To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
3 results

Do Minorities Pay More for Mortgages?

Review of Financial Studies 2021 34(2), 763-789 open access
We test for racial discrimination in the prices charged by mortgage lenders. We construct a unique data set from which we observe the three dimensions of a mortgage’s price: the interest rate, discount points, and fees. Although we find statistically significant gaps by race and ethnicity in interest rates, these gaps are offset by differences in discount points. We trace out point-rate schedules and show that minorities and whites face identical schedules, but sort to different locations on the schedule. Such sorting may reflect systematic differences in liquidity or preferences. Finally, we find no differences in total fees by race or ethnicity.

Paying Too Much? Borrower Sophistication and Overpayment in the U.S. Mortgage Market

Journal of Finance 2026 81(1), 49-90 open access
Comparing mortgage rates that borrowers obtain to rates that lenders could offer for the same loan, we find that many homeowners significantly overpay for their mortgage, with overpayment varying across borrower types and with market interest rates. Survey data reveal that borrowers' mortgage knowledge and shopping behavior strongly correlate with the rates they secure. We also document substantial variation in how expensive and profitable lenders are, without any evidence that expensive loans are associated with a better borrower experience. Despite many lenders operating in the U.S. mortgage market, limited borrower sophistication may provide lenders with market power.

How Much Does Racial Bias Affect Mortgage Lending? Evidence from Human and Algorithmic Credit Decisions

Journal of Finance 2025 80(3), 1463-1496 open access
We assess racial discrimination in mortgage approvals using confidential data on mortgage applications. Minority applicants tend to have lower credit scores and higher leverage, and are less likely to receive algorithmic approval from race‐blind automated underwriting systems (AUS). Observable applicant‐risk factors explain most of the racial disparities in lender denials. Further, exploiting the AUS data, we show there are risk factors we do not observe, and these factors at least partially explain the residual 1 to 2 percentage point denial gaps. We conclude that differential treatment plays a more limited role in generating denial disparities than previous research suggests.