The U.S. home mortgage industry first formalized risk criteria in the 1920s and 1930s to determine which applicants should receive funds. Over the past eighty years, these formulae have become more sophisticated. Guy Stuart demonstrates that the very concepts on which lenders base their decisions reflect a set of social and political values about "who deserves what." Stuart examines the fine line between licit choice and illicit discrimination, arguing that lenders, while eradicating blatantly discriminatory practices, have ignored the racial and economic-class biases that remain encoded in their decision processes. He explains why African Americans and Latinos continue to be at a disadvantage in gaining access to loans: discrimination, he finds, results from the interaction between the way lenders make decisions and the way they shape the social structure of the mortgage and housing markets.

Mortgage lenders, Stuart contends, are embedded in and shape a social context that can best be understood in terms of rules, networks, and the production of space. Stuart's history of lenders' risk criteria reveals that they were synthesized from rules of thumb, cultural norms, and untested theories. In addition, his interviews with real estate and lending professionals in the Chicago housing market show us how the criteria are implemented today. Drawing on census and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data for quantitative support, Stuart concludes with concrete policy proposals that take into account the social structure in which lenders make decisions.

The U.S. home mortgage industry first formalized risk criteria in the 1920s and 1930s to determine which applicants should receive funds. Over the past eighty years, these formulae have become more sophisticated. Guy Stuart demonstrates that the very concepts on which lenders base their decisions reflect a set of social and political values about "who deserves what." Stuart examines the fine line between licit choice and illicit discrimination, arguing that lenders, while eradicating blatantly discriminatory practices, have ignored the racial and economic-class biases that remain encoded in their decision processes. He explains why African Americans and Latinos continue to be at a disadvantage in gaining access to loans: discrimination, he finds, results from the interaction between the way lenders make decisions and the way they shape the social structure of the mortgage and housing markets.Mortgage lenders, Stuart contends, are embedded in and shape a social context that can best be understood in terms of rules, networks, and the production of space. Stuart's history of lenders' risk criteria reveals that they were synthesized from rules of thumb, cultural norms, and untested theories. In addition, his interviews with real estate and lending professionals in the Chicago housing market show us how the criteria are implemented today. Drawing on census and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data for quantitative support, Stuart concludes with concrete policy proposals that take into account the social structure in which lenders make decisions.

"

Readers who are interested in the historical interaction of American cities, race, and mortgage finance will find many aspects of Guy Stuart's Discriminating Risk informative and insightful.... It is full of useful historical and contemporary information on the lending process, insightful interviews, and a valuable close reading of the real estate industry's standard operating procedures. I learned a great deal by reading the book, and I recommend it to other scholars with an interest in the history of American housing markets.

"

To confront lending disparities, Stuart says, we must first recognize that the supposedly rational rules of risk calculation are themselves merely constructions rooted in prejudices.

"

Stuart changes our understanding of the nature of risk, economic rationality, and discrimination. This impressive study has the potential to spur new lines of inquiry into housing markets, housing finance, and the governmental policy that regulates them. Summing Up: Highly recommended.