1
1620 I Street, NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006 www.consumerfed.org
Subprime Locations: Patterns of Geographic Disparity in Subprime Lending
September 5, 2006
Allen J. Fishbein
Patrick Woodall
1
Executive Summary
Significant variation exists in the pricing of higher-priced subprime refinance mortgage
loans between states, regions and localities. The Consumer Federation of America
(CFA) study also found the prevalence of racial pricing disparities, with African
Americans and Hispanic homeowners more than twice as likely to receive higher-priced
subprime refinance loans as other racial and ethnic groups.
Loan data released for only the first time last year by the Federal Reserve Board and
other federal banking regulators contained pricing information on certain subprime
mortgages made by lenders. The Fed noted at the time that the incidence in higher priced
subprime lending varied considerably by geographic area.
2
This study provides the first
comprehensive and systematic look at the geographic variations by region and
metropolitan area for the soon to be released federal government data covering lending
activity in 2005.
The subprime market provides loans to borrowers who do not meet the credit standards
for borrowers in the prime market. These loans are generally more expensive for
borrowers with interest rates higher than prevailing prime rates, presumably to
compensate lenders for the added risks associated with lending to borrowers with weaker
credit histories. Most subprime refinance borrowers use the collateral in their homes for
debt consolidation and other consumer credit purposes. Subprime lending has grown
rapidly as a segment within the conventional mortgage market, growing from 5 percent
of mortgage lending in 1994 to 20 percent in 2005.
3
1
Fishbein is Director of Credit and Housing Policy and Woodall is Senior Researcher at Consumer
Federation of America. Research Intern Daniel Brown provided invaluable assistance in preparing this
report.
2
Avery, Robert B. and Glenn B. Canner, Federal Reserve, “New Information Reported Under HMDA and
Its Application in Fair Lending Enforcement,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, Summer 2005 at 371.
3
Olson, Mark W., Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Statement Before the Subcommittee
on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit of the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of
Representatives, June 13, 2006 at 4.
2
However, the growth of subprime lending has also raised public policy concerns. High
levels of subprime lending indicate markets where borrowers are paying unusually high
costs for credit and where borrowers face unusually high risks of losing their homes.
Indeed, the wide range of prices available in the subprime market today has raised
concerns about whether such price variations are solely reflective of legitimate risk-based
pricing factors or are reflective of other factors, including unlawful discrimination,
opportunistic pricing and predatory lending practices. The Federal Reserve reported last
year that pricing disparities existed between different racial and ethnic groups even after
controlling for a borrower’s income, gender, property location, and loan amount. A
recent analysis by the Center for Responsible Lending found that racial disparities existed
in the subprime market even when controlling for credit score and debt load factors that
cannot be determined from HMDA data alone.
4
Also of mounting concern is the fact that in recent years as the subprime market has
grown so has its reliance on adjustable rate loan products. Moreover, the reset triggers
on subprime ARMs have dramatically shortened. Last year over 80 percent of subprime
loans were adjustable rate loans, including many in the form of 2/28 loans.
5
These loans
carry an initial short-term fixed rate for the first twenty-four months that is followed by
annual or six-month rate adjustments for the remaining life of the loan. The low initial
rate means that monthly payments will likely rise when the rate resets. Climbing rates
and cooling local housing markets has led to dire forecasts that a significant percentage
of these loans are likely to default.
6
This study concentrates on single-family, first lien conventional refinance loans, where
subprime lending is most concentrated, by analyzing 2004 and 2005 data provided by the
Federal Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). This study analyzes a sample of the
HMDA data soon to be released by the Federal government to provide local context to
the national release of the 2005 HMDA due out this month.
In 2005, the share of subprime loans increased and the highest-cost loans increased even
more. The share of reported subprime loans (classified for HMDA purposes as those
more than 3 percent above comparable Treasury notes) increased by 79.9 percent
between 2004 and 2005, from 14.7 percent of refinance mortgages in 2004 to 26.5
percent of refinance loans in 2005. Over the same period, reported refinance loans priced
at more than 5 percent above Treasury securities more than doubled, from 4.2 percent of
refinance lending to 8.8 percent of refinance mortgages in 2005. Some portion of the
increase can be attributed to a changing interest rate environment, but the HMDA
reporting provided to the public cannot discern the extent to which the increase can be
explained by the changes in the interest rate yield curve alone. Nevertheless,
interpretations of year-to-year changes in the volume of higher-priced subprime loans
4
Gruenstein, Debbie, Kieth S. Ernst and Wei Li, Center for Responsible Lending, “Unfair Lending: The
Effect of Race and Ethnicity on the Price of Subprime Mortgages,” May 31, 2006.
5
FitchRatings, 2006 Global Structured Finance Outlook, January 17, 2006 at 12; Hagerty, James,
“Millions Are Facing Squeeze On Monthly House Payments,” Wall Street Journal, March 15, 2006.
6
Laing, Jonathan R., “Coming Home to Roost”, Barron’s, February 14, 2006.
3
should be treated with caution. (See page 7 for further discussion on this point.)
Among the study’s key findings:
• Significant Subprime Refinance Variation between Regions: For refinance
mortgages, borrowers on the West Coast and Northwest are half as likely to
receive subprime refinance loans than borrowers in the Southwest or Great Plains.
Fewer than one in five refinance borrowers in the Pacific region (18.1 percent)
and the Northwest (18.5 percent) received subprime loans compared to nearly two
in five borrowers in the Great Plains (36.6 percent) and the Southwest (37. 3
percent).
• Gulf and Prairie States Concentrated in Highest Incidence of Subprime
Refinance Lending: In five states, more than two fifths of refinance loans were
subprime in 2005. More than half (51.8 percent) of refinance loans in Mississippi
were subprime. Rounding out the highest subprime refinance rates were
Oklahoma with 44.3 percent subprime, Alabama with 41.6 percent, Nebraska
with 41.4 percent and Louisiana with 40.0 percent.
• Western States Had Lowest Subprime Refinance Rates: Fewer than one in
five refinance loans were subprime in Hawaii (19.5 percent), Washington (18.2
percent), Oregon (17.8 percent) and California (16.2 percent).
• Large Subprime Refinance Variation between Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(MSAs): In 2005, the ten MSAs with the smallest share of subprime refinance
lending had fewer than 10 percent of borrowers receive subprime loans. In
contrast, in the twelve MSAs which have the highest share of subprime refinance
lending had subprime refinance five times higher, with more than half of all
refinance borrowers receiving subprime loans.
• Highest Subprime MSAs Concentrated in Southeast, Southwest and Midwest
Regions: In 2005, of the 30 MSAs with the highest share of subprime refinance
loans (about 10% of the 317 MSAs studied), more than 80 percent were in the
Southeast (from Kentucky east to the Carolinas and south through Mississippi),
Southwest (Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas and New Mexico), or Midwest (Ohio
through Minnesota). The five cities with the highest incidence of subprime
refinance lending were all in Texas (Brownsville, McAllen, El Paso, Lubbock,
and Longview).
• Lowest Subprime Refinance Lending in Pacific: More than half of the 30
MSAs with the lowest incidence of subprime lending are in the Pacific Region
(Arizona, Nevada, California and Hawaii). The five cities with the lowest
incidence of subprime lending are all in California (San Francisco, Santa Rosa-
Petaluma, San Jose, Santa Cruz-Watsonville, and Santa Barbara).
4
• African American and Latino Borrowers are More Likely to Receive
Subprime Loans of All Types: More than one half (53.0 percent) of all African
American conventional borrowers for loans of all types (purchase, home
improvement and refinance) received subprime mortgages in 2005. More than
one third (37.8 percent) of Latinos received subprime mortgages. In comparison,
about one fifth (21.6 percent) of white borrowers and one eighth (13.5 percent) of
Asian borrowers received subprime loans.
• African American Borrowers Twice as Likely to Receive Subprime
Refinance Loans, Three Times as Likely to Receive Subprime Purchase
Mortgages as White Borrowers: Nearly half (48.9 percent) of African American
refinance borrowers received subprime loans compared to less than a quarter
(23.0 percent) of white refinance borrowers. Nearly three fifths (59.7 percent) of
African American home purchase mortgage borrowers received subprime loans
compared to less than one in five (19.4 percent) of white borrowers.
• Latino Borrowers More Likely to Receive Subprime Mortgages than White
Borrowers: Nearly a third (32.6 percent) of Latino refinance borrowers received
subprime loans, receiving subprime loans 41 percent more frequently than the
quarter (23.0 percent) of white borrowers. Two fifths (44.0 percent) of Latino
home purchase borrowers received subprime loans compared to one fifth (19.4
percent) of white borrowers.
5
Introduction
Consumer Federation of America (CFA) has analyzed a sample of the HMDA data from
Loan Application Register (LAR) data received directly from a sample of the nation’s
large mortgage lenders. The federal HMDA requires lenders to make their LARs
available for public review prior to the release of the aggregate data reports. The CFA
research is intended to provide local context to the national release of the aggregate data
by the federal government this month.
CFA looked at the conventional refinance lending patterns in over 300 hundred
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) including at least one MSA in every state by the
sampled lenders to provide insight into the loans which are most likely to be subprime
mortgages on the local
level. This snapshot of
conventional refinance
lending shows the share of
these loans that are prime
loans and subprime loans
by region, state and
metropolitan area. The
complete tables are
appended at the end of the
report.
CFA’s analysis suggests
that release of aggregate
HMDA data will reveal
significant disparities in the
pricing of subprime mortgages across racial and ethnic groups. However, our analysis
also indicates wide variation in the pricing patterns of subprime lending between
different regions (measured by Census Bureau regional divisions), states and
metropolitan areas. The release of the national aggregate HMDA data alone will not
likely tell the entire story of the lending in specific metro areas. Many states, regions and
metropolitan areas had significantly higher rates of subprime refinance lending than the
national aggregate figures suggest.
About CFA’s Research and Findings
CFA examined nearly five million (4,911,681) conventional, single-family (1-4 unit) first
lien loans of all types (purchase, home improvement and refinance) originated in 2005.
CFA compared this sample of loans to a 2004 sample to compare changes in subprime
refinance lending over time and region.
7
7
Fishbein, Allen and Patrick Woodall, Consumer Federation of America, “Subprime Cities: Patterns of
Geographic Disparity in Subprime Lending,” September 9, 2005.
Subprime Share of Lending by Borrower Race and
Loan Type, 2005
59.7%
44.0%
19.4%
14.1%
50.4%
31.3%
27.4%
13.0%
48.9%
32.6%
23.0%
12.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
African American Latino White Asian
Purchase HI Refi
6
The distribution of subprime loans in 2005 is comparable to the overall distribution of
loan types, meaning more purchase mortgages are subprime in 2005. In 2004, CFA
found that refinance loans made up 59 percent of all subprime conventional loans, home
improvement loans accounted for 9 percent of the subprime loans and home purchase
mortgages were 32 percent of the subprime loans. Refinance and home improvement
mortgages made up a smaller share of the total conventional mortgages sampled (61.9
percent) than of the subprime mortgages (68.0 percent). In 2005, 43.1 percent of
subprime mortgages were purchase mortgages and 44.4 percent of all mortgages were
purchase mortgages. Similarly, 52.6 percent of subprime loans were refinance loans and
51.9 percent of all mortgages were refinance loans.
Consumer Federation of America examined HMDA Loan Application Register (LAR)
data from 22 major lenders and their 312 total affiliates. These lenders made a total of
4.9 million conventional, first lien mortgages on single family (1-4 unit) properties in
2005. More than half of the loans (52 percent) were refinance, more than two fifths (44
percent) were home purchase, and fewer than one in twenty (4 percent) were home
improvement loans. This sample
represents more than half the
conventional home purchase
mortgages made in 2004, more
than two fifths of the refinance
mortgages made in 2004 and about
half the home improvement
mortgages made in 2004.
8
A large portion of the loans in 2005
were high-cost loans. More than
one in four (1.2 million or 26.5
percent) of these loans were
“reportable” mortgages with
interest rates higher than three percent above comparable Treasury long-term securities.
HMDA reporting does not delineate between fixed rate and adjustable rate mortgages
(ARMs) or other mortgage products such as interest-only or payment option/negative
amortization loans which can have their payment schedules recast to a higher monthly
amount or interest rate. In 2006, $300 billion in non-traditional, hybrid ARM mortgages
will readjust for the first time; in 2007, $1 trillion in mortgages will readjust.
9
That
means that the number of high-interest rate loans will significantly increase, perhaps
beyond what borrowers can afford to pay.
The Federal Reserve delineates HMDA loans into two broad categories: prime and near
prime (below 3 percentage points of the comparable Treasury yield threshold, which
compares mortgages to comparable Treasury long-term securities) and higher-priced
subprime (loans above 3 percentage points above the threshold). Additionally, CFA also
8
See Avery, Robert B. and Glenn B. Canner, Federal Reserve, “New Information Reported Under HMDA
and Its Application in Fair Lending Enforcement,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, Summer 2005.
9
Elphinstone, J.S., “Foreclosures May Jump as ARMs Recast,” Associated Press, June 19, 2006.
Distribution of Mortgage Type, Subprime and
Total, 2005
43.1%
4.3%
52.6%
44.4%
3.7%
51.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Purchase HI Refi
SP Tot al
7
coded the loans for highest-cost subprime loans (loans 5 percentage points or higher than
the threshold). The subprime loans are categorized as any reported over-threshold
interest rate, i.e. 3 percentage points or higher than the Treasury threshold and include the
highest-cost subprime loans.
The average 2005 30-year Treasury yield threshold was 4.66 percent, meaning lenders
reported loans with interest rates higher than about 7.66 percent.
10
The highest-cost loans
that are 5 percentage points higher than the Treasury threshold generally had interest
rates higher than 9.66 percent. In 2004, the average Treasury yield threshold was slightly
higher, at 5.03 percent.
Interpreting Year-To-Year Changes in the Proportion of Higher Priced Subprime
Loans
It should be noted that in 2005, the short-term and long-term interest rate yield curve
flattened and ultimately inverted, meaning the shorter-term interest rates which lenders
often use to set mortgage prices rose above longer-term interest rates that HMDA
regulations use to set “reportable” high-cost or subprime loans.
11
This means that some
of the increase in reportable loans was the result of changes in the interest rate
environment and does not necessarily mean that subprime lending substantially
increased. However, as the Federal Reserve noted in its HMDA guidance in April 2006,
“business practices of lenders or the risk profiles or the borrowing practices borrowers,
also could have affected the proportion of loans reported as higher-priced loans.”
12
Keeping in mind that multiple factors including the inverted yield curve contributed to
the annual change in “reportable” subprime loans, a much larger percentage of loans
were subprime in 2005 than 2004. The share of reported subprime loans (those more
than 3 percent above comparable Treasury notes) increased by 79.9 percent between
2004 and 2005 from 14.7 percent of refinance mortgages in 2004 to 26.5 percent of
refinance loans in 2005. Over the same period, reported refinance loans priced at more
than 5 percent above Treasury securities more than doubled from 4.2 percent of refinance
lending to 8.8 percent of refinance mortgages in 2005.
Regional Variety in Subprime Refinance Lending
Subprime lending rates vary widely across different regions of the country. For refinance
mortgages in 2005, borrowers in the Pacific and Northwest regions were half as likely to
receive subprime refinance loans as borrowers in the Southwest or Great Plains. Fewer
than one in five refinance borrowers in the Pacific region (18.1 percent) and the
Northwest (18.5 percent) received subprime loans compared to nearly two in five
borrowers in the Great Plains (36.6 percent) and the Southwest (37.3 percent). Although
lenders maintain that the incidence of subprime lending is solely related to risk-based
10
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, Rate Spread Calculator available at
http://www.ffiec.gov/ratespread/YieldTable.CSV.
11
Federal Reserve Board, “Frequently Asked Questions About the New HMDA Data,” April 3, 2006 at 9-
10.
12
Federal Reserve Board, “Frequently Asked Questions About the New HMDA Data,” April 3, 2006 at 10.
8
factors, such as credit histories, loan to value ratios and borrower debt loads, the
significant regional variety suggests that other factors may come into play in the way that
some lenders or mortgage brokers price loans. (See Table 1.)
There is also significant variety between the regional shares of highest-cost subprime
lending. In MSAs in the Great Plains and Southwest, about one in seven (14.0 and 13.9
percent respectively) of borrowers was paying interest rates more than 5 percentage
points higher than the Treasury
note threshold. This rate is nearly
three times higher than the one in
twenty of borrowers in MSAs in
the Northwest and Pacific (4.7
percent and 4.9 percent
respectively) region who were
receiving high-cost subprime
refinance loans.
The highest statewide incidence of
subprime refinance lending was in
the Gulf states and the Great
Plains. In five states, more than
two fifths of refinance loans were
subprime in 2005. More than half
(51.8 percent) of refinance loans in
Mississippi were subprime. Rounding out the highest subprime refinance rates were
Oklahoma with 44.3 percent subprime, Alabama with 41.6 percent, Nebraska with 41.4
percent and Louisiana with 40.0 percent. Western states had the lowest subprime
refinance rates. Fewer than one in five refinance loans were subprime in Hawaii (19.5
percent), Washington (18.2 percent), Oregon (17.8 percent) and California (16.2 percent).
(See Table 2.)
National Subprime Refinance Lending Patterns
Nationally, one quarter (26.3) of borrowers received subprime conventional refinance
loans in 2005. This compares to one in seven (14.7 percent) borrowers that received
subprime conventional refinance loans reported under HMDA in 2004. In 2005, the
sampled lenders made 2.5 million conventional refinance loans. There were a total of 6.1
million conventional refinance loans in 2004, so the sampled lenders account for nearly
two-fifths (41.7 percent) of the previous year’s national lending activity. In 2005, 1.9
million of the sampled refinance borrowers (73.7 percent) received prime refinance loans
below the interest rate threshold, 671,425
borrowers (26.3 percent) received subprime
refinance loans at interest rates over 3 percentage points above the threshold and 223,000
borrowers (8.8 percent) received highest-cost refinance loans at interest rates 5
percentage points or higher than the threshold.
2005 Regional Incidence of Subprime Refinance
Lending
37.3%
36.6%
32.1%
30.5%
24.5%
24.4%
24.1%
23.4%
18.5%
18.1%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Southwest
Great Plains
Midwest
Southeast
Mid Atlantic
Northeast
New York/New Jersey
Rocky Mountains
Northwest
Pacific
9
The national figures tend to underestimate the incidence of subprime refinance loans
because of the larger markets with smaller shares of subprime lending, especially in
California which has many of the MSAs which make the lowest percentages of subprime
refinance loans, and the inclusion of non-MSA lending in the national figure. When the
MSA averages and medians are
calculated, larger shares of refinance
mortgages were subprime loans. The
average and median share of subprime
refinance mortgages was 31.1 and 31.2
percent respectively. The sampled
lenders made a median of 2,328
conventional refinance mortgage
originations in the studied MSAs. On
average, the sampled lenders made 7,096
refinance loans in each MSA in 2005.
The national aggregate refinance originations by the sampled lenders went predominantly
to white borrowers. The extent to which refinance mortgages benefited consumers who
could improve the terms of their loan or consolidate debt at lower interest rates, the racial
breakdown of refinance lending may suggest that not all homeowners were benefiting
from the 2005 refinance boom. More than half (63.3 percent) of conventional refinance
mortgages were made to white borrowers in 2005, about the same as the 65.6 percent
figure in 2004. African Americans received about one in ten (9.6 percent) and Latinos
received about one in eight (12.3 percent) of the refinance mortgages made by the
sampled lenders in 2005. (The remaining borrowers are Native American, other race, race
unknown or race undisclosed.)
Whites were also the most likely to receive prime refinance mortgages, Latinos were less
likely, and African Americans were significantly less likely to receive prime refinance
mortgages than whites. African American and Latino borrowers were twice as likely to
receive subprime refinance loans as white borrowers. Nearly half (48.9 percent) of
African American refinance borrowers received subprime loans compared to less than a
quarter (23.0 percent) of white refinance borrowers. Nearly a third (32.6 percent) of
Latino refinance borrowers received subprime loans, receiving subprime loans 41 percent
more frequently than the quarter (23.0 percent) of white borrowers.
Large Subprime Refinance Variation between Metropolitan Areas
There was wide variety in the pattern of prime, subprime and high-cost refinance
mortgages between metropolitan areas. In 2005, the ten MSAs with the smallest share of
subprime refinance lending had fewer than 10 percent of borrowers received subprime
loans. In contrast, in the twelve MSAs which have the highest share of subprime
refinance lending, more than half of all refinance borrowers received subprime loans.
(See Table 3.)
2005 Distribution of Conventional Refinance Borrowers
9.6%
12.3%
63.3%
3.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
African American Latino White Asian
10
The metropolitan areas with
the highest share of
subprime refinance lending
were concentrated in the
Southeast, Southwest and
Midwest Regions. In 2005,
of the 30 MSAs with the
highest share of subprime
refinance loans (about 10%
of the 317 MSAs studied),
80 percent were in the
Southeast (from Kentucky
east to the Carolinas and
south through Mississippi),
Southwest (Louisiana,
Arkansas, Texas and New
Mexico), or Midwest (Ohio
through Minnesota). The
five cities with the highest
incidence of subprime
refinance lending are all in
Texas (Brownsville,
McAllen, El Paso,
Lubbock, and Longview). In 2004, the highest shares of subprime lending were
predominantly in the Southeast and Southwest; in 2005, the metropolitan areas in the
Midwestern joined these regions in high levels of subprime refinance lending.
The lowest rates of subprime refinance lending were in the West, predominantly in
California. More than half of the 30 MSAs with the lowest incidence of subprime
lending are in the Pacific Region (Arizona, Nevada, California and Hawaii). The five
cities with the lowest incidence of subprime lending were all in California (San
Francisco, Santa Rosa-Petaluma, San Jose, Santa Cruz-Watsonville, and Santa Barbara).
In 26 metropolitan areas, more than one in five refinance loans were highest-cost
refinance loans, 5 percentage points and above the Treasury threshold of 4.66 percent.
These refinance borrowers received interest rates approaching 10 percent (at least 9.66
percent). In seven markets, at least one in four refinance borrowers received highest-cost
loans (Dothan AL, Muskegon MI, McCallen TX, Decatur AL, Midland TX, Lubbock TX
and Brownsville TX) – more than three times the national incidence of high-cost
subprime refinance lending. In comparison, seven metropolitan areas in California (San
Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, Napa, Santa Rosa-
Petaluma, Santa Cruz-Watsonville, San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara and San Francisco-
San Mateo) had fewer than one in fifty (below 2 percent) of refinance loans priced above
5 percent over the Treasury threshold – ten times smaller than the cities with the highest
rates. Again, the gulf between the high share of high-cost refinance mortgage markets
2005 Share of Subprime Refinance Lending by
Metropolitan Area
57.3%
56.4%
55.0%
55.0%
51.9%
51.4%
51.0%
50.9%
50.8%
50.8%
10.2%
9.6%
9.5%
9.1%
7.8%
7.7%
7.6%
7.2%
6.9%
6.9%
5.160%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Brow nsv ille TX
McAllen TX
El Pa s o TX
Lubbock TX
Longview TX
Battle Creek MI
Muskegon MI
Dec atur A L
Jackson MS
Muncie IN
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos CA
Boulder CO
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura CA
Santa Ana-Anaheim CA
San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles CA
Napa CA
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta CA
Santa Cruz-Watsonville CA
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara CA
Santa Rosa-Petaluma CA
San Francisco-San Mateo CA
11
and the low share of these loans
belies the contention that these
mortgages are priced primarily on
the risk of the borrower.
Conclusions
CFA’s HMDA analysis suggests
that in addition to the pricing of
mortgages between borrower
groups sizable variable exists by
geography as well. Just as with
pricing disparities between
borrower groups, the regional and
local variations found may be
based upon legitimate price
determinants reflecting higher
borrower risks that exist in these
areas. However, it should not be
assumed that the variations CFA
found are solely attributable to
higher risk factors. Last year’s
Federal Reserve analysis and the
recent Center for Responsible Lending study cited previously, provide strong indication
that pricing in the subprime market is not simply a function of risk.
A lack of competition from prime lenders increased the chances that borrowers in certain
communities pay more for credit. Unlawful discrimination, the prevalence of predatory
lending, differences in borrower knowledge, the existence of broad pricing discretion by
loan brokers and loan officers, and the lack of consumer-friendly support systems in
certain geographic areas may also account for at least some of the geographic variation in
pricing patterns.
There is general agreement among experts who follow homeownership trends that, over
the years, HMDA reporting has helped to transform the home loan market, making it a
fairer and more transparent, while also improving credit opportunities provided to
underserved households and communities. The new pricing data now reported under
HMDA can help to make the pricing of subprime loans more transparent for consumers
and increase these markets efficiencies, which ultimately benefits borrowers. Regulators,
lenders, consumer and community advocates, the news media are encouraged to
undertake their own research and analysis to examine local markets using HMDA data.
CFA believes consumers – regardless of their race, ethnicity or the community in which
they reside – have every right to expect that the mortgages they obtain will be priced
fairly, based on legitimate underwriting standards. Mortgage pricing should neither be
opportunistic nor take advantage of consumers’ lack of financial sophistication.
2005 Highest-Cost Subprime Refinance Lending
Metropolitan Areas (>5% above Treasury)
26.3%
25.6%
25.6%
25.3%
24.9%
24.7%
24.6%
24.4%
23.2%
23.0%
22.7%
22.2%
22.1%
22.1%
22.0%
21.8%
21.5%
21.5%
21.4%
21.4%
21.2%
21.2%
20.6%
20.3%
20.1%
20.0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Brownsville TX
Lubbock TX
Midland TX
Decatur AL
McAl l e n TX
Muskegon MI
Dothan AL
Longview TX
Battle Creek MI
El Paso TX
Waco TX
Maco n GA
Florence SC
Detroit-Dearborn MI
Muncie IN
Montgomery AL
Jackson TN
Wichita Falls TX
Corpus Christie TX
Jacks on MS
Amarillo TX
Mobile AL
Birmingham AL
Weirton-Steubenville WV-OH
Warner Robbins GA
Tuscaloosa AL
12
Accordingly, CFA recommends a number of positive steps to ensure fairness in consumer
pricing. These include:
1. Strengthened consumer protections to curb predatory lending.
The HMDA pricing data contained in this study also underscores the need to maintain
and strengthen anti-predatory laws and other related consumer protections to ensure that
borrowers are priced fairly. While all subprime lending may not be predatory, much of
abusive lending practices appear to be concentrated in the subprime segment of the
mortgage market. Stronger protections should:
• Require lenders and mortgage brokers to act in the best interest of
borrowers by providing suitable loan products;
• Expand and revise the Federal Home Ownership and Equity Protection
Act (HOEPA), among other things, to restrict the use of yield spread
premiums and prepayment penalties, which reward brokers for increasing
the loan price for subprime borrowers.
• Preserve the authority of states to continue to establish meaningful
consumer protections in this area.
Twenty four states have passed anti-predatory lending laws and at least 12 more have
statutes that provide meaningful protections to borrowers but were not enacted as part of
an anti-predatory law, according to the Center for Responsible Lending.
13
Many of these
protections far exceed the federal standards in place and are tailored to address problems
encountered by borrowers’ in particular local markets. CFA supports HR 1182,
introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and sponsored by Reps. Miller, Watt,
and Frank which would strengthen HOEPA and allow states to keep strong laws to
protect their citizens.
2. Ensure adequate regulatory oversight and enforcement of fair lending laws to deter
discrimination in mortgage pricing.
Federal and state regulators, state attorneys-generals, and other enforcement officials now
have an improved analytical tool for identifying pricing differentials for individual
lenders. Readily available software developed by the Federal Reserve Board can equip
these oversight agencies with a screening mechanism to identify lenders for closer
inspection. At the time of release of last year’s HMDA data, the Fed referred some 200
lenders to federal and state regulators for further review. To date, no enforcement actions
have been reported from these reviews. The CFA study indicates that the new 2005
HMDA data is likely to indicate similar disparities across borrower groups. CFA believes
there is a role for ongoing Congressional oversight in this area to ensure that regulators
13
Li, Wei and Kieth S. Ernst, Center for Responsible Lending, “The Best Value in the Subprime Market,”
February 23, 2006.
13
are taking the necessary steps to ferret out illegal discriminatory treatment in mortgage
pricing decisions by individual lenders.
3. Make the subprime market more competitive.
By helping to identify areas with high concentration of high-cost loans, the HMDA data
can be used to encourage mainstream lenders to enter new markets and increase
competition in providing reasonably priced mortgage credit.
4. Increase accountability for lenders.
Public disclosure of loan data under HMDA has already led some lenders to beef up their
internal review and increase their due diligence to detect unlawful pricing practices.
HMDA data also provides the means for lenders to identify and correct any problems to
avoid bad publicity or legal liability. However, improvements in prevailing industry
practices still are needed.
5. Increased understanding of local credit markets and community credit needs.
HMDA pricing data provides the opportunity to generate a valuable dialogue between
lenders and the communities they serve about what these patterns reveal. These
discussions can provide insights about credit risks associated with different types of
borrowers and foster strategies for reducing pricing disparities that exist. CFA
encourages expanded efforts in this area.
Methodology
In 2005, Consumer Federation of America compiled HMDA Loan Application Register
(LAR) data from 22 lenders and their 312 total affiliates. These lenders made a total of
4.9 million conventional, first lien mortgages on single family (1-4 unit) properties in
2005. CFA compared this lending pattern to a similar sampling from 2004 which
sampled 26 lenders and their 160 total affiliates.
Sampling the Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs): CFA only included MSAs
where the sampled lenders made a sufficient number of conventional refinance and home
improvement mortgage originations in the study. CFA excluded MSAs where the
sampled lenders did not make 500 or more refinance loans in 2004 and exceeded 10
percent of the lending from 2003.
Regional Comparisons: CFA also used the Census Bureaus regional division
classification to assess the average metropolitan prime, subprime, and high-cost lending
patterns by region. The ten regions are: New England (Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont); New York and New
Jersey; Mid-Atlantic (Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia
and West Virginia); Southeast (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee); Midwest (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
14
Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin); Southwest (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma and Texas); Great Plains (Kansas, Iowa, Missouri and Nebraska); Rocky
Mountains (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming);
Pacific (Arizona, California, Hawaii and Nevada); and Northwest (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon
and Washington. Some MSAs cross the Census Bureau’s regional divisions; in those
cases the MSAs were assigned to the region where the primary city is located. For
example, the St. Louis MSA is in the Great Plains and Midwest regional divisions and it
was assigned to the Great Plains.
National versus Average and Median: The national aggregate calculation is based on
the total sampled conventional refinance lending across the country. This includes
lending in non-metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), lending in smaller metropolitan
areas with a small sample size, and metropolitan areas which are incorrectly coded by
lenders (i.e. the codes supplied by the lenders do not match any known MSA code
provided by the Office of Management and Budget, which designates MSAs). This
national figure provides some weighting for the size of the MSA. Larger MSAs have a
larger impact on the aggregate data. For example, the larger California MSAs generally
have a larger share of prime refinance lending than other places, so Los Angeles,
Oakland, San Diego and San Francisco will tend to increase the share of national prime
refinance lending compared to the smaller impact of Laredo, Texas on the national
aggregate.
The average and median share of prime or subprime loans calculation is an average or
median of the percentage of loans originated at each price band for each MSA. This
figure represents the average shares of prime and subprime lending at average
metropolitan areas. This figure does not take the volume of lending in different MSAs
into account, so smaller MSAs are overrepresented in this figure. For example,
averaging Missoula, Montana with Los Angeles-Long Beach would provide a figure that
was the share of prime or subprime lending that is halfway between the two, although
there were nearly 100 times as many refinance loans made in Los Angeles-Long Beach
as Missoula.
Prime, Subprime and High-Cost Loans: For the first time in 2004, the Federal
Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) required lenders to report a proxy
measure for the interest rates of the first lien loans they originated. Loans with interest
rates below 3 percentage points above of a comparable Treasury issue (in theory a thirty
year bond for most mortgages) were not required to report any interest rate information,
but loans that were 3 percentage points above the comparable Treasury rate were
required to report the spread between the Treasury note and the mortgage. The FFIEC
intended this reporting structure to help identify subprime lenders. CFA delineates the
loans into three broad categories: prime and near-prime (below 3 percentage points of the
Treasury threshold), subprime (loans above 3 percentage points above the threshold), and
high-cost (loans 5 percentage points or higher than the threshold). The subprime loans
are categorized as any reported over-threshold interest rate, i.e. 3 percentage points or
higher than the Treasury threshold.
15
Race and Ethnicity: In 2004, the FFIEC also began to require separate reporting of race
and Latino ethnicity, because Latinos can be of any race. CFA coded non-Latino whites
as white, African Americans of any ethnicity as African American, and non-African
American Latinos as Latino. CFA recoded the race and ethnicity reporting into a single
category to ensure that the total aggregate lending figures did not double count Latinos.
Table 1. Regional Subprime Refinance Lending by Region 2005
2005 Prime
2005 Subprime
>3% 2005 >5% 2005 Total
Southwest 78365 62.7% 46594 37.3% 17377 13.9% 124959
Great Plains 43251 63.4% 24989 36.6% 9545 14.0% 68240
Midwest 214301 67.9% 101358 32.1% 33642 10.7% 315659
Southeast 254022 69.5% 111414 30.5% 39162 10.7% 365436
Mid Atlantic 196938 75.5% 63967 24.5% 21747 8.3% 260905
Northeast 80216 75.6% 25927 24.4% 8286 7.8% 106143
New York/New Jersey 110991 75.9% 35286 24.1% 10694 7.3% 146277
Rocky Mountains 52456 76.6% 16001 23.4% 4082 6.0% 68457
Northwest 88381 81.5% 20073 18.5% 5079 4.7% 108454
Pacific 561237 81.9% 123730 18.1% 33507 4.9% 684967
Prime Subprime >3% SP Rank >5% >7%
AK 2,442 64.1% 1,369 35.9% 16 318 8.3% 30 0.8% 3,811
AL 11,380 58.4% 8,090 41.6% 3 3,913 20.1% 571 2.9% 19,470
AR 5,260 71.0% 2,149 29.0% 28 944 12.7% 141 1.9% 7,409
AZ 68,974 72.6% 25,999 27.4% 32 9,449 9.9% 515 0.5% 94,973
CA 469,696 83.8% 90,815 16.2% 52 22,137 3.9% 836 0.1% 560,511
CO 39,331 78.0% 11,085 22.0% 47 2,780 5.5% 159 0.3% 50,416
CT 22,889 77.5% 6,643 22.5% 43 2,258 7.6% 217 0.7% 29,532
DC 5,915 80.7% 1,411 19.3% 49 394 5.4% 6 0.1% 7,326
DE 7,246 76.8% 2,186 23.2% 41 722 7.7% 70 0.7% 9,432
FL 149,280 71.0% 60,965 29.0% 29 19,869 9.5% 1,568 0.7% 210,245
GA 38,395 67.2% 18,716 32.8% 25 7,114 12.5% 672 1.2% 57,111
HI 8,291 80.5% 2,006 19.5% 48 530 5.1% 31 0.3% 10,297
IA 9,930 61.0% 6,357 39.0% 7 2,695 16.5% 307 1.9% 16,287
ID 10,480 77.5% 3,035 22.5% 44 885 6.5% 67 0.5% 13,515
IL 78,969 68.8% 35,817 31.2% 26 10,321 9.0% 187 0.2% 114,786
IN 22,577 62.0% 13,818 38.0% 11 5,058 13.9% 539 1.5% 36,395
KS 8,783 66.3% 4,471 33.7% 24 1,773 13.4% 243 1.8% 13,254
KY 13,318 65.3% 7,083 34.7% 21 2,390 11.7% 332 1.6% 20,401
LA 10,493 60.0% 6,997 40.0% 5 2,453 14.0% 292 1.7% 17,490
MA 40,452 75.7% 13,002 24.3% 38 4,006 7.5% 255 0.5% 53,454
MD 65,126 75.3% 21,389 24.7% 36 6,955 8.0% 161 0.2% 86,515
ME 5,773 64.8% 3,141 35.2% 20 1,138 12.8% 141 1.6% 8,914
MI 51,987 64.2% 29,039 35.8% 18 11,828 14.6% 1,172 1.4% 81,026
MN 36,929 74.0% 12,960 26.0% 35 3,934 7.9% 280 0.6% 49,889
MO 27,375 63.4% 15,803 36.6% 13 6,199 14.4% 695 1.6% 43,178
MS 3,198 48.2% 3,434 51.8% 1 1,560 23.5% 240 3.6% 6,632
MT 4,825 76.2% 1,508 23.8% 40 462 7.3% 71 1.1% 6,333
NC 40,371 73.2% 14,743 26.8% 34 5,695 10.3% 704 1.3% 55,114
ND 1,347 60.8% 869 39.2% 6 362 16.3% 44 2.0% 2,216
NE 4,900 58.6% 3,466 41.4% 4 1,240 14.8% 143 1.7% 8,366
NH 9,255 75.9% 2,931 24.1% 39 941 7.7% 78 0.6% 12,186
NJ 70,296 77.2% 20,726 22.8% 42 6,451 7.1% 470 0.5% 91,022
NM 7,410 65.8% 3,844 34.2% 23 1,468 13.0% 77 0.7% 11,254
NV 32,304 77.9% 9,157 22.1% 45 2,551 6.2% 123 0.3% 41,461
NY 66,520 73.2% 24,344 26.8% 33 7,264 8.0% 667 0.7% 90,864
OH 47,830 63.8% 27,124 36.2% 14 8,890 11.9% 968 1.3% 74,954
OK 7,896 55.7% 6,281 44.3% 2 2,545 18.0% 368 2.6% 14,177
OR 29,340 82.2% 6,344 17.8% 51 1,576 4.4% 94 0.3% 35,684
PA 63,338 71.1% 25,706 28.9% 30 9,464 10.6% 1,386 1.6% 89,044
PR 912 61.8% 563 38.2% 10 309 20.9% 167 11.3% 1,475
RI 8,798 72.2% 3,383 27.8% 31 1,030 8.5% 87 0.7% 12,181
SC 13,567 63.8% 7,691 36.2% 15 3,067 14.4% 434 2.0% 21,258
SD 2,500 70.3% 1,058 29.7% 27 324 9.1% 41 1.2% 3,558
TN 19,798 61.1% 12,631 38.9% 8 5,159 15.9% 632 1.9% 32,429
TX 58,118 61.7% 36,106 38.3% 9 14,181 15.1% 2,332 2.5% 94,224
UT 14,853 75.5% 4,824 24.5% 37 1,277 6.5% 58 0.3% 19,677
VA 67,535 78.0% 19,061 22.0% 46 6,437 7.4% 742 0.9% 86,596
VT 2,015 64.1% 1,129 35.9% 17 503 16.0% 81 2.6% 3,144
WA 58,668 81.8% 13,012 18.2% 50 3,342 4.7% 179 0.2% 71,680
WI 23,879 64.3% 13,281 35.7% 19 5,464 14.7% 650 1.7% 37,160
WV 4,556 62.4% 2,741 37.6% 12 1,016 13.9% 145 2.0% 7,297
WY 2,155 65.8% 1,122 34.2% 22 359 11.0% 31 0.9% 3,277
Total 1,877,476 73.5% 671,425 26.5% 223,000 8.7% 20,499 0.8% 2,548,901
Average 36,105 69.3% 12,912 30.7% 4,288 11.1% 394 1.4% 49,017
Median 14,210 69.5% 7,040 30.5% 2,548 10.5% 229 1.1% 20,830
Table 2. 2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by State
SP RANK 2005 Total
National Aggregate
1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226724 8.8% 2,578,307
Average
5,300 68.9% 1,819 31.1% 584 11.3% 7,096
Region
Median
1,612 68.8% 654 31.2% 221 10.5% 2,328
NW
Anchorage AK
1,708 66.0% 880 34.0% 129 197 7.6% 2,588
SE
Anniston AL
290 64.3% 161 35.7% 108 79 17.5% 451
SE
Birmingham AL
3,201 55.7% 2,547 44.3% 34 1183 20.6% 5,748
SE
Decatur AL
270 49.1% 280 50.9% 8 139 25.3% 550
SE
Dothan AL
337 57.2% 252 42.8% 46 145 24.6% 589
SE
Gadsden AL
305 62.8% 181 37.2% 94 95 19.5% 486
SE
Huntsville AL
1,075 65.3% 570 34.7% 122 240 14.6% 1,645
SE
Mobile AL
987 56.0% 776 44.0% 36 373 21.2% 1,763
SE
Montgomery AL
859 58.1% 619 41.9% 51 322 21.8% 1,478
SE
Tuscaloosa AL
361 55.5% 289 44.5% 33 130 20.0% 650
SW
Fayetteville AR-MO
1,204 72.7% 452 27.3% 198 198 12.0% 1,656
SW
Fort Smith AR-OK
450 60.9% 289 39.1% 77 133 18.0% 739
SW
Little Rock AR
1,671 71.8% 657 28.2% 190 248 10.7% 2,328
Pac.
Flagstaff AZ
962 86.5% 150 13.5% 303 36 3.2% 1,112
Pac.
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale AZ
53,135 72.0% 20,711 28.0% 192 7669 10.4% 73,846
Pac.
Prescott AZ
2,138 83.5% 423 16.5% 292 136 5.3% 2,561
Pac.
Tucson AZ
7,645 72.1% 2,959 27.9% 193 1050 9.9% 10,604
Pac.
Yuma AZ
1,020 66.1% 522 33.9% 130 146 9.5% 1,542
Pac.
Bakersfield CA
8,342 68.5% 3,837 31.5% 156 1088 8.9% 12,179
Pac.
Chico CA
1,872 81.2% 433 18.8% 279 115 5.0% 2,305
Pac.
El Centro CA
1,092 60.6% 709 39.4% 75 217 12.0% 1,801
Pac.
Fresno CA
9,064 71.6% 3,589 28.4% 189 1055 8.3% 12,653
Pac.
Hanford CA
1,013 67.7% 483 32.3% 149 125 8.4% 1,496
Pac.
Los Angeles-Long Beach CA
99,005 81.7% 22,125 18.3% 282 5498 4.5% 121,130
Pac.
Madera CA
1,732 73.6% 621 26.4% 205 166 7.1% 2,353
Pac.
Merced CA
3,390 74.5% 1,163 25.5% 217 271 6.0% 4,553
Pac.
Modesto CA
8,450 78.2% 2,353 21.8% 259 558 5.2% 10,803
Pac.
Napa CA
2,120 92.3% 178 7.7% 312 32 1.4% 2,298
Pac.
Oakland-Fremont-Howard CA
44,816 89.1% 5,490 10.9% 306 1169 2.3% 50,306
Pac.
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura CA
12,868 90.5% 1,352 9.5% 309 296 2.1% 14,220
Pac.
Redding CA
1,971 80.6% 474 19.4% 277 126 5.2% 2,445
Pac.
Riverside-San Bernadino-Ontario CA
57,207 75.3% 18,753 24.7% 226 4789 6.3% 75,960
Pac.
S
acramento-
A
r
d
en-
A
rca
d
e-
R
osev
ill
e
CA
33,617 82.9% 6,951 17.1% 289 1618 4.0% 40,568
Pac.
Salinas CA
5,651 88.5% 732 11.5% 305 156 2.4% 6,383
Pac.
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos CA
38,609 89.8% 4,408 10.2% 307 892 2.1% 43,017
Pac.
San Francisco-San Mateo CA
22,000 94.8% 1,197 5.160% 317 221 1.0% 23,197
Pac.
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara CA
26,329 93.1% 1,954 6.9% 315 367 1.3% 28,283
Pac.
San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles CA
3,430 92.2% 291 7.8% 311 62 1.7% 3,721
Pac.
Santa Ana-Anaheim CA
35,908 90.9% 3,578 9.1% 310 794 2.0% 39,486
Pac.
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta CA
5,315 92.4% 435 7.6% 313 86 1.5% 5,750
Pac.
Santa Cruz-Watsonville CA
3,841 92.8% 300 7.2% 314 54 1.3% 4,141
Pac.
Santa Rosa-Petaluma CA
7,361 93.1% 542 6.9% 316 108 1.4% 7,903
Pac.
Stockton CA
12,390 78.9% 3,323 21.1% 264 825 5.3% 15,713
Table 3:2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime 2005 Subprime >3% 2005 >5%
SP RANK 2005 Total
National Aggregate
1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226724 8.8% 2,578,307
Average
5,300 68.9% 1,819 31.1% 584 11.3% 7,096
Region
Median
1,612 68.8% 654 31.2% 221 10.5% 2,328
Table 3:2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime 2005 Subprime >3% 2005 >5%
Pac.
Vallejo-Fairfield CA
8,021 83.3% 1,607 16.7% 291 356 3.7% 9,628
Pac.
Visalia-Porterville CA
3,909 70.1% 1,665 29.9% 171 539 9.7% 5,574
Pac.
Yuba City-Marysville CA
1,707 75.8% 545 24.2% 233 142 6.3% 2,252
RM
Boulder CO
2,546 90.4% 271 9.6% 308 63 2.2% 2,817
RM
Colorado Springs CO
4,402 75.5% 1,428 24.5% 230 396 6.8% 5,830
RM
Denver CO
20,820 77.4% 6,094 22.6% 247 1382 5.1% 26,914
RM
Fort Collins CO
2,602 83.7% 505 16.3% 293 101 3.3% 3,107
RM
Grand Junction CO
942 69.9% 406 30.1% 169 118 8.8% 1,348
RM
Greeley CO
1,868 75.1% 619 24.9% 224 152 6.1% 2,487
RM
Pueblo CO
881 60.6% 572 39.4% 76 198 13.6% 1,453
NE
Bridgeport CT
8,357 86.0% 1,359 14.0% 300 448 4.6% 9,716
NE
Hartford CT
5,555 71.3% 2,237 28.7% 185 767 9.8% 7,792
NE
New Haven CT
5,716 75.4% 1,860 24.6% 229 665 8.8% 7,576
NE
Norwich CT
1,342 72.7% 505 27.3% 197 151 8.2% 1,847
MA
Dover DE
1,039 74.0% 366 26.0% 209 126 9.0% 1,405
MA
Wilmington DE-MD-NJ
5,651 74.3% 1,952 25.7% 215 660 8.7% 7,603
SE
Cape Coral FL
6,409 73.4% 2,322 26.6% 203 747 8.6% 8,731
SE
Deltona-Daytona Beach FL
4,182 68.0% 1,968 32.0% 151 686 11.2% 6,150
SE
Fort Walton Beach FL
1,512 76.2% 471 23.8% 238 153 7.7% 1,983
SE
Ft. Lauderdale FL
19,608 71.5% 7,806 28.5% 187 2439 8.9% 27,414
SE
Jacksonville FL
7,254 65.1% 3,893 34.9% 117 1367 12.3% 11,147
SE
Lakeland FL
2,749 59.2% 1,897 40.8% 64 642 13.8% 4,646
SE
Miami-Miami Beach FL
18,819 66.4% 9,503 33.6% 134 2808 9.9% 28,322
SE
Naples FL
3,977 82.0% 875 18.0% 284 261 5.4% 4,852
SE
Ocala FL
1,498 66.9% 741 33.1% 137 272 12.1% 2,239
SE
Orlando FL
18,597 71.1% 7,560 28.9% 183 2479 9.5% 26,157
SE
Palm Bay-Melbourne FL
5,742 74.3% 1,982 25.7% 216 604 7.8% 7,724
SE
Panama City FL
1,028 71.2% 415 28.8% 184 147 10.2% 1,443
SE
Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent FL
2,384 67.3% 1,160 32.7% 141 401 11.3% 3,544
SE
Port St. Lucie FL
3,625 72.9% 1,349 27.1% 199 476 9.6% 4,974
SE
Punta Gorda FL
1,592 77.4% 466 22.6% 246 132 6.4% 2,058
SE
Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice FL
6,867 78.6% 1,865 21.4% 261 614 7.0% 8,732
SE
Tallahassee FL
1,530 68.8% 693 31.2% 160 230 10.3% 2,223
SE
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater FL
20,609 69.3% 9,110 30.7% 164 3091 10.4% 29,719
SE
Vero Beach FL
1,086 78.8% 293 21.2% 263 93 6.7% 1,379
SE
W. Palm Beach-Boca Raton FL
14,512 77.2% 4,289 22.8% 243 1393 7.4% 18,801
SE
Athens GA
565 73.4% 205 26.6% 202 100 13.0% 770
SE
Atlanta GA
28,278 70.2% 12,008 29.8% 172 4156 10.3% 40,286
SE
Augusta GA-SC
1,569 64.0% 884 36.0% 106 371 15.1% 2,453
SE
Dalton GA
362 59.2% 250 40.8% 62 91 14.9% 612
SE
Gainesville GA
656 71.0% 268 29.0% 182 93 10.1% 924
SE
Macon GA
498 52.6% 449 47.4% 21 210 22.2% 947
SE
Savannah GA
1,312 64.3% 727 35.7% 109 307 15.1% 2,039
SE
Warner Robbins GA
257 53.2% 226 46.8% 23 97 20.1% 483
Pac.
Honolulu HI
5,102 80.9% 1,204 19.1% 278 318 5.0% 6,306
SP RANK 2005 Total
National Aggregate
1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226724 8.8% 2,578,307
Average
5,300 68.9% 1,819 31.1% 584 11.3% 7,096
Region
Median
1,612 68.8% 654 31.2% 221 10.5% 2,328
Table 3:2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime 2005 Subprime >3% 2005 >5%
GP
Ames IA
280 78.0% 79 22.0% 257 36 10.0% 359
GP
Cedar Rapids IA
1,189 67.3% 579 32.7% 140 215 12.2% 1,768
GP
Davenport IA-IL
1,255 52.4% 1,140 47.6% 20 445 18.6% 2,395
GP
Des Moines IA
3,295 68.7% 1,503 31.3% 157 607 12.7% 4,798
GP
Iowa City IA
404 77.8% 115 22.2% 254 35 6.7% 519
GP
Sioux City IA-NE-SD
378 55.4% 304 44.6% 30 126 18.5% 682
GP
Waterloo-Cedar Falls IA
591 58.6% 418 41.4% 56 194 19.2% 1,009
NW
Boise ID
4,877 79.4% 1,268 20.6% 265 366 6.0% 6,145
NW
Coeur d'Alene ID
1,600 81.3% 369 18.7% 280 107 5.4% 1,969
NW
Idaho Falls ID
591 69.4% 261 30.6% 165 67 7.9% 852
NW
Pocatello ID
417 68.4% 193 31.6% 154 54 8.9% 610
MW
Bloomington-Normal IL
546 66.3% 278 33.7% 132 95 11.5% 824
MW
Champaign-Urbana IL
629 68.8% 285 31.2% 159 117 12.8% 914
MW
Chicago-Naperville IL
63,455 70.8% 26,124 29.2% 180 6637 7.4% 89,579
MW
Peoria IL
910 54.6% 756 45.4% 28 301 18.1% 1,666
MW
Anderson IN
607 59.2% 419 40.8% 63 149 14.5% 1,026
MW
Bloomington IN
439 62.2% 267 37.8% 89 93 13.2% 706
MW
Elkhart IN
568 63.7% 324 36.3% 101 115 12.9% 892
MW
Fort Wayne IN
1,863 67.0% 919 33.0% 138 311 11.2% 2,782
MW
Gary IN
2,715 59.2% 1,872 40.8% 65 701 15.3% 4,587
MW
Holland MI
1,169 71.9% 458 28.1% 191 175 10.8% 1,627
MW
Indianapolis IN
8,320 68.2% 3,883 31.8% 152 1310 10.7% 12,203
MW
Kokomo IN
292 49.6% 297 50.4% 11 116 19.7% 589
MW
Michigan City IN
408 63.0% 240 37.0% 96 99 15.3% 648
MW
Muncie IN
322 49.2% 332 50.8% 10 144 22.0% 654
GP
Lawrence KS
543 82.3% 117 17.7% 285 29 4.4% 660
GP
Topeka KS
719 63.7% 410 36.3% 102 165 14.6% 1,129
GP
Wichita KS
1,589 61.0% 1,014 39.0% 81 391 15.0% 2,603
SE
Bowling Green KY
377 75.6% 122 24.4% 231 39 7.8% 499
SE
Elizabethtown KY
356 62.5% 214 37.5% 92 69 12.1% 570
SE
Lexington KY
2,252 73.8% 801 26.2% 207 242 7.9% 3,053
SE
Louisville KY-IN
6,433 69.3% 2,853 30.7% 162 913 9.8% 9,286
SE
Owensboro KY
307 58.8% 215 41.2% 59 72 13.8% 522
SW
Alexandria LA
305 60.5% 199 39.5% 74 73 14.5% 504
SW
Baton Rouge LA
1,960 60.4% 1,285 39.6% 71 419 12.9% 3,245
SW
Houma LA
408 57.6% 300 42.4% 48 95 13.4% 708
SW
Lafayette LA
791 67.9% 374 32.1% 150 128 11.0% 1,165
SW
Lake Charles LA
460 61.0% 294 39.0% 80 117 15.5% 754
SW
Monroe LA
455 61.2% 289 38.8% 82 84 11.3% 744
SW
New Orleans LA
3,858 61.7% 2,393 38.3% 87 789 12.6% 6,251
SW
Shreveport-Bossier City LA
930 55.9% 733 44.1% 35 255 15.3% 1,663
NE
Barnstable Town MA
2,581 79.5% 664 20.5% 266 195 6.0% 3,245
NE
Boston-Quincy MA
12,861 77.6% 3,712 22.4% 252 1066 6.4% 16,573
NE
Cambridge-Newton MA
8,666 83.0% 1,770 17.0% 290 530 5.1% 10,436
NE
Essex County MA
4,910 76.0% 1,547 24.0% 236 470 7.3% 6,457
SP RANK 2005 Total
National Aggregate
1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226724 8.8% 2,578,307
Average
5,300 68.9% 1,819 31.1% 584 11.3% 7,096
Region
Median
1,612 68.8% 654 31.2% 221 10.5% 2,328
Table 3:2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime 2005 Subprime >3% 2005 >5%
NE
P
rov
id
ence-
N
ew
B
e
df
or
d
-
F
a
ll
Ri
ver
RI
-
MA
12,297 72.2% 4,728 27.8% 194 1443 8.5% 17,025
NE
Springfield MA
2,330 59.1% 1,615 40.9% 61 581 14.7% 3,945
NE
Worcester MA-CT
4,804 69.6% 2,102 30.4% 167 671 9.7% 6,906
MA
Baltimore MD
27,394 74.7% 9,300 25.3% 220 3177 8.7% 36,694
MA
Bethesda-Frederick MD
14,816 85.2% 2,564 14.8% 298 660 3.8% 17,380
MA
Hagerstown-Martinsburg MD-WV
2,219 73.7% 793 26.3% 206 248 8.2% 3,012
MA
Salisbury MD
692 66.9% 343 33.1% 136 130 12.6% 1,035
NE
Bangor ME
553 61.3% 349 38.7% 83 124 13.7% 902
NE
Lewiston ME
452 61.0% 289 39.0% 79 101 13.6% 741
NE
Portland-South Portland ME
3,370 70.4% 1,415 29.6% 176 498 10.4% 4,785
MW
Battle Creek MI
489 48.6% 517 51.4% 6 233 23.2% 1,006
MW
Bay City-Saginaw MI
323 60.5% 211 39.5% 73 88 16.5% 534
MW
Detroit-Dearborn MI
9,220 51.3% 8,746 48.7% 17 3974 22.1% 17,966
MW
Flint MI
1,926 58.6% 1,363 41.4% 55 597 18.2% 3,289
MW
Grand Rapids MI
4,037 63.4% 2,328 36.6% 99 933 14.7% 6,365
MW
Jackson MI
828 62.3% 501 37.7% 91 195 14.7% 1,329
MW
Kalamazoo MI
1,533 65.2% 818 34.8% 121 332 14.1% 2,351
MW
Lansing MI
2,415 63.0% 1,421 37.0% 95 492 12.8% 3,836
MW
Monroe MI
846 71.5% 337 28.5% 186 134 11.3% 1,183
MW
Muskegon MI
638 49.0% 665 51.0% 7 322 24.7% 1,303
MW
Niles-Benton Harbor MI
682 58.2% 489 41.8% 53 196 16.7% 1,171
MW
Saginaw-Saginaw Township North MI
594 56.8% 451 43.2% 44 174 16.7% 1,045
MW
Warren-Farmington Hills MI
18,123 74.7% 6,125 25.3% 221 2171 9.0% 24,248
MW
Duluth MN-WI
1,488 68.5% 685 31.5% 155 257 11.8% 2,173
MW
Minneapolis-St. Paul MN
26,898 75.2% 8,868 24.8% 225 2456 6.9% 35,766
MW
Rochester MN
956 74.9% 321 25.1% 222 104 8.1% 1,277
MW
St. Cloud MN
953 73.1% 350 26.9% 200 98 7.5% 1,303
GP
Joplin MO
423 58.2% 304 41.8% 52 136 18.7% 727
GP
Kansas City MO-KS
11,115 65.8% 5,770 34.2% 125 2213 13.1% 16,885
GP
Springfield MO
1,327 64.5% 730 35.5% 111 295 14.3% 2,057
GP
St. Joseph MO-IL
546 61.3% 344 38.7% 85 134 15.1% 890
GP
St. Louis MO-IL
16,574 62.6% 9,891 37.4% 93 3734 14.1% 26,465
SE
Gulfport MS
438 61.4% 275 38.6% 86 82 11.5% 713
SE
Jackson MS
728 49.2% 751 50.8% 9 317 21.4% 1,479
SE
Pascagoula MS
221 50.9% 213 49.1% 16 86 19.8% 434
RM
Billings MT
614 74.2% 213 25.8% 213 68 8.2% 827
RM
Great Falls MT
343 69.2% 153 30.8% 161 44 8.9% 496
RM
Missoula MT
832 86.2% 133 13.8% 301 39 4.0% 965
SE
Asheville NC
2,160 75.0% 720 25.0% 223 265 9.2% 2,880
SE
Burlington NC
522 67.0% 257 33.0% 139 111 14.2% 779
SE
Charlotte NC-SC
9,400 75.3% 3,077 24.7% 227 1136 9.1% 12,477
SE
Durham NC
2,067 74.0% 725 26.0% 211 249 8.9% 2,792
SE
Fayetteville NC
830 56.5% 640 43.5% 40 255 17.3% 1,470
SE
Greensboro NC
3,299 70.3% 1,394 29.7% 174 581 12.4% 4,693
SE
Greenville NC
468 66.2% 239 33.8% 131 95 13.4% 707
SP RANK 2005 Total
National Aggregate
1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226724 8.8% 2,578,307
Average
5,300 68.9% 1,819 31.1% 584 11.3% 7,096
Region
Median
1,612 68.8% 654 31.2% 221 10.5% 2,328
Table 3:2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime 2005 Subprime >3% 2005 >5%
SE
Hickory NC
1,279 65.6% 671 34.4% 123 236 12.1% 1,950
SE
Raleigh-Cary NC
5,632 81.6% 1,271 18.4% 281 455 6.6% 6,903
SE
Rocky Mount NC
384 63.9% 217 36.1% 104 92 15.3% 601
SE
Wilmington NC
2,684 82.6% 566 17.4% 288 221 6.8% 3,250
SE
Winston-Salem NC
2,007 70.1% 856 29.9% 170 315 11.0% 2,863
RM
Bismark ND
309 69.4% 136 30.6% 166 51 11.5% 445
RM
Fargo ND-MN
666 67.6% 319 32.4% 148 129 13.1% 985
GP
Omaha NE-IA
3,023 57.1% 2,271 42.9% 45 790 14.9% 5,294
NE
Manchester NH
3,192 78.7% 863 21.3% 262 261 6.4% 4,055
NE
Rockingham-Stafford Counties NH
3,230 78.0% 912 22.0% 256 315 7.6% 4,142
NYNJ
Atlantic City NJ
2,924 73.6% 1,050 26.4% 204 398 10.0% 3,974
NYNJ
Camden NJ
11,217 72.3% 4,295 27.7% 195 1625 10.5% 15,512
NYNJ
Edison NJ
21,888 80.3% 5,372 19.7% 273 1593 5.8% 27,260
NYNJ
Newark-Union NJ-PA
16,034 76.5% 4,930 23.5% 239 1396 6.7% 20,964
NYNJ
Ocean City NJ
1,937 86.7% 297 13.3% 304 84 3.8% 2,234
NYNJ
Trenton-Ewing NJ
2,838 76.9% 851 23.1% 241 292 7.9% 3,689
NYNJ
Vineland-Millvile-Bridgeton NJ
573 58.7% 403 41.3% 58 137 14.0% 976
SW
Albuquerque NM
4,133 67.5% 1,992 32.5% 144 676 11.0% 6,125
SW
Farmington NM
383 65.9% 198 34.1% 128 69 11.9% 581
SW
Las Cruces NM
523 61.3% 330 38.7% 84 120 14.1% 853
SW
Santa Fe NM
1,084 79.8% 274 20.2% 268 90 6.6% 1,358
Pac.
Carson City NV
571 84.1% 108 15.9% 295 23 3.4% 679
Pac.
Las Vegas NV
23,419 76.0% 7,413 24.0% 235 2153 7.0% 30,832
Pac.
Reno-Sparks NV
6,215 84.4% 1,152 15.6% 296 251 3.4% 7,367
NYNJ
Albany NY
2,540 64.3% 1,412 35.7% 107 460 11.6% 3,952
NYNJ
Buffalo NY
2,308 65.2% 1,233 34.8% 120 456 12.9% 3,541
NYNJ
Kingston NY
853 69.7% 371 30.3% 168 129 10.5% 1,224
NYNJ
New York-White Plains-Wayne NY-NJ
41,609 78.0% 11,770 22.0% 255 3017 5.7% 53,379
NYNJ
P
oug
hk
eeps
i
e-
N
ew
b
urg
h
-
Middl
eton
NY
3,707 70.8% 1,526 29.2% 181 486 9.3% 5,233
NYNJ
Rochester NY
2,164 61.0% 1,385 39.0% 78 464 13.1% 3,549
NYNJ
Utica-Rome NY
399 50.5% 391 49.5% 13 157 19.9% 790
MW
Canton OH
2,063 63.9% 1,163 36.1% 105 444 13.8% 3,226
MW
Cincinnati OH-KY-IN
9,553 67.6% 4,577 32.4% 147 1540 10.9% 14,130
MW
Cleveland OH
9,731 64.9% 5,265 35.1% 116 1271 8.5% 14,996
MW
Columbus OH
9,086 67.5% 4,373 32.5% 145 1378 10.2% 13,459
MW
Dayton OH
3,762 64.8% 2,045 35.2% 114 703 12.1% 5,807
MW
Mansfield OH
443 58.6% 313 41.4% 57 119 15.7% 756
MW
Springfield OH
696 63.3% 403 36.7% 97 132 12.0% 1,099
MW
Toledo OH
2,159 59.7% 1,456 40.3% 67 600 16.6% 3,615
MW
Youngstown-Warren-Boardman OH-PA
1,813 55.5% 1,455 44.5% 32 554 17.0% 3,268
SW
Oklahoma City
3,531 58.1% 2,550 41.9% 50 990 16.3% 6,081
SW
Tulsa OK
2,135 56.4% 1,650 43.6% 39 576 15.2% 3,785
NW
Bend OR
2,076 85.5% 351 14.5% 299 75 3.1% 2,427
NW
Corvalis OR
390 84.1% 74 15.9% 294 12 2.6% 464
SP RANK 2005 Total
National Aggregate
1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226724 8.8% 2,578,307
Average
5,300 68.9% 1,819 31.1% 584 11.3% 7,096
Region
Median
1,612 68.8% 654 31.2% 221 10.5% 2,328
Table 3:2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime 2005 Subprime >3% 2005 >5%
NW
Eugene OR
2,418 81.8% 539 18.2% 283 156 5.3% 2,957
NW
Medford OR
2,177 82.5% 461 17.5% 287 129 4.9% 2,638
NW
P
ort
l
an
d
-
V
ancouver-
B
eaverton
OR
-
WA
20,370 82.4% 4,340 17.6% 286 1016 4.1% 24,710
NW
Salem OR
2,520 80.2% 624 19.8% 272 154 4.9% 3,144
MA
Allentown PA
6,516 77.3% 1,910 22.7% 244 701 8.3% 8,426
MA
Erie PA
630 56.3% 490 43.8% 38 164 14.6% 1,120
MA
Harrisburg PA
2,303 70.2% 977 29.8% 173 317 9.7% 3,280
MA
Lancaster PA
2,311 78.0% 650 22.0% 258 184 6.2% 2,961
MA
Lebanon PA
573 73.3% 209 26.7% 201 61 7.8% 782
MA
Philadelphia PA
26,985 75.3% 8,829 24.7% 228 3359 9.4% 35,814
MA
Pittsburgh PA
9,199 64.7% 5,014 35.3% 113 1859 13.1% 14,213
MA
Reading PA
2,220 74.0% 781 26.0% 210 271 9.0% 3,001
MA
Scranton-Willes Barre PA
2,179 65.2% 1,165 34.8% 119 432 12.9% 3,344
MA
State College PA
531 80.5% 129 19.5% 274 43 6.5% 660
MA
Williamsport PA
290 54.3% 244 45.7% 27 77 14.4% 534
MA
York-Hanover PA
2,631 77.4% 767 22.6% 249 251 7.4% 3,398
SE
Anderson SC
455 60.0% 303 40.0% 69 129 17.0% 758
SE
Charleston SC
3,278 70.3% 1,384 29.7% 175 473 10.1% 4,662
SE
Columbia SC
2,092 60.4% 1,371 39.6% 72 552 15.9% 3,463
SE
Florence SC
376 55.5% 302 44.5% 31 150 22.1% 678
SE
Greenville SC
1,750 65.1% 939 34.9% 118 320 11.9% 2,689
SE
Myrtle Beach SC
1,280 73.9% 451 26.1% 208 146 8.4% 1,731
SE
Spartanburg SC
711 54.2% 602 45.8% 26 212 16.1% 1,313
RM
Rapid City SD
581 70.8% 240 29.2% 179 70 8.5% 821
RM
Sioux Falls SD
909 74.5% 311 25.5% 218 76 6.2% 1,220
SE
Chattanooga TN
1,839 57.3% 1,373 42.7% 47 562 17.5% 3,212
SE
Clarksville TN-KY
378 52.3% 345 47.7% 19 134 18.5% 723
SE
Jackson TN
298 52.8% 266 47.2% 22 121 21.5% 564
SE
Johnson City TN
636 66.5% 321 33.5% 135 142 14.8% 957
SE
Kingsport TN-VA
951 66.3% 483 33.7% 133 201 14.0% 1,434
SE
Knoxville TN
2,832 64.6% 1,549 35.4% 112 513 11.7% 4,381
SE
Memphis TN-MS-AR
3,845 55.1% 3,135 44.9% 29 1325 19.0% 6,980
SE
Morristown TN
463 64.5% 255 35.5% 110 97 13.5% 718
SE
Nashville TN
6,232 68.2% 2,908 31.8% 153 1088 11.9% 9,140
SW
Amarillo TX
440 56.6% 338 43.4% 42 165 21.2% 778
SW
Austin TX
5,181 75.6% 1,668 24.4% 232 492 7.2% 6,849
SW
Beaumont TX
651 62.1% 398 37.9% 88 165 15.7% 1,049
SW
Brownsville TX
642 42.7% 860 57.3% 1 395 26.3% 1,502
SW
College Station TX
416 64.8% 226 35.2% 115 103 16.0% 642
SW
Corpus Christie TX
737 50.7% 718 49.3% 15 312 21.4% 1,455
SW
Dallas-Plano TX
12,637 67.3% 6,136 32.7% 142 2127 11.3% 18,773
SW
El Paso TX
1,410 45.0% 1,726 55.0% 3 721 23.0% 3,136
SW
Ft. Worth-Arlington TX
6,033 65.9% 3,125 34.1% 127 1144 12.5% 9,158
SW
Houston TX
17,403 63.3% 10,076 36.7% 98 3618 13.2% 27,479
SW
Killeen TX
506 56.5% 390 43.5% 41 154 17.2% 896
SP RANK 2005 Total
National Aggregate
1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226724 8.8% 2,578,307
Average
5,300 68.9% 1,819 31.1% 584 11.3% 7,096
Region
Median
1,612 68.8% 654 31.2% 221 10.5% 2,328
Table 3:2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime 2005 Subprime >3% 2005 >5%
SW
Laredo TX
289 50.6% 282 49.4% 14 111 19.4% 571
SW
Longview TX
231 48.1% 249 51.9% 5 117 24.4% 480
SW
Lubbock TX
421 45.0% 515 55.0% 4 240 25.6% 936
SW
McAllen TX
916 43.6% 1,183 56.4% 2 523 24.9% 2,099
SW
Midland TX
205 53.5% 178 46.5% 24 98 25.6% 383
SW
San Antonio TX
4,447 59.2% 3,064 40.8% 66 1283 17.1% 7,511
SW
Sherman-Denison TX
293 59.8% 197 40.2% 68 97 19.8% 490
SW
Tyler TX
336 58.5% 238 41.5% 54 94 16.4% 574
SW
Victoria TX
188 58.0% 136 42.0% 49 63 19.4% 324
SW
Waco TX
375 51.5% 353 48.5% 18 165 22.7% 728
SW
Wichita Falls TX
327 54.0% 279 46.0% 25 130 21.5% 606
RM
Logan UT-ID
486 75.8% 155 24.2% 234 48 7.5% 641
RM
Ogden UT
2,343 70.4% 983 29.6% 177 255 7.7% 3,326
RM
Provo-Orem UT
2,378 80.0% 596 20.0% 269 139 4.7% 2,974
RM
Salt Lake City UT
7,045 76.1% 2,207 23.9% 237 568 6.1% 9,252
RM
St. George UT
1,419 78.4% 391 21.6% 260 113 6.2% 1,810
MA
Blacksburg VA
610 74.3% 211 25.7% 214 62 7.6% 821
MA
Charlottesville VA
1,409 79.6% 361 20.4% 267 110 6.2% 1,770
MA
Harrisonburg VA
433 77.6% 125 22.4% 251 43 7.7% 558
MA
Lynchburg VA
1,093 70.6% 456 29.4% 178 161 10.4% 1,549
MA
Richmond VA
8,204 67.4% 3,961 32.6% 143 1357 11.2% 12,165
MA
Roanoke VA
1,612 69.3% 713 30.7% 163 259 11.1% 2,325
MA
Vi
rg
i
n
i
a
B
eac
h
-
N
or
f
o
lk
-
N
ewport
N
ews
VA
15,014 71.6% 5,964 28.4% 188 2164 10.3% 20,978
MA
Washington-Arlington DC-VA-MD-WV
56,960 80.5% 13,790 19.5% 275 4212 6.0% 70,750
MA
Winchester VA-WV
1,075 77.4% 314 22.6% 248 102 7.3% 1,389
NW
Bellingham WA
1,554 84.6% 283 15.4% 297 58 3.2% 1,837
NW
Bremerton WA
2,446 80.0% 611 20.0% 270 136 4.4% 3,057
NW
Kennewick WA
905 77.7% 260 22.3% 253 74 6.4% 1,165
NW
Longview WA
699 74.0% 245 26.0% 212 72 7.6% 944
NW
Mount Vernon WA
884 80.1% 219 19.9% 271 57 5.2% 1,103
NW
Olympia WA
2,250 80.6% 543 19.4% 276 130 4.7% 2,793
NW
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett WA
28,035 86.4% 4,400 13.6% 302 1084 3.3% 32,435
NW
Spokane WA
3,203 77.3% 938 22.7% 245 268 6.5% 4,141
NW
Tacoma WA
7,967 74.6% 2,714 25.4% 219 700 6.6% 10,681
NW
Wenatchee WA
551 77.2% 163 22.8% 242 52 7.3% 714
NW
Yakima WA
743 68.8% 337 31.2% 158 115 10.6% 1,080
MW
Appleton WI
985 72.4% 376 27.6% 196 142 10.4% 1,361
MW
Fond du Lac WI
317 63.8% 180 36.2% 103 79 15.9% 497
MW
Green Bay WI
2,286 77.5% 664 22.5% 250 230 7.8% 2,950
MW
Lake County-Kenosha IL-WI
7,533 76.7% 2,291 23.3% 240 653 6.6% 9,824
MW
Milwaukee WI
7,544 60.2% 4,984 39.8% 70 2165 17.3% 12,528
MW
Oshkosh WI
547 62.3% 331 37.7% 90 148 16.9% 878
MW
Racine WI
1,144 65.6% 600 34.4% 124 270 15.5% 1,744
MW
Sheboygen WI
447 65.8% 232 34.2% 126 95 14.0% 679
MA
Charleston WV
793 67.6% 380 32.4% 146 123 10.5% 1,173
SP RANK 2005 Total
National Aggregate
1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226724 8.8% 2,578,307
Average
5,300 68.9% 1,819 31.1% 584 11.3% 7,096
Region
Median
1,612 68.8% 654 31.2% 221 10.5% 2,328
Table 3:2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime 2005 Subprime >3% 2005 >5%
MA
Huntington WV-KY-OH
675 59.0% 470 41.0% 60 165 14.4% 1,145
MA
Parkersburg-Marietta WV-OH
356 56.7% 272 43.3% 43 86 13.7% 628
MA
Weirton-Steubenville WV-OH
250 49.8% 252 50.2% 12 102 20.3% 502
MA
Wheeling WV-OH
275 56.1% 215 43.9% 37 81 16.5% 490
RM
Cheyenne WY
470 63.6% 269 36.4% 100 72 9.7% 739
NOTES: MSAs listed alphabetically by state and region. Regions: NE - Northeast (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, & VT); NYNJ - New York/New
Jersey; MA - Mid-Atlantic (DE, DC, MD, VA, & WV); SE - Southeast (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, & TN); MW - Midwest (IL, IN, MI, MN,
OH, & WI); SW - Southwest (AR, LA, NM, OK, & TX); GP - Great Plains (IA, KS, MO, & NE); RM - Rocky Mountains (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT,
& WY); Pac. - Pacific (AZ, CA, HI, & NV); NW - Northwest (AK, ID, OR, & WA). SP Rank: MSAs are ranked based on the subprime share of
refinance lending in 2004, with the highest rank of 1 having the highest subprime share of refinance lending. 2003 MSA Total: NEW
designates new MSAs created under the 2000 Census; italics designates MSAs which have been split in two or have been broken into
metropolitan divisions. 2004 data is available in CFA's Subprime Cities study released last year.
Appendix A: Selected States and Metropolitan Areas
Alabama
Prime Subprime >3% >5% >7% Total
Alabama Ranked 3 11,380 58.4% 8,090 41.6% 3,913 20.1% 571 2.9% 19,470
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Averag
e
5,339 68.6% 1,819 31.4% 584 11.5% 7,158
MSA Median
1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
Alabama MSA 854 58.2% 631 41.8% 301 20.6% 1,484
Anniston AL
290 64.3% 161 35.7% 108 79 17.5% 451
Birmingham AL
3,201 55.7% 2,547 44.3% 34 1183 20.6% 5,748
Decatur AL
270 49.1% 280 50.9% 8 139 25.3% 550
Dothan AL
337 57.2% 252 42.8% 46 145 24.6% 589
Gadsden AL
305 62.8% 181 37.2% 94 95 19.5% 486
Huntsville AL
1,075 65.3% 570 34.7% 122 240 14.6% 1,645
Mobile AL
987 56.0% 776 44.0% 36 373 21.2% 1,763
Montgomery AL
859 58.1% 619 41.9% 51 322 21.8% 1,478
Tuscaloosa AL
361 55.5% 289 44.5% 33 130 20.0% 650
Arizona
Prime Subprime >3% >5% >7% Total
Arizona Ranked 31 68,974 72.6% 25,999 27.4% 9,449 9.9% 515 0.5% 94,973
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Averag
e
5,339 68.6% 1,819 31.4% 584 11.5% 7,158
MSA Median
1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
Arizona MSA 12,980 76.0% 4,953 24.0% 1,807 7.7% 17,933
Flagstaff AZ
962 86.5% 150 13.5% 303 36 3.2% 1,112
Phoenix-Mesa-
Scottsdale AZ
53,135 72.0% 20,711 28.0% 192 7669 10.4% 73,846
Prescott AZ
2,138 83.5% 423 16.5% 292 136 5.3% 2,561
Tucson AZ
7,645 72.1% 2,959 27.9% 193 1050 9.9% 10,604
Yuma A
Z
1,020 66.1% 522 33.9% 130 146 9.5% 1,542
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in Arizona, 2005
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in Alabama, 2005
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
Appendix A: Selected States and Metropolitan Areas
California
Prime Subprime >3% >5% >7% Total
California Ranked
5
469,696 83.8% 90,815 16.2% 22,137 3.9% 836 0.1% 560,511
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Averag
e
5,339 68.6% 1,819 31.4% 584 11.5% 7,158
MSA Median
1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
California MSA 16465 82.3% 3182 17.7% 776 4.5% 19647
Bakersfield CA
8,342 68.5% 3,837 31.5% 156 1088 8.9% 12,179
Chico CA
1,872 81.2% 433 18.8% 279 115 5.0% 2,305
El Centro CA
1,092 60.6% 709 39.4% 75 217 12.0% 1,801
Fresno CA
9,064 71.6% 3,589 28.4% 189 1055 8.3% 12,653
Hanford CA
1,013 67.7% 483 32.3% 149 125 8.4% 1,496
Los Angeles-Long
Beach CA
99,005 81.7% 22,125 18.3% 282 5498 4.5% 121,130
Madera CA
1,732 73.6% 621 26.4% 205 166 7.1% 2,353
Merced CA
3,390 74.5% 1,163 25.5% 217 271 6.0% 4,553
Modesto CA
8,450 78.2% 2,353 21.8% 259 558 5.2% 10,803
Napa CA
2,120 92.3% 178 7.7% 312 32 1.4% 2,298
Oakland-Fremont-
Howard CA
44,816 89.1% 5,490 10.9% 306 1169 2.3% 50,306
Oxnard-Thousand
Oaks-Ventura CA
12,868 90.5% 1,352 9.5% 309 296 2.1% 14,220
Redding CA
1,971 80.6% 474 19.4% 277 126 5.2% 2,445
Riverside-San
Bernadino-Ontario
57,207 75.3% 18,753 24.7% 226 4789 6.3% 75,960
Sacramento-Arden-
Arcade-Roseville
33,617 82.9% 6,951 17.1% 289 1618 4.0% 40,568
Salinas CA
5,651 88.5% 732 11.5% 305 156 2.4% 6,383
San Diego-
Carlsbad-San
38,609 89.8% 4,408 10.2% 307 892 2.1% 43,017
San Francisco-San
Mateo CA
22,000 94.8% 1,197 5.16% 317 221 1.0% 23,197
San Jose-
Sunnyvale-Santa
26,329 93.1% 1,954 6.9% 315 367 1.3% 28,283
San Luis Obispo-
Paso Robles CA
3,430 92.2% 291 7.8% 311 62 1.7% 3,721
Santa Ana-
35,908 90.9% 3,578 9.1% 310 794 2.0% 39,486
Santa Barbara-
Santa Maria-Goleta
5,315 92.4% 435 7.6% 313 86 1.5% 5,750
Santa Cruz-
3,841 92.8% 300 7.2% 314 54 1.3% 4,141
Santa Rosa-
7,361 93.1% 542 6.9% 316 108 1.4% 7,903
Stockton CA
12,390 78.9% 3,323 21.1% 264 825 5.3% 15,713
Vallejo-Fairfield CA
8,021 83.3% 1,607 16.7% 291 356 3.7% 9,628
Visalia-Porterville
3,909 70.1% 1,665 29.9% 171 539 9.7% 5,574
Marysville C
A
1,707 75.8% 545 24.2% 233 142 6.3% 2,252
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in California, 2005
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
Appendix A: Selected States and Metropolitan Areas
Colorado
Prime Subprime >3% >5% >7% Total
Colorado Ranked
4
39,331 78.0% 11,085 22.0% 2,780 5.5% 159 0.3% 50,416
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Averag
e
5,339 68.6% 1,819 31.4% 584 11.5% 7,158
MSA Median
1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
Colorado MSA 4866 76.1% 1414 23.9% 344 6.6% 6279
Boulder CO
2,546 90.4% 271 9.6% 308 63 2.2% 2,817
Colorado Springs
4,402 75.5% 1,428 24.5% 230 396 6.8% 5,830
Denver CO
20,820 77.4% 6,094 22.6% 247 1382 5.1% 26,914
Fort Collins CO
2,602 83.7% 505 16.3% 293 101 3.3% 3,107
Grand Junction CO
942 69.9% 406 30.1% 169 118 8.8% 1,348
Greeley CO
1,868 75.1% 619 24.9% 224 152 6.1% 2,487
Pueblo CO
881 60.6% 572 39.4% 76 198 13.6% 1,453
Florida
Prime Subprime >3% >5% >7% Total
Florida Ranked 28t 149,280 71.0% 60,965 29.0% 19,869 9.5% 1,568 0.7% 210,245
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Averag
e
5,339 68.6% 1,819 31.4% 584 11.5% 7,158
MSA Median
1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
Florida MSA 7179 71.8% 2933 28.2% 952 9.3% 10112
Cape Coral FL
6,409 73.4% 2,322 26.6% 203 747 8.6% 8,731
Deltona-Daytona
4,182 68.0% 1,968 32.0% 151 686 11.2% 6,150
Fort Walton Beach
1,512 76.2% 471 23.8% 238 153 7.7% 1,983
Ft. Lauderdale FL
19,608 71.5% 7,806 28.5% 187 2439 8.9% 27,414
Jacksonville FL
7,254 65.1% 3,893 34.9% 117 1367 12.3% 11,147
Lakeland FL
2,749 59.2% 1,897 40.8% 64 642 13.8% 4,646
Miami-Miami Beach
18,819 66.4% 9,503 33.6% 134 2808 9.9% 28,322
Naples FL
3,977 82.0% 875 18.0% 284 261 5.4% 4,852
Ocala FL
1,498 66.9% 741 33.1% 137 272 12.1% 2,239
Orlando FL
18,597 71.1% 7,560 28.9% 183 2479 9.5% 26,157
Palm Bay-
5,742 74.3% 1,982 25.7% 216 604 7.8% 7,724
Panama City FL
1,028 71.2% 415 28.8% 184 147 10.2% 1,443
Pensacola-Ferry
Pass-Brent FL
2,384 67.3% 1,160 32.7% 141 401 11.3% 3,544
Port St. Lucie FL
3,625 72.9% 1,349 27.1% 199 476 9.6% 4,974
Punta Gorda FL
1,592 77.4% 466 22.6% 246 132 6.4% 2,058
Sarasota-
Bradenton-Venice
6,867 78.6% 1,865 21.4% 261 614 7.0% 8,732
Tallahassee FL
1,530 68.8% 693 31.2% 160 230 10.3% 2,223
Tampa-St.
Petersburg-
20,609 69.3% 9,110 30.7% 164 3091 10.4% 29,719
Vero Beach FL
1,086 78.8% 293 21.2% 263 93 6.7% 1,379
W. Palm Beach-
Boca Raton FL
14,512 77.2% 4,289 22.8% 243 1393 7.4% 18,801
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in Florida, 2005
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in Colorado, 2005
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
Appendix A: Selected States and Metropolitan Areas
Georgia
Prime Subprime >3% >5% >7% Total
Georgia Ranked 2
4
38,395 67.2% 18,716 32.8% 7,114 12.5% 672 1.2% 57,111
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Averag
e
5,339 68.6% 1,819 31.4% 584 11.5% 7,158
MSA Median
1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
Georgia MSA 4187 63.5% 1877 36.5% 678 15.1% 6064
Athens GA
565 73.4% 205 26.6% 202 100 13.0% 770
Atlanta GA
28,278 70.2% 12,008 29.8% 172 4156 10.3% 40,286
Augusta GA-SC
1,569 64.0% 884 36.0% 106 371 15.1% 2,453
Dalton GA
362 59.2% 250 40.8% 62 91 14.9% 612
Gainesville GA
656 71.0% 268 29.0% 182 93 10.1% 924
Macon GA
498 52.6% 449 47.4% 21 210 22.2% 947
Savannah GA
1,312 64.3% 727 35.7% 109 307 15.1% 2,039
GA
257 53.2% 226 46.8% 23 97 20.1% 483
Iowa
Prime Subprime >3% >5% >7% Total
Iowa Ranked 7th 9,930 61.0% 6,357 39.0% 2,695 16.5% 307 1.9% 16,287
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Averag
e
5,339 68.6% 1,819 31.4% 584 11.5% 7,158
MSA Median
1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
Iowa MSA 1,056 65.5% 591 34.5% 237 14.0% 1,647
Ames IA
280 78.0% 79 22.0% 257 36 10.0% 359
Cedar Rapids IA
1,189 67.3% 579 32.7% 140 215 12.2% 1,768
Davenport IA-IL
1,255 52.4% 1,140 47.6% 20 445 18.6% 2,395
Des Moines IA
3,295 68.7% 1,503 31.3% 157 607 12.7% 4,798
Iowa City IA
404 77.8% 115 22.2% 254 35 6.7% 519
Sioux City IA-NE-
378 55.4% 304 44.6% 30 126 18.5% 682
Falls I
A
591 58.6% 418 41.4% 56 194 19.2% 1,009
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in Iowa, 2005
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in Georgia, 2005
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
Appendix A: Selected States and Metropolitan Areas
Indiana
Prime Subprime >3% >5% >7% Total
Indiana Ranked 10
t
22,577 62.0% 13,818 38.0% 5,058 13.9% 539 1.5% 36,395
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Averag
e
5,339 68.6% 1,819 31.4% 584 11.5% 7,158
MSA Median
1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
Indiana MSA 1,670 61.3% 901 38.7% 321 14.6% 2,571
Anderson IN
607 59.2% 419 40.8% 63 149 14.5% 1,026
Bloomington IN
439 62.2% 267 37.8% 89 93 13.2% 706
Elkhart IN
568 63.7% 324 36.3% 101 115 12.9% 892
Fort Wayne IN
1,863 67.0% 919 33.0% 138 311 11.2% 2,782
Gary IN
2,715 59.2% 1,872 40.8% 65 701 15.3% 4,587
Holland MI
1,169 71.9% 458 28.1% 191 175 10.8% 1,627
Indianapolis IN
8,320 68.2% 3,883 31.8% 152 1310 10.7% 12,203
Kokomo IN
292 49.6% 297 50.4% 11 116 19.7% 589
Michigan City IN
408 63.0% 240 37.0% 96 99 15.3% 648
Muncie IN
322 49.2% 332 50.8% 10 144 22.0% 654
Kentucky
Prime Subprime >3% >5% >7% Total
Kentucky Ranked
2
13,318 65.3% 7,083 34.7% 2,390 11.7% 332 1.6% 20,401
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Averag
e
5,339 68.6% 1,819 31.4% 584 11.5% 7,158
MSA Median
1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
Kentucky MSA 1,945 68.0% 841 32.0% 267 10.3% 2,786
Bowling Green KY
377 75.6% 122 24.4% 231 39 7.8% 499
Elizabethtown KY
356 62.5% 214 37.5% 92 69 12.1% 570
Lexington KY
2,252 73.8% 801 26.2% 207 242 7.9% 3,053
Louisville KY-IN
6,433 69.3% 2,853 30.7% 162 913 9.8% 9,286
Owensboro K
Y
307 58.8% 215 41.2% 59 72 13.8% 522
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in Kentucky, 2005
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in Indiana, 2005
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
Appendix A: Selected States and Metropolitan Areas
Louisiana
Prime Subprime >3% >5% >7% Total
Louisiana Ranked
5
10,493 60.0% 6,997 40.0% 2,453 14.0% 292 1.7% 17,490
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Averag
e
5,339 68.6% 1,819 31.4% 584 11.5% 7,158
MSA Median
1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
Louisiana MSA 1,146 60.8% 733 39.2% 245 13.3% 1,879
Alexandria LA
305 60.5% 199 39.5% 74 73 14.5% 504
Baton Rouge LA
1,960 60.4% 1,285 39.6% 71 419 12.9% 3,245
Houma LA
408 57.6% 300 42.4% 48 95 13.4% 708
Lafayette LA
791 67.9% 374 32.1% 150 128 11.0% 1,165
Lake Charles LA
460 61.0% 294 39.0% 80 117 15.5% 754
Monroe LA
455 61.2% 289 38.8% 82 84 11.3% 744
New Orleans LA
3,858 61.7% 2,393 38.3% 87 789 12.6% 6,251
City L
A
930 55.9% 733 44.1% 35 255 15.3% 1,663
Massachusetts
Prime Subprime >3% >5% >7% Total
Massachusetts Ra
n
40,452 75.7% 13,002 24.3% 4,006 7.5% 255 0.5% 53,454
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Averag
e
5,339 68.6% 1,819 31.4% 584 11.5% 7,158
MSA Median
1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
Massachusetts
MSA Average 6,921 73.9% 2,305 26.1% 708 8.2% 9,227
Barnstable Town
2,581 79.5% 664 20.5% 266 195 6.0% 3,245
Boston-Quincy MA
12,861 77.6% 3,712 22.4% 252 1066 6.4% 16,573
Cambridge-Newton
8,666 83.0% 1,770 17.0% 290 530 5.1% 10,436
Essex County MA
4,910 76.0% 1,547 24.0% 236 470 7.3% 6,457
Providence-New
Bedford-Fall River
12,297 72.2% 4,728 27.8% 194 1443 8.5% 17,025
Springfield MA
2,330 59.1% 1,615 40.9% 61 581 14.7% 3,945
Worcester MA-CT
4,804 69.6% 2,102 30.4% 167 671 9.7% 6,906
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in Louisiana, 2005
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in Massachusetts, 2005
Appendix A: Selected States and Metropolitan Areas
Michigan
Prime Subprime >3% >5% >7% Total
Michigan Ranked 1 51,987 64.2% 29,039 35.8% 11,828 14.6% 1,172 1.4% 81,026
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Averag
e
0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
MSA Median
1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
Michigan MSA 3,204 60.2% 1,844 39.8% 757 16.5% 5,048
Battle Creek MI
489 48.6% 517 51.4% 6 233 23.2% 1,006
Bay City-Saginaw
323 60.5% 211 39.5% 73 88 16.5% 534
Detroit-Dearborn
9,220 51.3% 8,746 48.7% 17 3974 22.1% 17,966
Flint MI
1,926 58.6% 1,363 41.4% 55 597 18.2% 3,289
Grand Rapids MI 4,037 63.4% 2,328 36.6% 99 933 14.7% 6,365
Jackson MI
828 62.3% 501 37.7% 91 195 14.7% 1,329
Kalamazoo MI
1,533 65.2% 818 34.8% 121 332 14.1% 2,351
Lansing MI
2,415 63.0% 1,421 37.0% 95 492 12.8% 3,836
Monroe MI
846 71.5% 337 28.5% 186 134 11.3% 1,183
Muskegon MI
638 49.0% 665 51.0% 7 322 24.7% 1,303
Niles-Benton
682 58.2% 489 41.8% 53 196 16.7% 1,171
Saginaw-Saginaw
Township North MI
594 56.8% 451 43.2% 44 174 16.7% 1,045
Hills MI
18,123 74.7% 6,125 25.3% 221 2171 9.0% 24,248
Missouri
Prime Subprime >3
%
>5% >7% Total
Missouri Ranked 1
2
27,375 63.4% 15,803 36.6% 6,199 14.4% 695 1.6% 43,178
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Averag
e
5,339 68.6% 1,819 31.4% 584 11.5% 7,158
MSA Median
1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
Missouri MSA 5,997 62.5% 3,408 37.5% 1,302 15.1% 9,405
Joplin MO
423 58.2% 304 41.8% 52 136 18.7% 727
Kansas City MO-
11,115 65.8% 5,770 34.2% 125 2213 13.1% 16,885
Springfield MO
1,327 64.5% 730 35.5% 111 295 14.3% 2,057
St. Joseph MO-IL
546 61.3% 344 38.7% 85 134 15.1% 890
St. Louis MO-IL
16,574 62.6% 9,891 37.4% 93 3734 14.1% 26,465
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in Missouri, 2005
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in Michigan, 2005
Appendix A: Selected States and Metropolitan Areas
North Carolina
Prime Subprime >3
%
>5% >7% Total
North Carolina Ra
n
40,371 73.2% 14,743 26.8% 5,695 10.3% 704 1.3% 55,114
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Averag
e
5,339 68.6% 1,819 31.4% 584 11.5% 7,158
MSA Median
1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
North Carolina
MSA Average 2,561 70.7% 886 29.3% 334 11.4% 3,447
Asheville NC
2,160 75.0% 720 25.0% 223 265 9.2% 2,880
Burlington NC
522 67.0% 257 33.0% 139 111 14.2% 779
Charlotte NC-SC
9,400 75.3% 3,077 24.7% 227 1136 9.1% 12,477
Durham NC
2,067 74.0% 725 26.0% 211 249 8.9% 2,792
Fayetteville NC 830 56.5% 640 43.5% 40 255 17.3% 1,470
Greensboro NC
3,299 70.3% 1,394 29.7% 174 581 12.4% 4,693
Greenville NC
468 66.2% 239 33.8% 131 95 13.4% 707
Hickory NC
1,279 65.6% 671 34.4% 123 236 12.1% 1,950
Raleigh-Cary NC
5,632 81.6% 1,271 18.4% 281 455 6.6% 6,903
Rocky Mount NC
384 63.9% 217 36.1% 104 92 15.3% 601
Wilmington NC
2,684 82.6% 566 17.4% 288 221 6.8% 3,250
Winston-Salem NC
2,007 70.1% 856 29.9% 170 315 11.0% 2,863
New Jersey
Prime Subprime >3
%
>5% >7% Total
New Jersey Ranke
d
70,296 77.2% 20,726 22.8% 6,451 7.1% 470 0.5% 91,022
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Averag
e
5,339 68.6% 1,819 31.4% 584 11.5% 7,158
MSA Median
1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
New Jersey MSA
Average 8,202 75.0% 2,457 25.0% 789 8.4% 10,658
Atlantic City NJ
2,924 73.6% 1,050 26.4% 204 398 10.0% 3,974
Camden NJ
11,217 72.3% 4,295 27.7% 195 1625 10.5% 15,512
Edison NJ
21,888 80.3% 5,372 19.7% 273 1593 5.8% 27,260
Newark-Union NJ-
16,034 76.5% 4,930 23.5% 239 1396 6.7% 20,964
Ocean City NJ
1,937 86.7% 297 13.3% 304 84 3.8% 2,234
Trenton-Ewing NJ
2,838 76.9% 851 23.1% 241 292 7.9% 3,689
Vineland-Millvile
-
Bridgeton NJ
573 58.7% 403 41.3% 58 137 14.0% 976
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in New Jersey, 2005
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in North Carolina, 2005
Appendix A: Selected States and Metropolitan Areas
New York
Prime Subprime >3
%
>5% >7% Total
New York Ranked
3
66,520 73.2% 24,344 26.8% 7,264 8.0% 667 0.7% 90,864
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Averag
e
5,339 68.6% 1,819 31.4% 584 11.5% 7,158
MSA Median
1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
New York MSA 7,654 65.6% 2,584 34.4% 738 11.8% 10,238
Albany NY
2,540 64.3% 1,412 35.7% 107 460 11.6% 3,952
Buffalo NY
2,308 65.2% 1,233 34.8% 120 456 12.9% 3,541
Kingston NY
853 69.7% 371 30.3% 168 129 10.5% 1,224
New York-White
Plains-Wayne NY-
41,609 78.0% 11,770 22.0% 255 3017 5.7% 53,379
Poughkeepsie-
Newburgh-
3,707 70.8% 1,526 29.2% 181 486 9.3% 5,233
Rochester NY
2,164 61.0% 1,385 39.0% 78 464 13.1% 3,549
Utica-Rome N
Y
399 50.5% 391 49.5% 13 157 19.9% 790
Ohio
Prime Subprime >3
%
>5% >7% Total
Ohio Ranked 13th 47,830 63.8% 27,124 36.2% 8,890 11.9% 968 1.3% 74,954
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Average 5,339 68.6% 1,819 31.4% 584 11.5% 7,158
MSA Median
1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
Ohio MSA 4,367 62.9% 2,339 37.1% 749 13.0% 6,706
Canton OH
2,063 63.9% 1,163 36.1% 105 444 13.8% 3,226
Cincinnati OH-KY-
9,553 67.6% 4,577 32.4% 147 1540 10.9% 14,130
Cleveland OH
9,731 64.9% 5,265 35.1% 116 1271 8.5% 14,996
Columbus OH
9,086 67.5% 4,373 32.5% 145 1378 10.2% 13,459
Dayton OH
3,762 64.8% 2,045 35.2% 114 703 12.1% 5,807
Mansfield OH
443 58.6% 313 41.4% 57 119 15.7% 756
Springfield OH
696 63.3% 403 36.7% 97 132 12.0% 1,099
Toledo OH
2,159 59.7% 1,456 40.3% 67 600 16.6% 3,615
Warren-Boardman
OH-PA
1,813 55.5% 1,455 44.5% 32 554 17.0% 3,268
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in Ohio, 2005
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in New York, 2005
Appendix A: Selected States and Metropolitan Areas
Oregon
Prime Subprime >3
%
>5% >7% Total
Oregon Ranked 49
t
29,340 82.2% 6,344 17.8% 1,576 4.4% 94 0.3% 35,684
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Average 5,339 68.6% 1,819 31.4% 584 11.5% 7,158
MSA Median
1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
Oregon MSA 4,992 82.7% 1,065 17.3% 257 4.1% 6,057
Bend OR
2,076 85.5% 351 14.5% 299 75 3.1% 2,427
Corvalis OR
390 84.1% 74 15.9% 294 12 2.6% 464
Eugene OR
2,418 81.8% 539 18.2% 283 156 5.3% 2,957
Medford OR
2,177 82.5% 461 17.5% 287 129 4.9% 2,638
Portland-
Vancouver-
20,370 82.4% 4,340 17.6% 286 1016 4.1% 24,710
Salem O
R
2,520 80.2% 624 19.8% 272 154 4.9% 3,144
Pennsylvania
Prime Subprime >3
%
>5% >7% Total
Pennsylvania Ran
k
63,338 71.1% 25,706 28.9% 9,464 10.6% 1,386 1.6% 89,044
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Average 5,339 68.6% 1,819 31.4% 584 11.5% 7,158
MSA Median
1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
Pennsylvania
MSA Average 4,697 70.5% 1,764 29.5% 643 9.9% 6,461
Allentown PA
6,516 77.3% 1,910 22.7% 244 701 8.3% 8,426
Erie PA
630 56.3% 490 43.8% 38 164 14.6% 1,120
Harrisburg PA
2,303 70.2% 977 29.8% 173 317 9.7% 3,280
Lancaster PA
2,311 78.0% 650 22.0% 258 184 6.2% 2,961
Lebanon PA
573 73.3% 209 26.7% 201 61 7.8% 782
Philadelphia PA
26,985 75.3% 8,829 24.7% 228 3359 9.4% 35,814
Pittsburgh PA
9,199 64.7% 5,014 35.3% 113 1859 13.1% 14,213
Reading PA
2,220 74.0% 781 26.0% 210 271 9.0% 3,001
Scranton-Willes
2,179 65.2% 1,165 34.8% 119 432 12.9% 3,344
State College PA
531 80.5% 129 19.5% 274 43 6.5% 660
Williamsport PA
290 54.3% 244 45.7% 27 77 14.4% 534
York-Hanover P
A
2,631 77.4% 767 22.6% 249 251 7.4% 3,398
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in Pennsylvania, 2005
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in Oregon, 2005
Appendix A: Selected States and Metropolitan Areas
South Carolina
Prime Subprime >3
%
>5% >7% Total
South Carolina Ra
n
13,567 63.8% 7,691 36.2% 3,067 14.4% 434 2.0% 21,258
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Average 5,339 68.6% 1,819 31.4% 584 11.5% 7,158
MSA Median
1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
South Carolina
MSA Average 1,420 62.8% 765 37.2% 283 14.5% 2,185
Anderson SC
455 60.0% 303 40.0% 69 129 17.0% 758
Charleston SC
3,278 70.3% 1,384 29.7% 175 473 10.1% 4,662
Columbia SC
2,092 60.4% 1,371 39.6% 72 552 15.9% 3,463
Florence SC
376 55.5% 302 44.5% 31 150 22.1% 678
Greenville SC
1,750 65.1% 939 34.9% 118 320 11.9% 2,689
Myrtle Beach SC
1,280 73.9% 451 26.1% 208 146 8.4% 1,731
Spartanburg S
C
711 54.2% 602 45.8% 26 212 16.1% 1,313
Tennessee
Prime Subprime >3
%
>5% >7% Total
Tennesee Ranked 19,798 61.1% 12,631 38.9% 5,159 15.9% 632 1.9% 32,429
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Average 5,339 68.6% 1,819 31.4% 584 11.5% 7,158
MSA Median
1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
Tennessee MSA 1,942 60.8% 1,182 39.2% 465 15.8% 3,123
Chattanooga TN
1,839 57.3% 1,373 42.7% 47 562 17.5% 3,212
Clarksville TN-KY
378 52.3% 345 47.7% 19 134 18.5% 723
Jackson TN
298 52.8% 266 47.2% 22 121 21.5% 564
Johnson City TN
636 66.5% 321 33.5% 135 142 14.8% 957
Kingsport TN-VA
951 66.3% 483 33.7% 133 201 14.0% 1,434
Knoxville TN
2,832 64.6% 1,549 35.4% 112 513 11.7% 4,381
Memphis TN-MS-
3,845 55.1% 3,135 44.9% 29 1325 19.0% 6,980
Morristown TN
463 64.5% 255 35.5% 110 97 13.5% 718
Nashville TN
6,232 68.2% 2,908 31.8% 153 1088 11.9% 9,140
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in Tennessee, 2005
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in South Carolina, 2005
Appendix A: Selected States and Metropolitan Areas
Texas
Prime Subprime >3
%
>5% >7% Total
Texas Ranked 9th 58,118 61.7% 36,106 38.3% 14,181 15.1% 2,332 2.5% 94,224
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Average 5,339 68.6% 1,819 31.4% 584 11.5% 7,158
MSA Median
1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
Texas MSA 2,458 56.0% 1,470 44.0% 560 19.2% 3,928
Amarillo TX
440 56.6% 338 43.4% 42 165 21.2% 778
Austin TX
5,181 75.6% 1,668 24.4% 232 492 7.2% 6,849
Beaumont TX
651 62.1% 398 37.9% 88 165 15.7% 1,049
Brownsville TX
642 42.7% 860 57.3% 1 395 26.3% 1,502
College Station TX
416 64.8% 226 35.2% 115 103 16.0% 642
Corpus Christie TX
737 50.7% 718 49.3% 15 312 21.4% 1,455
Dallas-Plano TX
12,637 67.3% 6,136 32.7% 142 2127 11.3% 18,773
El Paso TX
1,410 45.0% 1,726 55.0% 3 721 23.0% 3,136
Ft. Worth-Arlington
6,033 65.9% 3,125 34.1% 127 1144 12.5% 9,158
Houston TX
17,403 63.3% 10,076 36.7% 98 3618 13.2% 27,479
Killeen TX
506 56.5% 390 43.5% 41 154 17.2% 896
Laredo TX
289 50.6% 282 49.4% 14 111 19.4% 571
Longview TX
231 48.1% 249 51.9% 5 117 24.4% 480
Lubbock TX
421 45.0% 515 55.0% 4 240 25.6% 936
McAllen TX
916 43.6% 1,183 56.4% 2 523 24.9% 2,099
Midland TX
205 53.5% 178 46.5% 24 98 25.6% 383
San Antonio TX
4,447 59.2% 3,064 40.8% 66 1283 17.1% 7,511
Sherman-Denison
293 59.8% 197 40.2% 68 97 19.8% 490
Tyler TX
336 58.5% 238 41.5% 54 94 16.4% 574
Victoria TX
188 58.0% 136 42.0% 49 63 19.4% 324
Waco TX
375 51.5% 353 48.5% 18 165 22.7% 728
Wichita Falls TX
327 54.0% 279 46.0% 25 130 21.5% 606
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in Texas, 2005
Appendix A: Selected States and Metropolitan Areas
Utah
Prime Subprime >3
%
>5% >7% Total
Utah Ranked 36th 14,853 75.5% 4,824 24.5% 1,277 6.5% 58 0.3% 19,677
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Average 5,339 68.6% 1,819 31.4% 584 11.5% 7,158
MSA Median
1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
Utah MSA 2,734 76.2% 866 23.8% 225 6.4% 3,601
Logan UT-ID
486 75.8% 155 24.2% 234 48 7.5% 641
Ogden UT
2,343 70.4% 983 29.6% 177 255 7.7% 3,326
Provo-Orem UT
2,378 80.0% 596 20.0% 269 139 4.7% 2,974
Salt Lake City UT
7,045 76.1% 2,207 23.9% 237 568 6.1% 9,252
St. George UT
1,419 78.4% 391 21.6% 260 113 6.2% 1,810
Virginia
Prime Subprime >3
%
>5% >7% Total
Virginia Ranked 45
t
67,535 78.0% 19,061 22.0% 6,437 7.4% 742 0.9% 86,596
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Average 5,339 68.6% 1,819 31.4% 584 11.5% 7,158
MSA Median 1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
V
irginia MSA 9,601 74.3% 2,877 25.7% 941 8.6% 12,478
Blacksburg VA
610 74.3% 211 25.7% 214 62 7.6% 821
Charlottesville VA
1,409 79.6% 361 20.4% 267 110 6.2% 1,770
Harrisonburg VA
433 77.6% 125 22.4% 251 43 7.7% 558
Lynchburg VA
1,093 70.6% 456 29.4% 178 161 10.4% 1,549
Richmond VA
8,204 67.4% 3,961 32.6% 143 1357 11.2% 12,165
Roanoke VA
1,612 69.3% 713 30.7% 163 259 11.1% 2,325
Virginia Beach-
Norfolk-Newport
15,014 71.6% 5,964 28.4% 188 2164 10.3% 20,978
Washington-
Arlington DC-VA-
56,960 80.5% 13,790 19.5% 275 4212 6.0% 70,750
Winchester VA-WV
1,075 77.4% 314 22.6% 248 102 7.3% 1,389
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in Virginia, 2005
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in Utah, 2005
Appendix A: Selected States and Metropolitan Areas
Washington
Prime Subprime >3
%
>5% >7% Total
Washington Ranke 58,668 81.8% 13,012 18.2% 3,342 4.7% 179 0.2% 71,680
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Average 5,339 68.6% 1,819 31.4% 584 11.5% 7,158
MSA Median
1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
Washington MSA
Average 4,476 78.3% 974 21.7% 250 6.0% 5,450
Bellingham WA
1,554 84.6% 283 15.4% 297 58 3.2% 1,837
Bremerton WA
2,446 80.0% 611 20.0% 270 136 4.4% 3,057
Kennewick WA
905 77.7% 260 22.3% 253 74 6.4% 1,165
Longview WA
699 74.0% 245 26.0% 212 72 7.6% 944
Mount Vernon WA
884 80.1% 219 19.9% 271 57 5.2% 1,103
Olympia WA
2,250 80.6% 543 19.4% 276 130 4.7% 2,793
Seattle-Bellevue-
Everett WA
28,035 86.4% 4,400 13.6% 302 1084 3.3% 32,435
Spokane WA
3,203 77.3% 938 22.7% 245 268 6.5% 4,141
Tacoma WA
7,967 74.6% 2,714 25.4% 219 700 6.6% 10,681
Wenatchee WA
551 77.2% 163 22.8% 242 52 7.3% 714
Yakima WA
743 68.8% 337 31.2% 158 115 10.6% 1,080
Wisconsin
Prime Subprime >3
%
>5% >7% Total
Wisconsin Ranked 23,879 64.3% 13,281 35.7% 5,464 14.7% 650 1.7% 37,160
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Average 5,339 68.6% 1,819 31.4% 584 11.5% 7,158
MSA Median
1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
Wisconsin MSA 2,600 68.0% 1,207 32.0% 473 13.0% 3,808
Appleton WI
985 72.4% 376 27.6% 196 142 10.4% 1,361
Fond du Lac WI
317 63.8% 180 36.2% 103 79 15.9% 497
Green Bay WI
2,286 77.5% 664 22.5% 250 230 7.8% 2,950
Lake County-
Kenosha IL-WI
7,533 76.7% 2,291 23.3% 240 653 6.6% 9,824
Milwaukee WI
7,544 60.2% 4,984 39.8% 70 2165 17.3% 12,528
Oshkosh WI
547 62.3% 331 37.7% 90 148 16.9% 878
Racine WI
1,144 65.6% 600 34.4% 124 270 15.5% 1,744
Sheboygen WI
447 65.8% 232 34.2% 126 95 14.0% 679
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in Wisconsin, 2005
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in Washington, 2005
Appendix A: Selected States and Metropolitan Areas
West Virginia
Prime Subprime >3
%
>5% >7% Total
West Virginia Ran
k
4,556 62.4% 2,741 37.6% 1,016 13.9% 145 2.0% 7,297
Nationwide 1,894,269 73.5% 684,038 26.5% 226,724 8.8% 21,181 0.8% 2,578,307
SP
RANK 2005 Total
MSA Average 5,339 68.6% 1,819 31.4% 584 11.5% 7,158
MSA Median
1,636 68.7% 654 31.3% 221 10.7% 2,393
West Virginia
MSA Average 470 57.8% 318 42.2% 111 15.1% 788
Charleston WV
793 67.6% 380 32.4% 146 123 10.5% 1,173
Huntington WV-KY-
675 59.0% 470 41.0% 60 165 14.4% 1,145
Parkersburg-
Marietta WV-OH
356 56.7% 272 43.3% 43 86 13.7% 628
Weirton-
Steubenville WV-
250 49.8% 252 50.2% 12 102 20.3% 502
Wheeling WV-OH
275 56.1% 215 43.9% 37 81 16.5% 490
2005 Subprime Share of Refinance Lending by MSA
2005 Prime
2
005 Subprime >3
%
2005 >5%
Statewide Subprime Refinance Lending in West Virginia, 2005
