The Community Reinvestment Act: Questionable Premises and Perverse Incentives

Having just passed the twentieth anniversary of the enactment of the Community Reinvestment Act ( CRA or Act ), this is an appropriate time to take stock of the effectiveness of the legislation and to consider whether it continues to be useful as a tool for addressing the problems of neighborhood decline and discrimination in the lending market. Although discrimination in lending and the decline of certain inner-city neighborhoods is a problem that the CRA has not been able to solve, most observers would agree that the situation has improved since the mid-1970s. In particular, there has been notable progress toward the elimination of explicit redlining - a problem the CRA was designed to address. Perhaps it is impossible to demonstrate what portion of that progress is due to the CRA itself and what is a result of broader economic and social change that has occurred in this country over the last twenty years. Nevertheless, both supporters and opponents of the CRA generally agree that the Act has been an important factor in pushing banks to lend in previously under-served areas. In this paper we will argue that the CRA as it is currently understood and enforced is no longer an appropriate tool for dealing with discrimination in the lending market and the lack of access to credit in neighborhoods dominated by minorities and people of modest, or minimal, means. The statute is based on premises that are questionable in today\u27s lending market, and thus it is not clear that the social benefits provided by the statute are significant. Further, enforcement of the statute generates certain perverse incentives that are costly to society. We emphasize the costly incentive effects in this paper.6 While the goals of the CRA remain desirable, the current enforcement framework should be reformed

Lending Discrimination: Economic Theory, Econometric Evidence, and the Community Reinvestment Act

Although it has been settled law for almost two decades, there has been a heightened interest in the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) over the last several years. One factor driving this interest is the continuing economic decline of the inner cities and the consequent widening of the wealth gap between cities and surrounding suburbs in many areas of the country. A second factor is the consolidation of the banking industry, which has encouraged expansion-oriented banks to improve their CRA ratings to gain the approval of regulators. A recent effort to enhance enforcement of the statute, in part the result of information made available under recent legislation, is a third factor. A fourth factor is the current wave of deregulatory talk in Washington, which has generated counterproposals to weaken the statute

The Community Reinvestment Act: Questionable Premises and Perverse Incentives

Having just passed the twentieth anniversary of the enactment of the Community Reinvestment Act I ( CRA or Act ), this is an appropriate time to take stock of the effectiveness of the legislation and to consider whether it continues to be useful as a tool for addressing the problems of neighborhood decline and discrimination in the lending market. Although discrimination in lending and the decline of certain inner-city neighborhoods is a problem that the CRA has not been able to solve, most observers would agree that the situation has improved since the mid-1970s. 2 In particular, there has been notable progress toward the elimination of explicit redlining 3 - a problem the CRA was designed to address. 4 Perhaps it is impossible to demonstrate what portion of that progress is due to the CRA itself and what is a result of broader economic and social change that has occurred in this country over the last twenty years. Nevertheless, both supporters and opponents of the CRA generally agree that the Act has been an important factor in pushing banks to lend in previously under-served areas. In this paper we will argue that the CRA as it is currently understood and enforced is no longer an appropriate tool for dealing with discrimination in the lending market and the lack of access to credit in neighborhoods dominated by minorities and people of modest, or minimal, means. The statute is based on premises that are questionable in today\u27s lending market, and thus it is not clear that the social benefits provided by the statute are significant. Further, enforcement of the statute generates certain perverse incentives that are costly to society. We emphasize the costly incentive effects in this paper. While the goals of the CRA remain desirable, the current enforcement framework should be reformed

Progressive Rearrangement of Telomeric Sequences Added to Both the ITR Ends of the Yeast Linear pGKL Plasmid

Relocation into the nucleus of the yeast cytoplasmic linear plasmids was studied using a monitor plasmid pCLU1. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the nuclearly-relocated pCLU1 replicated in a linear form (termed pTLU-type plasmid) which carried the host telomeric repeats TG(1-3) of 300-350 bp at both ends. The telomere sequences mainly consisted of a major motif TGTGTGGGTGTGG which was complementary to part of the RNA template of yeast telomerase and were directly added to the very end of the pCLU1-terminal element ITR (inverted terminal repeat), suggesting that the ITR end played a role as a substrate of telomerase. The telomere sequences varied among isolated pTLU-type plasmids, but the TG(1-3) organization was symmetrically identical on both ends of any one plasmid. During cell growth under non-selective condition, the telomeric repeat sequences were progressively rearranged on one side, but not on the opposite side of pTLU plasmid ends. This indicates that the mode of telomeric DNA replication or repair differed between both ends. Clonal analysis showed that the intense rearrangement of telomeric DNA was closely associated with extreme instability of pTLU plasmids

Formation of Mobile Chromatin-Associated Nuclear Foci Containing HIV-1 Vpr and VPRBP Is Critical for the Induction of G2 Cell Cycle Arrest

HIV-1 Viral protein R (Vpr) induces a cell cycle arrest at the G2/M phase by activating the ATR DNA damage/stress checkpoint. Recently, we and several other groups showed that Vpr performs this activity by recruiting the DDB1-CUL4A (VPRBP) E3 ubiquitin ligase. While recruitment of this E3 ubiquitin ligase complex has been shown to be required for G2 arrest, the subcellular compartment where this complex forms and functionally acts is unknown. Herein, using immunofluorescence and confocal microscopy, we show that Vpr forms nuclear foci in several cell types including HeLa cells and primary CD4+ T-lymphocytes. These nuclear foci contain VPRBP and partially overlap with DNA repair foci components such as γ-H2AX, 53BP1 and RPA32. While treatment with the non-specific ATR inhibitor caffeine or depletion of VPRBP by siRNA did not inhibit formation of Vpr nuclear foci, mutations in the C-terminal domain of Vpr and cytoplasmic sequestration of Vpr by overexpression of Gag-Pol resulted in impaired formation of these nuclear structures and defective G2 arrest. Consistently, we observed that G2 arrest-competent sooty mangabey Vpr could form these foci but not its G2 arrest-defective paralog Vpx, suggesting that formation of Vpr nuclear foci represents a critical early event in the induction of G2 arrest. Indeed, we found that Vpr could associate to chromatin via its C-terminal domain and that it could form a complex with VPRBP on chromatin. Finally, analysis of Vpr nuclear foci by time-lapse microscopy showed that they were highly mobile and stable structures. Overall, our results suggest that Vpr recruits the DDB1-CUL4A (VPRBP) E3 ligase to these nuclear foci and uses these mobile structures to target a chromatin-bound cellular substrate for ubiquitination in order to induce DNA damage/replication stress, ultimately leading to ATR activation and G2 cell cycle arrest

Planar study of H₂O + Cl₂ -> HO + HCl reactions

International audienc

The Community Reinvestment Act: Questionable Premises and Perverse Incentives

Having just passed the twentieth anniversary of the enactment of the Community Reinvestment Act I ( CRA or Act ), this is an appropriate time to take stock of the effectiveness of the legislation and to consider whether it continues to be useful as a tool for addressing the problems of neighborhood decline and discrimination in the lending market. Although discrimination in lending and the decline of certain inner-city neighborhoods is a problem that the CRA has not been able to solve, most observers would agree that the situation has improved since the mid-1970s. 2 In particular, there has been notable progress toward the elimination of explicit redlining 3 - a problem the CRA was designed to address. 4 Perhaps it is impossible to demonstrate what portion of that progress is due to the CRA itself and what is a result of broader economic and social change that has occurred in this country over the last twenty years. Nevertheless, both supporters and opponents of the CRA generally agree that the Act has been an important factor in pushing banks to lend in previously under-served areas. In this paper we will argue that the CRA as it is currently understood and enforced is no longer an appropriate tool for dealing with discrimination in the lending market and the lack of access to credit in neighborhoods dominated by minorities and people of modest, or minimal, means. The statute is based on premises that are questionable in today\u27s lending market, and thus it is not clear that the social benefits provided by the statute are significant. Further, enforcement of the statute generates certain perverse incentives that are costly to society. We emphasize the costly incentive effects in this paper. While the goals of the CRA remain desirable, the current enforcement framework should be reformed

Influence of a graphene surface on the first steps of the hydrogenation of a coronene molecule

International audienc

Lending Discrimination: Economic Theory, Econometric Evidence, and the Community Reinvestment Act

Although it has been settled law for almost two decades, there has been a heightened interest in the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) over the last several years. One factor driving this interest is the continuing economic decline of the inner cities and the consequent widening of the wealth gap between cities and surrounding suburbs in many areas of the country. A second factor is the consolidation of the banking industry, which has encouraged expansion-oriented banks to improve their CRA ratings to gain the approval of regulators. A recent effort to enhance enforcement of the statute, in part the result of information made available under recent legislation, is a third factor. A fourth factor is the current wave of deregulatory talk in Washington, which has generated counterproposals to weaken the statute