% 4 25%

HACE N5THST HISP 24% 70 41% 57 30%

AWF NPHILA AFRAM 46% 60 27% 83 37%

OARC WOAkLN AFRAM 76% 576 12% 116 35%

PROJECTHOME SPRgRDN AFRAM 34% 51 18% 26 31%

PEC WPHILA AFRAM 36% 51 14% 30 35%

AMERICANSTEZ kENSINgTON HISP 36% 113 16% 39 36%

NORTHCENTRALEZ NPHILA AFRAM 33% 51 22% 16 25%

WESTPHILAEZ WPHILA AFRAM 41% 17 24% 11 33%

1.0 Background


1.0 Background Inthissection,legislationrelevanttofairlendingpracticeonafederal,state,andlocallevelareoutlined.ThisisfollowedbyabriefdescriptionoftheCity’selevenAuthorizedDepositorieswhichsummarizestheirreinvestmentgoalsandoutlinestheircurrentorganizationalsizeandstructure.Alsooutlinedattheendofthissectionisanoverviewofthecurrentmortgageforeclosurecrisis.

1.1 Legislative and Institutional Context

Overthepastfortyyears,legislationhasbeenenactedatthefederal,state,andlocallevelstoregulatethebankingindustryandprotectindividualsfromunfairlendingpractices.In2007,dueinlargeparttounsustainablelendingpractices,theuSbegantofeeltheimpactofapronouncedglobalrecessionasrealestateandcorporatesharevaluesdwindled.By2008,thefinancialmarketandcreditcrisisworsened,promptingCongressandtheFederalTreasurytoimplementanumberofprogramsandtoprovideadditionalmoniestobanks,majorcompaniesandlenderstohelpstabilizetheeconomy.ThecombinationofadecreaseinconsumercreditoptionsandtheweakeconomicclimatecausedmanyAmericanstodefaultonawidevarietyoffinancialproductsincludingmortgages,someofwhomwerealreadyburdenedwithsub-primefinancialinstruments.In2009,thenewadministrationinWashingtonmadeanumberofstridesinimplementinglegislationtohelpprotectconsumersandtogivethemsupportagainstsubprimemortgagelendingpractices.Asaresult,legislaturesonalllevelsrespondedwithproposalsforstrong,newlawsandpolicymodificationstobetterregulatethenation’slendingpractices.


1.0 Background

1.1.1 Federal

CreatedbytheFederalReserveBoard,theHomeMortgageDisclosureAct(HMDA)wasenactedbyCongressin1975andimplementednationwide.Itmandatesthatallfinancialinstitutionsannuallydiscloseloandataonhomepurchases,homepurchasepre-approvals,homeimprovement,andrefinanceapplications.Thefinancialinstitutionsdirectedtoparticipateincludesavingsassociations,creditunions,andothermortgagelendinginstitutions.

Inshort,theHMDAwasinstitutedforthefollowingreasons:

» Tohelpdetermineiffinancialinstitutionsareservingthehousingneedsoftheircommunities;

» Toassistpublicofficialsindistributingpublicsectorinvestments,soastoattractprivateinvestmenttoareasofgreatestneed;and

» Toidentifypotentialdiscriminatorylendingpatterns.

ThedataannuallyreportedinresponsetoHMDAenablespublicagenciestothoroughlyanalyzetheperformanceandpracticeofthedepositories,inparticular,evaluatingthefinancialinstitutionsbasedupontheirobservedlendingpracticesandpatterns.

TheFairHousingAct,partoftheTitlevIIIoftheCivilRightsActof1968,expandeduponpreviouslegislationbyprohibitingdiscriminationonthebasisofrace,color,nationalorigin,religion,sex,familialstatusorhandicap(disability)whenperformingthefollowing:

» Approvingamortgageloan;

» Providinginformationregardingloans;

» Providingtermsorconditionsonaloan,suchasinterestrates,points,orfees;

» Appraisingproperty;or

» Purchasingaloanorsettingtermsorconditionsforpurchasingaloan.


In1977,CongressenactedtheCommunityReinvestmentAct(CRA)toencouragedepositoryinstitutionstohelpmeetthecreditneedsofthecommunitiesinwhichtheyoperatewithoutoverlookingmoderate-tolow-incomeneighborhoods.Throughfederalsupervision,theCRAdiscouragesredliningandencouragescommunityreinvestment.Eachbank,lendingorsavingsinstitutionisoverseenbyoneoffourfederaloversightbodies–theOfficeoftheComptrolleroftheCurrency(OCC),BoardofgovernorsoftheFederalReserveSystem(FRB),OfficeofThriftSupervision(OTS),ortheFederalDepositInsuranceCorporation(FDIC).TheinformationcollectedintheirreviewisusedtoassignCRAratings,whicharetakenintoconsiderationwhenapprovinganinstitution’sapplicationfornewdepositfacilities,includingmergersandacquisitions.

Therehavebeenthreemajorfederallawspassedtoprotectconsumersagainstpredatorylending.ThesearetheTruthinLendingAct(TILA)(1968),theRealEstateSettlementProceduresAct(RESPA)(1974),andHOEPA,theHomeOwnershipandEquityProtectionAct(HOEPA)(1994).

» TILArequirescompaniestomakedisclosuresoncreditratesandtermsanditregulatescertainaspectsofcreditcardandhighratecredit.

» RESPAsetstherequirementsforprovidinggFEandHuD-1settlementcostsbylendersandregulatesescrowfunds.

» HOEPArequirescompaniestomakeloantermsdisclosuresincasesofhighandextremelyhighrates.Thislawalsoaddressesprepaymentpenalties,balloonpayments,negativeamortizationandtheborrower’spaymentability.

OnJuly30,2008,theHousingandEconomicRecoveryActof2008wasinstated.ThisActwasspecificallydesignedtoaddressthesubprimehousingcrisis.Makinganumberofchangestothefederalhousingpolicy,theAct:1

» Establishesasingleregulator—theFederalHousingFinanceAgency(FHFA)—forgovernment-sponsoredenterprises(gSEs)involvedinthehomemortgagemarket.ThegSEsthatareregulatedbyFHFAincludetheFederalNationalMortgageAssociation(FannieMae),theFederalHomeLoanMortgageCorporation(FreddieMac),andtheFederalHomeLoanBanks(FHLBs).

» RequiresFannieMaeandFreddieMactoannuallypayamountsequalto4.2basispointsoneachdollarofunpaidprincipalbalancesofeachenterprise’stotalnewbusinesspurchases.TheseassessmentswillbeginduringFiscalyear2009andwillbedepositedintonewfederalfunds.

» Authorizes—fromOctober1,2008,throughSeptember30,2011—anewmortgageguaranteeprogramundertheFederalHousingAdministration(FHA)thatallowscertainat-riskborrowerstorefinancetheirmortgagesafterthemortgageholder(lenderorservicer)agreestoawrite-downoftheexistingloan(thatis,areductionintheamountofloanprincipal).

1.0 Background

1. unitedStates.Cong.Senate.SenateCommitteeonBanking,Housing,andurbanAffairs. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE: Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008. Comp. Chad Chirico, Mark Booth, Elizabeth Cove, and Paige Piper/Bach. By Peter Fontaine and G. Thomas Woodward. 110 Cong. S. Rept. Print.


» RequiresloanoriginatorstoparticipateinaNationwideMortgageLicensingSystemandRegistry(NMLSR)thatisadministeredbyeitheranonfederalentityortheDepartmentofHousingandurbanDevelopment(HuD)incoordinationwiththefederalbankingregulatoryagencies.

» AuthorizestheappropriationofsuchsumsasarenecessaryfortheTreasuryDepartment’sOfficeofFinancialEducationtoprovidegrantstostateandlocalgovernments,Indiantribes,andotherentitiestosupportfinancialeducationandcounselingservices.

SomeoftheprovisionsofthislawweremodifiedbytheAmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentActof2009,whichwassignedintolawonFebruary17,2009.

In2009,CongresscontinuedtoimplementnewlawsincludingTheHelpingFamiliesSaveTheirHomesActandtheFraudEnforcementandRecoveryAct,whichwerebothinstitutedonMay 20,2009.

TheHelpingFamiliesSaveTheirHomesActassistshomeownersbyincreasingtheflowofcreditandstrengtheningtheuShousingsector.TheFraudEnforcementandRecoveryActprovidesthefederalgovernmentwithnewtoolsandresourcestopreventlendingfraudfromcompanies.

TheHelpingFamiliesSaveTheirHomesActof2009authorized:

» Theextensionofatemporaryincreaseindepositinsurance

» TheincreaseofborrowingauthorityfortheFederalDepositInsurance Corporation(FDIC)to$100billion

» TheincreaseofborrowingauthorityfortheNationalCreditunionAdministration (NCuA)to$6billion

» Theestablishmentofprotectionsforrenterslivinginforeclosedhomes

» Theestablishmentoftherightofahomeownertoknowwhoownstheirmortgage

» IncreasedaidtohomelessAmericans

TheFraudEnforcementandRecoveryActauthorized:

» Coveringprivatemortgagebrokersandothercompanies

» ExpandingtheDepartmentofJustice’sauthoritytoprosecutemortgage fraudinvolvingprivatemortgageinstitutions

» Changingthedefinitionof“financialinstitution”toincludeprivatemortgage brokersandothernon-banklenders

» Prohibitingmanipulationofthemortgagelendingbusiness

1.0 Background


» ProtectingTARPandtheRecoveryAct

» Coveringcommodityfuturesandoptionsinanti-fraudstatutes

» BroadeningtheFalseClaimsAct

» Expandingthegovernment’sabilitytoprosecutethosewhoengage infraudulentschemes

» Strengtheningthefederalgovernment’sfullregulatoryandenforcement capacity(FBI,uSAttorney’sOffices,HuD,SEC,uSPostalInspectionService)

OnMay7,2009,theuSHouseofRepresentativespassedtheMortgageReformand Anti-PredatoryLendingAct(HR1728)whichamendedtheTruthinLendingActforconsumermortgagepracticesandprovidedcertainminimumstandardsforconsumermortgageloans. Thebill,however,wasneverpassedbytheSenate.OnDecember2,2009,Dodd-FrankWallStreetReformandConsumerProtectionActincorporatedmuchoftheMortgageReformandAnti-PredatoryLendingActunderitsTitleXIvProvisionandwassubsequentlysignedintolaw.

1.0 Background


1.0 Background

1.1.2 State

Inadditiontofederalmandates,theCommonwealthofPennsylvania’sgeneralAssemblyenactedseveralimportantlawsthatfurtherensurefairlendingpracticesinfinancialinstitutions.ThePennsylvaniaLoanInterestandProtectionLaw,enactedin1974,requiresthatlendersclearlyexplainthetermsandconditionsofanyvariableloansofferedandprovidefixed-ratealternatives.Additionally,theSecondaryMortgageLoanActof1980andtheMortgageBankersandBrokersandConsumerEquityProtectionActof1989wereaddedtoregulatethelicensingofmortgagebrokersandoutlinerulesofconduct.Finally,theCreditServicesActwasestablishedin1992toregulatethecreditserviceindustry.

In2003,duetoconcernoverrisingforeclosurerates,thePennsylvaniaHouseofRepresentativesrequestedthattheCommonwealthinitiateastudytoreviewresidentiallendingpracticesandidentifythoseconsideredharmfultoconsumers.Thisinformationwasconsolidatedintoareportentitled,“LosingtheAmericanDream:AReportonResidentialMortgageForeclosuresandAbusiveLendingPractices”andwaspresentedtothegeneralAssembly.Inresponse,theCommonwealthreleased“PennsylvaniaMortgageLendingReformRecommendations”in2007.

In2008,theCommonwealthenactedfivenewbillsrelatingtothemortgageindustry.ThischangeinlegislationwasusedtooverhaultheCommonwealth’slongstandinglicensingpracticesforfirstandsecondmortgagelending,makesubstantialrevisionstotheCommonwealth’susurylaw,andimplementchangestotheCommonwealth’spre-foreclosurenoticerequirements.Thesebillsinclude2:

» Bill2179(p/n4020)orAct2008-56-repealsmuchoftheCommonwealth’sMortgageBankersandBrokersandConsumerEquityProtectionActandallofPennsylvania’sSecondaryMortgageLoanAct.ItreplacesthemwithoneconsolidatedMortgageLoanIndustryLicensingandConsumerProtectionLaw.

» Bill483(p/n2163)orAct2008-57-changestheCommonwealth’sgeneralusurylaw(formallytitledthe“LoanInterestandProtectionLaw”andpopularlyknownas“Act6”).Thisincludesincreasingcoverageforresidentialmortgageloans,broadeningexceptionforbusinessloans,andincreasingenforcementauthority.

2. “Chapter 9-2400.” The Philadelphia Code, entitled “Prohibition Against. 16 Nov. 2000. Web. 04 Nov. 2009.


» Bill484(p/n2251)orAct2008-58-allowstheCommonwealth’sDepartmentofBankingtorequirelicenseestouseanationalelectroniclicensingsystemandpayassociatedlicensingprocessingfees.

» Bill485(p/n2252)orAct2008-59-amendedtheCommonwealth’sRealEstateAppraisersCertificationActtoexpandandchangethecompositionoftheStateBoardofCertifiedRealEstateAppraisersandestablishanewlicensecategoryfor“appraisertrainees.”EffectiveSept.5,2008,Bill485requiressuchtraineestooperateunderthesupervisionofeitheraCertifiedResidentialAppraiseroraCertifiedgeneralAppraiser.Theamendmentincreasesthecivilpenaltyfrom$1,000to$10,000thattheBoardmayimposeforviolationsoftheAct.ItalsoaddsthePennsylvaniaAttorneygeneralandthePennsylvaniaSecretaryofBanking,ortheirrespectivedesignees,totheStateBoardofCertifiedRealEstateAppraisers.

» Bill486(p/n1752)orAct2008-60-requiresthehousingfinanceagencytomaintainalistofapprovedconsumercreditcounselingagenciesandtopublishthatlistonitswebsite.

In2009,theCommonwealthenactedseveralnewkeybills.

Act31of2009(PAHouseBill1654)wassignedintolaw8/5/09.ItamendsPA’sexistingmortgagelicensinglaw7Pa.C.S.Chapter61titledtheMortgageLicensingActandwasdonetocomplywiththefederalSecureandFairEnforcementforMortgageLicensingActof2008(the“SAFEAct”),12u.S.C.§5101etseq.Someofthefeaturesinclude:

» AllemployeeswhoworkformortgagecompaniestobelicensedbythePennsylvaniaDepartmentofBanking.CompaniesandtheiremployeesmustalsoregisteronthenewNationwideMortgageLicensingSystem(NMLS),aweb-basedsystemusedbystateregulatorstomonitortheindustry.

» Mortgagecompaniesmustbeginusinganewdisclosureformthatclearlystateswhetheraloanhasanyofthefollowingfeatures:adjustableinterestrate,prepaymentpenalty,balloonpayment,negativeamortization,andwhetherthemonthlypaymentincludespropertytaxesandhazardinsurance.

» Mortgagecompaniesmustobtainproofofincome,fixedexpensesandotherrelevantinformationinordertoevaluateaborrower’sabilitytorepayanofferedloan.Thisrequirementseekstorestrictlow-andno-documentationmortgagesinwhichapplicantsdonothavetoprovidesuchinformation.

OnJune27,2009thePennsylvaniaDepartmentofBankingamendeditsMortgageLoanBusinessPractices--StatementofPolicy39Pa.B.3172undertheauthority7Pa.C.S.§6138(a)(4)(MortgageAct).Thestatementofpolicywasinitiatedtoprovideguidancetolicenseesundersection310(a)oftheMortgageBankersandBrokersandConsumerEquityProtectionAct(MBBCEPA)(63P.S.§456.310(a)).

1.0 Background


1.1.3 Local

IntheCityofPhiladelphia,lawmakershavecontinuedtoestablishandenforcerulesandregulationsaboveandbeyondthoseissuedbythestateorfederalgovernment.Intermsoffairlendingpractices,thisincludestheResolutionNo.051161,whichwasarequestbyCityCouncilfortheOfficeoftheCityTreasurertocommissionanannualreportoflendingdisparitiesbyCitydepositories.Thismandatesthatthedepositoriesannuallysubmitacomprehensiveanalysisoftheirhomelending,smallbusinesslendingandbranchingpatterns,aswellasthemeasurementofcommunityreinvestmentandfairlendingperformance.

In2000,theCityalsoenactedChapter9-2400ofthePhiladelphiaCode,“ProhibitionAgainstPredatoryLending.”Thischapterprohibitsallfinancialinstitutionsandtheiraffiliatesfrommaking,issuingorarranginganysubprimeorhigh-costloan,orassistingothersindoingso,inanymannerwhichhasbeendeterminedtobeabusive,unscrupulousandmisleading.ItalsoestablishedaPredatoryLendingReviewCommitteewhichhasbeentaskedwithreviewingandinvestigatinganyallegedpredatoryloans.Thiscommitteealsoadministerspenaltiesforbusinessentitiesthatdonotcomplyandprovidesassistancetotheaggrievedparties.3

Overtheyears,theCityhasemployedanumberofapproachestocombatpredatorylending.TheCityofPhiladelphiaOfficeofHousingandCommunityDevelopmenthasbeeninvolvedwithimplementingitsAnti-PredatoryLendingInitiative,whichoffersConsumerEducationandOutreach,LegalAssistance,AlternativeLoanProducts,andResearchtohomeowners.In2004,MayorStreetandPennsylvaniaSecretaryofBankingWilliamSchenckjoinedofficialsfromCitizensBankandFreddieMacinunveilingacomprehensiveconsumerawarenesscampaigntoalertborrowersinNorthPhiladelphiaandothertargetneighborhoodsaboutthedangersofpredatorylending.Theprogramoffersfinancialliteracy,creditcounselingandconsumereducationworkshops,andencouragesborrowerstocalltheCity’s“Don’tBorrowTrouble” anti-predatorylendinghotline.

.

1.0 Background

3. “Chapter 9-2400.” The Philadelphia Code, entitled “Prohibition Against. 16 Nov. 2000. Web. 04 Nov. 2009.


Otherinitiativesinclude:

» “SaveyourHomePhilly”hotlineprovidesfreecounselingassistanceforhomeownersbehindonmortgagepaymentsorfacingforeclosure.Homeownerscancall215-334-HOME(4663)

» CityofPhiladelphia/PhiladelphiaLegalAssistancePredatoryLendingHotline(forPhiladelphiaresidents)takescallsfromhomeownerswhowantmoreinformationaboutloans,homeequityormortgageloansorpeoplewhothinktheymaybevictimsofpredatorylending.Homeownerscancall215-523-9520

» ThePhiladelphiaRegionalOfficeoftheuSDepartmentofHousingandurbanDevelopmentprovidescounselorsthroughHuD’sHousingCounselingProgramforhelpwithforeclosureandlendingissues.Homeownerscancall888-466-3487ordirectlyto theHuDRegionIIIOffice,PhiladelphiaRegionalOffice,TheWanamakerBuilding, 100PennSquare,East,Philadelphia,PA,19107-3380(215)656-0500

» ThePennsylvaniaHousingFinanceAgencyalsoprovidescounselingtohomeowners attheirtollfreenumber:800-342-2397.

ItshouldbenotedthatCitydepositoriesmakeuparelativelysmallfractionofhomepurchase,refinance,andhomeimprovementlendingactivitywithintheCity.ThereareseveralotherentitiestoconsiderwhenevaluatingPhiladelphia’sfairlendingpracticeincludingnon-Citydepositorybanks,aswellasnon-bankmortgagelenders.However,Citydepositoriesrepresentimportantandwell-recognizedfinancialinstitutionswithintheCity,andtheCityholdssomenegotiatingleverageoverthem.Thus,theyrepresentanimportantsubsetoflendingandfinancialservicesactivitythattheCityevaluatesforequitablelendingandbranchlocationpractices.

1.2 Depository Descriptions

ThefollowingsectionprovidesabriefoverviewofeachoftheelevenauthorizeddepositoriesintheCityofPhiladelphia.Thedescriptionincludessize,organizationalstructure,geographicfootprint,andrelatedfeatures.TheprimarysourcematerialsusedtocompletethedescriptionswereCommunityReinvestmentAct(CRA)reportingavailablefromtheFederalDepositInsuranceCorporation(FDIC)andtheinteragencyinformationavailablefromtheFederalFinancialInstitutionsExaminationCouncil(FFIEC).Alternativesourceswereusedtosupplementthedescriptiveinformation,includingtheAuthorizedDepositoryComplianceAnnualRequestforInformationCalendaryear2008andannualcompanyreports.

1.0 Background


1.2.1 Advance Bank

AdvanceBankdidnotsubmitaresponsetotheAnnualRequestforCommunityReinvestmentgoalstotheCityofPhiladelphiafor2009.Therefore,thefollowinginformationcouldnotbeupdated,andisrepeatedfromthe2008study.

TotalAssets:$76,011,000(asof12/31/08) Employees:39 OfficesinPhiladelphia:1 CommunityReinvestmentActrating:Outstanding(asof2008) Structure:PartoftheAdvanceBankCorporation

AdvanceBankisaminoritycontrolledandoperatedfederally-charteredmutualsavingsbankheadquarteredinBaltimore,Maryland.AdvanceBankmergedwithBereanBankinPhiladelphiain2003andnowprovidesbankingservicestotheresidentsofBaltimoreandPhiladelphia.AllbankbranchesinPhiladelphiaandBaltimorearelocatedinlow-tomoderate-incomeareas.Thebankoriginatesalimitednumberofconsumerloans.

InPhiladelphia,AdvanceBankoperatesonefull-servicebranchoffice,whichhasawalk-upAutomatedTellerMachine(ATM).Itsfocushasbeentoprovideservices,bothdepositoryandloan,tounderservedcommunities,aswellasthegeneralpopulation.AdvanceBankparticipatesintheEmergingContractor’sProgramandisamemberofvariouscommunitydevelopmentorganizationsintheCityofPhiladelphia,suchasgreaterPhiladelphiaurbanAffairsCoalition’sCommunityDevelopmentCommitteeandtheAfricanAmericanChamberofCommerce.

AdvanceBankdoesnotconductbusinessinNorthernIreland,isincompliancewithfederallawsregardingpredatorylending,andisnotknowntohavebenefitedfromslaveryorslaveholderinsurancepolicies.

1.2.2 Bank of America

TotalAssets:$2,223,299,000,000(asof12/31/09)4

Employees:4,567withinPA/311withinPhiladelphia5

OfficesinPhiladelphia:196

CommunityReinvestmentActrating:Outstanding(asof12/31/2008) Structure:SubsidiaryoftheBankofAmericaCorporation

BankofAmerica,N.A.isapubliclytradedcompanyheadquarteredinCharlotte,NorthCarolina.BankofAmericaisasubsidiaryofBankofAmericaCorporation,withpreviousownershipheldbyNationsBankCorporation.Thebankisafull-service,interstatebankthatoperatesthroughouttheunitedStatesand44foreigncountries.BankofAmericaacquiredaretailbankingcenterfootprintinPhiladelphiain2004throughtheacquisitionofFleetBank.

1.0 Background

4. BOA 2009 Financial Statement.5.City of Philadelphia Office of the City Treasurer Authorized Depository COMPLIANCE: Philadelphia City Code CHAPTER 19-200. CITY FUNDS--DEPOSITS, INVESTMENTS, DISBURSEMENTS R.F.I. Questionnaire Annual Request for Information Calendar Year 2009 for Bank of America, pg. 7. 6. Ibid pg 6.


BankofAmericacertifiesthatitabidesbytheMacBridePrinciplesanddoesnotengageindiscriminatorypracticesonthebasisofrace,color,creed,religionorsexualorientation.TheinstitutionalsocertifiesthatitdoesnotengageinpredatorylendingpracticesasprescribedbytheComptrolleroftheunitedStatesandisnotknowntohavebenefitedfromslaveryorslaveholderinsurancepolicies.

Thefollowingchartindicatesthenumberofsmallbusinessloans,homemortgages,homeimprovementloans,andcommunitydevelopmentinvestmentsthatBankofAmericamadewithinlowandmoderate-incomeneighborhoodswithintheCityofPhiladelphiafor2009.

TyPE 2009gOALS 2009RESuLTS

SMALLBuSINESSLOANS 620 209

HOMEMORTgAgES 560 1188

HOMEIMPROvEMENTLOANS 35 38

COMMuNITyDEvELOPMENTINvESTMENTS 5 7

TheonlycategoryinwhichBankofAmericadidnotmeetitsstatedgoalwasSmallBusinessLoans;allothergoalsweremetorexceededfor2009.BecauseoftheeconomicchallengesfacingtheuSin2009,BankofAmericaadjusteditsinvestmentgoalsdownward,yetwasstillunabletomeetitsSmallBusinessLoangoalsfortheyear.

BankofAmericaearnedsixconsecutive“Outstanding”CRAratings.ItreceivedaCRAPerformanceEvaluationPublicDisclosureinAprilof2008fortheCRAexaminationperiodof2004through2006.TheratingisOutstandingoverallandforeachofthethreecomponents:Lending,InvestmentsandServices.ThePennsylvaniastateratingwasalsoOutstanding.In2009theinstitutionhad5CommunityDevelopmentLoans/Investmentsandinvestedapproximately$19millioninhighimpactprojects.

1.2.3 Bank of New York Mellon, N.A.

TotalAssets:$212,224,000,000(asof12/31/09)7

Employees:42,2008

OfficesinPhiladelphia:5 CommunityReinvestmentActrating:Satisfactory(asof2009) Structure:SubsidiaryoftheBankofNewyorkMellon

1.0 Background

7. BNY Mellon 2009 Annual Report.8. 2009 Report Highlight,www.bnymellon.com.


BankofNewyorkMellon,NAdidnotsubmitaresponsetotheAnnualRequestforCommunityReinvestmentgoalstotheCityofPhiladelphiafor2009.

Priorto2006,MellonBank,N.A.wasawhollyownedsubsidiaryofMellonFinancialCorporation(MFC),headquarteredinPittsburgh,PA.In2006,MFCannounceditsplannedmergerwithBankofNewyork,andinJulyof2007thecompletedmergercreatedthebanknowknownasBankofNewyorkMellonFinancialCorporation(NyMFC).NyMFCheadquartersnowresideinNewyork,Newyorkandcurrentlyfocusesonassetmanagementandsecuritiesserviceshelpingclientstosucceedinaconstantlychangingglobalenvironment.

TheBankofNewyorkMelloncertifiesthatitmakesalllawfuleffortstoimplementthefairemploymentpracticesembodiedintheMacBridePrinciples,rejectsanypolicyoractivitythatpromotespredatorylendingpractices,anddoesnotparticipateinsubprimelending.MellonBankstatesthatthereisnoindicationthatanyMellonBankpredecessorshadanyinvolvementintheslavetrade,directownershipofslaves,oreverofferedloanssecuredthroughslaves.

TheBankofNewyorkMellon,N.A.CommunityReinvestmentActReport2009(www.bnymellon.com.)doesnotofferinformationforthePhiladelphiaareaonly.TheassessmentisforNy-Ny-CT-PAMSAareascombined

1.2.4 Citibank

TotalAssets:$1,856,646,000,000(asof12/31/09)9 Employees:105withinPhiladelphia10


CommunityReinvestmentActrating:Outstanding(asof2006) Structure:SubsidiaryofCitigroupIncorporated

Citibank,N.A.iscurrentlythelargestbankintheunitedStateswithheadquartersresidinginLasvegas,Nevada.Itisanarmofthelargerparentcompany,Citigroup,whichisthelargestfinancialserviceorganizationintheworldlocatedinmorethan100countries.In2007,CitibankopeneditsfirstbranchinPhiladelphiaaswellasseveralATMs.Citibankprovidesseveralfinancialproductstoitscustomersincludingbanking,insurance,creditcards,andinvestmentassistance.

CitibankcertifiesthatitmakesalllawfuleffortstoimplementthefairemploymentpracticesembodiedintheMacBridePrinciples,doesnotoriginateHOEPAloans,negativeamortizationloans,non-traditionalmortgageproductssuchasinterestonlyandpaymentoptionARMSinthenon-primechannel,andequitylendingasallloansmustmeetanabilitytopaytest.Itrejectsanypolicyoractivitythatpromotespredatorylendingpractices,anddoesnotparticipateinsubprimelending.CitiBankalsocertifiesthatitfoundnorecordsthatitoranyofitsPredecessorBusinessEntitieshadanyparticipationorinvestmentsin,orderivedprofitsfrom,SlaveryorSlaveholderInsurancePoliciesduringtheSlaveryEra.

1.0 Background

9. Citibank 2009 Annual Report.10. City of Philadelphia Office of the City Treasurer Authorized Depository COMPLIANCE: Philadelphia City Code CHAPTER 19-200. CITY FUNDS--DEPOSITS, INVESTMENTS, DISBURSEMENTS R.F.I. Questionnaire Annual Request for Information Calendar Year 2009 for Citibank, pg. 7.11. Ibid pg. 7.


Thefollowingchartindicatesthenumberofsmallbusinessloans,homemortgages,homeimprovementloans,andcommunitydevelopmentinvestmentsthatCitibankmadewithinlowandmoderate-incomeneighborhoodswithintheCityofPhiladelphiafor2009.


SMALLBuSINESSLOANS gOALSAREESTABLISHEDAgAINSTPEER100%

572TOTALINg$5,192M

HOMEMORTgAgES gOALSAREESTABLISHEDAgAINSTPEER100%

413TOTALINg$62,336M

HOMEIMPROvEMENTLOANS gOALSAREESTABLISHEDAgAINSTPEER100%

34TOTALINg$2,270M

COMMuNITyDEvELOPMENTINvESTMENTS $1.8M $1.2M

CitibankhasmadeanumberofgrantstotheHomeownershipCounselingAssociationoftheDelawarevalley($70,000)andPhiladelphiavIP($50,000)toensurePhiladelphia’spositionasanationalmodelintheforeclosurepreventioneffort.

OtheraspectsofCiti’scommunitydevelopmentactivitiesinPhiladelphiainclude:

» AnnualCitiDialoguesdedicatedtointensiveinformationgatheringoncommunityneeds

» AnnualNon-ProfitDaysdedicatedtonon-profitcapacitybuilding

» Serviceonnumerousboards,includinggPuAC,thePhiladelphiaDevelopmentPartnership,WORC,theCCCSAdvisoryBoard

1.2.5 Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania


Employees:4,285withinPA/1,197withinPhiladelphia13 OfficesinPhiladelphia:6014

CommunityReinvestmentActrating:Outstanding(asof9/1/2009)15

Structure:SubsidiaryoftheRoyalBankofScotlandgroup,PLC

CitizensBankofPennsylvania(CBPA)isafull–servicefinancialinstitutionservingPennsylvaniaandNewJersey.Thebank’sprimarymarketfocusisprovidingcredit,depositaccount,andservicestoindividualsandsmallbusinesses.CBPAisasubsidiaryoftheCitizensFinancialgroup,Inc.(CFg),aholdingcompanybasedinProvidence,R.I.,andisoneofthenation’s20largestcommercecompanies.CFgownsfiveotherindependentlystate-charteredoperatingbanksundertheCitizensnameandapproximately702ATMsthroughoutthePhiladelphiaarea,includingwalk–upandsupermarketbranches.

1.0 Background

12. Citizens Bank 2009 Annual Report.13. City of Philadelphia Office of the City Treasurer Authorized Depository COMPLIANCE: Philadelphia City Code CHAPTER 19-200. CITY FUNDS--DEPOSITS, INVESTMENTS, DISBURSEMENTS R.F.I. Questionnaire Annual Request for Information Calendar Year 2009 for Citizens Bank, pg. 6.14. Ibid pg 6.15. http://www2.fdic.gov/crapes/.


CitizensBankofPennsylvaniacertifiesthatitconductsnobusinesswithNorthernIreland,isinfederalcompliancewithlawsregardingpredatorylending,andisnotknowntohavebenefitedfromslaveryorslaveholderinsurancepolicies.

Thefollowingchartindicatesthenumberofsmallbusinessloans,homemortgages,homeimprovementloans,andcommunitydevelopmentinvestmentsthatCitizensBankofPennsylvaniamadewithinlowandmoderate-incomeneighborhoodswithintheCityofPhiladelphiafor2009.






CitizensBankwasabletomeetorexceedalloftheircommunityreinvestmentgoalsfor2009.Therewasanexecutivedecisiontoplaceamoratoriumonallrealestatelending,includingCRA/communitydevelopmentlending.Creditdecisionswerefocusedonaccommodatingexistingcustomersandportfoliomanagement.

CitizensBankinstitutedanumberofkeycommunityinitiativesforPhiladelphia’slowandmoderateincomeneighborhoods,suchastheEconomicEmpowermentInitiative,theLucienE.BlackwellConstructionTradesApprenticeProgram,gPuACHousingForeclosurePreventionInitiative,theuniversityCityNeighborhoodImprovementProgramandthePhiladelphiaBusinessBuilderLoanProgram.

2009COMMuNITyDEvELOPMENTINvESTMENTS

COMPREHENSIvESERvICEPROgRAM $250,000

BuSINESSPRIvILEgETAXCREDITS $100,000

COMMuNITyDEvELOPMENTPROgRAMSuPPORT $333,340

FOuNDATIONSuPPORT $645,667

TOTALCDINvESTMENTS $1,329,007

1.0 Background


1.0 Background

1.2.6 City National Bank

TotalAssets:$466,339,000(asof12/31/09)16

Employees:10317


CommunityReinvestmentActrating:Outstanding(asofmostrecentexam) Structure:SubsidiaryofCityNationalBancsharesCorporation

CityNationalBankdidnotsubmitaresponsetotheAnnualRequestforCommunityReinvestmentgoalstotheCityofPhiladelphiafor2009.

CityNationalBankisasubsidiaryofCityNationalBancsharesCorporationwhichhas10locationsinunderservedminorityandlow-tomiddle-incomeurbanneighborhoodsinNewJerseyandNewyork.Thebankoffersstandarddepositproductsandservicesincludingcheckingandsavingsaccounts,IRAs,moneymarketaccounts,andCDs.CNB’sloanportfolioisdominatedbycommercialrealestateloans,butitalsooffersresidentialmortgages,constructionloans,businessloans,andconsumerloans.Thebankownsa35%stakeinaleasingcompanyandhasasmallinvestmentanorganizationthatprovidesmicroloansinHaiti.TheBankalsoacquiredabranchofficeinPhiladelphia,PAfromanotherfinancialinstitutioninMarch2007.CNBwasfoundedin1973.

CityNationalBankhasbeenawardedan“Outstanding”rating,thehighestratingpossible,bytheOfficeoftheComptrolleroftheCurrency(OCC)foritscommitmenttotheletterandspiritoftheCommunityReinvestmentAct(CRA).Byawardingthisrating,theOCCacknowledgedthatCityNationalBankiscontinuingtomeetthecreditneedsofallitssegmentsofitscommunities.Bycomparison,lessthan10%ofallfinancialinstitutionsintheunitedStatesreceivedan“Outstanding”CRAratingfromtheOCC.

1.2.7 M&T Bank

TotalAssets:$68,880,000,000(asof12/31/09)19 Employees:475withinPA/63withinPhiladelphia20 OfficesinPhiladelphia:721 CommunityReinvestmentActrating:Outstanding(asof2007) Structure:SubsidiaryofM&TBankCorporation

HeadquarteredinBuffalo,Ny,M&TBankprovidescommercialandretailbankingservicestoindividuals,corporationsandotherbusinesses,andinstitutions.Itoffersbusinessloansandleases;businesscreditcards;depositproducts,includingsavingsdeposits,timedeposits,NOWaccounts,andnoninterest-bearingdeposits;andfinancialservices,suchascashmanagement,payrollanddirectdeposit,merchantcreditcard,andlettersofcredit.Thecompanyalsoprovidesresidentialrealestateloans;multifamilycommercialrealestateloans;commercialrealestateloans;residentialmortgageloans;investmentandtradingsecurities;short-termand

16. http://www.faqs.org/sec-filings/100518/CITY-NATIONAL-BANCSHARES-CORP_10-K/.17. Ibid.18. Ibid.19. M&T 2009 Annual Report.20. City of Philadelphia Office of the City Treasurer Authorized Depository COMPLIANCE: Philadelphia City Code CHAPTER 19-200. CITY FUNDS--DEPOSITS, INVESTMENTS, DISBURSEMENTS R.F.I. Questionnaire Annual Request for Information Calendar Year 2009 for M&T Bank, pg. 6.21. Ibid, pg 6.


long-termborrowedfunds;brokeredcertificatesofdepositandinterestrateswapagreementsrelatedthereto;andoffshorebranchdeposits.Inaddition,itoffersforeignexchangeservices.Further,thecompanyprovidesconsumerloans,andcommercialloansandleases;creditlife,andaccidentandhealthreinsurance;andbrokerage,investmentadvisory,andinsuranceagencyservices.

Thefollowingchartindicatesthenumberofsmallbusinessloans,homemortgages,homeimprovementloans,andcommunitydevelopmentinvestmentsthatM&TBankmadewithinlowandmoderate-incomeneighborhoodswithintheCityofPhiladelphiafor2009.


SMALLBuSINESSLOANS N/A 24

HOMEMORTgAgES-PuRCHASE N/A 34

HOMEMORTgAgES-REFINANCE N/A 16

HOMEIMPROvEMENTLOANS N/A 8

COMMuNITyDEvELOPMENTINvESTMENTS N/A 4

M&TBankpartneredwiththeFederalHomeLoanBankofNewyorkAffordableHousingProgramtoprovidegapfundingfortwoprojectsintheCityofPhiladelphia.Oneprojectnetteda$300,000affordablehousinggranttoCitizensActingTogetherCanHelp,Inc.tohelpfinanceconstructioncostsforPatriotHouse,whichwillcreate15unitsofsupportiverentalhousingforchronicallyhomelessveteranswithmentalhealthorsubstanceabuseissues.Inaddition,a$200,000affordablehousinggranttoFriendsRehabilitationtohelpfinanceconstructioncostsfortheStrawberryMansionHomeownershipDevelopmentproject,whichwillcreate26homesformoderate-income,first-timehomebuyerswasalsogranted.

M&TBankpartnerswithcommunityinstitutionstoincreaseeconomicopportunities,includinghomeownershipforlowtomoderateincome(LMI)individualsandcommunities.M&TBankalsooffersaCRAhomemortgageproduct,whichismarketedandonlyavailabletoLMIcommunitiesandbuyersfeaturingalowdownpaymentandthepossibilitytofinanceclosingcosts.

1.2.8 PNC Bank

TotalAssets:$268,863,000,000(asof12/31/09)22 Employees:16,565withinPA/2,475withinPhiladelphia23 OfficesinPhiladelphia:3924

CommunityReinvestmentActrating:Outstanding(asof2006) Structure:SubsidiaryofPNCFinancialServicesgroup

1.0 Background

22. PNC Bank 2009 Annual Report.23. City of Philadelphia Office of the City Treasurer Authorized Depository COMPLIANCE: Philadelphia City Code CHAPTER 19-200. CITY FUNDS--DEPOSITS, INVESTMENTS, DISBURSEMENTS R.F.I. Questionnaire Annual Request for Information Calendar Year 2009 for PNC Bank, pg. 10.24. Ibid pg. 9.


1.0 Background

PNCBankistheflagshipsubsidiaryofthePNCFinancialServicesgroup,Inc.(PNCFinancial)headquarteredinPittsburgh,Pa.Throughaseriesofmergersandacquisitions,PNChasgrownfromaregionalbanktoanationalleaderinfinancialservices.PNCisaninterstatebankoperatinginDelaware,theDistrictofColumbia,Florida,virginia,Indiana,kentucky,NewJersey,Ohio,Maryland,andPennsylvania.PNChasover1,140domesticbranches,11foreignbranches,and3,600ATMmachines.

PNCBankutilizestheNorthernIrelandServiceprovidedbyRiskMetricsgroupasanintegralcomponentofacomplianceprogramestablishedinconnectionwiththeMacBridePrinciples.TheCommonwealthofPennsylvaniahasindicatedthatthisserviceisaneffectivemeansbywhichtohelpensurecompliancewithitsAct44.PNCBankalsocertifiesthatithasuncoverednoinstancesofthesaleofinsurancepoliciesrelatingtoslaves;ownershipofslavesbyanyofthepredecessorinstitutions;saleorpurchaseofslavestosatisfydebtcollection;ortheacceptanceofslavesascollateral.

Thefollowingchartindicatesthenumberofsmallbusinessloans,homemortgages,homeimprovementloans,andcommunitydevelopmentinvestmentsthatPNCBankmadewithinlowandmoderate-incomeneighborhoodswithintheCityofPhiladelphiafor2009.


SMALLBuSINESSLOANS 500uNITS 915

HOMEMORTgAgES 85uNITS 236

HOMEIMPROvEMENTLOANS 200uNITS 139

COMMuNITyDEvELOPMENTINvESTMENTS $2M $10M

TheonlycategoryinwhichPNCBankdidnotmeetitsstatedgoalwasforHomeImprovementloanoriginationvolumeinLMIcensustractsintheCityofPhiladelphia.ThisisaresultofeconomicandotherfactorsbeyondourcontrolwhichisindicatedbythefactthatthevolumeofoverallloanapplicationsintheCityofPhiladelphiadeclinedroughly30%.Allothergoalsweremetorexceededfor2009.

PNCcertifiesthatitdoesnotofferloanproductsthatcanbedescribedaspredatoryorhighcostandprovidesapplicantswithinformationnecessaryforapplicantstoprotectthemselvesagainstpredatorylendingpractices,includingalllegally-requiredloandisclosures.PNCalsomakesavailableawidevarietyoffinancialeducationandrelatedtoolsforconsumerstobetterunderstandtheiroptionswhenitcomestofinancialproducts.


PNCdidnotofferloanproductswhichhavebeenlinkedtopredatorylendingorthefinancialcrisis,suchassubprime,highcost,option-ARM,orAlt-Aloans.OnDecember31,2008,PNCacquiredNationalCityCorporation,whichhadalargerpresenceinthenationalmortgagemarket.Sincethen,PNChasworkedtointegratethoseoperationssothattheyconformtoPNC’sstandards,creditandriskmanagementpolicies,andapprovedproductset.Changesweremadetothemortgagecompany’soperationsandleadership,includingchangingthenametoPNCMortgage.In2009,thebusinessoriginatedapproximately$19.2billionoffirstmortgages.Prudentlyunderwrittenfixedratemortgagesnowaccountforapproximately95percentofthecompany’snewfirstmortgageoriginations.

PNCMortgageparticipatesinu.S.sponsoredprogramstohelpeligible,responsibleborrowersremainintheirhomes.TheseprogramsincludetheHomeAffordableModificationProgram(HAMP)andtheHomeAffordableRefinanceProgram(HARP).PNCalsoparticipatesintheHopeNowprogram,analliancebetweencounselors,banks,mortgagecompaniesandinvestorstocreateandcoordinateaunifiedplanthatkeepsdistressedhomeownersintheirhomes.

1.2.9 Republic First Bank


Employees:134withinPA/134withinPhiladelphia26


CommunityReinvestmentActrating:Outstanding(asof2008) Structure:SubsidiaryoftheRepublicFirstBankCorporation

Locallyownedandoperated,RepublicFirstBankhasitscorporateheadquartersin Philadelphia.RepublicFirstBankisafull-service,state-charteredbankdedicatedtoserving theneedsofindividuals,businessesandfamiliesthroughoutthegreaterPhiladelphiaarea.Thebank’sprimarymissionistoservesmallandmediumsizedbusinessesthatareunderservedasaresultofmergersandacquisitions.

RepublicFirstBankcertifiesthatitisincompliancewiththeMacBridePrinciples,makesits CRAPublicFileavailabletoCityresidentswhoareconcernedaboutpredatorylendingpractices,andfoundnoevidenceofprofitsfromslaveryand/orslaveryinsurancepoliciesduringtheslaveryera.

RepublicFirstBankreportedthatitdoesnotsetseparatereinvestmentgoalsfortheCityofPhiladelphia.Rather,theyareincludedinthebank’sgoalsfortheoverallassessmentarea.

1.0 Background

25. Republic First 2009 10K Report <>http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/secfilings.asp?ticker=FRBK:US26. City of Philadelphia Office of the City Treasurer Authorized Depository COMPLIANCE: Philadelphia City Code CHAPTER 19-200. CITY FUNDS--DEPOSITS, INVESTMENTS, DISBURSEMENTS R.F.I. Questionnaire Annual Request for Information Calendar Year 2009 for Republic First Bank, pg. 6. 27. Ibid, pg. 6.


1.0 Background

Thefollowingchartindicatesthenumberofsmallbusinessloans,homemortgages,homeimprovementloans,andcommunitydevelopmentinvestmentsthatRepublicFirstBankmadewithinlowandmoderate-incomeneighborhoodswithintheCityofPhiladelphiafor2009.


SMALLBuSINESSLOANS N/A 42

HOMEMORTgAgES N/A 0



RepublicFirstBankisactivelyinvolvedwiththeCommunityLendersCommunityDevelopmentCorporation(CLDC)andtheWomen’sOpportunityResourceCenter(WORC).TheCLDCpromotesrevitalizationthroughfinancingof,andinvestmentin,housingandcommunitydevelopmentactivitiesandaddressesneedsoflowandmoderateincomepersoninareasthroughoutBucks,Chester,Delaware&MontgomeryCounties,withspecificemphasisoncommunitieswherethememberBanksarelocated.TheWORCpromotessocialandeconomicself-sufficiencyforeconomicallydisadvantagedwomenandtheirfamilies.RepublicFirstBankopensaccounttosupporttheabove-referencedsavingactivitiesandservesontheBoardofWORC,aswellasitsLoanCommittee.

1.2.10 Sovereign Bank


Employees:9,03629

OfficesinPhiladelphia:1530 CommunityReinvestmentActrating:Outstanding(asof2008) Structure:SubsidiaryofBancoSantander,S.A.

SovereignBankdidnotsubmitaresponsetotheAnnualRequestforCommunityReinvestmentgoalstotheCityofPhiladelphiafor2009.

SovereignisnowpartofSantandergroup.Serving80millioncustomersin40countries,Santanderwasnamed“BestBankintheWorld”in2008.

SovereignBankoffersabroadarrayoffinancialservices,includingretail,business,andcorporatebanking;cashmanagement;capitalmarkets;privatewealthmanagement;andinsurance.Itsrootsreachbackto1902,whenitwasestablishedasabuildingandloanassociationhelpingPennsylvaniatextileworkersbecomehomeowners.

28. http://consumer-banking.findthebest.com/detail/24/Sovereign-Bank.29. Ibid.30. https://www.sovereignbank.com.


SovereignsuccessfullyexpandedintoNewEnglandin2000,andtheNewyorkareain2006.TheexpansionintoNewEnglandincludedapproximately$12billionindeposits,$8.1billioninloans,281branches,and550ATMsfromFleetBostonFinancial,whichwasthelargestbranchacquisitioninbankinghistory.Today,Sovereignoffersmorethan750branchesand2,300ATMsfromMainetoMaryland.

In2005,SovereignandSantanderestablishedastrategicpartnership,andonJanuary30,2009,SovereignjoinedSantandergroup,addingitssuccessfulu.S.franchisetoSantander’sglobalstrength.Foundedin1857,Santanderhasasuccessfulhistoryinretailandcommercialbanking,andhasgrowntobecomeoneofthe5largestbanksintheworldbyprofit.

SovereignBankcertifiesthatitmakesalllawfuleffortstoimplementthefairemploymentpracticesembodiedintheMacBridePrinciples,rejectsanypolicyoractivitythatpromotespredatorylendingpractices,anddoesnotparticipateinsubprimelending.SovereignBankstatesthatthereisnoindicationthatanySovereignBankpredecessorshadanyinvolvementintheslavetrade,directownershipofslaves,oreverofferedloanssecuredthroughslaves.

Aspartofitscommunitydevelopmentplan,Sovereignhasprovidedover$400,000totheHispanicAssociationofContractorsEnterprise(HACE),innorthPhiladelphiaaspartofafiveyearcommitmenttothiscommunitydevelopmentinitiative.

1.2.11 TD Bank

TotalAssets:$564,791,007,407(asof12/31/09)31 Employees:1,370withinPennsylvania/737withinPhiladelphia32 OfficesinPhiladelphia:1433 CommunityReinvestmentActrating:Satisfactory(asof2008) Structure:SubsidiaryofTDBankFinancialgroup

TDBankisasubsidiaryofTDBankFinancialgroupwhoseofficeheadquartersislocatedinToronto,Canada.TDBankisoneofthe15largestcommercialbanksintheunitedStatesandoffersabroadrangeoffinancialproductsandservicestocustomersinConnecticut,Delaware,theDistrictofColumbia,Florida,Maine,Maryland,Massachusetts,NewHampshire,NewJersey,Newyork,Pennsylvania,vermont,andvirginia.

InanattempttofurtherexpandthroughouttheunitedStates,TDBankFinancialgroupofToronto,CanadaacquiredCommerceBankonMarch31,2008.Together,theyarenowcalledTDBank,America’sMostConvenientBank(TDBank).ThecompanystatesthatTDBankisfocusedondeliveringaward-winningcustomerserviceandhassle-freeproductstocustomersfromMainetoFlorida.

1.0 Background

31. Amount quoted is converted from Canadian Dollars into US Dollars 1 CAD = 1.01359 USD. TD Bank 2009 Annual Report.32. City of Philadelphia Office of the City Treasurer Authorized Depository COMPLIANCE: Philadelphia City Code CHAPTER 19-200. CITY FUNDS--DEPOSITS, INVESTMENTS, DISBURSEMENTS R.F.I. Questionnaire Annual Request for Information Calendar Year 2009 for TD Bank, pg. 6.33. Ibid, pg. 7.


1.0 Background

TDBank,N.A.doesnotprovideapolicyonMacBridePrinciples,asitdoesnothaveanyoffices,branches,depositories,orsubsidiariesinNorthernIreland.TDBankalsocertifiedthatitcomplieswithgoverningdisclosurepracticesnecessaryforCityresidentstoprotectthemselvesagainstpredatorylendingpractices.

Thefollowingchartindicatesthenumberofsmallbusinessloans,homemortgages,homeimprovementloans,andcommunitydevelopmentinvestmentsthatTDBankmadewithinlowandmoderate-incomeneighborhoodswithintheCityofPhiladelphiafor2009.





COMMuNITyDEvELOPMENTINvESTMENTS $1M $54.5M

TDBankexceededitsgoalsforSmallBusinessLoansandCommunityDevelopmentInvestmentsfor2009.TheBankswasnotabletomeetitsgoalsforHomeMortgagesandHomeImprovementLoans.TDBank’sCommunityDevelopmentInvestmentswerestrong,totaling$54.5million.Thisincluded:

» 41grantsandsponsorshipstonon-profitsandsocialserviceagenciesinsupportofaffordablehousing,financialliteracy,economicdevelopment,humanservices,healthcare,smallbusinessdevelopmentandothercommunityprograms,initiativesandactivities-$640,714.

» Eightlowincomehousingtaxcreditinvestmentsforthepurchase,developmentand/orrenovationofmulti-familyaffordablerentalhousingintheCityofPhiladelphia-$53,852,389.


1.2.12 United Bank of Philadelphia

TotalAssets:$68,317,793(asof12/31/09)34 Employees:30withinPA/30withinPhiladelphia35


CommunityReinvestmentActrating:Outstanding(asof2006) Structure:SubsidiaryofunitedBancshares,Inc

unitedBankofPhiladelphia(unitedBank),headquarteredinPhiladelphia,hasbeena state-charteredfull–servicecommercialbanksince1992.unitedBankiswhollyownedbyunitedBancshares,Inc.,abankholdingcompanyheadquarteredinPhiladelphiaandAfricanAmericancontrolledandmanaged.unitedBankoffersavarietyofconsumerandcommercialbankingservices,withanemphasisoncommunitydevelopmentandservicestounderservedneighborhoodsandsmallbusinesses.ThebankcurrentlyworksoutofthreeofficeslocatedthroughoutPhiladelphiaCounty,including:WestPhiladelphiaBranch,MountAiryBranch,andProgressPlazaBranch.AlthoughthelocationsandprimaryserviceareaisinPhiladelphia County,unitedBankalsoservesportionsofMontgomery,Bucks,Chester,andDelaware CountiesinPennsylvania;NewCastleCountyinDelaware;andCamden,Burlingtonand gloucesterCountiesinNewJersey.

Theu.S.TreasuryDepartmenthascertifiedunitedBankasaCommunityDevelopmentFinancialInstitution.Thiscertificationrequiresthatthebankhaveaprimarymissionofpromoting communitydevelopment.unitedBank’sstatedmissionistodeliverexcellentcustomerserviceataprofitandtomakeunitedBankofPhiladelphiathe“hometown”bankofchoicewithagoaltofostercommunitydevelopmentbyprovidingqualitypersonalizedcomprehensivebankingservicestobusinessandindividualsinthegreaterPhiladelphiaRegion,withaspecialsensitivitytoBlacks,Hispanics,Asians,andwomen.

unitedBankcertifiesthatitdoesnothaveanyfundsinvestedincompaniesdoingbusinessinorwithNorthernIreland,providesallloancustomerswiththeconsumerdisclosuresrequiredbyFederalRegulation(i.e.goodfaithestimate,truthinlending,fairlendingnotice),anddidnotprofitfromslaveryand/orslaveryinsurancepoliciesduringtheslaveryera.

1.0 Background

34. United Bank 2009 Annual Report.35. City of Philadelphia Office of the City Treasurer Authorized Depository COMPLIANCE: Philadelphia City Code CHAPTER 19-200. CITY FUNDS--DEPOSITS, INVESTMENTS, DISBURSEMENTS R.F.I. Questionnaire Annual Request for Information Calendar Year 2009 for United Bank, pg. 6.36. Ibid, pg. 6.


1.0 Background

Thefollowingchartindicatesthenumberofsmallbusinessloans,homemortgages,homeimprovementloans,andcommunitydevelopmentinvestmentsthatunitedBankmadewithinlowandmoderate-incomeneighborhoodswithintheCityofPhiladelphiafor2009.



HOMEMORTgAgES 2 2



TheBankmetits2009goalsforHomeMortgagesbutfellshortofitsloangoalsforSmallBusinessLoansandHomeImprovementsLoans.unitedBankhadnoCommunityDevelopmentInvestmentgoalsfor2009.

unitedBankisparticipatingintheBankonPhiladelphiaprogram,designedbytheCitytohelplowandmoderateincomefamiliesgainaccesstomainstreamfinancialservices.

unitedBankisalsoparticipatinginanumberofoutreachprogramsgearedtowardminorities,low-incomepersons,immigrants,orwomenwiththeuSDepartmentofTransportation(DOT)LendingProgram,PhiladelphiaIndustrialDevelopmentCorporation(PIDC),uSSmallBusinessAdministration(SBA)andtheSecuredvisaCardProgram

1.2.13 Wells Fargo Bank

TotalAssets:$1,243,646,000,000(asof12/31/09)37 Employees:9,034withinPA/2,812withinPhiladelphia38

OfficesinPhiladelphia:4239 CommunityReinvestmentActrating:Outstanding(asof2008) Structure:SubsidiaryofWellsFargoBank,N.A

HeadquarteredinSanFrancisco,CA,WellsFargo&Companyisadiversifiedfinancialservicescompanyprovidingbanking,insurance,investments,mortgage,andconsumerandcommercialfinancethroughmorethan9,000storesand12,000ATMsandtheInternet(wellsfargo.comandwachovia.com)acrossNorthAmericaandinternationally.OneinthreehouseholdsinAmericadoesbusinesswithWellsFargo.WellsFargohas$1.2trillioninassetsandmorethan278,000teammembersacross80+businesses.

37. Wells Fargo 2009 Annual Report.38. City of Philadelphia Office of the City Treasurer Authorized Depository COMPLIANCE: Philadelphia City Code CHAPTER 19-200. CITY FUNDS--DEPOSITS, INVESTMENTS, DISBURSEMENTS R.F.I. Questionnaire Annual Request for Information Calendar Year 2009 for Wells Fargo Bank, pg. 7.39. Ibid pg. 6.


WellsFargo’sPennsylvaniaregionalheadquartersislocatedinPhiladelphia,PA.Thebankservesitscustomersandcommunitiesthroughphilanthropicinvestingtononprofitsandschoolsthroughcorporateandfoundationgiving,grantstohousingnonprofitsforbuildingandrehabilitatinghomes,homeownereducation,andforeclosureprevention,$149millioninCommunityReinvestmentAct-qualifiedcommunitydevelopmentloansandinvestmentsforaffordablehousing,communityservices,andeconomicdevelopment,$1.1billioninhomeloansfor10,700low-andmoderate-incomefamiliesandindividuals,and$893millioninhomeloansfor5,600peopleofcolor.

WellsFargoBank,N.A.certifiesthatitisincompliancewiththeMacBridePrincipals.WellsFargoBank,N.A.anditsrelevantdivisions(whichincludeWachovia)andaffiliatescertifythattheyprovideallapplicabledisclosuresrequiredbyfederal,stateandlocallawsandregulationsandhavecomprehensivecomplianceandfairlendingprogramsthatincludeextensivecontrolsandmonitoringsystems.Theyareanationalindustryleaderonanti-predatoryissues.

Thefollowingchartindicatesthenumberofsmallbusinessloans,homemortgages,homeimprovementloans,andcommunitydevelopmentinvestmentsthatWellsFargoBankmadewithinlowandmoderate-incomeneighborhoodswithintheCityofPhiladelphiafor2009.






TheBankdidnotmeetits2009goalsforsmallbusinessloansandhomemortgages.It’sLMItractproductionof2200unitswasat95%ofgoalandLMIneighborhoodproductionwasnearly172%morethan2008andaccomplishedduringasignificant(30%+)declineinmortgagelendinginthePhiladelphiamarket.Marketconditionsweredifficultin2009duetothecontinuationoftheeconomicrecession,highforeclosuresrates,highunemploymentandcredittightening.

1.3 Mortgage Foreclosures

Inthepastfewyears,theuShasfacedaforeclosureandunemploymentcrisisthathasdev-astatedcommunities.Whiletheimpactofforeclosureismostimmediatelyfeltbydefaultinghomeowners,ithasalsohadadramaticimpactontheimmediateneighborhoodsandcitiesinwhichtheylive.

Theboomandbustinnon-primeandnon-traditionalmortgagelendingintheunitedStatesisunprecedented.Inthefallof2008,thehousingfinancesystemreachedthebrinkofcollapse.

1.0 Background


1.0 Background

Whileitisdifficulttoknowforcertainwhatcausedtheboomandtheparticularcharacteristicsofthebustthatfollowed,therearefourlikelyfactorsthateachplayedasignificantrole:

» globalliquiditywhichledtolowinterestrates,expectationsofrapidlyrisinghomepricesandgreaterleverage,

» Theoriginationofmortgageloanswithunprecedentedrisksthroughrelaxationofmortgageunderwritingstandardsandthelayeringofrisks,especiallyintheprivate-labelsecuritiesmarketandintheportfoliosofsomelargebanksandthrifts,globalliquiditywhichledtolowinterestrates,expectationsofrapidlyrisinghomepricesandgreaterleverage,

» Themultiplicationandmispricingofthisriskthroughfinancialengineeringinthecapitalmarkets,and

» Regulatoryandmarketfailures.

1.3.1 Federal

Since2007,nearlyninemillionpropertieshavereceivedforeclosurefilings.Federalprogramshavebeeninplacesincemid-2008.TheseprogramsincludeHopeforHomeownersandtheMakingHomeAffordableprogram(MHA).MHAhasfeaturessuchasamodificationprogram(HAMP)andarefinanceprogram(HARP).

Thusfar,HAMPhasproveninsufficienttohalttheforeclosurecrisis.Documentedchallenges40 includedeficientprogramdesign,disorganizedandinconsistentimplantation,andaninability tokeeppacewithchangingmarketconditions.ArecentdetailedevaluationofHAMPbythegovernmentAccountabilityOffice(gAO)andtheSpecialInspectorgeneralfortheTroubled AssetReliefProgram(SIgTARP)indicatesthattheseissuesremain“substantialchallenges”thatwillrestrictHAMP’sfutureperformance.Duetothesechallenges,itisunlikelythattheprogramwillreachtheoriginalintendedscaleofhelpingthreetofourmillionhomeowners.

WhiletheTreasuryDepartmentestimatesthatHAMPwillcreatepermanentmortgage modificationsfor1.5to2millionhomeowners,theCongressionalOversightPanelestimates thatonly276,000foreclosures–“lessthanfourpercentofthetotal60+daydelinquencies” willbepreventedbyHAMP.Toaddressthisshortfall,manystateandcitygovernmentshaveimplementedaggressiveandinnovativeprogramstoaddresstheproblemlocally.

40. National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC), National Consumer Law Center, Center for Economic and Policy Research and Center for American Progress.


1.3.2 State

Inresponsetothecrisis,somestateshavemadechangestotheirforeclosureprocessesto providemoreopportunitiesforhomeownerstoavoidforeclosures.Somestateshaveextendedthelengthoftheforeclosureprocessinordertoincreasetheamountoftimeahomeownerisgiventofindalternativetoforeclosure.Othershavespecificprovisionsdesignedtoprovide noticetohomeowners,toprovideaccesstocounselingorlegalservices,and/orencourage orrequirecommunicationamongparties.Stillothershavepassedregulationsthatprovide protectionfromriskylendingpracticesinthefuture.Suchregulationincludesminimum licensurestandardsformortgagebrokerstoensuretheirfinancialsolvencyandtechnicalfitnesstocarryoutresponsibilities,minimumunderwritingandloanproductsstandards(e.g.abilitytopayverification);prohibitionofnodocumentationloans;restrictionofpre-paymentpenalties;andincreasedenforcementofexistinglawsandincreasingpenaltiesforfraud.

InPennsylvaniatherearetwoformsofforeclosures:judicialandnon-judicial.Judicial foreclosuresmustgothroughthecourtsystemtoproveaborrowerhasdefaulted,whereasnon-judicialforeclosuresarecarriedoutwithoutcourtprocedurebecausethelender’srighttosellinacaseofdefaultiswrittenintothemortgageinstrument.ManyofPhiladelphia’scurrenteffortstoassisthomeownersfacingforeclosurearepartofthestate’smandatedprocess.

1.3.3 Local

Philadelphiawasthefirstcitytocreateamandatedforeclosurecounselinginitiative.The MortgageForeclosureDiversionprogramwasinitiatedafterthecityrequestedthesherifftocallamoratoriumonallforeclosuresinApril2008.Inresponse,severaljudgesquicklyestablishedthemitigationprogram,basedonaprototypeestablishedin2004byJudgeAnnetteM.Rizzo.Sincethisorder,nopropertyinPhiladelphiacangotoasheriffsalewithoutthehomeownerfirstgoingthroughareconciliationconference.

Theprogram,applicableonlytoresidentialowneroccupiedproperties,requireshomeownersenteringtheforeclosureprocesstospendadayincourtwithfreelegalservicesandadvicefromloancounselors,attorneysandbankofficialswhohelpthemfindalternativestoforeclosure.

Asof2009,forty-twopercentofallhouseholdsinPhiladelphiawereinforeclosure.Ofthehomeownerswhohaveparticipatedintheprogram,nearly85percenthavebeenabletodelayoravoidforeclosurethroughalternativeresolutionssuchasloanmodification,forbearanceorgracefulexits(i.e.deed-in-lieuorshortsale).

1.0 Background

2.0 Statistical Analysis of Residential Mortgage Lending Practices in Philadelphia


2.0 Statistical Analysis of Residential Mortgage Lending Practices in Philadelphia 2.1 Purpose

ThissectionanalyzesfairlendingpracticesamongCitydepositoriesandtheentireuniverseoflenderswithinPhiladelphia.Weexamineacombinationofstatisticaldataofbankinginformationandresidentialinformationfromthecensustoassess(1)ifdiscriminatorypracticesexist,andifthesubsetofCitydepositoriesdiffersfromtheentiresampleoflenders,and(2)ifso,torecommendpublicpoliciestoeliminatethediscrimination,asrequiredbyfederal,state,andlocallegislation.

Wefirstexaminetheuniverseofalllenders,andthenturntoanalyzingthedataforthedepositories.NotethatthespecificCitylegislationrequiresananalysisofCitydepositoriestoassesswhethertheycomplywithpracticesoffairlending,yettheseinstitutionsoriginateonlyasmallportion(approximately33percent)ofresidentialloans.

Thecentralfocusofthisanalysisaddressesthefollowingquestion:doesthedataindicatepracticesofracialorethnicdiscriminationbyregulatedmortgagelenders(andthesubsetoflenderswhowerealsoCitydepositories)withintheCityofPhiladelphiaforhomepurchase,refinancing,orhomeimprovementloans?Theanalysisofdiscriminationintheaccesstocreditconsiders(1)denialrates,bytypeofloanapplication(homepurchase,homeimprovement,andrefinancing),and(2)less-favorablelendingterms(e.g.subprimeversesprimeloans).

TheCity’sfairlendinglegislationrequiresanassessmentofdiscriminatorylendingpracticesbybanks.Ouranalysisindicatesstatisticallysignificantdisparitiesacrosstheracialandethniccharacteristicsofborrowers,yetnotabledifferencesexistbetweenCitydepositoriesandtheoverallsampleoflenders,whichindicatemorefavorableconditionsamongtheCitydepositoriesregardinghomepurchaseloans.

Whileourregressionanalysiscontrolledforfactorsthatwerelikelytoinfluencelendingdecisions,itwasunfortunatelyconstrainedbythelackofpotentiallyexplanatorydata.Forinstance,theanalysisdidnotcontaindataontheborrower’s(1)creditratingscoreand(2)wealthandexistingdebtload.Ifthesedatawereincludedintheanalysis,theexistinggapamongdifferentracialandethnicgroupsmightshrinkordisappearcompletely.Still,theexistinginformationindicatesastatisticallysignificantnegativeeffectassociatedwithraceandethnicity,whichwarrantsconcernandadditionalexamination.


2.2 Data Sources

Thisstudyuses2009(calendaryear)mortgageapplicationdatacollectedundertheHomeMortgageDisclosureActfortheCityofPhiladelphia.1Atotalof50,114loanapplicationsforowneroccupiedhomeswereusedinthisanalysis.Ofthese,16,994wereloanapplicationstooneoftheCitydepositories.Inadditiontoloan-specificdata,thisanalysisalsoutilizesdataatthecensustractlevelonmedianhomevaluesandvacancyratesobtainedfromtheCensus2000SummaryFile4(www.census.gov).

2.3 Model Specification and Methodology

Wemodelthelender’sdecisionsonwhethertoofferordenyaloanbytypeofloan(homepurchase,homeimprovement,andrefinancing).Additionally,withinthesampleofloansgrantedweanalyzedwhethertherewerediscriminatorypracticeswithinthetermsoftheloanofferedthroughananalysisofprimeorsubprimeloans.Asboththedependentvariableswerebinary(loandenied=0,1sub-prime=0,1)weemployedabinarylogisticregressionmodeltoboundtheintervalbetween0and1.Theindependentvariablesincludebothneighborhoodandindividual-levelcharacteristics,aswellascharacteristicsoftheloanrequestedanddummyvariablesfortheparticularlender.

2.3.1 The Dependent Variables

Thedependentvariablesforthisanalysisincludeloandenialratesandsubprimevs.primeloanapprovals.

» Thefirstdependentvariableinthisstudywasadichotomousvariable,definedaswhetherornotanapplicantwasdeniedapprovalofa(1)homepurchaseloan,(2)homeimprovementloan,or(3)arefinancingloan.Iftheapplicantwasapprovedforaloanthedependentvariableassumesavalueofzero(0)andiftheapplicationwasdeniedaloanthedependentvariableassumesavalueofone(1).

» Theseconddependentvariableexaminesthetermsoftheloan,solelyforhomepurchaseloans.Thevariablewasassignedavalueof1iftheofferwasasubprimeloan andavalueof0ifitwasnotsubprime.

2.3.2 The Independent Variables

Weincludedindependentvariablesinthemodeltocontrolforfactorsthatwerelikelytoinflu-encethelendingdecision.Individual-levelcharacteristicsincludegender,logofannualincome,andrace(African-American,Asian,Hispanic,orMissing)withnon-HispanicWhitesastherefer-encecategory.Neighborhoodcharacteristicsinclude:tract-levelinformationonthemedianlevelofincome(asapercentageofmedianincomeintheentireCity),andthevacancyrateofunoccupiedhome;onespecificationofthemodelalsoincludesavariableforpercentofminor-itywithinthecensustract.Loancharacteristicsinclude:amountofloan(logged),andwhetheritwasaconventionalorFHAloan.Anadditionalvariablemeasurestheloan-to-valueratioasameasureoftheamountofloanrequesteddividedbythemedianhomevalueinthecensustract.


1. This is the same data source (HMDA) used in the previous lending disparity reports, as described in Section 1.


Thefollowingisabulletedlistofallvariables:

IndividualCharacteristics

» gender

» RaceorEthnicity

» Applicantincome(logged)

NeighborhoodCharacteristics

» Medianincomeofthecensustract(as%medianincomeofCity)

» vacancyratesbycensustract

» Percentageminority

LoanCharacteristics

» Typeofloan(ConventionalorFHA)

» Amountofloan(logged)

» Dummyvariablesbylender

» Loan-to-valueRatio(loanamountrelativetomedianhomevalueinthecensustract)

WealsoincludeaninteractiontermtoexaminelendingpracticestowardAfrican-Americanmalesandfemalesseparately.SeveralpotentialcontrolvariablesweremissingfromthismodelduetothelimitationsoftheHMDAdata.Theseincludeanapplicant’scredithistory,andwealthandexistingassets.

Credithistoriesarecrucialfactorsthatbanksusetoassessrisk.Additionally,thereisastrongpossibilitythatcreditscoresmaybecorrelatedwithraceandethnicity.Withoutthisinformation,wecannotfullyassesswhetherthebanksmadediscriminatorydecisions.Wecan,however,comparethepracticesoftheCitydepositorieswiththeuniverseofalllenders.Additionallywecancomparethe2009datawiththepreviousyeartoanalyzeifanychangeshavetakenplace.

Additionally,whilethedatasetdoesnotcontaininformationontheinterestrateassociatedwithloansgranted,weestimatethepotentialfordiscriminatorypracticesininterestratesbyusingaproxyforwhetherloansweregrantedasprimeorsubprimerate.



2.4 Findings: All Lender Sample

2.4.1 All Lenders: Home Purchase Loans

TheestimatedcoefficientsandstandarderrorsfromthefullsampleareshowninAppendix1Table1.AfricanAmericanshavea7.8percentgreaterprobabilityofbeingdeniedahomepurchaseloanthanWhites,andHispanicshavea2.1percentgreaterprobabilityofbeingdenied.African-Americanmaleshaveanadditional1.5percentlikelihood(foratotalof9.3percent)overnon-HispanicWhites.Similarlytoyearspast,individualsapplyingforgreaterloanamountshadalowerlikelihoodofbeingdeniedaloan.

(SeeAppendix1,Table1)

2.4.2 All Lenders: Red-Lining

Red-liningrelatestodiscriminatorypracticesbasedongeographicratherthanindividualcharacteristics,wherebylendersexhibitapatternofavoidingloansinspecificgeographicareas.Ouranalysisofred-liningbehaviorincorporatesavariablethatcapturestheminoritypopulationshareatthecensustractlevel.Whilethevariableonpercentofminoritypopulationwassignificant,theimpactwassomarginal(approximately0.1percent)thatthesedatadonotsupportthehypothesisofred-liningbehavior. (SeeAppendix1,Table2)

2.4.3 All Lenders: Prime and Subprime Loans

Thenextsectionoftheanalysisexamineswhether,whengrantedaloan,discriminatorypracticesexistregardingthetermsoftheloan.Themodelperformsabinarylogisticregressionmodelanalyzingthelikelihoodofbeinggrantedaprimeorasubprimeloan.Thismodeltestswhether,witheverythingelsebeingequal,racialorethnicgroupswereofferedadisproportionatelyhighnumberofsubprimehomepurchasemortgages.Thetablerevealsthat,whenofferedaloan,AfricanAmericanshavea1.4percenthigherprobabilityofbeingofferedasubprimeloan,andHispanicshavea1.7percenthigherprobabilitycomparedtonon-HispanicWhites.


2.4.4 All Lenders: Refinancing

Astheconditionsandcircumstancesforhomepurchase,homeimprovement,andrefinancingvarygreatly,theseloantypeswereanalyzedseparately.Thefollowingmodelconsidersloansforrefinancing.TheresultsshowthatAfricanAmericansweredeniedloansforrefinancing17.7percentmorefrequentlythanWhites,whileHispanicsweredeniedloans17.9percentmorefrequently.




2.4.5 All Lenders: Home Improvement Loans

Wehavealsoexaminedthepatternsofloanapprovalsanddenialsforhomeimprovementloans.Inthecaseofhomeimprovementloans,AfricanAmericansweredeniedloans15.8percentmorefrequentlyandHispanicsweredeniedloans19.9percentmorefrequentlythannon-HispanicWhites.

(See Appendix 1, Table 5)

2.5 Findings: Depository Sample

2.5.1 Depository Sample: Home Purchase Loans

The next section of the report analyzes Philadelphia depositories separately. This model shows that African Americans within the sample were 3.3 percent less likely to be denied a home purchase loan at a Philadelphia depository than they were in the universe of all lenders in the sample. In addition, PNC Bank was about 8 percent less likely to deny a home purchase loan and Banco Santander was about 5 percent less likely to deny a home purchase loan than the other lenders in the sample.


2.5.2 Depository Sample: Red-Lining

Weusedthesamesampletotestwhetherornottheselendersengagedinsystematicred-lining.Thevariablesforracewerereplacedwithavariablethatcapturestheminoritypopulationshareatthecensustractlevel.Theestimatedcoefficientforthisvariablewassignificantbutthecoefficientwasverysmall(0.1percent).


2.5.3 Depository Sample: Prime and Subprime Loans

Thenextsectionoftheanalysisexamineswhether,whengrantedaloan,discriminatorypracticesexistregardingthetermsoftheloan.Themodelperformsabinarylogisticregressionmodelanalyzingthelikelihoodofbeinggrantedaprimeorasubprimeloan.Thismodeltestswhether,witheverythingelsebeingequal,racialorethnicgroupswereofferedadisproportionatelyhighnumberofsubprimehomepurchasemortgages.ThemodelforprimeandsubprimeloansrevealsthatAfricanAmericanswere0.4percentmorelikelytobeofferedasubprimeloanfromadepositorythantheywerefromtheuniverseofalllenders.


2.5.4 Depository Sample: Refinancing Loans

TheanalysisonrefinancingloansalsosuggestsdiscriminatorypracticeswerelesscommonamongthePhiladelphiadepositoriesthantheywereintheuniverseofalllenders.IntheanalysisofallotherlenderswefoundthatAfricanAmericansweredeniedloansforrefinancing17.3percentmorefrequentlythanWhites,whileHispanicsweredeniedloans14.6percent



morefrequently.AmongthePhiladelphiadepositoriesAfricanAmericanswere0.7percentlesslikelytobedeniedaloanthantheywereamongalllenders,whileHispanicborrowerswere5.6percentmorelikelytobedeniedaloanbyPhiladelphiadepositories.


2.5.5 Depository Sample: Home Improvement Loans

TheanalysisonhomeimprovementloanssuggestsdiscriminatorypracticesamongthePhiladelphiadepositorieswerenodifferentthantheuniverseofalllenders.ThedataindicatenodifferencesbetweenthedepositoriesandtheentireuniverseoflendersintermsofhomeimprovementloansandtheresultsfortheentireuniverseoflendersindicatedthatAfricanAmericansweredeniedloans22.3percentmorefrequentlyandHispanicsweredeniedloans19.3percentmorefrequentlythannon-HispanicWhites.AmongthePhiladelphiadepositoriesAfricanAmericanswere11.4percentlesslikelytobedeniedaloanthantheywereamongalllenders,whileHispanicborrowerswere1percentlesslikelytobedeniedaloanbyPhiladelphiadepositories.




2.6 Comparison with Previous Year Analysis (2007)

Theresultsfromanidenticalanalysisbasedondatafortheuniverseofalllendersfrom2008reveallargelysimilartrends.TheresultsforthePhiladelphiadepositorieswerenotdirectlycomparablefromyeartoyearbecausethelistofdepositorieschanged.Inordertoexaminethechangesfrom2008to2009thelistofdepositoriesfor2009andthecurrentmodelspecificationwasusedagainstthe2008data.

ThecurrentmodelrevealedthatAfricanAmericanswere3.3percentlesslikelytobedeniedahomepurchaseloanfromaPhiladelphiadepositoryduring2009comparedto2.3percentduring2008.Onceagain,itisimportanttonotethatwedonothaveaccesstocreditscoresorotherpersonalinformationthatbanksusetoassessrisk.yetthesetrendsdoindicatedifferencesbetweenthePhiladelphiadepositoriesandtheentireuniverseoflendersinPhiladelphiabasedonraceandethnicity.

Thecomparisonofthered-liningmodelbetween2008and2009doesnotshowanysignificantdifference.Thecoefficientonthepercentageoftheminoritypopulationwassignificantbutitwasverysmall(lessthan0.1percent).

Themodelforsubprimeloansshowsthatbetween2008and2009,thechancesofanAfrican-AmericanbeingofferedasubprimeloanfromaCitydepositoryincreasedslightly.In2008,AfricanAmericanswereabout3percentlesslikelytobeofferedasubprimeloanfromaPhiladelphiadepositorythanfromtheuniverseofalllenders,whilein2009theywere0.3percentmorelikelytoreceiveasubprimeloanfromaCitydepository.

AcomparisonofthedenialratesamongPhiladelphiadepositoriesinrefinancingindicatessomeimprovementbetween2008and2009.Theanalysisfrom2008suggeststhatAfricanAmericanswere0.6percentmorelikelytobedeniedahomeimprovementloanfromCitydepositoriesthanfromtheuniverseofalllenders.In2009,AfricanAmericanswere0.7percentlesslikelytobedeniedrefinancingfromadepositorythantheywerefromtheuniverseofalllenders.

Inconclusion,thedatasuggestthatdiscriminatorypracticesexistedinthesampleofalllendersinallthreetypesofloans:homepurchase,refinancingandhomeimprovement.WithinthesampleofPhiladelphiadepositories,itappearsAfricanAmericansexperiencedlessdiscriminationforhomepurchaseloans,refinancingloans,andhomeimprovementloans.However,theywereslightlymorelikelytoreceiveasubprimeloanfromPhiladelphiadepositories.


3.0 Prime and Subprime Home Lending in Philadelphia

Section



Lendingpatternsforeachloantypewereanalyzedbyborrowerrace,borrowerincome,tractminoritylevel,tractincomelevel,andborrowergender.Forbothborrowerincomeandtractincomeanalyses,borrowersandtractsweredividedintogroupsbasedontheirreportedincomeandthemedianfamilyincomefortheMetropolitanStatisticalArea.1Percentagesandratioswereroundedtothenearestwholenumber.Seereferencedtablesforspecificnumbers.

3.1 All Loans

3.1.1 All Loans - Overall Observations (see Table 3.1)

Outofatotalofapproximately50,000loanapplications,therewereover26,000loansmadein2008.Oftheseloans,approximately24,000wereprimeloansandnearly1,700weresubprimeloans.Therewereover12,000applicationsthatweredenied,settinganoveralldenialrateof24.8percent.

» Theoverallnumberofloanshaddecreasedsteadilyfrom2006through2008,yetincreasedfromtheprioryear(26,159)forthefirsttimein2009.Therewasadecreaseintotalloansof33.3percentfrom2006to2009,anda10.7percentincreasefrom2008to2009.

» Thenumberofprimeloans(24,490)decreasedby2.6percentfrom2006to2009,yetincreasedby24.7percentfrom2008through2009.

» Thenumberofsubprimeloans(1,669)decreasedby88.1percentfrom2006to2009andby58.2percentfrom2008to2009.

» Primeloansmadeup93.6percentofloansmade,withsubprimeloanscomprisingtheremaining6.4percentin2009.In2008,thesplitwas83.1percentprimeand16.9percentsubprime.In2006,64.1percentofloanswereprimeand35.9percentweresubprime.

» Theoveralldenialrate(24.8percent)decreasedforthefirsttimesince2006,afterincreasingineachofthethreepriorstudyyears,with33.7percentdeniedin2008,32.4percentin2007and30.3percentin2006.


1. Philadelphia County’s 2009 median family income was $77,800, as calculated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Below are the income subsets: • Low-to-moderate-income (LMI): less than 80 percent of the median family income (less than $62,240). • Middle-to-upper-income (MUI): 80 percent or more of the median family income ($62,240 and higher).


Table 3.1: All Loan Applications and Originations in Philadelphia

yEAR APPLICATIONS DENIALS DENIALRATE LOANS PRIMELOANS

SuBPRIMELOANS

TOTALLOAN

AMOuNT

2006 91,624 22,774 30.3% 39,224 25,131 14,093 $11.25B

2007 77,080 24,955 32.4% 32,329 23,791 8,538 $10.27B

2008 53,913 18,147 33.7% 23,633 19,638 3,995 $3.27B

2009 50,114 12,440 24.8% 26,159 24,490 1,669 $4.54B

DIFFERENCE2006-2009 -45.3% -55.2% -18.2% -33.3% -2.6% -88.2% -59.6%

DIFFERENCE2008-2009 -7.0% -31.4% -26.4% +10.7% +24.7% -58.2% +22.0%

(See Appendix 2: Tables 1-5)

3.1.2 All Loans – by Borrower Race (see Table 3.2)

» Theoverallnumberofprimeloansgiventowhiteborrowersincreasedby40.4percentfrom2008to2009afteradecreaseof4.6percentfrom2007to2008.Primeloanstowhiteborrowersincreasedby15.2percentfrom2006to2009.Subprimeloanstowhitesdecreasedby43.0percentin2009followingadecreaseof43.8percentbetween2007and2008.Subprimeloanstowhiteborrowersdecreasedby82.8percentfrom2006to2009.

» Thetotalnumberofloanapplicationsforwhitesincreasedby16.1percentfrom2008to2009,whiletotaldenialsdecreasedby14.9percent.From2006to2009,thetotalnumberofloanapplicationsforwhitesdecreasedby30percent,whiletotaldenialsdecreasedby32.2percent.

» TheoverallnumberofloansissuedtoAfrican-Americanborrowersdecreasedby23.2percentfrom2008to2009,anddecreased33.3percentbetween2007and2008.From2006to2009,totalloanstoAfrican-Americanborrowersdecreasedby59percent.Primeloansdecreasedby5.2percentandsubprimeloansdecreasedby64.7percentbetween2008and2009.From2006to2009,primeloansforAfrican-Americanborrowersdecreasedby24.5percent,whilesubprimeloansdecreasedby89.3percent.

» Subprimeloansaccountedfor13.9percentoftotalloanstoAfricanAmericansin2009,adecreasefrom30percentin2008,butstillthehighestpercentageofanyracialcategory.In2006,subprimeloanswere53.3percentofthetotalloansissuedtoAfricanAmericans.

» African-Americanborrowersweredenied2.0timesasoftenaswhiteborrowersin2008,anincreaseoverthe1.8ratioof2008and1.7ratioof2007.

» LoanstoAsianborrowersdecreasedby2.5percentin2009,followinga28.8percentdecreasebetween2007and2008.From2006to2009,thetotalnumberofloanstoAsianborrowersdecreasedby41.8percent.



» DespiterepresentingthesmallestpercentageoftotalPhiladelphiahouseholds,in2009Asianborrowersgeneratedhighernumbersofprimeloanproportionversushouseholdproportionthantheotherracialgroupsstudied(1.9,or3.5percentofhouseholdsbut6.7percentofprimeloans).Thiswasadecreasefromfindingsin2008(2.4)and2006(3.1).

» TotalapplicationsbyAsiansdecreasedby7.9percentfrom2008to2009,followinga19.1percentdecreasefrom2007to2008.From2006to2009,totalapplicationsbyAsiansdecreasedby37.7percent.Totaldenialsdecreasedby9.6percentbetween2008and2009,andby26.8percentbetween2006and2009.

» ThenumberofprimeloanstoHispanicborrowersincreasedby2.6percentfrom2008to2009,followingadecreaseof29.4percentfrom2007to2008.PrimeloanstoHispanicborrowersdecreasedby24.5percentfrom2006to2009.ThenumberofsubprimeloanstoHispanicborrowersdecreasedby61.4percentfrom2008to2009,followingadecreaseof48.3percentbetween2007and2008.From2006to2009,thenumberofsubprimeloanstoHispanicborrowersdecreasedby86.6percent.

» In2009thedenialrateforAfrican-Americanborrowersdecreasedfrom45.1percentto36.2percent.Thisgrouphasthehighestdenialrate,followedbyHispanicborrowersat32.3percent.Theaveragedenialratewas24.8percent.

» In2009,thedenialrateforAfrican-Americanborrowerscomparedtothatofwhitesincreased,from1.8to2.0.In2006,thisratewas1.8.

» Hispanicborrowerssawanincreaseinthedenialratecomparedtowhiteborrowersfrom1.64in2008to1.77in2009,similartotheincreasebetween2007(1.55)and2008(1.64).In2006,thisratewas1.54.

» Thepercentageofsubprimeloansdecreasedfrom2008to2009acrossallracialgroups,withwhiteborrowersseeingthegreatestdecrease(56.9percent).From2006to2009,thedecreasewassimilaracrossallracialgroups,withwhiteborrowersagainseeingthegreatestdecrease(81.4percent).

Table 3.2: Share of All Loans in Philadelphia by Borrower Race (2009)



PERCENTOFALLLOANS

PERCENTOFALLHOuSEHOLDS

WHITE 69.1% 43.3% 67.3% 47.8%

AFRICAN-AMERICAN 18.1% 39.9% 19.6% 40.2%

ASIAN 6.7% 5.5% 6.6% 3.5%

HISPANIC 6.1% 11.3% 6.5% 6.5%

(See Appendix 2: Table 1, and Appendix 3: Maps 3 and 6)



3.1.3 All Loans - by Borrower Income (see Table 3.3)

» Primeloansincreasedineverycategoryfrom2008to2009,comparedtothedecreaseacrossallincomegroupsbetween2007and2008.Theupperincomegroupsawthelargestincrease,at28.9percent.From2006to2009,primeloansdecreasedacrossallbutoneincomegroups;theprimeloansissuedtoupperincomeborrowersincreasedby0.9percent.

» Allincomecategoriessawadecreaseinthenumberofsubprimeloansgrantedfrom2008to2009,withthemiddleincomegroupseeingthegreatestdecline,at65.5percent.

» BorrowersintheLMIincomegroupreceived74percentofsubprimeloans.2Lowincomeborrowersreceivedthelargestshareofthesubprimeloansgiven(40.9percent,whencomparedamongthefoursub-dividedincomegroups).

» Theprime/subprimesplitofloanstothelowincomegroupwas87.1percent/12.9percent.Thiswastheincomegroupwiththelowestproportionofprimeloanstoallloans.Theproportionofprimeloansincreasesasincomerises,withborrowersintheupperincomegroupreceivingaprime/subprimesplitof97.8percent/2.2percent.

» In2009allincomegroupsreceivedagreaterproportionofprimeloanscomparedtosubprimeloansthanin2008.

» Thenumberofapplicationsdecreasedacrossallincomecategories,withtheexceptionoftheupperincomegroup,whichincreasedby8.0percent.Thelowincomecategorysawthegreatestdecreaseof22.3percentbetween2008and2009.From2006to2009,applicationsfromlowincomePhiladelphiansdecreasedby53percentandby27.8percentforupperincomeresidents.

» Thenumberofdenialsdecreasedacrossallincomecategories,withthemiddleincomegroupseeingthegreatestdecrease(40.4percent).From2006to2009,themoderateincomecategoryhadthegreatestdecreaseindenials,at58.9percent,slightlygreaterthanthelowincomecategoryat58.7percent.

» From2008to2009,thenumberofdenialsdecreasedby35.7percentforthelowincomegroup.Therateofdenialsreducedasonemoveduptheincomecategories,withtheupperincomegroupseeingadenialrateof18.5percentcomparedtoa36.0percentdenialrateinthelowincomegroup.

» Lowincomeborrowershavethehighestdenialrateat36percent,whichwas2.0timesgreaterthanupperincomeborrowers.In2008,thisratiowas1.9,andin2006,itwas2.0.TheLMIgrouphas1.5timesthedenialrateastheuMIgroup.In2008,thisratiowas1.4,andin2006,itwas1.5.


2. The calculation of a category’s proportion of total loans is based on the total number of loans where applicants filled out information for the respective categorization. As an example, the total number of subprime loans by borrower income is 1,549, as this is the total of all subprime loans where respondents indicated income. The total number of all subprime loans, including those where borrowers did not include income information, was 1,669, as listed in the tables. This calculation holds true for all Fair Lending analysis.


Table 3.3: Share of All Loans in Philadelphia by Borrower Income (2009)

BORROWERINCOME

PERCENTOFPRIMELOANS

PERCENTOFSuBPRIMELOANS APPLICATIONS DENIALS DENIALRATE

LOW(<50%MSAINCOME) 18.8% 40.9% 11,466 4,130 36.0%

MODERATE(50-80%MSA

INCOME)30.7% 33.1% 14,272 3,548 25.1%

MIDDLE(80-120%MSA

INCOME)24.0% 17.4% 10,308 2,147 20.8%

uPPER(>120%MSAINCOME) 26.4% 8.6% 10,515 1,944 18.5%

LMI(<80%MSAINCOME) 49.6% 74.0% 25,738 7,714 30.0%

uMI(>80%MSAINCOME) 50.4% 26.0% 20,823 4,091 19.6%

(See Appendix 2: Table 2)

3.1.4 All Loans - by Tract Minority Level (see Table 3.4)

» Thenumberofloansmadetohomesincensustractswithlessthan50percentminorityresidents(non-minoritytracts)increasedby26.5percent,whileloansmadetohomesincensustractswithmorethan50percentminorityresidents(minoritytracts)decreasedby15.1percent.Overallloansincreasedby10.7percent.From2006to2009,loanstonon-minoritytractshavedecreasedby17.9percent,whileloanstominoritytractshavedecreasedby54.2percent.Overallloansdecreasedby33.3percentduringthatperiod.

» Thenumberofprimeloansmadeinnon-minoritytractsincreasedby35.7percentfrom2008to2009and6.9percentfrom2006to2009.

» Thenumberofsubprimeloansmadeinnon-minoritytractsdecreasedby48.9percentfrom2008to2009and86.3percentfrom2006to2009.

» From2008to2009applicationsincreasedby10.6percentinnon-minoritytractsanddecreasedby27.7percentinminoritytracts.From2006to2009,applicationsdecreasedby28.5percentand61.5percent,respectively.

» From2008to2009,denialratesdecreasedby26.7percentinnon-minoritytractsandby18.6percentinminoritytracts.From2006to2009,theseratesdecreasedby13.8percentand9.7percent,respectively.

» Applicantsinminoritytractsweredenied1.7timesasoftenasapplicantsinnon-minorityareasin2009,comparedto1.5timesasoftenin2008,1.5timesasoftenin2007and1.6timesasoftenin2006.



Table 3.4: Share of All Loans in Philadelphia by Tract Minority Level (2009)

MINORITyLEvEL

LOANAPPLICATIONS DENIALRATE PERCENTOF

PRIMELOANS


PRIMESHARETO

HOuSEHOLDSHARERATIO

SuBPRIMESHARETO

HOuSEHOLDSHARERATIO

0-49%MINORITy 32,136 19.9% 72.4% 49.2% 1.42 0.97

50-100%MINORITy 17,966 33.6% 27.6% 50.8% 0.56 1.04


3.1.5 All Loans - by Tract Income Level (see Table 3.5)

» In2009(unlikein2008,2007,and2006),moreloansweremadeinuMItracts(51percent)thaninLMItracts(49percent).TheLMI/uMIsplitwas57.7percent/42.3percentin2008,62.8percent/37.2percentin2007,and63.2percent/36.8percentin2006.

» LMItractsreceived47.6percentofprimeloansand69.8percentofsubprimeloans.

» Middleincometractsreceivedthemostloansofthefoursub-dividedgroups(10,910,or41.7percent).Consequently,theyalsoreceivedthemostprimeloans(10,434,or42.6percent).Moderateincometractsreceivedthegreatestnumberofsubprimeloans(808,or48.4percent).

» Onlyborrowersinthelowincometractgroupdecreasedinthenumberofprimeloansissued(1.7percentdecrease)from2008to2009.Allothergroupsincreasedthenumberofprimeloans,withtheupperincomegroupseeingthegreatestincrease(59.7percent).MuItractshadagreaterincreaseinprimeloans(41.7percentincrease)versusLMItracts(10.2percentincrease).

» Applicationsdecreasedforallincometractgroupsbetween2008and2009,exceptfortheupperincometractcategory.upperincometractapplicationsincreasedby54.3percent.From2006to2009,thisgrouphasincreasedapplicationsby24.5percent,whileallotherincometractgroupshavedecreased.Thelowincometractgroupshowedthegreatestdecreaseinapplicationsbetween2006and2009of64percent.

» Thedenialratedecreasedinallbuttheupperincometractsfrom2008to2009,withmiddleincometractsshowingthegreatestdecrease(28.2percent).Theupperincometractdenialrateincreasedby9.8percentduringthisperiod,andby8.84percentbetween2006and2009.From2006to2009,middleincometractshavealsoshownthegreatestdecreaseinthedenialrate(15.2percentdecrease).

» Low-incometractsweredenied2.2timesasoftenasupper-incometracts,adecreasefromthe2.9ratioof2008,andthe2.6ratioof2006.



Figure 3.5: Share of All Loans in Philadelphia by Tract Income Level (2009)

TRACTINCOME LOANAPPLICATIONS

DENIALRATE

INCOMETOuPPERINCOMEDENIALRATIO

PERCENTOFALLLOANS

PRIMESHARETOOOHu

SHARERATIO

SuBPRIMESHARETO

OOHuSHARERATIO

LMI(79.99%MSA

INCOME)27,402 29.9% 1.60 49.0% 0.71 10.4

MuI(>80%MSA

INCOME)22,674 18.7% 1.00 51.0% 1.59 0.91


3.1.6 All Loans - by Borrower Gender (see Table 3.6)

» Themale/female/jointsplitoftotalloanswas33.7/33.6/32.8percentin2009,34.5/37.5/28.0percentin2008,36.6/40.0/23.3percentin2007,and37.1/40.0/23.0percentin2006.

» Thenumberofsubprimeloanstomendecreasedby59.1percentfrom2008to2009.From2006to2009,menhavehadthegreatestdecreaseinsubprimeloans(90percentdecrease).

» Totalloanstowomendecreasedby0.4percentfrom2008to2009andby45.2percentfrom2006to2009.Totalloanstomenhavedecreasedby40.8percentfrom2006to2009,butincreasedby8.5percentbetween2008and2009.Jointgenderhouseholdssawthegreatestincreaseintotalloansbetween2008and2009(30.4percentincrease)andthesmallestdecreasebetween2006and2009(4.4percentdecrease).

» Jointapplicationsreceivedthehighestproportionofprimeloans,with95.5percentoftheirtotalloanscategorizedasprime.93.7percentofloansmadetomenwereprime,aswere91.7percentofloansmadetowomen.Thismaybedue,inpart,toagreaterproportionofdual-incomehouseholdsandthedisparityofincomesbetweenmenandwomen.

» Totalloanapplicationsbymendecreasedby8.1percentin2009,whiledenialsdecreasedby28.1percent.From2006to2009,loanapplicationsbymendecreasedby48.3percent,whiledenialsdecreasedby54.2percent.

» Totalloansapplicationsbyjointhouseholdsincreasedby10.6percentfrom2008to2009,whileapplicationsbyfemalehouseholdsdecreasedby16.6percent.

» Womenweredeniedloansat26.3percent(a21.8percentdecreasefrom2008),whilejointhouseholdsweredeniedloansat19.6percent(a32.5percentdecreasefrom2008).Bothjointandfemalehouseholdssawgreaterdecreasesindenialratesfrom2006to2009(23.4percentand17.8percentdecrease,respectively).

» Femalehouseholdsweredeniedatapproximatelythesamerateasmalehouseholds(1.0in2009),whilejointhouseholdsweredeniedatalowerrate(0.7).



Table 3.6: Share of All Loans in Philadelphia by Borrower Gender (2009)




MALE 33.7% 33.4% 22.4% 26.5%

FEMALE 32.9% 43.5% 44.9% 26.3%

JOINT(MALE/FEMALE) 33.4% 23.0% 32.7% 19.6%


3.2 Home Purchase Loans

3.2.1 Home Purchase Loans – Overall Observations (see Table 3.7)

In2009,therewere14,479applicationsforhomepurchaseloans,a12.9percentdecreasefromthe16,620applicationsin2008.From2006to2009,therewasa47.8percentdecreaseinapplicationsforhomepurchaseloans.Ofthe2009applications,9,976loansweremade,a7percentdecreasefrom2008,followingadecreaseof27.1percentfrom2007to2008.From2006to2009,thetotalnumberofhomepurchaseloanshasdecreasedby41.7percent.Thedenialratewas14.3percent,whichwaslowerthanthe15.9percentrateof2008,andthe17.5percentdenialratein2007and2006.Ofthe9,976loansthatweremade,93.8percentwereprimeloansand6.2percentweresubprimeloans.In2006,73.9percentofhomepurchaseloanswereprimeloansand26.1percentweresubprimeloans.

Table 3.7: Home Purchase Loan Applications and Originations in Philadelphia


2006 27,748 4,866 17.5% 17,113 12,651 4,462

2007 23567 4,116 17.5% 14,726 12,177 2,549

2008 16,620 2,639 15.9% 10,729 9,462 1,267

2009 14,479 2,077 14.3% 9,976 9,356 620

2006-2009DIFFERENCE -47.8% -57.3% -18.0% -41.7% -26.1% -86.1%

2008-2009DIFFERENCE -12.9% -21.3% -9.8% -7.0% -1.1% -51.1%

3.2.2 Home Purchase Loans - by Borrower Race (see Table 3.8)

» From2008to2009,primeloansdecreasedoverallandacrossallracialcategoriesexceptforAfrican-American(0.1percentincrease)andHispanic(8.2percentincrease).Primeloansdecreasedacrossallracialcategoriesfrom2006to2009,withAsiansshowingthegreatestdecrease(53.6percent).Overall,primeloansdecreasedby26.0percentfrom2006to2009.



» Theoverallnumberofsubprimeloansdecreasedbymorethan51.1percentfrom2008to2009,withAfrican-Americanborrowersseeingthegreatestdecreaseat53.2percent.Asianborrowerssawthesmallestdecreaseat10.2percent.From2006to2009,subprimeloanstoAfrican-Americanborrowershavedecreasedthemost(87.3percent)whilethosetoAsianborrowershavedecreasedtheleast(70.2percent).

» Whiteborrowersreceived59.8percentofallprimeloans,whileAfricanAmericansreceived21.3percentofallprimeloans.Whitescomprise47.8percentofPhiladelphiahouseholds,whileAfricanAmericanscomprise40.2percent.

» Asianborrowers,whocomprise3.5percentofallPhiladelphiahouseholds,received9percentofallloans.In2008,Asianborrowersreceived10.7percentofallloans,and13.4percentin2006.

» From2008to2009,onlyAsianborrowerssawadecrease(1.0percent)intheproportionofloansthatwereprime;thiswasinconsistentwiththetrendsin2008and2007(whentheproportionofprimetosubprimeincreased).

» Thenumberofapplicationsdecreasedinallcategoriesfrom2008to2009,butAsianborrowerssawthegreatestdecreaseat24.7percent.African-Americanborrowersalsosawthegreatestdecreaseinapplicationsfrom2006to2009,at58.8percent.

» From2008to2009,thedenialrateincreasedforAsianborrowers(by15.3percent),butdecreasedforwhiteborrowers(by8.3percent),African-Americanborrowers(by12.5percent),andforHispanicborrowers(by24.2percent).From2006to2009,thedenialrateincreasedforAsianborrowersby40.3percent,butdecreasedforwhiteborrowers(14.8percent),African-Americanborrowers(21.7percent),andforHispanicborrowers(29.9percent).

» From2008to2009,thedenialrateofAfrican-Americanborrowerswas1.9timesgreaterthanwhites;in2008,thedenialratewas2.0timesgreaterthanwhites,adecreasefromthe2.3ratioof2007andthe2.1ratioof2006.

Table 3.8: Share of Home Purchase Loans in Philadelphia by Borrower Race (2009)

BORROWERRACE LOANAPPLICATIONS

DENIALRATE

RACETOWHITEDENIAL

PERCENTOFPRIMELOANS


WHITE 6,642 10.1% 1.00 59.8% 32.8%

AFRICAN-AMERICAN 3,017 19.0% 1.89 21.3% 39.7%

ASIAN 1,166 17.0% 1.69 9.0% 9.4%

HISPANIC 1,224 13.6% 1.36 9.8% 18.1%

(See Appendix 2: Table 6, and Appendix 3, Maps 7-10)



3.2.3 Home Purchase Loans - by Borrower Income (see Table 3.9)

» Lowandmoderateincomegroupsbothreceivedanincreaseinthenumberofprimeloansfrom2008to2009,at24.4percentand11.8percent,respectively.Themiddleandupperincomegroupssawfewerprimeloanswithdecreasesof11.9and27.5percent,respectively.Allincomegroups,exceptlowincomeborrowers,haveseenadecreaseinprimeloansfrom2006to2009,withupperincomeborrowersshowingthegreatestdecreaseof49.2percent.Primeloanstolowincomeborrowershaveincreasedby16.7percentfrom2006to2009.

» In2009allgroupsalsoreceivedfewersubprimeloans,withtheupperincomegroupreceivingthelargestdecreaseof65.3percent.Borrowersinthelowincomegroupreceivingthelowestpercentreductioninsubprimeloansat40percent.From2006to2009,subprimeloanstoupperincomeborrowershavedecreasedby92.4percent,andby74.1percentforlowincomeborrowers.

» TheLMIgroupreceivesmostoftheloans,at61.9percent.

» LMIborrowersarereceivingagreatershareoftheprimeloans(60.9percent)relativetotheMuIborrowers(39.1percent).TheLMIgroup,however,receives78.2percentofsubprimeloans,comparedto21.8percentbytheMuIgroup.

» Thepercentageoflowincomeborrowerswithprimeloansincreasedby25.7percentin2009;thiswasthelargestincreaseseenbythefoursub-dividedincomegroups.From2006to2009,thispercentagehasincreasedby55.2percent.Thepercentageofupperincomeborrowerswithprimeloanshasdecreasedby32.6percentfrom2006to2009.

» From2008to2009thepercentageofMuIborrowerswithsubprimeloansdecreasedby24.8percent.ThepercentageofLMIborrowerswithsubprimeloansincreasedby10.1percent.

» Thedenialratedecreasedasincomerose,withborrowersinthelowincomegroup1.6timesmorelikelytobedeniedasaborrowerintheupperincomegroup.Middleincomeborrowerswerelesslikelytobedeniedthanborrowersintheupperincomegroup,withadenialrateratioof1.0.

Table 3.9: Share of Home Purchase Loans in Philadelphia by Borrower Income (2009)

BORROWERINCOME PERCENTOFPRIMELOANS



LMI(<79.99%MSAINCOME) 60.9% 78.2% 67.7%

MuI(>80%MSAINCOME 39.1% 21.8% 32.3%




3.2.4 Home Purchase Loans - by Tract Minority Level (see Table 3.10)

» Thenumberofloansforminoritycensustractsdecreasedby14.7percentfrom2008 to2009andby51.9percentfrom2006to2009.

» Primeloansfornon-minoritycensustractsincreasedby0.81percentfrom2008to 2009anddecreasedby23.4percentfrom2006to2009.

» Borrowersinminoritycensustractsreceived31.9percentofallloans,30.6percent ofallprimeloans,and51.1percentofallsubprimeloans.

» Ofallloansmadetoborrowersinminoritycensustracts,90.1percentwereprimeand9.9percentweresubprime.

» Theproportionofprimeloansmadetoborrowersinminoritycensustractsincreased by11percentfrom2008to2009,andby42.7percentfrom2006to2009.

» In2009thenumberofapplicationsdecreasedforbothcategories,withminoritytractborrowershaving22.8percentfewerapplicationsandnon-minorityborrowershaving 6.6percentfewerapplications.

» Thedenialrateforborrowersinminoritycensustractswas19.0percentin2009,whichwasa9.1percentdecreasefromthedenialrateof2008(20.9percent),anda18.3percentdecreasefromthedenialrateof2006(23.3percent).

» Borrowersinminoritycensustractsweredenied1.6timesasoftenasthosein non-minoritytracts,adecreasefromthe1.7ratioof2008,andthe1.8ratioof2006.

Table 3.10: Share of Home Purchase Loans in Philadelphia by Tract Minority Level (2009)

MINORITyLEvEL PERCENTOFPRIMELOANS



0-49%MINORITy 69.4% 48.9% 51.0%

50-100%MINORITy 30.6% 51.1% 49.0%


3.2.5 Home Purchase Loans - by Tract Income Level (see Table 3.11)

» Thenumberofapplicationsdecreasedacrossallcategoriesfrom2008to2009,withborrowersinmiddleincometractsseeingthegreatestreductionat32.4percent.From2006to2009,applicantsfromlowincometractssawthegreatestdecreaseinapplications,at58.8percent.



» Thenumberofloansalsodecreasedacrossallcategories,mostsignificantlyforborrowersinupperincometracts,whosawadecreaseof25.2percentfrom2008to2009.From2006to2009,borrowersinlowincometractshavehadthegreatestdecreaseintotalloans,at51.4percent.

» In2009,thenumberofprimeloansincreasedformoderateandmiddleincometracts(0.9percentand3.2percent,respectively)anddecreasedforlowandupperincometracts(3.3percentand24.7percent,respectively).

» Thenumberofsubprimeloansdecreasedinallincometractgroupsfrom2008to2009,withborrowersinmoderateincometractsreceivingthegreatestdeclineat53.2percent.From2006to2009,thenumberofsubprimeloansissuedtothisgroupdecreasedby85.7percent.

» In2009borrowersinMuItractssaw43.9percentfewersubprimeloansthanin2008.Thisdecreasewassimilartothedecreasebetween2007and2008.

» Theproportionofprime/subprimeloansshiftedtowardsanincreaseinthenumberofprimeloansacrossallcategories.Borrowersinlowincometractssawanincreaseof11.1percentfrom2008to2009,givingthatgroupaprime/subprimesplitof89.2percentprime/10.8percentsubprime.

» OfalltheloansmadeinanMuItract,96.5percentwereprime,whichwasanincreaseof2.6percentfrom2008to2009.

» Thedenialrategenerallydecreasedastractincomeincreased.Borrowersinmiddleincometractsweredenied11.0percentofthetimewhileborrowersinupperincometractsweredenied11.6percentofthetime.Thedenialratedecreasedforallbutupperincometractsfrom2008to2009,atrendsimilartotheperiodbetween2006and2009.Denialratesinupperincometractsincreasedby26.7percentbetween2008and2009,andby30.3percentfrom2006to2009.Denialratesforlowincometractsdecreasedby13.7percentbetween2008and2009,andby17.5percentfrom2006to2009.

» In2009borrowersinLMItractsweredenied16.5percentofthetime,or1.5timesperevery1MuIdenial.Thisdecreasedfrom2008whenborrowersinLMItractsweredenied1.7timesforevery1MuIdenial,andin2006whenborrowersinLMItractsweredenied1.8timesforevery1MuIdenial.



Table 3.11: Share of Home Purchase Loans in Philadelphia by Tract Income Level (2009)

TRACTINCOME

LOANAPPLICATIONS

DENIALRATE

INCOMETOuPPERINCOMEDENIALRATE

PERCENTOFALLLOANS

PERCENTOFALL

HOuSEHOLDS

PRIMESHARETO

HOuSEHOLDSHARERATIO

SHARETOHOuSEHOLDSHARERATIO

LMI(<79.99%MSA

INCOME)

8,597 16.5% 1.49 57.5% 67.0% 0.84 1.14

MuI(>80%MSA

INCOME)5,868 11.1% 1.00 42.5% 33.0% 1.32 0.72


3.2.6 Home Purchase Loans - by Borrower Gender (see Table 3.12)

» Thenumberofapplicationsdecreasedacrossallcategoriesin2009,withthedecreaseinfemaleapplicationsat14.1percent.From2006to2009,thegreatestdecreaseinapplicationswasfrommalehouseholds(54.1percent).

» Allthreecategoriesshowedadecreaseinthenumberofloans,primeloansandsubprimeloansbetween2006and2009.Thesametrendoccurredbetween2008and2009,exceptmaleprimeloansincreasedby1.9percent.

» In2009maleborrowersshowedthegreatestdecreasesinthenumberofsubprimeloansat55.8percent.

» Subprimeloanstofemaleborrowersdecreasedby46.8percent,andprimeloanstothisgroupdecreasedby0.3percent.Jointhouseholdshad40.9percentlesssubprimeloansthan2008,and4.5percentlessprimeloans.

» Maleandfemaleborrowersreceivedaboutthesamenumberofprimeloans(3,249formalesand3,184forfemales),whilejointhouseholdsreceived2,248loans.

» Ofalltheprimeloansthatweremade,37.4percentwenttomaleborrowersand36.7percentwenttofemaleborrowers.Thiswasanincreaseinproportionfrom2008by2.6percentand0.3percent,respectively.

» Foralltheloansmadetojointhouseholds,95.6percentwereprimeloans.Thiswasanincreaseof27.2percentfrom2008,anda10.2percentincreasefrom2006to2009.

» Applicationsbymaleswerethemostlikelytobedenied,atarateof16.4percent.Femaleborrowershadadenialrateof13.6.Denialratesdecreasedfrom2008to2009forthesetwogroupsby11.6percentand16.1percent,respectively.

» Applicationsfiledbyjointmale/femalehouseholdsweredeniedonly10.8percentofthetime,a22.4percentincreasefrom2008to2009anda2.1percentincreasefrom2006to2009.



Table 3.12: Share of Home Purchase Loans in Philadelphia by Borrower Gender (2009)



gENDERSHARETOMALESHARERATIO:

PRIME

gENDERSHARETOMALESHARERATIO:

SuBPRIME

MALE 93.8% 6.2% 1.00 1.00

FEMALE 92.4% 7.6% 0.99 1.22

JOINT(MALE/FEMALE) 95.6% 4.4% 1.02 0.71


3.3 Home Refinance Loans

3.3.1 Home Refinance Loans – Overall Observations (see Table 3.13)

In2009,therewere33,030applicationsforhomerefinanceloans,anincreaseof1.7percentfrom2008.Outofthatpool,9,008applicationswererejected,yieldingadenialrateof27.3percent.Ofthe15,395loansthatlendersmade,14,569wereprimeloans(or94.6percent)and826weresubprime(or5.4percent).Thenumberofprimeloansincreasedby55.5percentfrom2008to2009andincreasedby38.9percentfrom2006to2009.Thenumberofsubprimeloansdeclinedby62.4percentfrom2008to2009anddeclinedby90.7percentfrom2006to2009.

Table 3.13: Home Refinance Loan Applications and Originations in Philadelphia


2006 55,816 18,974 34.0% 19,320 10,486 8,834

2007 46,237 17,240 37.3% 15,183 9,927 5,256

2008 32,489 12,841 39.5% 11,568 9,370 2,198

2009 33,030 9,008 27.3% 15,395 14,569 826

2006-2009DIFFERENCE -40.8% -52.5% -19.8% -20.3% +38.9% -90.7%

2008-2009DIFFERENCE +1.7% -29.9% -31.0% +33.1% +55.5% -62.4%

3.3.2 Home Refinance Loans - by Borrower Race (see Table 3.14)

» From2008to2009primeloansdecreasedforAfrican-Americanborrowersby5.6percent,andforHispanicborrowersby2.3percent.Primeloanstowhiteborrowersincreasedby88.3percent,whileincreasingby62.4percentforAsianborrowers.

» Subprimeloansdecreasedforallgroupsfrom2008to2009,withAfrican-Americanborrowersexperiencingthegreatestdecreaseat70.8percent.African-Americanborrowersalsohadthegreatestdecreaseofallracialgroupsforsubprimeloansbetween2006and2009,at91.8percent.



» African-Americanborrowersreceived62.2percentfewerloansin2009thanin2006.Whiteborrowersreceived22.3percentmoreloansin2009thanin2006.

» Whiteborrowersreceived75.7percentofallprimeloans(upfrom63.3percentin2008),whileAfricanAmericansreceived15.6percentofallprimeloans(downfrom26.0percentin2008).

» African-Americanborrowersreceived38.9percentofallsubprimeloans(downfrom52.1percentin2008),whilewhiteborrowersreceived51.6percentofallsubprimeloans(upfrom36.2percentin2008).

» In2009,allgroupsreceivedmoreprimeloansthansubprimeloans,astheyhadin2008and2007.In2006,bothAfricanAmericansandHispanicborrowershadahigherproportionoftotalloanscomprisedofsubprimeloans.

» African-Americanborrowersreceived1,791primeloans(86.9percent)and271subprimeloans(13.1percent).

» From2008to2009thenumberofapplicationsincreasedforwhiteresidents(36percent)andAsianresidents(20.2percent).ThenumberofapplicationsdecreasedforAfrican-Americanresidents(37.8percent)andHispanicresidents(31.5percent).From2006to2009,applicationsdecreasedacrossallracialcategories,withAfricanAmericansseeingthelargestdecrease(61.6percent).

» ThedenialrateforHispanicborrowerswas41.8percent,thehighestofallgroups.However,alldenialratesdecreasedfrom2008to2009,withdenialratesforwhiteborrowersdecreasingthemostat34.2percent.

» African-AmericanandHispanicborrowersweredenied1.93and2.00times,respectively,asoftenaswhiteapplicantsin2009.Thiswashigherthan2008whentheywere1.58and1.59times,respectively,aslikelytobedeniedaswhiteapplicants.

Table 3.14: Share of Home Refinance Loans in Philadelphia by Borrower Race (2009)




DENIALRATE

WHITE 757.% 51.6% 47.8% 20.9%


ASIAN 5.1% 2.7% 3.5% 31.3%

HISPANIC 3.6% 6.7% 6.5% 41.8%




3.3.3 Home Refinance Loans - by Borrower Income (see Table 3.15)

» From2008to2009,thenumberofprimeloansincreasedforallcategories,withborrowersintheupperincomegroupseeingthegreatestdecreaseof91.8percent.From2006to2009,allincomegroupsincreasedthenumberofprimeloans,exceptlow-incomeborrowers,whosawadecreaseof1.8percent.

» Allincomegroupssawadecreaseinthenumberofsubprimeloansfrom2008to2009,withthoseinthemoderateincomegroupexperiencingthegreatestdeclineof68.7percent.From2006to2009,allincomegroupshaveseenadecreaseinsubprimeloans,withmoderateandmiddleincomegroupsseeingthelargestdecreaseof92.4percent.

» MuIborrowersreceived51.2percentofallprimeloansin2008;thisincreasedto59percentofallprimeloansin2009.From2006to2009,theMuIgroupincreaseditsproportionofprimeloansrelativetototalloansby16.7percent.

» Allincomegroupsreceivedmoreprimeloansthansubprimeloans.Theproportionofprimeloansoversubprimeloansforeachgroupincreasedwithincome,withthoseintheupperincomegroupreceiving98.3percentoftheirloansasprimeand1.7percentassubprime.In2008,theupperincomegroupreceived91.8percentoftheirloansasprimeand8.2percentoftheirloansassubprime.In2006,thissplitwas71.6percent/28.4percent.

» In2009allgroups(excludingupperincomeresidents)submittedfewerapplicationsthanin2008and2006,withlowincomeapplicantsseeingthegreatestdecline,of59.6percent,from2006to2009.Applicationsfromupperincomeresidentsincreasedby36.2percentbetween2008and2009.

» From2008to2009,LMIapplicationsdecreasedby18.4percentandMuIapplicationsincreasedby12.0percent.

» Thedenialratedecreasedforallgroupsin2009,withthoseinthemiddleincomegroupseeingthegreatestdecreaseof33.7percent.Asin2006,2007,and2008,thelowincomegrouphadthehighestdenialrate,whichwas42.3percentin2009.

» ApplicantsintheLMIgroupweredenied1.6timesforeveryMuIdenial;thisincreasedfromthe1.4denialsforeveryMuIdenialin2008,andthe1.3denialsforeveryMuIdenialin2006.

Table 3.15: Share of Home Refinance Loans in Philadelphia by Borrower Income (2009)

BORROWERINCOME LOANAPPLICATIONS

DENIALRATE

INCOMETOuPPERINCOME

DENIALRATE

PERCENTOFALLLOANS


LMI(<79.99%MSAINCOME) 14,997 34.9% 1.60 42.5% 67.7%

MuI(>80%MSAINCOME 14,666 21.8% 1.00 57.5% 32.3%




3.3.4 Home Refinance Loans - by Tract Minority Level (see Table 3.16)

» From2008to2009,thenumberofprimeloanstonon-minoritycensustractsincreasedby76.3percent.

» Primeloanstoborrowersinminoritycensustractsincreasedby15.6percentfrom2008to2009,whilethesubprimeloansdecreasedby70.3percent.

» Non-minoritycensustractsreceived74.6percentofallprimeloansin2009.Thiswasa13.3percentincreasefrom2008to2009,anda12.5percentincreasefrom2006to2009.

» Themajorityofloanstobothgroupswereprimein2009.Borrowersfromminoritycensustractsreceivedmoreprimeloans(3,698loans,or90.3percent)thansubprimeloans(396loansor9.7percent),whichwasaslightlyhigherproportionofprimeloanscomparedto2008and2007.

» From2008to2009,whileprimeloansforborrowersinminoritytractsincreasedby15.6percent,subprimeandtotalloansforborrowersinminoritytractsdecreasedby70.3percentand9.7percent,respectively.

» From2008to2009,applicationsforresidentsinnon-minoritytractsincreasedby26.1percentwhileapplicationsfromresidentsinnon-minoritytractsdecreasedby25.7percent.Denialsdecreasedby15.4percentinnon-minoritycensustractsandby41.8percentinminoritycensustractsbetween2008and2009.From2006to2009,applicationsdecreasedforbothgroupswithminoritytractresidentsseeingthelargestdecreaseof61.3percent.Denialsdecreasedbetween2006and2009,withborrowersinminoritytractsseeingthegreatestdecrease,of64.9percent.

Table 3.16: Share of Home Refinance Loans in Philadelphia by Tract Minority Level (2009)

MINORITyLEvEL PERCENTOFPRIMELOANS


PERCENTOFALLOOHu

DENIALRATE

0-49%MINORITy 74.6% 52.1% 51.0% 22.7%

50-100%MINORITy 25.4% 47.9% 49.0% 36.0%


3.3.5 Home Refinance Loans - by Tract Income Level (see Table 3.17)

» Allincometractgroupsexperiencedanincreaseinprimeloansfrom2008,withupperincometractborrowersseeingthegreatestincreaseof179.5percent.From2006to2009,allincometractgroupsincreasedprimeloans,excludinglowincometractborrowers,whichdecreasedby9.9percent.Thelargestincreasefrom2006to2009waswithupperincometractborrowers,at212.3percent.

» Allcategoriesexperiencedadecreaseinsubprimeloans,withborrowersinthelowincometractgroupseeingthegreatestdecline,71.6percent.From2006to2009,lowincometractborrowerssawthegreatestdeclineinsubprimeloans,witha92.3percentdecrease.



» Borrowersinthemiddleincometractgroupreceivedthelargestshareofprimeloansat46.5percent,whilemoderateincometractgroupborrowersreceivedthelargestshareofsubprimeloans,at46.6percent.

» ThenumberofprimeloansmadetotheMuIgroupincreasedby78.2percentfrom2006to2009,whiletheoverallnumberofprimeloansincreasedby38.9percent.

» Allcategoriesreceivedmoreprimeloansthansubprimeloans.Theproportionofprimetosubprimeloansincreasedwithincome,withborrowersinthelowincomegroupreceiving1,035primeloans(88.2percent)totheir139subprimeloans(11.8percent).The2009resultsweresimilartothe2008and2007results,inwhichlowincomeborrowersreceivedmoreprimeloansthansubprimeloans.In2006,lowincometractborrowersreceivednearly1.5timesasmanysubprimeloansasprimeloans.

» Thenumberofapplicationsfellacrosslowandmoderateincometractcategoriesfrom2008to2009,mostsignificantlyamongapplicantsinthelowincomegroup(33.1percent).Middleandupperincometractapplicationsincreasedby24.4percentand134.4percent,respectively.From2006to2009,applicationsfromborrowersinthelowandmoderateincometractgroupsfellthemostat65.8and53percent,respectively.upperincometractapplicationshaveincreasedby112.3percentfrom2006to2009.

» Asinthepreviousthreeyears,borrowersinthelowincometractgrouphadthehighestdenialrate,whichwas40.8percentin2009.

Table 3.17: Share of Home Refinance Loans in Philadelphia by Tract Income Level (2009)

TRACTINCOME

PERCENTOFPRIMELOANS


PERCENTOFALLOOHu

PRIMESHARE

TOOOHuSHARERATIO

SuBPRIMESHARE

TOOOHuSHARERATIO

DENIALRATE

INCOMETOuPPER-INCOMEDENIAL

LMI(<79.99%MSA

INCOME)

41.7% 63.4% 56.0% 0.62 0.95 33.4% 1.60

MuI(>80%MSA

INCOME)58.3% 36.6% 44.0% 1.77 1.11 20.9% 1.00


3.3.6 Home Refinance Loans - by Borrower Gender (see Table 3.18)

» Thenumberofprimeloansincreasedacrossallhouseholdsfrom2008to2009,withjointborrowersshowingthegreatestincrease,at90.0percent.Primeloansincreasedfrom2006to2009,andjointborrowerssimilarlysawthelargestincreaseat77.0percent.

» Thenumberofsubprimeloansdecreasedforallhouseholdsfrom2008to2009,withfemalehouseholdsdecreasingthemost(65.3percent).Subprimeloansdecreasedthemostforfemalehouseholdsfrom2006to2009,at91.7percent.



» Jointborrowersreceived68.5percentmoreloans,and,forthefirsttimeinthefouryears,receivedthelargestnumberofloans,whichwas5,306in2009.

» Asinthepastthreeyears,femaleborrowersreceivedthemostsubprimeloans,306,or41.1percentofallsubprimeloans.

» Allthreecategoriesreceivedmoreprimeloansthansubprimeloans.Jointborrowersreceivedthehighestproportionofprimeloans,at96.2percent.

» Thenumberofapplicationsincreasedamongallbutfemaleresidentsfrom2008to2009.Whileapplicationsfromfemaleresidentsdecreasedby12.4percent,applicationsfromjointhouseholdssawthelargestincreaseinapplicationsat25.0percent.

» Femaleapplicantshadthehighestdenialrateof29.6percent,relativetoanoveralldenialrateof27.3percent.

» Thedenialrateforjointapplicantsexperiencedthehighestdecreasefrom2008to2009of40.2percent,relativetothedecreaseintheoveralldenialrateof30.9percent.

Table 3.18: Share of Home Refinance Loans in Philadelphia by Borrower Gender (2009)

BORROWERgENDER LOANAPPLICATIONS

DENIALRATE

gENDERTOMALEDENIALRATIO

PERCENTOFPRIMELOANS


MALE 10,104 29.2% 1.00 94.6% 5.4%

FEMALE 9,808 29.6% 1.01 92.9% 7.1%

JOINT(MALE/FEMALE) 9,520 21.6% 0.74 96.2% 3.8%


3.4 Home Improvement Loans

3.4.1 Home Improvement Loans – Overall Observations (see Table 3.19)

In2009,therewere5,635applicationsforhomeimprovementloans,a41.5percentdeclinefromtheyearbefore.Oftheseapplications,3,060,or54.3percent,weredenied,anincreaseof1.1percent.From2006to2009,applicationshavedecreasedby67.8percent,whiledenialshavedecreasedby61.6percent.From2006to2009,subprimeloansdecreasedby76.4percent,whileprimeloansdecreasedby74.8percent.



Table 3.19: Home Improvement Loan Applications and Originations in Philadelphia


2006 17,473 7,958 45.5% 6,927 5,684 1,243

2007 15,864 7,735 48.8% 5,712 4,584 1,128

2008 9,638 5,171 53.7% 3,043 2,354 689

2009 5,635 3,060 54.3% 1,728 1,435 293

2006-2009DIFFERENCE -67.8% -61.6% 19.4% -75.1% -74.8% -76.4%

2008-2009DIFFERENCE -41.5% -40.8% 1.1% -43.2% -39.0% -57.5%

3.4.2 Home Improvement Loans – by Borrower Race (see Table 3.20)

» Whiteborrowersreceived64.2percentofallprimeloans,a31percentincreasefrom2008anda2.8percentdecreasefrom2006.

» AfricanAmericansreceived43.8percentofallsubprimeloansin2009,a17.2percentdecreasefrom2008anda27.8percentdecreasefrom2006.Whiteborrowersreceived44.2percentofsubprimeloans,a43.2percentincreasefrom2008and22.4percentincreasefrom2006.

» Whiteborrowersreceivedahighershareofloansthantheirshareofhouseholds(60.3percentand47.8percent,respectively).Thatcomparedto57.4percent/47.8percentin2007and54.6percent/47.8percentin2008.

» Asinthepreviousthreeyears,allgroupsreceivedmoreprimeloansthansubprimeloansin2009.Whiteborrowershadthehighestproportionofprimeloans;85.5percentoftheirloanswereprimeand14.5percentweresubprime.

» WhiteandAfrican-Americanapplicationsfellby40.4percentand46.8percent,respectively,whileAsianandHispanicapplicationsfellby56.1percentand47.5percentrespectively,from2008to2009.From2006to2009,applicationshavedecreasedacrossallracialcategories,withapplicationsfromAsianresidentsdecreasingbythemost(74.5percent).

» Hispanicborrowershadthehighestdenialrateof70.6percent,followedbyAfrican-Americanborrowersat64.5percent.Thesetworacialgroupssimilarlyhadthehighestdenialratesin2008and2006.



Table 3.20: Share of Home Improvement Loans in Philadelphia by Borrower Race (2009)

BORROWERRACE

LOANAPPLICATIONS DENIALRATE PERCENTOF

PRIMELOANS


PRIMESHARETO

HOuSEHOLDSHARERATIO

SuBPRIMESHARETO

HOuSEHOLDSHARERATIO

WHITE 1,815 39.6% 64.2% 44.2% 1.34 0.92

AFRICAN-AMERICAN 1,916 64.5% 28.0% 43.8% 0.70 1.09

ASIAN 177 55.4% 3.8% 3.0% 1.09 0.86

HISPANIC 449 70.6% 4.0% 9.0% 0.61 1.38


3.4.3 Home Improvement Loans - by Borrower Income (see Table 3.21)

» Ofthefoursub-categories,moderateincomeborrowersreceivedthemostloansandthemostprimeloansat31.7percentand31percent,respectively.Thiswassimilartothetrendin2008,whenmoderateincomeborrowersreceived29.5percentofprimeloansand29.2percentoftotalloans.

» Lowincomeandmoderateincomeborrowersreceivedthemostsubprimeloans(47.1percentand27.7percent,respectively).Thisissimilartothetrendin2008whenlowincomeborrowersreceived43.1percentofsubprimeloans,andmoderateincomeborrowersreceived30.7percent.

» LMIborrowerscomprise67.7percentofhouseholds,butreceived74.7percentofallsubprimeloans.

» Allcategoriesreceivedmoreprimeloansthansubprimeloans.Asinotherloancategories,theproportionofprimeloansincreasedwithincome.Primeloanscomprised66.7percentoftotalloanstolowincomeborrowers,while93.5percentofloanstoupperincomeborrowerswereprimeloans.

» LMIborrowersreceived2.5subprimeloansforevery1issuedtoanMuIborrower,comparedto2.2subprimeloansforevery1issuedtoanMuIborrowerin2008.In2006,thisratiowas2.0to1.

» Thenumberofapplicationsdecreasedineveryincomecategoryfrom2008to2009,withthemiddleincomegroupseeingthelargestdeclineof46.3percent.Similarly,themiddleincomegrouphasseenthelargestdecreasefrom2006to2009,at71.9percent.

» Thedenialrateincreasedfrom2008to2009forlowandmoderateincomegroupsby5.9percentand1.2percent,respectively.From2006to2009,thedenialratesforlowandmoderateincomegroupsincreasedby11.7percentand18.4percent,respectively.Denialratesdecreasedformoderateandupperincomegroupsby10.8percentand0.6percent,respectively,from2008to2009.From2006to2009,moderateandupperincomegroupdenialratesincreasedby18.4percentand24.4percent,respectively.



» Asinthethreepreviousyears,lowincomeborrowershadthehighestdenialrate,whichwas67.2percentin2009.

Table 3.21: Share of Home Improvement Loans in Philadelphia by Borrower Income (2008)

BORROWERINCOME

PERCENTOFALLLOANS


PRIMESHARETOHOuSEHOLDSHARE

RATIO

SuBPRIMESHARETOHOuSEHOLDSHARE

RATIO

DENIALRATE

LMI(<79.99%MSAINCOME) 54.7% 67.7% 0.75 1.10 61.2%

MuI(>80%MSAINCOME) 45.3% 32.3% 1.53 0.78 39.8%


3.4.4 Home Improvement Loans - by Tract Minority Level (see Table 3.22)

» Lendersissued64.7percentofprimeloanstoborrowersinnon-minoritytractsin2006,anincreasefrom63.4percentin2008andaslightdecreasefrom64.8percentin2006.

» Ofallsubprimeloansissued,58.7percentwenttominoritycensustracts.Thiswasanincreaseoverboth2008(64.7percent)and2006(61.6percent).

» Philadelphiahouseholdssplitevenlyintominority(49.0percent)andnon-minority(51.0percent)censustracts,yet60.8percentofloanswereissuedtonon-minoritytracts,anincreasefromthe57.1percentofloansissuedtothesetractsin2008.

» Asinthepreviousthreeyears,bothgroupsreceivedmoreprimeloansthansubprimeloans.Non-minoritytractsreceiveahigherproportionofprimeloanstosubprimeloans,at88.5percentprimeto11.5percentsubprime.Thiscomparestoasplitof74.6percentprimeto25.4percentsubprimeforminoritytracts.

» Non-minoritytractapplicationsdecreasedby40.4percentfrom2008andby69.5percentfrom2006.

» In2009,applicantsinminoritycensustractsweremorelikelytobedenied.Foreverydenialtoanon-minoritytract,minoritytractapplicantsreceived1.5denials.Thiswasupfromtheratioof1.4denialsin2008,anddownfromtheratioof1.6denialsin2006.

Table 3.22: Share of Home Improvement Loans in Philadelphia by Tract Minority Level (2009)

MINORITyLEvEL LOANAPPLICATIONS

DENIALRATE

PERCNTOFPRIMELOANS


PERCENTOFALLOOHu

0-49%MINORITy 2,581 43.4% 64.7% 41.3% 51.0%

50-100%MINORITy 3,050 63.5% 35.3% 58.7% 49.0%




3.4.5 Home Improvement Loans - by Tract Income Level (see Table 3.23)

» Moderateincometractsreceivedthemostsubprime(128,or43.8percent)whilemiddleincometractsreceivedthemostprimeloans(602,or42percent).

» Thenumberofprimeloansdecreasedforallincometractgroups,withupperincometractborrowersshowingthegreatestdeclineof54percent.

» TheLMItractgroupcomprises67.0percentofallPhiladelphiahouseholdsandreceived57.2percentofallloans,adecreasefromthe58.9percentofloansreceivedin2008.Theyalsoreceived75.3percentofthesubprimeloans,anincreasefromthe74.9percentreceivedin2008.

» Asinthethreepreviousyears,allcategoriesreceivedmoreprimeloansthansubprimein2009.Theproportionofprimeloansincreaseswithtractincome;ofthe68loansmadetoupperincometracts,94.1percentwereprimeloans.

» In2009applicationsfellacrossallcategories,withapplicationsfrommoderateincometractsdecliningthemostat43.9percent.From2006to2009,middleincometractapplicationsdecreasedthemostat69.6percent.

» Asinthepreviousthreeyears,thedenialratefellastractincomerose.Foreverydenialmadetoanapplicantinanupperincometract,1.9denialsweremadetoapplicantsinlowincometracts,adecreasefromthe2.6denialsforevery1in2008,and2.5denialsforevery1in2006.

Table 3.23: Share of Home Improvement Loans in Philadelphia by Tract Income Level (2009)

TRACTINCOME PERCENTOFPRIMELOANS


INCOMESHARETOuPPER

INCOME-SHARERATIO:PRIME

INCOMESHARETOuPPER

INCOME-SHARERATIO:SuBPRIME

DENIALRATE

LMI(<79.99%MSAINCOME) 53.6% 75.3% 0.80 1.12 61.0%

MuI(>80%MSAINCOME) 46.4% 24.7% 1.00 1.00 38.8%


3.4.6 Home Improvement Loans - by Borrower Gender (see Table 3.24)

» Thenumberofprimeandsubprimeloansfellacrossallcategoriesfrom2008to2009.Femaleborrowersreceivedthegreatestdecreaseintotalloansandprimeloans,at44.3percentand40percent,respectively.Jointborrowerssawthegreatestdecreaseinsubprimeloans,at60.2percent.

» Femaleborrowersreceivethemostsubprimeloans,at48.2percent(anincreasefrom47percentin2008)andjointapplicantsreceivedthemostprimeloansat38.9percent(anincreasefrom37.2percentin2008).



» Asinthepastthreeyears,allgroupsreceivedmoreprimeloansthansubprimeloansin2009.Jointborrowersweremostlikelytoreceiveaprimeloan,at88.5percent.

» Applicationsweredowninallcategories.Femaleborrowersandjointborrowerseachsawthelargestdecreaseofabout42percentbetween2008and2009.From2006to2009,applicationshavedecreasedby67.8percentacrossallcategories.

» Thedenialrateincreasedforallbutjointborrowersfrom2008to2009,withthehighestincreaseoccurringformaleborrowersat1.5percent.From2006to2009,denialratesformaleborrowersincreasedby21.9percent,thehighestofalltheborrowergroups.

» Femaleborrowershadthehighestdenialrateof58.6percent,butwerefollowedcloselybymaleborrowersat58.1percent.

Table 3.24: Share of Home Improvement Loans in Philadelphia by Borrower Gender (2009)

BORROWERgENDER

PERCENTOFPRIMELOANS


PRIMESHARETO

HOuSEHOLDSHARERATIO

SuBPRIMESHARETO

HOuSEHOLDSHARERATIO

DENIALRATEgENDERTOMALEDENIAL

RATE

MALE 26.4% 28.1% 1.18 1.25 58.1% 1.00

FEMALE 34.7% 48.2% 0.77 1.07 58.6% 1.01

JOINT(MALE/FEMALE) 38.9% 23.7% 1.19 0.73 39.4% 0.68



4.0 Philadelphia Compared to Other Areas



4.0 Philadelphia Compared to Other Areas LendingtotheCityofPhiladelphia’sresidentswascomparedtolendingtoresidentsoftheCity’sfoursuburbancounties–Bucks,Chester,Delaware,andMontgomery-aswellastolendinginBaltimore,Detroit,andPittsburgh,threecitiesidentifiedasausefulcomparisongrouptotheCity.Specifically,aggregatesingle-familyhomepurchase,homeimprovement,andhomerefinancelendingwasanalyzed(seeAppendix2,Tables21-40).

4.1 Home Lending in Philadelphia vs. Suburbs

4.1.1 Home Lending in Philadelphia vs. Suburbs – by Borrower Race (see Table 4.1)

» AfricanAmericansborrowersinsuburbanhouseholdsreceived3.0percentofallprimeloansissued,a30.9percentdecreasefromthe2008share(4.3percent)anda39.4percentdecreasefromthe2006share(4.9percent).ComparedtotheCity,theirshareofprimeloanshavedecreasedfrom2008to2009andfrom2006to2009,butnotasmuch(23.6percentdecreaseand25.3percentdecrease,respectively).

» OfallloanstoAsiansinthesuburbs,1.2percentweresubprime(versus5.6percentintheCity),downfrom3.1percentin2008(8.7percentintheCity).

» Inthesuburbs,Asiansrepresented2.5percentofsuburbanhouseholds,whileAsianborrowersreceived4.8percentofsuburbanprimeloansand2.2percentofsuburbansubprimeloans.Thesepercentagesremainedrelativelyflatfrom2008to2009.

» In2009,fourpercentofloanstoHispanicborrowersweresubprimeinthesuburbs,comparedto11.9percentintheCity;bothproportionsdecreasedby50percentfrom2008to2009.

» Hispanicsrepresented1.6percentofhouseholdsinthesuburbs,whileHispanicborrowersreceived1.5percentofsuburbanprimeloansand2.3percentofsuburbansubprimeloans.

» Ofallloanstowhitesinthesuburbs,2.5percentweresubprime(versus4.4percentintheCity),downfrom5.5percentin2008(10.2percentintheCity).

» LoanapplicationscontinuedtobedeniedatahigherrateintheCitythaninthesuburbs,aswasthecaseinthepastthreeyears;15.3percentofloansweredeniedinthesuburbs,comparedto24.8percentofloansintheCity.



» DenialrateswerehigherintheCityversusthesuburbsforeachracialcategory,aconsistentfindingwithprioryearstudies.Asinthepastthreeyears,thecategorywiththegreatestdisparitywastheHispanicgroup,withadenialrateof32.3percentintheCityand19.7percentinthesuburbs.

» Thelargestchangesindenialratesfrom2008to2009wereforHispanicborrowers(33.8percentdecrease)andforwhiteborrowers(29percentdecrease).

» Inthesuburbs,theratioofAfrican-AmericantoWhitedenialsincreased,asdidtheratioofAsiantowhiteandHispanictowhitedenials,atrendsimilarto2008.

» Asinthepastthreeyears,AfricanAmericansweretwiceaslikelytoreceiveadenialaswhiteborrowers,withthis̀ ratioremainingrelativelyflatfrom2006to2009.

» Forthefirsttimeinfouryears,Asianborrowersweremorelikelythanwhitestobedeniedloans.Forevery1denialtoawhiteapplicant,therewere1.1denialstoAsianapplicantsinthesuburbsin2009.

Table 4.1: Share of All Loans by Borrower Race, Philadelphia vs. Suburbs (2009)

TOTAL PERCENTOFPRIMELOANS



DENIALRATE

WHITE 90.7% 87.4% 87.8% 13.9%


ASIAN 4.8% 2.2% 2.5% 15.2%

HISPANIC 1.5% 2.3% 1.6% 19.7%

(See Appendix 2: Table 1 and 21)

4.1.2 Home Lending in Philadelphia vs. Suburbs – by Borrower Income (see Table 4.2)

» Inallyearsstudied,theupper-incomegroupreceivedthelargestnumberofallloans(51.7percent,anincreasefromthe48.8percentof2008)aswellasthelargestnumberofprimeloans(52.2percent,anincreasefromthe50.0percentof2008)inthesuburbs.Infact,inthesuburbs,thehighertheincomegroup,thehighertheproportionofallloansandprimeloans.ThiswasunliketheCitypattern,wherethemoderate-incomegroupconsistentlyreceivedboththemostloansandthemostprimeloans.

» LMIborrowersreceived22.1percentofprimeloansand39.8percentofsubprimeloans.Thepercentofprimeloansdecreasedby1.1percentfrom2008to2009,whilethepercentofsubprimeloansincreasedby1.2percent.From2006to2009,theLMIborrowers’shareofprimeloansincreasedby2.8percent,whileitsshareofsubprimeloansincreasedby24.3percent.



» CityLMIborrowersreceived49.6percentofallprimeloansand74.0percentofallsubprimeloansintheCity.Thiswasadecreaseof2.2percentforprimeloansandanincreaseof36.5percentforsubprimeloans.From2006to2009,thepercentofprimeloansforLMIborrowersremainedflat,whilesubprimeloanshareincreasedby11.3percent.

» Asinprioryearsofthestudy,agreaterproportionofsubprimeloanswasissuedtoLMIborrowersthantomiddleandupperincome(MuI)borrowersintheCity,butinthesuburbs,agreaterproportionofsubprimeloanswasissuedtoupperandmiddleincomeborrowersthanwasissuedtoLMIborrowers(60.2percentinsuburbscomparedto26percentintheCity).

» Subprimeloanswere22.5percentoftheloansissuedtoLMIborrowersintheCity,comparedto10.6percentoftheloanstoLMIborrowersinthesuburbs.AswithMuIborrowers(andforallfoursub-dividedincomecategories),theproportionofsubprimeloansdecreasedcomparedto2007.ThiswastrueinboththeCityandsuburbs.

» Similartoprioryears,inthesuburbs,thedenialratedeclinedasincomelevelrose.

» TheLMIgroupwasdeniedaloan30percentofthetimeintheCity(andecreaseof21.9percentfrom2008)and22percentofthetimeinthesuburbs(adecreaseof25.8percent).

» Inthesuburbs,theLMIdenialratewas22.0percent,whiletheMuIdenialratewas13.3percent.From2006to2009,theLMIdenialratedecreasedby19.6percentwhiletheMuIdenialratedecreasedby21.4percent.

Table 4.2: 2009 Share of Subprime Loans by Borrower Income, Philadelphia vs. Suburbs




LOW(<50%MSAINCOME) 4.5% 13.3% 21.2% 32.0%

MODERATE(50-79.99%MSAINCOME) 17.6% 26.5% 17.3% 18.5%

MIDDLE(80-119.99%MSAINCOME) 25.7% 26.8% 20.3% 15.1%

uPPER(120%ORMOREMSAINCOME) 52.2% 33.5% 41.2% 12.3%

LMI(<79.99%MSAINCOME) 22.1% 39.8% 38.5% 22.0%

MuI(>80%MSAINCOME) 77.9% 60.2% 61.5% 13.3%


4.1.3 Home Lending in Philadelphia vs. Suburbs – by Tract Minority Level (see Table 4.3)

» Cityminoritytractsreceived59.8percentofallsubprimeloans,whilesuburbanminoritytractsreceived3.2percentofallsubprimeloans.Thiswasadecreasefrom2008of15.1percentand55.6percent,respectively.From2006to2009,minoritytractshareofsubprimeloansdecreasedby11.5percentintheCity,andby54.3percentinthesuburbs.



» In2009,10.7percentofloansinminoritytractsweresubprime.Thiswasadecreaseof26.6percentfrom2008.

» Suburbanminoritytractsreceived69.3percentfewersubprimeloansin2009thanin2008(versus64.5percentfewerforCityminoritytracts).From2006to2009,borrowersinsuburbanminoritytractsreceived91.4percentfewersubprimeloans,andborrowersinCityminoritytractshavereceived89.5percentfewersubprimeloans.

» BothCityandsuburbanborrowersinminoritycensustractsreceivedprimeloansabout89percentofthetime,anincreaseofabout22percentforbothgroupsfrom2008to2009.

» In2009,suburbanborrowersinminoritytractswere4.1timesmorelikelytogetsubprimeloansthanborrowersinnon-minoritytracts,comparedto2.5timesintheCity.In2008,thesuburbanratiowas4.6andtheCityratiowas2.4.

» ThedenialratesinsuburbanandCityminoritycensustractswere33.8percentand33.6percent,respectively.Thiswasadecreaseof20.1percentand18.6percent,respectively,from2008.

Table 4.3: 2009 Share of Prime Loans by Tract Minority Level, Philadelphia vs. Suburbs




DENIALRATE

0-49%MINORITy 99.3% 96.8% 97.4% 15.0%

50-100%MINORITy 0.7% 3.2% 2.6% 33.8%


4.1.4 Home Lending in Philadelphia vs. Suburbs – by Tract Income Level (see Table 4.4)

» Inthesuburbs,thepercentageofprimeandallloansincreasedwiththecensustract’sincomelevel.Thepercentageofsubprimeloansincreasedfromlowtomoderatetomiddleincometracts,butthendecreasedfrommiddletoupperincometracts.

» LMItractsintheCityreceived47.6percentofallprimeloansand69.8percentofallsubprimeloans;thiswasan11.6percentdecreaseinprimeloanshareanda9.1percentdecreaseinsubprimeloansharefrom2008.SuburbanLMItractsreceived2.7percentofallprimeloansand8.5percentofallsubprimeloans;theserepresenta34.7percentdecreaseanda40.8percentdecrease,respectively,from2008to2009.

» OfallloanstosuburbanLMItracts,7.7percentweresubprime,comparedto2.5percentofloansforMuItracts.OfallloanstoLMItractsintheCity,9.1percentweresubprime,comparedto3.8percentofloansforMuItractsin2009.

» CityapplicantsinLMItractsweredenied29.9percentofthetime,comparedtoarateof25.8percentinthesuburbs.



» IntheCity,LMIresidentswere1.6timesmorelikelytobedeniedthanMuIresidents;inthesuburbstheywere1.7timesmorelikelytobedeniedthanMuIresidents.Thisiscomparedtothe2008denialratesof1.5forCityLMIapplicantsand1.7forsuburbanLMIapplicants.

Table 4.4: 2009 Share of All Loans by Tract Income Level, Philadelphia vs. Suburbs




LOW(<50%MSA) 0.1% 0.7% 0.8% 35.9%

MODERATE(50-79.99%MSA) 2.6% 7.8% 4.8% 24.9%

MIDDLE(80-119.99%MSA) 29.3% 46.4% 35.5% 18.0%

uPPER(120%ORMOREMSA) 68.0% 45.1% 58.9% 13.3%

LMI(<79.99%MSA)INCOME 2.7% 8.5% 5.6% 25.8%

MuI(>80%MSAINCOME) 97.3% 91.5% 94.4% 14.9%


4.1.5 Home Lending in Philadelphia vs. Suburbs – by Borrower Gender (see Table 4.5)

» Inallyearsstudied,joint(male/female)applicantswerethemostlikelytobeapprovedinboththeCityandthesuburbs.

» Similartopreviousyearsofthestudy,jointapplicantswerethemostlikelytoreceiveprimeloansinthesuburbs.

» OfallloanstojointapplicantsintheCity,95.5percentwereprime,anincreaseof9.3percentfrom2008to2009.Ofallloanstojointapplicantsinthesuburbs,97.7percentwereprime,anincreaseof2.9percent.

» In2009,femalesreceived43.5percentofsubprimeloansintheCity(adecreaseof2.1percentfrom2008)and23.8percentsubprimeloansinthesuburbs(adecreaseof7.9percentfrom2008).

» Maleapplicantsreceived33.4percentofthesubprimeloansintheCityand22.4percentofsubprimeloansinthesuburbs.Thiswasadecreaseof3.2percentintheCityand22.3percentdecreaseinthesuburbs.

» Malesreceivedsubprimeloansat1.49timestherateoftheirshareofhouseholdsin2009,intheCityand1.26timesmoreinthesuburbs.Thiswasadecreasefrom1.54intheCityand1.62inthesuburbsin2008.

» Maleborrowersweredeniedatarateof26.5percentintheCityand18.2percentinthesuburbs.Thiswasadecreaseof21.8percentand26.5percent,respectively,from2008to2009.



» Femaleborrowersweredeniedatarateof26.3percentintheCityand17.5percentinthesuburbs.Thiswasadecreaseof27percentand26.9percent,respectively,from2008to2009.

» Jointapplicationsweredenied12.5percentofthetimeinthesuburbs(anincreaseof32.1percentfrom2008to2009)and19.6percentofthetimeintheCity(adecreaseof32.5percentfrom2008to2009).

Table 4.5: 2009 Share of Prime Loans by Borrower Gender, Philadelphia vs. Suburbs




DENIALRATE

MALE 22.0% 22.4% 17.8% 18.2%

FEMALE 17.2% 23.8% 28.6% 17.5%

JOINT(MALE/FEMALE) 60.9% 53.8% 56.6% 12.5%


4.2 Home Lending in Philadelphia vs. Comparison Cities

Philadelphia,Baltimore,Detroit,andPittsburghhavemanysimilarities.Allofthesecitieshavehaddecliningpopulationssince2000,accordingtouSCensusestimates.WiththeexceptionofPittsburgh,themajorityofhouseholdsinthesecitiesareheadedbyminorities,andthecitiesallhaveaginghousingstockandinfrastructure.Femalehouseholdersoccupybetween43and49percentofthehouseholdsinallfourcities.

Between2006and2009,lendingdecreasedinallfourcities,particularlyinDetroit(whichsawa92.8percentdeclineduringthattimeperiod)andparticularlyforsubprimeloans(whichsawdeclinesfrom75percentto98percent,dependingonthecity).In2009,6.4percentofloansinPhiladelphiaweresubprime,comparedto6.2percentinBaltimore,20.8percentinDetroit,and8.6percentinPittsburgh(seeTable4.6).

Between2008and2009,thereweresomegainsacrosssomecitiesinhomelending.Philadelphia,Baltimore,andPittsburghincreasedthenumberofprimeloansissued,whichledtoanincreaseintotalloansforPhiladelphiaandPittsburgh(of10.7percentand23.1percent,respectively).Baltimoresawa5.5percentincreaseinprimeloansanda65.0percentdecreaseinsubprimeloanissuancebetween2008and2009,leavingitwithanoveralldecreaseinloansof6.2percent.



Table 4.6: All Loans, Philadelphia vs. Comparison Cities


PHILADELPHIA 24,490 1,669 26,159

BALTIMORE 8,985 592 9,577

DETROIT 1,038 273 1,311

PITTSBuRgH 4,265 402 4,667


PHILADELPHIA 19,638 3,995 23,633

BALTIMORE 8,517 1,692 10,209

DETROIT 1,967 1,142 3,109

PITTSBuRgH 3,015 776 3,791


PHILADELPHIA 25,131 14,093 39,224

BALTIMORE 23,743 10,997 34,740

DETROIT 5,299 13,011 18,310

PITTSBuRgH 3,563 1,622 5,185


PHILADELPHIA 25% -58% 11%

BALTIMORE 5% -65% -6%

DETROIT -47% -76% -58%

PITTSBuRgH 41% -48% 23%




PHILADELPHIA -3% -88% -33%

BALTIMORE -62% -95% -72%

DETROIT -80% -98% -93%

PITTSBuRgH 20% -75% -10%

4.2.1 Home Lending in Philadelphia vs. Comparison Cities – by Borrower Race (see Table 4.7, Table 4.8, Table 4.9, and Table 4.10)

(See Appendix 2: Tables 1, 41, 46, and 51)

» Similartotrendsofpreviousstudyyears,Philadelphia,Baltimore,Detroit,andPittsburghallshowedadisparityinprimelendingtoAfricanAmericanscomparedtotheirshareofhouseholds,withDetroitshowingtheleastdisparityin2009(0.93).

» In2009,AfricanAmericanswereissuedsubprimeloans13.9percentofthetimeinPhiladelphia(downfrom30.3percentin2008),comparedto11.6percentinBaltimore,23.4percentinDetroit,and15.2percentinPittsburgh.

» African-Americanborrowerswere3.2timesaslikelytoreceiveasubprimeloanrelativetowhiteborrowersinPhiladelphia,comparedto3.9timesaslikelyinBaltimore,1.7timesaslikelyinDetroit,and1.8timesaslikelyinPittsburgh.

» In2009,thedenialratiobetweenAfrican-AmericanandwhiteborrowerswashighestinPittsburgh,withascoreof2.03.Philadelphiahadthesecondhighestratio,withascoreof1.98,anincreasefrom1.81in2008.ThisratioincreasedinDetroitfrom1.17in2008to1.28in2009.

» InBaltimore,thedenialratiobetweenAfrican-Americanandwhiteborrowersdecreasedin2009from1.95to1.87.

Table 4.7: 2009 African-American Proportion of Prime Loans and Households, Philadelphia vs. Comparison Cities

CITy AFRICAN-AMERICANPERCENTOFALLLOANS

AFRICAN-AMERICANPERCENTOFALLHOuSEHOLDS

PHILADELPHIA 19.6% 40.2%

BALTIMORE 37.2% 58.9%

DETROIT 76.7% 80.1%

PITTSBuRgH 6.1% 24.1%



Table 4.8: 2009 African-American to White Denial Ratio, Philadelphia vs. Comparison Cities

CITy AFRICAN-AMERICANTOWHITEDENIALRATIO

PHILADELPHIA 1.98

BALTIMORE 1.87

DETROIT 1.28

PITTSBuRgH 2.03

» HispanicborrowersinBaltimorereceivedapercentageofprimeloansthatexceededthepercentageshareofHispanichouseholds(1.3).ThiswasalsotrueforPittsburgh,witharatioof1.1.

» InDetroit,14.8percentofHispanicborrowersreceivedsubprimeloans,comparedto11.9percentinPhiladelphia,9.8percentinPittsburgh,and5.7percentinBaltimore.

» In2009,thegreatestdisparitybetweenHispanicandwhitedenialrateswasinPhiladelphia,whereHispanicswere1.8timesmorelikelytobedeniedthanwhites.Thiswasanincreasefromthedisparitydenialratioof1.6in2008.

» HispanicborrowersinDetroitwereaslikelytoreceiveasubprimeloanandmorelikelytoreceiveaprimeloanrelativetowhiteborrowers.Theproportionratioforthetwogroupsweretheclosestofanyofthecomparisoncities(1.0forprimeloansand1.1forsubprimeloans).

» HispanicborrowersinPhiladelphiaweredenied1.8timesmoreoftenthanwhites,comparedto1.6timesinBaltimore,1.5timesinDetroitand1.2timesinPittsburgh.Thesewereallincreasesfrom2008to2009.

Table 4.9: White and Hispanic Market Share of Subprime Loans, Philadelphia vs. Comparison Cities (2009)

CITy PERCENTOFWHITESRECEIvINgSuBPRIMELOANS

PERCENTOFHISPANICSRECEIvINgSuBPRIMELOANS


BALTIMORE 3.0% 5.7%

DETROIT 14.2% 14.8%




» InPhiladelphia,Detroit,andBaltimore,Asianborrowersreceivedprimeloansataproportionthatwasgreaterthantheirshareofhouseholds.DetroitandBaltimoreofferedthesecond-highestratioof1.3,afterPhiladelphia’s1.9.AsianborrowersinPittsburghreceivedprimeloansataproportionthatwaslessthantheirshareofhouseholds,witharatioof0.8.

» InbothPittsburghandBaltimore,Asianswerelesslikelythanwhitestoreceivesubprimeloans,similartopreviousyearsofthestudy.However,forthefirsttimeinthestudy,AsianborrowersinPhiladelphiaandDetroitweremorelikelytoreceivesubprimeloans,withsharesof1.3and1.6,respectively.

» AsiansweredeniedatahigherraterelativetowhitesinBaltimoreandPhiladelphia(1.3and1.4,respectively).ThereweredeniedatalesserrateinDetroit(0.9)andinPittsburgh(0.9).

Table 4.10: Percentage of Prime Loans to Household Share for Asians, Philadelphia vs. Comparison Cities (2009)

CITy ASIANPRIMESHARETOHOuSEHOLDSHARERATIO

PHILADELPHIA 1.93

BALTIMORE 1.32

DETROIT 1.32

PITTSBuRgH 0.81

4.2.2 Home Lending in Philadelphia vs. Comparison Cities – by Borrower Income (see Table 4.11)

» Similartoallprioryearsofthestudy,LMIborrowersreceivedasmallerproportionofprimeloansthantheirshareofhouseholdsinallfourcitiesin2009.

» Philadelphia’sratioofprimeloanstoLMIborrowers,comparedtohouseholdshare,wasthesecond-highestofallcitiesat0.7,whilePittsburghhadthelowestratioof0.6.DetroithadthehighestratioofprimeloanstoLMIborrowerscomparedtohouseholdshare,witharatioof0.9.Thecitiesheldthesameorderin2008.

» Inallofthefourcities,borrowersinallincomecategoriesweremorelikelytoreceiveprimeloansthansubprimeloans.

» Philadelphiahadthegreatestdisparityinsubprimelending,withLMIborrowers2.7timesaslikelytoreceiveasubprimeloancomparedtoanMuIborrower.PhiladelphiawasfollowedbyBaltimore,whereLMIborrowerswere2.6timesaslikelytoreceivesubprimeloansasMuIborrowers.



» LMIborrowersinPittsburghandDetroitwerealsomorelikelythanMuIborrowerstoreceivesubprimeloans;withLMIborrowers1.3timesaslikelytoreceivesubprimeloansrelativetoMuIborrowersinDetroitand2.0timesaslikelyinPittsburgh.

» Similartoprioryearsofthestudy,Baltimore’sdenialrateforLMIapplicants(29.1percent)wasthelowestofallfourcities.

» At56.7percent,Detroit’sdenialrateforLMIapplicantswasthehighest,althoughitwassimilartoits51.1percentdenialrateforMuIapplicants.Detroit’sdenialrateforLMIapplicantsdeclinedfrom59.0percentin2008.

» ThedenialrateforLMIapplicantsdecreasedacrossallcities,withPittsburghseeingthegreatestdeclineof28.8percentfrom2008to2009.


Table 4.11: LMI, MUI Denial Rate, Philadelphia vs. Comparison Cities (2009)

CITy LMIDENIALRATE MuIDENIALRATE



DETROIT 56.7% 51.1%


4.2.3 Home Lending in Philadelphia vs. Comparison Cities – by Tract Minority Level (see Table 4.12)

» Asinallyearsinthestudy,inPhiladelphia,Baltimore,andPittsburgh,borrowersinminoritytractsreceivedprimeloansatasmallerproportionthantheirshareofhouseholds.Similarly,borrowersinminoritytractsinDetroitreceivedprimeloansatalmostthesameproportionastheirshareofhouseholdsin2009.

» Similarto2008,Pittsburghhadthegreatestdisparityofprimeloanstohouseholdproportionforminoritytracts,with5.3percentofprimeloanscomparedto16.5percentofhouseholds(givingaratioof0.6).Philadelphiafollowedwiththenexthighestdisparitywith27.6percentofprimeloanscomparedto49.0percentofhouseholds(aratioof0.6).DisparitiesforBaltimore,Philadelphia,andPittsburghalldecreasedfrom2008to2009.

» Inallofthefourcities,bothminoritytractsandnon-minoritytractsweremorelikelytoreceiveprimeloansthansubprimeloans.Thisisatrendthatbeganin2007,andhasincreased(moreprimeloansthansubprimeloans)eachyear.



» MinoritytractborrowersinPhiladelphiawere2.5timesaslikelytoreceivesubprimeloansrelativetoborrowersinnon-minoritytracts.InBaltimore,minoritytractborrowerswereoverthreetimesaslikelytoreceivesubprimeloans.

» LendersissuedsubprimeloanstoDetroitborrowersinminoritytracts20.7percentofthetimeandinnon-minoritytracts23.1percentofthetime.Thiswasadecreaseof43.4percentand42.0percent,respectively,from2008to2009.

» In2009,lendersdeniedapplicantsinminorityareasofPhiladelphiaabout1.7timesmoreoftenthanapplicantsinnon-minorityareas,whichwasanincreasefromthe2008ratioof1.5.

» ApplicantsinminoritytractsinPittsburghweredenied2.0timesasoftenasapplicantsinnon-minorityareasin2009,whichwasanincreasefrom1.8timesasoftenin2008.

» MinoritytractapplicantsinDetroitweredenied1.3timesasoftenasapplicantsinnon-minoritytractapplicants,anincreasefromthenearevenrateofdenialin2008.

» ThedenialratioforminoritytractapplicantsinBaltimoreremainedrelativelyflatbetween2008and2009(1.57to1.65,respectively).


Table 4.12: Percent of Prime Loans, Households in Minority Tracts, Philadelphia vs. Comparison Cities (2009)

CITy MINORITyTRACTPERCENTOFPRIMELOANS

MINORITyTRACTPERCENTOFALLHOuSEHOLDS



DETROIT 95.2% 96.3%


4.2.4 Home Lending in Philadelphia vs. Comparison Cities – by Tract Income Level (see Table 4.13)

» InPhiladelphia,Detroit,andPittsburgh,borrowersinmiddleincometractsreceivedthegreatestpercentageofprimeloans.BorrowersinmoderateincometractsreceivedthehighestpercentageofprimeloansinBaltimore.

» Asinprioryearsofthestudy,borrowersinLMItractsinallfourcitiesreceivedasmallerpercentageofprimeloansthantheshareofhousingunitsinthoseareasin2009.

» InPhiladelphia,borrowersinLMItractswere2.4timesmorelikelytoreceiveasubprimeloanasborrowersinMuItracts.Thiswasthecitywiththegreatestdisparitybetweenthesetwogroups.ThecitywiththeleastdisparitywasDetroit,whereborrowersinLMItracts1.1timesmorelikelytoreceivesubprimeloansasthoseinMuItracts.



» Asin2007and2008,thecitywiththehighestdenialrateforborrowersinLMItractsin2009wasDetroit,where55.9percentreceiveddenials.Pittsburghfollowedwith32.2percent,thenPhiladelphiawith29.9percentandBaltimorewith26.4percent.

» Thedenialratesforalltractincomegroups(includingthefoursub-dividedcategories)decreasedineverycityfrom2008to2009.Pittsburghsawthelargestdecreases,witha28.1percentdeclineand37.8percentdeclineinLMIandMuIdenialrates,respectively.

» ThedifferenceindenialratesbetweenapplicantsinLMIandMuItractswasgreatestinPittsburgh,wheretheratiowas1.8,followedcloselybyPhiladelphiawitharatioof1.6(LMIdenialrate/MuIdenialrate).ThecitywiththelowestdisparitywasDetroit,witharatioof1.2.


Table 4.13: LMI, MUI Tracts Percent Receiving Subprime Loans, Philadelphia vs. Comparison Cities (2009)

CITy LMITRACTPERCENTRECEIvINgSuBPRIMELOANS

MuITRACTSPERCENTRECEIvINgSuBPRIMELOANS


BALTIMORE 8.1% 3.5%

DETROIT 21.8% 20.3%


4.2.5 Home Lending in Philadelphia vs. Comparison Cities – by Borrower Gender

» Asinpreviousyearsofthestudy,inallcities,femaleborrowersreceivedashareofprimeloansthatwaslowerthantheirshareofhouseholds.FemaleborrowersinDetroithadthehighestrateofprimeloanstohouseholdsat0.95.Thisratiowasthesamein2008.

» Philadelphia’sratiooffemaleborrowerswhoreceivedashareofsubprimeloanswasclosesttotheirshareofhouseholds,witharatioof0.97.ThiswasfollowedbyBaltimorewith1.06(thecitywiththehighestratio),Detroitwith0.96,andPittsburghwith0.69.

» InPhiladelphia,Baltimore,andPittsburgh,jointborrowersweremostlikelytoreceiveprimeloans.InDetroit,maleborrowersweremorelikelytoreceiveprimeloansthanfemaleandjointborrowerswiththepercentofloansthatwereprimereaching81.2percentformaleborrowers,comparedto78.6percentand73.1percentforfemaleandjointborrowers,respectively.

» Asinallpreviousyearsofthestudy,ineverycityexceptDetroit,femaleborrowersreceivedagreatershareofsubprimeloansthanmaleorjointborrowers.InDetroit,females(21.4percent)receivedalowerpercentageofsubprimeloansthanjointborrowers(26.9percent),buthigherthanmaleborrowers(18.8percent).



» Thenumberofapplicationsdroppedinallcategoriesandinallcities,exceptfemaleapplicantsfromPhiladelphia,between2008and2009.ApplicationsfromfemalesinPhiladelphiaincreasedby10.6percentin2009.

» Denialratesdecreasedforallgroupsinallcitiesfrom2008to2009.Jointapplicantssawthegreatestdecreaseindenialratesinallcitiesamongthecategories,decliningby32.5percentinPhiladelphia,20.7percentinBaltimore,18.2percentinDetroit,and43.7percentinPittsburgh.

» IneverycityexceptPhiladelphia,femaleapplicantshadthehighestdenialratesofanygroup.InPhiladelphia,thedenialratesformaleandfemaleapplicantswereaboutthesame,at26.5percentand26.3percent,respectively.Thedenialrateforjointapplicantswas19.6percent.

» Theratiooffemaledenialratescomparedtomaledenialrateswasverysmallinallcities,withPittsburghshowingthegreatestdisparityshowing1.1femaledenialsforeverymaledenial.Thisdisparityremainedthesamefrom2008.


5.0 Home Lending to Non-Owner-Occupied Borrowers



5.0 Home Lending to Non-Owner-Occupied BorrowersIn2009,7.8percentofallloansweremadetonon-occupantinvestors,adecreasefrom14.9percentin2008.Thenumberofnon-owner-occupiedloansdecreasedby46.3percentfrom2008to2009decreasing44.3percentfrom2007to2008),whilethenumberofowner-occupiedloansincreasedby10.7percentfrom2008(afterdecreasing26.9percentfrom2007to2008).Subprimeloanscomprised7.5percentofallnon-owner-occupiedloans(adecreasefromthe23.3percentof2008),ahighersharethanthe6.4percentofsubprimeloansforowner-occupiedborrowers(adecreasefrom16.9percent).

5.1 Home Lending to Non-Owner-Occupied Borrowers – by Borrower Race

» Asin2007and2008,Asianborrowersreceivedmorethanthreetimestheshareof non-occupantloansthantheirpercentageofCityhouseholdsin2009.

» Mostnon-occupantloanswenttowhiteborrowers,byamarginthatincreasedfrom63.4percentin2008to70.6percentin2009.

» Thenumberofnon-occupantloansdecreasedforeachracialcategoryfrom2008to2009.AfricanAmericanssawthegreatestdecreaseinnon-occupantloansat65percentbetween2008and2009.From2006to2009,thenumberofnon-occupantloanstoAfricanAmericanshasdecreasedby89.5percent,thegreatestdecreaseofanyracialcategory.

» Allracialcategoriesreceivedmoreprimeloansthansubprimein2009.

» Forthethirdconsecutiveyear,thepercentageofborrowersinallracialcategoriesreceivingprimeloansincreasedfrom2008to2009.AfricanAmericanssawthegreatestincreasebetween2008and2009,at51.8percent(from55.7percentin2008to84.5percentin2009)

» Forthefirsttimeinthestudy,Hispanicnon-occupantinvestorsweremorelikelythanHispanicowner-occupiedborrowerstoreceiveaprimeloan(88.9percentcomparedto88.1percent,respectively).

» Thenon-owner-occupantdenialrateincreasedby0.5percentfrom2008to31.8percentin2009.

» Asinallprioryearsofthestudy,denialratesincreasedforeveryracialcategoryfrom2008to2009.

» In2009,thehighestincreasefrom2008indenialrates(26.2percent)wasforAsianinvestors.African-Americaninvestorssawthesecondhighestincreasefrom2008(8.0percent).



» From2006to2009,Asianinvestorssawthegreatestincreaseindenialrates(92.3percent).Theoveralldenialrateincreasedby22.5percentduringthattimeperiod.

» In2008,Hispanicinvestorshadthehighestdenialrateat46.7percent.Thistrendcontinuedin2009,whereHispanicapplicantsweredenied50.3percentofthetime.African-Americanapplicationsin2009weredeniedatarateof47.3percent.


5.2 Home Lending to Non-Owner-Occupied Borrowers – by Borrower Income

» 56.8percentofprimenon-owner-occupiedloanswenttoinvestorsintheupperincomegroup.Infact,asincomelevelsincreased,sodidthepercentagesofprimeandsubprimeloans.

» Themiddle-to-upperincomegroup(MuI)received76.4percentofprimeloansmade,comparedto23.6percentforthelow-to-moderateincomegroup(LMI).In2008,theLMIreceived19.5percentofallprimeloans.

» ThedisparitybetweentheshareofprimeloansandtheshareofhouseholdswaslowerforMuIowner-occupiedborrowers(0.8)thanfornon-occupantMuIinvestors(2.4).



» In2009,theshareofprimeloansforLMIborrowersincreasedfrom2008,whiletheshareofsubprimeloansdecreased.LMIborrowersreceived23.6percentofprimeloans(upfrom19.5percentin2008);and24.5percentofsubprimeloans(downfrom29.7percentin2008).

» Theproportionofnon-occupantprimeloansgoingtoLMItractsincreasedby39.3percentbetween2008and2009.From2006to2009,thisproportionhasincreasedby100.2percent.

» In2009,allgroupsreceivedmoreprimeloansthansubprimeloans,continuingthetrendfromthepreviousyear.

» Morethan4outof10applicationsforLMIinvestorsweredeniedwhichremainedunchangedfrom2007and2008.

» Denialratesincreasedfrom2008forbothLMIandMuIinvestorsto43.9percentand30.1percent,respectively.


5.3 Home Lending to Non-Owner-Occupied Borrowers – by Tract Minority Level

» Slightlymoreloanswenttonon-minoritytracts(1,181loans)thanminoritytracts(1,035loans).

» Minoritycensustractsreceived45.5percentofprimeloans(adecreasefrom50.6percentin2008)and61.7percentofsubprimeloans(adecreasefrom69.8percentin2008).

» In2009,investorsinbothgroupsreceivedmoreprimeloansthansubprimeloans,atrendsimilartothatof2008.

» Theproportionofprimeloanstoborrowersinminoritytractsincreasedby27.6percentfrom2008to2009.From2006to2009,thisproportionincreasedby104.1percent.

» From2006to2009,denialratesincreasedforbothgroups,withnon-minoritytractapplicantsseeingthegreatestincreaseof49.4percent.

» Between2008and2009,thedenialrateforminoritytractapplicantsdecreasedby2.5percent.

» Foreverydenialinanon-minoritytract,therewere1.2denialsinaminoritytract.Thiswasadecreasefromthe2008ratioof1.4.


5.4 Home Lending to Non-Owner-Occupied Borrowers – by Tract Income Level

» Inallfouryearsstudied,moderateincometractsreceivedthemostloans.In2009theseborrowersreceived42.5percentofloans,upfromthe42.2percentreceivedin2008.



» Theshareofloanstolowincometractborrowersdecreasedby21.3percentfrom2008to2009;whiletheshareofloanstomiddleincometractborrowersincreasedby31.0percent.

» 69.8percentofowner-occupiedsubprimeloanswenttoborrowersinLMItractsin2009,comparedto84.4percentnon-owner-occupiedsubprimeloansthatwenttoLMItracts.

» In2009,allgroupsreceivedfewersubprimeloanscomparedto2008,withborrowersinlowincometractsseeingthegreatestdecreaseof85.7percent.

» From2006to2009,subprimeloanstoallgroupsdecreased.BorrowersinLMItractssawadecreaseof96.3percent,andborrowersinMuItractssawadecreaseof93.5percent.

» Allgroupsreceivedmoreprimeloansthansubprimeloansin2009.Thiswasalsotruein2007and2008.Thoughin2006,only43.3percentofloanswereprimeinlow-incometracts.Theremaininggroupsreceivedmoreprimeloansthansubprimeloansin2006.

» Thepercentageofprimeloanstoeachgroupincreasedwithtractincomelevel.98.1percentofloanstoupperincometractinvestorswereprimeloansin2009.

» InvestorsinLMItractsreceivedprimeloans90.7percentofthetime(anincreasefrom72.3percentofthetimein2008),comparedto96.3percentofthetimeforMuItractinvestors(anincreasefrom90.3percentin2008).

» BorrowersinLMIareaswere2.5timesaslikelytoreceiveasubprimeloanasborrowersinMuItracts.Thiswasadecreasefrom2.9in2008,andanincreasefrom2.1in2006.

» Thenumberofapplicationsdecreasedacrossallgroupsfrom2008to2009,withthenumberoflowincometractapplicationsdecreasingthemostat58.7percentbetween2008and2009.Lowincometractapplicationshavedecreasedthemostfrom2006to2009,at80.8percent.

» Denialratesdecreasedforlowandmoderateincometractapplicants,andincreasedformiddleandupperincometractapplicants.From2008to2009thedenialrateforupperincometractapplicantsincreasedby67.2percent.From2006to2009,thisratehasincreasedthemost,by130.0percent.

» Thedenialratewas33.9percentforLMInon-occupantborrowersand26.8percentforMuInon-occupantborrowersin2009.


5.5 Home Lending to Non-Owner-Occupied Borrowers – by Borrower Gender

» In2009,malenon-occupantinvestorsreceivedlessthan50percentofloans,continuingthetrendfrom2008.

» Femalesreceived18.7percentofallprimeloans(comparedto20.0percentin2008)and21.3percentofallsubprimeloans(comparedto26.2percentin2008).

» Primeloansdecreasedforallgroupsbetween2008and2009.Maleinvestorssawthe



largestdecrease,at44.2percent.Similarly,maleinvestorshadthelargestdecreasefrom2006to2009,at74.8percent.

» Maleandfemaleinvestorsreceivedprimeloansover90percentofthetime,at90.5percentand91.1percentofthetime,respectively.Thisisincomparisontothelikelinessof2008,whichwas70.7percentformalesand68.2percentforfemales.

» Jointapplicantsweremostlikelytoreceiveaprimeloan(94.2percentofthetime).Thiswasanincreasefrom2008,whentheyreceivedprimeloans82.7percentofthetime.

» Allcategoriessawareductioninapplicationsfrom2008to2009,withfemalesseeingthehighestreduction,at54.5percent.From2006to2009,femaleapplicationsdeclinedby82.4percent.

» From2008to2009thedenialrateincreasedforallgroups,withmaleinvestorsseeingthehighestincrease,at8.6percent.From2006to2009,denialratesformaleinvestorsincreasedby44.0percent,anddenialratesforjointinvestorsincreasedby43.3percent.

» Thedenialrateswerehigherfornon-occupantmale,femaleandjointborrowerscomparedtoowner-occupiedmaleandfemaleborrowers.Bothmaleandfemalenon-occupantdenialratesexceedoccupantdenialratesbymorethan40percent.


6.0 City Depositories and Home Lending



6.0 City Depositories and Home Lending 6.1 City Depositories in Aggregate

In2009,13banksweredesignatedasCityofPhiladelphiadepositories:AdvanceBank,BankofAmerica,Citigroup,CitizensBank,CityNational,TDBank,M&TBank,BankofNewyorkMellonCorporation,PNCBank,RepublicFirstBank,BancoSantander(SovereignBank),unitedBankofPhiladelphia,andWellsFargo.Ofthese13,onlynineoriginatedmorethan25loans,apre-establishedthresholdforinclusioninthisanalysis.Basedonthiscriteria,BankofNewyorkMellon,CityNational,RepublicFirstBank,andunitedBankwereexcludedfromalldepositoryrankings.Further,whileAdvanceBankqualifiesforinclusionintherankingsforthefirsttimeinthestudy(with27loansissuedin2009),itdoesnotqualifyforanysegmentedrankingastherewerenot25loansissuedforhomeimprovement,homerefinance,orhomepurchaseonly.

Citydepositoriesinaggregatereceivednearly17,000loanapplicationsandoriginatednearly8,000primeloansandover600subprimeloanstotaling$1.5billionin2009.Thus,these13depositoriestogetherrepresentedoverathirdofallapplications,primeloans,subprimeloans,andtotalloanamountswithintheCity(seeTable6.1).ThetotalamountoflendingatallinstitutionsintheCitywas$4.5billion,upfrom$3.7billionthepreviousyear.

Table 6.1: Loan Applications and Originations for City Depositories

APPLICATIONS PRIMELOANS SuBPRIMELOANS TOTALLOANAMOuNT

2009-DEPOSITORIES 16,994 7,990 640 $1.5B

2009–ALLBANkS 50,114 24,490 1,669 $4.5B

2008-DEPOSITORIES 16,836 6,166 1,245 $1.0B

2008–ALLBANkS 53,913 19,638 3,995 $3.7B


34% 33% 38% 33%


31% 31% 31% 27%




6.2 Ranking of Depositories – Home Purchase Lending

Thirteenfactorswerecombinedtocreateacompositescoreforprimehomepurchaselendingperformanceforeachdepository:Thepercentageofloansoriginated,(2)rawnumberofloansanddenialratiosforAfricanAmericans,Hispanicsandlowandmoderateincome(LMI)borrowerswereeachweightedone-tenthofthecompositescore.Fouradditionalneighborhood-relatedfactorswerecollectivelyweightedasone-tenthofthecompositescore:thepercentageofloansoriginatedinLMIcensustracts,thepercentageofloansoriginatedinminoritytracts,andthedenialratiosforthosetwotypesoftracts.Thisweightinghastheeffectofequalizingtheplayingfieldbetweenhigher-volumeandlower-volumedepositories(seeTable6.2).

Table 6.2: Factors upon Which City Depositories Were Ranked in Small Business Lending

FACTOR WEIgHT

%LOANSORIgINATEDTOAFRICAN-AMERICANBORROWERS 10%

RAWNuMBEROFLOANSTOAFRICAN-AMERICANBORROWERS 10%

DENIALRATIO,AFRICAN-AMERICANAPPLICANTSvS.WHITEAPPLICANTS 10%

%LOANSORIgINATEDTOHISPANICBORROWERS 10%

RAWNuMBEROFLOANSTOHISPANICBORROWERS 10%

DENIALRATIO,HISPANICAPPLICANTSvS.WHITEAPPLICANTS 10%

%LOANSORIgINATEDTOLOWANDMODERATEINCOMEBORROWERS 10%

RAWNuMBEROFLOANSTOLOWANDMODERATEINCOMEBORROWERS 10%

DENIALRATIO,LOWANDMODERATEINCOMEAPPLICANTSvS.MIDDLEANDuPPERINCOMEAPPLICANTS 10%

%PRIMELOANSORIgINATEDINLOWTOMODERATEINCOMECENSuSTRACTS 2.5%

%PRIMELOANSORIgINATEDINMINORITyTRACTS 2.5%

DENIALRATIO,LOWTOMODERATEINCOMETRACTSvS.MIDDLEANDuPPERINCOMETRACTS 2.5%

DENIALRATIO,MINORITyTRACTSvS.NON-MINORITyTRACTS 2.5%

TOTALFOR13FACTORS 100%

Foreachfactor,adepositoryreceivedascoreaccordingtohowdifferentitwasfromtheaveragelenderinPhiladelphia.Ifthedepositorywasbetterthanaverage,thescoreispositive;ifitwasbelowaverage,thescoreisnegative.These13scoreswereaddedtogethertoformthedepository’soverallratingscore.AratingscorethatisclosetozeromeansthatthelenderwasanaveragelenderinPhiladelphia.Apositiveratingscoremeansthatthedepositorywasaboveaverage.Thehigherthescore,themoreaboveaveragethedepositorywas.



Again,onlylendersinPhiladelphiathatoriginated25loansormorein2009wereincludedinthecalculations.Asaresult,BankofNewyorkMellon,CityNational,RepublicFirstBank,andunitedBankwereexcludedfromalldepositoryrankings.Includingsuchsmalllendersintheratingswouldproduceunreliableandunusableresults.1

In2009,WellsFargo(whosepurchaseofWachoviawascompletedattheendofthe2008calendaryear),rankedfirst,followedbyBancoSantander(whichpurchasedSovereignBank),whichrankedfirstin2008.Citigroup,whichwasseventhin2008,andsixthin2007,significantlydecreaseditsissuanceofhomepurchaseloansinPhiladelphia(only13primeloansforhomepurchasewereissuedin2009),andwasnoteligibleforthisranking.M&TBank,anewlyaddeddepository,rankedseventhwithaslightlypositivecompositescoreof0.23.WhileBankofAmericaandCitizensBankbothslippedoneplaceintherankings,PNCmovedfromsixthtofifthbetween2008and2009.Noneofthedepositoriesmeasuredhadnegativecompositescores,suggestingthatallperformedbetterthantheaveragehomemortgagelenderintheCityin2009(seeTable6.3).2

Table 6.3: 2009 Ranking of City Depositories – Home Purchase Lending

2009RANkINg CITyDEPOSITORy 2009COMPOSITESCORE 2008RANkINg

1 WELLSFARgO(WACHOvIA) 28.30 5

2 BANCOSANTANDER(SOvEREIgNBANCORP,INC.) 19.81 1

3 BANkOFAMERICA 11.75 2

4 CITIZENSFINANCIALgROuP,INC 9.88 3

5 PNCFINANCIALSERvICESgROuP 2.84 6

6 TDBANkNORTH 2.53 4

7 M&TBANk 0.23 N/A

6.3 Aggregate Analysis of Depositories

6.3.1 Home Purchase Loans

» Thenumberofapplicationsremainedflat(anincreaseof2percentfromthepreviousyear),butthenumberofdenialsdecreasedby20percentbetween2008and2009.

» Citydepositoriesissued24.2percentoftheirprimeloanstoAfricanAmericans,7.3percenttoHispanics,10.1percenttoAsians,and35.7percenttoborrowersinminoritytracts.

1. See Appendix 2, Table 66 for more performance information on depositories that were not ranked. 2. See Appendix 2, Table 61, for additional ranking detail.



» PrimeloansfromCitydepositoriesincreasedby11.4percentforAfrican-Americanborrowersanddecreasedby15.0percentforHispanicborrowersbetween2008and2009.From2008to2009,primeloanstoAsianborrowersincreasedby5.6percentandby6.5percentforborrowersinminoritytracts.

» Citydepositoriesissued63.5percentoftheirloanstoLMIborrowersand59.3percenttoborrowersinLMIcensustracts.From2008to2009,primeloanstoLMIborrowersfromCitydepositorieshaveincreasedby11.9percent.

» Femaleborrowersreceived42.4percentofprimeloansissuedbyCitydepositories.Thisisaslightdecreasefrom2008,whenfemaleborrowersreceived45percentofthedepositories’primeloans.

» HispanicapplicantsweredeniedbyCitydepositoriesmorethananyotherracialgroup,atarateof1.62timesforeverydenialissuedtoawhiteapplicant.Thiswasanincreasefromarateof1.55denialsperwhitedenialin2008.

» Asianapplicantsweredeniedtheleast,atarateof1.45denialsperwhitedenial,upfrom1.22in2008.


Figure 6.4: Selected 2009 Results for City Depositories – Home Purchase Loans

DEPOSITORy




PERCENTOFLOANSTOLMI

BORROWERS

PERCENTOFLOANSINLMITRACTS

AFRICAN-AMERICANTOWHITEDENIALRATIO

HISPANICTOWHITEDENIALRATIO

ASIANTOWHITEDENIALRATIO

BANCOSANTANDER(SOvEREIgN

BANk)

42.1% 9.0% 45.1% 81.9% 70.5% 1.71 2.62 1.70

BANkOFAMERICA 15.4% 4.9% 29.0% 64.1% 56.6% 2.23 1.34 1.12

CITIZENSFINANCIALgROuP,INC.

37.6% 10.8% 47.2% 77.2% 71.6% 1.30 2.28 2.20

M&TBANk 21.4% 7.1% 40.5% 50.0% 64.3% 1.58 0.00 0.00

PNC 22.2% 5.2% 43.1% 54.9% 49.7% 0.58 1.71 0.00

TDBANk 10.6% 7.5% 27.3% 61.5% 56.5% 2.15 1.87 0.89

WELLSFARgO 21.3% 7.5% 32.6% 55.3% 54.5% 1.61 1.57 1.81

ALLDEPOSITORIES 24.2% 7.3% 35.7% 63.5% 59.3% 1.50 1.62 1.45

ALLLENDERS 18.4% 8.5% 30.6% 60.7% 56.3% 1.90 1.38 1.67



6.3.2 Home Refinance Loans

» ThenumberofapplicationsforhomerefinanceloansfromCitydepositoriesincreasedby8.9percent,thedenialratedecreasedby23.2percent,andthenumberofprimeloansincreasedby51.3percentbetween2008and2009.

» Citydepositoriesissued13.6percentoftheprimehomerefinanceloanstheymadetoAfrican-Americanborrowers,3.2percenttoHispanics,and6.5percenttoAsians.

» ThepercentofrefinanceloanstoAfricanAmericans,Hispanics,Asians,andminoritytractsissuedbyCitydepositorieschangedgreatlyfrom2008.ThelargestchangewasforpercentageofloanstoHispanics,whichdecreasedby52.5percentfrom2008to2009.ThenextlargestchangewasinthepercentageofloanstoAfricanAmericans,whichdecreasedby38.6percent.

» Citydepositoriesissued32.7percentoftheirprimeloanstoLMIborrowers(adecreaseof34.9percentfrom2008to2009)and40.1percentoftheirprimeloanstoborrowersinLMItracts(adecreaseof24.9percentfrom2008to2009).

» In2009,Hispanicapplicantsweredeniedaloan2.2timesasoftenaswhiteapplicants,anincreasefrom1.7in2008.Thiswasthelargestdenialraterelativetowhiteborrowers.Asiansweredeniedtheleast,atarateof1.6timesperwhitedenial,whichincreasedfrom1.1in2008.


Table 6.5: Selected 2009 Results for City Depositories – Home Refinance Loans

DEPOSITORy




PERCENTOFLOANSTOLMI

BORROWERS

PERCENTOFLOANSIN

LMITRACTS


HISPANICTOWHITEDENIALRATIO

ASIANTO

WHITEDENIALRATIO


BANk)

9.8% 1.9% 20.6% 46.8% 33.1% 2.84 5.84 1.54

BANkOFAMERICA 18.6% 4.4% 28.7% 39.5% 43.8% 1.29 1.74 1.37


10.1% 2.6% 26.2% 44.2% 33.7% 2.44 2.66 1.95

CITIgROuP 20.2% 3.3% 36.2% 36.6% 49.3% 2.34 2.64 1.29

M&TBANk 7.7% 0.0% 15.4% 35.9% 30.8% 0.76 5.33 0.00

PNC 21.3% 3.7% 32.0% 34.2% 48.9% 2.20 3.18 2.90



TDBANk 6.4% 1.1% 23.4% 37.2% 43.6% 2.63 2.58 1.90

WELLSFARgO 11.0% 3.0% 24.2% 24.8% 38.3% 1.48 1.47 1.28


ALLLENDERS 12.4% 3.0% 25.4% 36.2% 41.6% 1.93 1.98 1.50

6.3.3 Home Improvement Loans

» ThenumberofapplicationstoCitydepositoriesforhomeimprovementloansdecreasedby36.4percentandthenumberofdenialsdecreasedby38.8percentin2009.

» Citydepositoriesissued22.4percentoftheirprimehomeimprovementloanstoAfrican-Americanborrowers,4.8percenttoHispanicborrowersand8.3percenttoAsianborrowers.

» 34.6percentofprimeloansmadebyCitydepositorieswenttoborrowersinminoritycensustracts(34.6percent).

» 48.7percentofprimehomeimprovementloanswereissuedtoLMIborrowers(adecreaseof29.9percentfrom2008to2009)and50.4percenttoborrowersinLMIcensustracts(adecrease24.9percentfrom2008to2009).

» In2009,femaleborrowersreceived46.5percentoftheprimeloansmadeavailablebyCitydepositories,adecreaseof9.8percent.

» CitydepositoriesdeniedHispanicsatthehighestrateandAsiansatthelowestrateforhomeimprovementloans.Hispanicapplicantsweredenied1.8timesforeverywhitedenial,anincreasefrom1.6timesin2008.Asiansweredenied1.3timesforeverywhitedenial,adecreasefrom1.5in2008.

» Applicantsinminoritycensustractsreceived1.7denialnoticesforeverynoticesenttoapplicantsinnon-minoritytractsin2009.Thisisanincreasefrom1.3in2008.




Table 6.6: Selected 2009 Results for City Depositories – Home Improvement Loans

DEPOSITORy


PERCENTOF

LOANSTOHISPANICS

PERCENTOF

LOANSINMINORITyTRACTS

PERCENTOFLOANSTOLMI

BORROWERS

PERCENTOF

LOANSINLMITRACTS


HISPANICTO

WHITEDENIALRATIO

ASIANTO

WHITEDENIALRATIO

BANkOFAMERICA 12.0% 4.0% 24.0% 72.0% 60.0% 3.10 4.70 0.57


53.8% 3.8% 7.7% 84.6% 80.8% 1.42 1.26 1.62

CITIgROuP 28.6% 0.0% 0.0% 28.6% 57.1% 1.35 1.71 2.45

PNC 34.2% 2.6% 13.2% 47.4% 50.0% 1.36 1.46 0.98

TDBANk 5.6% 5.6% 11.1% 44.4% 61.1% 1.59 1.37 0.98

WELLSFARgO 13.9% 6.9% 4.0% 37.6% 36.6% 1.73 1.84 1.09


ALLLENDERS 19.8% 4.2% 5.5% 57.0% 55.8% 1.88 2.02 1.27

ALLLENDERS 25.6% 5.3% 43.7% 62.3% 60.6% 1.58 1.55 1.35

6.4 Disaggregated Depository Analysis

6.4.1 Advance Bank

6.4.1.1 All Loans

» Issued24primeloansin2009.

» Scored1stinpercentofloanstominoritytractandLMItractborrowers.

» MetorexceededCityaveragesforpercentofloanstominoritytract,LMI,andLMItractborrowers.

» Didnotdenyanyapplicantsin2009,andwerethusexcludedfromtherankingswithotherdepositories.

» Issued24loansforhomepurchaseand3loansforhomerefinancing,thereforeAdvance



BankwasnoteligibleforinclusioninCitydepositoryrankingsforhomepurchase,homeimprovement,orhomerefinancelending.

6.4.2 Banco Santander (Sovereign Bancorp, Inc.)

6.4.2.2 All Loans

» Issued968primeloans,anincreaseof6.5percentfrom2008.

» Scored1stinpercentofloanstoAfrican-American,LMI,andfemaleborrowers.

» MetorexceededCityaveragesforpercentofprimeloanstoAfrican-American,Hispanic,LMI,LMItractandfemaleborrowers,aswellas,thedenialratetoAfrican-Americanapplicants.

» FailedtomeetCitybenchmarksforpercentofprimeloanstoAsianandminoritytractborrowers,aswellasthedenialratiosforHispanic,Asian,andminoritytractapplicants.

» Ofthe968loansissued,579werehomepurchaseloans,378wereloansforhomerefinancing,and11wereforhomeimprovement(anincreasefrom8in2008).BancoSantanderwasnotincludedinthehomeimprovementrankingswithotherdepositories.

6.4.2.3 Home Purchase Loans

» Issued579primehomepurchaseloans,adecreaseof22.9percentfrom2008.

» Ranked1stinpercentofloanstoAfrican-American,LMI,andfemaleborrowers.Ranked2ndinpercentofloanstoHispanic,minoritytract,andLMItractborrowers.

» DidnotmeettheCitybenchmarkfromanydenialratiosin2009;in2008,halfofalldenialratiocategoriesweremetorexceededforhomepurchaselending.

6.4.2.4 Home Refinance Loans

» Issued378primehomerefinanceloans,anincreaseof152percentfrom2008.

» Rankedlast(8th)foralldenialratiosforallcategories.

» Ranked1stforthepercentageofloanstoLMIborrowers.

» MetorexceededCitybenchmarksforpercentageofloanstoAsian,LMI,andfemaleborrowersin2009.


6.4.3.1 All Loans

» Issued1,733primeloans,adecreaseof12.3percentfrom2008.

» Applicationsdecreasedby25.2percentwhiledenialsdecreasedby32.9percentfrom



2008to2009.

» ExceededCitybenchmarksforpercentofloansissuedtoAsianandfemaleborrowers.

» DidnotmeetoverallCityaveragesinpercentageofloanstoAfrican-American,Hispanic,minoritytract,LMI,orLMItractborrowers.

» ScoredfirstinthepercentageofprimeloansissuedtoAsianborrowers(14.5percent).

» Wentuponerank,from6thto5th,inthepercentageofprimeloansissuedtoAfricanAmericanswhiledecreasingintheactualnumberfrom2008(to17.2percentin2009from17.8percentin2008).

» MetorexceededCitydenialratebenchmarksforeverycategoryfor2009,similarto2008.


» Issued710primehomepurchaseloans,adecreaseof16.4percentfrom2008to2009.

» Thenumberofapplicationsdecreasedby32.3percentandthenumberofdenialsby49.5percent.

» Ranked1stinpercentofloanstoAsians,similarto2008.

» MetorexceededCitybenchmarksintherateofdenialsofHispanictowhiteapplicants,whilefailingtomeetthebenchmarksfordenialratiosofAfricanAmericans,Asians,andminoritytractapplicants.


» Issued998primehomerefinanceloans,adecreaseof7.3percentfrom2008.

» Ranked1stinpercentageofloanstoHispanicandAsianborrowers.

» MetorexceedCityaveragesforalldenialrates,includingranking1stindenialratioofminoritytractapplicantsrelativetonon-minoritytractapplicants.

» MetorexceededCityaveragesinpercentofloanstoAfrican-American,Hispanic,Asian,minority,LMI,LMItract,andfemaleborrowersforthesecondyearinarow.

6.4.3.4 Home Improvement Loans

» Issued25primehomeimprovementloans,adecreaseof49percentfrom2008to2009.

» Ranked1stinpercentofloanstoAsianborrowers.

» Ranked1stintheAsiantowhiteapplicantdenialratio.

» Rankedlast(6th)inAfrican-American,Hispanic,minoritytonon-minoritytractdenialratios.



» MetorexceededCitybenchmarksinpercentloanstoHispanic,LMIandLMItractborrowers.

6.4.4 Citizens Financial Group

6.4.4.1 All Loans

» Issued543primeloans,a10.2percentdecreasefrom2008.

» In2009,applicationsdecreasedby21.6percentanddenialsdeclinedby40.6percent.

» Scored1stinpercentageofprimeloanstoHispanicborrowers.

» MetorexceededCitybenchmarksinpercentageofloanstoAfrican-American,Hispanic,minoritytract,LMI,andLMItractborrowers.

» In2008,Citizensscored1stindenialrateofAfrican-American,Hispanic,andMinoritytractdenialratios;in2009,itdidnotmeettheCitybenchmarksforanycategoryindenialrates.



» Sawa2.3percentdecreaseinapplicationsanda7.1percentincreaseindenialsin2009.

» Ranked1stinpercentofloanstominoritytractborrowersforthethirdyearinarow.AlsorankedhighestinpercentofloanstoAfricanAmericanscomparedtowhites,percentofloanstominorityrelativetonon-minoritytractsandthepercentofloanstoLMIborrowerscomparedtoMuIborrowersforthesecondyearinarow.

» MetorexceededCitybenchmarksforrateofdenialsforAfrican-Americanapplicantsrelativetowhiteapplicants,andforminoritytractapplicantsrelativetonon-minoritytractapplicants.

» MetorexceededCitybenchmarksforpercentofloanstoAfrican-American,Hispanic,minoritytract,LMI,LMItractandfemaleborrowersforthesecondyearinarow.


» Issued267primehomerefinanceloans,a35.5percentincreasefrom2008.

» In2009,thenumberofapplicationsdecreasedby11.6percentandthenumberofdenialsdecreasedby39.9percent.

» Rankedlast(8th)inpercentofloanstofemaleborrowers.

» MetorexceededCitybenchmarksinpercentofloanstominoritytractandLMI



borrowers.

» DidnotmeetorexceedCitybenchmarksindenialratesforanyofthefourcategories.


» Issued26homeimprovementloans,adecreasefromthe116issuedin2008.

» Ranked1stinthepercentageofloanstoAfrican-American,minoritytract,andLMItractborrowersforthesecondyearinarow.Alsoranked1stinpercentageofloanstoLMIborrowers.

» Didnotranklast(6th)inanycategoryin2009.

» Ranked1stinminoritytracttonon-minoritytractdenialratioandHispanictowhiteapplicantdenialratio.

6.4.5 CitiGroup

6.4.5.1 All Loans

» Issued233primeloans,adecreaseof33.6percentfrom2008to2009.

» Applicationsdecreasedby44.7percentanddenialsdecreasedby44.9percentbetween2008and2009.

» Ranked1stinminoritytracttonon-minoritytractdenialratio,animprovementfromthesecondplacerankingof2008.

» Ranked8thinpercentageofprimeloanstoHispanicandAsianborrowers,and9thinpercentageofloanstoLMIborrowers.RankingforpercentofloanstofemaleandAfrican-Americanborrowersimprovedfrom6thand5th,respectively,in2008,to4thin2009.

» ExceededCitybenchmarksinpercentageofloanstoAfrican-American,minority,andfemaleborrowers.

» ExceededCitybenchmarkforminoritytractdenialratio.

» RankingforpercentageofprimeloanstoAsianborrowerswentfrom2ndin2008to8thin2009,thelargestdecreaseforthisbank.

» Issued13loansforhomepurchase(downfrom92in2008),7loansforhomeimprovement(downfrom21in2008),and213homerefinanceloansin2009(downfrom238in2008).


» Issued213primeloansforhomerefinancing,adecreaseof10.5percentfrom2008to2009.

» Ranked1stinpercentofloanstominorityandLMItractborrowers.



» Ranked2ndinpercentofloanstoAfrican-Americanborrowers.

» MetorexceededCitybenchmarksforthepercentofloanstoAfricanAmericans,Hispanic,LMItract,andfemaleborrowers.

» MetorexceededtheCity’saverageforthreeofthefourdenialrates:Hispanic,Asian,andminoritytract.


» Issued7primeloansforhomeimprovement,adecreaseof10.5percentfrom2008to2009.

» Ranked1stindenialratioofAfrican-Americanapplicantstowhiteapplicants.

» Ranked2ndinpercentofloanstominoritytractandfemaleborrowers.

» MetorexceededCitybenchmarksforthepercentofloanstoAfricanAmericans,minoritytract,andfemaleborrowers.

» MetorexceededtheCity’saveragefortwoofthefourdenialrates:African-Americanandminoritytract.

6.4.6 M&T Bank

6.4.6.1 All Loans

» Issued83primeloansin2009.

» Ranked6thforpercentageofloanstoAfrican-American,minoritytract,LMI,LMItract,andfemaleborrowers.

» Ranked1stindenialratioforAfrican-American,Hispanic,andAsianapplicants.

» Ofthe83primeloans,42wereforhomepurchase,39wereforhomerefinancing,and2wereforhomeimprovement.


» Issued42primehomepurchaseloansin2009.

» ExceededCitybenchmarksforpercentageofprimeloansissuedtoborrowersinLMItracts.

» Ranked1stindenialratiosforHispanicandAsianapplicantsrelativetowhiteapplicants.

» Ranked4thinpercentageofloanstoAfrican-American,Asian,minoritytract,andfemaleborrowers.




» Issued39primehomerefinanceloansin2009.

» Ranked1stindenialratiosforAfrican-AmericanandAsianapplicants.

» Rankedlast(8th)inpercentageofloanstoHispanic,Asian,minoritytract,andLMItractborrowers.

» FailedtomeetorexceedtheCity’saverageforanylendingcategory,orfordenialratiosforHispanicorminoritytractapplicants.

6.4.7 PNC

6.4.7.1 All Loans

» Issued463primeloans,anincreaseof17.5percentfrom2008.

» Applicationdecreasedby9.6percentanddenialsdecreasedby14.8percentbetween2008and2009.

» Asin2008,PNCranked7thinpercentofloanstoAsianborrowersin2009,eventhoughthepercentageincreasedfrom1.8percentto4.1percent.

» DidnotmeetCitybenchmarkintermsofalldenialratios(African-American,Hispanic,Asian,andminoritytracts)for2009,asimilartrendfrom2008.

» MetorexceededCitybenchmarksinpercentofloanstoAfrican-American,minoritytracts,andfemaleborrowers.



» Applicationsdecreasedby44.7percentanddenialsdecreasedby81.6percentbetween2008and2009.

» MetorexceededtheCitybenchmarkforpercentofprimehomepurchaseloanstoAfricanAmericansandminoritytractborrowersforthesecondyearinarow.

» Ranked1stindenialratiosforAfricanAmericans,animprovementfromthe7thplacerankingof2008.


» Issued272primehomerefinanceloans,anincreaseof65.9percentfrom2008.

» Ranked1stinpercentageofloanstoAfrican-Americanandfemaleborrowers.

» Ranked1stindenialratesforAfrican-AmericanandAsianapplicantsrelativetowhiteapplicants.

» Rankedlast(8th)fordenialratesforAsianapplicantsrelativetowhiteapplicants.



» MetorexceededCitybenchmarksforpercentofloanstoAfrican-American,Hispanic,minoritytract,LMItract,andfemaleborrowers.

» FailedtomeetorexceedCityaveragesforthreeoutoffourdenialratios:Hispanic,Asian,andminoritytractapplicants.


» Issued38primeloansforhomeimprovement,anincreaseof22.6percentfrom2008to2009.

» Scored1stinthepercentageofloanstofemaleborrowers.

» MetorexceededCityaveragesforthepercentageofloanstoAfrican-American,Asian,minoritytract,LMI,andfemaleborrowers.

6.4.8 TD Bank

6.4.8.1 All Loans

» Issued273primeloans,adecreaseof28.9percentfrom2008.

» Rankedlast(9th)inpercentageofloanstoAfrican-Americanandminoritytractborrowers,and7thinpercentageofloanstofemaleborrowers.

» ExceededCitybenchmarkforpercentageofloanstoHispanic,Asian,LMI,andLMI tractborrowers.

» ExceededCitybenchmarkfortwodenialratios,andranked5thforminoritytonon-minoritytractdenialratio.


» Issued161primehomepurchaseloans,adecreaseof49.4percentfrom2008.

» Scored1stindenialrateofminoritytractapplicantsrelativetonon-minoritytractapplicantsin2009.

» Rankedlast(7th)inpercentofprimeloanstoAfrican-American,minoritytract,andfemaleborrowers.In2008,TDBankdidnotranklastinanycategoryforhomepurchaselending.

» ExceededtheCitybenchmarkforAsiandenialratios.


» Issued94primehomerefinanceloans,anincreaseof129percentfrom2008.

» Didnotrank1stinanycategory.

» Scoredlast(8th)inpercentageofloanstoAfrican-Americanborrowers.



» MetorexceededCityaveragesforpercentageofloanstoAsian,LMI,andLMItractborrowers,inadditiontoexceedingtheCity’sdenialratioaverageforHispanicandminoritytractapplicants.


» Issued18primehomeimprovementloans,adecreaseof28percentfrom2008to2009.

» ExceededtheCitybenchmarkintwooutoffourdenialratios:HispanictowhiteandAsiantowhitedenialratio.

» Scoredlast(6th)inthepercentofloanstoAfricanAmericansforthesecondyearinarow.

» MetorexceededCityaveragesforthepercentageofloanstoHispanic,Asian,LMItract,andfemaleborrowers.

6.4.9 Wells Fargo (Wachovia Corporation)

6.4.9.1 All Loans

» Issued3,665primeloansin2009,anincreaseof141percentbetween2008and2009.WellsFargoissuedthegreatestnumberofprimeloansofanyCitydepository,atmorethandoubletheamountissuedbythenextdepository(BankofAmerica)3.

» Thenumberofapplicationsincreasedby55.6percentanddenialsdecreasedby18.8percentin2009.

» MetorexceededCitybenchmarkswithrespecttopercentofprimeloanstoHispanicandAsianborrowers.

» MetorexceededallCitybenchmarksfordenialratiosforeverycategory,atrendsimilarto2008.

» Ranked8thwithrespecttopercentofprimeloanstominoritytractandLMIborrowers,whileranking9thinpercentageofloanstoLMItractborrowers.


» Issued1,149primehomepurchaseloansin2009,upfrom427in2008.

» MetorexceededCitybenchmarksforpercentageofloanstoHispanic,Asian,andfemaleborrowers.In2008,WellsFargo/Wachoviarankedlastinpercentageofprimeloanstofemaleborrowers.

» FailedtomeetorexceedCityaveragesinpercentofloanstoAfrican-American,minoritytract,LMI,andLMItractborrowers.

» MetorexceededCityaveragefortwooutoffourdenialrates:Hispanicandminoritytractapplicants.

3. In addition, about 400 additional prime loans were originated via subsidiaries of Wells Fargo that were not listed in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council websites as being held by Wells Fargo during Calendar Year 2009




» Issued2,145primehomerefinanceloans,upfrom1,045in2008.

» MetorexceededCitybenchmarksforpercentageofloanstoAfrican-American,Hispanic,andAsianborrowers.

» Rankedlast(8th)inpercentofloansissuedtoLMIborrowersin2009.

» Ranked1stindenialratioofHispanictowhiteborrowersandmetorexceededCitybenchmarksfortheotherthreedenialcategories.


» Issued101primehomeimprovementloans,upfrom48in2008.

Table 6.7: Selected 2009 Results for City Depositories – Home Purchase Loan

DEPOSITORy APPLICATIONS PRIMELOANSORIgINATED

RANk%OFLOANSTOAFRICAN

AMERICANS

RANk%OFLOANSTOHISPANICS

RANk%OFLOANSTOASIANS

RANk%OFLOANSTOLMI

BORROWERS

RANk%OFLOANSINLMITRACTS

RANkAFRICAN-AMERICANTOWHITEDENIALRATIO

RANkHISPANICTOWHITEDENIALRATIO

RANkASIANTO

WHITEDENIALRATIO


BANk)

835

579 1 2 7 1 2 5 7 5

BANkOFAMERICA

1,054

710 6 7 1 3 4 7 2 4


419

250 2 1 5 2 1 2 6 7

M&TBANk 74

42 4 5 4 7 3 3 1 1

PNC 188

153 3 6 6 6 7 1 4 2

TDBANk 363

161 7 4 2 4 5 6 5 3

WELLSFARgO 2,197

1,419 5 3 3 5 6 4 3 6

ALLDEPOSITORIES

5,192

3,351

ALLLENDERS 14,479

9,356



» Scored1stinthepercentageofloanstoHispanicborrowers,forthesecondyearinarow.

» Rankedlast(6th)inthepercentageofloanstominoritytract,LMItract,andfemaleborrowers.

» DidnotmeetorexceedtheCityaveragesforanyofthedenialratiocategories.

Table 6.8: Selected 2009 Results for City Depositories – Home Refinance Loans

DEPOSITORy APPLICATIONSPRIMELOANS

ORIgINATED


AMERICANS

RANk%OF

LOANSTOHISPANICS

RANk%OFLOANSTO

ASIANS

RANk%OFLOANSTOLMI

BORROWERS



RANkHISPANIC

TOWHITEDENIALRATIO

RANkASIANTO

WHITEDENIALRATIO


BANk)

573

378 6 6 2 1 7 8 8 5

BANkOFAMERICA

2,077

998 3 1 1 3 3 2 2 4


681

267 5 5 5 2 6 6 5 7

CITIgROuP 1,024

213 2 3 6 5 1 5 4 3

M&TBANk 63

39 7 8 8 6 8 1 7 1

PNC 675

272 1 2 7 7 2 4 6 8

TDBANk 288

94 8 7 3 4 4 7 3 6

WELLSFARgO 5,025

2,145 4 4 4 8 5 3 1 2

ALLDEPOSITORIES

10,415

4,411

ALLLENDERS 33,030

14,569



Table 6.9: Selected 2009 Results for City Depositories – Home Improvement Loans

DEPOSITORy APPLICATIONSPRIMELOANS

ORIgINATED


AMERICANS

RANk%OF

LOANSTOHISPANICS

RANk%OFLOANSTO

ASIANS

RANk%OFLOANSTOLMI

BORROWERS



RANkHISPANIC

TOWHITEDENIALRATIO

RANkASIANTO

WHITEDENIALRATIO

BANkOFAMERICA

82

25 5 3 1 2 3 6 6 1

CITIZENSFINANCIALgROuP,INC

267

26 1 4 4 1 1 3 1 5

CITIgROuP 155

7 3 6 6 6 4 1 4 6

PNC 243

38 2 5 2 3 5 2 3 2

TDBANk 160

18 6 2 3 4 2 4 2 3

WELLSFARgO 390

101 4 1 5 5 6 5 5 4

ALLDEPOSITORIES

1,387

228

ALLLENDERS 2,605

565

ALLLENDERS 14,479

9,356

7.0 Small Business Lending



7.0 Small Business Lending 7.1 Small Business Lending Overall – Philadelphia

AccordingtoCommunityReinvestmentAct(CRA)data,12,365loanswithanaggregatevalueof$580.7millionweremadetosmallbusinessinPhiladelphiaduring2009.3,870ofthoseloansweremadetosmallbusinesseswithannualrevenuesoflessthan$1million.Allofthesetotalsweredownfrom2006,2007,and2008totals(seeTable7.1).

Table 7.1: Small Business Lending Activity in Philadelphia

TOTALDOLLARSLOANEDTOSMALLBuSINESSESIN

PHILADELPHIA($M)

TOTALSMALLBuSINESSLOANSINPHILADELPHIA

TOTALLOANSTOSMALLBuSINESSESINPHILADELPHIA

WITHANNuALREvENuESOFLESSTHAN$1MILLION

2006 $881 34,844 11,704

2007 $926 37,173 12,915

2008 $802 28,533 8,216

2009 $581 12,365 3,870

%DIFFERENCE2008-2009 -28% -57% -53%

%DIFFERENCE2007-2009 -37% -67% -70%

(See Appendix 2: Tables 68-77)

7.2 Small Business Lending by Tract Income Level – Philadelphia

50.4percentofloansmadetosmallbusinessesinPhiladelphiaweremadetothoselocatedinlowandmoderateincomeareas.Thiscomparesto62.2percentofsmallbusinessesinPhiladelphiathatarelocatedinlowandmoderateincometracts(seeTable7.2)



Table 7.2: Distribution of Loans to Small Businesses in Philadelphia by Tract Income Level

TRACTINCOMELEvELNuMBEROFLOANSIN

PHILADELPHIA

PERCENTAgEOFLOANSINPHILADELPHIA

NuMBEROFSMALLBuSINESSES

PERCENTAgEOFSMALLBuSINESSESINPHILADELPHIA

LOWINCOME 1,978 16.0% 24,914 24.8%

MODERATEINCOME 4,257 34.4% 37,602 37.4%

MIDDLEINCOME 3,533 28.6% 23,925 23.8%

uPPERINCOME 2,126 17.2% 11,963 11.9%

TRACTORINCOMENOTkNOWN 471 3.8% 21,22 2.1%

TOTAL 12,365 100.0% 100,526 100%

53.7percentofloansmadetobusinesseswithlessthan$1millioninrevenueweremadetothosebusinesseslocatedinlowandmoderateincomeareas.Thiscomparesto63.0percentofbusinesseswithlessthan$1millioninrevenuethatarelocatedinlowandmoderateincometracts(seeTable7.3).

Table 7.3: Distribution of Loans to Small Businesses with Revenues less than $1million in Philadelphia by Tract Income Level

TRACTINCOMELEvELNuMBEROFLOANSIN

PHILADELPHIA

PERCENTAgEOFLOANSINPHILADELPHIA

NuMBEROFSMALLBuSINESSES

PERCENTAgEOFSMALLBuSINESSESINPHILADELPHIA

LOWINCOME 672 17.4% 18,382 24.7%

MODERATEINCOME 1,365 35.3% 28,520 38.3%

MIDDLEINCOME 1,110 28.7% 18,097 24.3%

uPPERINCOME 640 16.5% 84,04 11.3%

TRACTORINCOMENOTkNOWN 83 2.1% 1,083 1.5%

TOTAL 3,870 100.0% 74,468 100.0%




7.3 Small Business Lending by Tract Minority Level – Philadelphia

Forsmallbusinesses,includingthosewithrevenuesoflessthan$1million,moreloansweremadeinnon-minorityareasthaninminorityareas.Forbothcategoriesofsmallbusinesses,theratioofloansfornon-minorityareastominorityareaswasmorethan2:1(seeTable7.4).

Table 7.4: Percentage of Loans to Small Business in Philadelphia by Minority Status


7.4 Small Business Lending by Tract Income Level – Philadelphia vs. Suburban Counties

Aswasthecaseinpreviousyears,noloansweremadetobusinesseslocatedinlow–incomeareasforBucksCountyorChesterCountyin2009.Loanstosmallbusinessesinmoderate-incomearearepresented4.7percentofloansmadeinBucksCounty(downfrom4.9percentin2008)and2.8percentofthosemadeinChesterCounty(downfrom3.2percentin2008).Loanstobusinessesinlow-andmoderate-incomeareasofDelawareCountyrepresented7.9percent(downfrom8.3percentin2008)ofthetotalloanstosmallbusinesses.InMontgomeryCounty,thenumberofloansmadetosmallbusinessesinlow-andmoderate-incomeareasrepresented4.2percentofloans(upfrom3.2percentin2008)(seeTable7.5).

100.0%

90.0%

LOANSMADETO SMALLBuSINESSES

80.0%

70.0%

LOANSMADETO SMALLBuSINESSES<$1MINANNuALREvENuE

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%LOANSMADEINMINORITyAREAS

LOANSMADEIN NON-MINORITy

AREAS

30.7% 32.6%

66.6% 65.9%



Table 7.5: Percentage of Loans in Low- and Moderate-Income areas for Philadelphia and the Suburban Counties.

Thepercentageofloanstosmallbusinessesinlow-andmoderate-incomeareasisfargreaterforPhiladelphiathanforitssurroundingscounties.ComparinglendinginPhiladelphiawithlendinginthesuburbancountiesbyincomelevelsandbyminoritystatusforbusinesseswithrevenueslessthan$1million,Philadelphiahasahigherperformanceratio.Additionally,therateoflendingtosmallbusinessesinlow-andmoderate-incomeareasisgreaterforPhiladelphiathanforthesuburbancountiescombined(seeTable7.6).

60.0%

50.0%

ALLSMALL BuSINESSLOANS

40.0%

30.0%

LOANSTOSMALLBuSINESS<$1MINANNuALREvENuE

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

BuCkS CHESTER DELAWARE MONTgOMERy PHILADELPHIA

4.9% 4.9% 3.2% 2.8%

8.3% 8.2%3.8% 3.6%

52.1% 51.3%



Table 7.6: Percentage of Loans to Small Businesses by Tract Income Level for Philadelphia and the Suburbs


7.5 Small Business Lending by Tract Minority Level – Philadelphia vs. Suburban Counties

Oftheapproximately74,500smallbusinesseswithannualrevenuesoflessthan$1millioninPhiladelphia,43percentarelocatedinminorityareas.Incontrast,alittlelessthan3percentofsmallbusinesseswithrevenueslessthan$1millionarelocatedinminorityareasinthesuburbancounties.1

In2009,nearly29percentofallsmallbusinessloansintheCitywereinminorityareas,comparedto1.4percentforthesuburbancounties.Forsmallbusinesseswithrevenueslessthan$1million,thepercentagewasnearly31percentand1.3percentrespectively.giventhattheCityhasahigherproportionofsmallbusinessesinminorityareas,comparedtothesuburbancounties,ahigherproportionofsmallbusinesslendingisexpectedtooccurinminorityareas.However,thepercentofloansthatgotominorityareasismuchclosertothepercentofbusinessesinminorityareasintheCitythaninthesuburbs.ThissuggeststhatbusinesseslocatedinpredominatelyminoritycommunitiesarebetterservedintheCitythaninthesuburbs.

AlthoughtheCityoutperformedthesuburbsinlendingtosmallbusinessesinlow-andmoderate-incomeareas,aswellasinareaswherethemajorityofthepopulationisminority,thepercentageofloansinareasofPhiladelphiawithlargeminoritypopulationsisstilldisproportionatelysmallerthanfornon-minorityareas.


70.0%

60.0%

PHILADELPHIA

50.0%

40.0%

SuBuRBS

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%LOWINCOME

MODERATEINCOME

MIDDLEINCOME

uPPERINCOME

16.9%

0.4%

35.2%

4.4%

28.4% 28.7%

15.7%

63.2%

1. The suburban proportion is based on 2006 data.

8.0 Rankings of Depositories - Small business Lending


8.0 Rankings of Depositories - Small Business Lending

8.0 Rankings of Depositories - Small Business Lending 8.1 Small Business Lending - Methodology

SmallbusinesslendinginallcategoriesamongtheCitydepositoriesrepresentedover40percentofthetotalsmallbusinesslendingreportedinPhiladelphia.ToranktheCitydepositoriesonsmallbusinesslending,wereviewedthe2009InstitutionDisclosureStatementsfor10ofthe12depositories.DatawasnotavailableforAdvanceBankorunitedBank.

Therewerefivefactors,equallyweighted,consideredintherankingoftheninebanks.Eachbankwasgivenarating(1to9,where9isthehighestrating)oneachofthefactorsrelatingtoperformanceinPhiladelphiaCounty.Ratingswereassignedbasedonwhereeachinstitutionplacedinrelationtofellowinstitutions(seeTable8.1).

Table 8.1: Factors upon Which City Depositories Were Ranked in Small Business Lending

FACTOR DESCRIPTION

MarketshareofloanstosmallbusinessesinPhiladelphia(MStoSB)

Thisshowstherankingoftheindividualbankbasedonitsperformanceinrelationtoallinstitutionsservingthecityintermsofpercentageofloansmadetosmallbusinesses.

Marketshareofloanstothesmallestofsmallbusinesses(MStoSSB)

Thisshowstherankingoftheindividualbankbasedonitsperformanceinrelationtoallinstitutionsservingthecityintermsofpercentageofloanstosmallbusinesseswithrevenuesoflessthanonemilliondollars.

Lendingtosmallbusinesseslocatedinlowandmoderateincomeareas(LMI/MS)

Thisshowstherankingoftheindividualbankbasedonitsperformanceinrelationtoallinstitutionsservingthecityintermsofpercentageofloanstosmallbusinessesinlow-andmoderate-incomeareas.

Rankingamongdepositoriesforsmallbusinesslendingtothesmallestbusinesses(SSB/OtherDepositories)

Thisshowstheindividualbank’sperformanceinrelationtotheotherfivedepositoriesforlendingtosmallestbusinessesandisindicatedbythepercentageofitsowntotallendingtosmallbusinessesthatgoestosmallbusinesseswithrevenuesoflessthanonemilliondollars.

Rankingamongdepositoriesforsmallbusinesslendinginlowandmoderateincomeareas(LMI/OtherDepositories)

Thisshowstheindividualbank’sperformanceinrelationtotheotherfivedepositoriesforlendingtosmallbusinessesinlowandmoderateincomeareasasindicatedbythepercentageofitsownsmallbusinesslendingthatgoestolow-andmoderate-incomeareas.



Thesefivefactorswereselectedbecausetheyshowperformanceinrelationtotheentirecityandamongthedepositoriesonkeylendingpracticesaffectinglow-andmoderate-incomeandminoritybusinesses.Thesefactorsalsotakeintoconsiderationservicetothesmallestbusinesses(thosewithrevenueslessthan$1million).

8.2 Small Business Lending - Results

Ratingsweretotaledforeachbank,resultinginanoverallscorebyinstitution(seeTable8.2).

Table 8.2: Factor-by-Factor Rankings of City Depositories in Small Business Lending (1 to 9, Where 9 is the Highest Rating)

INSTITuTION MSTOSB

MSTOSSB LMI/MS SSB/OTHER

DEPOSITORIESLMI/OTHERDEPOSITORIES

TOTALSCORE

PNC 10 10 10 8 6 44

CITIgROuP 9 9 9 3 8 38

WELLSFARgO 8 8 8 4 5 33

BANkOFAMERICA 7 7 6 6 4 30

CITIZENS 6 6 7 2 7 28

SOvEREIgN 4 4 4 7 9 28

TDBANk 5 5 5 9 3 27

M&TBANk 3 2 3 1 10 19

REPuBLICFIRST 2 3 2 10 2 19

MELLON 1 1 1 5 1 9



8.3 Small Business Lending - Rankings

Basedonthetotalscoresshownabove,theninedepositorieswererankedasfollows (seeTable8.3):

Table 8.3: Ranking of City Depositories in Small Business Lending

INSTITuTION 2009 RANkINg

2008 RANkINg

2007 RANkINg

2006 RANkINg

PNCBANk 1 2 2 1

CITIgROuP 2 1 1 N/A

WELLSFARgO 3 6 T4 3

BANkOFAMERICA 4 3 3 5

CITIZENS 5 T4 7 2

SOvEREIgNBANk 6 T4 T4 N/A

TDBANk 7 7 N/A N/A

M&TBANk 8 N/A N/A N/A

REPuBLICFIRSTBANk 9 8 6 N/A

BANkOFNEWyORk/MELLON 10 9 9 6

In2009,PNCrankedfirst,comparedtoasecondplacein2008.Thehighestrankedfrom2008and2007,Citigrouprankedsecondplacein2009.WellsFargoadvancedfromsixthplacetothird,whileBankofAmericamoveddowntofourthplacefromthird.Fromatieatfourthplacein2008,CitizensBankmoveddowntofifthandSovereignBankmovedtosixth,andforathirdyearinarow,BankofNewyork/Mellonrankedlast.Initsfirstyearintherankings,M&Tranked8th.

9.0 Bank Branch Analysis



9.0 Bank Branch Analysis 9.1 Overall

Therewere338bankbranchesinPhiladelphiain2009,accordingtotheFDIC’sInstitutionDirectoryandSummaryofDeposits,downfrom354in2008.Forthepurposeofthisanalysis,branchesweredefinedasofficeswithconsumerbankingservices.232branches,oraround69percent,wereownedbyCitydepositories,whichisdownfrom236branchesin2008,butupinpercentagetermsfrom67percentin2008(seeTable9.1).1

Table 9.1: Number of Branches in Philadelphia by Depository (* = Not a Depository during that Year)

BANkS 2009 BRANCHES

%OFALL2009CITyBRANCHES

2008 BRANCHES

%OFALL2008CITyBRANCHES

ADvANCE 1 0% 1 0%

BANkOFAMERICA 19 6% 18 5%

CITIBANk 7 2% 7 2%

CITIZENSBANk 60 18% 62 18%

CITyNATIONALBANk 1 0% * *

BANkOFNEWyORk/MELLON 2 1% 2 1%

M&T 8 2% * *

PNC 42 12% 42 12%

REPuBLICFIRST 7 2% 7 2%

SOvEREIgN 17 5% 17 5%

TDBANk 20 6% 29 8%

uNITEDBANkOFPHILADELPHIA 4 1% 4 1%

WELLSFARgO 44 13% 47 13%

ALLDEPOSITORIES 232 69% 236 67%

NON-DEPOSITORIES 106 31% 118 33%

ALLBANkS 338 100% 354 100%

1. FDIC Summary of Deposit data available as of June 2009 was used for this report.



» TherewerefourfewerCitydepositorybranchesin2009than2008,althoughthedeclinewouldhavebeengreatersavefortheadditionofM&TBankandCityNationalasdepositories.

» Therewere12fewernon-depositorybanksin2009thanin2008.ThisisinfluencedbyM&TandCityNationalBankbecomingdepositories,whichrepresentedbothanincreaseindepositorybanksandadecreaseinnon-depositorybanks.

» BankofAmericaaddedonenetbranch,Citizenslosttwo,WellsFargolostthree,andTDBanklostnine;allotherbanksmaintainedthesamenumberofbranchesasin2008.

» Duetothefactthatmostdepositorieshavearelativelysmallnumberofbranches,thepercentageofbranchesinminorityorlow-to-moderate-income(LMI)areascanquicklychangewiththeopeningorclosingofjustoneortwooffices.


9.2 Branch Locations in Minority Areas

» Twenty-threepercentofallbrancheswereinareasthatweremorethan50percentminority,whichwasslightlyabovethe22percentofallbranchesthatwerelocatedinminorityareasin2008.

» Over26percentofthedepositorybrancheswerelocatedinminorityareasin2009,upfrom25percentin2008andhigherthanthecitywideratioof23percentofallbranchesinareasthatweremorethan50percentminority.

» Sevenoutofthe13depositoriessurpassedtheCitywideratioof23percent.Sixoutof11didin2008.

» Citibank,BankofNewyork/Mellon,andRepublicFirsthadnobrancheslocatedinminorityareas,whichisunchangedfrom2008.

» BankofAmericaisupfrom2008,withtheadditionofabranchinaminorityarea.TDBankisupfrom2008asaresultofclosingseveralbranchesinnon-minorityareas.Bothremainbelowthecitybenchmark.

» Fifty-twopercentofcensustractsweremorethanhalfminority.OnlyAdvance(1outof1)andunited(3outof4)surpassedthecensusbenchmark.

(See Appendix 3: Maps 11, 13)

9.3 Branch Locations in LMI Areas

» In200957percentofallbrancheswereinLow-to-Moderate-Income(LMI)areas,whichhaveamedianincomeoflessthan80percentoftheareamedian.Thiswasthesameasin2008.

» 58percentofCitydepositorieshadbranchesinLMIareasin2009,comparedto57percentofallbankbranchesCitywide.ThepercentageofCitydepositoriesinthisareaisupfrom57percentin2008.EightCitydepositoriessurpassthisbenchmark.



» Advance,CityNational,M&T,PNC,Republic,Sovereign,unitedBank,andWellsFargosurpassedtheCitywidebenchmarkforlocatingbranchesinLMIareas.AdvanceandCityNational’ssolebranches,75percentofM&T’sbranches,86percentofRepublic’sbranches,58percentofSovereign’s,75percentofunitedBank’sbranches,and68percentofWellsFargo’sbrancheswerelocatedinLMIareas.

» BankofNewyork/Mellon,Citizens,andTDBankwerewithin6percentagepointsfromachievingthe2009benchmark,whileBankofAmericaandCitibankweremorethantenpercentagepointsofachievingthe2009benchmark.

» Sixty-fivepercentofcensustractsintheCityareLMItracts.Advance,CityNational,M&T,unitedBank,RepublicFirst,andWellsFargowereabletoreachthisgoal.

(See Appendix 3: Map 12)

9.4 Conclusion

» ThemajorityofCitydepositoriescontinuedtodoabetterjoblocatingbranchesinminorityareasthanallbanks,thoughfewsurpassedthecensusbenchmarkforminoritytracts.

» AmajorityofCitydepositories(eight)didmeetorexceedtheCitywidebankbenchmarkforlocatingbranchesinLMIareas.

10.0 Neighborhood Analysis



10.0 Neighborhood Analysis 10.1 Neighborhoods Analyzed

ThehomeandbusinesslendingpracticesinnineCityneighborhoodswereexamined.Theseneighborhoodscontaincensustractsclassifiedasminorityandlow-to-moderate-income(LMI).Allnineneighborhoodsarelocatedinareaswherecommunitydevelopmentcorporationsandempowermentzoneshavebeenestablished.Theseareasandtheircorrespondingentitiesandcensustractsarelistedbelow:

» AssociationofPuertoRicansontheMarch(APM)–156

» HispanicAssociationofContractors&Enterprises(HACE)–175,176.01,176.02,195

» AlleghenyWestFoundation(AWF)–170,171,172,173

» OgontzAvenueRevitalizationCommittee(OARC)–262,263.01,263.02,264,265,266,267

» ProjectHome–151,152,168,169.01

» People’sEmergencyCenter(PEC)–90,91,108,109

» AmericanStreetEmpowermentZone–144,156,157,162,163

» NorthCentralEmpowermentZone–140,141,147,148,165

» WestPhiladelphiaEmpowermentZone–105,111


10.2 Demographics and Lending Practices by Neighborhood (see Table 10.1)

10.2.1 Asociación Puertorriqueños en Marcha

AsociaciónPuertorriqueñosenMarcha(APM)islocatedinthenortheasternsectionofPhiladelphia.Morethanthree-quartersofthisarea’shouseholdsareHispanic,givingAPMthelargestHispanicpopulationofallneighborhoodsexaminedinthissection.ThenextlargestgroupisAfricanAmericans(14percentofhouseholds).Themedianfamilyincomeisapproximately36percentoftheregionalmedianfamilyincome.Thereare289owner-occupiedhousingunits(OOHus)intheAPMneighborhood,whichislessthan0.1percentofallOOHusintheCity.

In2009,atotalof2loansweremadeintheAPMneighborhood,downfrom2008(where12weremade).Asinpreviousyears,APMreceivedthefewestloansofanyneighborhoodexamined.Oneofthoseloanswasaprimeloanandtheotherwassubprime.Theseloansrepresentlessthan0.01percentofallloansintheCity,includinglessthan0.01percentofallprimeloansand0.06percentofallsubprimeloans.



10.2.2 Hispanic Association of Contractors & Enterprises

TheHispanicAssociationofContractors&Enterprises(HACE)islocatedwithintheneighborhoodsurroundingtheNorthFifthStreetclusterofkeyLatinoneighborhoodbusinessesandculturalinstitutions.Hispanichouseholdsmakeup75percentofallhouseholdsinthisneighborhood,and19percentofallhouseholdsareAfrican-American.Withamedianfamilyincomeofonly24percentoftheregionalmedianfamilyincome,HACEisthepoorestofthenineneighborhoodsevaluatedforthisstudy.Theneighborhoodcontains4,022OOHus,approximatelyonepercentofallCityOOHus.

Atotalof70loansweremadewithintheHACEcommunityin2009,adecreasefrom121in2008.Theseloansrepresented0.3percentofallloansmadeintheCity,asmallersharethantheportionofOOHuscontainedinthisneighborhood(1.2percent).LendersprovidedHACEborrowerswith41primeloansand29subprimeloans(0.2percentofallCityprimeand1.7percentofallCitysubprimeloans).Asin2008and2009,theneighborhoodreceivedahighershareofsubprimeloansandasmallershareofprimeloansincomparisontotheirshareofOOHus.

10.2.3 Allegheny West Foundation

TheAlleghenyWestFoundation(AWF)islocatedinNorthPhiladelphia,apredominatelyAfrican-Americanneighborhood.Ninety-fourpercentofallhouseholdsareAfrican-AmericanandonepercentareHispanic.AWFhasamedianfamilyincomethatis46percentoftheregionalmedianfamilyincome.Theneighborhoodiscomprisedoffourcensustractsandcontains4,584units,whichismorethanonepercentoftheCity’stotalOOHus.

BorrowersfromtheAWFneighborhoodreceivedatotalof60loansin2009,adecreaseof49loansfromlastyear.Over73percentoftheseloanswereprimeand26.7percentweresubprime.AWFborrowersreceived0.2percentofallloansoriginatedinPhiladelphia,buttheneighborhoodcontains1.3percentofCity-wideOOHus.LendersgaveborrowersfromthissectionoftheCitya0.2shareofCityprimeloans)andanda1.0percentshareofsubprimeloans.

10.2.4 Ogontz Avenue Revitalization Corporation

TheOgontzAvenueRevitalizationCorporation(OARC)islocatedintheWestOakLanesectionoftheCity.Ninety-sixpercentoftotalhouseholdsintheneighborhoodareAfrican-American,while0.8percentoftheneighborhood’stotalhouseholdsareHispanic.Thoughthemedianfamilyincomeisonly76percentoftheregionalmedianfamilyincome,itisthehighestofthenineneighborhoods.OARCisalsothelargestofthenineneighborhoodsdiscussedinthissectionandtypicallyreceivesthemostloans(fromeachdepositorandoverall).ItcontainssevencensustractsandthreepercentofallCityOOHusarelocatedthere.

TheOARCcommunityreceived576loansin2009,thelargestamountofthenineneighborhoods.Thenumberoforiginatedloansdecreasedby160from2008.Theseloansmadeup2.2percentofallloansissuedintheCity.Nearly88percentoftheloansreceivedinOARCwereprimeloansand12percentweresubprimeloans.



10.2.5 Project HOME

TheProjectHOMEneighborhoodislocatedneartheSpringgardensectionoftheCity.Ninety-eightpercentofitshouseholdsareAfrican-American,makingitthelargestAfrican-Americanpopulationofalltheneighborhoodsdetailedinthisstudy.LessthanonepercentofallhouseholdsareHispanic.Themedianfamilyincomeis34percentoftheregionalmedianfamilyincomeandthe3,894housingunitslocatedinthisareacompriseapproximatelyonepercentoftheCity’stotalowner-occupiedunits.

Lendersprovided51loanstotheProjectHOMEneighborhoodin2009,82percentofwhichwereprimeand18percentweresubprimeloans.Theseloansaccountedfor0.2percentofallloansmadeinPhiladelphia.WithrespecttotheirshareoftheCity’sOOHus,theborrowersintheProjectHOMEneighborhoodreceivedalowershareofsubprimeloansandprimeloans.

10.2.6 Peoples’ Emergency Center

ThePeoples’EmergencyCenter(PEC)neighborhoodislocatedintheCity’sWestPhiladelphiasection.Thisneighborhoodcontainsfourcensustractsand1,445OOHus,whichisapproximately0.4percentofallCityunits.Nearlytwo-thirdsofhouseholdsinthisneighborhoodareAfrican-AmericanandapproximatelythreepercentareHispanic.ThemedianfamilyincomeforPECis36percentoftheregionalmedianfamilyincome.

In2009,51loansweremadetoborrowersinthePECneighborhood.Thiswasaincreaseof10loansfrom2008.Eighty-sixpercentoforiginatedloanswereprime.BorrowersinthePECneighborhoodreceived0.2percentofallloansmadeintheCity.

10.2.7 American Street Empowerment Zone

TheAmericanStreetEmpowermentZoneislocatedintheOlneysectionoftheCity.ItspopulationispredominatelyHispanic,withtwo-thirdsoftotalhouseholdsbeingfromthisethnicgroup.SeventeenpercentofthehouseholdsareAfrican-American.Thezoneiscomprisedoffivecensustractsandcontains2,165owner-occupiedhousingunits,or0.6percentofthetotalowner-occupiedhousingunitsintheCityofPhiladelphia.Themedianfamilyincomeis37percentoftheregionalmedianfamilyincome.

BorrowersintheAmericanStreetEmpowermentZonereceived113loansin2009,adecreaseof10loansfrom2008.Theseloanscomprised0.4percentofallloansmadeintheCity.Eighty-fourpercentoftheseloanswereprime(anincreaseof7percentover2008and17percentover2007).



10.2.8 North Central Empowerment Zone

TheNorthCentralEmpowermentZoneislocatedinNorthPhiladelphiaandiscomprisedoffivecensustractsand1,339OOHus,or0.4percentofCityunits.NorthCentralis90percentAfrican-American.FivepercentofhouseholdsareHispanic.ThemedianfamilyincomeforNorthCentralis33percentoftheregionalmedianfamilyincome.

Only51loansweremadein2009withintheNorthCentralneighborhood,adecreaseofsevenloansover2008.Theseloanscomprisedonly0.19percentofallCitylending.Seventy-eightpercentoforiginatedloanswereprime,largelyunchangedfrom79percentin2008,butstillupfromfrom55percentin2006and2007.

10.2.9 West Philadelphia Empowerment Zone

TheWestPhiladelphiaEmpowermentZoneislocatedintheWestPhiladelphiasectionoftheCity.Ninety-fivepercentofhouseholdsintheareaareAfrican-AmericanandlessthanonepercentareHispanic.Theneighborhoodcontainstwocensustractsand1,399OOHus(0.4percent)oftheCity.Themedianfamilyincomeforthisareais41percentoftheregionalmedianfamilyincome.

In2009,lendersprovided17loanstotheWestPhiladelphiaEmpowermentZone,downfrom26in2008.Ofalloftheneighborhoodsexamined,theWestPhiladelphiaEmpowermentZonehadthesecondlowestnumberofloans,behindonlyAPM.Overseventy-sixpercentofthoseloanswereprime,downfrom85percentin2008.Only0.1percentofallloansmadeinPhiladelphiawenttotheWestPhiladelphiaEmpowermentZone.

Table 10.1: Demographics and Lending Practices by Neighborhood

ORgANIZATION LOCATIONMAJORETHNICgROuP

2000MEDIANINCOMEASA%OFREgIONALMEDIAN

INCOME#LOANS %LOANSTHAT

WERESuBPRIME

APM NPHILA HISP 36% 2 50.0%

HACE N5THST HISP 24% 70 41.4%

AWF NPHILA AFRAM 46% 60 26.7%

OARC WOAkLN AFRAM 76% 576 12.3%

PROJECTHOME SPRgRDN AFRAM 34% 51 17.6%

PEC WPHILA AFRAM 36% 51 13.7%

AMERICANSTEZ kENSINgTON HISP 36% 113 15.9%

NORTHCENTRALEZ NPHILA AFRAM 33% 51 21.6%

WESTPHILAEZ WPHILA AFRAM 41% 17 23.5%



10.3 Depository Lending Practices by Neighborhood

10.3.1 Advance Bank

Ofthe27totalloansmadeintheCityofPhiladelphiabyAdvanceBank,onlyonewasmadeinoneofthenineneighborhoodsexamined.TheloanwasmadeinthePECneighborhood.


BankofAmericaprovided108loanstoborrowersintheneighborhoodsexaminedaspartofthisanalysis.LendingbyBankofAmericatotheseneighborhoodsrepresented3.3percentofallloansthebankoriginatedintheCity.Thirty-sixofthoseloanswereinOARC;BankofAmerica’smarketshare,however,wasonly6.2percentinthisneighborhood.ItsmarketshareofallCitylendingwas6.8percent,comparedwith6.0inthenineneighborhoods.

10.3.3 CitiGroup

Citigroupmadeatotalof13loanstoborrowersinfourofthenineCDCneighborhoods.Itissued4.2percentofitsPhiladelphialendingtotheseborrowers.Citigrouporiginated1.3percentofalllendingtothenineneighborhoods,comparedwith4.5percentmarketshareofalllendingintheCity.Aswithallotherbanks,thepluralityofCitigroup’slending(13loans)wasmadeintheOARCarea,constitutingaportfolioshare3.2percent.

10.3.4 Citizens Bank

CitizensBankmadeatotalof58loans,or8.0percentofallofitsCitylending,inthenineneighborhoods.Itmadeloansineveryneighborhood,expectforAPM.Thirty-eightpercentoftheseloansweremadeintheOARCneighborhood.Citizenswrote3.8percentofallloansinthatneighborhood,andthose22loansrepresent3.1percentofalllendingdonebyCitizensintheCity.

10.3.5 City National

CityNationaldidnotmakeanyloansintheCity.

10.3.6 Bank of New York / Mellon

BankofNewyork/Mellonmadeonly4loansintheCity,andnoneoftheloanswereintheneighborhoodsexaminedinthissection.

10.3.7 M&T Bank

M&TBankmadeatotalof5loans,or5.3percentofallofitsCitylending,inthenineneighborhoods.Itmadeloansinthreeofthenineneighborhoods.



10.3.8 PNC Bank

Borrowersinthenineneighborhoodsreceived27loansfromPNCbank,downfrom36loansin2008.Theseloansrepresented5.2percentoflendingbyPNCintheCityofPhiladelphia.WithintheCDCneighborhoods,PNCheldamarketshareof2.8percent.Aswithalloftheotherde-positories,themajorityofPNC’sloansinthenineneighborhoodswenttotheOARCarea,whichreceived17loans.

10.3.9 Republic First Bank

RepublicFirstBankdidnotmakeanyloansintheneighborhoodsexaminedaspartofthisanalysis.

10.3.10 Sovereign Bank

Sovereignoriginated76loanstosevenoutofthenineCDCneighborhoods,thesecondlargesttotalafterWellsFargo.Thisconstitutes7.7percentofalllendingtotheseareas,comparedwitha4.1percentmarketshareofoveralllendingintheCity.MostofthelendingissuedbySovereigntotheCDCneighborhoodswenttoborrowersintheOARCsection.These42loansrepresentedaportfolioshareof3.9percent.

10.3.11 TD Bank

TDBankprovidedborrowersinfiveofthenineCDCneighborhoodswithatotalof10loans.Itoriginated1.0percentofallloansinthenineneighborhoods,comparedto1.1percentofallloansintheCity.TDBankmade3.4percentofitsPhiladelphialoansinthenineneighborhoods.TDBankoriginatedthemostloansintheOARC(5).

10.3.12 United Bank

unitedBankdidnotmakeanyloansintheneighborhoodsexaminedaspartofthisanalysis.

10.3.13 Wells Fargo

WellsFargomade114loanswithinthenineneighborhoods,themostloansofanycitydeposito-ry.WellsFargomade3.0percentofallitsCityloansinthosenineareas.Itsmarketshareintheneighborhoodswas11.5percent.ItsmarketshareinallofPhiladelphiawas14.5percent.ThelargestnumberofloansbyWellsFargowasmadeintheOARCneighborhood(62loans),whereWellsFargohadamarketshareof10.7percent.




10.4 Small Business Lending in the Neighborhoods

Smallbusinesslendingwasexaminedinthenineneighborhoods,sinceinformationwasnotavailableatthecensustractlevelforindividualinstitutions.Thetablebelowshowsthenumberofsmallbusinessloansreportedinthe2009CRAdataforeachofthetargetedneighborhoods.Italsodisplaysthenumberofsmallbusinesseswithrevenueslessthan$1millionlocatedintheneighborhoods(seeTable10.2).

OARChasthelargestnumberofsmallbusinesseswithrevenueslessthan$1million,with1,337.TheOARCneighborhoodalsohadthehighestnumberofloanstosmallbusinesses,with116loanstosmallbusinessesdownfrom299in2008,and436in2007.Therewere41loanstothesmallestofsmallbusinesses,downfrom100in2008.

Theneighborhoodwiththenextlargestnumberofbusinesseswithrevenuesoflessthan$1millionwasAmericanStreet,with881businesses.Thisareahadthesecondhighestnumberofloanstosmallbusinesseswith107,whichwasdownfrom297in2008.Thisareaalsohadthesecondhighestnumberofloanstobusinesseswithrevenuesoflessthan$1millionwith39,downfrom90in2008.

Thethirdcolumnofthetablebelowshowsthepercentagesofsmallbusinessloansthatwenttobusinesseswithrevenueslessthanonemilliondollars.Inallcases,therangeofthispercentageofloansgoingtobusinesseswithrevenuesoflessthan$1millionwasbetween25percentand40percent.

Table 10.1: 2009 Small Business Loan Activity in Selected Philadelphia Neighborhoods

NEIgHBORHOOD

NuMBEROFSMALLBuSINESSLOANS

NuMBEROFLOANSTOSMALLBuSINESS<$1MILLIONIN

ANNuALREvENuE

PERCENTAgEOFLOANSTOSMALLBuSINESSESWITHANNuALREvENuES

<$1MILLION

NuMBEROFSMALLBuSINESS

NuMBEROFSMALLBuSINESSESWITH

ANNuALREvENuE<$1MILLION

APM 4 1 25% 151 101

HACE 57 23 40% 1064 834

AWF 83 31 37% 961 718

OARC 116 41 35% 1543 1337

PROJECTHOME 26 8 31% 728 591

PEC 85 30 35% 908 618

AMERICANSTEZ 107 39 36% 1185 881

NORTHCENTRALEZ 64 16 25% 926 690

WESTPHILAEZ 33 11 33% 575 418


Appendix 1 – Regression Tables

Appendix1

1 AllLenders–HomePurchaseLoans 144

2 AllLenders–HomePurchaseLoansTestforRedlining 145

3 AllLenders–HomePurchaseLoansbyPrimeandSubprime 146

4 AllLenders–HomeRefinancingLoans 147

5 AllLenders–HomeImprovementLoans 148

6 Depositories–HomePurchaseLoans 150

7 Depositories–HomePurchaseLoansTestforRedlining 152

8 Depositories–HomePurchaseLoansbyPrimeandSubprime 154

9 Depositories–HomeRefinancingLoans 156

10 Depositories–HomeImprovementLoans 158

Table of Contents



Table 1: All Lenders - Home Purchase Loans

vARIABLES COEFF SE T-STAT PvAL 95%CONFIDENCEINTERvAL

RACE(REFERENCE=WHITE) BLACk 0.610*** 0.0903 6.747 0 0.432 0.787ASIAN 0.270*** 0.0928 2.906 0.00366 0.0878 0.451HISPANIC 0.180* 0.0997 1.803 0.0714 -0.0156 0.375MISSINgRACE 0.623*** 0.0770 8.090 0 0.472 0.773gENDER(REFERENCE=FEMALE)MALE 0.172*** 0.0622 2.773 0.00556 0.0505 0.294MISSINggENDER -0.250** 0.119 -2.093 0.0363 -0.483 -0.0159BLACkMALE 0.125 0.114 1.100 0.272 -0.0977 0.347vACANCyRATE 2.416*** 0.487 4.963 6.95E-07 1.462 3.370TRACTPERCENTOFMEDIANINCOME 0.00265** 0.00131 2.028 0.0426 8.86E-05 0.00521LOg(LOANAMOuNT -0.369*** 0.0655 -5.632 1.78E-08 -0.497 -0.240LOg(INCOME) -0.394*** 0.0538 -7.317 0 -0.499 -0.288CONvENTIONALLOAN 0.530*** 0.183 2.905 0.00367 0.172 0.888FHALOAN -0.0332 0.181 -0.184 0.854 -0.387 0.321LOANTOvALuERATIO 0.100*** 0.0146 6.877 0 0.0718 0.129CONSTANT 0.511 0.342 1.493 0.135 -0.160 1.181 ***denotes 1% significance level; **denotes 5% significance level; * denotes 10% significance level

DEPENDENTvARIABLE:DENIAL

NuMBEROFOBSERvATIONS= 14327 LRCHI2(14)= 534.47 PROB>CHI2= 0.0000 LOgLIkELIHOOD= -5598.2543 PSuEDOR2= 0.0456

.TESTBLACkBLACk_MALE

(1)BLACk=0(2)BLACk_MALE=0

CHI2(2)=92.33PROB>CHI2=0.0000

MARgINALEFFECTSAFTERLOgITy=PR(DENIAL)(PREDICT)0.1299999

vARIABLES Dy/DX STD.ERROR Z P>Z 95%CONFIDENCE

LEvEL X

RACE(REFERENCE=WHITE) BLACk* 0.0785757 0.01304 6.03 0 0.053015 0.104136 0.209325ASIAN* 0.0331268 0.01231 2.69 0.007 0.008998 0.057255 0.081734HISPANIC* 0.021468 0.01254 1.71 0.087 -0.003115 0.04605 0.085712MISSINgRACE* 0.0821447 0.01156 7.11 0 0.059486 0.104804 0.161443gENDER(REFERENCE=FEMALE) MALE* 0.0194202 0.00697 2.79 0.005 0.005763 0.033078 0.537168MISSINggENDER* -0.0306672 0.01584 -1.94 0.053 -0.061708 0.000373 0.950653BLACk*MALE* 0.0146731 0.01385 1.06 0.29 -0.012479 0.041825 0.086131vACANCyRATE 0.2732271 0.05499 4.97 0 0.165452 0.381002 0.086315TRACTPERCENTOFMEDIANINCOME 0.0002999 0.00015 2.03 0.043 9.90E-06 0.00059 78.4813LOg(LOANAMOuNT) -0.041704 0.00741 -5.63 0 -0.056222 -0.027186 4.99464LOg(INCOME) -0.0445505 0.00604 -7.37 0 -0.05639 -0.032711 4.01425CONvENTIONALLOAN* 0.0617316 0.02191 2.82 0.005 0.018791 0.104672 0.434634FHALOAN* -0.0037579 0.02048 -0.18 0.854 -0.043894 0.036378 0.544287LOANTOvALuERATIO 0.0113555 0.00165 6.89 0 0.008123 0.014588 2.49767(*) dy/dx is for discrete change of a dummy variable from 0 to 1



Table 2: All Lenders - Home Purchase Loans Tests for Redlining


PERCENTMINORITyPOPuLATION 0.00741*** 0.000913 8.115 0 0.00562 0.00920MALE 0.179*** 0.0521 3.442 0.000577 0.0772 0.282MISSINggENDER -0.542*** 0.103 -5.275 1.33E-07 -0.743 -0.340vACANyRATE 0.730 0.532 1.373 0.170 -0.312 1.772TRACTPERCENTOFMEDIANINCOME 0.00416*** 0.00129 3.227 0.00125 0.00163 0.00668LOg(LOANAMOuNT) -0.411*** 0.0638 -6.445 1.16E-10 -0.536 -0.286LOg(INCOME) -0.403*** 0.0530 -7.593 0 -0.507 -0.299CONvENTIONALLOAN 0.468*** 0.180 2.599 0.00934 0.115 0.822FHALOAN -0.0895 0.180 -0.497 0.619 -0.442 0.263LOANTOvALuERATIO 0.106*** 0.0145 7.287 0 0.0773 0.134CONSTANT 1.088*** 0.324 3.359 0.000783 0.453 1.723 ***denotes 1% significance level; **denotes 5% significance level; * denotes 10% significance level

DEPENDENTvARIABLE:DENIAL NuMBEROFOBSERvATIONS= 14327 LRCHI2(14)= 472.55 PROB>CHI2= 0.0000 LOgLIkELIHOOD= -5629.2114 PSuEDOR2= 0.0403


vARIABLES Dy/DX STD.ERROR Z P>Z 95%CONFIDENCELEvEL X

PERCENTMINORITyPOPuLATION 0.0008476 0.0001 8.19 0 0.000645 0.00105 41.3692MALE* 0.0204223 0.0059 3.46 0.001 0.008858 0.031987 0.537168MISSINggENDER* -0.0737886 0.01629 -4.53 0 -0.10572 -0.041858 0.950653vACANyRATE 0.0834531 0.06079 1.37 0.17 -0.035702 0.202608 0.086315TRACTPERCENTOFMEDIANINCOME 0.0004752 0.00015 3.23 0.001 0.000187 0.000764 78.4813LOg(LOANAMOuNT) -0.0470182 0.00729 -6.45 0 -0.061311 -0.032725 4.99464LOg(INCOME) -0.046054 0.00601 -7.66 0 -0.057841 -0.034267 4.01425CONvENTIONALLOAN* 0.0549375 0.0217 2.53 0.011 0.01241 0.097465 0.434634FHALOAN* -0.0102684 0.02071 -0.5 0.62 -0.050851 0.030315 0.544287LOANTOvALuERATIO 0.0120971 0.00166 7.3 0 0.00885 0.015344 2.49767

(*) dy/dx is for discrete change of a dummy variable from 0 to 1



Table 3: All Lenders - Home Purchase Loans by Prime and Subprime


RACE(REFERENCE=WHITE) BLACk 0.417*** 0.139 2.990 0.00279 0.144 0.690ASIAN 0.502*** 0.165 3.045 0.00233 0.179 0.826HISPANIC 0.474*** 0.141 3.366 0.000764 0.198 0.751MISSINgRACE -0.609*** 0.210 -2.896 0.00378 -1.021 -0.197gENDER(REFERENCE=FEMALE) MALE -0.0684 0.110 -0.621 0.534 -0.284 0.147MISSINggENDER -0.614** 0.277 -2.216 0.0267 -1.158 -0.0710BLACkMALE -0.0597 0.181 -0.330 0.742 -0.415 0.295vACANCyRATE -1.495 0.992 -1.508 0.132 -3.439 0.449TRACTPERCENTOFMEDIANINCOME -0.00802*** 0.00302 -2.656 0.00791 -0.0139 -0.00210LOg(LOANAMOuNT) -0.795*** 0.109 -7.313 0 -1.008 -0.582LOg(INCOME) 0.151 0.0961 1.575 0.115 -0.0371 0.340CONvENTIONALLOAN -0.903*** 0.114 -7.923 0 -1.126 -0.680LOANTOvALuERATIO 0.0752** 0.0299 2.513 0.0120 0.0165 0.134CONSTANT 1.447*** 0.559 2.588 0.00964 0.351 2.543

***denotes 1% significance level; **denotes 5% significance level; * denotes 10% significance level

DEPENDENTvARIABLE:SuBPRIME NuMBEROFOBSERvATIONS= 14327 LRCHI2(14)= 361.26 PROB>CHI2= 0.0000 LOgLIkELIHOOD= -234.0646 PSuEDOR2= 0.0713



CHI2(2)=12.00PROB>CHI2=0.025

MARgINALEFFECTSAFTERLOgITy=PR(SuBPRIME)(PREDICT)0.03130692


RACE(REFERENCE=WHITE) BLACk 0.0142291 0.00536 2.66 0.008 0.003734 0.024725 0.209325ASIAN 0.0186729 0.00737 2.53 0.011 0.004222 0.033124 0.081734HISPANIC 0.0173977 0.00621 2.8 0.005 0.005227 0.029569 0.085712MISSINgRACE -0.0153967 0.00435 -3.54 0 -0.02393 -0.006864 0.161443gENDER(REFERENCE=FEMALE) MALE -0.0020791 0.00335 -0.62 0.535 -0.008653 0.004495 0.537168MISSINggENDER -0.0243846 0.01395 -1.75 0.08 -0.051727 0.002958 0.950653BLACkMALE -0.0017682 0.00524 -0.34 0.736 -0.012045 0.008508 0.086131vACANCyRATE -0.0453443 0.02983 -1.52 0.128 -0.103805 0.013117 0.086315TRACTPERCENTOFMEDIANINCOME -0.0002432 0.00009 -2.7 0.007 -0.000419 -0.000067 78.4813LOg(LOANAMOuNT) -0.0240961 0.00329 -7.33 0 -0.030542 -0.01765 4.99464LOg(INCOME) 0.0045913 0.00292 1.57 0.116 -0.001129 0.010311 4.01425CONvENTIONALLOAN -0.026636 0.00318 -8.39 0 -0.03286 -0.020412 0.434634LOANTOvALuERATIO 0.0022794 0.00091 2.52 0.012 0.000505 0.004054 2.49767(*) dy/dx is for discrete change of a dummy variable from 0 to 1



Table 4: All Lenders - Home Refinancing Loans


RACE(REFERENCE=WHITE) BLACk 0.817*** 0.0483 16.92 0 0.723 0.912ASIAN 0.422*** 0.0622 6.793 0 0.301 0.544HISPANIC 0.799*** 0.0614 13.01 0 0.679 0.920MISSINgRACE 0.0521 0.0416 1.254 0.210 -0.0293 0.134gENDER(REFERENCE=FEMALE) MALE 0.0236 0.0339 0.697 0.486 -0.0428 0.0900MISSINggENDER -0.414*** 0.0588 -7.041 0 -0.529 -0.299BLACkMALE 0.0215 0.0649 0.332 0.740 -0.106 0.149vACANCyRATE 0.433 0.280 1.546 0.122 -0.116 0.981TRACTPERCENTOFMEDIANINCOME -0.00281*** 0.000707 -3.976 7.02E-05 -0.00420 -0.00143LOg(LOANAMOuNT) 0.0559 0.0371 1.509 0.131 -0.0167 0.129LOg(INCOME) -0.513*** 0.0262 -19.60 0 -0.564 -0.462CONvENTIONALLOAN 0.0465 0.190 0.245 0.807 -0.326 0.419FHALOAN 0.0952 0.191 0.498 0.618 -0.279 0.469LOANTOvALuERATIO 0.113*** 0.0161 7.018 0 0.0813 0.144CONSTANT 0.913*** 0.243 3.756 0.000173 0.436 1.389 ***denotes 1% significance level; **denotes 5% significance level; * denotes 10% significance level

DEPENDENTvARIABLE:SuBPRIME NuMBEROFOBSERvATIONS= 29610 LRCHI2(14)= 1965.85 PROB>CHI2= 0.0000 LOgLIkELIHOOD= -16689.514 PSuEDOR2= 0.0556



CHI2(2)=496371PROB>CHI2=0.0000



RACE(REFERENCE=WHITE) BLACk* 0.1774194 0.01119 15.86 0 0.155489 0.19935 0.186525ASIAN* 0.0901347 0.01416 6.37 0 0.062385 0.117885 0.046876HISPANIC* 0.1795943 0.01499 11.98 0 0.150208 0.208981 0.044343MISSINgRACE* 0.0103533 0.00831 1.25 0.213 -0.00593 0.026636 0.228234gENDER(REFERENCE=FEMALE) MALE* 0.0046563 0.00668 0.7 0.486 -0.00843 0.017742 0.533063MISSINggENDER* -0.0876041 0.01321 -6.63 0 -0.113486 -0.061722 0.913779BLACkMALE* 0.0042681 0.0129 0.33 0.741 -0.021019 0.029556 0.079737vACANCyRATE 0.0853491 0.05523 1.55 0.122 -0.022892 0.19359 0.080847TRACTPERCENTOFMEDIANINCOME -0.0005546 0.00014 -3.98 0 -0.000828 -0.000282 84.5024LOg(LOANAMOuNT) 0.0110349 0.00731 1.51 0.131 -0.003298 0.025368 4.91823LOg(INCOME) -0.1012474 0.00514 -19.71 0 -0.111314 -0.091181 4.14446CONvENTIONALLOAN* 0.0091316 0.03709 0.25 0.806 -0.063556 0.081819 0.75846FHALOAN 0.0189915 0.03853 0.49 0.622 -0.05652 0.094503 0.236947LOANTOvALuERATIO 0.0222504 0.00317 7.02 0 0.016037 0.028464 2.08723(*) dy/dx is for discrete change of a dummy variable from 0 to 1



Table 5: All Lenders - Home Improvement Loans


RACE(REFERENCE=WHITE) BLACk 0.639*** 0.139 4.602 4.19E-06 0.367 0.912ASIAN 0.312 0.226 1.383 0.167 -0.130 0.755HISPANIC 0.843*** 0.164 5.132 2.87E-07 0.521 1.165MISSINgRACE 0.719*** 0.151 4.750 2.04E-06 0.422 1.016gENDER(REFERENCE=FEMALE) MALE -0.124 0.118 -1.053 0.292 -0.354 0.107MISSINggENDER 0.0863 0.204 0.422 0.673 -0.314 0.487BLACkMALE 0.476*** 0.183 2.593 0.00951 0.116 0.835vACANCyRATE 1.107 0.942 1.176 0.240 -0.738 2.953TRACTPERCENTOFMEDIANINCOME -0.00609** 0.00273 -2.235 0.0254 -0.0114 -0.000750LOg(LOANAMOuNT) -0.294*** 0.0824 -3.570 0.000357 -0.456 -0.133LOg(INCOME) -0.423*** 0.0713 -5.934 2.96E-09 -0.563 -0.283CONvENTIONALLOAN 0.0287 1.076 0.0267 0.979 -2.081 2.139FHALOAN -0.361 1.092 -0.330 0.741 -2.501 1.779LOANTOvALuERATIO 0.218*** 0.0779 2.801 0.00509 0.0656 0.371CONSTANT 2.200* 1.144 1.924 0.0544 -0.0415 4.443 ***denotes 1% significance level; **denotes 5% significance level; * denotes 10% significance level DEPENDENTvARIABLE:DENIAL NuMBEROFOBSERvATIONS= 2567 LRCHI2(14)= 360.53 PROB>CHI2= 0.0000 LOgLIkELIHOOD= -1597.0573 PSuEDOR2= 0.1014



CHI2(2)=66.86PROB>CHI2=0.0000



RACE(REFERENCE=WHITE) BLACk* 0.1575537 0.03348 4.71 0 0.091941 0.223167 0.375536ASIAN* 0.077016 0.05458 1.41 0.158 -0.02996 0.183992 0.037787HISPANIC* 0.1995197 0.03536 5.64 0 0.130207 0.268832 0.103233MISSINgRACE* 0.1736687 0.03459 5.02 0 0.105866 0.241471 0.172185gENDER(REFERENCE=FEMALE) MALE* -0.0309094 0.02934 -1.05 0.292 -0.088411 0.026592 0.453448MISSINggENDER* 0.0215578 0.05109 0.42 0.673 -0.078583 0.121699 0.926763BLACkMALE* 0.1166414 0.04367 2.67 0.008 0.031053 0.20223 0.147254vACANCyRATE 0.2763779 0.235 1.18 0.24 -0.18421 0.736966 0.111516TRACTPERCENTOFMEDIANINCOME -0.0015213 0.00068 -2.23 0.025 -0.002856 -0.000187 65.5356LOg(LOANAMOuNT) -0.0734055 0.02056 -3.57 0 -0.113704 -0.033107 3.73215LOg(INCOME) -0.1055532 0.01778 -5.94 0 -0.140411 -0.070696 3.71046CONvENTIONALLOAN* 0.0071647 0.26893 0.03 0.979 -0.519932 0.534262 0.94663FHALOAN* -0.0897675 0.26846 -0.33 0.738 -0.615947 0.436412 0.051811LOANTOvALuERATIO 0.0544943 0.01945 2.8 0.005 0.016369 0.09262 1.16641(*) dy/dx is for discrete change of a dummy variable from 0 to 1

NOTE:ADvANCEBANkDROPPEDBECAuSEOFCOLLINEARITy CITIZENSFINANCIALgROuPDROPPEDBECAuSEOFCOLLINEARITy BANkOFNEWyORkMELLONDROPPEDBECAuSEOFCOLLINEARITy REPuBLICFIRSTDROPPEDBECAuSEOFCOLLINEARITy uNITEDBANkOFPHILADELPHIADROPPEDBECAuSEOFCOLLINEARITy CITyNATIONALDROPPEDBECAuSEOFCOLLINEARITy



Table 6: Depositories - Home Purchase Loans

vARIABLES COEFF SE TSTAT PvAL 95%CONFIDENCEINTERvAL

RACE(REFERENCE=WHITE) BLACk 0.809*** 0.110 7.320 0 0.592 1.025ASIAN 0.329** 0.132 2.503 0.0123 0.0715 0.587HISPANIC -0.0217 0.139 -0.156 0.876 -0.294 0.250MISSINgRACE 0.865*** 0.0893 9.685 0 0.690 1.040DEPOSITORyRACE(INTERACTION)(REFERENCE=OTHERPHILADELPHIALENDERS) BLACk*DEPOSITORy -0.351*** 0.125 -2.816 0.00486 -0.595 -0.107ASIAN*DEPOSITORy -0.426** 0.189 -2.253 0.0243 -0.796 -0.0554HISPANIC*DEPOSITORy 0.385** 0.195 1.977 0.0480 0.00341 0.766MISSINgRACE*DEPOSITORy -0.619*** 0.156 -3.975 7.05E-05 -0.924 -0.314gENDER(REFERENCE=FEMALE) MALE 0.159** 0.0659 2.419 0.0155 0.0303 0.289MISSINggENDER -0.254* 0.135 -1.884 0.0596 -0.518 0.0103BLACk*MALE 0.0870 0.120 0.723 0.470 -0.149 0.323vACANCyRATE 2.292*** 0.526 4.355 1.33E-05 1.261 3.324TRACTPERCENTOFMEDIANINCOME 0.00238* 0.00141 1.687 0.0916 -0.000385 0.00515LOg(LOANAMOuNT) -0.357*** 0.0706 -5.065 4.08E-07 -0.496 -0.219LOg(INCOME) -0.454*** 0.0581 -7.807 0 -0.567 -0.340BANk(REFERENCE=ALLOTHERPHILADELPHIALENDERS BANkOFAMERICA 0.583*** 0.111 5.273 1.34E-07 0.366 0.799CITIBANk 1.271*** 0.393 3.237 0.00121 0.501 2.040PNCBANk -1.087*** 0.394 -2.757 0.00583 -1.860 -0.314TDBANk 1.532*** 0.131 11.67 0 1.275 1.789WELLSFARgO 0.190** 0.0935 2.035 0.0418 0.00705 0.373BANCOSANTANDER -0.554*** 0.153 -3.631 0.000282 -0.853 -0.255M&TBANk 0.927*** 0.297 3.126 0.00177 0.346 1.508CONCENTIONALLOAN 0.510*** 0.0599 8.524 0 0.393 0.628LOANTOvALuERATIO 0.114*** 0.0163 7.009 0 0.0822 0.146CONSTANT 0.536* 0.315 1.704 0.0884 -0.0805 1.153 ***denotes 1% significance level; **denotes 5% significance level; * denotes 10% significance level DEPENDENTvARIABLE:DENIAL NuMBEROFOBSERvATIONS= 13273 LRCHI2(14)= 721.63 PROB>CHI2= 0.0000 LOgLIkELIHOOD= -4982.9144 PSuEDOR2= 0.0675


CHI2(2)=87.96PROB>CHI2=0.0000





RACE(REFERENCE=WHITE) BLACk* 0.1025919 0.01628 6.3 0 0.070675 0.134509 0.211557ASIAN* 0.0388144 0.01707 2.27 0.023 0.005367 0.072261 0.082498HISPANIC* -0.0022859 0.01455 -0.16 0.875 -0.030812 0.026241 0.088827MISSINgRACE* 0.1144203 0.01407 8.13 0 0.086848 0.141993 0.161682DEPOSITORyRACE(INTERACTION)(REFERENCE=OTHERPHILADELPHIALENDERS) BLACk*DEPOSITORy* -0.0335121 0.01063 -3.15 0.002 -0.054341 -0.012683 0.099149ASIAN*DEPOSITORy* -0.0389782 0.01471 -2.65 0.008 -0.067817 -0.010139 0.039629HISPANIC*DEPOSITORy* 0.046782 0.02677 1.75 0.081 -0.005687 0.099251 0.031719MISSINgRACE*DEPOSITORy* -0.0532194 0.01056 -5.04 0 -0.073926 -0.032512 0.048218gENDER(REFERENCE=FEMALE) MALE* 0.0168785 0.00694 2.43 0.015 0.003269 0.030488 0.537407MISSINggENDER* -0.0294344 0.01697 -1.73 0.083 -0.062687 0.003818 0.954193BLACk*MALE* 0.0095074 0.01352 0.7 0.482 -0.016983 0.035998 0.086265vACANCyRATE 0.2436296 0.05587 4.36 0 0.134119 0.353141 0.085941TRACTPERCENTOFMEDIANINCOME 0.0002532 0.00015 1.69 0.092 -0.000041 0.000548 78.1762LOg(LOANAMOuNT) -0.0379866 0.00751 -5.06 0 -0.052704 -0.023269 4.98423LOg(INCOME) -0.0482004 0.00612 -7.88 0 -0.060186 -0.036215 4.00226BANk(REFERENCE=ALLOTHERPHILADELPHIALENDERS BANkOFAMERICA* 0.0743574 0.01652 4.5 0 0.041975 0.10674 0.078204CITIBANk* 0.2075684 0.08634 2.4 0.016 0.038352 0.376785 0.002562PNCBANk* -0.0775788 0.01718 -4.51 0 -0.111259 -0.043898 0.014089TDBANk* 0.2625272 0.03014 8.71 0 0.203453 0.321601 0.027123WELLSFARgO* 0.0212296 0.01093 1.94 0.052 -0.000183 0.042643 0.162058BANCOSANTANDER* -0.0489932 0.01101 -4.45 0 -0.070566 -0.027421 0.062232M&TBANk* 0.136555 0.0564 2.42 0.015 0.026005 0.247105 0.0055CONCENTIONALLOAN* 0.0560438 0.00675 8.31 0 0.042822 0.069265 0.425073LOANTOvALuERATIO 0.0121289 0.00173 7.01 0 0.008739 0.015519 2.47043(*) dy/dx is for discrete change of a dummy variable from 0 to 1




Table 7: Depositories - Home Purchase Loans Test for Redlining

vARIABLES COEFF SE TSTAT PvAL 95%CONFIDENCELEvEL

PERCENTMINORITyPOPuLATION 0.00794*** 0.000973 8.162 0 0.00603 0.00985gENDER(REFERENCE=FEMALE) MALE 0.152*** 0.0552 2.764 0.00572 0.0443 0.261MISSINggENDER -0.473*** 0.112 -4.208 2.57E-05 -0.693 -0.252vACANCyRATE 0.349 0.574 0.608 0.543 -0.776 1.473TRACTPERCENTOFMEDIANINCOME 0.00403*** 0.00138 2.910 0.00361 0.00131 0.00674LOg(LOANAMOuNT) -0.400*** 0.0684 -5.853 4.82E-09 -0.534 -0.266LOg(INCOME) -0.441*** 0.0569 -7.749 0 -0.553 -0.330BANk(REFERENCE=ALLOTHERPHILADELPHIALENDERS BANkOFAMERICA 0.325*** 0.0890 3.654 0.000259 0.151 0.500CITIBANk 1.005*** 0.388 2.591 0.00956 0.245 1.766PNCBANk -1.343*** 0.389 -3.451 0.000558 -2.105 -0.580TDBANk 1.287*** 0.119 10.79 0 1.053 1.521WELLSFARgO -0.0491 0.0739 -0.664 0.507 -0.194 0.0958BANCOSANTANDER -0.704*** 0.136 -5.175 2.28E-07 -0.971 -0.438M&TBANk 0.700** 0.291 2.402 0.0163 0.129 1.270CONvENTIONALLOAN 0.256 0.186 1.379 0.168 -0.108 0.620FHALOAN -0.274 0.185 -1.479 0.139 -0.638 0.0893LOANTOvALuERATIO 0.119*** 0.0161 7.393 0 0.0876 0.151CONSTANT 1.251*** 0.343 3.650 0.000262 0.579 1.923 ***denotes 1% significance level; **denotes 5% significance level; * denotes 10% significance level DEPENDENTvARIABLE:DENIAL NuMBEROFOBSERvATIONS= 13273 LRCHI2(14)= 617.85 PROB>CHI2= 0.0000 LOgLIkELIHOOD= -5034.80283 PSuEDOR2= 0.0578

MARgINALEFFECTSAFTERLOgITy=PR(DENIAL)(PREDICT) 0.12382903


PERCENTMINORITyPOPuLATION 0.0008615 0.0001 8.24 0 0.000657 0.001066 41.5303gENDER(REFERENCE=FEMALE) MALE 0.0164762 0.00593 2.78 0.005 0.004844 0.028108 0.537407MISSINggENDER -0.0600636 0.01644 -3.65 0 -0.092295 -0.027832 0.954193vACANCyRATE 0.0378179 0.06225 0.61 0.543 -0.084182 0.159818 0.085941TRACTPERCENTOFMEDIANINCOME 0.0004368 0.00015 2.91 0.004 0.000143 0.000731 78.1762LOg(LOANAMOuNT) -0.0434338 0.00743 -5.85 0 -0.05799 -0.028878 4.98423LOg(INCOME) -0.0478535 0.00612 -7.82 0 -0.059841 -0.035866 4.00226BANk(REFERENCE=ALLOTHERPHILADELPHIALENDERS BANkOFAMERICA 0.0391021 0.01177 3.32 0.001 0.016035 0.062169 0.078204CITIBANk 0.1545611 0.07776 1.99 0.047 0.002149 0.306973 0.002562PNCBANk -0.0896433 0.01388 -6.46 0 -0.116849 -0.062438 0.014089TDBANk 0.210672 0.02588 8.14 0 0.15994 0.261404 0.027123WELLSFARgO -0.0052575 0.00782 -0.67 0.501 -0.020582 0.010067 0.162058BANCOSANTANDER -0.0606233 0.00899 -6.75 0 -0.078237 -0.043009 0.062232M&TBANk 0.0973928 0.04997 1.95 0.051 -0.000545 0.195331 0.0055CONvENTIONALLOAN* 0.0282012 0.02078 1.36 0.175 -0.012525 0.068928 0.425073FHALOAN* -0.0301114 0.02063 -1.46 0.144 -0.070547 0.010324 0.554886LOANTOvALuERATIO 0.0129276 0.00175 7.4 0 0.009504 0.016351 2.47043(*) dy/dx is for discrete change of a dummy variable from 0 to 1




Table 8: Depositories - Home Purchase Loans by Prime and Subprime

vARIABLES SuBPRIME SE TSTAT PvAL CI_LOWCI_HIgH CI_HIgH

RACE(REFERENCE=WHITE) BLACk 0.214 0.168 1.272 0.203 -0.116 0.544ASIAN 0.818*** 0.194 4.218 2.46E-05 0.438 1.199HISPANIC 0.365** 0.167 2.187 0.0288 0.0378 0.692MISSINgRACE -1.008*** 0.268 -3.763 0.000168 -1.533 -0.483DEPOSITORyRACE(INTERACTION)(REFERENCE=OTHERPHILADELPHIALENDERS) BLACk*DEPOSITORy 0.133 0.193 0.688 0.491 -0.246 0.512ASIAN*DEPOSITORy -0.411 0.366 -1.124 0.261 -1.128 0.306HISPANIC*DEPOSITORy 0.118 0.260 0.456 0.648 -0.391 0.628MISSINgRACE*DEPOSITORy 0.900*** 0.345 2.610 0.00906 0.224 1.576gENDER(REFERENCE=FEMALE) MALE -0.0422 0.115 -0.368 0.713 -0.267 0.182MISSINggENDER -0.564* 0.322 -1.753 0.0797 -1.194 0.0667BLACk*MALE -0.0646 0.191 -0.338 0.735 -0.440 0.310vACANCyRATE -0.984 1.110 -0.887 0.375 -3.159 1.191TRACTPERCENTOFMEDIANINCOME -0.0102*** 0.00335 -3.041 0.00236 -0.0168 -0.00362LOg(LOANAMOuNT) -0.734*** 0.132 -5.577 2.45E-08 -0.991 -0.476LOg(INCOME) 0.204* 0.104 1.959 0.0501 -0.000125 0.408BANk(REFERENCE=ALLOTHERPHILADELPHIALENDERS BANkOFAMERICA -2.112*** 0.402 -5.255 1.48E-07 -2.900 -1.324CITIBANk 0.0562 1.037 0.0542 0.957 -1.976 2.088PNCBANk -0.234 0.388 -0.604 0.546 -0.994 0.526TDBANk -1.859*** 0.593 -3.134 0.00173 -3.022 -0.696WELLSFARgO -0.555*** 0.172 -3.233 0.00123 -0.892 -0.219BANCOSANTANDER 0.510*** 0.170 3.005 0.00265 0.177 0.843M&TBANk 0.583 0.420 1.389 0.165 -0.240 1.406CONCENTIONALLOAN -1.001*** 0.125 -7.996 0 -1.246 -0.755LOANTOvALuERATIO -0.0264 0.0559 -0.472 0.637 -0.136 0.0832CONSTANT 1.395** 0.640 2.181 0.0292 0.141 2.649 ***denotes 1% significance level; **denotes 5% significance level; * denotes 10% significance level DEPENDENTvARIABLE:SuBPRIME NuMBEROFOBSERvATIONS= 13273 LRCHI2(14)= 491.24 PROB>CHI2= 0.0000 LOgLIkELIHOOD= -2093.8196 PSuEDOR2= 0.105



CHI2(2)=1.79PROB>CHI2=0.4093





RACE(REFERENCE=WHITE) BLACk* 0.0057236 0.00479 1.2 0.232 -0.003658 0.015105 0.211557ASIAN* 0.0290175 0.00932 3.11 0.002 0.010759 0.047276 0.082498HISPANIC* 0.0106254 0.00563 1.89 0.059 -0.000417 0.021668 0.088827MISSINgRACE* -0.0190018 0.0037 -5.14 0 -0.02625 -0.011753 0.161682DEPOSITORyRACE(INTERACTION)(REFERENCE=OTHERPHILADELPHIALENDERS) BLACk*DEPOSITORy* 0.0035278 0.00539 0.65 0.513 -0.007031 0.014087 0.099149ASIAN*DEPOSITORy* -0.0086929 0.00644 -1.35 0.177 -0.021308 0.003922 0.039629HISPANIC*DEPOSITORy* 0.0031442 0.00726 0.43 0.665 -0.011088 0.017376 0.031719MISSINgRACE*DEPOSITORy* 0.0340084 0.0184 1.85 0.065 -0.002057 0.070073 0.048218gENDER(REFERENCE=FEMALE) MALE* -0.0010636 0.00289 -0.37 0.713 -0.006732 0.004605 0.537407MISSINggENDER* -0.018254 0.01305 -1.4 0.162 -0.043823 0.007315 0.954193BLACk*MALE* -0.0015861 0.00458 -0.35 0.729 -0.010557 0.007385 0.086265vACANCyRATE -0.0247706 0.02782 -0.89 0.373 -0.079297 0.029755 0.085941TRACTPERCENTOFMEDIANINCOME -0.0002564 0.00008 -3.1 0.002 -0.000418 -0.000095 78.1762LOg(LOANAMOuNT) -0.0184631 0.00339 -5.45 0 -0.0251 -0.011826 4.98423LOg(INCOME) 0.0051373 0.00263 1.95 0.051 -0.000018 0.010293 4.00226BANk(REFERENCE=ALLOTHERPHILADELPHIALENDERS BANkOFAMERICA* -0.0265638 0.00233 -11.38 0 -0.031139 -0.021989 0.078204CITIBANk* 0.0014514 0.02751 0.05 0.958 -0.052469 0.055372 0.002562PNCBANk* -0.0052982 0.00786 -0.67 0.5 -0.020697 0.010101 0.014089TDBANk* -0.0228065 0.00301 -7.58 0 -0.028702 -0.01691 0.027123WELLSFARgO* -0.0118145 0.00309 -3.82 0 -0.017877 -0.005752 0.162058BANCOSANTANDER* 0.0159845 0.00658 2.43 0.015 0.003082 0.028886 0.062232M&TBANk* 0.0194721 0.01811 1.08 0.282 -0.016014 0.054959 0.0055CONCENTIONALLOAN* -0.0242964 0.00293 -8.29 0 -0.030038 -0.018554 0.425073LOANTOvALuERATIO -0.0006635 0.0014 -0.47 0.637 -0.003416 0.002089 2.47043(*) dy/dx is for discrete change of a dummy variable from 0 to 1



Table 9: Depositories - Home Refinancing Loans


RACE(REFERENCE=WHITE) BLACk 0.802*** 0.0542 14.78 0 0.695 0.908ASIAN 0.344*** 0.0861 4.001 6.30E-05 0.176 0.513HISPANIC 0.665*** 0.0780 8.528 0 0.512 0.818MISSINgRACE 0.0656 0.0444 1.477 0.140 -0.0215 0.153DEPOSITORyRACE(INTERACTION)(REFERENCE=OTHERPHILADELPHIALENDERS) BLACk*DEPOSITORy -0.0371 0.0711 -0.522 0.601 -0.177 0.102ASIAN*DEPOSITORy 0.0656 0.125 0.525 0.600 -0.179 0.310HISPANIC*DEPOSITORy 0.271** 0.124 2.190 0.0285 0.0284 0.513MISSINgRACE*DEPOSITORy -0.0933 0.0807 -1.157 0.247 -0.251 0.0648gENDER(REFERENCE=FEMALE) MALE 0.0168 0.0340 0.494 0.622 -0.0499 0.0835MISSINggENDER -0.425*** 0.0598 -7.095 0 -0.542 -0.307BLACk*MALE 0.0192 0.0653 0.294 0.769 -0.109 0.147vACANCyRATE 0.446 0.282 1.584 0.113 -0.106 0.999TRACTPERCENTOFMEDIANINCOME -0.00266*** 0.000710 -3.751 0.000176 -0.00406 -0.00127LOg(LOANAMOuNT) 0.0775** 0.0375 2.067 0.0387 0.00402 0.151LOg(INCOME) -0.513*** 0.0263 -19.48 0 -0.565 -0.461BANk(REFERENCE=ALLOTHERPHILADELPHIALENDERS BANkOFAMERICA 0.325*** 0.0621 5.230 1.70E-07 0.203 0.446CITIBANk 0.478*** 0.0798 5.990 2.10E-09 0.322 0.635PNCBANk -1.338 1.492 -0.897 0.370 -4.261 1.586TDBANk 0.603*** 0.0941 6.410 1.45E-10 0.419 0.788WELLSFARgO 0.832 1.512 0.550 0.582 -2.132 3.796BANCOSANTANDER 0.921*** 0.127 7.226 0 0.671 1.171M&TBANk -0.245*** 0.0492 -4.976 6.49E-07 -0.341 -0.148CONCENTIONALLOAN -0.688*** 0.125 -5.518 3.43E-08 -0.932 -0.444LOANTOvALuERATIO -0.119 0.324 -0.367 0.714 -0.754 0.516CONSTANT -0.0656** 0.0322 -2.037 0.0417 -0.129 -0.00248LOAN_2_vALuE 0.118*** 0.0163 7.251 0 0.0860 0.150CONSTANT 0.897*** 0.158 5.672 1.41E-08 0.587 1.207 ***denotes 1% significance level; **denotes 5% significance level; * denotes 10% significance level DEPENDENTvARIABLE:DENIAL NuMBEROFOBSERvATIONS= 29610 LRCHI2(14)= 2238.39 PROB>CHI2= 0.0000 LOgLIkELIHOOD= -16553.243 PSuEDOR2= 0.0633 NOTE: ADvANCEBANkDROPPEDBECAuSEOFCOLLINEARITyCITIZENSFINANCIALgROuPDROPPEDBECAuSEOFCOLLINEARITyBANkOFNEWyORkMELLONDROPPEDBECAuSEOFCOLLINEARITyREPuBLICFIRSTDROPPEDBECAuSEOFCOLLINEARITy uNITEDBANkDROPPEDBECAuSEOFCOLLINEARITy CITyNATIONALDROPPEDBECAuSEOFCOLLINEARITy



CHI2(2)=338.20PROB>CHI2=0.0000





RACE(REFERENCE=WHITE) BLACk* 0.1732476 0.01252 13.83 0 0.148699 0.197796 0.186525ASIAN* 0.0723051 0.01914 3.78 0 0.034796 0.109814 0.046876HISPANIC* 0.1466524 0.01868 7.85 0 0.110038 0.183267 0.044343MISSINgRACE* 0.0129961 0.00887 1.47 0.143 -0.004388 0.03038 0.228234DEPOSITORyRACE(INTERACTION)(REFERENCE=OTHERPHILADELPHIALENDERS) BLACk*DEPOSITORy* -0.0072431 0.01376 -0.53 0.599 -0.034215 0.019729 0.065383ASIAN*DEPOSITORy* 0.0130651 0.02525 0.52 0.605 -0.036418 0.062548 0.022627HISPANIC*DEPOSITORy* 0.0562634 0.02703 2.08 0.037 0.003293 0.109233 0.017359MISSINgRACE*DEPOSITORy -0.0179704 0.01522 -1.18 0.238 -0.047801 0.01186 0.045593gENDER(REFERENCE=FEMALE) MALE* 0.0032994 0.00668 0.49 0.621 -0.009798 0.016397 0.533063MISSINggENDER* -0.0897237 0.01344 -6.67 0 -0.116075 -0.063372 0.913779BLACk*MALE* 0.003786 0.01292 0.29 0.769 -0.021529 0.029101 0.079737vACANCyRATE 0.0877134 0.05539 1.58 0.113 -0.020854 0.196281 0.080847TRACTPERCENTOFMEDIANINCOME -0.0005233 0.00014 -3.75 0 -0.000796 -0.00025 84.5024LOg(LOANAMOuNT) 0.015227 0.00736 2.07 0.039 0.000794 0.02966 4.91823LOg(INCOME) -0.1007807 0.00515 -19.59 0 -0.110865 -0.090696 4.14446BANk(REFERENCE=ALLOTHERPHILADELPHIALENDERS BANkOFAMERICA* 0.0678159 0.01368 4.96 0 0.041003 0.094629 0.059406CITIBANk* 0.1028224 0.01847 5.57 0 0.066618 0.139026 0.032624PNCBANk* -0.1807458 0.11965 -1.51 0.131 -0.415259 0.053767 0.000135TDBANk* 0.1325406 0.02247 5.9 0 0.088493 0.176589 0.019791WELLSFARgO* 0.1890253 0.37538 0.5 0.615 -0.546699 0.92475 0.000068BANCOSANTANDER* 0.2107951 0.03173 6.64 0 0.148613 0.272978 0.009659M&TBANk* -0.0461116 0.00886 -5.2 0 -0.063479 -0.028744 0.147991CONCENTIONALLOAN* -0.1136488 0.01668 -6.81 0 -0.146336 -0.080961 0.01871LOANTOvALuERATIO -0.0227083 0.06009 -0.38 0.706 -0.14049 0.095073 0.001993CONSTANT -0.0129857 0.00642 -2.02 0.043 -0.025576 -0.000395 0.75846LOAN_2_vALuE 0.0231634 0.00319 7.25 0 0.016903 0.029424 2.08723(*) dy/dx is for discrete change of a dummy variable from 0 to 1

NOTE:ADvANCEBANkDROPPEDBECAuSEOFCOLLINEARITyCITIZENSFINANCIALgROuPDROPPEDBECAuSEOFCOLLINEARITyBANkOFNEWyORkMELLONDROPPEDBECAuSEOFCOLLINEARITyREPuBLICFIRSTDROPPEDBECAuSEOFCOLLINEARITyuNITEDBANkOFPHILADELPHIADROPPEDBECAuSEOFCOLLINEARITyCITyNATIONALDROPPEDBECAuSEOFCOLLINEARITyM&TBANkDROPPEDBECAuSEOFCOLLINEARITy



Table 10: Depositories - Home Improvement Loans


RACE(REFERENCE=WHITE) BLACk 0.929*** 0.196 4.744 2.10E-06 0.545 1.313ASIAN 0.0377 0.433 0.0869 0.931 -0.812 0.887HISPANIC 0.837*** 0.251 3.330 0.000867 0.344 1.329MISSINgRACE 1.057*** 0.189 5.589 2.28E-08 0.686 1.428DEPOSITORyRACE(INTERACTION)(REFERENCE=OTHERPHILADELPHIALENDERS) BLACk*DEPOSITORy -0.460** 0.182 -2.534 0.0113 -0.816 -0.104ASIAN*DEPOSITORy 0.172 0.510 0.338 0.735 -0.827 1.172HISPANIC*DEPOSITORy -0.0405 0.306 -0.132 0.895 -0.641 0.560MISSINgRACE*DEPOSITORy -0.775*** 0.273 -2.835 0.00459 -1.311 -0.239gENDER(REFERENCE=FEMALE) MALE -0.150 0.130 -1.152 0.249 -0.405 0.105MISSINggENDER 0.146 0.226 0.645 0.519 -0.298 0.590BLACk*MALE 0.487** 0.200 2.431 0.0151 0.0944 0.880vACANCyRATE 0.854 1.047 0.816 0.415 -1.198 2.905TRACTPERCENTOFMEDIANINCOME -0.00653** 0.00311 -2.102 0.0355 -0.0126 -0.000442LOg(LOANAMOuNT) -0.141 0.0946 -1.492 0.136 -0.327 0.0443LOg(INCOME) -0.424*** 0.0791 -5.361 8.29E-08 -0.579 -0.269BANk(REFERENCE=ALLOTHERPHILADELPHIALENDERS BANkOFAMERICA -0.125 0.269 -0.464 0.643 -0.652 0.402CITIBANk 0.274 0.217 1.266 0.206 -0.150 0.699PNCBANk 0.731*** 0.179 4.089 4.33E-05 0.381 1.081TDBANk 1.319*** 0.221 5.959 2.54E-09 0.885 1.752WELLSFARgO -0.597*** 0.161 -3.699 0.000217 -0.914 -0.281BANCOSANTANDER -0.465 0.322 -1.445 0.148 -1.095 0.166CONCENTIONALLOAN 0.0583 0.237 0.246 0.806 -0.406 0.523LOANTOvALuERATIO 0.167* 0.0892 1.871 0.0613 -0.00791 0.342CONSTANT 1.656*** 0.517 3.206 0.00135 0.644 2.668 ***denotes 1% significance level; **denotes 5% significance level; * denotes 10% significance level

DEPENDENTvARIABLE:DENIAL NuMBEROFOBSERvATIONS= 2244 LRCHI2(14)= 395.65 PROB>CHI2= 0.0000 LOgLIkELIHOOD= -1348.675 PSuEDOR2= 0.1279



CHI2(2)=51.69PROB>CHI2=0.0000

MARgINALEFFECTSAFTERLOgITy=PR(DENIAL)(PREDICT) 0.54866909




RACE(REFERENCE=WHITE) BLACk* 0.2234404 0.04489 4.98 0 0.135467 0.311414 0.389037ASIAN* 0.0093146 0.10694 0.09 0.931 -0.200292 0.218921 0.039661HISPANIC* 0.1934782 0.05218 3.71 0 0.091211 0.295746 0.113636MISSINgRACE* 0.2412804 0.03799 6.35 0 0.166816 0.315745 0.171123DEPOSITORyRACE(INTERACTION)(REFERENCE=OTHERPHILADELPHIALENDERS) BLACk*DEPOSITORy* -0.1143178 0.04493 -2.54 0.011 -0.202382 -0.026253 0.258913ASIAN*DEPOSITORy* 0.0422435 0.12346 0.34 0.732 -0.199732 0.284219 0.028075HISPANIC*DEPOSITORy* -0.0100529 0.07606 -0.13 0.895 -0.159119 0.139013 0.067291MISSINgRACE*DEPOSITORy -0.1902483 0.06373 -2.99 0.003 -0.315161 -0.065336 0.046791gENDER(REFERENCE=FEMALE) MALE* -0.0370867 0.03219 -1.15 0.249 -0.100183 0.02601 0.450535MISSINggENDER* 0.0363495 0.05653 0.64 0.52 -0.074453 0.147152 0.92959BLACk*MALE* 0.1172355 0.04633 2.53 0.011 0.026429 0.208042 0.150178vACANCyRATE 0.2113988 0.25915 0.82 0.415 -0.296527 0.719325 0.113129TRACTPERCENTOFMEDIANINCOME -0.0016173 0.00077 -2.1 0.036 -0.003126 -0.000108 64.4965LOg(LOANAMOuNT) -0.0349468 0.02343 -1.49 0.136 -0.080861 0.010968 3.71059LOg(INCOME) -0.1050628 0.01959 -5.36 0 -0.143455 -0.066671 3.69078BANk(REFERENCE=ALLOTHERPHILADELPHIALENDERS BANkOFAMERICA* -0.0310269 0.06713 -0.46 0.644 -0.162608 0.100554 0.033868CITIBANk* 0.0667839 0.05162 1.29 0.196 -0.034391 0.167959 0.061052PNCBANk* 0.1709204 0.03827 4.47 0 0.095918 0.245923 0.107398TDBANk* 0.2799209 0.03605 7.76 0 0.209258 0.350584 0.07041WELLSFARgO* -0.1482265 0.03946 -3.76 0 -0.225565 -0.070888 0.16221BANCOSANTANDER* -0.11563 0.07908 -1.46 0.144 -0.270616 0.039356 0.022282CONCENTIONALLOAN 0.0144616 0.05895 0.25 0.806 -0.101085 0.130009 0.954991LOANTOvALuERATIO 0.0413517 0.0221 1.87 0.061 -0.001955 0.084659 1.16288(*) dy/dx is for discrete change of a dummy variable from 0 to 1

Appendix 2 - Tables

Appendix2

1 AllSingle-Family,OwnerOccupantLendinginPhiladelphiabyBorrowerRace 184

2 AllSingle-Family,OwnerOccupantLendinginPhiladelphiabyBorrowerIncome 185

3 AllSingle-Family,OwnerOccupantLendinginPhiladelphiabyTractMinorityLevel 186

4 AllSingle-Family,OwnerOccupantLendinginPhiladelphiabyTractIncomeLevel 187

5 AllSingle-Family,OwnerOccupantLendinginPhiladelphiabyBorrowergender 188

6 HomePurchaseSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginPhiladelphia byBorrowerRace

189

7 HomePurchaseSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginPhiladelphia byBorrowerIncome

190

8 HomePurchaseSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginPhiladelphia byTractMinorityLevel

191

9 HomePurchaseSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginPhiladelphia byTractIncome

192

10 HomePurchaseSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginPhiladelphia byBorrowergender

193

11 RefinanceSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginPhiladelphiabyBorrowerRace 194

12 RefinanceSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginPhiladelphia byBorrowerIncome

195

13 RefinanceSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginPhiladelphia byTractMinorityLevel

196

Table of Contents


Appendix 2 – Tables

14 RefinanceSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginPhiladelphia byTractIncomeLevel

197

15 RefinanceSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginPhiladelphia byBorrowergender

198

16 HomeImprovementSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginPhiladelphia byBorrowerRace

199

17 HomeImprovementSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginPhiladelphia byBorrowerIncome

200

18 HomeImprovementSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginPhiladelphia byTractMinorityLevel

201

19 HomeImprovementSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginPhiladelphia byTractIncomeLevel

202

20 HomeImprovementSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginPhiladelphia byBorrowergender

203

21 AllSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginSuburbsbyBorrowerRace 204

22 AllSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginSuburbsbyBorrowerIncome 205

23 AllSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginSuburbsbyTractMinorityLevel 206

24 AllSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginSuburbsbyTractIncomeLevel 207

25 AllSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginSuburbsbyBorrowergender 208

26 HomePurchaseSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginSuburbs byBorrowerRace

209

27 HomePurchaseSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginSuburbs byBorrowerIncome

210

28 HomePurchaseSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginSuburbs byTractMinorityLevel

211

29 HomePurchaseSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginSuburbs byTractIncomeLevel

212

30 HomePurchaseSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginSuburbs byBorrowergender

213

31 RefinanceSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginSuburbsbyBorrowerRace 214

32 RefinanceSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginSuburbsbyBorrowerIncome 215

33 RefinanceSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginSuburbs byTractMinorityLevel

216

34 RefinanceSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginSuburbsbyTractIncomeLevel 217

35 RefinanceSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginSuburbsbyBorrowergender 218



36 HomeImprovementSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginSuburbs byBorrowerRace

219

37 HomeImprovementSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginSuburbs byBorrowerIncome

220

38 HomeImprovementSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginSuburbs byTractMinorityLevel

221

39 HomeImprovementSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginSuburbs byTractIncomeLevel

222

40 HomeImprovementSingle-Family,Owner-OccupantLendinginSuburbs byBorrowergender

223

41 AllLoansbyBorrowerRaceinBaltimore 224

42 AllLoansbyBorrowerIncomeinBaltimore 225

43 AllLoansbyTractMinorityLevelinBaltimore 226

44 AllLoansbyTractIncomeLevelinBaltimore 227

45 AllLoansbyBorrowergenderinBaltimore 228

46 AllLoansbyBorrowerRaceinDetroit 229

47 AllLoansbyBorrowerIncomeinDetroit 230

48 AllLoansbyTractMinorityLevelinDetroit 231

49 AllLoansbyTractIncomeLevelinDetroit 232

50 AllLoansbyBorrowergenderinDetroit 233

51 AllLoansbyBorrowerRaceinPittsburgh 234

52 AllLoansbyBorrowerIncomeinPittsburgh 235

53 AllLoansbyTractMinorityLevelinPittsburgh 236

54 AllLoansbyTractIncomeLevelinPittsburgh 237

55 AllLoansbyBorrowergenderinPittsburgh 238

56 AllLoansbyBorrowerRaceinPhiladelphia(Non-Owner-Occupied) 239

57 AllLoansbyBorrowerIncomeinPhiladelphia(Non-Owner-Occupied) 240

58 AllLoansbyTractMinorityLevelinPhiladelphia(Non-Owner-Occupied) 241

59 AllLoansbyTractIncomeLevelinPhiladelphia(Non-Owner-Occupied) 242

60 AllLoansbyBorrowergenderinPhiladelphia(Non-Owner-Occupied) 243



61 RankingofAllDepositories 244

62 DepositoryRanking–AllPrime,Single-FamilyLoansinPhiladelphia 247

63 DepositoryRanking–HomePurchasePrime,Single-FamilyLoansinPhiladelphia 249

64 DepositoryRanking–RefinancePrime,Single-FamilyLoansinPhiladelphia 251

65 DepositoryRanking–HomeImprovementPrime,Single-Family LoansinPhiladelphia

253

66 unrankedDepositories–AllPrime,Single-FamilyLoansinPhiladelphia 255

67 ListofDepositoryAffiliatesIncludedinAnalysis 257

68 CRASmallBusinessLendingbyIncome 262

69 CRASmallBusinessLending–BankofAmericaNA 263

70 CRASmallBusinessLending–BankofNewyorkMellon 263

71 CRASmallBusinessLending–CitizensBank 263

72 CRASmallBusinessLending–Citibank 264

73 CRASmallBusinessLending–M&TBank 264

74 CRASmallBusinessLending–PNCBank 264

75 CRASmallBusinessLending–RepublicFirstBank 265

76 CRASmallBusinessLending–SovereignBank 265

77 CRASmallBusinessLending–TDBank 265

78CRASmallBusinessLending–WellsFargoBank 266

79 SmallBusinessLending–byTractIncomeLevel 266

80 SmallBusinessLending–byTractMinorityLevel 267

81 SmallBusinessLending–PhiladelphiaandSuburbs 267

82 CityDepositories–byIncomeandMinorityLevel 268

83 NeighborhoodSingle-FamilyLendingAnalysis 269

84 NeighborhoodSingle-FamilyLendingAnalysisbyDepository 270

85 NeighborhoodSmallBusinessLendingAnalysis 271



Tabl

e 1:

All

Sing

le-F

amily

, Ow

ner O

ccup

ant L

endi

ng in

Phi

lade

lphi

a by

Bor

row

er R

ace

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

WHITE

13,804

635

14,439

69.1

%43

.3%

67.3

%28

2,06

347

.8%

1.45

0.91

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

3,614

585

4,19

918

.1%

39.9

%19

.6%

237,44

340

.2%

0.45

0.99

ASIAN

1,34

180

1,42

16.

7%5.

5%6.

6%20

,559

3.5%

1.93

1.57

HISPA

NIC

1,22

816

61,39

46.

1%11

.3%

6.5%

38,509

6.5%

0.94

1.74

TOTA

L24

,490

1,66

926

,159

590,28

3

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

RACE

SHARE

TO

WHITESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

RACE

SHARE

TO

WHITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

WHITE

13,804

635

14,439

95.6

%4.

4%1.

001.

00AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

3,614

585

4,19

986

.1%

13.9

%0.

903.

17

ASIAN

1,34

180

1,42

194

.4%

5.6%

0.99

1.28

HISPA

NIC

1,22

816

61,39

488

.1%

11.9

%0.

922.

71TO

TAL

24,490

1,66

926

,159

93.6

%6.

4%0.

981.

45

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IALRAT

ERACE

TOW

HITE

DEN

IALRAT

IO

WHITE

23,543

4,29

918

.3%

1.00

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

10,402

3,76

736

.2%

1.98

ASIAN

2,69

768

825

.5%

1.40

HISPA

NIC

2,94

795

332

.3%

1.77

TOTA

L50

,114

12,440

24.8

%1.

36



Tabl

e 2:

All

Sing

le-F

amily

, Ow

ner O

ccup

ant L

endi

ng in

Phi

lade

lphi

a by

Bor

row

er In

com

e

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOFALL

LOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

4,28

963

44,92

318

.8%

40.9

%20

.3%

279,32

747

.3%

0.40

0.86

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)6,99

251

27,50

430

.7%

33.1

%30

.9%

120,15

820

.4%

1.51

1.62

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

5,45

827

05,72

824

.0%

17.4

%23

.6%

93,513

15.8

%1.

511.

10

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)6,017

133

6,15

026

.4%

8.6%

25.3

%97,285

16.5

%1.

600.

52

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

11,281

1,14

612

,427

49.6

%74

.0%

51.1

%39

9,48

667

.7%

0.73

1.09

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

11,475

403

11,878

50.4

%26

.0%

48.9

%19

0,79

732

.3%

1.56

0.80

TOTA

L24

,490

1,66

926

,159

590,28

3

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

INCO

ME

SHARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

ME

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

4,28

963

44,92

387

.1%

12.9

%0.

895.

96

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)6,99

251

27,50

493

.2%

6.8%

0.95

3.16

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

5,45

827

05,72

895

.3%

4.7%

0.97

2.18

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)6,017

133

6,15

097

.8%

2.2%

1.00

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

11,281

1,14

612

,427

90.8

%9.

2%0.

942.

72

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

11,475

403

11,878

96.6

%3.

4%1.

001.

00

TOTA

L24

,490

1,66

926

,159

93.6

%6.

4%0.

962.

95

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

INCO

ME

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

ME

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

11,466

4,13

036

.0%

1.95

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)14

,272

3,58

425

.1%

1.36

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

10,308

2,147

20.8

%1.

13

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)10

,515

1,94

418

.5%

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

25,738

7,71

430

.0%

1.53

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

20,823

4,09

119

.6%

1.00

TOTA

L50

,114

12,440

24.8

%1.

34

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se in

com

e w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 3:

All

Sing

le-F

amily

, Ow

ner O

ccup

ant L

endi

ng in

Phi

lade

lphi

a by

Tra

ct M

inor

ity L

evel

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOFALL

LOANS

OOHu

PERC

ENTOF

ALLOOHu

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

OOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIMESH

ARE

TO

OOHuSHARE

RAT

IO

0-49

%

MINORITy

17,726

821

18,547

72.4

%49

.2%

70.9

%17

8,316

51.0

%1.

420.

97

50-100

%

MINORITy

6,761

847

7,60

827

.6%

50.8

%29

.1%

171,33

549

.0%

0.56

1.04

TOTA

L24

,490

1,66

926

,159

349,65

1

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

MINORITy

LEv

EL

SHARE

TOW

HITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

PRIM

E

MINORITy

LEv

EL

SHARE

TOW

HITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

0-49

%

MINORITy

17,726

821

18,547

95.6

%4.

4%1.

001.

00

50-100

%

MINORITy

6,761

847

7,60

888

.9%

11.1

%0.

932.

52

TOTA

L24

,490

1,66

926

,159

93.6

%6.

4%0.

981.

44

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

MINORITy

LEvELTO

WHITE

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

0-49

%

MINORITy

32,136

6,40

219

.9%

1.00

50-100

%

MINORITy

17,966

6,03

333

.6%

1.69

TOTA

L50

,114

12,440

24.8

%1.

25To

tals

incl

ude

info

rmati

on o

n lo

ans

to b

orro

wer

s w

hose

trac

t m

inor

ity

leve

l was

not

pro

vide

d.



Tabl

e 4:

All

Sing

le-F

amily

, Ow

ner O

ccup

ant L

endi

ng in

Phi

lade

lphi

a by

Tra

ct In

com

e Le

vel

TOTA

LPR

IME

LOANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

OOHu

PERC

ENTOF

ALLOOHu

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

OOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

OOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

2,32

635

72,68

39.

5%21

.4%

10.3

%81

,464

23.3

%0.

410.

92

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)9,31

880

810

,126

38.1

%48

.4%

38.7

%15

2,80

543

.7%

0.87

1.11

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

10,434

476

10,910

42.6

%28

.5%

41.7

%10

0,76

428

.8%

1.48

0.99

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)2,39

927

2,42

69.

8%1.

6%9.

3%14

,605

4.2%

2.35

0.39

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

11,644

1,16

512

,809

47.6

%69

.8%

49.0

%23

4,26

967

.0%

0.71

1.04

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

12,833

503

13,336

52.4

%30

.2%

51.0

%11

5,36

933

.0%

1.59

0.91

TOTA

L24

,490

1,66

926

,159

349,63

8

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

INCO

ME

SHARE

TO

uPP

ER-INCO

ME

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

2,32

635

72,68

386

.7%

13.3

%0.

8811

.96

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)9,31

880

810

,126

92.0

%8.

0%0.

937.

17

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

10,434

476

10,910

95.6

%4.

4%0.

973.

92

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)2,39

927

2,42

698

.9%

1.1%

1.00

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

11,644

1,16

512

,809

90.9

%9.

1%0.

942.

41

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

12,833

503

13,336

96.2

%3.

8%1.

001.

00

TOTA

L24

,490

1,66

926

,159

93.6

%6.

4%0.

955.

73

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IALRAT

E

INCO

ME

TOuPP

ER-

INCO

ME

DEN

IALRAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

6,65

62,49

237

.4%

2.19

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)20

,746

5,69

427

.4%

1.61

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

18,759

3,57

019

.0%

1.11

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)3,91

566

917

.1%

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

27,402

8,18

629

.9%

1.60

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

22,674

4,23

918

.7%

1.00

TOTA

L50

,114

12,440

24.8

%1.

45

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se tr

act i

ncom

e le

vel w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 5:

All

Sing

le-F

amily

, Ow

ner O

ccup

ant L

endi

ng in

Phi

lade

lphi

a by

Bor

row

er G

ende

r

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPC

T.OFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

MALE

7,59

551

48,10

933

.7%

33.4

%33

.7%

132,27

822

.4%

1.50

1.49

FEMALE

7,41

266

98,08

132

.9%

43.5

%33

.6%

264,97

544

.9%

0.73

0.97

JOINT

(MALE/

FEMALE)

7,53

735

47,89

133

.4%

23.0

%32

.8%

193,03

032

.7%

1.02

0.70

TOTA

L24

,490

1,66

926

,159

590,28

3

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

gEN

DER

SHARE

TO

MALE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

PRIM

E

gEN

DER

SHARE

TO

MALE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

MALE

7,59

551

48,10

993

.7%

6.3%

1.00

1.00

FEMALE

7,41

266

98,08

191

.7%

8.3%

0.98

1.31

JOINT

(MALE/

FEMALE)

7,53

735

47,89

195

.5%

4.5%

1.02

0.71

TOTA

L24

,490

1,66

926

,159

93.6

%6.

4%1.

001.

01

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IALRAT

EgEN

DER

TO

MALEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

MALE

16,070

4,25

526

.5%

1.00

FEMALE

15,726

4,13

626

.3%

0.99

JOINT

(MALE/

FEMALE)

13,312

2,60

919

.6%

0.74

TOTA

L50

,114

12,440

24.8

%0.

94

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se g

ende

r was

not

pro

vide

d.



Tabl

e 6:

Hom

e Pu

rcha

se S

ingl

e-Fa

mily

, Ow

ner-

Occ

upan

t Len

ding

in P

hila

delp

hia

by B

orro

wer

Rac

e

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOFALL

LOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SHARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIMESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

WHITE

4,79

618

54,98

159

.8%

32.8

%58

.0%

282,06

347

.8%

1.25

0.69

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

1,71

122

41,93

521

.3%

39.7

%22

.5%

237,44

340

.2%

0.53

0.99

ASIAN

723

5377

69.

0%9.

4%9.

0%20

,559

3.5%

2.59

2.70

HISPA

NIC

788

102

890

9.8%

18.1

%10

.4%

38,509

6.5%

1.51

2.77

TOTA

L9,35

662

09,97

659

0,28

3

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

RACE

SHARE

TO

WHITESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

RACE

SHARE

TO

WHITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

WHITE

4,79

618

54,98

196

.3%

3.7%

1.00

1.00

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

1,71

122

41,93

588

.4%

11.6

%0.

923.

12

ASIAN

723

5377

693

.2%

6.8%

0.97

1.84

HISPA

NIC

788

102

890

88.5

%11

.5%

0.92

3.09

TOTA

L9,35

662

09,97

693

.8%

6.2%

0.97

1.67

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IALRAT

ERACE

TO

WHITEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

WHITE

6,64

266

810

.1%

1.00

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

3,017

574

19.0

%1.

89

ASIAN

1,16

619

817

.0%

1.69

HISPA

NIC

1,22

416

713

.6%

1.36

TOTA

L14

,479

2,07

714

.3%

1.43

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se r

ace

was

list

ed a

s “O

ther

” or

who

se r

ace

was

not

pro

vide

d.

Tabl

e 7:

Hom

e Pu

rcha

se S

ingl

e-Fa

mily

, Ow

ner-

Occ

upan

t Len

ding

in P

hila

delp

hia

by B

orro

wer

Inco

me

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOFALL

LOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

2,41

927

82,69

725

.9%

45.2

%27

.1%

279,32

747

.3%

0.55

0.96

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)3,26

220

33,46

535

.0%

33.0

%34

.8%

120,15

820

.4%

1.72

1.62

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

1,93

991

2,03

020

.8%

14.8

%20

.4%

93,513

15.8

%1.

310.

93

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)1,71

243

1,75

518

.3%

7.0%

17.6

%97,285

16.5

%1.

110.

42

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

5,68

148

16,16

260

.9%

78.2

%61

.9%

399,48

667

.7%

0.90

1.16

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

3,65

113

43,78

539

.1%

21.8

%38

.1%

190,79

732

.3%

1.21

0.67

TOTA

L9,35

662

09,97

659

0,28

3

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

INCO

ME

SHARE

TO

uPP

ER-INCO

ME

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

2,41

927

82,69

789

.7%

10.3

%0.

924.

21

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)3,26

220

33,46

594

.1%

5.9%

0.97

2.39

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

1,93

991

2,03

095

.5%

4.5%

0.98

1.83

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)1,71

243

1,75

597

.5%

2.5%

1.00

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

5,68

148

16,16

292

.2%

7.8%

0.96

2.20

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

3,65

113

43,78

596

.5%

3.5%

1.00

1.00

TOTA

L9,35

662

09,97

693

.8%

6.2%

0.96

2.54

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

INCO

ME

TOuPP

ER-

INCO

ME

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

4,04

274

718

.5%

1.56

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)4,84

365

913

.6%

1.15

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

2,86

233

211

.6%

0.98

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)2,60

430

811

.8%

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

8,88

51,40

615

.8%

1.35

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

5,46

664

011

.7%

1.00

TOTA

L14

,479

2,07

714

.3%

1.21

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se in

com

e w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.





Tabl

e 8:

Hom

e Pu

rcha

se S

ingl

e-Fa

mily

, Ow

ner-

Occ

upan

t Len

ding

in P

hila

delp

hia

by T

ract

Min

ority

Lev

el

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOFALL

LOANS

OOHu

PERC

ENTOF

ALLOOHu

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

OOHuSHARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIMESH

ARE

TO

OOHuSHARE

RAT

IO

0-49

%

MINORITy

6,49

430

36,79

769

.4%

48.9

%68

.1%

178,316

51.0

%1.

360.

96

50-100

%

MINORITy

2,86

131

63,17

730

.6%

51.1

%31

.9%

171,33

549

.0%

0.62

1.04

TOTA

L9,35

662

09,97

634

9,65

1

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

MINORITy

LEv

EL

SHARE

TOW

HITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

PRIM

E

MINORITy

LEv

EL

SHARE

TOW

HITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

0-49

%

MINORITy

6,49

430

36,79

795

.5%

4.5%

1.00

1.00

50-100

%

MINORITy

2,86

131

63,17

790

.1%

9.9%

0.94

2.23

TOTA

L9,35

662

09,97

693

.8%

6.2%

0.98

1.39

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

MINORITy

LEvELTOW

HITE

DEN

IALRAT

IO

0-49

%

MINORITy

9,46

11,12

111

.8%

1.00

50-100

%

MINORITy

5,01

395

419

.0%

1.61

TOTA

L14

,479

2,07

714

.3%

1.21

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se

trac

t min

orit

y le

vel w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 9:

Hom

e Pu

rcha

se S

ingl

e-Fa

mily

, Ow

ner-

Occ

upan

t Len

ding

in P

hila

delp

hia

by T

ract

Inco

me

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

OOHu

PERC

ENTOF

ALLOOHu

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

OOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIMESH

ARE

TO

OOHuSHARE

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

1,21

214

71,35

913

.0%

23.7

%13

.6%

81,464

23.3

%0.

561.

02

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)4,05

132

44,37

543

.3%

52.3

%43

.9%

152,80

543

.7%

0.99

1.20

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

3,44

714

03,58

736

.9%

22.6

%36

.0%

100,76

428

.8%

1.28

0.78

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)63

98

647

6.8%

1.3%

6.5%

14,605

4.2%

1.64

0.31

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

5,26

347

15,73

456

.3%

76.1

%57

.5%

234,26

967

.0%

0.84

1.14

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

4,08

614

84,23

443

.7%

23.9

%42

.5%

115,36

933

.0%

1.32

0.72

TOTA

L9,35

662

09,97

634

9,63

8

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

INCO

ME

SHARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

ME

SHARE

RAT

IO:

PRIM

E

INCO

ME

SHARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

ME

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

1,21

214

71,35

989

.2%

10.8

%0.

908.

75

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)4,05

132

44,37

592

.6%

7.4%

0.94

5.99

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

3,44

714

03,58

796

.1%

3.9%

0.97

3.16

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)63

98

647

98.8

%1.

2%1.

001.

00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

5,26

347

15,73

491

.8%

8.2%

0.95

2.35

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

4,08

614

84,23

496

.5%

3.5%

1.00

1.00

TOTA

L9,35

662

09,97

693

.8%

6.2%

0.95

5.03

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

INCO

ME

TOuPP

ER-

INCO

ME

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

2,15

943

820

.3%

1.75

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)6,43

898

315

.3%

1.32

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

4,92

854

311

.0%

0.95

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)94

010

911

.6%

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

8,59

71,42

116

.5%

1.49

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

5,86

865

211

.1%

1.00

TOTA

L14

,479

2,07

714

.3%

1.24

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se tr

act i

ncom

e le

vel w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 10

: Hom

e Pu

rcha

se S

ingl

e-Fa

mily

, Ow

ner-

Occ

upan

t Len

ding

in P

hila

delp

hia

by B

orro

wer

Gen

der

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

MALE

3,24

921

63,46

537

.4%

37.2

%37

.4%

132,27

822

.4%

1.67

1.66

FEMALE

3,18

426

13,44

536

.7%

44.9

%37

.2%

264,97

544

.9%

0.82

1.00

JOINT

(MALE/

FEMALE)

2,24

810

42,35

225

.9%

17.9

%25

.4%

193,03

032

.7%

0.79

0.55

TOTA

L9,35

662

09,97

659

0,28

3

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

gEN

DER

SHARE

TO

MALE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

PRIM

E

gEN

DER

SHARE

TO

MALE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

MALE

3,24

921

63,46

593

.8%

6.2%

1.00

1.00

FEMALE

3,18

426

13,44

592

.4%

7.6%

0.99

1.22

JOINT

(MALE/

FEMALE)

2,24

810

42,35

295

.6%

4.4%

1.02

0.71

TOTA

L9,35

662

09,97

693

.8%

6.2%

1.00

1.00

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IALRAT

EgEN

DER

TO

MALEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

MALE

5,16

484

716

.4%

1.00

FEMALE

4,88

566

613

.6%

0.83

JOINT

(MALE/

FEMALE)

3,26

335

310

.8%

0.66

TOTA

L14

,479

2,07

714

.3%

0.87

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se g

ende

r was

not

pro

vide

d.



Tabl

e 11

: Refi

nanc

e Si

ngle

-Fam

ily, O

wne

r-O

ccup

ant L

endi

ng in

Phi

lade

lphi

a by

Bor

row

er R

ace

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

WHITE

8,70

536

09,06

575

.7%

51.6

%74

.3%

282,06

347

.8%

1.58

1.08

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

1,79

127

12,06

215

.6%

38.9

%16

.9%

237,44

340

.2%

0.39

0.97

ASIAN

588

1960

75.

1%2.

7%5.

0%20

,559

3.5%

1.47

0.78

HISPA

NIC

416

4746

33.

6%6.

7%3.

8%38

,509

6.5%

0.55

1.03

TOTA

L14

,569

826

15,395

590,28

3

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

NTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

RACE

SHARE

TO

WHITESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

RACE

SHARE

TO

WHITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

WHITE

8,70

536

09,06

596

.0%

4.0%

1.00

1.00

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

1,79

127

12,06

286

.9%

13.1

%0.

903.

31

ASIAN

588

1960

796

.9%

3.1%

1.01

0.79

HISPA

NIC

416

4746

389

.8%

10.2

%0.

942.

56

TOTA

L14

,569

826

15,395

94.6

%5.

4%0.

991.

35

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IALRAT

ERACE

TOW

HITE

DEN

IALRAT

IO

WHITE

16,089

3,36

020

.9%

1.00

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

6,41

52,58

340

.3%

1.93

ASIAN

1,43

645

031

.3%

1.50

HISPA

NIC

1,46

561

241

.8%

2.00

TOTA

L33

,030

9,00

827

.3%

1.31

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se r

ace

was

list

ed a

s “O

ther

” or

who

se r

ace

was

not

pro

vide

d.



Tabl

e 12

: Refi

nanc

e Si

ngle

-Fam

ily, O

wne

r-O

ccup

ant L

endi

ng in

Phi

lade

lphi

a by

Bor

row

er In

com

e

TOTA

LPR

IME

SuBP

RIME

NuMLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

PRIM

EPE

RCEN

TSu

BPRIME

PERC

ENT

LOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPC

THH

PRIM

ESHRH

HSu

BSHRH

H

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

1,72

924

81,97

713

.4%

34.8

%14

.6%

279,32

747

.3%

0.28

0.74

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)3,54

924

53,79

427

.6%

34.4

%27

.9%

120,15

820

.4%

1.36

1.69

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

3,40

114

63,54

726

.4%

20.5

%26

.1%

93,513

15.8

%1.

671.

29

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)4,18

674

4,26

032

.5%

10.4

%31

.4%

97,285

16.5

%1.

970.

63

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

5,27

849

35,77

141

.0%

69.1

%42

.5%

399,48

667

.7%

0.61

1.02

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

7,58

722

07,80

759

.0%

30.9

%57

.5%

190,79

732

.3%

1.82

0.95

TOTA

L14

,569

826

15,395

590,28

3

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

INCO

ME

SHARE

TO

uPP

ER-INCO

ME

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

1,72

924

81,97

787

.5%

12.5

%0.

897.

22

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)3,54

924

53,79

493

.5%

6.5%

0.95

3.72

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

3,40

114

63,54

795

.9%

4.1%

0.98

2.37

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)4,18

674

4,26

098

.3%

1.7%

1.00

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

5,27

849

35,77

191

.5%

8.5%

0.94

3.03

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

7,58

722

07,80

797

.2%

2.8%

1.00

1.00

TOTA

L14

,569

826

15,395

94.6

%5.

4%0.

963.

09

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

INCO

ME

TOuPP

ER-

INCO

ME

DEN

IALRAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

6,29

22,65

942

.3%

2.09

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)8,68

52,56

929

.6%

1.47

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

7,05

41,66

123

.5%

1.17

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)7,61

21,53

620

.2%

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

14,977

5,22

834

.9%

1.60

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

14,666

3,19

721

.8%

1.00

TOTA

L33

,030

9,00

827

.3%

1.35

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se in

com

e w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 13

: Refi

nanc

e Si

ngle

-Fam

ily, O

wne

r-O

ccup

ant L

endi

ng in

Phi

lade

lphi

a by

Tra

ct M

inor

ity L

evel

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

OOHu

PERC

ENTOF

ALLOOHu

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

OOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

OOHuSHARE

RAT

IO

0-49

%

MINORITy

10,869

430

11,299

74.6

%52

.1%

73.4

%17

8,316

51.0

%1.

461.

02

50-100

%

MINORITy

3,69

839

64,09

425

.4%

47.9

%26

.6%

171,33

549

.0%

0.52

0.98

TOTA

L14

,569

826

15,395

349,65

1

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

MINORITy

LEvELSHARE

TO

WHITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

PRIM

E

MINORITy

LEvELSHARE

TO

WHITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

0-49

%

MINORITy

10,869

430

11,299

96.2

%3.

8%1.

001.

00

50-100

%

MINORITy

3,69

839

64,09

490

.3%

9.7%

0.94

2.54

TOTA

L14

,569

826

15,395

94.6

%5.

4%0.

981.

41

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IALRAT

E

MINORITy

LEvELTO

WHITEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

0-49

%

MINORITy

21,652

4,91

522

.7%

1.00

50-100

%

MINORITy

11,371

4,09

036

.0%

1.58

TOTA

L33

,030

9,00

827

.3%

1.20

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se tr

act

min

orit

y le

vel w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 14

: Refi

nanc

e Si

ngle

-Fam

ily, O

wne

r-O

ccup

ant L

endi

ng in

Phi

lade

lphi

a by

Tra

ct In

com

e Le

vel

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

OOHu

PERC

ENTOF

ALLOOHu

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

OOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TOOOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

1,03

513

91,174

7.1%

16.8

%7.

6%81

,464

23.3

%0.

310.

72

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)5,03

138

55,416

34.5

%46

.6%

35.2

%15

2,80

543

.7%

0.79

1.07

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

6,76

728

67,05

346

.5%

34.6

%45

.8%

100,76

428

.8%

1.61

1.20

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)1,73

016

1,74

611

.9%

1.9%

11.3

%14

,605

4.2%

2.84

0.46

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

6,06

652

46,59

041

.7%

63.4

%42

.8%

234,26

967

.0%

0.62

0.95

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

8,49

730

28,79

958

.3%

36.6

%57

.2%

115,36

933

.0%

1.77

1.11

TOTA

L14

,569

826

15,395

349,63

8

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:SuBP

RIME

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

1,03

513

91,174

88.2

%11

.8%

0.89

12.9

2

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)5,03

138

55,416

92.9

%7.

1%0.

947.

76

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

6,76

728

67,05

395

.9%

4.1%

0.97

4.43

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)1,73

016

1,74

699

.1%

0.9%

1.00

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

6,06

652

46,59

092

.0%

8.0%

0.95

2.32

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

8,49

730

28,79

996

.6%

3.4%

1.00

1.00

TOTA

L14

,569

826

15,395

94.6

%5.

4%0.

965.

85

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

INCO

ME

TOuPP

ER-

INCO

ME

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

3,65

61,49

340

.8%

2.18

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)13

,203

4,13

031

.3%

1.67

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

13,238

2,83

021

.4%

1.14

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)2,90

954

418

.7%

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

16,859

5,62

333

.4%

1.60

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

16,147

3,374

20.9

%1.

00

TOTA

L33

,030

9,00

827

.3%

1.46

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se tr

act i

ncom

e le

vel w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 15

: Refi

nanc

e Si

ngle

-Fam

ily, O

wne

r-O

ccup

ant L

endi

ng in

Phi

lade

lphi

a by

Bor

row

er G

ende

r

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SHARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIMESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SHARE

RAT

IO

MALE

4,21

223

94,451

31.6

%32

.1%

31.6

%13

2,27

822

.4%

1.41

1.43

FEMALE

4,02

730

64,33

330

.2%

41.1

%30

.8%

264,97

544

.9%

0.67

0.92

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

5,10

719

95,30

638

.3%

26.7

%37

.7%

193,03

032

.7%

1.17

0.82

TOTA

L14

,569

826

15,395

590,28

3

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

gEN

DER

SHARE

TO

MALESHARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

gEN

DER

SHARE

TO

MALESHARE

RAT

IO:SuBP

RIME

MALE

4,21

223

94,451

94.6

%5.

4%1.

001.

00

FEMALE

4,02

730

64,33

392

.9%

7.1%

0.98

1.32

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

5,10

719

95,30

696

.2%

3.8%

1.02

0.70

TOTA

L14

,569

826

15,395

94.6

%5.

4%1.

001.

00

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

gEN

DER

TO

MALEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

MALE

10,104

2,95

529

.2%

1.00

FEMALE

9,80

82,90

729

.6%

1.01

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

9,52

02,05

421

.6%

0.74

TOTA

L33

,030

9,00

827

.3%

0.93

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se g

ende

r was

not

pro

vide

d.



Tabl

e 16

: Hom

e Im

prov

emen

t Sin

gle-

Fam

ily, O

wne

r-O

ccup

ant L

endi

ng in

Phi

lade

lphi

a by

Bor

row

er R

ace

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIMESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SHARE

RAT

IO

WHITE

693

118

811

64.2

%44

.2%

60.3

%28

2,06

347

.8%

1.34

0.92

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

302

117

419

28.0

%43

.8%

31.1

%23

7,44

340

.2%

0.70

1.09

ASIAN

418

493.

8%3.

0%3.

6%20

,559

3.5%

1.09

0.86

HISPA

NIC

4324

674.

0%9.

0%5.

0%38

,509

6.5%

0.61

1.38

TOTA

L1,43

529

31,72

859

0,28

3

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

RACE

SHARE

TO

WHITESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

RACE

SHARE

TO

WHITESH

ARE

RAT

IO:SuBP

RIME

WHITE

693

118

811

85.5

%14

.5%

1.00

1.00

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

302

117

419

72.1

%27

.9%

0.84

1.92

ASIAN

418

4983

.7%

16.3

%0.

981.

12

HISPA

NIC

4324

6764

.2%

35.8

%0.

752.

46

TOTA

L1,43

529

31,72

883

.0%

17.0

%0.

971.

17

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

RACE

TO

WHITE

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

WHITE

1,81

571

839

.6%

1.00

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

1,91

61,23

564

.5%

1.63

ASIAN

177

9855

.4%

1.40

HISPA

NIC

449

317

70.6

%1.

78

TOTA

L5,63

53,06

054

.3%

1.37

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se r

ace

was

list

ed a

s “O

ther

” or

who

se r

ace

was

not

pro

vide

d.



Tabl

e 17

: Hom

e Im

prov

emen

t Sin

gle-

Fam

ily, O

wne

r-O

ccup

ant L

endi

ng in

Phi

lade

lphi

a by

Bor

row

er In

com

e

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

272

136

408

19.0

%47

.1%

23.8

%27

9,32

747

.3%

0.40

0.99

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)45

280

532

31.7

%27

.7%

31.0

%12

0,15

820

.4%

1.55

1.36

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

358

4940

725

.1%

17.0

%23

.7%

93,513

15.8

%1.

581.

07

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)34

624

370

24.2

%8.

3%21

.5%

97,285

16.5

%1.

470.

50

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

724

216

940

50.7

%74

.7%

54.7

%39

9,48

667

.7%

0.75

1.10

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

704

7377

749

.3%

25.3

%45

.3%

190,79

732

.3%

1.53

0.78

TOTA

L1,43

529

31,72

859

0,28

3

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

INCO

ME

SHARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

ME

SHARE

RAT

IO:

PRIM

E

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

ME

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

272

136

408

66.7

%33

.3%

0.71

5.14

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)45

280

532

85.0

%15

.0%

0.91

2.32

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

358

4940

788

.0%

12.0

%0.

941.

86

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)34

624

370

93.5

%6.

5%1.

001.

00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

724

216

940

77.0

%23

.0%

0.85

2.45

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

704

7377

790

.6%

9.4%

1.00

1.00

TOTA

L1,43

529

31,72

883

.0%

17.0

%0.

892.

61

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

INCO

ME

TOuPP

ER-

INCO

ME

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

1,98

71,33

667

.2%

1.92

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)1,76

595

954

.3%

1.55

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

1,04

545

343

.3%

1.24

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)77

527

135

.0%

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

3,75

22,29

561

.2%

1.54

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

1,82

072

439

.8%

1.00

TOTA

L5,63

53,06

054

.3%

1.55

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se in

com

e w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 18

: Hom

e Im

prov

emen

t Sin

gle-

Fam

ily, O

wne

r-O

ccup

ant L

endi

ng in

Phi

lade

lphi

a by

Tra

ct M

inor

ity L

evel

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

OOHu

PERC

ENTOF

ALLOOHu

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

OOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

OOHuSHARE

RAT

IO

0-49

%

MINORITy

929

121

1,05

064

.7%

41.3

%60

.8%

178,316

51.0

%1.

270.

81

50-100

%

MINORITy

506

172

678

35.3

%58

.7%

39.2

%171,33

549

.0%

0.72

1.20

TOTA

L1,43

529

31,72

834

9,65

1

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

MINORITy

LEvELSHARE

TO

WHITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

PRIM

E

MINORITy

LEvELSHARE

TO

WHITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

0-49

%

MINORITy

929

121

1,05

088

.5%

11.5

%1.

001.

00

50-100

%

MINORITy

506

172

678

74.6

%25

.4%

0.84

2.20

TOTA

L1,43

529

31,72

883

.0%

17.0

%0.

941.

47

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IALRAT

E

MINORITy

LEvELTO

WHITEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

0-49

%

MINORITy

2,58

11,12

143

.4%

1.00

50-100

%

MINORITy

3,05

01,93

763

.5%

1.46

TOTA

L5,63

53,06

054

.3%

1.25

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se tr

act

min

orit

y le

vel w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 19

: Hom

e Im

prov

emen

t Sin

gle-

Fam

ily, O

wne

r-O

ccup

ant L

endi

ng in

Phi

lade

lphi

a by

Tra

ct In

com

e Le

vel

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOFALL

LOANS

OOHu

PERC

ENTOF

ALLOOHu

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

OOHuSHARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

OOHuSHARE

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

168

9226

011

.7%

31.5

%15

.1%

81,464

23.3

%0.

501.

35

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)60

012

872

841

.8%

43.8

%42

.2%

152,80

543

.7%

0.96

1.00

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

602

6867

042

.0%

23.3

%38

.8%

100,76

428

.8%

1.46

0.81

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)64

468

4.5%

1.4%

3.9%

14,605

4.2%

1.07

0.33

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

768

220

988

53.6

%75

.3%

57.2

%23

4,26

967

.0%

0.80

1.12

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

666

7273

846

.4%

24.7

%42

.8%

115,36

933

.0%

1.41

0.75

TOTA

L1,43

529

31,72

834

9,63

8

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

INCO

ME

SHARE

TO

uPP

ER-INCO

ME

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

168

9226

064

.6%

35.4

%0.

696.

02

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)60

012

872

882

.4%

17.6

%0.

882.

99

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

602

6867

089

.9%

10.1

%0.

951.

73

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)64

468

94.1

%5.

9%1.

001.

00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

768

220

988

77.7

%22

.3%

0.86

2.28

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

666

7273

890

.2%

9.8%

1.00

1.00

TOTA

L1,43

529

31,72

883

.0%

17.0

%0.

882.

88

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

INCO

ME

TOuPP

ER-

INCO

ME

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

1,43

899

269

.0%

1.91

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)2,50

01,40

956

.4%

1.56

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

1,53

259

839

.0%

1.08

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)15

857

36.1

%1.

00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

3,93

82,40

161

.0%

1.57

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

1,69

065

538

.8%

1.00

TOTA

L5,63

53,06

054

.3%

1.51

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se tr

act i

ncom

e le

vel w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 20

: Hom

e Im

prov

emen

t Sin

gle-

Fam

ily, O

wne

r-O

ccup

ant L

endi

ng in

Phi

lade

lphi

a by

Bor

row

er G

ende

r

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOFALL

LOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

MALE

347

7842

526

.4%

28.1

%26

.7%

132,27

822

.4%

1.18

1.25

FEMALE

455

134

589

34.7

%48

.2%

37.0

%26

4,97

544

.9%

0.77

1.07

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

510

6657

638

.9%

23.7

%36

.2%

193,03

032

.7%

1.19

0.73

TOTA

L1,43

529

31,72

859

0,28

3

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

gEN

DER

SHARE

TO

MALESHARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

gEN

DER

SHARE

TO

MALESHARE

RAT

IO:SuBP

RIME

MALE

347

7842

581

.6%

18.4

%1.

001.

00

FEMALE

455

134

589

77.2

%22

.8%

0.95

1.24

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

510

6657

688

.5%

11.5

%1.

080.

62

TOTA

L1,43

529

31,72

883

.0%

17.0

%1.

020.

92

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

gEN

DER

TO

MALEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

MALE

1,64

195

458

.1%

1.00

FEMALE

2,174

1,27

358

.6%

1.01

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

1,24

949

239

.4%

0.68

TOTA

L5,63

53,06

054

.3%

0.93

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se g

ende

r was

not

pro

vide

d.



Tabl

e 21

: All

Sing

le-F

amily

, Ow

ner-

Occ

upan

t Len

ding

in S

ubur

bs b

y Bo

rrow

er R

ace

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

WHITE

70,394

1,82

972

,223

90.7

%87

.4%

90.6

%76

3,70

387

.8%

1.03

0.99

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

2,30

417

02,474

3.0%

8.1%

3.1%

61,927

7.1%

0.42

1.14

ASIAN

3,742

463,78

84.

8%2.

2%4.

8%21

,767

2.5%

1.93

0.88

HISPA

NIC

1,19

348

1,241

1.5%

2.3%

1.6%

14,060

1.6%

0.95

1.42

TOTA

L88

,328

2,37

390

,701

869,42

5

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

RACE

SHARE

TO

WHITESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

RACE

SHARE

TO

WHITESH

ARE

RAT

IO:SuBP

RIME

WHITE

70,394

1,82

972

,223

97.5

%2.

5%1.

001.

00

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

2,30

417

02,474

93.1

%6.

9%0.

962.

71

ASIAN

3,742

463,78

898

.8%

1.2%

1.01

0.48

HISPA

NIC

1,19

348

1,241

96.1

%3.

9%0.

991.

53

TOTA

L88

,328

2,37

390

,701

97.4

%2.

6%1.

001.

03

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

RACE

TO

WHITEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

WHITE

107,79

814

,945

13.9

%1.

00

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

5,18

81,48

128

.5%

2.06

ASIAN

5,96

290

715

.2%

1.10

HISPA

NIC

2,20

943

619

.7%

1.42

TOTA

L141,90

021

,663

15.3

%1.

10

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se r

ace

was

list

ed a

s “O

ther

” or

who

se r

ace

was

not

pro

vide

d.



Tabl

e 22

: All

Sing

le-F

amily

, Ow

ner-

Occ

upan

t Len

ding

in S

ubur

bs b

y Bo

rrow

er In

com

e

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOFALL

LOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

3,761

285

4,04

64.

5%13

.3%

4.7%

184,00

721

.2%

0.21

0.63

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)14

,616

568

15,184

17.6

%26

.5%

17.8

%15

0,36

317

.3%

1.02

1.53

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

21,303

574

21,877

25.7

%26

.8%

25.7

%176,69

420

.3%

1.26

1.32

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)43

,365

718

44,083

52.2

%33

.5%

51.7

%35

8,36

141

.2%

1.27

0.81

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

18,377

853

19,230

22.1

%39

.8%

22.6

%33

4,37

038

.5%

0.58

1.03

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

64,668

1,29

265

,960

77.9

%60

.2%

77.4

%53

5,05

561

.5%

1.27

0.98

TOTA

L88

,328

2,37

390

,701

869,42

5

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

ME

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

3,761

285

4,04

693

.0%

7.0%

0.94

4.32

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)14

,616

568

15,184

96.3

%3.

7%0.

982.

30

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

21,303

574

21,877

97.4

%2.

6%0.

991.

61

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)43

,365

718

44,083

98.4

%1.

6%1.

001.

00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

18,377

853

19,230

95.6

%4.

4%0.

972.

26

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

64,668

1,29

265

,960

98.0

%2.

0%1.

001.

00

TOTA

L88

,328

2,37

390

,701

97.4

%2.

6%0.

991.

61

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

INCO

ME

TOuPP

ER-

INCO

ME

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

8,43

12,69

732

.0%

2.59

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)24

,794

4,59

918

.5%

1.50

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

33,801

5,11

015

.1%

1.22

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)65

,535

8,09

012

.3%

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

33,225

7,29

622

.0%

1.65

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

99,336

13,200

13.3

%1.

00

TOTA

L141,90

021

,663

15.3

%1.

24

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se in

com

e w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 23

: All

Sing

le-F

amily

, Ow

ner-

Occ

upan

t Len

ding

in S

ubur

bs b

y Tr

act M

inor

ity L

evel

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIMELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOFALL

LOANS

OOHu

PERC

ENTOF

ALLOOHu

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

OOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIMESH

ARE

TO

OOHuSHARE

RAT

IO

0-49

%

MINORITy

87,686

2,29

689

,982

99.3

%96

.8%

99.2

%63

1,63

397

.4%

1.02

0.99

50-100

%

MINORITy

642

7771

90.

7%3.

2%0.

8%16

,574

2.6%

0.28

1.27

TOTA

L88

,328

2,37

390

,701

648,20

7

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

MINORITy

LEv

EL

SHARE

TOW

HITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

PRIM

E

MINORITy

LEv

EL

SHARE

TOW

HITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

0-49

%

MINORITy

87,686

2,29

689

,982

97.4

%2.

6%1.

001.

00

50-100

%

MINORITy

642

7771

989

.3%

10.7

%0.

924.

20

TOTA

L88

,328

2,37

390

,701

97.4

%2.

6%1.

001.

03

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

MINORITy

LEv

EL

TOW

HITEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

0-49

%

MINORITy

140,06

421

,042

15.0

%1.

00

50-100

%

MINORITy

1,83

662

133

.8%

2.25

TOTA

L141,90

021

,663

15.3

%1.

02

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se tr

act

min

orit

y le

vel w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 24

: All

Sing

le-F

amily

, Ow

ner-

Occ

upan

t Len

ding

in S

ubur

bs b

y Tr

act I

ncom

e Le

vel

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOFALL

LOANS

OOHu

PERC

ENTOF

ALLOOHu

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

OOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

OOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

127

1614

30.

1%0.

7%0.

2%5,13

40.

8%0.

180.

85

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)2,28

218

52,46

72.

6%7.

8%2.

7%31,196

4.8%

0.54

1.62

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

25,873

1,10

126

,974

29.3

%46

.4%

29.7

%23

0,23

535

.5%

0.82

1.31

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)60

,046

1,07

161

,117

68.0

%45

.1%

67.4

%38

1,55

458

.9%

1.15

0.77

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

2,40

920

12,61

02.

7%8.

5%2.

9%36

,330

5.6%

0.49

1.51

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

85,919

2,17

288

,091

97.3

%91

.5%

97.1

%611,78

994

.4%

1.03

0.97

TOTA

L88

,328

2,37

390

,701

648,11

9

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

INCO

ME

SHARE

TO

uPP

ER-INCO

ME

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

127

1614

388

.8%

11.2

%0.

906.

38

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)2,28

218

52,46

792

.5%

7.5%

0.94

4.28

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

25,873

1,10

126

,974

95.9

%4.

1%0.

982.

33

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)60

,046

1,07

161

,117

98.2

%1.

8%1.

001.

00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

2,40

920

12,61

092

.3%

7.7%

0.95

3.12

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

85,919

2,17

288

,091

97.5

%2.

5%1.

001.

00

TOTA

L88

,328

2,37

390

,701

97.4

%2.

6%0.

991.

49

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

INCO

ME

TOuPP

ER-

INCO

ME

DEN

IALRAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

409

147

35.9

%2.

70

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)4,82

61,20

324

.9%

1.87

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

45,009

8,10

818

.0%

1.35

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)91

,654

12,204

13.3

%1.

00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

5,23

51,35

025

.8%

1.74

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

136,66

320

,312

14.9

%1.

00

TOTA

L141,90

021

,663

15.3

%1.

15

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se tr

act i

ncom

e le

vel w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 25

: All

Sing

le-F

amily

, Ow

ner-

Occ

upan

t Len

ding

in S

ubur

bs b

y Bo

rrow

er G

ende

r

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOFALL

LOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIMESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

MALE

17,992

484

18,476

22.0

%22

.4%

22.0

%15

4,32

417

.8%

1.24

1.26

FEMALE

14,060

516

14,576

17.2

%23

.8%

17.3

%24

8,34

028

.6%

0.60

0.83

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

49,840

1,16

451,004

60.9

%53

.8%

60.7

%49

1,94

656

.6%

1.08

0.95

TOTA

L88

,328

2,37

390

,701

869,42

5

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

gEN

DER

SHARE

TO

MALESHARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

gEN

DER

SHARE

TO

MALESHARE

RAT

IO:SuBP

RIME

MALE

17,992

484

18,476

97.4

%2.

6%1.

001.

00

FEMALE

14,060

516

14,576

96.5

%3.

5%0.

991.

35

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

49,840

1,16

451,004

97.7

%2.

3%1.

000.

87

TOTA

L88

,328

2,37

390

,701

97.4

%2.

6%1.

001.

00

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

gEN

DER

TO

MALEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

MALE

31,051

5,64

218

.2%

1.00

FEMALE

23,559

4,11

517

.5%

0.96

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

74,080

9,26

412

.5%

0.69

TOTA

L141,90

021

,663

15.3

%0.

84

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se g

ende

r was

not

pro

vide

d.



Tabl

e 26

: Hom

e Pu

rcha

se S

ingl

e-Fa

mily

, Ow

ner-

Occ

upan

t Len

ding

in S

ubur

bs b

y Bo

rrow

er R

ace

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOFALL

LOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIMESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

WHITE

16,407

423

16,830

87.6

%81

.2%

87.4

%76

3,70

387

.8%

1.00

0.92

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

858

6392

14.

6%12

.1%

4.8%

61,927

7.1%

0.64

1.70

ASIAN

1,06

019

1,07

95.

7%3.

6%5.

6%21

,767

2.5%

2.26

1.46

HISPA

NIC

413

1642

92.

2%3.

1%2.

2%14

,060

1.6%

1.36

1.90

TOTA

L21

,025

587

21,612

869,42

5

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

RACE

SHARE

TO

WHITESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

RACE

SHARE

TO

WHITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

WHITE

16,407

423

16,830

97.5

%2.

5%1.

001.

00

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

858

6392

193

.2%

6.8%

0.96

2.72

ASIAN

1,06

019

1,07

998

.2%

1.8%

1.01

0.70

HISPA

NIC

413

1642

996

.3%

3.7%

0.99

1.48

TOTA

L21

,025

587

21,612

97.3

%2.

7%1.

001.

08

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

RACE

TO

WHITEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

WHITE

21,320

1,45

76.

8%1.

00

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

1,38

124

918

.0%

2.64

ASIAN

1,58

319

312

.2%

1.78

HISPA

NIC

590

7011

.9%

1.74

TOTA

L28

,418

2,36

88.

3%1.

22

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se r

ace

was

list

ed a

s “O

ther

” or

who

se r

ace

was

not

pro

vide

d.



Tabl

e 27

: Hom

e Pu

rcha

se S

ingl

e-Fa

mily

, Ow

ner-

Occ

upan

t Len

ding

in S

ubur

bs b

y Bo

rrow

er In

com

e

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

1,36

755

1,42

26.

5%9.

5%6.

6%18

4,00

721

.2%

0.31

0.45

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)5,28

215

65,43

825

.2%

26.9

%25

.3%

150,36

317

.3%

1.46

1.56

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

5,92

818

66,11

428

.3%

32.1

%28

.4%

176,69

420

.3%

1.39

1.58

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)8,35

218

28,53

439

.9%

31.4

%39

.7%

358,36

141

.2%

0.97

0.76

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

6,64

921

16,86

031

.8%

36.4

%31

.9%

334,37

038

.5%

0.83

0.95

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

14,280

368

14,648

68.2

%63

.6%

68.1

%53

5,05

561

.5%

1.11

1.03

TOTA

L21

,025

587

21,612

869,42

5

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

ME

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

1,36

755

1,42

296

.1%

3.9%

0.98

1.81

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)5,28

215

65,43

897

.1%

2.9%

0.99

1.35

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

5,92

818

66,11

497

.0%

3.0%

0.99

1.43

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)8,35

218

28,53

497

.9%

2.1%

1.00

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

6,64

921

16,86

096

.9%

3.1%

0.99

1.22

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

14,280

368

14,648

97.5

%2.

5%1.

001.

00

TOTA

L21

,025

587

21,612

97.3

%2.

7%0.

991.

27

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

INCO

ME

TOuPP

ER-

INCO

ME

DEN

IALRAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

2,14

641

319

.2%

3.07

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)6,99

363

49.

1%1.

45

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

7,83

955

47.

1%1.

13

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)11

,131

698

6.3%

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

9,13

91,04

711

.5%

1.74

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

18,970

1,25

26.

6%1.

00

TOTA

L28

,418

2,36

88.

3%1.

33

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se in

com

e w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 28

: Hom

e Pu

rcha

se S

ingl

e-Fa

mily

, Ow

ner-

Occ

upan

t Len

ding

in S

ubur

bs b

y Tr

act M

inor

ity L

evel

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOFALL

LOANS

OOHu

PERC

ENTOF

ALLOOHu

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

OOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TOOOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

0-49

%

MINORITy

20,709

566

21,275

98.5

%96

.4%

98.4

%63

1,63

397

.4%

1.01

0.99

50-100

%

MINORITy

316

2133

71.

5%3.

6%1.

6%16

,574

2.6%

0.59

1.40

TOTA

L21

,025

587

21,612

648,20

7

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

MINORITy

LEv

EL

SHARE

TOW

HITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

PRIM

E

MINORITy

LEv

EL

SHARE

TOW

HITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

0-49

%

MINORITy

20,709

566

21,275

97.3

%2.

7%1.

001.

00

50-100

%

MINORITy

316

2133

793

.8%

6.2%

0.96

2.34

TOTA

L21

,025

587

21,612

97.3

%2.

7%1.

001.

02

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

MINORITy

LEv

EL

TOW

HITEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

0-49

%

MINORITy

27,901

2,26

38.

1%1.

00

50-100

%

MINORITy

517

105

20.3

%2.

50

TOTA

L28

,418

2,36

88.

3%1.

03

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se tr

act

min

orit

y le

vel w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 29

: Hom

e Pu

rcha

se S

ingl

e-Fa

mily

, Ow

ner-

Occ

upan

t Len

ding

in S

ubur

bs b

y Tr

act I

ncom

e Le

vel

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

OOHu

PERC

ENTOF

ALLOOHu

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

OOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

OOHuSHARE

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

671

680.

3%0.

2%0.

3%5,13

40.

8%0.

400.

22

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)96

562

1,02

74.

6%10

.6%

4.8%

31,196

4.8%

0.95

2.19

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

7,59

727

17,86

836

.1%

46.2

%36

.4%

230,23

535

.5%

1.02

1.30

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)12

,396

253

12,649

59.0

%43

.1%

58.5

%38

1,55

458

.9%

1.00

0.73

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

1,03

263

1,09

54.

9%10

.7%

5.1%

36,330

5.6%

0.88

1.91

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

19,993

524

20,517

95.1

%89

.3%

94.9

%611,78

994

.4%

1.01

0.95

TOTA

L21

,025

587

21,612

648,11

9

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

ME

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

671

6898

.5%

1.5%

1.01

0.74

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)96

562

1,02

794

.0%

6.0%

0.96

3.02

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

7,59

727

17,86

896

.6%

3.4%

0.99

1.72

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)12

,396

253

12,649

98.0

%2.

0%1.

001.

00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

1,03

263

1,09

594

.2%

5.8%

0.97

2.25

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

19,993

524

20,517

97.4

%2.

6%1.

001.

00

TOTA

L21

,025

587

21,612

97.3

%2.

7%0.

991.

36

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

INCO

ME

TOuPP

ER-

INCO

ME

DEN

IALRAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

119

3025

.2%

3.39

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)1,40

918

112

.8%

1.73

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

10,225

919

9.0%

1.21

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)16

,665

1,23

87.

4%1.

00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

1,52

821

113

.8%

1.72

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

26,890

2,15

78.

0%1.

00

TOTA

L28

,418

2,36

88.

3%1.

12

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se tr

act i

ncom

e le

vel w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 30

: Hom

e Pu

rcha

se S

ingl

e-Fa

mily

, Ow

ner-

Occ

upan

t Len

ding

in S

ubur

bs b

y Bo

rrow

er G

ende

r

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOFALL

LOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIMESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

MALE

5,47

513

85,61

327

.8%

25.7

%27

.7%

154,32

417

.8%

1.57

1.45

FEMALE

4,22

712

74,35

421

.4%

23.6

%21

.5%

248,34

028

.6%

0.75

0.83

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

10,006

273

10,279

50.8

%50

.7%

50.8

%49

1,94

656

.6%

0.90

0.90

TOTA

L21

,025

587

21,612

869,42

5

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

gEN

DER

SHARE

TO

MALESHARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

gEN

DER

SHARE

TO

MALESHARE

RAT

IO:SuBP

RIME

MALE

5,47

513

85,61

397

.5%

2.5%

1.00

1.00

FEMALE

4,22

712

74,35

497

.1%

2.9%

1.00

1.19

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

10,006

273

10,279

97.3

%2.

7%1.

001.

08

TOTA

L21

,025

587

21,612

97.3

%2.

7%1.

001.

10

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

gEN

DER

TO

MALEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

MALE

7,53

874

09.

8%1.

00

FEMALE

5,68

354

79.

6%0.

98

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

13,066

802

6.1%

0.63

TOTA

L28

,418

2,36

88.

3%0.

85

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se g

ende

r was

not

pro

vide

d.



Tabl

e 31

: Refi

nanc

e Si

ngle

-Fam

ily, O

wne

r-O

ccup

ant L

endi

ng in

Sub

urbs

by

Borr

ower

Rac

e

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOFALL

LOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIMESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

WHITE

52,263

1,13

353

,396

91.6

%88

.9%

91.5

%76

3,70

387

.8%

1.04

1.01

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

1,417

931,510

2.5%

7.3%

2.6%

61,927

7.1%

0.35

1.02

ASIAN

2,63

920

2,65

94.

6%1.

6%4.

6%21

,767

2.5%

1.85

0.63

HISPA

NIC

765

2979

41.

3%2.

3%1.

4%14

,060

1.6%

0.83

1.41

TOTA

L65

,288

1,46

166

,749

869,42

5

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

RACE

SHARE

TO

WHITESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

RACE

SHARE

TO

WHITESH

ARE

RAT

IO:SuBP

RIME

WHITE

52,263

1,13

353

,396

97.9

%2.

1%1.

001.

00

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

1,417

931,510

93.8

%6.

2%0.

962.

90

ASIAN

2,63

920

2,65

999

.2%

0.8%

1.01

0.35

HISPA

NIC

765

2979

496

.3%

3.7%

0.98

1.72

TOTA

L65

,288

1,46

166

,749

97.8

%2.

2%1.

001.

03

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

RACE

TO

WHITEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

WHITE

83,420

12,992

15.6

%1.

00

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

3,64

81,16

531

.9%

2.05

ASIAN

4,27

168

516

.0%

1.03

HISPA

NIC

1,57

135

222

.4%

1.44

TOTA

L10

9,65

218

,593

17.0

%1.

09

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se r

ace

was

list

ed a

s “O

ther

” or

who

se r

ace

was

not

pro

vide

d.



Tabl

e 32

: Refi

nanc

e Si

ngle

-Fam

ily, O

wne

r-O

ccup

ant L

endi

ng in

Sub

urbs

by

Borr

ower

Inco

me

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOFALL

LOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

2,25

216

12,41

33.

7%12

.9%

3.9%

184,00

721

.2%

0.18

0.61

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)8,98

432

49,30

814

.9%

26.0

%15

.2%

150,36

317

.3%

0.86

1.51

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

14,880

311

15,191

24.8

%25

.0%

24.8

%176,69

420

.3%

1.22

1.23

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)34

,004

448

34,452

56.6

%36

.0%

56.1

%35

8,36

141

.2%

1.37

0.87

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

11,236

485

11,721

18.7

%39

.0%

19.1

%33

4,37

038

.5%

0.49

1.01

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

48,884

759

49,643

81.3

%61

.0%

80.9

%53

5,05

561

.5%

1.32

0.99

TOTA

L65

,288

1,46

166

,749

869,42

5

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:SuBP

RIME

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

2,25

216

12,41

393

.3%

6.7%

0.95

5.13

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)8,98

432

49,30

896

.5%

3.5%

0.98

2.68

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

14,880

311

15,191

98.0

%2.

0%0.

991.

57

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)34

,004

448

34,452

98.7

%1.

3%1.

001.

00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

11,236

485

11,721

95.9

%4.

1%0.

972.

71

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

48,884

759

49,643

98.5

%1.

5%1.

001.

00

TOTA

L65

,288

1,46

166

,749

97.8

%2.

2%0.

991.

68

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

INCO

ME

TOuPP

ER-

INCO

ME

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

5,83

42,12

636

.4%

2.68

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)17,040

3,79

322

.3%

1.64

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

25,045

4,40

417

.6%

1.29

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)52

,742

7,17

913

.6%

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

22,874

5,91

925

.9%

1.74

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

77,787

11,583

14.9

%1.

00

TOTA

L10

9,65

218

,593

17.0

%1.

25

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se in

com

e w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 33

: Refi

nanc

e Si

ngle

-Fam

ily, O

wne

r-O

ccup

ant L

endi

ng in

Sub

urbs

by

Trac

t Min

ority

Lev

el

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOFALL

LOANS

OOHu

PERC

ENTOF

ALLOOHu

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

OOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

OOHuSHARE

RAT

IO

0-49

%

MINORITy

64,972

1,414

66,386

99.5

%96

.8%

99.5

%63

1,63

397

.4%

1.02

0.99

50-100

%

MINORITy

316

4736

30.

5%3.

2%0.

5%16

,574

2.6%

0.19

1.26

TOTA

L65

,288

1,46

166

,749

648,20

7

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

MINORITy

LEv

EL

SHARE

TOW

HITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

PRIM

E

MINORITy

LEv

EL

SHARE

TOW

HITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

0-49

%

MINORITy

64,972

1,414

66,386

97.9

%2.

1%1.

001.

00

50-100

%

MINORITy

316

4736

387

.1%

12.9

%0.

896.

08

TOTA

L65

,288

1,46

166

,749

97.8

%2.

2%1.

001.

03

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

MINORITy

LEv

EL

TOW

HITEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

0-49

%

MINORITy

108,41

318

,118

16.7

%1.

00

50-100

%

MINORITy

1,23

947

538

.3%

2.29

TOTA

L10

9,65

218

,593

17.0

%1.

01

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se tr

act

min

orit

y le

vel w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 34

: Refi

nanc

e Si

ngle

-Fam

ily, O

wne

r-O

ccup

ant L

endi

ng in

Sub

urbs

by

Trac

t Inc

ome

Leve

l

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOFALL

LOANS

OOHu

PER

CENTOF

ALLOOHu

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

OOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

OOHuSHARE

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

5611

670.

1%0.

8%0.

1%5,13

40.

8%0.

110.

95

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)1,28

210

21,38

42.

0%7.

0%2.

1%31,196

4.8%

0.41

1.45

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

17,635

676

18,311

27.0

%46

.3%

27.4

%23

0,23

535

.5%

0.76

1.30

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)46

,315

672

46,987

70.9

%46

.0%

70.4

%38

1,55

458

.9%

1.21

0.78

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

1,33

811

31,451

2.0%

7.7%

2.2%

36,330

5.6%

0.37

1.38

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

63,950

1,34

865

,298

98.0

%92

.3%

97.8

%611,78

994

.4%

1.04

0.98

TOTA

L65

,288

1,46

166

,749

648,11

9

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

INCO

ME

SHARE

TO

uPP

ER-INCO

ME

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

5611

6783

.6%

16.4

%0.

8511

.48

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)1,28

210

21,38

492

.6%

7.4%

0.94

5.15

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

17,635

676

18,311

96.3

%3.

7%0.

982.

58

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)46

,315

672

46,987

98.6

%1.

4%1.

001.

00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

1,33

811

31,451

92.2

%7.

8%0.

943.

77

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

63,950

1,34

865

,298

97.9

%2.

1%1.

001.

00

TOTA

L65

,288

1,46

166

,749

97.8

%2.

2%0.

991.

53

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

INCO

ME

TOuPP

ER-

INCO

ME

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

267

106

39.7

%2.

72

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)3,27

096

929

.6%

2.03

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

33,436

6,90

320

.6%

1.41

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)72

,677

10,614

14.6

%1.

00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

3,53

71,07

530

.4%

1.84

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

106,11

317,517

16.5

%1.

00

TOTA

L10

9,65

218

,593

17.0

%1.

16

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se tr

act i

ncom

e le

vel w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 35

: Refi

nanc

e Si

ngle

-Fam

ily, O

wne

r-O

ccup

ant L

endi

ng in

Sub

urbs

by

Borr

ower

Gen

der

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOFALL

LOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIMESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

MALE

12,239

293

12,532

20.3

%22

.2%

20.3

%15

4,32

417

.8%

1.14

1.25

FEMALE

9,52

931

09,83

915

.8%

23.5

%16

.0%

248,34

028

.6%

0.55

0.82

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

38,527

717

39,244

63.9

%54

.3%

63.7

%49

1,94

656

.6%

1.13

0.96

TOTA

L65

,288

1,46

166

,749

869,42

5

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

gEN

DER

SHARE

TO

MALESHARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

gEN

DER

SHARE

TO

MALESHARE

RAT

IO:SuBP

RIME

MALE

12,239

293

12,532

97.7

%2.

3%1.

001.

00

FEMALE

9,52

931

09,83

996

.8%

3.2%

0.99

1.35

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

38,527

717

39,244

98.2

%1.

8%1.

010.

78

TOTA

L65

,288

1,46

166

,749

97.8

%2.

2%1.

000.

94

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

gEN

DER

TO

MALEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

MALE

22,823

4,717

20.7

%1.

00

FEMALE

17,186

3,40

119

.8%

0.96

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

58,851

8,17

213

.9%

0.67

TOTA

L10

9,65

218

,593

17.0

%0.

82

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se g

ende

r was

not

pro

vide

d.



Tabl

e 36

: Hom

e Im

prov

emen

t Sin

gle-

Fam

ily, O

wne

r-O

ccup

ant L

endi

ng in

Sub

urbs

by

Borr

ower

Rac

e

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIMESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

WHITE

3,17

339

73,57

094

.0%

89.6

%93

.5%

763,70

387

.8%

1.07

1.02

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

6829

972.

0%6.

5%2.

5%61

,927

7.1%

0.28

0.92

ASIAN

9012

102

2.7%

2.7%

2.7%

21,767

2.5%

1.06

1.08

HISPA

NIC

455

501.

3%1.

1%1.

3%14

,060

1.6%

0.82

0.70

TOTA

L3,96

749

04,45

786

9,42

5

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

RACE

SHARE

TO

WHITESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

RACE

SHARE

TO

WHITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

WHITE

3,17

339

73,57

088

.9%

11.1

%1.

001.

00

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

6829

9770

.1%

29.9

%0.

792.

69

ASIAN

9012

102

88.2

%11

.8%

0.99

1.06

HISPA

NIC

455

5090

.0%

10.0

%1.

010.

90

TOTA

L3,96

749

04,45

789

.0%

11.0

%1.

000.

99

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IALRAT

ERACE

TOW

HITE

DEN

IALRAT

IO

WHITE

5,90

71,30

122

.0%

1.00

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

327

148

45.3

%2.

05

ASIAN

229

8135

.4%

1.61

HISPA

NIC

125

4636

.8%

1.67

TOTA

L7,89

61,94

824

.7%

1.12

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se r

ace

was

list

ed a

s “O

ther

” or

who

se r

ace

was

not

pro

vide

d.



Tabl

e 37

: Hom

e Im

prov

emen

t Sin

gle-

Fam

ily, O

wne

r-O

ccup

ant L

endi

ng in

Sub

urbs

by

Borr

ower

Inco

me

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

235

8231

76.

0%16

.9%

7.2%

184,00

721

.2%

0.28

0.80

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)64

612

076

616

.4%

24.7

%17

.3%

150,36

317

.3%

0.95

1.43

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

1,03

013

31,16

326

.1%

27.4

%26

.3%

176,69

420

.3%

1.29

1.35

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)2,02

915

12,18

051

.5%

31.1

%49

.3%

358,36

141

.2%

1.25

0.75

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

881

202

1,08

322

.4%

41.6

%24

.5%

334,37

038

.5%

0.58

1.08

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

3,05

928

43,34

377

.6%

58.4

%75

.5%

535,05

561

.5%

1.26

0.95

TOTA

L3,96

749

04,45

786

9,42

5

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

INCO

ME

SHARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

ME

SHARE

RAT

IO:

PRIM

E

INCO

ME

SHARE

TO

uPP

ER-INCO

ME

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

235

8231

774

.1%

25.9

%0.

803.

73

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)64

612

076

684

.3%

15.7

%0.

912.

26

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

1,03

013

31,16

388

.6%

11.4

%0.

951.

65

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)2,02

915

12,18

093

.1%

6.9%

1.00

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

881

202

1,08

381

.3%

18.7

%0.

892.

20

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

3,05

928

43,34

391

.5%

8.5%

1.00

1.00

TOTA

L3,96

749

04,45

789

.0%

11.0

%0.

961.

59

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

INCO

METO

uPP

ER-INCO

ME

DEN

IALRAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

806

351

43.5

%2.

50

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)1,52

749

132

.2%

1.85

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

2,01

248

023

.9%

1.37

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)3,48

560

717

.4%

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

2,33

384

236

.1%

1.83

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

5,49

71,08

719

.8%

1.00

TOTA

L7,89

61,94

824

.7%

1.42

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se in

com

e w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 38

: Hom

e Im

prov

emen

t Sin

gle-

Fam

ily, O

wne

r-O

ccup

ant L

endi

ng in

Sub

urbs

by

Trac

t Min

ority

Lev

el

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOFALL

LOANS

OOHu

PERC

ENTOF

ALLOOHu

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

OOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

OOHuSHARE

RAT

IO

0-49

%

MINORITy

3,93

947

54,414

99.3

%96

.9%

99.0

%63

1,63

397

.4%

1.02

0.99

50-100

%

MINORITy

2815

430.

7%3.

1%1.

0%16

,574

2.6%

0.28

1.20

TOTA

L3,96

749

04,45

764

8,20

7

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

MINORITy

LEv

EL

SHARE

TOW

HITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

PRIM

E

MINORITy

LEv

EL

SHARE

TOW

HITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

0-49

%

MINORITy

3,93

947

54,414

89.2

%10

.8%

1.00

1.00

50-100

%

MINORITy

2815

4365

.1%

34.9

%0.

733.

24

TOTA

L3,96

749

04,45

789

.0%

11.0

%1.

001.

02

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

MINORITy

LEv

EL

TOW

HITEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

0-49

%

MINORITy

7,72

41,85

524

.0%

1.00

50-100

%

MINORITy

172

9354

.1%

2.25

TOTA

L7,89

61,94

824

.7%

1.03

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se tr

act

min

orit

y le

vel w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 39

: Hom

e Im

prov

emen

t Sin

gle-

Fam

ily, O

wne

r-O

ccup

ant L

endi

ng in

Sub

urbs

by

Trac

t Inc

ome

Leve

l

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

OOHu

PERC

ENTOF

ALLOOHu

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

OOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

OOHuSHARE

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

76

130.

2%1.

2%0.

3%5,13

40.

8%0.

221.

55

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)85

2811

32.

1%5.

7%2.

5%31,196

4.8%

0.45

1.19

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

1,38

721

91,60

635

.0%

44.7

%36

.0%

230,23

535

.5%

0.98

1.26

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)2,48

823

72,72

562

.7%

48.4

%61

.1%

381,55

458

.9%

1.07

0.82

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

9234

126

2.3%

6.9%

2.8%

36,330

5.6%

0.41

1.24

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

3,87

545

64,33

197

.7%

93.1

%97

.2%

611,78

994

.4%

1.03

0.99

TOTA

L3,96

749

04,45

764

8,11

9

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

INCO

ME

SHARE

TO

uPP

ER-INCO

ME

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

76

1353

.8%

46.2

%0.

595.

31

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)85

2811

375

.2%

24.8

%0.

822.

85

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

1,38

721

91,60

686

.4%

13.6

%0.

951.

57

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)2,48

823

72,72

591

.3%

8.7%

1.00

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

9234

126

73.0

%27

.0%

0.82

2.56

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

3,87

545

64,33

189

.5%

10.5

%1.

001.

00

TOTA

L3,96

749

04,45

789

.0%

11.0

%0.

971.

26

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

INCO

METO

uPP

ER-INCO

ME

DEN

IALRAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

4221

50.0

%2.

44

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)31

913

943

.6%

2.12

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

3,00

185

728

.6%

1.39

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)4,53

493

120

.5%

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

361

160

44.3

%1.

87

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

7,53

51,78

823

.7%

1.00

TOTA

L7,89

61,94

824

.7%

1.20

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se tr

act i

ncom

e le

vel w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 40

: Hom

e Im

prov

emen

t Sin

gle-

Fam

ily, O

wne

r-O

ccup

ant L

endi

ng in

Sub

urbs

by

Borr

ower

Gen

der

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIMESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

MALE

562

9966

115

.3%

21.4

%16

.0%

154,32

417

.8%

0.86

1.21

FEMALE

571

110

681

15.5

%23

.8%

16.5

%24

8,34

028

.6%

0.54

0.83

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

2,54

025

32,79

369

.2%

54.8

%67

.5%

491,94

656

.6%

1.22

0.97

TOTA

L3,96

749

04,45

786

9,42

5

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

gEN

DER

SHARE

TO

MALE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

PRIM

E

gEN

DER

SHARE

TO

MALE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

MALE

562

9966

185

.0%

15.0

%1.

001.

00

FEMALE

571

110

681

83.8

%16

.2%

0.99

1.08

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

2,54

025

32,79

390

.9%

9.1%

1.07

0.60

TOTA

L3,96

749

04,45

789

.0%

11.0

%1.

050.

73

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IALRAT

EgEN

DER

TO

MALEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

MALE

1,49

952

034

.7%

1.00

FEMALE

1,36

843

331

.7%

0.91

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

4,30

275

917

.6%

0.51

TOTA

L7,89

61,94

824

.7%

0.71

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se g

ende

r was

not

pro

vide

d.



Tabl

e 41

: All

Loan

s by

Bor

row

er R

ace

in B

altim

ore

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIMESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

WHITE

4,73

914

74,88

660

.8%

28.3

%58

.8%

93,423

36.2

%1.

680.

78

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

2,73

336

03,09

335

.1%

69.2

%37

.2%

151,90

758

.9%

0.60

1.17

ASIAN

167

417

12.

1%0.

8%2.

1%4,19

31.

6%1.

320.

47

HISPA

NIC

150

915

91.

9%1.

7%1.

9%3,79

31.

5%1.

311.

18

TOTA

L8,98

559

29,57

725

7,78

8

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

RACE

SHARE

TO

WHITESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

RACE

SHARE

TO

WHITESH

ARE

RAT

IO:SuBP

RIME

WHITE

4,73

914

74,88

697

.0%

3.0%

1.00

1.00

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

2,73

336

03,09

388

.4%

11.6

%0.

913.

87

ASIAN

167

417

197

.7%

2.3%

1.01

0.78

HISPA

NIC

150

915

994

.3%

5.7%

0.97

1.88

TOTA

L8,98

559

29,57

793

.8%

6.2%

0.97

2.05

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IALRAT

ERACE

TOW

HITE

DEN

IALRAT

IO

WHITE

7,67

51,25

916

.4%

1.00

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

7,18

32,20

630

.7%

1.87

ASIAN

316

6620

.9%

1.27

HISPA

NIC

329

8826

.7%

1.63

TOTA

L18

,498

4,40

323

.8%

1.45

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se r

ace

was

list

ed a

s “O

ther

” or

who

se r

ace

was

not

pro

vide

d.



Tabl

e 42

: All

Loan

s by

Bor

row

er In

com

e in

Bal

timor

e

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

1,41

216

81,58

018

.5%

34.6

%19

.5%

129,40

250

.2%

0.37

0.69

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)2,30

718

12,48

830

.2%

37.3

%30

.7%

57,318

22.2

%1.

361.

68

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

1,70

098

1,79

822

.3%

20.2

%22

.2%

38,298

14.9

%1.

501.

36

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)2,20

838

2,24

628

.9%

7.8%

27.7

%32

,770

12.7

%2.

280.

62

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

3,71

934

94,06

848

.8%

72.0

%50

.1%

186,72

072

.4%

0.67

0.99

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

3,90

813

64,04

451

.2%

28.0

%49

.9%

71,068

27.6

%1.

861.

02

TOTA

L8,98

559

29,57

725

7,78

8

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:SuBP

RIME

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

1,41

216

81,58

089

.4%

10.6

%0.

916.

28

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)2,30

718

12,48

892

.7%

7.3%

0.94

4.30

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

1,70

098

1,79

894

.5%

5.5%

0.96

3.22

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)2,20

838

2,24

698

.3%

1.7%

1.00

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

3,71

934

94,06

891

.4%

8.6%

0.95

2.55

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

3,90

813

64,04

496

.6%

3.4%

1.00

1.00

TOTA

L8,98

559

29,57

793

.8%

6.2%

0.95

3.65

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

INCO

ME

TOuPP

ER-

INCO

ME

DEN

IALRAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

3,87

21,32

334

.2%

1.94

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)4,94

31,24

425

.2%

1.43

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

3,30

371

821

.7%

1.23

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)3,73

465

817

.6%

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

8,81

52,56

729

.1%

1.49

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

7,03

71,376

19.6

%1.

00

TOTA

L18

,498

4,40

323

.8%

1.35

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se in

com

e w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.

DEN

IALRAT

EDIFFERE

NT

2009

2008

DIFF

PHILADELPH

IA30

.00%

38.4

0%-0.218

75

BALTIM

ORE

29.1

0%34

.40%

-0.154

0697

67

DET

ROIT

56.7

0%59

.00%

-0.038

9830

51

PITT

SBuRg

H29

.30%

41.2

0%-0.288

8349

51



Tabl

e 43

: All

Loan

s by

Tra

ct M

inor

ity L

evel

in B

altim

ore

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

OOHu

PERC

ENTOF

ALLOOHu

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

OOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

OOHuSHARE

RAT

IO

0-49

%

MINORITy

5,28

917

25,46

158

.9%

29.1

%57

.0%

51,722

39.8

%1.

480.

73

50-100

%

MINORITy

3,69

642

04,11

641

.1%

70.9

%43

.0%

78,157

60.2

%0.

681.

18

TOTA

L8,98

559

29,57

712

9,87

9

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

MINORITy

LEv

EL

SHARE

TOW

HITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

PRIM

E

MINORITy

LEv

EL

SHARE

TOW

HITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

0-49

%

MINORITy

5,28

917

25,46

196

.9%

3.1%

1.00

1.00

50-100

%

MINORITy

3,69

642

04,11

689

.8%

10.2

%0.

933.

24

TOTA

L8,98

559

29,57

793

.8%

6.2%

0.97

1.96

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

MINORITy

LEv

EL

TOW

HITEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

0-49

%

MINORITy

9,13

41,63

717

.9%

1.00

50-100

%

MINORITy

9,36

42,76

629

.5%

1.65

TOTA

L18

,498

4,40

323

.8%

1.33

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se tr

act

min

orit

y le

vel w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 44

: All

Loan

s by

Tra

ct In

com

e Le

vel i

n Ba

ltim

ore

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

OOHu

PERC

ENTOF

ALLOOHu

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

OOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

OOHuSHARE

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

1,18

713

51,32

213

.2%

22.8

%13

.8%

28,290

21.8

%0.

611.

05

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)3,95

931

64,27

544

.1%

53.4

%44

.6%

67,006

51.6

%0.

851.

03

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

2,63

212

32,75

529

.3%

20.8

%28

.8%

25,666

19.8

%1.

481.

05

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)1,20

618

1,22

413

.4%

3.0%

12.8

%8,917

6.9%

1.96

0.44

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

5,14

645

15,59

757

.3%

76.2

%58

.4%

95,296

73.4

%0.

781.

04

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

3,83

814

13,97

942

.7%

23.8

%41

.6%

34,583

26.6

%1.

600.

89

TOTA

L8,98

559

29,57

712

9,87

9

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:SuBP

RIME

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

1,18

713

51,32

289

.8%

10.2

%0.

916.

94

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)3,95

931

64,27

592

.6%

7.4%

0.94

5.03

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

2,63

212

32,75

595

.5%

4.5%

0.97

3.04

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)1,20

618

1,22

498

.5%

1.5%

1.00

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

5,14

645

15,59

791

.9%

8.1%

0.95

2.27

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

3,83

814

13,97

996

.5%

3.5%

1.00

1.00

TOTA

L8,98

559

29,57

793

.8%

6.2%

0.95

4.20

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

INCO

ME

TOuPP

ER-

INCO

ME

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

3,05

393

930

.8%

2.06

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)8,63

02,147

24.9

%1.

67

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

4,93

81,03

721

.0%

1.41

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)1,87

628

014

.9%

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

11,683

3,08

626

.4%

1.37

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

6,81

41,317

19.3

%1.

00

TOTA

L18

,498

4,40

323

.8%

1.59

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se tr

act i

ncom

e le

vel w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 45

: All

Loan

s by

Bor

row

er G

ende

r in

Balti

mor

e

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIMESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

MALE

2,53

115

72,68

831

.3%

28.4

%31

.1%

61,247

23.8

%1.

321.

20

FEMALE

3,05

328

23,33

537

.7%

51.1

%38

.6%

124,476

48.3

%0.

781.

06

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

2,51

311

32,62

631

.0%

20.5

%30

.4%

72,065

28.0

%1.

110.

73

TOTA

L8,98

559

29,57

725

7,78

8

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

gEN

DER

SHARE

TO

MALE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

PRIM

E

gEN

DER

SHARE

TO

MALE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

MALE

2,53

115

72,68

894

.2%

5.8%

1.00

1.00

FEMALE

3,05

328

23,33

591

.5%

8.5%

0.97

1.45

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

2,51

311

32,62

695

.7%

4.3%

1.02

0.74

TOTA

L8,98

559

29,57

793

.8%

6.2%

1.00

1.06

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IALRAT

EgEN

DER

TO

MALEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

MALE

5,42

11,35

525

.0%

1.00

FEMALE

6,68

51,72

725

.8%

1.03

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

4,37

583

019

.0%

0.76

TOTA

L18

,498

4,40

323

.8%

0.95

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se g

ende

r was

not

pro

vide

d.



Tabl

e 46

: All

Loan

s by

Bor

row

er R

ace

in D

etro

it

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOFALL

LOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIMESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

WHITE

200

3323

321

.7%

13.2

%19

.9%

44,789

13.3

%1.

630.

99

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

689

210

899

74.7

%84

.0%

76.7

%26

9,35

480

.1%

0.93

1.05

ASIAN

103

131.

1%1.

2%1.

1%2,75

80.

8%1.

321.

46

HISPA

NIC

234

272.

5%1.

6%2.

3%12

,446

3.7%

0.67

0.43

TOTA

L1,03

827

31,311

336,48

2

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

RACE

SHARE

TO

WHITESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

RACE

SHARE

TO

WHITESH

ARE

RAT

IO:SuBP

RIME

WHITE

200

3323

385

.8%

14.2

%1.

001.

00

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

689

210

899

76.6

%23

.4%

0.89

1.65

ASIAN

103

1376

.9%

23.1

%0.

901.

63

HISPA

NIC

234

2785

.2%

14.8

%0.

991.

05

TOTA

L1,03

827

31,311

79.2

%20

.8%

0.92

1.47

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

RACE

TO

WHITEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

WHITE

692

278

40.2

%1.

00

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

3,64

11,874

51.5

%1.

28

ASIAN

4416

36.4

%0.

91

HISPA

NIC

150

9060

.0%

1.49

TOTA

L5,39

42,72

450

.5%

1.26

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se r

ace

was

list

ed a

s “O

ther

” or

who

se r

ace

was

not

pro

vide

d.



Tabl

e 47

: All

Loan

s by

Bor

row

er In

com

e in

Det

roit

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOFALL

LOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

241

8432

532

.4%

39.4

%34

.0%

176,92

952

.6%

0.62

0.75

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)25

271

323

33.9

%33

.3%

33.8

%65

,792

19.6

%1.

731.

70

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

140

3917

918

.8%

18.3

%18

.7%

49,842

14.8

%1.

271.

24

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)11

019

129

14.8

%8.

9%13

.5%

43,919

13.1

%1.

130.

68

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

493

155

648

66.4

%72

.8%

67.8

%24

2,72

172

.1%

0.92

1.01

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

250

5830

833

.6%

27.2

%32

.2%

93,761

27.9

%1.

210.

98

TOTA

L1,03

827

31,311

336,48

2

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:SuBP

RIME

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

241

8432

574

.2%

25.8

%0.

871.

75

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)25

271

323

78.0

%22

.0%

0.91

1.49

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

140

3917

978

.2%

21.8

%0.

921.

48

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)11

019

129

85.3

%14

.7%

1.00

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

493

155

648

76.1

%23

.9%

0.94

1.27

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

250

5830

881

.2%

18.8

%1.

001.

00

TOTA

L1,03

827

31,311

79.2

%20

.8%

0.93

1.41

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

INCO

ME

TOuPP

ER-

INCO

ME

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

1,80

51,08

059

.8%

1.36

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)1,52

680

852

.9%

1.20

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

821

453

55.2

%1.

25

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)46

420

444

.0%

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

3,33

11,88

856

.7%

1.11

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

1,28

565

751

.1%

1.00

TOTA

L5,39

42,72

450

.5%

1.15

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se in

com

e w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 48

: All

Loan

s by

Tra

ct M

inor

ity L

evel

in D

etro

it

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOFALL

LOANS

OOHu

PERC

ENTOF

ALLOOHu

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

OOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TOOOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

0-49

%

MINORITy

5015

654.

8%5.

5%5.

0%6,89

53.

7%1.

291.

47

50-100

%

MINORITy

988

258

1,24

695

.2%

94.5

%95

.0%

177,77

796

.3%

0.99

0.98

TOTA

L1,03

827

31,311

184,67

2

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

MINORITy

LEv

EL

SHARE

TOW

HITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

PRIM

E

MINORITy

LEv

EL

SHARE

TOW

HITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

0-49

%

MINORITy

5015

6576

.9%

23.1

%1.

001.

00

50-100

%

MINORITy

988

258

1,24

679

.3%

20.7

%1.

030.

90

TOTA

L1,03

827

31,311

79.2

%20

.8%

1.03

0.90

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

MINORITy

LEv

EL

TOW

HITEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

0-49

%

MINORITy

196

7839

.8%

1.00

50-100

%

MINORITy

5,19

82,64

650

.9%

1.28

TOTA

L5,39

42,72

450

.5%

1.27

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se tr

act

min

orit

y le

vel w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 49

: All

Loan

s by

Tra

ct In

com

e Le

vel i

n D

etro

it

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

OOHu

PERC

ENTOF

ALLOOHu

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

OOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TOOOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

5411

655.

2%4.

0%5.

0%17,007

9.2%

0.57

0.44

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)32

795

422

31.5

%34

.8%

32.2

%95

,031

51.5

%0.

610.

68

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

481

132

613

46.4

%48

.4%

46.8

%62

,796

34.0

%1.

361.

42

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)17

535

210

16.9

%12

.8%

16.0

%9,83

85.

3%3.

172.

41

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

381

106

487

36.7

%38

.8%

37.2

%11

2,03

860

.7%

0.61

0.64

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

656

167

823

63.3

%61

.2%

62.8

%72

,634

39.3

%1.

611.

56

TOTA

L1,03

827

31,311

184,67

2

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:SuBP

RIME

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

5411

6583

.1%

16.9

%1.

001.

02

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)32

795

422

77.5

%22

.5%

0.93

1.35

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

481

132

613

78.5

%21

.5%

0.94

1.29

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)17

535

210

83.3

%16

.7%

1.00

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

381

106

487

78.2

%21

.8%

0.98

1.07

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

656

167

823

79.7

%20

.3%

1.00

1.00

TOTA

L1,03

827

31,311

79.2

%20

.8%

0.95

1.25

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

INCO

ME

TOuPP

ER-

INCO

ME

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

343

171

49.9

%1.

20

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)2,01

51,147

56.9

%1.

37

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

2,35

21,12

247

.7%

1.15

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)68

128

341

.6%

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

2,35

81,31

855

.9%

1.21

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

3,03

31,40

546

.3%

1.00

TOTA

L5,39

42,72

450

.5%

1.22

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se tr

act i

ncom

e le

vel w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 50

: All

Loan

s by

Bor

row

er G

ende

r in

Det

roit

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIMESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

MALE

372

8645

838

.5%

33.0

%37

.3%

77,770

23.1

%1.

671.

43

FEMALE

453

123

576

46.9

%47

.1%

46.9

%16

5,31

549

.1%

0.95

0.96

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

141

5219

314

.6%

19.9

%15

.7%

93,397

27.8

%0.

530.

72

TOTA

L1,03

827

31,311

336,48

2

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

gEN

DER

SHARE

TO

MALE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

PRIM

E

gEN

DER

SHARE

TO

MALE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

MALE

372

8645

881

.2%

18.8

%1.

001.

00

FEMALE

453

123

576

78.6

%21

.4%

0.97

1.14

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

141

5219

373

.1%

26.9

%0.

901.

43

TOTA

L1,03

827

31,311

79.2

%20

.8%

0.97

1.11

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IALRAT

EgEN

DER

TO

MALEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

MALE

1,874

947

50.5

%1.

00

FEMALE

2,37

51,21

851

.3%

1.01

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

687

314

45.7

%0.

90

TOTA

L5,39

42,72

450

.5%

1.00

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se g

ende

r was

not

pro

vide

d.



Tabl

e 51

: All

Loan

s by

Bor

row

er R

ace

in P

ittsb

urgh

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIMESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

WHITE

3,51

532

13,83

691

.0%

86.8

%90

.6%

101,22

970

.4%

1.29

1.23

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

218

3925

75.

6%10

.5%

6.1%

34,690

24.1

%0.

230.

44

ASIAN

845

892.

2%1.

4%2.

1%3,86

92.

7%0.

810.

50

HISPA

NIC

465

511.

2%1.

4%1.

2%1,58

61.

1%1.

081.

22

TOTA

L4,26

540

24,66

714

3,75

2

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

RACE

SHARE

TO

WHITESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

RACE

SHARE

TO

WHITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

WHITE

3,51

532

13,83

691

.6%

8.4%

1.00

1.00

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

218

3925

784

.8%

15.2

%0.

931.

81

ASIAN

845

8994

.4%

5.6%

1.03

0.67

HISPA

NIC

465

5190

.2%

9.8%

0.98

1.17

TOTA

L4,26

540

24,66

791

.4%

8.6%

1.00

1.03

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IALRAT

ERACE

TOW

HITE

DEN

IALRAT

IO

WHITE

6,15

91,18

919

.3%

1.00

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

628

246

39.2

%2.

03

ASIAN

159

2817

.6%

0.91

HISPA

NIC

8921

23.6

%1.

22

TOTA

L8,06

41,774

22.0

%1.

14

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se r

ace

was

list

ed a

s “O

ther

” or

who

se r

ace

was

not

pro

vide

d.



Tabl

e 52

: All

Loan

s by

Bor

row

er In

com

e in

Pitt

sbur

gh

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIMESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

451

8153

210

.9%

20.8

%11

.8%

57,738

40.2

%0.

270.

52

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)88

211

799

921

.4%

30.1

%22

.1%

26,788

18.6

%1.

151.

61

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

1,02

110

61,12

724

.8%

27.2

%25

.0%

23,790

16.5

%1.

501.

65

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)1,76

885

1,85

342

.9%

21.9

%41

.1%

35,437

24.7

%1.

740.

89

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

1,33

319

81,53

132

.3%

50.9

%33

.9%

84,526

58.8

%0.

550.

87

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

2,78

919

12,98

067

.7%

49.1

%66

.1%

59,226

41.2

%1.

641.

19

TOTA

L4,26

540

24,66

714

3,75

2

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

ME

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

451

8153

284

.8%

15.2

%0.

893.

32

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)88

211

799

988

.3%

11.7

%0.

932.

55

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

1,02

110

61,12

790

.6%

9.4%

0.95

2.05

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)1,76

885

1,85

395

.4%

4.6%

1.00

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

1,33

319

81,53

187

.1%

12.9

%0.

932.

02

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

2,78

919

12,98

093

.6%

6.4%

1.00

1.00

TOTA

L4,26

540

24,66

791

.4%

8.6%

0.96

1.88

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

INCO

ME

TOuPP

ER-

INCO

ME

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

1,21

943

735

.8%

2.37

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)1,79

244

624

.9%

1.65

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

1,87

238

120

.4%

1.35

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)2,85

343

115

.1%

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

3,01

188

329

.3%

1.71

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

4,72

581

217

.2%

1.00

TOTA

L8,06

41,774

22.0

%1.

46

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se in

com

e w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 53

: All

Loan

s by

Tra

ct M

inor

ity L

evel

in P

ittsb

urgh

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

OOHu

PERC

ENTOF

ALLOOHu

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

OOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TOOOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

0-49

%

MINORITy

4,04

136

54,40

694

.7%

90.8

%94

.4%

63,202

83.5

%1.

131.

09

50-100

%

MINORITy

224

3726

15.

3%9.

2%5.

6%12

,475

16.5

%0.

320.

56

TOTA

L4,26

540

24,66

775

,677

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

MINORITy

LEv

EL

SHARE

TOW

HITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

PRIM

E

MINORITy

LEv

EL

SHARE

TOW

HITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

0-49

%

MINORITy

4,04

136

54,40

691

.7%

8.3%

1.00

1.00

50-100

%

MINORITy

224

3726

185

.8%

14.2

%0.

941.

71

TOTA

L4,26

540

24,66

791

.4%

8.6%

1.00

1.04

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

MINORITy

LEv

EL

TOW

HITEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

0-49

%

MINORITy

7,39

01,50

020

.3%

1.00

50-100

%

MINORITy

674

274

40.7

%2.

00

TOTA

L8,06

41,774

22.0

%1.

08

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se tr

act

min

orit

y le

vel w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 54

: All

Loan

s by

Tra

ct In

com

e Le

vel i

n Pi

ttsb

urgh

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

OOHu

PERC

ENTOF

ALLOOHu

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

OOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TOOOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

7312

851.

7%3.

0%1.

8%4,40

25.

8%0.

290.

51

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)84

912

797

619

.9%

31.6

%20

.9%

23,882

31.6

%0.

631.

00

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

1,86

521

22,07

743

.7%

52.7

%44

.5%

34,242

45.2

%0.

971.

17

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)1,47

851

1,52

934

.7%

12.7

%32

.8%

13,150

17.4

%1.

990.

73

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

922

139

1,06

121

.6%

34.6

%22

.7%

28,285

37.4

%0.

580.

93

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

3,34

326

33,60

678

.4%

65.4

%77

.3%

47,392

62.6

%1.

251.

04

TOTA

L4,26

540

24,66

775

,677

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:SuBP

RIME

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

7312

8585

.9%

14.1

%0.

894.

23

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)84

912

797

687

.0%

13.0

%0.

903.

90

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

1,86

521

22,07

789

.8%

10.2

%0.

933.

06

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)1,47

851

1,52

996

.7%

3.3%

1.00

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

922

139

1,06

186

.9%

13.1

%0.

941.

80

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

3,34

326

33,60

692

.7%

7.3%

1.00

1.00

TOTA

L4,26

540

24,66

791

.4%

8.6%

0.95

2.58

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

INCO

ME

TOuPP

ER-

INCO

ME

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

232

9239

.7%

3.03

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)2,02

863

531

.3%

2.39

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

3,55

675

321

.2%

1.62

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)2,247

294

13.1

%1.

00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

2,26

072

732

.2%

1.78

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

5,80

31,04

718

.0%

1.00

TOTA

L8,06

41,774

22.0

%1.

68

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se tr

act i

ncom

e le

vel w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 55

: All

Loan

s by

Bor

row

er G

ende

r in

Pitt

sbur

gh

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIMESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

MALE

1,32

012

01,44

033

.4%

31.9

%33

.3%

35,954

25.0

%1.

341.

28

FEMALE

1,02

311

21,13

525

.9%

29.8

%26

.2%

61,632

42.9

%0.

600.

69

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

1,60

514

41,749

40.7

%38

.3%

40.4

%46

,166

32.1

%1.

271.

19

TOTA

L4,26

540

24,66

714

3,75

2

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

gEN

DER

SHARE

TO

MALE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

PRIM

E

gEN

DER

SHARE

TO

MALE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

MALE

1,32

012

01,44

091

.7%

8.3%

1.00

1.00

FEMALE

1,02

311

21,13

590

.1%

9.9%

0.98

1.18

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

1,60

514

41,749

91.8

%8.

2%1.

000.

99

TOTA

L4,26

540

24,66

791

.4%

8.6%

1.00

1.03

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IALRAT

EgEN

DER

TO

MALEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

MALE

2,60

359

222

.7%

1.00

FEMALE

2,06

851

524

.9%

1.09

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

2,67

847

817

.8%

0.78

TOTA

L8,06

41,774

22.0

%0.

97

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se g

ende

r was

not

pro

vide

d.



Tabl

e 56

: All

Loan

s by

Bor

row

er R

ace

in P

hila

delp

hia

(Non

-Ow

ner-

Occ

upie

d)

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIMESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

WHITE

1,01

465

1,07

972

.1%

53.3

%70

.6%

282,06

347

.8%

1.51

1.11

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

191

3522

613

.6%

28.7

%14

.8%

237,44

340

.2%

0.34

0.71

ASIAN

153

1616

910

.9%

13.1

%11

.1%

20,559

3.5%

3.12

3.77

HISPA

NIC

486

543.

4%4.

9%3.

5%38

,509

6.5%

0.52

0.75

TOTA

L2,04

916

72,21

659

0,28

3

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

RACE

SHARE

TO

WHITESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

RACE

SHARE

TO

WHITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

WHITE

1,01

465

1,07

994

.0%

6.0%

1.00

1.00

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

191

3522

684

.5%

15.5

%0.

902.

57

ASIAN

153

1616

990

.5%

9.5%

0.96

1.57

HISPA

NIC

486

5488

.9%

11.1

%0.

951.

84

TOTA

L2,04

916

72,21

692

.5%

7.5%

0.98

1.25

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IALRAT

ERACE

TOW

HITE

DEN

IALRAT

IO

WHITE

2,04

655

427

.1%

1.00

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

763

361

47.3

%1.

75

ASIAN

369

120

32.5

%1.

20

HISPA

NIC

171

8650

.3%

1.86

TOTA

L4,64

21,47

831

.8%

1.18

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se r

ace

was

list

ed a

s “O

ther

” or

who

se r

ace

was

not

pro

vide

d.



Tabl

e 57

: All

Loan

s by

Bor

row

er In

com

e in

Phi

lade

lphi

a (N

on-O

wne

r-O

ccup

ied)

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOFALL

LOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

143

1015

38.

3%6.

8%8.

2%27

9,32

747

.3%

0.18

0.14

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)26

426

290

15.3

%17

.7%

15.5

%12

0,15

820

.4%

0.75

0.87

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

338

3937

719

.6%

26.5

%20

.1%

93,513

15.8

%1.

241.

67

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)98

072

1,05

256

.8%

49.0

%56

.2%

97,285

16.5

%3.

452.

97

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

407

3644

323

.6%

24.5

%23

.7%

399,48

667

.7%

0.35

0.36

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

1,31

811

11,42

976

.4%

75.5

%76

.3%

190,79

732

.3%

2.36

2.34

TOTA

L2,04

916

72,21

659

0,28

3

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

ME

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

143

1015

393

.5%

6.5%

1.00

0.95

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)26

426

290

91.0

%9.

0%0.

981.

31

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

338

3937

789

.7%

10.3

%0.

961.

51

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)98

072

1,05

293

.2%

6.8%

1.00

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

407

3644

391

.9%

8.1%

1.00

1.05

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

1,31

811

11,42

992

.2%

7.8%

1.00

1.00

TOTA

L2,04

916

72,21

692

.5%

7.5%

0.99

1.10

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

INCO

ME

TOuPP

ER-

INCO

ME

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

464

235

50.6

%1.

81

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)74

129

439

.7%

1.42

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

880

307

34.9

%1.

25

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)2,06

557

828

.0%

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

1,20

552

943

.9%

1.46

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

2,94

588

530

.1%

1.00

TOTA

L4,64

21,47

831

.8%

1.14

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se in

com

e w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 58

: All

Loan

s by

Tra

ct M

inor

ity L

evel

in P

hila

delp

hia

(Non

-Ow

ner-

Occ

upie

d)

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOFALL

LOANS

OOHu

PERC

ENTOF

ALLOOHu

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

OOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIME

SHARE

TO

OOHuSHARE

RAT

IO

0-49

%

MINORITy

1,117

641,18

154

.5%

38.3

%53

.3%

178,316

51.0

%1.

070.

75

50-100

%

MINORITy

932

103

1,03

545

.5%

61.7

%46

.7%

171,33

549

.0%

0.93

1.26

TOTA

L2,04

916

72,21

634

9,65

1

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

MINORITy

LEv

EL

SHARE

TOW

HITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

PRIM

E

MINORITy

LEv

EL

SHARE

TOW

HITE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

0-49

%

MINORITy

1,117

641,18

194

.6%

5.4%

1.00

1.00

50-100

%

MINORITy

932

103

1,03

590

.0%

10.0

%0.

951.

84

TOTA

L2,04

916

72,21

692

.5%

7.5%

0.98

1.39

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

MINORITy

LEv

EL

TOW

HITEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

0-49

%

MINORITy

2,23

164

028

.7%

1.00

50-100

%

MINORITy

2,411

838

34.8

%1.

21

TOTA

L4,64

21,47

831

.8%

1.11

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se tr

act

min

orit

y le

vel w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 59

: All

Loan

s by

Tra

ct In

com

e Le

vel i

n Ph

ilade

lphi

a (N

on-O

wne

r-O

ccup

ied)

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOFALL

LOANS

OOHu

PERC

ENTOF

ALLOOHu

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

OOHu

SHARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIMESH

ARE

TO

OOHuSHARE

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

513

6357

625

.0%

37.7

%26

.0%

81,464

23.3

%1.

071.

62

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)86

378

941

42.1

%46

.7%

42.5

%15

2,80

543

.7%

0.96

1.07

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

466

2248

822

.7%

13.2

%22

.0%

100,76

428

.8%

0.79

0.46

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)20

74

211

10.1

%2.

4%9.

5%14

,605

4.2%

2.42

0.57

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

1,376

141

1,517

67.2

%84

.4%

68.5

%23

4,26

967

.0%

1.00

1.26

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

673

2669

932

.8%

15.6

%31

.5%

115,36

933

.0%

1.00

0.47

TOTA

L2,04

916

72,21

634

9,63

8

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OFPR

IME

LOANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

INCO

MESH

ARE

TO

uPP

ER-

INCO

MESH

ARE

RAT

IO:P

RIME

INCO

ME

SHARE

TO

uPP

ER-INCO

ME

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

513

6357

689

.1%

10.9

%0.

915.

77

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)86

378

941

91.7

%8.

3%0.

934.

37

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

466

2248

895

.5%

4.5%

0.97

2.38

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)20

74

211

98.1

%1.

9%1.

001.

00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

1,376

141

1,517

90.7

%9.

3%0.

942.

50

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

673

2669

996

.3%

3.7%

1.00

1.00

TOTA

L2,04

916

72,21

692

.5%

7.5%

0.94

3.98

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IAL

RAT

E

INCO

ME

TOuPP

ER-

INCO

ME

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

LOW(<

50%M

SA)

1,27

744

134

.5%

1.25

MODER

ATE(50-79

.99%

MSA

)2,02

667

833

.5%

1.21

MIDDLE(8

0-11

9.99

%M

SA)

947

251

26.5

%0.

96

uPP

ER(1

20%ORMORE

MSA

)39

210

827

.6%

1.00

LMI(<79.99

%M

SAIN

COME)

3,30

31,11

933

.9%

1.26

MuI(>80

%M

SAIN

COME)

1,33

935

926

.8%

1.00

TOTA

L4,64

21,47

831

.8%

1.16

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se tr

act i

ncom

e le

vel w

as n

ot p

rovi

ded.



Tabl

e 60

: All

Loan

s by

Bor

row

er G

ende

r in

Phila

delp

hia

(Non

-Ow

ner-

Occ

upie

d)

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

PERC

ENTOF

ALLLOANS

HOuSEHOLD

SPE

RCEN

TOFALL

HOuSEHOLD

S

PRIM

ESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

SuBP

RIMESH

ARE

TO

HOuSEHOLD

SH

ARE

RAT

IO

MALE

602

6366

540

.7%

49.6

%41

.4%

132,27

822

.4%

1.82

2.21

FEMALE

277

2730

418

.7%

21.3

%18

.9%

264,97

544

.9%

0.42

0.47

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

600

3763

740

.6%

29.1

%39

.7%

193,03

032

.7%

1.24

0.89

TOTA

L2,04

916

72,21

659

0,28

3

TOTA

LPR

IMELO

ANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

TOTA

LLO

ANS

PERC

ENTOF

PRIM

ELO

ANS

PERC

ENT

OF

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

gEN

DER

SHARE

TO

MALE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

PRIM

E

gEN

DER

SHARE

TO

MALE

SHARE

RAT

IO:

SuBP

RIME

MALE

602

6366

590

.5%

9.5%

1.00

1.00

FEMALE

277

2730

491

.1%

8.9%

1.01

0.94

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

600

3763

794

.2%

5.8%

1.04

0.61

TOTA

L2,04

916

72,21

692

.5%

7.5%

1.02

0.80

TOTA

LLO

AN

APP

LICA

TIONS

APP

LICA

TION

DEN

IALS

DEN

IALRAT

EgEN

DER

TO

MALEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

MALE

1,66

263

638

.3%

1.00

FEMALE

776

289

37.2

%0.

97

JOINT(M

ALE/

FEMALE)

1,15

729

825

.8%

0.67

TOTA

L4,64

21,47

831

.8%

0.83

Tota

ls in

clud

e in

form

ation

on

loan

s to

bor

row

ers

who

se g

ende

r was

not

pro

vide

d.



Tabl

e 61

: Ran

king

of A

ll D

epos

itorie

s COMPO

SITE

PRIM

ELENDINgTOAFR

ICAN

AMER

ICANS

AFR

ICAN-AMER

ICAN-TO-W

HITE

DEN

IALRA

TIO

ALLBANkS

SuMMARy

MEA

N0.

126.

551.

80

MAX

1.00

302.

007.

52

MIN

0.00

0.00

0.00

N21

426

380

ST.D

Ev.

0.20

28.1

31.

53

WEIgHT

0.10

0.10

0.10

INDIvIDuALBA

NkSC

ORE

S

BANkNAME

LOAN

SHARE

ZSC

ORE

LOAN

COuNT

ZSC

ORE

DEN

IAL

RAT

IOZSC

ORE

BANkOFAMER

ICA

19.8

10.

421.

5024

48.

441.

710.

07

CITIgRO

uP,IN

C11

.75

0.15

0.15

109

3.64

2.23

-0.27

CITIZENSFINANCIALgRO

uP,IN

C9.

880.

381.

2794

3.11

1.30

0.34

SOvER

EIgNBANCO

RP,INC.

0.23

0.21

0.46

90.

091.

580.

16

TDBANkNORT

H2.

840.

220.

5034

0.98

0.58

0.81

THEPN

CFINANCIALSERv

ICES

gRO

uP

2.53

0.11

-0.09

170.

372.

15-0.21

WAC

HOvIA

28.3

00.

210.

4530

210

.50

1.61

0.14

COMPO

SITE

PRIM

ELENDINgTOHISPA

NICS

HISPA

NICTOW

HITEDEN

IALRA

TIO

ALLBANkS

SuMMARy

MEA

N0.

043.

031.

77

MAX

0.67

213.

009.

.39

MIN

0.00

0.00

0.

00

N21

426

357

ST.D

Ev.

0.10

16.2

42.

10

WEIgHT

0.10

0.10

0.10



Tabl

e 61

: Ran

king

of A

ll D

epos

itorie

s (c

ontin

ued)

INDIvIDuALBA

NkSC

ORE

S

BANkNAME

LOANSHARE

ZSC

ORE

LOANCOuNT

ZSC

ORE

DEN

IALRAT

IOZSC

ORE

BANCO

SANTA

NDER

0.82

1.05

474

5.96

1.87

-0.35

BANkOFAMER

ICA

0.64

0.53

455

5.71

1.93

-0.40


uP,

INC.

0.77

0.91

193

2.26

1.58

-0.14

M&TBA

Nk

0.50

0.11

21-0.01

3.89

-1.82

PNC

0.55

0.26

840.

822.

90-1.10

TDBANk

0.61

0.45

991.

021.

43-0.03

WELLSFARg

O0.

550.

2778

410

.04

1.54

-0.11

PRIM

ELENDINgTOLM

IBORR

OWER

SLM

I-TO-M

uID

ENIAL

ALLBANkS

SuMMARy

MEA

N0.

4621

.60

1.39

MAX

1.00

784.

007.

50

MIN

0.00

0.00

0.00

N21

426

394

ST.D

Ev.

0.34

75.9

31.

38

WEIgHT

0.10

0.10

0.10

INDIvIDuALBA

NkSC

ORE

S

BANkNAME

LOANSHARE

ZSC

ORE

LOANCOuNT

ZSC

ORE

DEN

IALRAT

IOZSC

ORE

BANCO

SANTA

NDER

0.82

1.05

474

5.96

1.87

-0.35

BANkOFAMER

ICA

0.64

0.53

455

5.71

1.93

-0.40


uP,

INC.

0.77

0.91

193

2.26

1.58

-0.14

M&TBA

Nk

0.50

0.11

21-0.01

3.89

-1.82

PNC

0.55

0.26

840.

822.

90-1.10

TDBANk

0.61

0.45

991.

021.

43-0.03

WELLSFARg

O0.

550.

2778

410

.04

1.54

-0.11



Tabl

e 61

: Ran

king

of A

ll D

epos

itorie

s (c

ontin

ued)

PR

IMELENDINgIN

LMI

TRAC

TSLM

I-TO-M

uIT

RACT

DEN

IAL

PRIM

ELENDINgIN

MINORITy

TR

ACTS

MINORITy

-TO

-NON-

MINORITy

TR

ACTDEN

IAL

ALLBANkS

SuMMARy

MEA

N0.

471.

580.

251.

62

MAX

1.00

6.67

1.00

11.0

0

MIN

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

N21

491

214

94

ST.D

Ev.

0.35

1.36

0.29

1.82

WEIgHT

0.02

50.

025

0.02

50.

025

INDIvIDuALBA

NkSC

ORE

S

BANkNAME

SHARE

ZSC

ORE

RAT

IOZSC

ORE

SHARE

ZSC

ORE

RAT

IO

ZSC

ORE

BANCO

SANTA

NDER

0.70

0.17

2.92

-0.25

0.45

0.18

1.87

-0.03

BANkOFAMER

ICA

0.57

0.07

1.15

0.08

0.29

0.04

1.93

-0.04


uP,

INC.

0.72

0.18

2.19

-0.11

0.47

0.20

1.58

0.01

M&TBA

Nk

0.64

0.12

0.65

0.17

0.40

0.14

3.89

-0.31

PNC

0.50

0.02

0.79

0.15

0.43

0.16

2.90

-0.18

TDBANk

0.57

0.07

1.03

0.10

0.27

0.02

1.43

0.03

WELLSFARg

O0.

550.

050.

800.

140.

330.

071.

540.

01



Tabl

e 62

: Dep

osito

ry R

anki

ng –

All

Prim

e, S

ingl

e-Fa

mily

Loa

ns in

Phi

lade

lphi

a

RACE

DEP

OSITO

RyAPP

LICA

TIONS

PRIM

ELO

ANS

ORIgINAT

ED

PERC

ENT

OFLO

ANS

TOAFR

ICAN

AMER

ICANS

RANk

PERC

ENT

OFLO

ANS

TOAFR

ICAN

AMER

ICANS

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSTO

HISPA

NICS

RANk

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSTO

HISPA

NICS

PERC

ENT

OFLO

ANS

TOASIANS

RANk

PERC

ENT

OF

LOANS

TO

ASIANS

PERC

ENT

OF

LOANSIN

MINORITy

TR

ACTS

RANk

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSIN

MINORITy

TR

ACTS

ADvA

NCE

BANk

27

24

12.5

%8

0.0%

94.

2%6

79.2

%1

BANCO

SANTA

NDER

1,461

9

68

29.2

%1

6.1%

25.

5%5

35.3

%5

BANkOFAMER

ICA

3,213

1,733

17

.2%

54.

6%5

14.5

%1

28.9

%7


uP,IN

C.1,367

5

43

24.9

%2

6.4%

15.

5%4

37.4

%2

CITIgRO

uP

1,213

2

33

20.2

%4

3.4%

83.

9%8

36.5

%4

M&TBA

Nk

147

8

3 16

.9%

63.

6%7

3.6%

930

.1%

6

PNC

1,106

4

63

22.7

%3

4.1%

64.

1%7

36.7

%3

TDBANk

811

2

73

8.8%

95.

1%3

12.5

%2

26.0

%9

WELLSFARg

O7,612

3,665

15

.1%

74.

8%4

6.7%

327

.4%

8

Z_DEP

OSIT

16,99

47,990

18

.3%

4.9%

8.1%

30.3

%

Z_TO

TAL

50,11

424,49

014

.9%

5.1%

5.6%

27.6

%

DEP

OSITO

RyPE

RCEN

TOF

LOANSTO

LMI

BORR

OWER

S

RANk

PERC

ENT

OFLO

ANS

TOLMI

BORR

OWER

S

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSIN

LMIT

RACTS

RANk

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSINLMI

TRACTS

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSTO

FEMALES

RANk

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSTO

FEMALES

ADvA

NCE

BANk

62.5

%2

87.5

%1

29.2

%9

BANCO

SANTA

NDER

67.8

%1

55.7

%2

47.6

%1

BANkOFAMER

ICA

50.0

%5

49.3

%7

39.2

%3


uP,IN

C.61

.3%

353

.4%

333

.5%

8

CITIgRO

uP

36.1

%9

50.6

%5

38.2

%4

M&TBA

Nk

42.2

%6

49.4

%6

37.3

%6

PNC

42.1

%7

49.2

%8

43.8

%2

TDBANk

52.0

%4

52.4

%4

35.5

%7

WELLSFARg

O37

.0%

844

.5%

938

.1%

5

Z_DEP

OSIT

46.1

%48

.4%

39.4

%

Z_TO

TAL

46.1

%47

.5%

38.9

%



DEN

IALS

DEP

OSITO

RyAPP

LICA

TIONS

DEN

IALS

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

TOW

HITE

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

RANk

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICAN

TOW

HITE

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

HISPA

NIC

TOW

HITE

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

RANk

HISPA

NIC

TOW

HITE

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

ASIANTO

WHITE

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

RANk

ASIANTO

WHITE

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

MINORITy

TO

NON-

MINORITy

TR

ACT

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

RANk

MINORITy

TO

NON-

MINORITy

TR

ACT

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

ADvA

NCE

BANk

27

-

99

99

BANCO

SANTA

NDER

1,461

1

79

1.77

43.

128

1.66

62.

097

BANkOFAMER

ICA

3,213

8

95

1.50

21.

793

1.13

21.

422


uP,IN

C.1,367

4

44

1.87

51.

955

1.78

71.

574

CITIgRO

uP

1,213

5

37

2.18

62.

526

1.33

51.

391

M&TBA

Nk

147

3

5 1.

251

0.95

10.

951

2.17

8

PNC

1,106

4

38

2.19

72.

777

2.37

81.

786

TDBANk

811

3

89

2.32

81.

904

1.17

31.

585

WELLSFARg

O7,612

1,405

1.

523

1.45

21.

314

1.45

3

Z_DEP

OSIT

16,99

44,352

1.

902.

051.

421.

63

Z_TO

TAL

50,11

412,43

51.

981.

771.

391.

69

DEP

OSITO

Ry

DEP

OSITO

RyAFR

ICAN-

AMER

ICANTO

WHITERAT

IO

RANk

AFIRC

AN

AMER

ICAN

TOW

HITE

RAT

IO

MINORITy

TR

ACT

TONON-

MINORITy

TR

ACT

RAT

IO

RANk

MINORITy

TR

ACT

TONON-

MINORITy

TR

ACTRAT

IO

LMITOM

uI

BORR

OWER

RAT

IO

RANkLM

ITO

MuI

BORR

OWER

RAT

IORANk

RAT

IO

LMI

TRACTS

TOM

uI

TRACTS

RAT

IO

RANk

LMI

TRACTS

TOM

uI

TRACTS

RAIO

ADvA

NCE

BANk

1.63

39.

961

7.72

11.

952

BANCO

SANTA

NDER

2.35

21.

435

1.39

22.

461

BANkOFAMER

ICA

1.38

51.

067

1.07

71.

175


uP,IN

C.2.

361

1.56

21.

263

1.86

3

CITIgRO

uP

1.36

61.

514

1.13

50.

669

M&TBA

Nk

0.90

81.

136

1.08

60.

856

PNC

1.59

41.

523

1.07

80.

857

TDBANk

0.54

90.

929

1.21

41.

274

WELLSFARg

O0.

917

0.99

80.

899

0.69

8

Tabl

e 62

: Dep

osito

ry R

anki

ng –

All

Prim

e, S

ingl

e-Fa

mily

Loa

ns in

Phi

lade

lphi

a



Tabl

e 63

: Dep

osito

ry R

anki

ng –

Hom

e Pu

rcha

se P

rime,

Sin

gle-

Fam

ily L

oans

in P

hila

delp

hia

RACE

DEP

OSITO

RyAPP

LICA

TIONS

PRIM

ELO

ANS

ORIgINAT

ED

PERC

ENT

OFLO

ANS

TOAFR

ICAN

AMER

ICANS

RANk

PERC

ENT

OFLO

ANS

TOAFR

ICAN

AMER

ICANS

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSTO

HISPA

NICS

RANk

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSTO

HISPA

NICS

PERC

ENT

OF

LOANS

TO

ASIANS

RANk

PERC

ENT

OFLO

ANS

TO

ASIANS

PERC

ENT

OF

LOANSIN

MINORITy

TR

ACTS

RANk

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSIN

MINORITy

TR

ACTS

BANCO

SANTA

NDER

835

5

79

42.1

%1

9.0%

23.

8%7

45.1

%2

BANkOFAMER

ICA

1,054

7

10

15.4

%6

4.9%

721

.3%

129

.0%

6


uP,IN

C. 4

19

250

37

.6%

210

.8%

16.

8%5

47.2

%1

M&TBA

Nk

74

42

21.4

%4

7.1%

57.

1%4

40.5

%4

PNC

188

1

53

22.2

%3

5.2%

63.

9%6

43.1

%3

TDBANk

363

1

61

10.6

%7

7.5%

415

.5%

227

.3%

7

WELLSFARg

O2,197

1,419

21

.3%

57.

5%3

8.0%

332

.6%

5

Z_DEP

OSIT

5,192

3,351

24

.2%

7.3%

10.1

%35

.7%

Z_TO

TAL

14,47

99,356

18

.4%

8.5%

7.9%

30.6

%

INCO

ME/gEN

DER

DEP

OSITO

RyPE

RCEN

TOF

LOANSTO

LMI

BORR

OWER

S

RANk

PERC

ENT

OFLO

ANS

TOLMI

BORR

OWER

S

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSINLMI

TRACTS

RANk

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSIN

LMIT

RACTS

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSTO

FEMALES

RANk

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSTO

FEMALES

BANCO

SANTA

NDER

81.9

%1

70.5

%2

51.8

%1

BANkOFAMER

ICA

64.1

%3

56.6

%4

38.7

%5


uP,IN

C.77

.2%

271

.6%

142

.8%

2

M&TBA

Nk

50.0

%7

64.3

%3

40.5

%4

PNC

54.9

%6

49.7

%7

38.6

%6

TDBANk

61.5

%4

56.5

%5

35.4

%7

WELLSFARg

O55

.3%

554

.5%

641

.7%

3

Z_DEP

OSIT

63.5

%59

.3%

42.4

%

Z_TO

TAL

60.7

%56

.3%

41.7

%



Tabl

e 63

: Dep

osito

ry R

anki

ng –

Hom

e Pu

rcha

se P

rime,

Sin

gle-

Fam

ily L

oans

in P

hila

delp

hia

(con

tinue

d)

DEN

IALS

DEP

OSITO

RyAPP

LICA

TIONS

DEN

IALS

AFR

ICAN-

AMER

ICAN

TOW

HITE

DEN

IALRAT

IO

RANk

AFR

ICAN-

AMER

ICAN

TOW

HITE

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

HISPA

NIC

TOW

HITE

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

RANk

HISPA

NIC

TOW

HITE

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

ASIANTO

WHITE

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

RANk

ASIANTO

WHITE

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

MINORITy

TO

NON-

MINORITy

TR

ACT

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

RANk

MINORITy

TO

NON-

MINORITy

TR

ACT

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

BANCO

SANTA

NDER

835

6

6 1.

715

2.62

71.

705

1.87

4

BANkOFAMER

ICA

1,054

1

88

2.23

71.

342

1.12

41.

935


uP,IN

C. 4

19

60

1.30

22.

286

2.20

71.

583

M&TBA

Nk

74

16

1.58

30.

001

0.00

13.

897

PNC

188

7

0.

581

1.71

40.

002

2.90

6

TDBANk

363

1

31

2.15

61.

875

0.89

31.

431

WELLSFARg

O2,197

2

81

1.61

41.

573

1.81

61.

542

Z_DEP

OSIT

5,192

7

61

1.50

1.62

1.45

1.53

Z_TO

TAL

14,47

92,075

1.

901.

381.

671.

61

MARk

ETSHARE

RAT

IO

DEP

OSITO

RyAFR

ICAN-

AMER

ICANTO

WHITERAT

IO

RANk

AFIRC

AN

AMER

ICAN

TOW

HITE

RAT

IO

MINORITy

TR

ACT

TONON-

MINORITy

TR

ACTRAT

IO

RANk

MINORITy

TR

ACT

TONON-

MINORITy

TR

ACT

RAT

IO

LMITOM

uI

BORR

OWER

RAT

IO

RANkLM

ITO

MuI

BORR

OWER

RAT

IORANk

RAT

IO

LMI

TRACTS

TOM

uI

TRACTS

RAT

IO

RANkLM

ITR

ACTS

TOM

uI

TRACTS

RAIO

BANCO

SANTA

NDER

3.20

21.

862

1.86

22.

921

BANkOFAMER

ICA

1.08

50.

936

1.02

41.

153


uP,IN

C.3.

601

2.03

11.

961

2.19

2

M&TBA

Nk

0.97

61.

544

1.40

30.

657

PNC

1.40

31.

723

0.77

70.

796

TDBANk

0.51

70.

857

1.01

51.

034

WELLSFARg

O1.

104

1.10

50.

936

0.80

5



Tabl

e 64

: Dep

osito

ry R

anki

ng –

Refi

nanc

e Pr

ime,

Sin

gle-

Fam

ily L

oans

in P

hila

delp

hia

RACE

DEP

OSITO

RyAPP

LICA

TIONS

PRIM

ELO

ANS

ORIgINAT

ED

PERC

ENT

OFLO

ANS

TOAFR

ICAN

AMER

ICANS

RANkPE

RCEN

TOFLO

ANS

TOAFR

ICAN

AMER

ICANS

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSTO

HISPA

NICS

RANk

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSTO

HISPA

NICS

PERC

ENT

OFLO

ANS

TOASIANS

RANk

PERC

ENT

OFLO

ANS

TOASIANS

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSIN

MINORITy

TR

ACTS

RANk

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSIN

MINORITy

TR

ACTS

BANCO

SANTA

NDER

573

3

78

9.8%

61.

9%6

8.2%

220

.6%

7

BANkOFAMER

ICA

2,077

9

98

18.6

%3

4.4%

19.

4%1

28.7

%3


uP,

INC.

681

2

67

10.1

%5

2.6%

54.

1%5

26.2

%4

CITIgRO

uP

1,024

2

13

20.2

%2

3.3%

33.

8%6

36.2

%1

M&TBA

Nk

63

39

7.7%

70.

0%8

0.0%

815

.4%

8

PNC

675

2

72

21.3

%1

3.7%

22.

9%7

32.0

%2

TDBANk

288

9

4 6.

4%8

1.1%

77.

4%3

23.4

%6

WELLSFARg

O5,025

2,145

11

.0%

43.

0%4

6.0%

424

.2%

5

Z_DEP

OSIT

10,41

54,411

13

.6%

3.2%

6.5%

26.0

%

Z_TO

TAL

33,03

014,56

912

.4%

3.0%

4.1%

25.4

%

INCO

ME/gEN

DER

DEP

OSITO

RyPE

RCEN

TOF

LOANSTO

LMI

BORR

OWER

S

RANk

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSTO

LMI

BORR

OWER

S

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSINLMI

TRACTS

RANkPE

RCEN

TOFLO

ANSIN

LMIT

RACTS

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSTO

FEMALES

RANk

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSTO

FEMALES

BANCO

SANTA

NDER

46.8

%1

33.1

%7

41.3

%2

BANkOFAMER

ICA

39.5

%3

43.8

%3

39.6

%3


uP,

INC.

44.2

%2

33.7

%6

23.2

%8

CITIgRO

uP

36.6

%5

49.3

%1

37.1

%4

M&TBA

Nk

35.9

%6

30.8

%8

35.9

%5

PNC

34.2

%7

48.9

%2

44.1

%1

TDBANk

37.2

%4

43.6

%4

31.9

%7

WELLSFARg

O24

.8%

838

.3%

535

.6%

6

Z_DEP

OSIT

32.7

%40

.1%

36.7

%

Z_TO

TAL

36.2

%41

.6%

36.9

%



Tabl

e 64

: Dep

osito

ry R

anki

ng –

Refi

nanc

e Pr

ime,

Sin

gle-

Fam

ily L

oans

in P

hila

delp

hia

(con

tinue

d)

DEN

IALS

DEP

OSITO

RyAPP

LICA

TIONS

DEN

IALS

AFR

ICAN-

AMER

ICAN

TOW

HITE

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

RANkAFR

ICAN-

AMER

ICANTO

WHITEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

HISPA

NIC

TOW

HITE

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

RANk

HISPA

NIC

TOW

HITE

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

ASIANTO

WHITE

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

RANk

ASIANTO

WHITE

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

MINORITy

TO

NON-

MINORITy

TR

ACT

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

RANk

MINORITy

TO

NON-

MINORITy

TR

ACT

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

BANCO

SANTA

NDER

573

9

0 2.

848

5.84

81.

545

2.75

8

BANkOFAMER

ICA

2,077

6

73

1.29

21.

742

1.37

41.

231


uP,

INC.

681

2

35

2.44

62.

665

1.95

71.

647

CITIgRO

uP

1,024

4

36

2.34

52.

644

1.29

31.

373

M&TBA

Nk

63

13

0.76

15.

337

0.00

11.

565

PNC

675

2

66

2.20

43.

186

2.90

81.

616

TDBANk

288

1

34

2.63

72.

583

1.90

61.

292

WELLSFARg

O5,025

1,008

1.

483

1.47

11.

282

1.40

4

Z_DEP

OSIT

10,41

52,857

1.

922.

231.

591.

51

Z_TO

TAL

33,03

09,005

1.

931.

981.

501.

58

MARk

ETSHARE

RAT

IO

DEP

OSITO

RyAFR

ICAN-

AMER

ICANTO

WHITERAT

IO

RANk

AFIRC

AN

AMER

ICAN

TOW

HITE

RAT

IO

MINORITy

TR

ACT

TONON-

MINORITy

TR

ACTRAT

IO

RANk

MINORITy

TR

ACTTO

NON-M

INORITy

TR

ACTRAT

IO

LMITOM

uI

BORR

OWER

RAT

IO

RANkLM

ITO

MuI

BORR

OWER

RAT

IORANk

RAT

IO

LMI

TRACTS

TOM

uI

TRACTS

RAT

IO

RANkLM

ITR

ACTS

TOM

uI

TRACTS

RAIO

BANCO

SANTA

NDER

0.75

60.

767

0.69

71.

551

BANkOFAMER

ICA

1.71

21.

183

1.09

31.

153


uP,

INC.

0.96

41.

044

0.71

61.

392

CITIgRO

uP

1.73

11.

661

1.36

11.

025

M&TBA

Nk

0.44

80.

538

0.62

80.

996

PNC

1.69

31.

382

1.34

20.

917

TDBANk

0.45

70.

906

1.08

41.

044

WELLSFARg

O0.

785

0.94

50.

875

0.58

8



Tabl

e 65

: Dep

osito

ry R

anki

ng –

Hom

e Im

prov

emen

t Prim

e, S

ingl

e-Fa

mily

Loa

ns in

Phi

lade

lphi

a

RACE

DEP

OSITO

RyAPP

LICA

TIONS

PRIM

ELO

ANS

ORIgINAT

ED

PERC

ENT

OFLO

ANS

TOAFR

ICAN

AMER

ICANS

RANkPE

RCEN

TOFLO

ANS

TOAFR

ICAN

AMER

ICANS

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSTO

HISPA

NICS

RANk

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSTO

HISPA

NICS

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSTO

ASIANS

RANk

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSTO

ASIANS

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSIN

MINORITy

TR

ACTS

RANk

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSIN

MINORITy

TR

ACTS

BANkOFAMER

ICA

82

25

12.0

%5

4.0%

324

.0%

132

.0%

4

CITIZENSFINANCIAL

gRO

uP,IN

C. 2

67

26

53.8

%1

3.8%

47.

7%4

57.7

%1

CITIgRO

uP

155

7

28

.6%

30.

0%6

0.0%

657

.1%

2

PNC

243

3

8 34

.2%

22.

6%5

13.2

%2

44.7

%3

TDBANk

160

1

8 5.

6%6

5.6%

211

.1%

327

.8%

5

WELLSFARg

O 3

90

101

13

.9%

46.

9%1

4.0%

524

.8%

6

Z_DEP

OSIT

1,387

2

28

22.4

%4.

8%8.

3%34

.6%

Z_TO

TAL

2,605

5

65

19.8

%4.

2%5.

5%35

.8%

Z_TO

TAL

4,803

8

05

25.6

%5.

3%4.

3%43

.7%

INCO

ME/gEN

DER

DEP

OSITO

RyPE

RCEN

TOF

LOANSTO

LMI

BORR

OWER

S

RANk

PERC

ENT

OFLO

ANS

TOLMI

BORR

OWER

S

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSINLMI

TRACTS

RANkPE

RCEN

TOFLO

ANSIN

LMIT

RACTS

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSTO

FEMALES

RANk

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSTO

FEMALES

BANkOFAMER

ICA

72.0

%2

60.0

%3

40.0

%5

CITIZENSFINANCIAL

gRO

uP,IN

C.84

.6%

180

.8%

150

.0%

4

CITIgRO

uP

28.6

%6

57.1

%4

57.1

%2

PNC

47.4

%3

50.0

%5

63.2

%1

TDBANk

44.4

%4

61.1

%2

55.6

%3

WELLSFARg

O37

.6%

536

.6%

639

.6%

6

Z_DEP

OSIT

48.7

%50

.4%

46.5

%

Z_TO

TAL

57.0

%55

.8%

43.2

%

Z_TO

TAL

62.3

%60

.6%

43.4

%



Tabl

e 65

: Dep

osito

ry R

anki

ng –

Hom

e Im

prov

emen

t Prim

e, S

ingl

e-Fa

mily

Loa

ns in

Phi

lade

lphi

a (c

ontin

ued)

DEN

IALS

DEP

OSITO

RyAPP

LICA

TIONS

DEN

IALS

AFR

ICAN-

AMER

ICAN

TOW

HITE

DEN

IALRAT

IO

RANkAFR

ICAN-

AMER

ICANTO

WHITEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

HISPA

NICTO

WHITEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

RANk

HISPA

NIC

TOW

HITE

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

ASIANTO

WHITEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

RANkASIAN

TOW

HITE

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

MINORITy

TO

NON-

MINORITy

TR

ACT

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

RANk

MINORITy

TO

NON-

MINORITy

TR

ACT

DEN

IAL

RAT

IO

BANkOFAMER

ICA

82

34

3.10

64.

706

0.57

13.

336

CITIZENSFINANCIAL

gRO

uP,IN

C. 2

67

149

1.

423

1.26

11.

625

1.23

1

CITIgRO

uP

155

9

1 1.

351

1.71

42.

456

1.23

2

PNC

243

1

65

1.36

21.

463

0.98

21.

413

TDBANk

160

1

24

1.59

41.

372

0.98

31.

554

WELLSFARg

O 3

90

116

1.

735

1.84

51.

094

1.78

5

Z_DEP

OSIT

1,387

7

34

1.70

1.80

1.25

1.72

Z_TO

TAL

2,605

1,355

1.

882.

021.

271.

75

Z_TO

TAL

4,803

2,667

1.

581.

551.

351.

33

MARk

ETSHARE

RAT

IO

DEP

OSITO

RyAFR

ICAN-

AMER

ICANTO

WHITERAT

IO

RANk

AFIRC

AN

AMER

ICAN

TOW

HITE

RAT

IO

MINORITy

TR

ACT

TONON-

MINORITy

TR

ACTRAT

IO

RANkMINORITy

TR

ACTTO

NON-M

INORITy

TR

ACTRAT

IO

LMITOM

uI

BORR

OWER

RAT

IO

RANkLM

ITO

MuI

BORR

OWER

RAT

IORANk

RAT

IO

LMIT

RACTSTO

MuIT

RACTS

RAT

IO

RANkLM

ITR

ACTSTO

MuIT

RACTS

RAIO

BANkOFAMER

ICA

0.62

40.

854

1.19

31.

942

CITIZENSFINANCIAL

gRO

uP,IN

C.4.

211

2.45

13.

331

4.15

1

CITIgRO

uP

1.08

32.

402

1.06

40.

306

PNC

2.07

21.

453

0.79

50.

683

TDBANk

0.25

60.

695

1.25

20.

604

WELLSFARg

O0.

585

0.59

60.

466

0.46

5

WAC

HOvIA

0.74

61.

392

1.30

40.

667



Tabl

e 66

: Unr

anke

d D

epos

itorie

s –

All

Prim

e, S

ingl

e-Fa

mily

Loa

ns in

Phi

lade

lphi

a

RACE

DEP

OSITO

RyAPP

LICA

TIONS

PRIM

ELO

ANS

ORIgINAT

ED

PERC

ENTOF

LOANSTO

AFR

ICAN

AMER

ICANS

PERC

ENTOFLO

ANS

TOHISPA

NICS

PERC

ENTOFLO

ANS

TOASIANS

PERC

ENTOFLO

ANS

INM

INORITy

TR

ACTS

BANkOFNEW

yORk

MELLO

NCORP

ORA

TION

64

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

CITy

NAT

IONALBA

NCS

HARE

SCO

RPORA

TION

10

REPu

BLICFIRSTBANkC

ORP,INC.

50

uNITED

BANkOFPH

ILADELPH

IA25

10.

0%0.

0%0.

0%10

0.0%

INCO

ME/gEN

DER

DEP

OSITO

RyPE

RCEN

TOFLO

ANS

TOLMIB

ORR

OWER

PERC

ENTOFLO

ANS

INLMIT

RACTS

PERC

ENTOFLO

ANS

TOFEM

ALES

PRIM

ELO

ANDSTO

LM

IBORR

OWER

S

BANkOFNEW

yORk

MELLO

NCORP

ORA

TION

0.0%

50.0

%0.

0%0

CITy

NAT

IONALBA

NCS

HARE

SCO

RPORA

TION

0

REPu

BLICFIRSTBANkC

ORP,INC.

0

uNITED

BANkOFPH

ILADELPH

IA0.

0%10

0.0%

0.0%

0



DEN

IALS

DEP

OSITO

RyAPP

LICA

TIONS

DEN

IALS

AFR

ICAN-AMER

ICAN

TOW

HITEDEN

IAL

RAT

IO

HISPA

NICTOW

HITE

DEN

IALRAT

IOASIANTOW

HITE

DEN

IALRAT

IO

MINORITy

TONON

MINORITy

TRACT

DEN

IALRAT

IO

BANkOFNEW

yORk

MELLO

NCORP

ORA

TION

62

CITy

NAT

IONALBA

NCS

HARE

SCO

RPORA

TION

11

REPu

BLICFIRSTBANkC

ORP,INC.

53

3.00

uNITED

BANkOFPH

ILADELPH

IA25

2495

.7%

MARk

ETSHARE

RAT

IO

DEP

OSITO

RyAFR

ICANAMER

ICAN

TOW

HITE

MINORITy

TRACT

TONON-M

INORITy

TR

ACT

LMIT

RACTSTOM

uI

TRACTS

LMIT

RACTSTOM

uI

TRACTS

BANkOFNEW

yORk

MELLO

NCORP

ORA

TION

0.00

0.00

1.10

0.00

CITy

NAT

IONALBA

NCS

HARE

SCO

RPORA

TION

--

--

REPu

BLICFIRSTBANkC

ORP,INC.

--

--

uNITED

BANkOFPH

ILADELPH

IA-

--

-

Tabl

e 66

: Unr

anke

d D

epos

itorie

s –

All

Prim

e, S

ingl

e-Fa

mily

Loa

ns in

Phi

lade

lphi

a (c

ontin

ued)



Table 67: List of Depository Affiliates Included in Analysis

HOLDINgCOMPANy INSITuTION

ADvANCEBANk ADvANCEBANk

BANkOFNEWyORkMELLONCORPORATION

BANkOFNEWyORkMELLONCORPORATION BANkOFNEWyORkMELLONCORPORATION

BANkOFNEWyORkMELLONCORPORATION MELLONuNITEDNATIONALBANk

BANCOSANTANDER ADMINISTRACIONDEBANCOSLATINOAMERICANOS

BANCOSANTANDER BANCOSANTANDER

BANCOSANTANDER BANCOSANTANDERPuERTORICO

BANCOSANTANDER INDEPENDENCECOMMuNITyBANkCORP.

BANCOSANTANDER SANTANDERBANCORP

BANCOSANTANDER SANTANDERFINANCIALSERvICES,INC.

BANCOSANTANDER SANTANDERINvESTMENTI,S.A.

BANCOSANTANDER SOvEREIgNBANCORP

BANCOSANTANDER SOvEREIgNBANk

BANkOFAMERICA BACNORTHAMERICAHOLDINgCOMPANy

BANkOFAMERICA BANAHOLDINgCORPORATION

BANkOFAMERICA BANkOFAMERICACORPORATION

BANkOFAMERICA BANkOFAMERICA,NATIONALASSOCIATION

BANkOFAMERICA BESTMORTgAgERESOuRCE

BANkOFAMERICA BIRCHFIELDHOMEMORTgAgE

BANkOFAMERICA CBHHOMELOANS

BANkOFAMERICA CMvHOMELOANS

BANkOFAMERICA FIRSTFREEDOMMORTgAgE

BANkOFAMERICA FNBRMORTgAgE

BANkOFAMERICA HIgHLANDLOANSOuRCE

BANkOFAMERICA JLHMORTgAgE

BANkOFAMERICA MERRILLLyNCHCREDITCORPORATION

BANkOFAMERICA MERRILLLyNCHMORTgAgEANDINvESTMENTCORPORATION

BANkOFAMERICA NBHOLDINgSCORPORATION

BANkOFAMERICA NEWMORTgAgEADvISORS

BANkOFAMERICA PROPERTyMORTgAgE.COM

BANkOFAMERICA SRCMORTgAgE

BANkOFAMERICA THEgROuPguARANTEEDMORTgAgE

BANkOFAMERICA WESTERNMuTuALHOMELOANS

BANkOFAMERICA WESTERNPARADISEFINANCIAL

CITIZENSFINANCIALgROuP,INC. CITIZENSBANkOFPENNSyLvANIA

CITIZENSFINANCIALgROuP,INC. CITIZENSFINANCIALgROuP,INC.

CITIZENSFINANCIALgROuP,INC. RBSCITIZENS,NATIONALASSOCIATION

CITyNATIONALBANCSHARESCORPORATION CITyNATIONALBANCSHARESCORPORATION

CITyNATIONALBANCSHARESCORPORATION CITyNATIONALBANkOFNEWJERSEy

CITIgROuP CITIFINANCIALSERvICES,INC



HOLDINgCOMPANy INSTITuTION

CITIgROuP ASSOCIATESFIRSTCAPITALCORPORATION

CITIgROuP CITIBANkDOMESTICINvESTMENTCORP.

CITIgROuP CITIBANk,N.A.

CITIgROuP CITICORP

CITIgROuP CITICORPBANkINgCORPORATION

CITIgROuP CITICORPHOMEEQuITy

CITIgROuP CITICORPTRuSTBANk,FSB

CITIgROuP CITIFINANCIALCOMPANy

CITIgROuP CITIFINANCIALCORPLLC

CITIgROuP CITIFINANCIALCORPORATION

CITIgROuP CITIFINANCIALCREDITCOMPANy

CITIgROuP CITIFINANCIALSERvICES

CITIgROuP CITIFINANCIALSERvICES,INC

CITIgROuP CITIFINANCIALSERvICES,INC.

CITIgROuP CITIFINANCIAL,INC

CITIgROuP CITIFINANCIAL,INC.

CITIgROuP CITIgROuPINC

CITIgROuP CITIMORTgAgEINC

M&TBANk FIRSTEMPIRESTATEHOLDINgCOMPANy

M&TBANk M&TBANkCORPORATION

M&TBANk M&TBANk,NATIONALASSOCIATION

M&TBANk M&TREALESTATETRuST

M&TBANk M&TREALTyCAPITALCORPORATION

M&TBANk MANuFACTuRERSANDTRADERSTRuSTCOMPANy

PNC PNCBANCORP,INC.

PNC PNCBANk,NATIONALASSOCIATION

PNC PNCFINANCIALSERvICESgROuP

REPuBLICFIRSTBANkCORP,INC. REPuBLICFIRSTBANkCORP,INC.

TDBANk TDBANk

TDBANk TDBANkuSHOLDINgCOMPANy

TDBANk TDuSP&CHOLDINgSuLC

TDBANk TORONTO-DOMINIONBANk

uNITEDBANkOFPHILADELPHIA uNITEDBANkOFPHILADELPHIA

WELLSFARgO +WACHOvIABANkOFDELAWARE,NATIONAL

WELLSFARgO +WACHOvIABANk,NATIONALASSOCIATION

WELLSFARgO +WELLSFARgOBANk,NATIONALASSOCIATION

WELLSFARgO 1STCAPITALMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO ADvANTAgEMORTgAgEPARTNERS,LLC

WELLSFARgO ALLIANCEHOMEMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO AMERICANPRIORITyMORTgAgE,LLC




WELLSFARgO AMERICANSOuTHERNMORTgAgESERvICES,LLC

WELLSFARgO APMMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO ASCENTFINANCIALSERvICES,LLC

WELLSFARgO ASHTONWOODSMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO BANkERSFuNDINgCOMPANy,LLC

WELLSFARgO BELgRAvIAMORTgAgEgROuP,LLC

WELLSFARgO BENEFITMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO BERkSMORTgAgESERvICES,LLC.

WELLSFARgO BHSHOMELOANS,LLC

WELLSFARgO CAPSTONEHOMEMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO CAPSTONEHOMEMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO CAROLINAMORTgAgE/CDJ,LLC

WELLSFARgO CENTENNIALHOMEMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO CHOICEMORTgAgESERvICINg,LLC

WELLSFARgO CITyLIFELENDINggROuP,LLC

WELLSFARgO COLORADOCAPITALMORTgAgECO.,LLC

WELLSFARgO COLORADOMORTgAgEALLIANCE,LLC

WELLSFARgO COLORADOPROFESSIONALSMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO CONWAyHOMEMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO DECAPITALMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO DHFINANCIAL,LLC

WELLSFARgO EDWARDJONESMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO ELITEHOMEMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO EXPRESSFINANCIAL&MORTgAgESERvICES,LLC

WELLSFARgO FIRSTASSOCIATESMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO FIRSTCOMMONWEALTHHOMEMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO FIRSTMORTgAgECONSuLTANTS,LLC

WELLSFARgO FIRSTPENINSuLAMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO FIvESTARLENDINg,LLC

WELLSFARgO FLORIDAHOMEFINANCEgROuP,LLC

WELLSFARgO FOuNDATIONMORTgAgESERvICES,LLC

WELLSFARgO FuLTONHOMESMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO gENESISMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO gIBRALTARMORTgAgESERvICES,LLC

WELLSFARgO gIBRALTARMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO gREATEASTMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO gREATERATLANTAFINANCIALSERvICES,LLC

WELLSFARgO gREENPATHFuNDINg,LLC

WELLSFARgO gREENRIDgEMORTgAgESERvICES,LLC

WELLSFARgO guARANTEEPACIFICMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO HALLMARkMORTgAgEgROuP,LLC




WELLSFARgO HENDRICkSMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO HERITAgEHOMEMORTgAgEgROuP,LLC

WELLSFARgO HOMEMORTgAgESPECIALISTS,LLC

WELLSFARgO HOMESERvICESLENDINg,LLC

WELLSFARgO ILLuSTRATEDPROPERTIESMORTgAgECOMPANy,

WELLSFARgO INTEgRITyHOMEFuNDINg,LLC

WELLSFARgO kELLERMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO LINEARFINANCIAL,LP

WELLSFARgO MARBENMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO MARTHATuRNERMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO MAXMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO MCOFAMERICA,LLC

WELLSFARgO MCMILLINHOMEMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO MORTgAgE100,LLC

WELLSFARgO MORTgAgESuNLIMITED,LLC

WELLSFARgO MOuNTAINSuMMITMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO MSCMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO NuCOMPASSMORTgAgESERvICES,LLC

WELLSFARgO PEACHTREERESIDENTIALMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO PERSONALMORTgAgEgROuP,LLC

WELLSFARgO PHXMORTgAgEADvISORS,LLC

WELLSFARgO PINNACLEMORTgAgEOFNEvADA,LLC

WELLSFARgO PLATINuMRESIDENTIALMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO PNCMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO PREMIAMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO PRIMESELECTMORgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO PRIvATEMORTgAgEADvISORS,LLC

WELLSFARgO PROFESSIONALFINANCIALSERvICESOFARIZONA,

WELLSFARgO PROFESSIONALMORTgAgEASSOCIATES,LLC

WELLSFARgO RAINIERMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO REALLIvINgMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO REALTyHOMEMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO RELIABLEFINANCIALSERvICES,INC.

WELLSFARgO RESIDENTIALHOMEDIvISION,LLC

WELLSFARgO RESIDENTIALMORTgAgEDIvISION,LLC

WELLSFARgO RESIDENTIALMORTgAgESERvICES,LLC

WELLSFARgO RIvERSIDEHOMELOANS,LLC

WELLSFARgO RWFMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO SANTAFEMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO SELECTHOMEMORTgAgE,LLC



WELLSFARgO SELECTLENDINgSERvICES,LLC

WELLSFARgO SIgNATuREHOMEMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO SOuTHEASTHOMEMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO SOuTHEASTMINNESOTAMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO SOuTHERNOHIOMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO STIRLINgMORTgAgESERvICES,LLC

WELLSFARgO SuMMITNATIONALMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO THOROugHBREDMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO TOWN&COuNTRyMORTgAgEgROuP,LLC

WELLSFARgO TPgFuNDINg,LLC

WELLSFARgO TRADEMARkMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO vILLAgECOMMuNITIESFINANCIAL,LLC

WELLSFARgO WACHOvIAFINANCIALSERvICES,INC.

WELLSFARgO WELLSFARgOFuNDINg,INC.

WELLSFARgO WELLSFARgOHOMEMORTgAgEOFHAWAII,LLC

WELLSFARgO WFSMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO WILLIAMPITTMORTgAgE,LLC

WELLSFARgO WINMARkFINANCIAL,LLC

WELLSFARgO ADvANCEMORTgAgE

WELLSFARgO AMERICANMORTgAgENETWORkLLC

WELLSFARgO AMNETMORTgAgELLC

WELLSFARgO CENTRALFEDERALMORTgAgECOMPANy

WELLSFARgO CENTuRyBANCSHARES,INC.

WELLSFARgO CHARTERHOLDINgS,INC.

WELLSFARgO gREATERBAyBANCORP

WELLSFARgO IBID,INC.

WELLSFARgO INTRAWESTASSETMANAgEMENT,INC.

WELLSFARgO LEgACyMORTgAgE

WELLSFARgO MORTgAgEONE

WELLSFARgO MuLBERRyASSETMANAgEMENT,INC.

WELLSFARgO PELICANASSETMANAgEMENT,INC.

WELLSFARgO PLACERSIERRABANCSHARES

WELLSFARgO PRIORITyMORTgAgECOMPANyLLC

WELLSFARgO PROSPERITyMORTgAgECOMPANy

WELLSFARgO REALESTATELENDERS

WELLSFARgO REALLIvINgMTgLLC

WELLSFARgO SkOgMANMORTgAgECOMPANy

WELLSFARgO SOuTHWESTPARTNERS,INC.

WELLSFARgO vIOLETASSETMANAgEMENT,INC.

WELLSFARgO WELLSFARgO&COMPANy

WELLSFARgO WELLSFARgOFINANCIALSERvICES,INC.

WELLSFARgO WELLSFARgOFINANCIAL,INC.

WELLSFARgO WELLSFARgOvENTuRES,LLC

WELLSFARgO WFCHOLDINgSCORPORATION



Tabl

e 68

: CRA

Sm

all B

usin

ess

Lend

ing

by In

com

e

INST

ITuTION

BANkOFAMER

ICA

BANkOFNEW

yO

Rk/M

ELLO

NCITIZENS

CITIBA

Nk

MAND

TBA

Nk

PNC

BANk

REPu

BLIC

FIRS

TSO

vER

EIgN

TD

BANk

WELLS

FARg

O

TOTA

LFO

RALLNON-

DEP

OSITO

RIES

TOTA

LFO

RALL

DEP

OSITO

RIES

TOTA

L

#OFSM

ALL

BuSINES

SLO

ANS

450

545

01,26

630

1,70

622

4823

179

27,36

55,00

012

,365

#LO

ANSTO

LO

WIN

COME

CENSu

STR

ACTS

742

105

236

1029

71

1431

142

1,06

691

21,97

8

#OFLO

ANS

TOM

ODER

ATE

INCO

ME

CENSu

STR

ACTS

135

016

653

614

602

921

7525

12,44

81,80

94,25

7

#OFLO

ANS

TOM

IDDLE

INCO

ME

CENSu

STR

ACTS

160

010

634

95

424

88

7819

42,20

11,33

23,53

3

#OFLO

ANS

TOuPP

ER

INCO

ME

CENSu

STR

ACTS

703

5610

50

328

43

4115

61,36

076

62,12

6

#TO

BuS<$1

MIL

439

543

31,22

629

1,65

122

4622

574

37,07

54,81

911

,894

#OFLO

ANSTO

ALLkNOWN

INCO

ME

gRO

uPS

294

321

769

314

1,19

522

3217

043

979

13,07

93,87

0

TOTA

LSM

ALL

BuSINES

SLO

ANSIN

PHILADELPH

IA

12,36

5

TOTA

LDOLLARS

LO

ANED

TO

SMALL

BuSINES

SIN

PHILADELPH

IA

$58

0,70

9,00

0



Table 69: CRA Small Business Lending – Bank of America NA

INSTITuTION BANkOFAMERICA

TOTALFORALLDEPOSITORIES

%TOTALFORALLDEPOSITORIES

%TOTALFORPHILADELPHIA

#OFSMALLBuSINESSLOANS 450 5,000 0.09 0.04

#LOANSTOLOWINCOMECENSuSTRACTS 74 912 0.08 0.04

#OFLOANSTOMODERATEINCOMECENSuSTRACTS 135 1,809 0.07 0.03

#OFLOANSTOMIDDLEINCOMECENSuSTRACTS 160 1,332 0.12 0.05

#OFLOANSTOuPPERINCOMECENSuSTRACTS 70 766 0.09 0.03

#OFLOANSTOALLkNOWNINCOMEgROuPS 439 4,819 0.09 0.04

#TOBuS<$1MIL 294 3,079 0.10 0.08

Table 70: CRA Small Business Lending – Bank of New York Mellon

INSTITuTION

BANkOFNEWyORk/MELLON

TOTALFORALLDEPOSITIORIES


%OFTOTALFOR

PHILADELPHIA

#OFSMALLBuSINESSLOANS 5 5,000 0.10% 0.04%

#LOANSTOLOWINCOMECENSuSTRACTS 2 912 0.22% 0.10%

#OFLOANSTOMODERATEINCOMECENSuSTRACTS 0 1,809 0.00% 0.00%

#OFLOANSTOMIDDLEINCOMECENSuSTRACTS 0 1,332 0.00% 0.00%

#OFLOANSTOuPPERINCOMECENSuSTRACTS 3 766 0.39% 0.14%

#OFLOANSTOALLkNOWNINCOMEgROuPS 5 4,819 0.10% 0.04%

#TOBuS<$1MIL 3 3,079 0.10% 0.08%

Table 71: CRA Small Business Lending – Citizens Bank

INSTITuTION CITIZENSBANk



%OFTOTALFORPHILADELPHIA







#TOBuS<$1MIL 217 3,079 7.05% 5.61%



Table 72: CRA Small Business Lending – Citibank

INSTITuTION CITIBANk TOTALFORALLDEPOSITORIES

%OFTOTALFORALLDEPOSITORIES

%OFTOTALFOR

PHILADELPHIA

#OFSMALLBuSINESSLOANS 1,266 5,000 25.32% 10.24%





#TOBuS<$1MIL 693 3,079 22.51% 17.91%

#OFLOANSTOALLkNOWNINCOMEgROuPS 1,226 4,819 25.44% 10.31%

Table 73: CRA Small Business Lending – M&T Bank

INSTITuTION MANDTBANk



%OFTOTALFOR

PHILADELPHIA







#TOBuS<$1MIL 14 3,079 0.45% 0.36%

Table 74: CRA Small Business Lending – PNC Bank

INSTITuTION PNC TOTALFORALLDEPOSITORIES


%OFTOTALFOR

PHILADELPHIA

#OFSMALLBuSINESSLOANS 1,706 5,000 34.12% 13.80%





#OFLOANSTOALLkNOWNINCOMEgROuPS 1,651 4,819 34.26% 13.88%

#TOBuS<$1MIL 1,195 3,079 38.81% 30.88%



Table 75: CRA Small Business Lending – Republic First Bank

INSTITuTION REPuBLICFIRSTBANk


%OFTOTALFORALL

DEPOSITORIES

%OFTOTALFOR

PHILADELPHIA







#TOBuS<$1MIL 22 3,079 0.71% 0.57%

Table 76: CRA Small Business Lending – Sovereign Bank

INSTITuTION SOvEREIgN TOTALFORALLDEPOSITORIES


%OFTOTALFOR

PHILADELPHIA







#TOBuS<$1MIL 32 3,079 1.04% 0.83%

Table 77: CRA Small Business Lending – TD Bank

INSTITuTION TDBANk TOTALFORALLDEPOSITORIES

%OFTOTALFORALL

DEPOSITORIES

%OFTOTALFORPHILADELPHIA







#TOBuS<$1MIL 170 3,079 5.52% 4.39%



Table 78: CRA Small Business Lending – Wells Fargo Bank

INSTITuTION WELLSFARgO


%OFTOTALFORALL

DEPOSITORIES

%OFTOTALFOR

PHILADELPHIA







#TOBuS<$1MIL 439 3,079 14.26% 11.34%

Table 79: Small Business Lending – by Tract Income Level

CITyOFPHILADELPHIA ALLSMALLBuSINESSLOANS LOANSTOSMALLBuSINESSESWITH<$1MILLIONINREvENuE

ICOMELEvEL NuMBEROFLOANS PERCENTOFLOANS NuMBEROFLOANS PERCENTOFLOANS

LOWINCOME 1,978 16.0% 672 17.4%

MODERATEINCOME 4,257 34.4% 1,365 35.3%

MIDDLEINCOME 3,533 28.6% 1,110 28.7%

uPPERINCOME 2,126 17.2% 640 16.5%

TRACTORINCOMENOTkNOWN 471 3.8% 83 2.1%

TOTAL 12,365 100.0% 3,870 100.0%

SuBuRBANCOuNTIES ALLSMALLBuSINESSLOANS LOANSTOSMALLBuSINESSESWITH<$1MILLIONINREvENuE

INCOMELEvEL NuMBEROFLOANS PERCENTOFLOANS NuMBEROFLOANS PERCENTOFLOANS

LOWINCOME 163 0.36% 47 0.35%

MODERATEINCOME 1,931 4.30% 639 4.74%

MIDDLEINCOME 12,787 28.48% 4,119 30.54%

uPPERINCOME 28,831 64.22% 8,416 62.40%

TRACTORINCOMENOTkNOWN 1,184 2.64% 267 1.98%

TOTAL 44,896 100.00% 13,488 100.00%



Table 80: Small Business Lending – by Tract Minority Level

CITyOFPHILADELPHIA ALLSMALLBuSINESSLOANS LOANSTOSMALLBuSINESSESWITH<$1MILLIONINREvENuE

MINORITySTATuS NuMBEROFLOANS PERCENTOFLOANS NuMBEROFLOANS PERCENTOFLOANS

MINORITyAREAS 3,558 28.77% 1,190 30.75%

NON-MINORITyAREAS 8,498 68.73% 2,632 68.01%

TRACTuNkNOWNORNOPOPuLATION 309 2.50% 48 1.24%

TOTAL 12,365 100.00% 3,870 100.00%

SuBuRBANCOuNTIES ALLSMALLBuSINESSLOANS LOANSTOSMALLBuSINESSESWITH<$1MILLIONINREvENuE

MINORITySTATuS NuMBEROFLOANS PERCENTOFLOANS NuMBEROFLOANS PERCENTOFLOANS

MINORITyAREAS 605 1.35% 171 1.27%

NON-MINORITyAREAS 43,109 96.02% 13,050 96.75%

uNkNOWNORNOPOPuLATION 1,182 2.63% 267 1.98%

TOTAL 44,896 100.00% 13,488 100.00%

Table 81: Small Business Lending – Philadelphia and Suburbs

CITyOFPHILADELPHIA SuBuRBANCOuNTIES

REvENuESIZE NuMBEROFLOANS PERCENTOFLOANS NuMBEROFLOANS PERCENTOFLOANS

SMALLBuSINESSES 12,365 100.00% 44,896 100.00%

BuSINESSESWITHREvENuES<$1MILLION 3,870 31.30% 13,488 30.04%



Table 82: City Depositories – by Income and Minority Level

INCOMELEvEL

BANkS BRANCHES LMI TRACT

MuI TRATC

%OFBRANCHESINLMITRACTS/%OFALL

BRANCHESINLMITRACTSRATIO

%OFBRANCHESINLMITRACTS/%OFLMI

TRACTSRATIO

ADvANCE 1 100.0% 0.0% 1.76 1.53

BANkOFAMERICA 19 42.1% 52.6% 0.74 0.64

BANkOFNEWyORk/MELLON 2 50.0% 50.0% 0.88 0.77

CITIBANk 7 42.9% 57.1% 0.75 0.66

CITIZENSBANk 60 53.3% 45.0% 0.94 0.82

CITyNATIONAL 1 100.0% 0.0% 1.76 1.53

M&TBANk 8 75.0% 25.0% 1.32 1.15

PNC 42 57.1% 35.7% 1.01 0.87

REPuBLICFIRST 7 85.7% 14.3% 1.51 1.31

SOvEREIgN 17 58.8% 35.3% 1.04 0.90

TDBANk 20 50.0% 50.0% 0.88 0.77

uNITEDBANkOFPHILADELPHIA 4 75.0% 25.0% 1.32 1.15

WELLSFARgO 44 68.2% 31.8% 1.20 1.04

ALLBANkS 338 56.8% 40.8%

ALLCENSuSTRACTS 381 65.4% 30.7%

MINORITyLEvEL

BANkS BRANCHES50%ORMORE MINORITyTRACT

LESSTHAN50%MINORITy

TRACT

%OFBRANCHESINMINORITyTRACTS/%OFALLBRANCHESIN

MINORITyTRACTSRATIO

%OFBRANCHESINMINORITyTRACTS/%OFMINORITyTRACTSRATIO

ADvANCE 1 100.0% 0.0% 4.3 1.9

BANkOFAMERICA 19 15.8% 78.9% 0.7 0.3

BANkOFNEWyORk/MELLON 2 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0

CITIBANk 7 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0

CITIZENSBANk 60 26.7% 71.7% 1.2 0.5

CITyNATIONAL 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0

M&TBANk 8 25.0% 75.0% 1.1 0.5

PNC 42 33.3% 61.9% 1.4 0.6

REPuBLICFIRST 7 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0

SOvEREIgN 17 35.3% 58.8% 1.5 0.7

TDBANk 20 15.0% 85.0% 0.7 0.3

uNITEDBANkOFPHILADELPHIA 4 75.0% 25.0% 3.3 1.4

WELLSFARgO 44 29.5% 70.5% 1.3 0.6

ALLBANkS 338 23.1% 75.4%

ALLCENSuSTRACTS 381 52.2% 45.4%

[1] Not all percentages will total to 100 because income and minority information is not available for every tract

[2] Branches according to FDIC Summary of Deposits data as of June 2009



Tabl

e 83

: Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d Si

ngle

-Fam

ily L

endi

ng A

naly

sis

PORT

FOLIOSHARE

OFTH

ECITy

MARk

ETSHARE

OFTH

ECITy

NEIgHBO

RHOOD

LOCA

TION

MAJO

RET

HNIC

gRO

uP

PERC

ENTOF

CITy

OOHuS

PERC

ENT

OFCITy

LO

ANS

%OF

PRIM

ECITy

LO

ANS

%OF

SuBP

RIME

CITy

LOANS

TOTA

LLOANS

PRIM

ELOANS

PRIM

EAS

A%OFALL

LOANS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS

SuBP

RIMEAS

A%OFALL

LOANS

PRIM

ELO

ANS/

OOHuS

SuBP

RIME

LOANS/

OOHuS

APM

N.P

HILA

HISP

0.08

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

06%

21

50.0

%1

50.0

%0.

35%

0.35

%

HAC

EN.5

THSTR

EET

HISP

1.15

%0.

27%

0.17

%1.

74%

7041

58.6

%29

41.4

%1.

02%

0.72

%

AWF

N.P

HILA

AFR

-AM

1.31

%0.

23%

0.18

%0.

96%

6044

73.3

%16

26.7

%0.

96%

0.35

%

OARC

W.O

AkLA

NE

AFR

-AM

3.37

%2.

20%

2.06

%4.

25%

576

505

87.7

%71

12.3

%4.

28%

0.60

%

PROJECT

HOME

SPRgRD

NAFR

-AM

1.11

%0.

19%

0.17

%0.

54%

5142

82.4

%9

17.6

%1.

08%

0.23

%

PEC

W.P

HILA

AFR

-AM

0.41

%0.

19%

0.18

%0.

42%

5144

86.3

%7

13.7

%3.

04%

0.48

%

AMER

ICAN

ST.E

ZkE

NSINgTO

NHISP

0.62

%0.

43%

0.39

%1.

08%

113

9584

.1%

1815

.9%

32.8

7%6.

23%

NORT

H

CENTR

ALEZ

N.P

HILA

AFR

-AM

0.38

%0.

19%

0.16

%0.

66%

5140

78.4

%11

21.6

%2.

99%

0.82

%

WES

TPH

ILA.E

ZW.P

HILA

AFR

-AM

0.40

%0.

06%

0.05

%0.

24%

1713

76.5

%4

23.5

%0.

93%

0.29

%

CITy

OF

PHILADELPH

IA2

100.

0%10

0.0%

100.

0%10

0.0%

26,159

24,490

93.6

%1,66

96.

4%7.

00%

0.48

%

PHILADELPH

IA17

2,17

365

279

710

513

01,03

240

70

1,81

023

,633



Tabl

e 84

: Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d Si

ngle

-Fam

ily L

endi

ng A

naly

sis

by D

epos

itory

NEIgHBO

RHOOD

ADvA

NCE

BA

Nk

BANkOF

AMER

ICA

CITIgRO

uP

INC

CITIZENS

CITy

NAT

IONAL

BANkOFNEW

yO

Rk/M

ELLO

NM&T

BANk

PNCBA

Nk

REPu

BLIC

FIRS

TBA

Nk

APM

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

HAC

E0.

00%

0.39

%0.

00%

0.83

%0.

00%

1.05

%0.

38%

0.00

%

AWF

0.00

%0.

17%

0.32

%0.

28%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.77

%0.

00%

OARC

0.00

%2.

03%

3.22

%3.

05%

0.00

%2.

11%

3.26

%0.

00%

PRHOME

0.00

%0.

17%

0.00

%0.

83%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.38

%0.

00%

PEC

3.70

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

28%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.19

%0.

00%

AMER

STEZ

0.00

%0.

11%

0.32

%1.

11%

0.00

%2.

11%

0.00

%0.

00%

NCE

Z0.

00%

0.17

%0.

32%

1.25

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

19%

0.00

%

WPE

Z0.

00%

0.28

%0.

00%

0.42

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

ALL9CDC

NEIgHBO

RHOODS

3.70

%3.

32%

4.18

%8.

04%

0.00

%5.

26%

5.18

%0.

00%

PHILADELPH

IA10

0.00

%10

0.00

%10

0.00

%10

0.00

%10

0.00

%10

0.00

%10

0.00

%10

0.00

%

Tabl

e 84

: con

tinue

d

SOvER

EIgNBANk

TDBANk

uNITED

BANk

WELLS

FARg

O

BANk

ALL

LENDER

S

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.01

%

0.37

%1.

03%

0.00

%0.

13%

0.27

%

0.55

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

26%

0.23

%

3.88

%1.

72%

0.00

%1.

63%

2.20

%

0.37

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

16%

0.19

%

0.18

%0.

34%

0.00

%0.

13%

0.19

%

0.28

%0.

34%

0.00

%0.

45%

0.43

%

1.39

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

21%

0.19

%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.06

%

7.02

%3.

44%

0.00

%3.

00%

3.78

%

100.

00%

100.

00%

100.

00%

100.

00%

100.

00%

NuMBE

ROFLENDER

’SSINgLEFAMILyLO

ANSINANEIgHBO

RHOODDIvDIDED

ByALLOFALEN

DER

’SSINgLEFAMILyLO

ANSINTHECITy

LENDER

PORT

FOLIOSHARE

Table 85: Neighborhood Small Business Lending Analysis

NEIgHBORHOOD NuMBEROFSMALLBuSINESSLOANS

NuMBEROFLOANSTOSMALLBuSINESS

<$1MILLIONINANNuALREvENuE

%OFLOANSTOSMALLBuSINESSES

WITHANNuALREvENuES<$1

MILLION

NuMBEROFSMALLBuSINESS

NuMBEROFSMALLBuSINESSESWITHANNuALREvENuE<$1MILLION

ALLEgHENyWESTFOuNDATION(AWF) 83 31 37% 961 718

AMERICANSTREETEMPOWERMENT

ZONE107 39 36% 1185 881

ASSOCIATIONOFPuERTORICANSONTHEMARCH(APM)

4 1 25% 151 101

HISPANICASSOCIATIONOFCONTRACTORS&

ENTERPRISES(HACE)

57 23 40% 1064 834

NORTHCENTRALEMPOWERMENT

ZONE64 16 25% 926 690

OgONTZAvENuEREvIATLIZATION

COMMITTEE(OARC)116 41 35% 1543 1337

PEOPLE'SEMERgENCyCENTER

(PEC)85 30 35% 908 618

PROJECTHOME 26 8 31% 728 591

WESTPHILADELPHIAEMPOWERMENT

ZONE33 11 33% 575 418

TOTAL 575 200 35% 8041 6188



Appendix 3 - Maps

Table of Contents

Appendix3

1 PrimeLoansbyMinorityLevelofTract 276

2 PrimeLoansbyMedianHouseholdIncomeofTract 277

3 PrimeLoansbyImmigrantPopulationofTract 278

4 SubprimeLoansbyMinorityLevelofTract 279

5 SubprimeLoansbyMedianHouseholdIncomeofTract 280

6 SubprimeLoansbyImmigrantPopulationofTract 281

7 African-AmericanDenialRatesforHomePurchaseLoansbyTract 282

8 AsianDenialRatesforHomePurchaseLoansbyTract 283

9 HispanicDenialRatesforHomePurchaseLoansbyTract 284

10 WhiteDenialRatesforHomePurchaseLoansbyTract 285

11 BankBranchesbyMinorityLevelofTract 286

12 BankBranchesbyMedianHouseholdIncomeofTract 287

13 BankBranchesbyImmigrantPopulationofTract 288


Appendix 3 – Maps

Map 1: Prime Loans by Minority Level of Tract


Appendix 3 – Maps

Map 2: Prime Loans by Median Household Income of Tract


Appendix 3 – Maps

Map 3: Prime Loans by Immigrant Population of Tract


Appendix 3 – Maps

Map 4: Subprime Loans by Minority Level of Tract


Appendix 3 – Maps

Map 5: Subprime Loans by Median Household Income of Tract


Appendix 3 – Maps

Map 6: Subprime Loans by Immigrant Population of Tract


Appendix 3 – Maps

Map 7: African-American Denial Rates for Home Purchase Loans by Tract


Appendix 3 – Maps

Map 8: Asian Denial Rates for Home Purchase Loans by Tract


Appendix 3 – Maps

Map 9: Hispanic Denial Rates for Home Purchase Loans by Tract


Appendix 3 – Maps

Map 10: White Denial Rates for Home Purchase Loans by Tract


Appendix 3 – Maps

Map 11: Bank Branches by Minority Level of Tract


Appendix 3 – Maps

Map 12: Bank Branches by Median Household Income of Tract


Appendix 3 – Maps

Map 13: Bank Branches by Immigrant Population of Tract

Appendix 4 - Methodology


Appendix 4 – Methodology

Appendix 4 MethodologyData Sources

Ananalysisofthisscopeandcomplexityrequiredamyriadofdatasources:

» Homelendingwasanalyzedusing2009HomeMortgageDisclosureActdataobtainedfromtheFederalFinancialInstitutionsExaminationCouncil(FFIEC),whichcollectsdataannuallyfromlenders.

» TheFFIEC’sNationalInformationCenterdatabaseof2009HMDAreportinginstitutionswasusedtogeneratealistofaffiliatesforeachCityDepository.

» CommunityReinvestmentActaggregatedpublicdataonsmallbusinesslendingbycensustractandbyfinancialinstitutionwasdownloadedfromtheFFIECwebsite.

» Thenumberofsmallbusinessesandthenumberofbusinessesbusinesswithlessthan$1millioninrevenuewasderivedfrom2009datapurchasedfromPCiCorporation(©PCiCorporationCRAWiz,Tel:800-261-3111).

» Individualdepositorydataforthesmallbusinesslendinganalysiswasobtainedfromthe2009InstitutionalDisclosureStatementsontheFFIECwebsite.

» BankholdingcompanydatawasobtainedfromtheFDICandFFIECwebsitestoassignaffiliatedbankstoCitydepositories.ThisuseofasecondsourceallowedforamorethoroughassignmentofaffiliatedbankstoCitydepositories;previousyears’datawasthenre-runaccordingly,toenableafairercomparisonacrossyears.

» Othercensus-tract-levelsupplementarydata,suchasimmigrantpopulation,camefromthe2000census,themostrecentinformationavailableatthisgeography.unfortunately,thesedatabecomelessaccurateasthetimesincethelastdecennialcensusincreases.

Depository Analysis

usingtheFFIEC’sNationalInformationCenterdatabaseof2009HMDAreporters,alistofCityDepositoriesandtheiraffiliateswasgenerated.Fromthislist,thelendingperformanceoftheseinstitutionswasexamined.

Geographic Scopes

Censustract,countyandstatecodingwithintheHMDAdatasetwereusedtoidentifyspecificgeographicareas.ThelendinguniverseforPhiladelphiawasisolatedusingitscountycode.ThesuburbananalysiscombinedlendinginBucks,Chester,Delaware,andMontgomeryCounties.



Home Lending

Allloantypes(conventional,FederalHousingAdministration,veteransAdministration,FarmServiceAgency/RuralHousingService)wereincludedintheanalysis.Propertieswithmorethanfour-unitsandmanufacturedhousingwereexcluded.Theremainingpropertieswereconsideredtobesingle-familydwellings.

Lendersrecordtheintendedpurposeofeachloan–homepurchase,refinanceorhomeimprovement.Anyanalysiscombiningallthreewasidentifiedas“AllLoans.”Insomeanalysestheloanpurposesweredisaggregated.

Toallowforcomparison,thisanalysiswasdoneusingthemethodologyestablishedinpreviousreport.Anyvariationswerenoted.

Homepurchaseandhomerefinanceloanssecuredbyafirstlienandappliedforduring2009wereincluded.Homeimprovementloanssecuredbyafirstorsecondlienandappliedforduring2009werealsoincluded.unlessotherwisenoted,theanalysisincludedonlyapplicationsbybuyersintendingtoliveintheproperty(owner-occupied)withoneexception,theSection5.0analysisofinvestor(non-occupantowner)lending.

50,114oftheloanapplicationsrecordedinPhiladelphiamettheseinitialcriteriaandwereincludedintheoverallowner-occupiedanalysis,andtherewere4,642intheoverallnon-occupantowneranalysis.However,smallersubsetswereusedforanalysesbyloanpurposeandloanrate.

Since2004,lendershavebeenrequiredtoreportloanratesthatarethreepointsgreaterthantherateonTreasurysecuritiesofcomparablematurity.Loanswithrateinformationwereidentifiedassubprimeloans.Loanswith“NA”intheratefieldwereconsideredtobeprimeloans.ItisimportanttonotethatnotallsubprimeloansarethreepercentagepointsormoreabovetheTreasuryAPR.Andsomeloansmaybeidentifiedassubprimebecauseoffeesoryieldspreadpremiums.

Calculating Denial Rates

Denialrateiscalculatedbydividingtotalapplicationsdeniedbytotalapplicationsreceived.Besidestheloanbeingoriginated,therearesevenotheroutcomesrecordedbybanks,allofwhichbankshavesomecontroloverintermsoffairlytreatingdifferentapplicants(seeTable1).

Table 1 – Actions Taken by Banks, 2009 Results

ACTIONTyPE DESCRIPTION 2009 FREQuENCy

2009 PROPORTION

1 Loanoriginated 26,159 52%2 Applicationapprovedbutnotaccepted 2,508 5%3 Applicationdeniedbyfinancialinstitution 12,440 25%4 Applicationwithdrawnbyapplicant 7,197 14%5 Fileclosedforincompleteness 1,790 4%6 Loanpurchasedbytheinstitution 0 0%7 Preapprovalrequestdeniedbyfinancialinstitution 20 0%8 Preapprovalrequestapprovedbutnotaccepted 0 0%



Borrower Race

Borrowerswereplacedinracialcategoriesbasedoninformationreportedbythelender.Lenderscouldreportuptofiveraceseachfortheapplicantandco-applicant.Inallbutafewrecords,nomorethantworaceswerereportedforthefirstapplicantandonefortheco-applicant.Forthisreason,theapplicantracewasdeterminedbasedonwhatwasreportedinthosefields.Threeraceswereincludedinthisanalysis–white,African-AmericanandAsian.

Inadditiontorace,theethnicityofeachapplicantcouldalsobereported.Fromthisinformation,afourthracialcategorywascreated–Hispanic.TobeplacedintheHispaniccategory,thefirstapplicantwasidentifiedasHispanic.JointapplicationswereincludedifthesecondapplicantwasidentifiedasHispanicorifethnicityinformationwasnotreported.BecauseHispanicapplicantscanbeofanyrace,thoseapplicantswereexcludedfromthethreeracialgroups.

Onemethodologicalchangefrompreviousyearswasmadehere.Iftheracialcategorywasundefined(“NA”orblank)andethnicityindicated“Hispanic,”thentheobservationwascoded“Hispanic.”Inpreviousstudies,theseobservationsweredropped.Tothenfairlycompareacrossyears,previousyears’resultswerere-runusingthischangeinmethodology.

Theresultisfourracialgroupings:non-Hispanicwhite,non-HispanicAfrican-American,non-HispanicAsian,andHispanic.“Other,”whichrepresentsasmallpercentage,wasnotincludedinthisanalysis.

Inkeepingwithpriorreports,onlysingleapplicantloans,orjointloanswherethesecondapplicant’sraceeithermatchedtheraceofthefirstapplicantorwasnotreported,wereincludedinaparticularracialgroup.ThesamemethodwasusedforHispanicapplicants.Fewapplicationswereexcluded.

Thedenominatorincludedonlyrecordswhereracialinformationwasprovidedbythelender.Thus,theracedenominatorwaslessthanthetotalnumberofloans.Ofthe26,159,approvedloansmeetingowner-occupiedanalysiscriteria,21,616includedraceinformation.

Thenumberofnon-Hispanicwhite,non-HispanicAfrican-American,non-HispanicAsian,andany-raceHispanichouseholdsinPhiladelphiawasdownloadedfromtheu.S.CensusBureauSummaryFile4releasetablePCT6.ThesenumberswerethendividedbythetotalnumberofhouseholdsinPhiladelphia.

Borrower Income

BorrowersweredividedintosixgroupsbasedontheirreportedincomerelativetothemedianfamilyincomefortheMetropolitanStatisticalArea(MSA).ThemedianwasdeterminedbytheDepartmentofHousingandurbanDevelopment(HuD).AccordingtotheFFIEC,HuD’s2009medianfamilyincomeforthePhiladelphiaareawas$77,800.



IncomegroupsasaPercentofMSAMedianFamilyIncome:

» low-income–lessthan50percentofmedianincome

» moderate-income–between50and80percentofmedianincome

» middle-income–Between80and120percentofmedianincome

» upper-income–120percentormoreofmedianincome

» low-andmoderate-income(LMI)–lessthan80percentofmedianincome

» middle-andupper-income(MuI)–80percentormoreofmedianincome

Borrowerincomewasreportedinthousands.Thebreakstodeterminethegroupingswereroundedtothenearestwholenumber.

Allloansforwhichtheborrower’sincomewas“notavailable”wereexcludedfromthisanalysis.Whencalculatingthepercentofloansineachincomecategory,thedenominatorrepresentedthetotalofonlythoseloanscontainingincomeinformationfortheborrower.Ofthe26,159approvedloansmeetinginitialowner-occupiedanalysiscriteria,24,305includedapplicantincome.

ThenumberofhouseholdsineachincomecategoryinPhiladelphiawasdownloadedfromtheu.S.CensusBureauSummaryfile4releasetablePCT88.Incaseswherecensusincomecategorieswerenotinalignmentwiththeincomeclassificationsdescribedaboveweassumedthathouseholdswereevenlydistributedamongstincomesineachcategoryandallocatedthenumberofhouseholdsaccordingly.

Tract Minority Level

Eachtractwasplacedintooneoftwogroupsbasedonthepercentageofitspopulationthatwasminority.Theminoritycategoryincludesallracesexceptnon-Hispanicwhites.Populationandracedatawerefromthe2000census,themostrecentinformationavailable.

MinorityLevelgroups:

» minority–halformoreofthepopulationwasminority

» non-minority–lessthanhalfwasminority

Tract Income Level

Tractswereplacedintosixgroupsbasedonthetract’smedianfamilyincomerelativetotheMSAmedianfamilyincome.ThesepercentswereprovidedintheHMDAdataset.Theincomegroupingswerethesameasborrowerincomes:low,moderate,middle,upper,LMIandMuI.

Applicationsforwhichcensustractincomepercentagewasnotavailablewereexcludedfromthedenominator.Ofthe26,159approvedloansmeetinginitialowner-occupiedanalysiscriteria,26,145includedcensustractincome.



Borrower Gender

Eachapplicant’sgenderwasreportedbythelender.Applicationswereseparatedintothreegroups:male,femaleandjoint.Applicationswitheitherasingleapplicantortwoapplicantsofthesamegenderwerecategorizedaseithermaleorfemale.Applicationswithamaleandfemaleborrowerwereclassifiedasjoint.

Applicationswithoutgenderinformationwerenotincludedinthedenominator.Ofthe26,159approvedloansmeetinginitialowner-occupiedanalysiscriteria,22,219includedapplicantgender.

Thenumberofhouseholdspergendercategorywasdownloadedfromtheu.S.CensusBureauSummaryFile4releasetablesPCT9and27.Thenumberofmalehouseholdsconsistsofthenumberofnon-familyhouseholdswithonlyamalehouseholder(fromPCT9)andthenumberoffamilyhouseholdswithonlyamalehouseholder(FromPCT27).Likewisethenumberoffemalehouseholdsisthesumofnon-familyfemalehouseholdsandfamilyhouseholdswithonlyafemalehouseholder.Jointhouseholdsconsistofthetotalmarriedcouplehouseholds(reportedinPCT27).

Composite Score

Astatisticalanalysiswasdonetomeasuretherelativeperformanceandassignacompositescoretoeachdepository,takingintoaccountseveralfactors.Thirteenfairlendingperformancemeasureswereidentifiedtoevaluatedepositories:

1. African-Americanshareofprimehomepurchaseloansoriginated

2. NumberofprimehomepurchaseloansoriginatedforAfricanAmericans

3. DenialratioofAfricanAmericanstowhitesforprimehomepurchaseloans

4. Hispanicshareofprimehomepurchaseloansoriginated

5. NumberofprimehomepurchaseloansoriginatedforHispanics

6. DenialratioofHispanicstowhitesforprimehomepurchaseloans

7. Low-andmoderate-incomeborrowershareofprimehomepurchaseloansoriginated

8. Numberofprimehomepurchaseloansoriginatedforlow-andmoderate-incomeborrowers

9. Denialratiooflow-andmoderate-incomeapplicantstomiddle-andupper-incomeapplicantsforprimehomepurchaseloans

10. Shareofprimehomepurchaseloansoriginatedinlowandmoderate-incometracts

11. Denialratiooflow-andmoderate-incometractstomiddle-andupper-incometractsforhomepurchaseloans

12. Shareofprimehomepurchaseloansoriginatedinminoritytracts

13. Denialratioofminoritytractstonon-minoritytractsforprimehomepurchaseloans



Thedepositorieswereevaluatedontheirperformanceineachofthese13factorsusingstandardizedscores,alsoknownasz-scores.Foreachfactor,themeanvalueandstandarddeviationfromthemeanwerecalculatedforallPhiladelphialendersthatoriginatedatleast25primehomepurchaseloansin2009.Thez-scoreforeachdepositorywascalculatedbysubtractingthemeanfactorvalueforalllendersfromthefactorvalueforthedepository,anddividingbythestandarddeviationforalllenders:

Z =F

Depository -μ

Where:

FDepositoryisthevalueofthefactor(e.g.,thedenialratioofHispanicstoWhites)

µ isthemeanforalllendersinPhiladelphiain2009forthefactor,and

σisthestandarddeviationofthefactorforalllendersinPhiladelphiain2009.

TheZ-scoreforeachfactorreflectsthenumberofstandarddeviationsadepositorysatawayfromthemeanvalueforalllenders.Ascoreofoneindicatesthedepositorywasonestandarddeviationabovethemean,anegativeonemeansthedepositorywasonestandarddeviationbelowthemean,andascoreofzeroindicatesthedepositoryhadtheaverage(mean)valueforalllendersinPhiladelphia.

Thesescoreswerecombinedtocreateacompositescorereflectingtheoverallfairlendingperformanceofeachdepository.Thefirstninefactorswereeachweightedas10percentofthescoreforatotalof90percent.Thefinalfourfactorswereweightedat2.5percenteach,totalingtheremaining10percent.

ThecompositescorereflectsthemagnitudeofdeviationofeachdepositoryfromtheaveragefairlendingperformanceoflendersintheCity.Apositivescoremeansthatadepositoryhadabove-averagefairlendingpractices.Ascoreclosertozeroindicatesthedepositoryhadaveragefairlendingpractices.Anegativescoremeansthedepositoryhadbelow-averagefairlendingpractices.Anoverallrankingwasgiventoeachdepositorybasedontheircombinedscore.Thedepositorywiththehighestscorewasrankedfirst.

Performance Rankings

Separatefromthecompositescore,thedepositorieswererankedcomparedtooneanotherbasedonperformancein15categories,whichwereestablishedinprioryearsofthisreport.Theserankingswerecalculatedforallloansandforeachhomeloanpurpose(purchase,refinanceandimprovement)individually.Onlyprime,single-family,owner-occupiedloanswereincluded.ThecollectiveperformanceoftheCityDepositories,aswellasallCitylenders,wasalsolisted.

σ



Performancecategoriesstudied:

1. PercentofLoanstoAfricanAmericans–PercentageofloansoriginatedbythedepositorytoAfrican-Americanborrowers.

2. PercentofLoanstoHispanic–PercentageofloansoriginatedbythedepositorytoHispanicborrowers.

3. PercentofLoanstoAsians–PercentageofloansoriginatedbythedepositorytoAsianborrowers.

4. PercentofLoansinMinorityTracts–Percentageofloansoriginatedbythedepositoryintractswhereatleasthalfofpopulationwasminority.

5. PercentofLoanstoLMIBorrowers–Percentageofloansoriginatedbythedepositorytoborrowerswithanincomeoflessthan80percentoftheMSAmedianfamilyincome.

6. PercentofLoansinLMITracts–Percentageofloansoriginatedbythedepositoryintractswherethemedianfamilyincomewaslessthan80percentoftheMSAmedianfamilyincome.

7. PercentofLoanstoFemales–Percentageofloansoriginatedbythedepositorytofemaleborrowers.

8. African-American-to-WhiteDenialRatio–ThepercentageofAfrican-Americanloanapplicantsdenieddividedbythepercentageofwhiteapplicantsdenied.AratiogreaterthanoneindicatesthatAfricanAmericansweredeniedmorefrequentlythanwhites.

9. Hispanic-to-WhiteDenialRatio–ThepercentageofHispanicapplicantsdenieddividedbythepercentageofwhiteapplicantsdenied.AratiogreaterthanoneindicatesthatHispanicsweredeniedmorefrequentlythanwhites.

10. Asian-to-WhiteDenialRatio–ThepercentageofAsianapplicantsdenieddividedbythepercentageofwhiteapplicantsdenied.AratiogreaterthanoneindicatesthatAsiansweredeniedmorefrequentlythanwhites.Conversely,aratiooflessthanonemeanswhitesweredeniedmoreoften.

11. MinorityTract-to-Non-minorityTractDenialRatio–Thepercentageofapplicationsinminoritytracts(populationatleasthalfminority)denieddividedbythepercentageofapplicationsinnon-minoritytractsdenied.Aratiogreaterthanoneindicatesthatapplicationsinminoritytractsweredeniedmorefrequentlythanthosethatwerenot.

12. African-American-to-WhiteMarketShareRatio–Thedepository’sshareofallloansintheCitytoAfricanAmericansdividedbyitsshareofallloansintheCitytowhites.AratioofgreaterthanonemeansthatthedepositoryhasagreatershareoftheCity’sAfrican-Americanloanmarketthanofthewhiteone,whichcanindicatethedepositorywasmakingagreaterefforttolendtoAfricanAmericans.

13. MinorityTract-to-Non-MinorityTractMarketShareRatio–Thedepository’sshareofallloansintheCityinminoritytractsdividedbyitsshareofallloansintheCityinnon-minorityones.AratioofgreaterthanonemeansthatthedepositoryhasagreatershareoftheCity’sminoritytractloanmarketthanofthenon-minorityone,whichcanindicatethedepositorywasmakingagreaterefforttolendinminoritytracts.



14. LMIBorrower-to-MuIBorrowerMarketShareRatio–Thedepository’sshareofallloansintheCitytoLMIborrowersdividedbyitsshareofallloansintheCitytoMuIborrowers.AratioofgreaterthanonemeansthatthedepositoryhasagreatershareoftheCity’sLMIborrowerloanmarketthanoftheMuIborrowerone,whichcanindicatethedepositorywasmakingagreaterefforttolendtoLMIborrowers.

15. LMITract-to-MuITractMarketShareRatio–Thedepository’sshareofallloansintheCityinLMItractsdividedbyitsshareofallloansintheCityinMuIones.AratioofgreaterthanonemeansthatthedepositoryhasagreatershareoftheCity’sLMItractloanmarketthanoftheMuIone,whichcanindicatethedepositorywasmakingagreaterefforttolendinLMItracts.

Small Business Lending

usingdatafromtheFFIECwebsite,afilewascreatedshowingthenumberofloanstosmallbusinessesandloanstobusinesseswithrevenuesoflessthan$1millionbycensustract,andtheincomestatusofeachtract,definedasfollows:

IncomegroupsasaPercentofMSAMedianFamilyIncome:

» low-income–lessthan50%ofmedianincome

» moderate-income–between50percentand80percentofmedianincome

» middle-income–between80percentand120percentofmedianincome

» upper-income–120percentormoreofmedianincome

ThedefinitionofasmallbusinesswasnotprovidedontheFFIECwebsite.However,itwasclearthatthebusinesseswithrevenuesoflessthan$1millioncomposedasubsetofallsmallbusinesses.

ThecensustractsinthisfilewerethenmatchedwithtractsfromaggregateddatafilesfromtheCensusBureautoaddaminoritystatusvariable.Minoritystatuswasdefinedasfollows:

» minority–halformoreofthepopulationwasminority

» non-minority–lessthanhalfofthepopulationwasminority

Thenumberofsmallbusinessesandsmallbusinesseswithlessthan$1millioninrevenueineachtractwasjoinedwiththeaggregatesmallbusinesslendingdatausingcensustractcodes.

Descriptivestatistics(includingfrequencydistributions,crosstabulations,andsums)wereruninSPSStoreportthefindingsforPhiladelphiainrelationtoitssuburbancountiesandsmallbusinesslendinginthetargetedneighborhoods.

Thesmallbusinesslendingrankingwasrestrictedtoonly11ofthedepositories,asunitedBankandAdvanceBankdidnotreportCRAdatain2009.Themethodologyforrankingtheinstitutionswasspecifiedinthatsectionofthereport.

COMPREHENSIVE REPORT: Examining the Lending Practices …Econsult Corporation Maria Frizelle Roberts...

Documents

Transcript of COMPREHENSIVE REPORT: Examining the Lending Practices …Econsult Corporation Maria Frizelle Roberts...