Community Reinvestment in Texas: Update 2005

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)

The CRA, enacted by Congress in 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2901) and implemented by Regulations 12 CFR parts 25, 228, 345 and 563e, was one of the first legislative acts passed by the U.S. Congress to address redlining, the practice of banks and savings and loan institutions denying loans to inner-city borrowers. Known as Title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act, the CRA is designed to encourage commercial banks and savings and loans to help meet the credit needs of the communities where they conduct business.

CRA Goals and Community Development

The CRA’s main goal is to improve access to credit for businesses and individuals in low- and moderate-income communities. Since its passage in 1977, the CRA has helped affordable housing and community development advocates evaluate the lending performance of CRA-regulated financial institutions.

Research studies by the Federal Reserve Board and the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University reveal the CRA helped increase home mortgage lending in low-income and minority communities in the 1990s. The research also indicated that the majority of CRA-related home mortgage and small business lending is profitable for lending institutions.^[8]

To comply with the CRA’s requirements for meeting the credit needs of communities, financial institutions must approve loans that support:

construction of community facilities such as community centers in low- and moderate-income areas;

building and rehabilitation of affordable housing and permanent financing for multifamily rental property for low- and moderate-income persons;

community development financial institutions (CDFIs), community development corporations (CDCs), minority- and women-owned financial institutions;

services targeted to low- and moderate-income communities and individuals, such as educational programs in schools involving students operating a simulated bank savings program known as a school savings program with mock passbooks, savings and withdrawal slips; credit and homebuyer counseling, technical assistance for economic revitalization programs and other activities;

financing to clean up the environment and redevelop industrial sites in low- and moderate-income communities; and

community development loans to local, state and tribal governments.

Evaluations of Financial Institutions
CRA regulations apply to national banks, savings associations, state-chartered commercial and savings banks and federally-insured depository institutions. Four separate federal agencies have specific roles under the CRA for evaluating the CRA record of institutions they regulate before approving applications for charters or for approval of mergers, acquisitions and branch openings:

The Federal Reserve Board (FRB);

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC);

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC); and

The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS).

(See Appendix A for details on the evaluation process and changes to the definition of small banks. See Appendix B for sample CRA programs at selected banks.)

Under the CRA regulations, the FRB is responsible for evaluating state-chartered banks and depository institutions under its supervision. The FDIC, the OCC and the OTS examine depository institutions for CRA compliance that are not supervised by the FRB. The FRB supervises state-chartered FRB member banks and bank holding companies.^[9] The FRB considers the CRA record of its member banks before approving FRB member bank applications to open new facilities that take deposits.^[10]

The FDIC is responsible for conducting CRA examinations of state-chartered, FDIC-insured banks and savings banks that are not members of the Federal Reserve System.^[11] Required to supervise national banks, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) under CRA regulation 12 CFR 25, must assess a national bank’s record of helping meet the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound operations before approving a request to merge application.^[12] The OCC conducts CRA exams of national banks every three years.

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the OCC follows an extended exam cycle of 18 months for small banks with aggregate assets of $250 million or less and an overall “outstanding” CRA rating. OCC exams of small banks, with an overall CRA rating of “satisfactory,” cannot begin earlier than 48 months following their most recent exam. OCC may remove banks from the extended exam cycle for reasonable cause or when a bank has applied to establish a facility that accepts deposits.

The CRA requires the OTS, under 12 CFR Part 563e, to assess a savings association’s record of helping to meet the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound operations.^[13] OTS must also consider that record in its evaluation of a savings association’s application for new branches or for relocation of an existing branch, mergers and consolidations and other corporate activities.

Small Banks

In recent years, federal regulators have debated the definitions of small and large banks because different CRA examination and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) reporting requirements apply according to a bank’s asset holdings. Between 1977 and 2004, banks with $250 million in assets or less were categorized as small.

On February 6, 2004, the FDIC, the FRB, the OCC and the OTS, however, proposed revisions to their CRA regulations to raise the small-bank asset threshold from $250 million to $500 million. This change would allow shorter, streamlined CRA evaluations for more banks. A streamlined CRA exam evaluates only a bank’s lending record in the communities it serves and not a financial institution’s investments and services. In late 2004, the FRB withdrew proposed amendments due to its continued review of public comments concerning the impact on funding of community development loans in rural areas.^[14]

The CRA data collection and reporting requirements for institutions regulated by the FRB, the FDIC and the OCC remain in effect. The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), however, made several changes affecting data collection and reporting for OTS-regulated small banks.

OTS issued a final rule, effective October 1, 2004, that increased the asset threshold to $1 billion for small banks regardless of their holding company assets. The rule also modified the existing “small institution” test for thrift institutions under the CRA. All savings associations, except small institutions are subject to data collection and reporting requirements. A small OTS institution is a thrift with $1 billion in assets as of December 31 of either of the prior two calendar years.^[15]

The OTS eliminated a restriction that small thrifts in a holding company with consolidated banking and thrift assets of $1 billion or more are ineligible for a streamlined examination under CRA regulations as a “small institution.”^[16] Large banks under the CRA are subject to a comprehensive review that examines the institution’s lending, investments and services in the communities it serves.^[17]

The FDIC, FRB and OCC continue to evaluate small banks with assets of less than $250 million using a streamlined test consisting of five factors:

the loan to deposit ratio, e.g., total loans relative to total deposits;

the percentage of loans made within the bank’s lending territory, which is referred to as its assessment area;

the geographic distribution of loans across neighborhoods of different income levels;

the distribution of loans among borrowers with different income levels and businesses and farms of different sizes; and

the bank’s record of responding to written complaints about its CRA performance.

Lending institutions of any size can choose to develop a strategic plan that explains how it will meet its CRA obligation instead of being examined by regulators. The strategic plan option allows the financial institution to structure its CRA evaluation criteria and objectives to the unique needs of the community it serves based on its own lending capacities, banking strategies and expertise. This method also reduces regulatory paperwork.

Large Banks

Regulatory examiners evaluate large banks once every two years and grade the lending institution’s activities in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. On July 1, 1997, large bank examinations began to evaluate large banks’ lending, investment and service performance. Prior to 1997, regulators examined some large banks using 12 assessment factors.^[18] Large banks must disclose data on their mortgage lending in non-metropolitan areas, their community development activities and assistance to small businesses. An unsatisfactory or weak CRA record can justify the denial of a financial institution’s request to expand.

Examiners customize federal regulatory tests to examine limited purpose and wholesale banks that specialize in large commercial deposits and provide credit cards but do not make home loans or accept small deposits. Customized tests focus on the number of community development loans and investments, including low-income housing tax credits or investments in small businesses, that a bank has made in its service area.

The four federal regulatory agencies publish lists of CRA examination schedules each quarter for CRA-regulated banks and savings institutions. Regulators post the lists on their agency Web sites and make them available directly to the public.

Financial Services Industry and the CRA

Since the 1977 passage of the CRA, the U.S. financial landscape has changed substantially in response to a combination of banking industry competition, deregulation, large and small bank consolidations, market forces and technological advances. The U.S. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan reported in 2004 that since 1995, about 2,500 U.S. banking organizations were absorbed by other entities and an estimated 1,400 new commercial banks have formed.^[19]

Financial industry competition has expanded as banks and other financial institutions market check cashing and credit card services, insurance products and sales of securities across state lines. Finance companies and insurance companies have expanded into mortgage banking, providing such loans without traditional banking regulatory oversight.

Amendments to CRA Regulations

Amendments to CRA regulations have enhanced the public’s accessibility to CRA examination schedules, results and related data. The changes have also expanded the options for investment by financial institutions that count as credit toward their CRA compliance rating:

Congress passed the Financial Institution Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) in 1989. This law created four composite CRA ratings to reflect a supervised bank’s compliance with the CRA: 1 for outstanding, 2 for satisfactory, 3 for needs to improve and 4 for substantial noncompliance. The act also required public disclosure of CRA examination ratings and written evaluations by regulatory agencies.

In 1991, the Congress passed a second amendment, requiring public discussion of a regulator’s evaluation of financial institutions’ CRA performance to allow community groups to discuss results with regulators. A third amendment followed in 1992 that allows CRA regulators to provide their supervised banks with credit under the CRA for investing in minority- and women-owned financial institutions and low-income credit unions.

Another amendment enacted in 1994 requires institutions with interstate branches to receive a separate examination and rating for each state in which they conduct business. This amendment also mandates separate evaluations for banks with branches in two or more states in the same metropolitan area. In 1995, revised regulations implemented three tests—a lending test, an investment test and a service test, with the lending test carrying most of the weight in calculating total CRA credit.^[20]

In 2002, Congress prohibited any bank or branch of a bank controlled by an out-of-state bank holding company from starting or requiring a branch or branches out of its home state primarily for the single purpose of taking deposits.^[21]

Starting January 1, 2003, the Federal Reserve Board amendment required lenders to ask applicants their national origin or race and sex in loan applications taken by telephone. The telephone application rule now applies to mail and Internet applications.^[22]

Congress amended CRA-related HMDA Regulation C to require lenders, starting January 1, 2004, to collect and report additional data on home loans and financing for manufactured homes, including loan pricing information and lien status, (for example, whether the loan is secured by a first or subordinate lien, or unsecured).^[23] Lenders must submit collected data by March 1, 2005. The HMDA data reveals to the public whether CRA-related financial institutions serve the housing needs of communities, helps policymakers direct community development funds to areas with the most need and reflects discriminatory lending patterns in data on borrowers.

Multiple changes also took effect starting January 1, 2004. HMDA and CRA-related financial institutions must use new geographic statistical area designations provided by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on June 6, 2003 when collecting data for reporting in March 2005. OMB’s revised metropolitan statistical area boundaries led to changes in definitions effective in December 2003, which OMB updated in February 2004. Only the terms MSA (metropolitan statistical area) used in place of metropolitan area and MetroDivs (Metropolitan Divisions) will be accepted for HMDA and CRA reporting.^[24]

To give a more complete picture of the mortgage market, the Federal Reserve Board broadened Regulation C in 2004 to cover previously unregulated non-depository lenders, such as money-lending companies. The board added a loan-origination volume test of $25 million. If the previous year’s home purchase loan originations, including refinancing of home purchase loans, exceeds or equals a threshold of $25 million the lender must comply with Regulation C reporting requirements. This change applies to these lenders “even if those loans do not equal at least 10 percent of the institution’s loan-origination volume measured in dollars.”^[25] Lenders must continue to report for certain loans the difference between a loan’s APR and the yield on U.S. Treasury securities with a comparable maturity period if the spread is greater than or equals three percent for loans secured by a first lien, on a dwelling, and five percent when secured by a second lien. For 2004 data collection, the asset threshold for depository lenders was raised to $33 million and remained unchanged at $10 million or less for non-depository institutions.^[26]

Increasing numbers of lenders sought liquidity in the mid- and late-1990s by selling primary mortgages to obtain funds to originate new loans. The secondary mortgage market grew, and the total number of home mortgage loans by financial institutions increased. Technological advances introduced through the Internet encouraged consumers to seek loans and pay bills online. Banks continued to consolidate. Credit scoring software programs became the banks’ common method of determining a prospective borrower’s ability to repay debts and loans.

Financial services experts and CRA advocates continue to debate the effects of bank consolidations and the decline of small banks on access to capital and credit for low- and moderate-income borrowers and small businesses. According to the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, while small banks with less than $1 billion in assets measured in 2002 dollars have become fewer in number due to competitive forces, financial deregulation and technological advances, these banks continue to show strength and profitability in the home mortgage market. Credit unions, which are exempt from federal taxes and CRA requirements, have begun to actively compete for small bank market segments.^[27] Adjusted for inflation, credit union assets tripled from $194 billion in 1984 to $611 billion in June 2003. In 1984 there were 11,000 small banks compared to only 6,000 small banks in June 2003. During this period, small banks’ portion of the commercial banking system’s assets dropped to 13 percent from 23 percent. Large banks increased their market share of commercial banking assets to 71 percent in June 2003 from 42 percent in 1984.^[28]

Small, community-based banks hold a competitive lead in providing financial services to small businesses where lending decisions are made through lender-borrower relation-ships. As of 2003, small banks were responsible for 37 percent of all bank loans to small businesses and devoted 19 percent of small bank assets to small business loans. Research reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas indicates that the increasing share of small bank assets in small business loans is due, in part, to business lending secured with nonresidential real estate.^[29]

According to a Ford Foundation report released in 2004, the CRA has broadened access to mortgage financing by low- and moderate-income populations in the U.S. in recent years. Given the trend toward consolidation in the financial services industry, however, CRA supporters would like the Congress to expand the CRA to cover not only banks, but also mortgage companies and money lending businesses. Reviewing data from 2003, less than 30 percent of home purchases in the U.S. were subject to CRA evaluation, while subprime and manufactured home loans accounted for the majority of growth in lower-income and minority lending.^[30]

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB) Act and the CRA

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB) Act, known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, repealed restrictions on the affiliation of banks, insurance companies and securities firms found in sections 20 and 32 of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. The GLB Act created new forms of financial institutions called “Financial Holding Companies” (FHCs) as part of section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act.^[31] Following the Great Depression, Congress originally passed the Glass-Steagall Act to eliminate high-risk financial behavior including uninsured deposits in questionable securities. The GLB Act requires that financial holding companies, insured depository institutions affiliated with a financial holding company or stand-alone insured depository institutions may only be approved for expanded activities or acquisitions if their latest CRA examination rating is satisfactory or better.

The GLB Act ended legal barriers among the banking, insurance and securities industries, which allowed them to combine services and provide financial products. The GLB Act created a system for federal and state financial regulatory compliance, requiring the Federal Reserve Board to supervise financial holding companies. It also designated state insurance departments as the functional regulators of the insurance business activities of banks and all financial firms involved in the business of insurance.

The GLB Act reduced the frequency of regulatory examinations for small banks with passing CRA ratings. Small banks with outstanding ratings are evaluated once every five years and once every four years if they pass with a satisfactory rating. Regulatory agencies may examine small banks more frequently if they believe a compelling reason exists.

Regulatory examiners use the FFIEC’s revised interagency examination procedures to assess financial institutions’ compliance with the CRA “Sunshine Requirements” of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA). The requirements apply to covered agreements in the form of a contract, arrangement, or understanding that meet five criteria:

the agreement is in writing;

the agreement is made pursuant to, or in connection with, the fulfillment of the CRA;

the parties to the agreement include one or more insured depository institutions or their affiliates;

the agreement calls for a bank to make loan payments, grants or give other consideration (except loans) with an aggregate value of more than $10,000 in any calendar year, or make loans in an aggregate principal amount of more than $50,000 in any calendar year; and

the agreement includes one party, which is a non-governmental entity, that had a CRA communication defined in the CRA Sunshine requirements prior to entering the agreement.^[32]

Regulatory examiners apply the CRA Sunshine Requirements to financial institutions having loans with an aggregate principal value of more than $50,000 in a calendar year. The GLB Act’s Sunshine Requirements do not cover any agreement with a non-governmental entity or person that has not had a CRA contact with an insured depository institution or affiliate or a banking agency, such as agreements entered into by entities or persons that solicit charitable contributions or other funds without regard to the CRA.

Parties to covered agreements must disclose the agreement to the public and to the appropriate regulatory agency. All parties in the agreement must also file a report with the appropriate regulatory agency each year.^[33] When management determines that a financial institution is a party to one or more covered agreements, the regulation requires examiners to investigate and describe the institution’s covered agreement disclosure practices.

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Reform

In 1975, Congress passed the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) to help determine whether financial institutions serve the housing needs of their communities and to enforce fair lending practices. Combined with the Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation C, HMDA requires the majority of depository institutions and certain for-profit, non-depository institutions to collect, report and disclose data concerning originations and purchases of home purchase and improvement loans, refinancing of homes and related loan applications. The institutions must report the type, purpose, amount of loan; the property’s location; and the applicant’s ethnicity, income, race and sex.

From 1989 through the 1990s, national community development groups developed reforms of the HMDA to increase the amount of disclosed information required. The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) added new data disclosure requirements. In 2002, the Federal Reserve revised Regulation C, which implemented HMDA, to require lenders to disclose data on loans covered by the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA), to collect and report data on home loans, loan pricing, lien status and whether an application or loan involves a manufactured home.^[34] Effective January 1, 2004, the Federal Reserve Board raised the asset-size exemption for depository institutions to $33 million from $32 million in 2003. This revised regulation also made institutions with assets of $33 million or less as of December 31, 2003 exempt from data collection for calendar year 2004.^[35]

U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Boundary Changes and HMDA: Why Does it Matter?

The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced new definitions of metropolitan statistical area (MSA) boundaries in June 2003. OMB updated the boundary definitions in February 2004, which became effective in December 2003. Because both the CRA and HMDA use OMB’s statistical area definitions, the changes have affected HMDA loan data collection and reporting by financial institutions located within OMB’s new geographic statistical areas.

OMB’s revised definitions created 49 new MSAs, changed the boundaries of many other MSAs and established new types of statistical areas, including Metropolitan Divisions (MetroDivs). New OMB statistical areas also include Combined Statistical Areas, MSAs and Micropolitan Statistical Areas. OMB eliminated the terms “Consolidated MSA” (CMSA) and “Primary MSA” (PMSA). Only MetroDivs and MSAs will be recognized for CRA and HMDA reporting purposes. Micropolitan Statistical Areas and “nonclassified” areas are considered “nonmetropolitan” for all purposes under HMDA and CRA.^[36]

Starting January 1, 2004, the FFIEC requires affected financial institutions to collect HMDA and CRA data using the OMB’s new definitions. Collected data must be submitted by March 1, 2005 and include the property location using an MSA code or a MetroDiv code if the property is located in a MetroDiv. (For detail of OMB changes affecting HMDA, see Appendix C.)

According to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC), OMB’s definition changes for MSAs provide opportunities for a new form of redlining or discrimination in lending, because the median income will now reference the median income for the metropolitan divisions, not the MSA.^[37] This change may convert some suburban middle-income tracts into moderate-income tracts and turn some urban moderate-income tracts into middle-income tracts. The NCRC contends this will increase the number of moderate-income tracts in the suburbs, decrease the number of moderate-income tracts in the cities, making it easier for banks to reach moderate-income census tracts in the suburbs, but harder to reach them in the cities. Lenders may then have an incentive to exclude inner cities from their CRA assessment areas under existing CRA and HMDA reporting requirements.

Starting January 1, 2004, HMDA and CRA reporting institutions must apply the new geographic designations released by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget when collecting loan data for reporting by March 1, 2005. Financial institutions should determine if they are subject to HMDA data collection and reporting as a result of OMB’s changes in 2003 to statistical area definitions.^[38]

According to the FFIEC, the new definitions may affect an institution’s assessment area and implementation of an institution’s CRA program. The impact on loan data collection due to OMB’s revision of MSAs will cause some census tracts to appear to change income levels when there was not any actual change in economic conditions. Standards used by OMB in 1990 allowed for geographic boundaries to be determined subjectively. OMB’s latest revised standards, however, use objective criteria including employment and commuting patterns to determine MSA and MetroDiv boundaries. (For specific changes and detail please see Appendix C: 2003-2004 Changes to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.)

Home Equity Lines of Credit (HELOC) in Texas

The 2003 Texas Legislature passed Senate Joint Resolution 42 (S.J.R. 42), approved by voters in September 2003, authorizing a home equity line of credit (HELOC). This change in law allows the homeowner to have a revolving line of credit based on their home’s equity. Interest rates are lower on a HELOC than on unsecured loans from most lenders and interest paid on a HELOC can be deducted from federal income taxes.^[39] In September 2003, voters also approved House Joint Resolution 23 (H.J.R. 23), known as Proposition 6, which amended the Texas Constitution to authorize the refinancing of a home equity loan with a reverse mortgage. (See Appendix D for further detail about S.J.R. 42 and H.J.R. 23.)

Compared to closed-end or traditional home-equity loans, HELOCs are more flexible. A traditional home equity loan is extended for a specific time period with required repayment of interest and principal in equal monthly payments at fixed interest rates. A HELOC is a revolving account that allows the homeowner to borrow from time to time up to a certain credit limit.

Among other sources, the financial industry, the U.S. Census Bureau and the Federal Reserve Board collect and report HELOC data. Banks and finance companies report HELOCs as receivables on quarterly Call Reports. Mutual savings banks report HELOCs on Federal Reserve Call Reports. Federal savings banks and savings and loan associations report credit line receivables on Call Reports. Finance companies, however, report commercial and residential mortgages without separating HELOCs from traditional loans.^[40]

The CRA: Its Past and Future

CRA advocates and opponents continue to debate the relevance of the CRA. In terms of meeting its primary goal, research shows that the legislation helped expand access to mortgage credit for low- and moderate-income individuals in mostly minority communities during the 1990s.^[41] Nevertheless, “less than 30 percent of home purchases today fall within the oversight of the act,” according to Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing.^[42] However, CRA’s “Golden Age,” in which lenders discovered new markets in low-income communities to address the practice of redlining, has waned.^[43]

CRA opponents claim that the CRA is unnecessary because of these documented increases in home loans in the 1990s for low- and moderate-income populations. CRA’s advocates argue that recent research supports broadening the act’s enforcement to apply CRA oversight to a rapidly growing non-CRA regulated, non-depository financial services industry responsible for making large numbers of subprime loans to low- and moderate income populations in the past decade.^[44]

CRA opponents argue that the act limits CRA-regulated institutions’ ability to compete with non-regulated institutions such as credit unions, pension funds and mortgage banks.

During the past 27 years, the continued growth of large banking operations has reduced the residential lending market share of many smaller banks and savings and loan institutions.

When the CRA was passed in 1977, banks and savings and loan institutions issued the majority of home purchase loans. Between 1977 and 2005, the CRA continued to encourage CRA-regulated institutions to provide access to credit to low- and moderate-income individuals in communities in which these institutions take deposits. Changes made to the CRA such as strengthening disclosure requirements of loan and recipient characteristics, publicly disclosing CRA ratings and refining how regulators assign CRA ratings have increased bank activity in low-income communities. The Federal Reserve Board of San Francisco (FRBSF) concluded that access to credit for low- and moderate-income groups and neighborhoods targeted by the CRA since 1977 has improved. For most banks, low- and moderate-income home purchase lending has become as profitable as home purchase lending to other income groups.^[45]

In terms of small business access to credit, CRA’s advocates suggest that regulators pay more attention to small business lending and the impact of financial institution mergers because small business lending is not repeating the gains made in homeownership lending in low-income areas. CRA supporters also recommend further reform of the CRA through new rulemaking by federal regulators or legislation to accommodate continued changes in the financial services and home mortgage lending industry; maintaining and improving CRA’s historic focus on residential lending; and modifying the CRA to emphasize community-development activities.^[46]

Endnotes

^[8] The Performance and Profitability of CRA-Related Lending, Report by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/surveys/craloansurvey/cratext.pdf. (July 17, 2000, Washington, D.C.) (Last visited January 25, 2005.)
^[9] Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/7500-1200.html. (Last visited January 26, 2005.)
^[10] The Federal Reserve Board, Community Reinvestment Act, http://www.federalreserve.gov/dcca/cra/. (Last visited December 16, 2004.) and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, http://www.occ.treas.gov/crainfo.htm. (Last visited December 16, 2004.)
^[11] Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, http://www2.fdic.gov/crapes/crafaq_v4.asp. (Last visited December 16, 2004.)
^[12] Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, http://www.occ.treas.gov/crainfo.htm. (Last visited December 16, 2004.)
^[13] Office of Thrift Supervision, http://www.ots.treas.gov/craexpl.html. (Last visited December 16, 2004.)
^[14] Federal Reserve Board, “Federal Reserve Release,” Washington, D.C., July 16, 2004. (Press release.) http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/press/bcreg/2004/20040716/default.htm. (Last visited December 6, 2004.)
^[15] Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, http://www.ffiec.gov/cra/reporter.htm. (Last visited December 6, 2004.)
^[16] Office of Thrift Supervision, “OTS Finalizes CRA Rule,” Washington, D.C., August 12, 2004. http://www.ots.treas.gov/docs/7/77431.html. (Press release.) (Last visited December 6, 2004.)
^[17] Telephone interview with Teresa Stark, program manager, Office of Thrift Supervision, Washington, D.C., December 17, 2004.
^[18] Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, Interagency CRA Ratings, http://www.ffiec.gov/cracf/crarating/rating_faq.htm. (Last visited January 25, 2005.)
^[19] Chairman Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve System, Remarks at the American Bankers Association Annual Convention, New York, New York, October 5, 2004.
^[20] Jeffrey W. Gunther, Economic and Financial Review, 1999, issue Q II, pp. 32-41.
^[21] U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, “Prohibition Against Use of Interstate Branches Primarily for Deposit Production,” Joint Final Rule, p. 1 (October 1, 2002).
^[22] Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, History of HMDA, http://www.ffiec.gov/hmda/history2.htm. (Last visited December 6, 2004.)
^[23] Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, History of HMDA.
^[24] Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, History of HMDA.
^[25] Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Communities in Banking, “Updating the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act,” (Boston, Massachusetts).
^[26] Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, History of HMDA, Washington, D.C., http://www.ffiec.gov/hmda/history2.htm. (Last visited December 6, 2004.)
^[27] The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Southwest Economy, “Small Banks’ Competitors Loom Large,” Dallas, TX, January/February 2004, http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:hP1udXE9B14J:www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2004/swe0401b.html+small+banks%27+competitors+loom+large&hl=en. (Last visited January 13, 2004.)
^[28] The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Southwest Economy, “Small Banks’ Competitors Loom Large,” (Dallas, TX, January/February 2004), p. 1.
^[29] The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Southwest Economy, “Small Banks’ Competitors Loom Large,” p. 5.
^[30] Ford Foundation, “Community Reinvestment: The Second Act,” (New York, NY, Winter 2003), http://www.fordfound.org/publications/ff_report/view_ff_report_detail.cfm?report_index=373. (Last visited December 6, 2004.)
^[31] U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, “Financial Services Modernization Act,” November 1, 1999, http://banking.senate.gov/conf/grmleach.htm. (Last visited January 13, 2004.)
^[32] Nixon Peabody, LLP, “Disclosure and Reporting of Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) – Related Agreements: Final Rules,” Memorandum to Nixon Peabody LLP Clients and Friends, by Timothy R. McTaggart and David F. Schon (February 14, 2001), http://www.nixonpeabody.com/publications_detail3.asp?Type=P&PAID=51&ID=76&Hot=. (Last visited January 25, 2005.)
^[33] Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 2001-50, “Disclosure and Reporting of CRA-Related Agreements, Final OCC, FRB, FDIC, and OTS Rule,” Washington, D.C., http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/bulletin/2001-11a.pdf. (Last visited February 24, 2003.)
^[34] Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, “History of HMDA,” Washington, D.C., http://www.ffiec.gov/hmda/history2.htm. (Last visited December 6, 2004.)
^[35] Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, “History of HMDA,” p. 4.
^[36] Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, “Guidance on MSA Boundary Changes,” Washington, D.C., http://www.ffiec.gov/hmda/history2.htm. (Last visited December 6, 2004.)
^[37] Letter from the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Office of Thrift Supervision; and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (August 12, 2004), http://www.ncrc.org. (Last visited December 28, 2004.)
^[38] Federal Reserve Board of Philadelphia, Cascade, “OMB Statistical Definitions: Their Impact on CRA and HMDA Reporting,” http://www.phil.frb.org/cca/spring04.html. (Last visited January 26, 2005.)
^[39] Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, “Home Equity Lines of Credit Good Choice for Texans,” Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Texas Comptroller (Austin, Texas, September 10, 2003), http://www.window.state.tx.us/oped/30910helocoped.html. (Last visited November 17, 2004.)
^[40] Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, “Special Report – Home Lending Gaps in Texas, (Austin, Texas, March 2003), http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/homeeqty03/. (Last visited January 3, 2005.)
^[41] Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University, “Harvard Study Finds Community Reinvestment Act Fails to Keep Pace with Changing Financial Industry,” http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/media/cra_release_3-20-02.html. (Press release.) (Last visited January 12, 2005.)
^[42] Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University, “Harvard Study Finds Community Reinvestment Act Fails to Keep Pace with Changing Financial Industry.”
^[43] The Ford Foundation, “Community Reinvestment: The Second Act,” Winter 2003, New York, NY, p. 1.
^[44] The Ford Foundation, “Community Reinvestment: The Second Act.”
^[45] Federal Reserve Board of San Francisco, FRBSF Economic Letter, Number 2004-16, San Francisco, CA, June 25, 2004.
^[46] The Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, “The 25th Anniversary of the Community Reinvestment Act: Access to Capital in an Evolving Financial Services System,” Cambridge, MA, March 2002, p. 1.