Document Type

Article

Publication Date

9-2006

Source Publication

Journal of Urban Economics

Source ISSN

0094-1190

Abstract

Local authorities in North Carolina, and subsequently in at least 23 other states, have enacted laws intending to reduce predatory and abusive lending. While there is substantial variation in the laws, they typically extend the coverage of the Federal Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA) by including home purchase and open-end mortgage credit, by lowering annual percentage rate (APR) and fees and points triggers, and by prohibiting or restricting the use of balloon payments and prepayment penalties. Empirical results show that the typical local predatory lending law tends to reduce rejections, while having little impact on the flow (application and origination) of credit. However, the strength of the law, measured by the extent of market coverage and the extent of prohibitions, can have strong impacts on both the flow of credit and rejections.

Comments

Accepted version. Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 60, No. 2 (September 2006): 210-228. DOI.

NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Journal of Urban Economics. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Journal of Urban Economics, VOL 60, ISSUE 2, September 2006, DOI.

Anthony Pennington-Cross was affiliated with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis at the time of publication.