Home > Mortgages > How the Internet Could Open Up the Housing Market to Everyone

Comments 0 Comments
Advertiser Disclosure


For decades, the U.S. has had two de facto mortgage systems: one that supports relatively easy access to homeownership for more affluent homebuyers and one that undermines affordable homeownership for low- and moderate-income (LMI) borrowers and often people of color. Now, advances in online lending – considered by some to be a potential solution to this problem – actually threaten to widen that gap further.

For years, mortgage originators have lagged behind other industries in moving consumer interactions online. That is beginning to change as large banks increasingly replace bricks and mortar with technology. But for LMI borrowers, the change is far less pronounced than for the affluent.

According to a Fannie Mae study released earlier this year, more than twice as many high-income individuals looking for a mortgage attempted to use the Internet than low-income individuals. The result is that while higher-income homebuyers are increasingly benefiting from the move online – lower application processing and other origination costs, increased transparency and competition, increased ease of use, and better matching with products that suit their needs – LMI borrowers lag further and further behind. In addition, as a White House report earlier this year noted, new and complex technologies using algorithms and Big Data could be used to specifically target the most vulnerable classes of our society online with inferior and predatory financial products.

On one level, these developments aren’t surprising. Consider the mortgage business as a whole.

For the affluent, the mortgage market has long worked well, encouraging savings and adding to retirement security. For low-income families, long periods of credit unavailability, punctuated by predatory loan schemes, have blocked wealth formulation and in many cases even eroded savings. While developments in technology have tremendous potential to increase efficiencies, increase transparency, and reduce costs, they also threaten to perpetuate this bifurcated system if the benefits flow only to higher-income segments of the market.

This is a national problem. Today, the median white household has 22 times more wealth than the median black household, and most of the difference is in home equity. The demographics are shifting, too. According to recent estimates by the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, African American and Hispanic families will form about two-thirds of new households over the next 20 years. As LMI and minority borrowers become a greater and greater segment of the housing market, it will become even more critical to develop technology solutions that create efficiencies, lower costs, and improve matching for everyone – increasing access to affordable loans and reducing the propensity for fraud and predatory lending.

Leveling the digital playing field shouldn’t even be that difficult. The same Fannie Mae study that uncovered the digital divide in mortgages also indicated that more than 40% of Americans with less than $50,000 in income and more than 50% of Americans with between $50,000 and $100,000 in income have not tried to obtain a mortgage online but would be interested in doing so. And according to a 2012 Pew report, almost half of all families currently have a smartphone and more than three-quarters use the Internet. LMI borrowers want to better incorporate the Internet into their homebuying journey – and they already have access to the Internet and can do so if they are offered the right products and services.

There is real opportunity – for businesses, for nonprofit housing organizations, and for government – to build systems for moving LMI mortgage lending into the 21st century, reducing costs and making it easier for borrowers to compare loans and to identify the ones that are best for them – not just for affluent borrowers, but all borrowers.

The opportunity is heightened because of regulatory changes. While there is much attention on the uncertainty and slowed lending caused by some reforms, other new rules offer the potential for transformative innovation. For example, new regulations that take effect next year strictly require banks to provide estimated rates and loan terms within three business days of receiving an application. This change calls for new business models that increase the efficiency of the loan application process. Why not have online tools that help LMI borrowers compile and submit a common mortgage application – like the common college application – to various lenders? That kind of automation and standardization can cut back on submission time, reduce application and lender costs, improve the information flow to borrowers, and ultimately increase access to affordable homeownership for low-income families.

Reducing costs benefits any marketplace, and it is a good thing that technology is already starting to do that for affluent homebuyers. But cost reduction is even more critical for LMI borrowers. After all, the average cost of originating a mortgage estimated by the Mortgage Bankers Association – more than $8,000 – may be economically feasible for larger mortgages, but is in fact prohibitive for many smaller ones.

In addition, while institutional investors are once again buying private label mortgage-backed securities loans made to affluent homebuyers, capital for LMI mortgages remains completely dependent on government backing in large part because of concerns about data integrity and risks. Better data, made possible by the move online, can also promote the return of private capital to LMI markets.

Technology is not a panacea for all the problems in the mortgage market generally, or for LMI borrowers specifically. But while differences in the use of technology can exacerbate the mortgage gap moving forward, technology breakthroughs can also erode it. That’s worth figuring out – and the sooner the better.

More on Mortgages and Homebuying:

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not necessarily represent the views of the company or its affiliates.

Image: Alex Slobodkin

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team