The presumption that mortgage markets for low-income borrowers and nei
ghborhoods are underserved by lenders has led to a variety of increase
d government interventions on the supply side of the housing market. A
lthough many studies of low-income lending at the neighborhood level h
ave been published, none is from the firm's perspective. We adopt such
a framework to test the twin propositions that the low-income mortgag
e market is no different from the non-low-income mortgage market and t
hat the low-income mortgage market is underserved. We examine empirica
lly whether the operating costs including credit losses, revenues, and
profits of savings and loan institutions engaged in more low-income l
ending differ systematically from those that do less low-income lendin
g. We find that firms engaged in more low-income mortgage lending have
higher costs than those engaged in less low-income lending, which is
consistent with higher credit risk for low-income loans. Nevertheless,
these firms are no more profitable than those that do less low-income
lending, which is inconsistent with a market for low-income mortgage
lending that is currently underserved.