The Credit Gap: Reimagine Credit-Building For Marginalized Communities
Credit is often seen as a simple numerical score—a summary of financial responsibility. For millions of Americans, however, access to credit remains a complex barrier to opportunity and economic inclusion. Across the nation, many marginalized and underserved communities find themselves locked out of the traditional credit system, a reality with roots in history and consequences that still ripple today.
Marginalized groups in the credit landscape are broader than often assumed. They include not only racial and ethnic minorities but also immigrants of many backgrounds, women, rural residents and low-income workers. Despite their diversity, these groups share common threads of systemic exclusion from traditional financial services, contributing to persistent inequities in wealth and opportunity.
A History Of Barriers To Credit Access
The challenges faced by these communities in establishing and accessing credit are not recent phenomena. They are the product of decades, and sometimes centuries, of exclusionary practices.
During the 20th century, redlining—a discriminatory practice institutionalized in the 1930s by the Home Owners' Loan Corporation—systematically denied mortgage lending in communities of color, regardless of individual financial qualifications. These entrenched racial wealth gaps persist today. Similarly, immigrant populations, despite contributing substantially to the economy, often arrive without recognized credit histories, encountering hurdles in establishing financial credibility in their new country.
Until the Equal Credit Opportunity Act was passed in 1974, women in the United States could be denied credit cards, loans or mortgages unless they had a male cosigner, regardless of income or financial independence. Meanwhile, rural Americans were frequently left out as financial institutions concentrated services in urban areas, limiting access to credit-building opportunities. Low-wage workers, despite stable earnings, often lacked the assets or formal financial histories that traditional credit models prioritize.
Each of these historical realities created systemic disadvantages that continue to impact the ability of millions to fully participate in today's economy.
When Alternatives Hurt: The Reality Of Predatory Lending
Faced with systemic exclusion from mainstream financial services, many underserved consumers have turned to alternative lending options—often to their detriment.
Payday loans are a particularly stark example. Marketed as short-term solutions for urgent cash needs, these loans can carry annual percentage rates (APRs) around 400%, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. For individuals with few other options, payday loans can rapidly spiral into cycles of debt, where borrowers repeatedly renew loans and pay far more in fees than they initially borrowed.
Similarly, other "alternative credit" products—such as fee-laden rent-to-own programs or high-cost subprime credit cards—often promise quick access to credit but ultimately deepen financial distress rather than helping individuals build sustainable credit profiles.
Predatory financial services prey on the very vulnerabilities created by systemic exclusion, exacerbating the financial fragility of marginalized communities rather than alleviating it.
The Promise Of CDFIs In Expanding Access
In contrast, Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs)—like my own bank—offer a model for inclusive credit expansion. Supported by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and other mission-driven investors, CDFIs specialize in providing responsible, affordable lending to individuals and businesses in underserved markets.
Unlike traditional banks that may prioritize established credit profiles and significant assets, CDFIs often evaluate borrowers based on alternative criteria, offering personal attention, customized credit-building programs and lower-interest loans. They play a vital role in restoring trust where mainstream institutions have historically failed and offer a practical bridge to broader financial inclusion.
Why Inclusive Credit Access Matters
Expanding credit access isn't just a moral imperative—it's an economic one.
When marginalized individuals can access fair and affordable credit:
• Homeownership rates rise, strengthening families and neighborhoods.
• Small businesses flourish, creating local jobs and revitalizing communities.
• Education becomes more attainable, leading to a stronger and more skilled workforce.
• Emergency preparedness improves, reducing societal burdens related to financial crises.
Inclusive credit-building is, fundamentally, an investment in America's shared prosperity. Strengthening the financial footing of all communities enhances resilience and dynamism across the entire economy.
Reimagining The Path Forward: Solutions And Approaches
True change demands innovative, inclusive solutions that address historic inequities while building sustainable credit opportunities. To that end, the following strategies offer a path forward:
Expand alternative data use: Encourage credit bureaus to include on-time rent, utility and mobile phone bill payments as part of credit scoring models, making visible the responsible financial behavior of millions.
Promote accessible credit-builder products: Develop affordable credit-builder loans and secured credit cards with transparent terms, designed specifically for consumers new to credit or seeking recovery from past financial hardships.
Support employer-sponsored financial wellness programs: Create opportunities for employers to offer small-dollar loans, emergency savings programs, and financial education that can help employees improve their credit standing.
Invest more in CDFIs and mission-led lenders: Increase public and private investment in CDFIs to expand their reach into rural, immigrant and low-income communities nationwide.
Enhance community-based credit education: Partner with local organizations to provide culturally relevant, accessible financial education tailored to the realities and needs of diverse communities.
Modernize credit scoring methodologies: Advocate for more flexible and equitable underwriting practices that consider broader measures of financial behavior beyond traditional FICO models.
Protect against predatory lending: Strengthen regulatory oversight and consumer protection laws to curb abusive lending practices that target vulnerable borrowers.
Creating A New Path To Credit Equity
Reimagining credit building for marginalized communities is not a small task, but it is a critical one.
It is time to acknowledge that the barriers preventing equitable credit access have been built into our financial system for far too long, and now, it's time to dismantle them. By investing in inclusive innovation, empowering underserved communities to thrive and ensuring financial access for all, we will not only open doors to opportunity but also unlock the full potential of our nation.
Let's build a financial system where credit is a bridge to opportunity, not a wall that keeps millions locked out. Together, we can create a future where economic success is within reach for every American.
The information provided here is not investment, tax or financial advice. You should consult with a licensed professional for advice concerning your specific situation.
Forbes Finance Council is an invitation-only organization for executives in successful accounting, financial planning and wealth management firms. Do I qualify?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
21 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Tech billionaire Trump adviser Marc Andreesen says universities will ‘pay the price' for DEI
Influential tech investor and Trump adviser Marc Andreessen recently said universities will 'pay the price' for promoting diversity and allegedly discriminating against supporters of President Donald Trump, according to messages he sent to a group chat with White House officials and technology leaders reviewed by The Washington Post. The billionaire's messages also cited Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University, a respected institution at the heart of Silicon Valley that has incubated tech companies such as Google. Andreessen and his wife have donated millions of dollars to the school. 'I view Stanford and MIT as mainly political lobbying operations fighting American innovation at this point,' Andreessen wrote in screenshots of messages sent May 3 and reviewed by The Post. The investor described a 'counterattack' against universities in his messages and called for the National Science Foundation, a federal research funding agency, to receive 'the bureaucratic death penalty.' Andreessen co-founded one of Silicon Valley's most prominent venture capital firms, Andreessen Horowitz, which embraced President Donald Trump's candidacy last year. While Elon Musk was the most visible tech mogul in Trump's orbit until he split with the president, Andreessen has quietly helped shape the administration's hiring and policy decisions. The tech investor is known for making controversial statements, including to his 1.8 million followers on X, and has criticized universities and government agencies in media appearances, but his comments in the private chat went beyond his previous statements. In addition to criticizing Stanford and MIT, Andreessen sent a rapid-fire series of messages, according to the screenshots and two members of the chat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. 'The universities are at Ground Zero of the counterattack' from Trump voters, Andreessen wrote, alleging colleges favored immigrants over Americans and promoted DEI, or diversity, equity, and inclusion policies intended to increase race and gender representation. 'The combination of DEI and immigration is politically lethal,' Andreessen wrote. 'When these two forms of discrimination combine, as they have for the last 60 years and on hyperdrive for the last decade, they systematically cut most of the children of the Trump voter base out of any realistic prospect of access to higher education and corporate America.' Andreessen did not respond to requests for comment through his venture firm. He quickly deleted many of the messages after sending them, according to the screenshots and the two members of the chat. Andreessen sent his messages to a WhatsApp group used by Trump officials to discuss artificial intelligence policy with dozens of tech figures and academics, according to screenshots of the chat from May and June reviewed by The Post. The group, whose members have varied political views, predates the current Trump administration. It was established in 2023 to connect investors and others with a shared interest in open development of AI. A White House official said members of the Trump administration in the group participated in their personal capacity, no official policy was discussed, and that Andreessen was not an official adviser to the president. Andreessen in his messages did not suggest any action against Stanford and MIT. The Trump administration has targeted the University of Virginia, Harvard and Columbia over issues including DEI initiatives and alleged antisemitism, moving to cancel funding and student visas. 'They declared war on 70% of the country and now they're going to pay the price,' Andreessen alleged of universities, without calling out a specific school. 'MIT is merit-based and affordable, driven by innovation and entrepreneurship, and committed to excellence — all with a mission of national service,' said its spokesperson Kimberly Allen in an email statement. A spokesperson for Stanford, Dee Mostofi, declined to comment on the message Andreessen wrote about the university. Andreessen grew up in rural Wisconsin and rose to prominence in Silicon Valley in the 1990s as co-creator of Netscape, one of the first popular web browsers. His influence and wealth has grown during the past decade through Andreessen Horowitz, which has invested in Facebook, Twitter and Airbnb. The firm financially backed Musk's 2022 takeover of Twitter, which Andreessen said would encourage free speech. The investor has supported Democratic presidential candidates, including Hillary Clinton in 2016, but backed Republican Mitt Romney in 2012. Andreessen and his firm backed Trump after his attempted assassination in July last year, an endorsement the firm said could protect tech start-ups from hostile policies pushed by the Biden administration. In a company blog post, Andreessen and his co-founder wrote that their firm's political efforts were 'entirely focused' on helping start-ups, including through 'expansion of high-skilled immigration to encourage foreign graduates of American universities' to build companies in the United States. Andreessen has previously criticized DEI, affirmative action, federal agencies and universities, alleging colleges radicalized young tech workers and were 'unfixable,' including on his firm's podcast and in podcast interviews after the election. The investor in January told podcaster Lex Fridman he was rethinking his support for high-skilled immigration, which the tech industry uses to source talent, because he thought it had disadvantaged native-born Americans. Andreessen's message to the group about subjecting the NSF to 'the bureaucratic death penalty' alleged that the agency, a major funder of university science and tech labs, backed projects that led to online censorship of American citizens — a talking point among some Trump supporters. The investor added: 'Raze it to the ground and start over.' Some members of the group chat found Andreessen's comments discussing immigration and attacks on universities extreme and out of character with the chat's usual tone, the two members of the chat said. AI insiders have often used the chat to impress on Trump officials that alienating immigrants and attacking universities will undermine the ability of the U.S. to maintain its lead in technology by attracting and training top talent, the two members said. Andreessen ceased participating in the group soon after his messages in early May, the two members said. The chat is moderated by Sriram Krishnan, a White House senior policy adviser on AI, according to screenshots and the two group members. Krishnan created the group before Trump's second term, while he was working as a partner at Andreessen's firm. Dean Ball, another White House adviser on AI, is also a frequent contributor, the two chat members said. AI experts in the chat include Meta's chief AI scientist Yann LeCun, a professor at New York University, who supported Kamala Harris's presidential bid; and Fei-Fei Li, a Stanford professor and robotics entrepreneur, who worked with the Biden administration to promote government funding for public sector AI projects. Steven Sinofsky, a partner at Andreessen's firm, is also in the group. LeCun and Krishnan declined to comment for this article. Ball, Li and Sinofsky did not respond to requests for comment. In recent months the group has argued over Trump administration budget cuts at the NSF, and whether the government should place export restrictions on Chinese AI company DeepSeek, the two members told The Post. In January U.S. tech stocks crashed after the company claimed it could achieve similar results to American rivals with fewer resources. Andreessen has said that encrypted messaging apps such as WhatsApp and Signal, which allow users to set up disappearing messages, have become a safe outlet for tech elites to share polarizing views likely to meet public backlash, a trend he called 'the group chat phenomenon' in the January podcast interview with Fridman. Andreessen is on the board of Meta, which owns WhatsApp. Group chats took off in Silicon Valley during the political upheaval of 2020, spurred by pandemic lockdowns and the murder of George Floyd. 'The great culture wars of 2020 meant people, especially in tech, weren't comfortable sharing their views in public lest they get various online mobs after them,' Krishnan wrote on his personal blog last year. The chats provide venues to workshop those ideas before they're shared on social media, Krishnan said, functioning as 'the memetic upstream of mainstream opinion.' Group chats helped forge a new alliance between tech elites and Trump before Silicon Valley elites publicly declared their support and Andreessen was at the center of many of those messaging threads, Semafor reported in April. The tech industry has historically lobbied in favor of government funding for scientific research and high-skilled immigration, which some studies show has been crucial to the sector's flourishing. A growing number of tech figures such as Musk and venture capitalist David Sacks, now Trump's AI and crypto czar, have broken with that received wisdom in recent years, celebrating Trump's moves to slash government funding and target Harvard and other schools. Andreessen's comments against Stanford in the group chat pit a high-priest of Silicon Valley against a beloved local school that has served as a crucial pipeline for the industry, providing ideas, research funding and technical talent, including the founders of Instagram and LinkedIn. MIT has long been a top recruiting ground for the tech industry. Two pension funds for MIT employees have invested in venture funds managed by Andreessen's firm, according to federal filings. Andreessen's comments in May came after another member of the chat group expressed skepticism that diversity policies or environmental and workplace regulation had reduced economic growth. When Krishnan, the investor turned Trump official, invited Andreessen to offer an opposing view, Andreessen fired off his comments about immigration and diversity. The billionaire also mentioned a personal disagreement with Stanford, alleging that his wife, philanthropist Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, was forced to leave her position as chair of its Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, which she co-founded and helped fund. Arrillaga-Andreessen did not respond to requests for comment. '[T]hey forced my wife out of Stanford without a second thought, a decision that will cost them something like $5 billion in future donations,' Andreessen wrote in his messages to the group, without specifying the cause of the dispute. Arrillaga-Andreessen's LinkedIn profile indicates she stopped being chair of the philanthropy center in 2024. Mostofi in an email statement praised Arrillaga-Andreessen's philanthropic and academic contributions to the university. 'Her initiative as the founder and longtime chair of [the center] was instrumental in driving attention to these important topics,' Mostofi said, adding that Arrillaga-Andreessen will teach at Stanford's business school in the fall. The couple's names were included in the job titles of academics who led the philanthropy center. They donated almost $28 million to Stanford Hospital in 2007 and $2 million to Stanford Healthcare in 2020. Andreessen, who was born in Iowa, went to the University of Illinois, and built his businesses in California, suggested in his messages that he was among a large group of Americans tired of perceived injustice. 'My cohort of citizens,' he wrote, had once been willing to accept diversity policies as the cost of prior bigotry in American society, 'even though the discrimination was now aimed at us,' according to the screenshots. 'The insanity of the last 8 years and in particular the summer of 2020, totally shredded that complacency,' Andreessen added, apparently referring to protests and discussion of diversity after the death of Floyd. 'And so now my people are furious and not going to take it anymore,' he wrote.
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Jean Chatzky delivers strong words on 401(k)s, Social Security
It's no secret that preparing for retirement requires thoughtful attention to both financial security and personal lifestyle goals. That financial foundation arguably begins with understanding where future income will come from - typically a mix of Social Security, personal savings, and retirement accounts such as 401(k)s and IRAs. Advisors suggest that people should estimate their expected Social Security benefits and assess how much they've built up through workplace plans, making sure they're on track for a reliable income stream. Jean Chatzky, the financial journalist and former editor for NBC's "Today Show," has issued strong warnings about the future of Social Security. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter She points to the average monthly Social Security payment that is already insufficient for most people's needs (in 2025, it is only about $2,000 per month for retired workers), especially as cost-of-living adjustments often fail to keep pace with inflation. But a larger issue is on the horizon: Without legislative reform, the Social Security trust funds face a real risk of depletion by 2033. This would likely reduce the expected monthly paychecks for future retirees - leaving many with income somewhere near 20% or less below what they had been anticipating. Related: Dave Ramsey has blunt words for Americans buying a car Her advice to individuals, particularly those expecting longer retirements, is to consider delaying withdrawals until age 70 to increase monthly benefits. For couples, she recommends evaluating who should wait based on expected longevity, since this can improve household financial stability over time. Chatzky, the HerMoney website chief, offers other key points of advice. Chatzky also discusses how it could potentially be beneficial for people to keep working during retirement - not just to supplement 401(k), Social Security and other retirement income, but because staying active can provide a deeper sense of purpose. For some, employment is a financial necessity, but for others it's a meaningful way to stay engaged and productive. More on retirement: Dave Ramsey offers urgent thoughts about MedicareJean Chatzky shares major statement on Social SecurityTony Robbins has blunt words on IRAs,401(k)s On the topic of retirement savings accounts, Chatzky offers guidance to help avoid the risk of running out of money later in life. She believes 401(k) plans remain one of the most reliable tools for growing retirement wealth, especially when employers provide matching contributions. She advocates automating savings so that payroll deductions happen without extra effort, turning good intentions into consistent action. Related: Jean Chatzky sends strong message on major 401(k) changes Chatzky's approach to retirement savings emphasizes steady progress rather than dramatic leaps - making it accessible and practical for workers at any income level. She encourages employees to start contributing to their 401(k) plans with whatever amount they can reasonably afford, especially if finances are tight in the early years. From there, her strategy is simple but powerful: Increase the percentage of contributions gradually with each raise, transforming small steps into long-term success. For those who begin saving before their mid-thirties, Chatzky recommends aiming for a total annual contribution of 10% of income, which includes any employer match. If someone starts later, the target climbs to 15%. These benchmarks serve as clear goals to guide savers through each phase of their career. She emphasizes that even participating in a workplace retirement plan - regardless of the amount - meaningfully lowers the risk of financial shortfall later in life. Chatzky's philosophy seems to combine a refreshing take on realism with optimism. She acknowledges that not every worker can afford aggressive contributions early on, but insists that proactive planning and consistent increases can build meaningful retirement reserves over time. Her advice may resonate for many because it is seemingly both adaptable and results-driven. By focusing on early action, intentional adjustments, and a commitment to long-term financial health, Chatzky offers average Americans a straightforward roadmap toward a more secure retirement. Building confidence through smart decisions - and staying financially stable as life evolves - feels like a pretty understandable approach. Related: Dave Ramsey has blunt words on 401(k)s, retirement savings The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Unsold Homes Surge Nationwide As Housing Market Stalls
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Thousands of unsold homes are piling up in the U.S. housing market as Americans— facing climbing prices, historically high mortgage rates and growing economic uncertainty—buy fewer homes, according to the latest figures. This year was supposed to bring a rebound of the U.S. housing market, experts said in 2024. Instead, the market has come to a standstill as buyers retreat to the sidelines but prices refuse to budge. What Is Happening in the U.S. Housing Market? In June, the total number of unsold homes in the country was up 20 percent compared with a year earlier, according to while inventory was up by 28.9 percent year-over-year. In the same month, pending home sales were down 1.6 percent from June 2024. Even though the market did not by any standard perform well, prices continue inching up. In June, the median list price of a typical U.S. home was $440,950, up 0.2 percent since last year. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva These trends have continued over the past few weeks, data from real estate brokerage Redfin shows. In the four weeks ending July 6, pending sales in the nationwide market fell 3.5 percent from a year earlier—the second-biggest decline since early February. Instead of taking a hit, home prices went up—bafflingly so. In the same time frame, the median U.S. home sale price hit an all-time high of $399.633, up 1 percent year-over-year. The data suggests that the U.S. housing market currently presents a complicated picture. On one hand, plunging sales and growing inventory is putting downward pressure on prices, forcing many sellers to offer reductions to attract reluctant buyers. In June, according to price cuts were reported on 20.7 percent of listings—the highest share for any June since at least 2016. On the other hand, there are parts of the country and parts of individual local markets that are faring better than others and where buyers still maintain more power over buyers. "Some homes are moving fast, others are seeing multiple price reductions," James Gulden, a Redfin Premier agent in Boston, said in a report. "It's not location or price-tier specific; the mixed results permeate in every corner of the market. Prices are still as high as they have ever been, but with homes sitting longer, the market is slowly turning in buyers' favor." In the South and West, inventory has grown massively and homes for sale are spending more time on the market than they were before the pandemic, pushing prices down. In the Northeast and Midwest, however, inventory remains tight and prices high. What Does This Mean for You? There is some good news for buyers, even as home prices have not yet stopped rising. The daily average 30-year fixed mortgage rate is lower now than it was last year. As of July 9, it was 6.77 percent—still very high, but down from 7.01 percent a year earlier. The weekly average 30-year fixed mortgage rate was down to 6.67 percent in the week ending July 3 from 6.95 percent a year earlier. In the four weeks ending July 6, the median monthly mortgage payment was $2,708 at a 6.67 percent mortgage rate, up 1.8 percent from a year earlier but still the lowest level since early March. Buyers are taking notice: according to data from the Mortgage Bankers Association, mortgage purchase applications were up 9 percent from a week earlier as of the week ending July 4 and up 25 percent from a year earlier. Growing inventory—especially in Sunbelt markets—is also offering buyers more options and giving them more negotiating power, offering them what are likely the best purchasing conditions in years. But sellers are starting to clock on the way the market has changed since the pandemic. In May, according to delistings—the process of pulling for-sale homes out of the market—outpaced overall inventory gains, jumping 35 percent year-to-date and 47 percent year-over-year. In the same month, active listings were up 28.4 percent year-to-date and 31.5 percent year-over-year. "The spike signals that some sellers would rather wait than negotiate, suggesting recent buyer-friendly momentum could wane," economists wrote.
