IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/houspd/v30y2020i1p61-82.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantitative Performance Metrics for the Community Reinvestment Act: How Much Reinvestment Is Enough?

Author

Listed:
  • Carolina K. Reid

Abstract

Since the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in 1977, regulators have grappled with the question of how best to evaluate a bank’s performance in meeting the credit needs of its communities. This article contributes to the debate on how to determine a bank’s CRA rating by presenting an analysis of which activities are currently reported as fulfilling a bank’s CRA obligation. Using data on mortgage, small business, and community development lending, investment, and service activities from performance evaluations (PEs) released in 2011 and 2016 for all banks in California, the article answers three questions. First, what are the inconsistencies in what is reported across PEs, and how do they complicate efforts to develop a single metric of CRA activities? Second, how do banks’ CRA-motivated loans and investments vary by markets and economic cycles? Third, to what extent are these loans and investments aligned with the intent of CRA? The results suggest that regulators should focus on reorienting the exam toward giving credit for the loans and investments that promote community development, rather than moving to a single metric based on dollar volumes that could incentivize banks to do less—or even worse, to do harm.

Suggested Citation

  • Carolina K. Reid, 2020. "Quantitative Performance Metrics for the Community Reinvestment Act: How Much Reinvestment Is Enough?," Housing Policy Debate, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(1), pages 61-82, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:houspd:v:30:y:2020:i:1:p:61-82
    DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2019.1666552
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10511482.2019.1666552
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10511482.2019.1666552?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:houspd:v:30:y:2020:i:1:p:61-82. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RHPD20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.