- 23 -
data indicate that, with the exception of certain areas outside CONA’s branch footprint,
the percentage of CONA’s applications from and originations to minority borrowers,
LMI borrowers, and borrowers in predominantly LMI areas generally exceeded the
percentage for lenders in the aggregate. In addition, the data indicate that CONA did
not exhibit a higher denial rate for minority applicants relative to its denial rate for
nonminority applicants (“denial disparity ratio”), as compared with the denial disparity
ratio for minority and nonminority applicants of lenders in the aggregate. The HMDA
data do not suggest that Capital One excluded any racial, ethnic, economic, or geographic
segment of the population within its branch footprint.
62
In a small number of markets outside Capital One’s branch footprint,
including California and the Chicago MSA, the data indicate that CONA’s percentage of
HMDA applications from and originations to minority borrowers was lower than for
lenders in the aggregate in 2008 and 2009.
63
The Board is concerned when HMDA data
society, the comments about supplier diversity practices are beyond the factors the Board
is authorized to consider under the BHC Act. See, e.g., Bank of America Order at C90.
In addition, one commenter asserted that the Board should ensure that Capital
One’s supplier diversity practices are consistent with section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Act,
codified at 12 U.S.C. § 5452, which instructs the Board, including the Federal Reserve
Banks, and certain other federal agencies each to establish an Office of Minority and
Women Inclusion that is authorized to develop standards for “assessing the diversity
policies and practices of entities regulated by the agency.” The Board and the other
federal agencies are developing standards for assessing the diversity policies and
practices of regulated firms in accordance with section 342. Section 342 specifically
provides, however, that those standards may not mandate any particular diversity practice
or require any specific action based on the agency’s assessment. 12 U.S.C. § 5452(b)(4).
62
The HMDA data also indicate that although FSB generally received a lower
proportion of its applications from minorities relative to lenders in the aggregate,
FSB’s denial disparity ratio for minority borrowers generally approximated or was
more favorable than lenders in the aggregate.
63
California and the Chicago MSA accounted for a relatively small proportion of
CONA’s application volume in 2008 and 2009, consistent with Capital One’s strategy
to make mortgage loans primarily within its branch footprint. In 2009, CONA received
3,329 applications in California and 1,304 applications in the Chicago MSA, representing
4.6 percent and 1.8 percent of its HMDA-related application volume, respectively. In
2010, Capital One’s HMDA-related application volume dropped to 110 in California
and 20 in the Chicago MSA.