When the subprime fiasco/scandal/crisis (pick one, but be careful: it might show your political bias) hit, one of the first questions was, "Were Blacks unfairly targeted?" Rationalizations ensued, such as, "Probably Blacks don't have as good credit history…lower paying jobs, more kids, no prior home-buying experience…"

I could understand that, because African-Americans have been disadvantaged (I'm using that as a verb) in many ways. Still, I remember riding the airport shuttle from the San Fernando Valley in Southern California to the Los Angeles International Airport. The drivers usually took a shortcut down La Tijera Blvd. I've been in La Tierja Heights many times. Beautifully-kept homes, many two-story, close together and owned by African Americans. I don't know the numbers, but if one excluded the "rich" in Los Angeles, Blacks might own more homes per capita than whites do. (61% of the population rents.) They bought them 50 years ago and held onto them for dear life, which, it turns out, was a very smart move.

I had a very different experience when I was a guest on Tony Scott and the New Breakfast Crew radio show in St. Louis, Missouri. I offered "mortgage makeovers" to callers. I'm not a mortgage broker, so what this meant was I listened to their situation and gave them advice on the best way to save money on their existing mortgage, given their circumstances. That was the highest-response radio show I've ever done. Emails started pouring in while I was still on the air. What kind of advice was I supposed to offer someone with a 12% interest rate? Unlike other cities that hosted me, this city's callers were primarily "sub-prime" in the home loan department.

St. Louis isn't alone as a "black-targeted" city. Detroit has the honor of having four of the top-ten U.S. foreclosure zip codes.

Are you on my mailing list? If you're not sure, hop in here:

Higher interest rates, called "subprime" not because the rates were below prime, but because the borrowers allegedly were, are disproportionately represented among people of color. What if someone did an experiment to test the hypothesis? And what if in the experiment Hispanic and Black borrowers had higher credit scores than did whites applying for similar loans? Fortunately, it's been done!

From February 2004 to June 2006, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (with funding assistance from HUD) conducted a study to investigate whether race played a role in the rates, fees and loan products offered to potential borrowers.  The coalition used paired mystery shoppers made up of couples or individuals.  The mystery shoppers were either white, African American or Latino.  All shoppers were assigned specific income, credit and employment information.  Minority mystery applicants were given slightly favorable profiles that should have given them an advantage that would result in them [sic] receiving the same, if not better, quotes on rates and fees.

The experiment was conducted in six mixed race hubs, with large populations and known for their Hispanic and Black contingents: Baltimore, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, St. Louis and Atlanta. "The results were, in the words of the NCRC’s executive VP, 'deeply disturbing.'"

Whites were extended more choices and received better explanations of their fees. Fewer than 10% were asked for more information. Four times as many minorities were asked for more information! Here's the real kicker: Fixed rate loans were offered to 90% of white applicants but to only 55% of minority applicants. That means, simply, that over half of the minority applicants were offered adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) instead of fixed, with rates that would go up-up-up even while property values tanked! You should read the whole story about racism in lending.

One can only conclude rationalizations that claim Blacks are less qualified were thin cover-ups for mortgage broker fraud. Fraud? Yes! Deliberately charging people higher rates than they qualify for simply to increase profit is criminal. Furthermore, if those brokers were convinced minorities were really less capable of paying back loans, giving them higher rates was almost an admission of guilt. Yet lenders lined their own pockets while deliberately and knowingly hurting minority families' financial standings for years to come. Simultaneously, lenders stole from the banks and loan underwriters (including, possibly private mortgage insurance companies), because they funded loans on homes likely (at least in their own minds) to go into foreclosure.

To recap, mortgage brokers lending to Black and Hispanic families they believed/suspected/pretended were high risk, are guilty of….