research

NC's Anti-Predatory Lending Law: Doing What It's Supposed To Do: A Reply

Abstract

We reply to criticisms of our recent study about North Carolina's Anti-Predatory Lending Law reducing predatory loan terms and preserving access to credit (NC's Anti-Predatory Lending Law: Doing What it's Supposed to Do). To examine whether the decline in overall subprime lending in North Carolina, following passage of the predatory lending law, was due to a decline in loans with legitimate terms or to a reduction in loans with abusive terms, we examined specific market segments and market practices using loan level data from the Loan Performance Asset Backed Securities (ABS) database. Our study revealed that, although the total volume of subprime originations in North Carolina declined, the number of home purchase loans was unaffected by the law. Given the robustness of the LP data, we are baffled by the criticism and disappointed by confusion that has arisen over mistaken data interpretation. For reasons discussed in this paper, we stand by our descriptive study and will continue to use LP data in our future work.Technology and Industry, Regulatory Reform

    Similar works