Large net loan charge-offs are frequently associated with large decreases in nonperforming loans and large increases in loan loss provisions, inducing a V-shaped relation between loan loss provisions and nonperforming loan changes. Failure to model the asymmetry attributable to net loan charge-offs can change inferences about the presence of earnings management and the effects of delayed loan loss recognition in prior papers that assumed linearity. Future researchers should either include net loan charge-offs in linear models of loan loss provisions or explicitly model the asymmetry induced by omitting net loan charge-offs.

We show that banks with high environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings issue fewer mortgages in poor localities—in number and dollar amount—than banks with low ESG ratings. This lending disparity happens at both the county and census tract level, worsens in disaster areas of severe hurricane strikes, is robust to alternative ESG ratings (including using only the social (S) component), and cannot be explained by banks’ differential deposit networks. We find no difference in mortgage default rates between high- and low-ESG banks, rejecting an alternative explanation based on differential credit screening quality. We report a complementary, not substitution, relation between high-ESG banks’ mortgage lending and their community development investments (like affordable housing projects) in poor localities. Loan-application-level analyses confirm that high-ESG banks are more likely than low-ESG banks to reject mortgage loans in poor neighborhoods. The evidence hints at social wash: banks deploy prosocial rhetoric and symbolic actions while not lending much in disadvantaged communities, the social function they arguably ought to perform. Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) examinations partially undo the social wash effect.