{"id":275401,"date":"2025-12-12T14:57:38","date_gmt":"2025-12-12T19:57:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ncrc.org\/?p=275401"},"modified":"2025-12-12T17:54:03","modified_gmt":"2025-12-12T22:54:03","slug":"ncrcs-comment-on-the-cfpbs-proposed-rule-to-undermine-the-equal-credit-opportunity-act-regulation-b","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ncrc.org\/ncrcs-comment-on-the-cfpbs-proposed-rule-to-undermine-the-equal-credit-opportunity-act-regulation-b\/","title":{"rendered":"NCRC\u2019s Comment on the CFPB\u2019s Proposed Rule to Undermine the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B)"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t<div data-elementor-type=\"wp-post\" data-elementor-id=\"275401\" class=\"elementor elementor-275401\" data-elementor-post-type=\"post\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-676a5da4 e-flex e-con-boxed e-con e-parent\" data-id=\"676a5da4\" data-element_type=\"container\" data-e-type=\"container\" data-settings=\"{&quot;jet_parallax_layout_list&quot;:[]}\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"e-con-inner\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-cab7da8 elementor-widget elementor-widget-off-canvas\" data-id=\"cab7da8\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-settings=\"{&quot;entrance_animation&quot;:&quot;slideInDown&quot;,&quot;exit_animation&quot;:&quot;slideInDown&quot;}\" data-widget_type=\"off-canvas.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"off-canvas-cab7da8\" class=\"e-off-canvas\" role=\"dialog\" aria-hidden=\"true\" aria-label=\"Off-Canvas\" aria-modal=\"true\" inert=\"\" data-delay-child-handlers=\"true\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"e-off-canvas__overlay\"><\/div>\n\t\t\t<div class=\"e-off-canvas__main\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"e-off-canvas__content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-f63b110 e-con-full e-flex e-con e-child\" data-id=\"f63b110\" data-element_type=\"container\" data-e-type=\"container\" data-settings=\"{&quot;background_background&quot;:&quot;gradient&quot;,&quot;jet_parallax_layout_list&quot;:[]}\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-d2eb4fd elementor-view-default elementor-widget elementor-widget-icon\" data-id=\"d2eb4fd\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"icon.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-icon-wrapper\">\n\t\t\t<a class=\"elementor-icon\" href=\"#elementor-action%3Aaction%3Doff_canvas%3Aclose%26settings%3DeyJpZCI6ImNhYjdkYTgiLCJkaXNwbGF5TW9kZSI6ImNsb3NlIn0%3D\">\n\t\t\t<svg aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"e-font-icon-svg e-fas-times\" viewBox=\"0 0 352 512\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\"><path d=\"M242.72 256l100.07-100.07c12.28-12.28 12.28-32.19 0-44.48l-22.24-22.24c-12.28-12.28-32.19-12.28-44.48 0L176 189.28 75.93 89.21c-12.28-12.28-32.19-12.28-44.48 0L9.21 111.45c-12.28 12.28-12.28 32.19 0 44.48L109.28 256 9.21 356.07c-12.28 12.28-12.28 32.19 0 44.48l22.24 22.24c12.28 12.28 32.2 12.28 44.48 0L176 322.72l100.07 100.07c12.28 12.28 32.2 12.28 44.48 0l22.24-22.24c12.28-12.28 12.28-32.19 0-44.48L242.72 256z\"><\/path><\/svg>\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-6fd2d89 e-con-full e-flex e-con e-child\" data-id=\"6fd2d89\" data-element_type=\"container\" data-e-type=\"container\" data-settings=\"{&quot;background_background&quot;:&quot;classic&quot;,&quot;jet_parallax_layout_list&quot;:[]}\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-71466f9 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"71466f9\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p><strong>Complete the form to download the pdf:<\/strong><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-f775d1d elementor-button-align-stretch elementor-widget elementor-widget-form\" data-id=\"f775d1d\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-settings=\"{&quot;step_next_label&quot;:&quot;Next&quot;,&quot;step_previous_label&quot;:&quot;Previous&quot;,&quot;button_width&quot;:&quot;100&quot;,&quot;step_type&quot;:&quot;number_text&quot;,&quot;step_icon_shape&quot;:&quot;circle&quot;}\" data-widget_type=\"form.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<form class=\"elementor-form\" method=\"post\" name=\"New Form\" aria-label=\"New Form\">\n\t\t\t<input type=\"hidden\" name=\"post_id\" value=\"275401\"\/>\n\t\t\t<input type=\"hidden\" name=\"form_id\" value=\"f775d1d\"\/>\n\t\t\t<input type=\"hidden\" name=\"referer_title\" value=\"\" \/>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-form-fields-wrapper elementor-labels-above\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-field-type-text elementor-field-group elementor-column elementor-field-group-field_d274b14 elementor-col-100\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<input size=\"1\" type=\"text\" name=\"form_fields[field_d274b14]\" id=\"form-field-field_d274b14\" class=\"elementor-field elementor-size-sm  elementor-field-textual\" placeholder=\"First Name\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-field-type-text elementor-field-group elementor-column elementor-field-group-field_37dc9cf elementor-col-100 elementor-field-required elementor-mark-required\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<input size=\"1\" type=\"text\" name=\"form_fields[field_37dc9cf]\" id=\"form-field-field_37dc9cf\" class=\"elementor-field elementor-size-sm  elementor-field-textual\" placeholder=\"Last Name\" required=\"required\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-field-type-email elementor-field-group elementor-column elementor-field-group-email elementor-col-100 elementor-field-required elementor-mark-required\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<input size=\"1\" type=\"email\" name=\"form_fields[email]\" id=\"form-field-email\" class=\"elementor-field elementor-size-sm  elementor-field-textual\" placeholder=\"Email\" required=\"required\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-field-type-text elementor-field-group elementor-column elementor-field-group-field_31e3e7e elementor-col-100 elementor-field-required elementor-mark-required\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<input size=\"1\" type=\"text\" name=\"form_fields[field_31e3e7e]\" id=\"form-field-field_31e3e7e\" class=\"elementor-field elementor-size-sm  elementor-field-textual\" placeholder=\"Organization\/Company Name\" required=\"required\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-field-type-text elementor-field-group elementor-column elementor-field-group-field_5e53299 elementor-col-100 elementor-field-required elementor-mark-required\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<input size=\"1\" type=\"text\" name=\"form_fields[field_5e53299]\" id=\"form-field-field_5e53299\" class=\"elementor-field elementor-size-sm  elementor-field-textual\" placeholder=\"Zip Code\" required=\"required\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-field-type-acceptance elementor-field-group elementor-column elementor-field-group-field_6521488 elementor-col-100\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-field-subgroup\">\n\t\t\t<span class=\"elementor-field-option\">\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"checkbox\" name=\"form_fields[field_6521488]\" id=\"form-field-field_6521488\" class=\"elementor-field elementor-size-sm  elementor-acceptance-field\" checked=\"checked\">\n\t\t\t\t<label for=\"form-field-field_6521488\">Yes, send me updates by email about NCRC research, events and news.<\/label>\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-field-group elementor-column elementor-field-type-submit elementor-col-100 e-form__buttons\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<button class=\"elementor-button elementor-size-sm\" type=\"submit\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"elementor-button-content-wrapper\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"elementor-button-text\">Download Now<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/button>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/form>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-ccc6468 elementor-widget elementor-widget-button\" data-id=\"ccc6468\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"button.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-button-wrapper\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<a class=\"elementor-button elementor-button-link elementor-size-sm\" href=\"#elementor-action%3Aaction%3Doff_canvas%3Aopen%26settings%3DeyJpZCI6ImNhYjdkYTgiLCJkaXNwbGF5TW9kZSI6Im9wZW4ifQ%3D%3D\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"elementor-button-content-wrapper\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"elementor-button-text\">Download<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-216d77d7 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"216d77d7\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p>December 12, 2025<\/p><p>Acting Director Russell Vought<br \/>Consumer Financial Protection Bureau<br \/>1700 G Street, NW<br \/>Washington, D.C. 20552<\/p><p><strong>Re: Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B); Docket No. CFPB-2025-0039 or RIN 3170-AB54 (90 Fed. Reg. 50901, Nov. 13, 2025)<\/strong><\/p><p>Dear Acting Director Russell Vought:<\/p><p>The National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the CFPB\u2019s proposed rulemaking to amend Regulation B of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). We express concerns about the proposed rule\u2019s attempt to eliminate disparate impact liability, narrow the scope of discouragement claims, and prohibit (explicitly for some groups and implicitly for others) the implementation of Special Purpose Credit Programs (SPCPs). The proposed rule will make it even more difficult for underserved markets to access credit, particularly communities of color that continue to experience redlining and lending discrimination.<\/p><p>NCRC is a network of more than 700 community-based organizations dedicated to creating a nation that not only promises but delivers opportunities for all Americans to build wealth and attain a high quality of life. We work with community leaders and policymakers to advance solutions and build the will to solve America\u2019s persistent racial and socio-economic wealth, income, and opportunity divides, and to make a Just Economy a national priority and a local reality. NCRC also conducts testing, including mystery shopping and matched-pair testing, to investigate fair lending practices and access to credit, and uses those findings to advocate for stronger enforcement of fair lending laws, better banking practices, and policy changes to combat appraisal bias and disinvestment in communities of color.<\/p><h3><strong>I.\u00a0 Disparate Impact<\/strong><\/h3><p>Intent\u00a0in\u00a0discrimination may not be explicitly obvious and can be difficult to prove. Certain policies that are facially neutral may unnecessarily or arbitrarily exclude socially disadvantaged groups from fair and equal access to credit, and the disparate impact standard helps to identify such policies and mitigate those unwarranted disparities.<\/p><p>For decades, the disparate impact doctrine has driven lenders to identify and improve policies and procedures that unnecessarily exclude applicants from credit opportunities. The Supreme Court recognized the disparate impact doctrine three years before Congress enacted ECOA, holding that a particular statute prohibited not only \u201covert discrimination\u201d and practices with \u201cdiscriminatory intent\u201d but also \u201cpractices that are fair in form but discriminatory in operation.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\"><sup>[1]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0In deliberations on the original bill, Congress\u00a0rejected language prohibiting only \u201cinvidious\u201d discrimination, choosing instead the broader term \u201cdiscriminate.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn2\" name=\"_ftnref2\"><sup>[2]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0And the legislative history of that Act, and the amendments that quickly followed, demonstrate that Congress intended for disparate impact to be available under the amended ECOA.<a href=\"#_ftn3\" name=\"_ftnref3\"><sup>[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/p><p>The federal agencies responsible for the enforcement of ECOA then consistently interpreted it to encompass claims of disparate impact.<a href=\"#_ftn4\" name=\"_ftnref4\"><sup>[4]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0For example, in 1994, ten federal agencies with ECOA enforcement responsibilities issued an interagency Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending identifying \u201cthree methods of proof\u201d to establish discrimination under ECOA, including \u201cevidence of disparate impact.\u201d<sup>\u00a0<a href=\"#_ftn5\" name=\"_ftnref5\">[5]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0The statement explained that, for example, consideration of gross income without distinguishing between taxable and nontaxable income would have a disparate impact on elderly applicants, who are more likely to receive nontaxable income. It noted that lenders could address this issue by simply \u201cgrossing up\u201d nontaxable income. That change\u2014which is standard practice today\u2014benefits lenders, who have a more accurate picture of applicants\u2019 income, and it increases credit opportunities for elderly applicants.<\/p><p>This is the thrust of the disparate impact doctrine \u2013 a requirement that lenders identify the business necessity of policies that impact certain protected classes more than others (which should presumably be straightforward), and to assess whether it could meet such needs using policies or practices that have less impact. For example, a lender may require applicants to meet a minimum credit score to qualify for a mortgage. However, this policy can disproportionately exclude Black borrowers who are more likely to have low credit scores or be credit invisible because of a lack of access to mainstream financial\u00a0services, and\u00a0therefore face difficulties obtaining safe and responsible loans and building credit.<\/p><p>In this way, disparate impact has proven to be a valuable tool to eliminate practices that unfairly exclude groups without any sufficient justification and to counteract unconscious prejudices in the credit context.<\/p><p>The Supreme Court has also upheld the use of the disparate impact standard as a legal tool to protect groups from civil rights discrimination in employment and housing, for exactly these reasons. In\u00a0<em>Texas Department of Housing &amp; Community Affairs vs. Inclusive Communities Project<\/em>, 576 U.S. 519<em>\u00a0<\/em>(2015), the Supreme Court affirmed that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), explaining that:<\/p><p>\u201c<em>Recognition of disparate-impact liability under the FHA\u00a0<\/em>[Fair Housing Act]<em>\u00a0also plays a role in uncovering discriminatory intent: It permits plaintiffs to counteract unconscious prejudices and disguised animus that escape easy classification as disparate treatment.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn6\" name=\"_ftnref6\"><sup><strong>[6]<\/strong><\/sup><\/a><\/em><\/p><p>Just as the Supreme Court concluded that disparate impact furthers the purposes of the Fair Housing Act, disparate impact furthers the purposes of ECOA. The Bureau\u2019s argument to the contrary is belied by the Supreme Court\u2019s reasoning in\u00a0<em>Inclusive Communities<\/em>, which upheld the use of disparate impact under section 3605 of the Fair Housing Act, which makes it unlawful \u201cto discriminate\u201c against a person \u201cbecause of\u201d an enumerated protected class.<a href=\"#_ftn7\" name=\"_ftnref7\"><sup>[7]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Here, the statutory use of the word \u201cdiscriminate\u201d (which has historically been used to encompass the various methods of proof of discrimination, including disparate impact), the conspicuous use of the phrase \u201con the basis of\u201d (which connotes impact even more strongly than the \u201cbecause of\u201d language used in section 3605), the legislative history accompanying the Act discussed above, the contemporaneously-promulgated interpretation in Regulation B, the uniform position of the regulators for fifty years, the unanimous opinions of the courts that have addressed the question, and Congress\u2019s repeated implied ratification over decades all confirm disparate impact claims are cognizable under ECOA. The Bureau does not engage with any of this evidence, other than to acknowledge but minimize the fact that the legislative history squarely confirms Congress intended disparate impact to apply.<\/p><p>The proposed rule posits that the use of disparate impact may also encourage \u201creverse discrimination\u201d, where reducing disadvantages for one group\u2013 Black borrowers, for example\u2013 may disfavor other protected classes, such as White borrowers. However, the example above regarding grossing up non-taxable income belies the notion that somehow disparate impact disadvantages any groups. Rather, disparate impact aims to level the playing field by addressing how the financial market has unequally distributed credit access across different groups. Black applicants are 2.9 percentage points more likely than White applicants to be denied a mortgage, controlling for risk characteristics such as credit score, loan-to-value and debt-to-income ratios.<a href=\"#_ftn8\" name=\"_ftnref8\"><sup>[8]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Identifying additional underserved Black applicants for loans does nothing to make White applicants less likely to be approved.<a href=\"#_ftn9\" name=\"_ftnref9\"><sup>[9]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0This observation is particularly true in credit markets, which are not zero-sum. Disparate impact improves creditors\u2019 policies and leads to the removal and adjustment of practices that unnecessarily exclude applicants, without disadvantaging anyone. Moreover, the Bureau does not engage with the fact that the\u00a0<em>Inclusive Communities<\/em>\u00a0majority considered and rejected the argument that disparate impact raises intentional discrimination or constitutional risks, noting that the doctrine \u201chas always been properly limited in key respects to avoid\u201d those issues.<a href=\"#_ftn10\" name=\"_ftnref10\"><sup>[10]<\/sup><\/a><\/p><p>Discrimination is not always overt and can occur due to unconscious bias, as long recognized by the Supreme Court. This can influence the design of policies and the delivery of financial products and services in ways that impact communities unnecessarily. As discussed further below, inequity continues to exist in significant ways across financial markets and products in meaningful ways that impact communities, small businesses, and individuals \u2013 thus, the need for legal tools like the disparate impact standard to reduce inequity continues to exist, and nothing in the Bureau\u2019s proposed rule supports removing a method of proving discrimination that Congress intended to apply, that regulators have long enforced, and that benefits both affected individuals and the institutions that serve them.<\/p><h3><strong>II. Discouragement<\/strong><\/h3><p>The proposed rule would significantly narrow Regulation B\u2019s coverage of pre-application conduct. For example, discouragement would be narrowed only to oral and written statements by creditors directed at applicants that creditors know would cause applicants to believe they would be denied or granted credit on less favorable terms. Statements directed at one group, encouraging that group to apply, would not be covered.<\/p><p>Under current Regulation B, broader acts and statements, like public communication or targeted advertising, that discourage applicants from applying in the first place are also prohibited. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recognized this implicit form of discouragement in the case,\u00a0<em>Townstone<\/em><em>\u00a0vs. CFPB.<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn11\" name=\"_ftnref11\"><sup>[11]<\/sup><\/a><em>\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0An employee at a Chicago-based non-bank mortgage lender publicly called a Black neighborhood in the city \u201cJungle Jewel\u201d,<a href=\"#_ftn12\" name=\"_ftnref12\"><sup>[12]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0alluding to the racist stereotype that Black neighborhoods are uncivilized and violent. The company\u2019s Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data also revealed that, when compared to similar financial institutions operating in the Chicago area, it received significantly fewer mortgage applicants from Black applicants and fewer mortgage applications for properties in majority-Black (more than 50% black) and high-Black (more than 80% Black) neighborhoods, circumstantial evidence that the company was acting in various ways that discouraged Black applicants from applying.<a href=\"#_ftn13\" name=\"_ftnref13\"><sup>[13]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Other cases brought by the federal government (including the Bureau itself) have relied on similar types of evidence indicating discouragement, including placing bank branches or loan officers in certain neighborhoods and not others, developing marketing campaigns and advertisements that are targeted to certain neighborhoods and not others, or predominantly using models that appear to be white.<a href=\"#_ftn14\" name=\"_ftnref14\"><sup>[14]<\/sup><\/a><\/p><p>NCRC has looked at such evidence in identifying lending institutions that limit home mortgage lending in census tracts with high percentages of minority residents.<a href=\"#_ftn15\" name=\"_ftnref15\"><sup>[15]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0It notes that, between 2010 and 2021, only 15% of 4,130 branches that large banks opened were located in majority-minority LMI neighborhoods, in contrast to 61% of the bank branch openings in predominantly white, middle- to upper-income neighborhoods.<a href=\"#_ftn16\" name=\"_ftnref16\"><sup>[16]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0The proposed rule suggests that acts such as bank branch placement would not be seen as discouragement. But a reasonable person could conclude that, among other things, choosing to put few or no bank branches or officers in low-to-moderate income (LMI) or majority-minority census tracts does discourage prospective applicants in these census tracts from applying for loans, and the proposed rule provides no basis for excluding this long-recognized and common-sense circumstantial evidence of discouragement and discrimination.<\/p><p>The proposed rule also ignores the trust gap that exists between financial institutions and communities of color. In their national survey, the FDIC found that one of the main reasons that unbanked\/underbanked households do not have accounts is because they \u201cdon\u2019t trust banks\u201d.<a href=\"#_ftn17\" name=\"_ftnref17\"><sup>[17]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Therefore, banks\u2019 broader acts, such as branch placement or targeted advertising, make a difference in whether applicants or prospective applicants feel discouraged from applying and should be considered in addition to more explicit statements.<\/p><p>Rather, the Bureau\u2019s proposal is designed to immunize this type of discriminatory conduct, severely limiting the ability of the Bureau, DOJ, other agencies, or private plaintiffs to address and remediate redlining, discriminatory advertising, discriminatory targeting, and other discriminatory pre-application conduct. Indeed, under the Bureau\u2019s proposed rule, it would not be illegal for a creditor to hang a sign in their window saying: \u201cWhites encouraged to apply,\u201d because that would qualify as a \u201cstatement\u201d directed at one group of consumers, encouraging that group of consumers to apply for credit, and could not be introduced as evidence that the bank intended to discourage other applicants.<\/p><p>The Bureau gives no consideration to the implications of its arguments, or the\u00a0harms\u00a0that discouraging conduct creates. Worse, at a time when emerging technologies such as targeted digital advertising raise serious and well-known fair lending risks,<a href=\"#_ftn18\" name=\"_ftnref18\"><sup>[18]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0the Bureau should be expanding the scope of Regulation B to ensure that such practices are not used to circumvent or evade ECOA. Instead, it is limiting the applicability of Regulation B so that it would not even prohibit the most well-recognized and explicit forms of discriminatory discouragement. This is not\u00a0reasoned\u00a0decision-making\u00a0and the Bureau should not finalize its proposal.<\/p><h3><strong>III.\u00a0 Special Credit Purpose Programs (SPCPs)<\/strong><\/h3><p>SPCPs are offered by numerous banking institutions to make credit more accessible to socially disadvantaged groups. Congress amended ECOA in 1976 to allow for the provision of SPCPs by for-profit entities because Congress did not want ECOA to be interpreted to\u00a0<em>prevent<\/em>\u00a0lending programs designed to expand access to credit to minority and other underserved groups, such as minority-owned small business lending programs. The statutory text provides that it is \u201cnot discrimination\u201d if the SPCP is a\u00a0(1)\u00a0<em>\u201ccredit assistance program administered by a nonprofit organization for its members or an economically disadvantaged class of persons,\u201d or\u00a0<\/em>(2)<em>\u00a0\u201cspecial purpose credit program offered by a profit-making organization to meet special social needs which meets standards prescribed.<\/em>\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn19\" name=\"_ftnref19\"><sup>[19]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0In other words, SPCPs do not favor one group over another, but rather recognize long-standing lending disparities faced by economically or socially disadvantaged groups, particularly people of color and women, and encourage institutions to address those inequities.<\/p><p>The CFPB correctly appears to agree that the statutory text intended to permit lending programs designed account for protected class status, such as programs for minority homebuyers or small business owners. But the proposed rule would prohibit such SPCPs despite this statutory text. It would do so explicitly for certain protected class groups, and implicitly for other groups by erecting a standard for implementing an SPCP that is impossible for any creditor to satisfy. The Bureau\u2019s proposal is therefore contrary to the plain text and intent of the SPCP statutory provision (ironically, considering its insistence on the primacy of statutory text with respect to its disparate impact proposal). The Bureau even appears to acknowledge this legal problem and invokes its authority to make \u201cadjustments or exceptions\u201d to the statute. But it fails to explain why that provision is relevant, particularly here, where it attempts neither to \u201cadjust\u201d or \u201cexcept\u201d, but rather to nullify a statutory provision entirely.<\/p><p>The Bureau also appears to argue\u00a0that,\u00a0\u201c[r]egardless\u00a0of whether instances of credit discrimination continue to occur in the marketplace,\u201d discrimination is less of a problem today than when the Board first promulgated the SPCP provisions in Regulation B, and so SPCPs are not justified. The Bureau does not even attempt to explain why such an unworkable, undefined standard would be appropriate, even if it were true. But it clearly is not, and the Bureau makes no attempt to\u00a0actually demonstrate\u00a0its point. Data, reports, and analyses regarding persistent and widespread discrimination in credit are readily available\u2014in fact, the Bureau has produced and compiled many such studies itself, including a very recent report on matched-pair testing showing discrimination adverse to Black-owned small businesses<a href=\"#_ftn20\" name=\"_ftnref20\"><sup>[20]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0and via its yearly statutorily-mandated reports to Congress about fair lending issues. Not to mention the countless studies showing ongoing disparities across lending markets and\u00a0product. NCRC\u2019s own analysis demonstrates that Black borrowers remain underrepresented at 8.9% of home purchase loans, well below their 11.7% share of the adult population.<a href=\"#_ftn21\" name=\"_ftnref21\"><sup>[21]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Banks continue to place fewer branches in Black-majority neighborhoods, and the racial wealth divide has only grown.<a href=\"#_ftn22\" name=\"_ftnref22\"><sup>[22]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Pricing discrimination is occurring, leading to over $8 billion in overpayment in interest.<a href=\"#_ftn23\" name=\"_ftnref23\"><sup>[23]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0In 2022, the median White household held $284,130 in wealth, more than six times that of the Black median household at $44,210.<a href=\"#_ftn24\" name=\"_ftnref24\"><sup>[24]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0There is no justification or citation to support the Bureau\u2019s conclusion that credit markets have been \u201csubstantially reshaped\u201d compared to 1976, even if that was the relevant standard. Given that the Bureau\u2019s logic rests on a purported scarcity of discrimination today, it is the Bureau\u2019s burden under the Administrative Procedures Act to justify that rationale by identifying and weighing relevant evidence, but it makes no attempt to do so.<\/p><p>The Bureau vaguely gestures at arguments that SPCPs may violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution because they consider race and other protected class characteristics when determining eligibility. However, the Equal Protection Clause only applies to actions taken by the government, and because SPCPs are implemented by private institutions, such as banks, they cannot be deemed unlawful on those grounds. For this reason, SPCPs are governed by ECOA and Regulation B. ECOA and Regulation B, moreover, are protected-class neutral and therefore do not\u00a0implicate\u00a0constitutional questions.<a href=\"#_ftn25\" name=\"_ftnref25\"><sup>[25]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0And of course, these arguments are particularly unfounded with respect to protected class groups that are not afforded special constitutional protections.<\/p><p>NCRC also notes that the eradication of SPCPs is particularly flagrant in the small business lending context. As noted above, the Bureau itself identified patterns of potentially discriminatory treatment in the small business lending market,<a href=\"#_ftn26\" name=\"_ftnref26\"><sup>[26]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0echoing the same patterns identified by NCRC.<a href=\"#_ftn27\" name=\"_ftnref27\"><sup>[27]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0And studies show that minority small business owners face \u201cinordinate barriers to accessing capital, are less likely to secure loans, and often face predatory payment terms at higher rates.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn28\" name=\"_ftnref28\"><sup>[28]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0And the proposed rule notes that the availability of HMDA data has significantly changed the market environment such that SPCPs are no longer warranted \u2013 but it does so after repeatedly delaying the publication of a rule implementing Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which amended ECOA to collect certain demographic data on applications for credit from women-owned and minority-owned small businesses. The Bureau cannot simultaneously claim that there is no discrimination in the small business lending market while continuing to delay and drastically limit the collection and publication of data that could confirm patterns of discrimination that have been identified by its own testing, as well as the experiences of countless small business owners.<\/p><p>SPCPs are economically viable models for generating more revenue for for-profit institutions, as they open the credit market to a wider range of customers. Indeed, the American Bankers Association did three case studies of SPCPs specifically serving minority and small business owners and all three institutions reported that the programs were successful for both the institutions and the recipients of the funding.<a href=\"#_ftn29\" name=\"_ftnref29\"><sup>[29]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0SPCPs allow institutions to acknowledge long-standing inequities in the market and work to increase access to credit for all. Eliminating this tool serves neither customers nor institutions, and in fact costs the U.S. economy significantly each year.<a href=\"#_ftn30\" name=\"_ftnref30\"><sup>[30]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0The Bureau should not enact its proposed changes.<\/p><h3><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/h3><p>For the reasons above, we urge the CFPB to rescind the proposed rule. The proposed rule will create more barriers for underserved communities, particularly people of color, to access credit. Redlining continues to have a present-day impact and the core elements of Regulation B and ECOA ensure that all communities have a fairer shot at accessing credit, building wealth, and contributing to the economic growth of the nation.<\/p><p>Should you have any questions, you may reach out to Manan Shah, Policy Advisor,\u00a0<a href=\"mailto:mshah@ncrc.org\">mshah@ncrc.org<\/a>, or Eden Forsythe, Chief Policy Counsel,\u00a0<a href=\"mailto:eforsythe@ncrc.org\">eforsythe@ncrc.org<\/a>.<\/p><p>Sincerely,<\/p><p>Jesse Van Tol<br \/>President and CEO<br \/>National Community Reinvestment Coalition<\/p><p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\">[1]<\/a>\u00a0<em>Griggs v. Duke Power Co.<\/em>, 401 U.S. 424, 431-32 (1971) (holding that statutory language deeming it unlawful for an employer to \u201climit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual\u2019s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin\u201d suggested that Congress sought the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers . . . when the barriers operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of racial or other impermissible classification.\u201d)<br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref2\" name=\"_ftn2\">[2]<\/a>\u00a0Credit Discrimination: Hearing on HR 14856 and HR 14908 Before the H.\u00a0Subcomm. On Consumer Affairs of the H. Comm. on Banking &amp; Currency, 93 Cong. 5 (1974).<br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref3\" name=\"_ftn3\">[3]<\/a>\u00a0<em>See, e.g.<\/em>, S. Rep. No. 94-589, at 1 (1976) (noting that \u201cjudicial constructions of anti-discrimination legislation in the employment field, in cases such as [<em>Griggs<\/em>] . . . are intended to serve as guides in the application of this Act . . .\u201d).<br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref4\" name=\"_ftn4\">[4]<\/a>\u00a040 Fed. Reg. 49298, 49301 (Oct. 22, 1975) (observing that the Board believed a policy discounting income solely because it was derived from part-time employment would have \u201ca disproportionately heavy impact on one sex\u201d because \u201cthe majority of the part-time workforce are women\u201d); 41 Fed. Reg. 29870, 29874 (July 20, 1976) (\u201cThe amended Act prohibits intentional discrimination and also may be interpreted as prohibiting actions that have the effect of discriminating against applicants on any prohibited basis.\u201d); 42 Fed. Reg. 1242, 1246 (Jan. 6, 1977) (\u201cCongress intended certain judicial decisions enunciating the effects test in the employment area to be applied in the credit area.\u201d).<br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref5\" name=\"_ftn5\">[5]<\/a>\u00a0Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending, 59 Fed. Reg. 18266, 18268 (April 15, 1994).<br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref6\" name=\"_ftn6\">[6]<\/a>\u00a0<em>Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc<\/em>., 576 U.S. 519, 540 (2015),\u00a0<em>available at<\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/576\/519\/?utm_source=chatgpt.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">\u00a0<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/576\/519\/?utm_source=chatgpt.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/576\/519\/<\/a><br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref7\" name=\"_ftn7\">[7]<\/a>\u00a0576 U.S. at 533-540.<br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref8\" name=\"_ftn8\">[8]<\/a>\u00a0Ky, K.-E., &amp; Lim, K. (2022).\u00a0<em>The role of race in mortgage application denials<\/em>. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.<a href=\"https:\/\/www.minneapolisfed.org\/research\/community-development-working-papers\/the-role-of-race-in-mortgage-application-denials?utm_source=chatgpt.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.minneapolisfed.org\/research\/community-development-working-papers\/the-role-of-race-in-mortgage-application-denials<\/a><br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref9\" name=\"_ftn9\">[9]<\/a>\u00a0<em>See Latimore v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank<\/em>, 151 F.3d 712, 714 (7th Cir. 1998) (\u201cA bank does not announce, \u2018We are making a $51,000 real estate loan today; please submit your applications, and we&#8217;ll choose the application that we like best and give that applicant the loan.\u2019\u201d).<br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref10\" name=\"_ftn10\">[10]<\/a>\u00a0576 U.S. at 521.<br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref11\" name=\"_ftn11\">[11]<\/a>\u00a0<em>Cons. Fin. Prot. Bureau v.\u00a0Townstone\u00a0Financial, Inc.<\/em>, 104 F.4<sup>th<\/sup>\u00a0768 (7<sup>th<\/sup>\u00a0Cir. 2024).<br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref12\" name=\"_ftn12\">[12]<\/a>\u00a0<em>Id.<\/em>\u00a0at 772.<br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref13\" name=\"_ftn13\">[13]<\/a>\u00a0<em>Id.<br \/><\/em><a href=\"#_ftnref14\" name=\"_ftn14\">[14]<\/a>\u00a0<em>See, e.g.<\/em>,\u00a0<em>Cons. Fin. Prot. Bureau, et al. v. Fairway\u00a0Indep.\u00a0Mortg. Corp.<\/em>, No. 2:24-cv-01405-AMM,\u00a0Compl. (Dec. 3,\u00a02024\u00a0N.D. Ala.) (alleging, among other things, that Fairway operated its three retail loan offices and three loan production desks in majority-white areas and predominantly directed its marketing to majority-white areas);\u00a0<em>Cons. Fin. Prot. Bureau, et al. v. Trident\u00a0Mortg. Co.<\/em>, No. 2:22-cv-02936 (July 27, 2022 E.D. Penn.) (alleging, among other things, that Trident avoided sending its loan officers to market to majority-minority neighborhoods, developed marketing campaigns and advertisements that featured primarily white models and Trident employees, and targeted its marketing materials to majority-white neighborhoods);\u00a0<em>United States of America, et al. v. Trustmark\u00a0Nat\u2019l\u00a0Bank<\/em>, No. 2:21-cv-02664\u00a0Compl. (Oct. 22,\u00a02021\u00a0W.D. Tenn.) (alleging, among other things, that Trustmark avoided locating branches in and assigning loan officers to majority-Black and Hispanic communities, and that similarly situated lenders generated 2.5 times more mortgage loan applications from majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Memphis MSA than Trustmark);<br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref15\" name=\"_ftn15\">[15]<\/a>\u00a0<em>See, e.g.<\/em>, NCRC,\u00a0Redlined: KeyBank Failed Black America Despite Its Commitments to Improve (November 2022).<br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref16\" name=\"_ftn16\">[16]<\/a>\u00a0Rocha, P. (2022, September 29).\u00a0<em>Report: Large banks opened far fewer branches in minority areas since 2010.<\/em>\u00a0American Banker.\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.americanbanker.com\/news\/report-large-banks-opened-far-fewer-branches-in-minority-areas-since-2010?utm_source=chatgpt.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.americanbanker.com\/news\/report-large-banks-odoes not considercreatespened-far-fewer-branches-in-minority-areas-since-2010<\/a><br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref17\" name=\"_ftn17\">[17]<\/a>\u00a0Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,\u00a0<em>2023 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households \u2014 Executive Summary<\/em>, accessed December?2,?2025, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.fdic.gov\/household-survey\/2023-fdic-national-survey-unbanked-and-underbanked-households-executive-summary?utm_source=chatgpt.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.fdic.gov\/household-survey\/2023-fdic-national-survey-unbanked-and-underbanked-households-executive-summary<\/a><br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref18\" name=\"_ftn18\">[18]<\/a> Carol A. Evans, From Catalogs to Clicks: The Fair Lending Implications of Targeted, Internet Marketing, Federal Reserve Board Consumer Compliance Outlook (2019), <a href=\"https:\/\/www.consumercomplianceoutlook.org\/2019\/third-issue\/from-catalogs-to-clicks-the-fair-lending-implications-of-targeted-internet-marketing\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.consumercomplianceoutlook.org\/2019\/third-issue\/from-catalogs-to-clicks-the-fair-lending-implications-of-targeted-internet-marketing\/<\/a>;\u00a0<em>see also<\/em>\u00a0NCRC, et al., Statement on Request for Guidance on Implementation of Disparate Impact Rules Under ECOA (June 29, 2021).<br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref19\" name=\"_ftn19\">[19]<\/a>\u00a0Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, \u201c\u00a7?1002.8?Special purpose credit programs,\u201d\u00a0<em>Regulation?B<\/em>, accessed December?2,?2025,<a href=\"https:\/\/www.consumerfinance.gov\/rules-policy\/regulations\/1002\/8\/?utm_source=chatgpt.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">\u00a0<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/www.consumerfinance.gov\/rules-policy\/regulations\/1002\/8\/?utm_source=chatgpt.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.consumerfinance.gov\/rules-policy\/regulations\/1002\/8\/<\/a><br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref20\" name=\"_ftn20\">[20]<\/a> CFPB, Matched-Pair Testing in Small Business Lending\u00a0Maproductsrkets\u00a0(Nov. 13, 2024), https:\/\/www.consumerfinance.gov\/data-research\/research-reports\/matched-pair-testing-in-small-business-lending-markets\/<br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref21\" name=\"_ftn21\">[21]<\/a>\u00a0National Community Reinvestment Coalition,\u00a0<em>Mortgage Market Report Series \u2014 Part?2: Lending Trends by Borrower and Neighborhood Characteristics<\/em>, accessed December?2,?2025,<a href=\"https:\/\/ncrc.org\/mortgage-market-report-series-part-2-lending-trends-by-borrower-and-neighborhood-characteristics\/?utm_source=chatgpt.com\">\u00a0<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/ncrc.org\/mortgage-market-report-series-part-2-lending-trends-by-borrower-and-neighborhood-characteristics\/?utm_source=chatgpt.com\">https:\/\/ncrc.org\/mortgage-market-report-series-part-2-lending-trends-by-borrower-and-neighborhood-characteristics<\/a><br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref22\" name=\"_ftn22\">[22]<\/a>\u00a0Broady, K., McComas, M., &amp;\u00a0Ouazad, A. (2021, November 2).\u00a0<em>An analysis of financial institutions in Black<\/em><em>?<\/em><em>majority communities: Black borrowers and depositors face considerable challenges in accessing banking services.<\/em>\u00a0Brookings Institution.\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.brookings.edu\/articles\/an-analysis-of-financial-institutions-in-black-majority-communities-black-borrowers-and-depositors-face-considerable-challenges-in-accessing-banking-services\/?utm_source=chatgpt.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.brookings.edu\/articles\/an-analysis-of-financial-institutions-in-black-majority-communities-black-borrowers-and-depositors-face-considerable-challenges-in-accessing-banking-services\/<\/a><br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref23\" name=\"_ftn23\">[23]<\/a>\u00a0Bradford,\u00a0Wl,,\u00a0et al., (Mis)Pricing in Loans to Businesses Owned by People of Color, IZA Discussion Paper No. 17730 (Feb. 2025).<br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref24\" name=\"_ftn24\">[24]<\/a>Dean, J. (2024, October).\u00a0<em>The racial wealth gap,?1992 to 2022.<\/em>\u00a0National Community Reinvestment Coalition.<a href=\"https:\/\/ncrc.org\/the-racial-wealth-gap-1992-to-2022\/?utm_source=chatgpt.com\">\u00a0<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/ncrc.org\/the-racial-wealth-gap-1992-to-2022\/?utm_source=chatgpt.com\">https:\/\/ncrc.org\/the-racial-wealth-gap-1992-to-2022\/<\/a><br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref25\" name=\"_ftn25\">[25]<\/a>\u00a0<em>See Rothe Dev., Inc. v. U.S.\u00a0Dep\u2019t\u00a0of Def.<\/em>, 836 F.3d 57, 62 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (\u201cSection 8(a) uses facially race-neutral terms of eligibility to identify individual victims of discrimination, prejudice, or bias, without presuming that members of certain racial, ethnic, or cultural groups qualify as such. That makes it different from other statutes that either expressly limit participation in contracting programs to racial or ethnic minorities or specifically direct third parties to presume that members of certain racial or ethnic groups, or minorities generally, are eligible.\u201d).<br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref26\" name=\"_ftn26\">[26]<\/a>\u00a0CFPB, Matched-Pair Testing in Small Business Lending Markets (Nov. 13, 2024),\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.consumerfinance.gov\/data-research\/research-reports\/matched-pair-testing-in-small-business-lending-markets\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.consumerfinance.gov\/data-research\/research-reports\/matched-pair-testing-in-small-business-lending-markets\/<\/a><br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref27\" name=\"_ftn27\">[27]<\/a>\u00a0<em>See, e.g.<\/em>, NCRC, Does Perceived Socio-Economic Status Impact Access To Credit In The Smal Business Arena? (Dec. 2021); NCRC, Racial and Gender Mystery Shopping for Entrepreneurial Loans; Preliminary Overview; NCRC, Lending Discrimination within the Paycheck Protection Program (July 2020)<br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref28\" name=\"_ftn28\">[28]<\/a>\u00a0Goldman Sachs, New Survey Data Shows Black Small Business Owners Less Likely to Secure Loans (Feb. 6, 2024),\u00a0<em>available\u00a0at\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.goldmansachs.com\/pressroom\/press-releases\/2024\/new-survey-data-shows-black-small-business-owners-less-likely-to-secure-loans\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.goldmansachs.com\/pressroom\/press-releases\/2024\/new-survey-data-shows-black-small-business-owners-less-likely-to-secure-loans<\/a>;\u00a0see\u00a0also, e.g.<\/em>, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, \u201cIt shouldn\u2019t be this hard\u201d: Small Business Credit Survey highlights funding challenges for startups owned by people of color (July 10, 2023),\u00a0<em>available at\u00a0<\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fedsmallbusiness.org\/analysis\/2023\/it-shouldnt-be-this-hard-small-business-credit-survey-highlights-funding-challenges-for-startup\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.fedsmallbusiness.org\/analysis\/2023\/it-shouldnt-be-this-hard-small-business-credit-survey-highlights-funding-challenges-for-startup<\/a>; Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, \u201cMinority Firms Have Harder Time Obtaining Bank Financing, Fed Analysis Finds (Jan. 28, 2020),\u00a0<em>available at\u00a0<\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.atlantafed.org\/economy-matters\/community-and-economic-development\/2020\/01\/28\/minority-firms-have-harder-time-obtaining-bank-financing-fed-analysis-finds\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.atlantafed.org\/economy-matters\/community-and-economic-development\/2020\/01\/28\/minority-firms-have-harder-time-obtaining-bank-financing-fed-analysis-finds<\/a><br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref29\" name=\"_ftn29\">[29]<\/a>\u00a0American Bankers Association, Case Studies,\u00a0<em>available at\u00a0<\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.aba.com\/banking-topics\/commercial-banking\/small-business\/special-purpose-credit-programs\/case-study\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.aba.com\/banking-topics\/commercial-banking\/small-business\/special-purpose-credit-programs\/case-study<\/a><br \/><a href=\"#_ftnref30\" name=\"_ftn30\">[30]<\/a>\u00a0McKinsey Institute for Economic Mobility, The economic impact of closing the racial wealth gap (August 13, 2019),\u00a0<em>available at\u00a0<\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.mckinsey.com\/industries\/public-sector\/our-insights\/the-economic-impact-of-closing-the-racial-wealth-gap\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/www.mckinsey.com\/industries\/public-sector\/our-insights\/the-economic-impact-of-closing-the-racial-wealth-gap<\/a><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Complete the form to download the pdf: Yes, send me updates by email about NCRC research, events and news. Download Now Complete the form to download the pdf: Download December 12, 2025 Acting Director Russell VoughtConsumer Financial Protection Bureau1700 G Street, NWWashington, D.C. 20552 Re: Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B); Docket No. CFPB-2025-0039 or [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3745,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_angie_page":false,"content-type":"","_uag_custom_page_level_css":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"default","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"default","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"set","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"_EventAllDay":false,"_EventTimezone":"","_EventStartDate":"","_EventEndDate":"","_EventStartDateUTC":"","_EventEndDateUTC":"","_EventShowMap":false,"_EventShowMapLink":false,"_EventURL":"","_EventCost":"","_EventCostDescription":"","_EventCurrencySymbol":"","_EventCurrencyCode":"","_EventCurrencyPosition":"","_EventDateTimeSeparator":"","_EventTimeRangeSeparator":"","_EventOrganizerID":[],"_EventVenueID":[],"_OrganizerEmail":"","_OrganizerPhone":"","_OrganizerWebsite":"","_VenueAddress":"","_VenueCity":"","_VenueCountry":"","_VenueProvince":"","_VenueState":"","_VenueZip":"","_VenuePhone":"","_VenueURL":"","_VenueStateProvince":"","_VenueLat":"","_VenueLng":"","_VenueShowMap":false,"_VenueShowMapLink":false,"page_builder":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1046],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-275401","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-testimony"],"acf":[],"uagb_featured_image_src":{"full":false,"thumbnail":false,"medium":false,"medium_large":false,"large":false,"1536x1536":false,"2048x2048":false},"uagb_author_info":{"display_name":"NCRC","author_link":""},"uagb_comment_info":0,"uagb_excerpt":"Complete the form to download the pdf: Yes, send me updates by email about NCRC research, events and news. Download Now Complete the form to download the pdf: Download December 12, 2025 Acting Director Russell VoughtConsumer Financial Protection Bureau1700 G Street, NWWashington, D.C. 20552 Re: Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B); Docket No. CFPB-2025-0039 or&hellip;","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ncrc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/275401","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ncrc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ncrc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ncrc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3745"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ncrc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=275401"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ncrc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/275401\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ncrc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=275401"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ncrc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=275401"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ncrc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=275401"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}