Here in the US, I’m used to the little logo of the equals sign in an outline drawing of a house with the tagline “Equal Housing Opportunity” or “Equal Housing Lender” in bank advertising material. Basically, my understanding is that this means that the bank doesn’t discriminate in terms of mortgages, so they can’t say “Sorry dude, we just don’t like lending to Mexicans.”.
Is it legally possible for a bank to decline to offer an equal housing opportunity (and, obviously, not include the “Equal Housing Opportunity” information?), discriminating in terms of who they lend to and/or rates? Are there any banks that do this?
E.g.
“Low Low 2% Home Mortgages from Grand Wizard Imperial Klan Bank (Warning: Biased Housing Opportunity, we discriminate) <logo of a house with a NOT EQUALS sign inside>”
Any bank in the FDIC is required to be an equal housing lender. Since without FDIC insurance, a bank would be perceived as less safe and thus fail, I doubt there’s any US bank that doesn’t participate.
If it is a required law applying to all lenders, then why bother advertising it?
If one bank mentions their fairness in their ads, it seems to implicitly accuse other banks of being unfair, despite the law requiring everyone to be fair.
Could it be that the banks which advertise it are trying to appeal to minorities, and the banks which don’t advertise it don’t care about minorities?
But would any bank say that? Isn’t that like job offers - “we prefer handicapped people with equal ability to do the job” which is such a broad term that it allows them to deny any specific applicant that their skills are not enough for the job, sorry.
So if the bank doesn’t want to lend to blacks, would anybody in todays world be dumb enough to say so, instead of just pretending to check the credit score (which is apparently inscrutably calculated, so the prospective lender can’T counter “But my score is X and good”) and say “Sorry, risk is too high” or “Okay, our rate is 10% instead of the 5% we offer in the window because of the risk”?
Sure, if somebody looks at the overall data of that bank and sees that not one single black person is a lender, that sounds suspicious, but the bank can claim that all applicants were unsuitable or declined, and who can prove them otherwise?
Over here, people who are over 50 or 60 years old can’t get a credit at some banks. Not that the banks are discriminating or anything, no - they just say “the risk is too high”. Which is stupid and wrong, because old people have a reliable pension every month and can no longer be unemployed; and people who need a credit are willing to take out a life insurance as cover so that the credit will be paid back even in event of death. Additonally, life expectancy is above mid-70s, so a short-term credit for a 55 year old should not be a problem. Yet, the banks do this, and the law has a hard time changing it.
This is similar to what I was thinking. The “Equal Housing Opportunity” text and logo seem to imply something “special”, perhaps in that they went through a certification process to be rated sufficiently unbiased to carry the designation. Given that, it would seem reasonable to suspect that banks exist which either do not provide an equal housing opportunity (actually providing a biased or discriminatory housing opportunity), or do in fact provide an equal opportunity but for some reason don’t want to go through the certification process or they failed the evaluation for some reason.
Is the designation tied to a certification (“Congratulations, First Bank of Podunk, you have been certified as an Equal Housing Lender. Your certification is good for five years or until revoked for cause upon showing of a sustained discrimination claim.”), or is it just a good faith self evaluation thing?
But that sounds bad because youre emphasizing the negative
How about
“Joe’s Daycare (A Secure, Safe Childcare Experience)”
Blue Cab Of Detroit (All Drivers Are Tested Daily To Ensure The Safest Possible Transportation Experience)"