One second you're salivating over the mention of a study that may show whites at a disadvantage to asians, and the next second (after being shown you don't really have much cause for gloating) you suddenly care about nuance and methodology and bring up a study where the comparison between whites and asians makes a 180. Got it.
The metric from the urban institute is better because it corrects for credit scores, loan-to-value ratios, debt-to-income ratios (DTI), and product and documentation types. It does not correct for income or assets.
It narrows the gap, but unsurprisingly denial rates are still higher for blacks, hispanics, and asians than whites.
"The higher denial rates stem from the fact that we are looking at the same number of denied mortgages, but the denominator includes denied applicants plus lower-credit-profile borrowers only, rather than all borrowers. Thus, the real denial rate is 30 percent for whites, 37 percent for blacks, 33 percent for Hispanics, and 43 percent for Asians.
Using the real denial rate method, the denial rate for black families is 1.2 times that of whites, while the rates for Hispanics and Asians are 1.1 times and 1.4 times, respectively, that of whites.
It may seem surprising that Asian borrowers have the highest denial rate, but a closer look shows that this stems from the low number of lower-credit-profile applicants in this group. The lending channel also matters: government loans (FHA, VA, USDA’s rural housing) generally have lower real denial rates than conventional loans, and Asian borrowers tend to rely less on government loans than other groups. By contrast, black and Hispanic borrowers tend to rely more heavily on government loans than do white borrowers. "