Author Archives: hbcumoney

Why HBCUs And Alumni Must Build the HBCU Forest Service Before African American Land Disappears Forever

Posted on January 2, 2026 | Leave a comment

“[W]e can only do what we are able to do at any given time and under a single set of circumstances, and we must not feel unsuccessful in any one attempt. The opportunity will rise again to do something else, and the courage to act will rise with it.” – Betty Reid-Soskin

Forestry remains one of the most overlooked frontiers of African American institutional development, even though Black landownership stretches across 42 states, forming one of the largest and least protected asset classes in Black America’s portfolio. African Americans own an estimated 1.1 million acres of timberland across the United States, representing approximately $3.4 billion in timber asset value, yet this land has never had the institutional protection or forestry infrastructure capable of defending it. Forests, rangelands, farms, hunting land, wetlands, and timber stands make up millions of acres of African American–owned property, but between 1910 and 1997, Black families lost approximately 90% of their farmland—a staggering decline from 16 to 18 million acres to fewer than 2 million acres today. Historically Black Colleges and Universities, especially the 1890 land-grant institutions, were never adequately funded or politically supported to build forestry schools, timber research labs, wildfire academies, or land-management offices that could anchor a national land-protection ecosystem. That vacuum has had devastating consequences.

The loss of African American land over the past century through heirs’ property exploitation, tax manipulation, predatory timber buyers, USDA discrimination, forced sales, and wildfire vulnerability is not solely the result of racism; it is the result of being institutionally unprotected. Studies indicate that heir property affects an estimated 60% of Black-owned land in the South, leaving millions of acres legally vulnerable to partition sales, clouded titles, and involuntary dispossession. Between 1950 and 1969 alone, discriminatory USDA lending practices resulted in the denial or limitation of 13,000 farm ownership and operating loans to Black farmers—loans that would have totaled approximately $4.8 billion in today’s dollars. Without institutional guidance, Black landowners have been systematically stripped of generational wealth, losing an estimated $326 billion in land value over the 20th century.

White land-grant universities spent 150 years building wealth from land that was stolen from Indigenous nations and denied to African Americans. They built forestry programs, extension services, research forests, and land-management infrastructures that allowed White landowners to stay on their land, grow its value, and profit from its timber, minerals, water, and agricultural productivity. The 1862 land-grant institutions received over 10.7 million acres of expropriated Indigenous land, generating endowments worth billions. In contrast, the 1890 land-grant HBCUs—established under the second Morrill Act—received a combined total of only 160,000 acres, most of it marginal or non-forested. Even today, 1890 institutions receive approximately 4-5% of the total federal funding allocated to land-grant universities, perpetuating a resource gap that began at their founding. African American landowners, in contrast, navigated some of the most complex land-related challenges in America without the technical support, policy guidance, or institutional backing that White landowners received as a matter of routine. The lack of a national HBCU-based forestry apparatus meant Black landowners were often negotiating timber contracts in the dark, entering carbon deals without verification, handling wildfire risks without training, and dealing with heirs’ property without legal or forestry guidance. The result was predictable: millions of acres lost, billions of dollars gone, and rural Black communities left economically hollowed out.

The proposed HBCU Forest Service is the long-overdue institutional correction to this century of loss. It is designed not as a campus-by-campus program, but as a national institutional system that serves African American landowners wherever they are—Georgia, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Washington, Alabama, Maine, Maryland, Arkansas, California, New York, and beyond. It recognizes that African American land stretches far beyond the traditional HBCU footprint, and therefore, the institutional ecosystem that serves that land must be national in scope. The HBCU Forest Service would provide forest management plans, wildfire protection support, timber sale oversight, carbon market literacy, forest-tech tools, drone mapping, heirs’ property resolution guidance, and contractor connections to Black landowners across the nation. For the first time in history, Black land would have a dedicated institutional guardian.

The scale of need is immense. Currently, there are fewer than 50 Black foresters employed by the U.S. Forest Service out of a workforce of approximately 30,000—a representation rate of less than 0.2%. Across the entire forestry sector, African Americans constitute only 1.6% of the workforce, despite owning substantial forested acreage. The national forestry workforce crisis presents an urgent opening: over 60% of the current forestry workforce is over the age of 45, with retirement waves expected to eliminate thousands of positions over the next decade. Meanwhile, wildfire suppression costs have exceeded $2 billion annually in recent years, with shortages in trained wildfire personnel reaching critical levels. Timber harvesting, forest management, carbon accounting, GIS analysis, and drone-based forest monitoring all face severe labor shortages. The HBCU Forest Service could address this national crisis while simultaneously protecting Black land assets.

But to anchor such an institution, HBCUs need land. Not theoretical land, not symbolic land—real acreage, real forests, real timber assets, and real natural resource portfolios that can generate long-term institutional revenue. This is where the creation of the HBCU Land Trust becomes indispensable.

The HBCU Land Trust would serve as the land-owning entity for the HBCU Forest Service, holding deeded forestland, conservation easements, carbon-rich acreage, agroforestry plots, and donated parcels. It would acquire land strategically—using philanthropy, federal land transfers, state partnerships, and market purchases to build a multi-state network of HBCU-owned forests. These forests would generate revenue through timber, carbon credits, biomass, recreation, hunting leases, conservation finance, and forest-tech partnerships. The White land-grant universities built their institutional power on their land; the HBCU Land Trust gives HBCUs the same opportunity for the first time in history.

Consider the financial possibilities. Well-managed timberland generates annual returns averaging 4-7% through timber sales, with additional revenue streams from carbon offset markets now valued at $2 billion globally and growing. A 10,000-acre HBCU-owned forest could generate $200,000-$500,000 annually through sustainable timber harvesting alone, with carbon credits potentially adding $50,000-$150,000 per year depending on forest type and market conditions. Hunting leases, recreation fees, and biomass sales provide additional income. Over time, land appreciation typically outpaces inflation, building endowment value. If the HBCU Land Trust acquired just 100,000 acres nationally—less than 10% of what was given to single 1862 land-grant institutions—it could generate $2-5 million in annual revenue while creating a $100-300 million asset base for HBCUs.

Combined, the HBCU Forest Service and the HBCU Land Trust form the institutional foundation required to finally stabilize and grow the African American land base. They provide a system capable of addressing the national forestry workforce crisis, which presents a rare moment of opportunity. Foresters are retiring. Timber workers are aging out. Wildfire fighters are in short supply. Drone and GIS technicians, carbon analysts, and forest-thinning contractors are in high demand. HBCUs can build national pipelines into these fields, producing graduates who can serve federal agencies, state forestry divisions, private timber companies, landowner cooperatives, and forest-tech startups. Workforce transformation can become institutional transformation.

The institutional ecosystem protecting Black land cannot function without robust legal infrastructure, which is where HBCU law schools become essential partners. Currently, there are five HBCU law schools—Howard University School of Law, North Carolina Central University School of Law, Southern University Law Center, Texas Southern University Thurgood Marshall School of Law, and Florida A&M University College of Law—serving a combined enrollment of approximately 2,000 students. These institutions must become centers for land rights law, environmental law, property law, and natural resources law as they relate to African American communities.

HBCU law schools can establish specialized legal clinics focused on heirs’ property resolution, helping to clear clouded titles that currently affect an estimated 3.5 million acres of Black-owned land worth approximately $28 billion. Law students, under faculty supervision, could provide pro bono title research, estate planning, partition defense, and property rights advocacy to Black landowners nationwide. These clinics would serve dual functions: protecting Black land while training the next generation of attorneys equipped to navigate complex rural property issues.

Beyond direct legal services, HBCU law schools should develop certificate programs in natural resources law, forestry law, carbon market regulation, conservation easements, and Indigenous land rights. They can produce research on discriminatory land-loss patterns, advocate for policy reforms at state and federal levels, and represent Black landowners in timber contract disputes, USDA discrimination cases, and environmental justice litigation. Howard Law School’s history of civil rights litigation provides a powerful model: just as Thurgood Marshall and Charles Hamilton Houston used legal strategy to dismantle segregation, a new generation of HBCU-trained attorneys can deploy legal expertise to defend Black land.

HBCU law schools can also partner directly with the HBCU Forest Service and HBCU Land Trust to provide legal counsel on land acquisitions, conservation easements, carbon credit contracts, timber sales, liability issues, and partnership agreements. This integration ensures that every land transaction, every forest management decision, and every carbon market engagement is legally sound and protects Black institutional interests. The legal infrastructure must be as sophisticated as the forestry infrastructure—both are necessary for land protection to succeed.

While the HBCU Forest Service provides ongoing technical assistance and the HBCU Land Trust builds institutional land holdings, there remains a critical need for comprehensive landowner education. This is where the 1890 Foundation can play a transformative role by developing an African American Landowners School—a national certification program that equips Black landowners with the knowledge, skills, and networks necessary to manage, protect, and profit from their land.

The 1890 Foundation, which represents the 19 land-grant HBCUs established under the 1890 Morrill Act, is uniquely positioned to design and coordinate this program. These institutions—including Tuskegee University, Alabama A&M University, Alcorn State University, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, Delaware State University, Florida A&M University, Fort Valley State University, Kentucky State University, Southern University, University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Alcorn State University, Lincoln University, North Carolina A&T State University, Central State University, Langston University, South Carolina State University, Tennessee State University, Prairie View A&M University, and Virginia State University—have deep roots in agriculture, land management, and rural community engagement.

The African American Landowners School would offer tiered certification programs:

Level 1 – Foundational Land Stewardship (40 hours): Covering basic forest ecology, timber identification, wildfire risk assessment, heirs’ property basics, forest management planning, and financial record-keeping for landowners.

Level 2 – Advanced Forest Management (80 hours): Including timber cruising and valuation, sustainable harvesting techniques, wildlife habitat management, prescribed burning, carbon market fundamentals, contract negotiation, and tax strategies for forestland owners.

Level 3 – Professional Land Management Certification (120 hours): Featuring advanced silviculture, forest business management, carbon credit verification, conservation easement structuring, forest technology applications (GIS, drones, remote sensing), estate planning for land succession, and cooperative development.

The program would be delivered through a hybrid model: online coursework accessible nationwide, regional in-person intensives held at 1890 institutions, field training in HBCU Land Trust forests, mentorship from experienced Black landowners and foresters, and ongoing technical support through the HBCU Forest Service. Participants would graduate with recognized credentials that qualify them for forestry cost-share programs, conservation easement agreements, carbon market participation, and preferential lending from USDA and rural development programs.

Critically, the African American Landowners School would create a national network of trained Black landowners who can support one another, share resources, negotiate collectively, and build political power. Currently, Black landowners are isolated, scattered across rural areas with limited peer support. A certification program brings them together, fostering cooperation that can lead to timber cooperatives, shared equipment purchases, group carbon credit sales, and collective advocacy. Research shows that landowner cooperatives can increase timber sale returns by 15-30% through collective bargaining and improved market access. For Black landowners managing 1.1 million acres of timberland worth $3.4 billion, even modest improvements in management and market access could generate hundreds of millions of dollars in additional wealth.

The 1890 Foundation could launch the African American Landowners School with relatively modest initial investment—$5-10 million could establish curriculum development, hire coordinators at each 1890 institution, build the online learning platform, and fund the first three years of programming. Federal funding through USDA, particularly through programs like the 2501 Outreach and Technical Assistance Program and the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, could provide substantial support. Private philanthropy focused on land rights, environmental justice, and HBCU capacity-building would likely respond enthusiastically to a program addressing such a critical gap. Within five years, the program could certify 5,000-10,000 Black landowners, protecting hundreds of thousands of acres and generating measurable increases in landowner income and land retention rates.

But the greatest opportunity extends beyond U.S. borders. The forestry domain is inherently Pan-African. Africa is home to the Congo Basin—one of the world’s most important carbon sinks, spanning approximately 500 million acres and sequestering an estimated 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually. The basin’s forests store approximately 30 billion tons of carbon, equivalent to three years of global emissions. Yet deforestation rates across Africa have accelerated, with the continent losing nearly 10 million acres of forest per year. The Caribbean faces extreme deforestation pressures, soil erosion, and climate disasters that demand sophisticated forestry and land-management responses. Haiti, for instance, has lost 98% of its original forest cover, contributing to devastating landslides, soil degradation, and food insecurity. Jamaica has worked to reverse deforestation but still struggles with sustainable forest management amid climate pressures.

Across the Diaspora, land is under threat from foreign corporate acquisition, climate change, monocrop agriculture, and extractive agreements that leave local populations poorer and more vulnerable. China alone has invested over $6 billion in African forestry and timber operations since 2000, often through deals that export raw logs while providing minimal local economic benefit. European carbon offset projects have acquired millions of acres of African land, sometimes displacing local communities while claiming climate benefits. The lack of institutional capacity—forestry expertise, carbon market literacy, legal infrastructure, and scientific research—leaves African and Caribbean nations at a severe disadvantage in these negotiations.

The HBCU Forest Service could evolve into a Pan-African Forestry Consortium, linking HBCUs with African and Caribbean universities, forestry ministries, timber cooperatives, carbon negotiators, and agroforestry innovators. Through this alliance, African American students could train in Ghanaian, Kenyan, Liberian, or Jamaican forests, while African and Caribbean students train in U.S. forest ecosystems. Joint carbon programs could give the Diaspora collective leverage in international climate markets. Mass timber innovations could be shared. Wildfire science could be exchanged. Agroforestry models could be built collaboratively. And the HBCU Land Trust could help structure cross-border land protection strategies that empower communities rather than dispossess them.

Consider the strategic possibilities. African carbon credits currently trade at $5-15 per ton, far below the $20-50+ per ton available in voluntary markets, largely due to lack of verification infrastructure and negotiating capacity. A Pan-African Forestry Consortium could establish regional verification labs, train carbon auditors, and negotiate collective carbon contracts that capture fair market value. If African nations could increase average carbon credit prices by just $10 per ton across 100 million acres of managed forest, that would generate an additional $1 billion annually in revenue—funds that could flow to rural communities, support reforestation, and build local economies.

Similarly, the Consortium could develop Pan-African timber certification systems that ensure sustainable harvesting while commanding premium prices in global markets. Currently, less than 10% of African timber is certified as sustainably harvested, limiting market access and pricing power. HBCU forestry expertise could change that, building systems that protect forests while increasing economic returns.

This global dimension matters because the future of Black sovereignty—whether American, Caribbean, or African—will be shaped by land. Carbon markets are becoming geopolitical battlegrounds, with carbon credit values projected to reach $50-100 billion annually by 2030. Forest reserves determine climate resilience, with the UN estimating that 1.6 billion people worldwide depend directly on forests for their livelihoods. Timber supply chains influence global construction, particularly as mass timber emerges as a sustainable building material with markets projected to exceed $30 billion by 2030. Nations that control forests will shape the climate future; nations that lose them will be shaped by it. HBCUs, through the HBCU Forest Service and HBCU Land Trust, can become leaders in this global domain rather than spectators.

At home, the institutional pairing of the HBCU Forest Service, HBCU Land Trust, HBCU law schools, and the African American Landowners School would revitalize rural Black communities through forestry-based economic development. Sawmills, micro-mills, biomass facilities, mass timber factories, fire mitigation contractors, forest-restoration businesses, drone surveying companies, and carbon accounting firms can reshape local economies. These industries create jobs that cannot be outsourced, inject revenue into small towns, and reinforce land-based wealth.

The numbers are compelling. The U.S. forest products industry generates approximately $300 billion annually and employs over 900,000 workers. Yet Black ownership and employment in this sector remain negligible—less than 2% across most categories. Mass timber manufacturing alone is projected to grow from $1.1 billion in 2020 to $5.6 billion by 2028, creating thousands of new jobs. Rural communities with sawmills, timber processing, and wood products manufacturing have median household incomes 12-18% higher than similar communities without forest industry presence. For Black communities in the rural South, where poverty rates often exceed 25% and median household incomes lag $15,000-$20,000 below state averages, forestry-based economic development represents one of the few viable pathways to wealth creation.

HBCUs can anchor this development—training the workforce, advising the landowners, partnering with industries, and owning forests that serve as hubs for innovation. A single HBCU-anchored sawmill processing 5 million board feet annually could create 20-30 direct jobs with average wages of $40,000-$55,000, plus another 40-60 indirect jobs in logging, transportation, and support services. Across a network of 10-15 such facilities strategically located near Black-owned forestland, that’s 600-1,350 jobs generating $25-60 million in annual wages.

Beyond timber processing, carbon markets offer substantial revenue potential for Black landowners and rural economies. At current carbon credit prices of $15-20 per ton, a 1,000-acre forest could generate $10,000-$30,000 annually in carbon offset sales depending on forest type, age, and management. Scaled across 1.1 million acres of Black-owned timberland, that’s $11-33 million annually—revenue that currently goes largely unrealized because Black landowners lack access to carbon markets and verification infrastructure. The HBCU Forest Service could provide that access, channeling millions of dollars annually into Black rural communities.

The message is unambiguous: African American land needs institutional protection, and HBCUs need land to build institutional power. The HBCU Forest Service, HBCU Land Trust, HBCU law school land rights clinics, and the African American Landowners School provide both. Together, they represent the most significant institutional strategy available to African America for safeguarding land, generating wealth, shaping climate policy, rebuilding rural economies, and forging Pan-African alliances rooted in land, science, and sovereignty.

Initial funding could come from multiple sources. Federal appropriations through the 1890 land-grant system, currently receiving approximately $60-80 million annually, could be expanded with dedicated forestry allocations. The USDA’s Forest Service budget exceeds $7 billion annually—even a 1% set-aside for the HBCU Forest Service would provide $70 million in annual operating funds. The Inflation Reduction Act allocated $3.1 billion for climate programs at USDA, including forestry initiatives; HBCUs should be priority recipients for climate-focused forestry investments. Private philanthropy in climate, land rights, and HBCU capacity-building—sectors that have collectively deployed billions in recent years—represents another substantial funding pathway.

For land acquisition, the HBCU Land Trust could target federal land transfers (excess USDA and Forest Service lands), state surplus property, conservation-focused philanthropy, and strategic market purchases. Conservation easements, which allow landowners to retain ownership while protecting land from development, could be donated to the Trust with significant tax benefits for donors. Over a 10-year period, a combined investment of $500 million—$300 million for land acquisition, $150 million for HBCU Forest Service operations and infrastructure, $30 million for the African American Landowners School, and $20 million for HBCU law school land rights programs—could fundamentally transform Black land protection and build HBCU institutional power.

Forestry is not a side issue. It is the foundation of power that African American institutions have lacked for 150 years. It is the frontier that can redefine the economic trajectory of the next century. And the question is no longer whether HBCUs should enter this domain; it is whether they can afford not to. With 1.1 million acres of Black-owned timberland worth $3.4 billion at risk, with $326 billion in historical land loss unremedied, with 60% of Black land vulnerable to heirs’ property exploitation, with climate markets reshaping global power dynamics, and with institutional sovereignty on the line, the time for the HBCU Forest Service, HBCU Land Trust, HBCU law school land rights programs, and the African American Landowners School is now.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.

Leave a comment

Posted in HBCUs

The Impossible Mathematics: African America’s $480 Billion or $1.5 Trillion Debt Dilemma

Posted on December 30, 2025 | Leave a comment

Debt is part of the human condition. Civilization is based on exchanges – on gifts, trades, loans – and the revenges and insults that come when they are not paid back. – Margaret Atwood

The mathematics of African American household debt present a stark choice: either eliminate $480 billion in consumer credit or add $1.5 trillion in mortgage debt. These are the pathways to achieving the 3:1 mortgage-to-consumer-credit ratio that European, Hispanic, and other American households maintain as a baseline of financial health. The first option requires African Americans to reduce consumer borrowing by 65% while maintaining current mortgage levels. The second demands increasing mortgage debt by 185% from $780 billion to $2.22 trillion while holding consumer credit constant. Neither path is realistic in isolation, yet both illuminate the extraordinary structural challenge facing Black households attempting to build wealth in an economy designed to extract it.

The current debt profile of $780 billion in mortgages against $740 billion in consumer credit represents an almost perfect inversion of healthy household finance. To understand the magnitude of correction required, consider what a 3:1 ratio would mean in practice. If African American households maintained their current $780 billion in mortgage debt, consumer credit would need to fall to $260 billion, a reduction of $480 billion. Alternatively, if consumer credit remained at $740 billion, mortgage debt would need to rise to $2.22 trillion, an increase of $1.44 trillion. The symmetry of these impossible requirements reveals how far African American household finance has diverged from sustainable wealth-building patterns.

The consumer credit reduction scenario appears superficially more achievable. After all, paying down debt requires discipline and sacrifice rather than access to new credit markets. Yet the practical barriers are immense. Consumer credit serves multiple functions in African American households, not all of them discretionary. Medical debt, a significant component of consumer credit, reflects the reality that Black Americans face higher rates of chronic illness while having lower rates of health insurance coverage and higher out-of-pocket costs. Transportation debt, often in the form of auto loans that blur the line between consumer and secured credit, reflects the necessity of vehicle ownership in a nation with limited public transit and residential patterns shaped by decades of housing discrimination that placed Black communities far from employment centers.

Even the portion of consumer credit that finances consumption rather than necessity spending reflects structural constraints. When median Black household income remains roughly 60% of median white household income, and when emergency savings remain inadequate due to lower wealth accumulation, consumer credit becomes a volatility buffer—a way to smooth consumption when irregular expenses arise. The Federal Reserve’s Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking consistently shows that Black households are significantly more likely than white households to report that they could not cover a $400 emergency expense without borrowing or selling something. This is not improvidence; it is the predictable result of income and wealth gaps that leave no margin for error.

Reducing consumer credit by $480 billion would require African American households to collectively pay down debt at a rate of approximately $40 billion per month for a year, or $3.3 billion per month for twelve years, assuming no new consumer debt accumulation. Given that African American households currently carry 15% of all U.S. consumer credit while representing 13% of the population, this would require Black households to dramatically outperform all other groups in debt reduction while maintaining living standards and weathering economic volatility without the credit cushion that has become structurally embedded in their financial lives.

The mortgage expansion scenario presents different but equally formidable challenges. Adding $1.44 trillion in mortgage debt would require African American homeownership to expand dramatically or existing homeowners to take on substantially larger mortgages. Current African American homeownership stands at approximately 45%, compared to 74% for white households. Yet even closing this gap entirely would be insufficient. To generate $1.44 trillion in new mortgage debt at the median Black home value of $242,600 (according to BlackDemographics.com analysis of Census data), African American homeownership would need to reach 87%—a rate no demographic group in American history has ever achieved. For context, white homeownership peaks at 74%, Asian American homeownership reaches approximately 63%, and Hispanic homeownership stands around 51%. The mortgage expansion path requires Black households to exceed the performance of every other demographic group by more than 13 percentage points while navigating credit markets that systematically disadvantage them.

More realistic would be existing homeowners trading up to more expensive properties or extracting equity through cash-out refinancing. Yet here too the barriers are substantial. The 2025 LendingTree analysis showing 19% denial rates for Black mortgage applicants reveals that even creditworthy Black borrowers face systematic disadvantages in accessing mortgage credit. For those who do gain approval, interest rate disparities mean that Black borrowers pay higher costs for the same debt, reducing the wealth-building potential of homeownership while increasing monthly payment burdens.

There is also the question of whether massive mortgage expansion would even be desirable. The 2008 financial crisis demonstrated the dangers of over-leveraging households on housing debt. While the crisis hit all communities, African American households suffered disproportionate wealth destruction, losing 53% of their wealth between 2005 and 2009 compared to 16% for white households. This reflected both predatory lending practices that steered Black borrowers toward subprime mortgages and the concentration of Black wealth in housing, which meant that home price declines destroyed a larger share of Black household balance sheets. Adding $1.44 trillion in mortgage debt without addressing underlying income inequality, employment instability, and institutional weakness would simply create a larger foundation upon which the next crisis could inflict even greater damage.

Nor would shifting the focus toward investment properties rather than primary residences solve this vulnerability. While rental properties offer income generation and different tax treatment, they would further concentrate African American wealth in real estate potentially pushing the share from the current 60% of assets concentrated in real estate and retirement accounts to 75% or higher in property holdings alone. When real estate markets crash, they crash comprehensively, taking both owner-occupied homes and rental properties down together. The 2008 crisis demonstrated this brutally: Black investors who had built portfolios of rental properties lost everything when tenants couldn’t pay rent during the recession, forcing investors to carry multiple mortgages they couldn’t service, leading to cascading foreclosures across their entire property holdings. Investment real estate offers no escape from concentration risk when households lack the liquid assets, diversified portfolios, and institutional support systems necessary to weather market downturns. With African American households holding just $330 billion in corporate equities and mutual funds—a mere 4.7% of their assets—there simply isn’t enough non-real-estate wealth to cushion the impact of property market volatility, regardless of whether the properties are owner-occupied or investment holdings.

The geographic dimension of mortgage expansion presents additional complications. African American homeownership is concentrated in markets where home values have historically appreciated more slowly than in majority-white submarkets. A recent Redfin analysis found that homes in majority-Black neighborhoods appreciated 45% less than homes in majority-white neighborhoods over a fifteen-year period, even after controlling for initial home values and location. This means that even substantial increases in mortgage debt may not generate proportional wealth accumulation if the underlying properties do not appreciate at competitive rates. The legacy of redlining, racial zoning, and exclusionary land use policies has created a geography of disadvantage where Black homeownership builds less wealth per dollar of debt than white homeownership.

The institutional barriers to either path are equally daunting. African American-owned banks hold just $6.4 billion in assets, while African American credit unions hold $8.2 billion. Together, these institutions control less than $15 billion in lending capacity. If these institutions were to facilitate a $480 billion reduction in consumer credit by offering debt consolidation loans at lower rates, they would need to increase their asset base by more than thirtyfold. If they were to finance a $1.44 trillion increase in mortgage debt, they would need to grow nearly hundredfold. Neither is feasible within any realistic timeframe, meaning that any significant shift in African American debt composition must flow through institutions owned by other communities, the same institutions whose discriminatory practices and wealth extraction mechanisms created the current imbalance.

There are no African American-owned credit card companies, no Black-controlled mortgage servicers of scale, no African American commercial banks with the balance sheet capacity to originate billions in mortgage debt. This institutional void means that even if African American households collectively decided to restructure their debt profiles, they would lack the institutional infrastructure to execute that restructuring on their own terms. Every loan refinanced, every new mortgage originated, every credit card balance transferred would enrich institutions outside the community, perpetuating the extraction cycle even as households attempted to escape it.

The policy environment offers little assistance. The Federal Housing Administration, which once provided a pathway to homeownership for millions of Americans, has become a more expensive option than conventional mortgages for many borrowers, with mortgage insurance premiums that never fall away. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored enterprises that dominate the mortgage market, have made reforms to reduce racial disparities in underwriting, but these changes have been modest and face political resistance. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regulations that might limit predatory lending face uncertain enforcement in a political environment hostile to financial regulation.

State and local down payment assistance programs exist but remain underfunded relative to need. Employer-assisted housing programs, which some corporations have established to help employees become homeowners, rarely reach the Black workers who need them most, both because African Americans are underrepresented in the professional class jobs these programs typically target and because the programs often require employment tenure that Black workers, facing higher job instability, are less likely to achieve.

The theoretical third path—simultaneous reduction in consumer credit and expansion of mortgage debt—might seem to offer a middle ground. If African American households could reduce consumer credit by $240 billion while increasing mortgage debt by $720 billion, the 3:1 ratio could be achieved through a more balanced adjustment. Yet this scenario simply combines the barriers of both approaches: it requires access to mortgage credit that discrimination constrains, while also requiring debt paydown that income and wealth gaps make difficult, all while navigating through institutions that lack alignment with Black community interests.

What makes the entire framing particularly troubling is that it treats symptoms rather than causes. The 3:1 ratio that other communities achieve is not the result of superior financial planning or cultural advantage. It reflects higher incomes that reduce the need for consumer credit to smooth consumption, greater wealth that provides emergency buffers without borrowing, better access to mortgage credit at favorable terms, stronger financial institutions serving their communities, and residential patterns that allow homeownership to build wealth efficiently. African American households face the inverse of each advantage: lower incomes, less wealth, worse credit access, weaker institutions, and housing markets structured to extract rather than build wealth.

Pursuing a 3:1 ratio without addressing these structural factors would be like treating a fever without addressing the underlying infection. The ratio is a symptom of deeper pathologies: systematic wage discrimination that has suppressed Black income for generations, wealth destruction through urban renewal and highway construction that demolished Black business districts, redlining and racial covenants that prevented Black families from accessing appreciating housing markets during the great postwar suburban expansion, mass incarceration that removed millions of Black men from the labor force and branded millions more as essentially unemployable, and the steady erosion of the institutional infrastructure that might have provided some counterweight to these forces.

The data from HBCU Money’s 2024 African American Annual Wealth Report shows African American households with $7.1 trillion in assets and $1.55 trillion in liabilities, yielding approximately $5.6 trillion in net wealth. Yet this wealth is overwhelmingly concentrated in illiquid assets, real estate and retirement accounts comprising nearly 60% of holdings. The modest $330 billion in corporate equities and mutual fund shares represents just 0.7% of total U.S. household equity holdings. This concentration in illiquid assets means that even households with substantial paper wealth lack the liquidity to manage volatility without consumer credit, while also lacking the income-producing assets that might reduce dependence on labor income.

The comparison with other minority communities is instructive. According to the FDIC’s Minority Depository Institution program, Asian American banks control $174 billion in assets, Hispanic American banks hold $138 billion, while African American banks manage just $6.4 billion. These disparities reflect different histories of exclusion and different patterns of institutional development, but they also reveal possibilities. Hispanic and Asian American communities have managed to build and sustain financial institutions at scales that enable meaningful intermediation of community capital. African American communities have not, and the debt crisis is one manifestation of this institutional failure.

The question is not really whether African American households should reduce consumer credit by $480 billion or increase mortgage debt by $1.44 trillion. Neither is achievable through household-level decisions alone, and both would leave unchanged the extraction mechanisms and institutional weaknesses that created the crisis. The question is whether the structural conditions that make the current debt profile inevitable like income inequality, wealth gaps, discriminatory credit markets, institutional underdevelopment can be addressed at a scale and pace sufficient to prevent the debt trap from closing entirely.

The urgency is real. Consumer credit growing at 10.4% annually while mortgage debt grows at 4.0% and assets appreciate even more slowly suggests an accelerating divergence. Each year, the gap widens. Each year, the extraction intensifies. Each year, the institutional capacity to respond weakens as Black-owned banks close and credit unions remain trapped at subscale. The mathematics of debt restructuring, stark as they are, pale beside the mathematics of compounding disadvantage where each year’s extraction reduces the capacity to resist next year’s, creating a downward spiral from which escape becomes progressively more difficult.

The $480 billion or $1.5 trillion question is not really about debt reduction or mortgage expansion. It is about whether a community can restructure its household finances while lacking institutional control over the credit markets it must navigate, while facing discrimination at every point of access, while generating wealth that flows immediately out of the community through interest payments, fees, and rent extraction. The answer, based on current trajectories, appears to be no. The alternative is building the institutional infrastructure, addressing the income and wealth gaps, reforming the credit markets that requires a scale of intervention that African America’s current political and economic institutional conditions make unlikely. And so the debt trap closes, slowly but inexorably, converting nominal wealth gains into real wealth extraction, one interest payment at a time.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.

Leave a comment

Posted in Economics

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When Big Gifts Cast Long Shadows: Why HBCUs Blessed by MacKenzie Scott Must Invest in the HBCUs and African American Institutions Still Left Behind

Posted on December 26, 2025 | 1 comment

“Power grows when it circulates. If only one HBCU rises, none of us truly rise.”

MacKenzie Scott’s philanthropy has reshaped the HBCU landscape in ways that few could have imagined a decade ago. When her unrestricted gifts began landing across the sector, they offered something rare in Black institutional life: immediate liquidity, strategic freedom, and the assumption that HBCUs knew best how to use the capital given to them. Institutions like Prairie View A&M, Tuskegee, Winston-Salem State, Spelman, Morgan State, and others seized this moment to strengthen balance sheets, expand programs, retire debt, and set in motion long-term visions often delayed by years of underfunding.

But while headlines celebrated these historic gifts, another truth ran quietly beneath the surface many of the smallest, oldest, and most financially fragile HBCUs received nothing. Texas College, Voorhees, Morris, short-funded religiously affiliated colleges, and two-year HBCUs were notably absent from the list. Their exclusion was not due to a lack of mission, quality, or need. It was due to visibility, a structural inequality baked into the philanthropic landscape.

Large and mid-sized HBCUs possess communications offices, audited financial statements, national reputations, and alumni networks large enough to keep their names in circulation. Small HBCUs often have one person doing the work of an entire department, no national brand presence, and no full-time staff dedicated to donor engagement. Philanthropy at scale tends to flow to institutions already “discoverable,” which means the colleges that need the money most are often the least visible to donors like Scott. This is not a critique of her giving; she has done more for HBCUs than any private donor in a generation. Where the African American donors of consequence is a another article for another day. It is an indictment of a philanthropic system that confuses visibility with worthiness.

Unrestricted capital, however, changes power dynamics. When an HBCU receives $20 million, $40 million, or $50 million with no strings attached, it is receiving not just money but institutional autonomy. It is gaining the ability to build, to plan, to hire, to innovate, and to settle the long-deferred obligations that drain mission-driven organizations. This autonomy carries with it an important question: what responsibility does an HBCU have to the larger ecosystem when it receives this kind of power?

HBCUs often describe themselves as part of a shared lineage, a collective built from necessity and sustained by interdependence. If that is true, then institutions that receive transformative gifts have a responsibility to circulate a portion of that capital to the HBCUs that remain structurally invisible. This is not a matter of charity; it is a matter of ecosystem logic. A rising tide only lifts all boats if every institution has a boat capable of floating.

Even a small redistribution—2 to 5 percent of unrestricted gifts—would represent a meaningful shift. A $50 million gift becomes a $1–2.5 million contribution to a collective pool. A $20 million gift becomes $400,000–$1 million. A $5 million gift becomes $100,000–$250,000. Spread across the dozens of HBCUs that received Scott’s funds, such a strategy could generate $40–60 million in shared capital almost immediately. For a small HBCU with a $12 million budget, even a $500,000 infusion can stabilize operations, hire essential staff, or stave off accreditation risks. And for two-year HBCUs—critical institutions that often serve first-generation and working-class students—$250,000 can transform workforce programs or upgrade classroom technology.

When unrestricted money flows into the ecosystem, it should not be seen as belonging solely to the institution receiving it. It should be viewed as a rare chance to strengthen the entire system that sustains Black educational capacity. That means revisiting the historic practices of resource sharing that once defined HBCUs. There was a time when faculty were exchanged, when larger institutions lent administrators to smaller ones, and when collective survival was at the center of institutional strategy. Financial scarcity eroded much of that ethos over time; unrestricted capital can revive it.

The need for this kind of intra-HBCU investment becomes even more urgent when we consider how philanthropy shapes public perception. When a small HBCU faces financial distress, politicians and media often use its weakness as a reason to question the entire sector. But when a small HBCU strengthens, expands, and stabilizes, it lifts the credibility of the collective. The fate of one HBCU inevitably influences the political and philanthropic fortunes of the others. Strengthening the weakest institutions is not optional it is a strategic imperative for the strongest ones.

Shared capital also opens the door to new structures that benefit the entire ecosystem. Larger HBCUs could help create a visibility accelerator that provides grant-writing support, marketing expertise, budgeting assistance, and donor engagement tools for smaller institutions. They could establish a joint endowment fund where smaller HBCUs gain access to investment managers they could never otherwise afford. They could create emergency liquidity pools to help institutions weather short-term cash shortages that often cascade into long-term crises. They could co-sponsor research initiatives, faculty exchanges, and new academic programs at institutions that have the vision but lack the staff or funding to execute.

These are not theoretical ideas; they are practices used by well-resourced universities and nonprofit networks across the country. Major universities routinely fund pipeline schools, partner institutions, and community colleges. Corporations build up their suppliers. Regional governments pool funding to strengthen smaller municipalities. In almost every sector except the HBCU sector, power is used to build the ecosystem, not just the institution.

One of the most overlooked consequences of Scott’s gifts is the cultural message they send: large HBCUs are now in a position to move beyond survival mode and into builder mode. They can start thinking not just about their own campuses but about the health of the entire HBCU network. They have the resources to help smaller institutions become discoverable to future donors, to strengthen donor reporting infrastructure, to modernize back offices, and to raise their visibility in national conversations.

Redistribution is not about guilt. It is not about moral obligation. It is about strategic logic. Large HBCUs cannot thrive in a sector where small HBCUs collapse. For the ecosystem to have political leverage, credibility in national policy debates, and a future pipeline of Black scholars and professionals, the entire network must be strong. When an HBCU closes or falters, opponents of Black institutional development use that failure as proof of irrelevance. When an HBCU grows even a small one it becomes a success story that benefits the whole landscape.

The Scott gifts represent a once-in-a-generation financial turning point, but they are only a starting point. If HBCUs treat them as isolated blessings, the impact will be uneven and short-lived. If they treat them as seed capital for an ecosystem-wide transformation, the impact could reshape Black educational power for decades. Large HBCUs must decide whether they will be institutions that simply grow or institutions that help the entire sector evolve.

Smaller HBCUs cannot increase visibility alone. They cannot hire full development teams or produce 50-page donor reports without capital. They cannot expand new programs without bridge funding. They cannot modernize their infrastructure without partners. But the HBCUs that did receive unrestricted capital can change the landscape for them and by doing so, they strengthen the entire ecosystem.

This moment is not just about money. It is about whether HBCUs will use new wealth to reproduce old hierarchies or to build new pathways for collective power. In a philanthropic world that rewards visibility, the institutions that already stand in the light now have the responsibility and the means to illuminate the rest.

The measure of true power within the HBCU ecosystem is not what one institution accumulates. It is what the ecosystem can create together what none of its institutions could build alone. The future of HBCU philanthropy will depend on whether those blessed with unrestricted gifts choose to expand their own shadows or choose instead to cast light.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ChatGPT.

1 Comment

Posted in Philanthropy

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Consumer Credit Now Rivals Mortgage Debt in African American Households

Posted on December 23, 2025 | Leave a comment

First our pleasures die – and then our hopes, and then our fears – and when these are dead, the debt is due dust claims dust – and we die too. – Percy Bysshe Shelley

African American household assets reached $7.1 trillion in 2024, a half-trillion-dollar increase that might appear encouraging at first glance. Yet beneath this headline figure lies a structural vulnerability that threatens to undermine decades of hard-won economic progress: consumer credit has surged to $740 billion, now representing nearly half of all African American household debt and approaching parity with home mortgage obligations of $780 billion. In the world of good debt versus bad debt, African America’s bad debt is rapidly choking the economic life away.

This near 1:1 ratio between consumer credit and mortgage debt represents a fundamental inversion of healthy household finance. For white households, the ratio stands at approximately 3:1 in favor of mortgage debt over consumer credit. Hispanic households maintain a similar 3:1 ratio, as do households classified as “Other” in Federal Reserve data. The African American community stands alone in this precarious position, where high-interest, unsecured borrowing rivals the debt secured by appreciating assets.

The implications of this structural imbalance extend far beyond mere statistics. They reveal a community increasingly dependent on expensive credit to maintain living standards, even as asset values nominally rise. Consumer credit grew by 10.4% in 2024, more than double the 4.0% growth in mortgage debt and far exceeding the overall asset appreciation rate. This divergence suggests that rising property values and retirement account balances are not translating into improved financial flexibility. Instead, African American households appear to be running faster merely to stay in place, accumulating debt at an accelerating pace despite wealth gains elsewhere on their balance sheets.

What makes this dynamic particularly insidious is the extractive nature of the debt itself. With African American-owned banks holding just $6.4 billion in combined assets, a figure that has grown modestly from $5.9 billion in 2023, the overwhelming majority of the $1.55 trillion in African American household liabilities flows to institutions outside the community. This represents one of the most significant, yet least discussed, mechanisms of wealth extraction from African America.

Consider the arithmetic: if even a conservative estimate suggests that 95% of African American debt is held by non-Black institutions, and if that debt carries an average interest rate of 8% (likely conservative given the prevalence of credit card debt and auto loans), then African American households are transferring approximately $120 billion annually in interest payments to institutions with no vested interest in Black wealth creation or community reinvestment.

For context, the entire asset base of African American-owned banks—$6.4 billion—represents less than one month’s worth of these interest payments. The disparity is staggering. According to the FDIC’s Minority Depository Institution program, Asian American banks lead with $174 billion in assets, while Hispanic American banks hold $138 billion. African American banking institutions, despite serving a population with $7.1 trillion in household assets (yielding approximately $5.6 trillion in net wealth after liabilities), control less than 0.1% of that wealth through their balance sheets.

This extraction mechanism operates at multiple levels. First, there is the direct transfer of interest payments from Black borrowers to predominantly white-owned financial institutions. Second, there is the opportunity cost: capital that could be intermediated through Black-owned institutions creating deposits, enabling local lending, building institutional capacity but instead enriches institutions that have historically redlined Black communities and continue to deny Black borrowers and business owners at disproportionate rates.

Third, and perhaps most pernicious, is the feedback loop this creates. Without sufficient capital flow through Black-owned institutions, these banks lack the resources to compete effectively for deposits, to invest in technology and branch networks, to attract top talent, or to take on the larger commercial loans that could finance transformative community development projects. They remain, in effect, trapped in a low-equilibrium state unable to scale precisely because they lack access to the very capital that their community generates.

The near-parity between consumer credit and mortgage debt in African American households signals a fundamental divergence from the wealth-building model that has enriched other communities for generations. Mortgage debt, despite its costs, serves as a mechanism for forced savings and wealth accumulation. As homeowners make payments, they build equity in an asset that typically appreciates over time. The debt is secured by a tangible asset, carries relatively low interest rates, and benefits from tax advantages.

Consumer credit operates on precisely the opposite logic. It finances consumption rather than investment, carries interest rates that can exceed 20% on credit cards, builds no equity, and offers no tax benefits. When consumer credit approaches the scale of mortgage debt, it suggests a household finance structure tilted toward consumption smoothing rather than wealth building—using expensive borrowing to maintain living standards in the face of inadequate income growth.

The data from HBCU Money’s 2024 African America Annual Wealth Report confirms this interpretation. While African American real estate assets totaled $2.24 trillion, growing by just 4.3%, consumer credit surged by 10.4%. This divergence suggests that home equity, the traditional engine of African American wealth building, is being offset by the accumulation of high-cost consumer debt.

More troubling still, the concentration of African American wealth in illiquid assets with real estate and retirement accounts comprising nearly 60% of total holdings limits the ability to weather financial shocks without resorting to consumer credit. Unlike households with significant liquid assets or equity portfolios that can be tapped through margin loans at lower rates, African American households facing unexpected expenses must often turn to credit cards, personal loans, or other high-cost borrowing.

This creates a wealth-to-liquidity trap: substantial assets on paper, but insufficient liquid resources to manage volatility without accumulating expensive debt. The modest representation of corporate equities and mutual funds at just $330 billion, or 4.7% of African American assets means that most Black wealth is locked in homes and retirement accounts that cannot easily be accessed for emergency expenses, business investments, or wealth transfer to the next generation.

The underdevelopment of African American banking institutions represents both a cause and consequence of this debt crisis. With combined assets of just $6.4 billion, Black-owned banks lack the scale to compete effectively for deposits, to offer competitive loan products, or to finance the larger commercial and real estate projects that could drive community wealth creation.

To understand why bank assets matter for addressing household debt, one must grasp a fundamental principle of banking: a bank’s assets are largely composed of the loans it has extended. When a bank reports $1 billion in assets, the majority represents money lent to households and businesses in the form of mortgages, business loans, and lines of credit. These loans are assets to the bank because they generate interest income and (ideally) will be repaid. Conversely, the deposits that customers place in banks appear as liabilities on the bank’s balance sheet, because the bank owes that money back to depositors.

This means that when African American-owned banks hold just $6.4 billion in assets, they have extended roughly $6.4 billion in loans to their communities. By contrast, African American households carry $1.55 trillion in debt. The arithmetic is stark: Black-owned institutions are originating less than 0.5% of the debt carried by Black households. The remaining 99.5% or approximately $1.54 trillion flows to non-Black institutions, carrying interest payments and fees with it. If Black-owned banks held even 10% of African American household debt as assets, they would control over $155 billion in lending capacity more than twenty times their current scale creating a powerful engine for wealth recirculation and community reinvestment.

The exclusion from consumer credit is even more complete than these figures suggest. There are no African American-owned credit card companies, and most African American financial institutions lack the scale and infrastructure to issue Visa, MasterCard, or other branded credit cards through their own institutions. When Black consumers carry $740 billion in consumer credit much of it on credit cards charging 18% to 25% interest virtually none of that debt flows through Black-owned institutions. Every swipe, every interest payment, every late fee enriches the handful of large banks and card issuers that dominate the consumer credit market. This represents the most direct and lucrative form of wealth extraction: high-margin, unsecured lending with minimal default risk due to aggressive collection practices, all flowing entirely outside the Black banking ecosystem.

By comparison, a single large regional bank might hold $50 billion or more in assets. The entire African American banking sector commands resources equivalent to roughly one-eighth of one large institution. This scale disadvantage manifests in multiple ways: higher operating costs as a percentage of assets, limited ability to diversify risk, reduced capacity to invest in technology and marketing, and difficulty attracting deposits in an era when consumers increasingly prioritize digital capabilities and nationwide ATM access.

The decrease of Black-owned banks has accelerated these challenges. The number of African American-owned banks has declined from 48 in 2001 to just 18 today, even as the combined assets have grown from $5 billion to $6.4 billion. This suggests that the survivors have achieved modest scale gains, but the overall institutional capacity of the sector has contracted significantly. Each closure represents not just a loss of financial services, but a loss of community knowledge, relationship banking, and the cultural competence that enables Black-owned institutions to serve their communities effectively.

The credit union sector presents a more substantial but still constrained picture. Approximately 205 African American credit unions operate nationwide, holding $8.2 billion in combined assets and serving 727,000 members. While this represents meaningful scale more than the $6.4 billion held by African American banks the distribution reveals deep fragmentation. The average credit union holds $40 million in assets with 3,500 members, but the median tells a more sobering story: just $2.5 million in assets serving 618 members. This means the majority of African American credit unions operate at scales too small to offer competitive products, invest in digital banking infrastructure, or provide the full range of services that members need. Many church-based credit unions, while serving vital community functions for congregations often underserved by traditional banks, hold assets under $500,000. The member-owned structure of credit unions, while fostering community engagement and democratic governance, also constrains their ability to raise capital through equity markets, leaving them dependent on retained earnings and member deposits for growth, a particular challenge when serving communities with limited surplus capital.

This institutional deficit has profound implications for the debt crisis. Without strong Black-owned financial institutions, African American borrowers must rely on financial institutions owned by other communities that often offer less favorable terms. Research consistently shows that Black borrowers face higher denial rates, pay higher interest rates, and receive less favorable terms than similarly situated white borrowers. A 2025 LendingTree analysis of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data found that Black borrowers faced a mortgage denial rate of 19% compared to 11.27% for all applicants making them 1.7 times more likely to be denied. Black-owned small businesses received full funding in just 38% of cases, compared with 62% for white-owned firms.

These disparities push African American households and businesses toward more expensive credit alternatives. Unable to access conventional mortgages, they turn to FHA loans with higher insurance premiums. Denied bank credit, they turn to credit cards and personal loans with double-digit interest rates. Lacking access to business lines of credit, entrepreneurs tap home equity or personal savings, increasing their financial vulnerability.

The absence of robust Black-owned institutions also deprives the community of an important competitive force. Where Black-owned banks operate, they create pressure on other institutions to serve Black customers more fairly. Their presence signals that discriminatory practices will drive customers to alternatives, creating at least some market discipline. Where they are absent or weak, that discipline evaporates.

Corporate DEI programs that once channeled deposits to Black-owned banks have been largely eliminated. The current federal political environment is openly hostile to African American advancement, with programs like the Treasury Department’s Emergency Capital Investment Program facing uncertain futures. External support structures are collapsing precisely when they are most needed, leaving African American institutions and individuals as the primary actors in their own financial liberation, a task made exponentially more difficult by the very extraction mechanisms this analysis has documented.

The near-parity between consumer credit and mortgage debt in African American households is not a reflection of poor financial decision-making or cultural deficiency. It is the predictable outcome of structural inequalities that have limited income growth, constrained access to affordable credit, concentrated wealth in illiquid assets, and prevented the development of financial institutions capable of serving the Black community effectively.

The comparison with other racial and ethnic groups is instructive. White, Hispanic, and other households all maintain mortgage-to-consumer-credit ratios of approximately 3:1 or better. They achieve this not because of superior financial acumen, but because they benefit from higher incomes, greater intergenerational wealth transfers, better access to credit markets, and stronger financial institutions serving their communities.

African American households, by contrast, face headwinds at every turn. Median Black household income remains roughly 60% of median white household income. The racial wealth gap, at approximately 10:1, ensures that Black families receive less financial support from parents and grandparents. Discrimination in credit markets, though illegal, persists in subtle and not-so-subtle forms. And the institutional infrastructure that might counterbalance these disadvantages from Black-owned banks, investment firms, insurance companies remains underdeveloped and undercapitalized.

The result is a community that has achieved a nominal wealth of $5.5 trillion, yet finds that wealth increasingly built on a foundation of expensive debt rather than appreciating assets and productive capital. The $740 billion in consumer credit represents not just a financial liability, but a transfer mechanism that annually extracts tens of billions of dollars from the Black community and redirects it to predominantly white-owned financial institutions.

Breaking this pattern will require more than incremental change. It will require a fundamental restructuring of how capital flows through the African American community, how financial institutions serving that community are capitalized and regulated, and how wealth is built and transferred across generations. The alternative of continuing on the current trajectory is a future in which African American households accumulate assets while simultaneously accumulating debt, running faster while falling further behind, building wealth that proves as ephemeral as the credit that increasingly finances it.

The data from HBCU Money’s 2024 African America Annual Wealth Report provides both a warning and an opportunity. The warning is clear: the current path is unsustainable, with consumer credit growing at more than double the rate of asset appreciation and institutional capacity remaining stagnant. The opportunity is equally clear: with $5.5 trillion in household wealth, the African American community possesses the resources necessary to build the financial institutions and wealth-building structures that could transform debt into equity, consumption into investment, and extraction into accumulation.

The question is whether the community, and the nation, will recognize the urgency of this moment and take the bold action necessary to recirculate capital, rebuild institutions, and restructure household finance before the debt trap closes entirely. The answer to that question will determine not just the financial trajectory of African American households, but the capacity of African America rise in power and to address the racial wealth gap that remains its most persistent economic failure.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.

Leave a comment

Posted in Economics

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

HBCU Money Presents: African America’s 2024 Annual Wealth Report

Posted on December 20, 2025 | 1 comment

African American household wealth reached $7.1 trillion in 2024, marking a half-trillion-dollar increase that signals both progress and persistent structural challenges in the nation’s racial wealth landscape. While the topline growth appears encouraging, the composition reveals a familiar pattern: wealth remains overwhelmingly concentrated in illiquid assets, with real estate and retirement accounts comprising nearly 60% of total holdings. The year’s most dynamic growth came from corporate equities and mutual fund shares, which surged 22.2% to $330 billion—yet this represents less than 5% of African American assets and a mere 0.7% of total U.S. household equity holdings, underscoring how far removed Black households remain from the wealth-generating mechanisms of capital markets.

The liability side of the ledger tells an equally sobering story. Consumer credit climbed to $740 billion in 2024, now representing nearly half of all African American household debt and growing at more than double the rate of asset appreciation. This shift toward unsecured, high-interest borrowing—particularly as it outpaces home mortgage debt—suggests that rising asset values are not translating into improved financial flexibility or reduced economic vulnerability. What makes this dynamic even more troubling is the extractive nature of the debt itself: with African American-owned banks holding just $6.4 billion in combined assets, it’s clear that the vast majority of the $1.55 trillion in African American household liabilities flows to institutions outside the community. This means that interest payments, fees, and the wealth-building potential of lending relationships are being systematically siphoned away from Black-owned financial institutions that could reinvest those resources back into African American communities, perpetuating a cycle where debt burdens intensify even as the capital generated from servicing that debt enriches institutions with no vested interest in Black wealth creation.

ASSETS

In 2024, African American households held approximately $7.1 trillion in total assets, an increase of more than $500 billion from 2023, with corporate equities and mutual fund shares recording the fastest year-over-year growth from a relatively small base, even as wealth remained heavily concentrated in real estate and retirement accounts—together accounting for more than 58% of total assets.

Real Estate

Total Value: $2.24 trillion

Definition: Real estate is defined as the land and any permanent structures, like a home, or improvements attached to the land, whether natural or man-made.

% of African America’s Assets: 34.2%

% of U.S. Household Real Estate Assets: 5.1%

Change from 2023: +4.3% ($100 billion)

Real estate remains the dominant asset class for African American households, accounting for over one-third of total household assets. While modest appreciation continued in 2024, ownership remains highly concentrated in primary residences rather than income-producing or institutional real estate, limiting liquidity and leverage potential.

Consumer Durable Goods

Total Value: $620 billion

Definition: Consumer durables, also known as durable goods, are a category of consumer goods that do not wear out quickly and therefore do not have to be purchased frequently. They are part of core retail sales data and are considered durable because they last for at least three years, as the U.S. Department of Commerce defines. Examples include large and small appliances, consumer electronics, furniture, and furnishings.

% of African America’s Assets: 8.8%

% of U.S. Household Durable Good Assets: 6.2%

Change from 2023: +3.3% ($20 billion)

Corporate equities and mutual fund shares 

Total Value: $330 billion

Definition: A stock, also known as equity, is a security that represents the ownership of a fraction of the issuing corporation. Units of stock are called “shares” which entitles the owner to a proportion of the corporation’s assets and profits equal to how much stock they own. A mutual fund is a pooled collection of assets that invests in stocks, bonds, and other securities.

% of African America’s Assets: 4.7%

% of U.S. Household Equity Assets: 0.7%

Change from 2023: +22.2% ($60 billion)

Defined benefit pension entitlements

Total Value: $1.73 trillion

Definition: Defined-benefit plans provide eligible employees with guaranteed income for life when they retire. Employers guarantee a specific retirement benefit amount for each participant based on factors such as the employee’s salary and years of service.

% of African America’s Assets: 24.4%

% of U.S. Household Defined Benefit Pension Assets: 9.7%

Change from 2023: +7.5% ($40 billion)

Defined contribution pension entitlements

Total Value: $880 billion

Definition: Defined-contribution plans are funded primarily by the employee. The most common type of defined-contribution plan is a 401(k). Participants can elect to defer a portion of their gross salary via a pre-tax payroll deduction. The company may match the contribution if it chooses, up to a limit it sets.

% of African America’s Assets: 12.4%

% of U.S. Household Defined Contribution Pension Assets: 6.0%

Change from 2023: +4.8% ($40 billion)

Private businesses

Total Value: $330 billion

% of African America’s Assets: 4.7%

% of U.S. Household Private Business Assets: 1.8%

Change from 2023: +3.1% ($10 billion)

Other assets

Total Value: $770 billion

Definition: Alternative investments can include private equity or venture capital, hedge funds, managed futures, art and antiques, commodities, and derivatives contracts.

% of African America’s Assets: 10.9%

% of U.S. Household Other Assets: 2.7%

Change from 2023: +6.9% ($50 billion)

LIABILITIES

“From 2023 to 2024, African American household liabilities rose by approximately $100 billion, with consumer credit, now representing nearly 48% of all liabilities, driving the majority of the increase and reinforcing structural constraints on net wealth accumulation despite rising asset values.”

Home Mortgages

Total Value: $780 billion

Definition: Debt secured by either a mortgage or deed of trust on real property, such as a house and land. Foreclosure and sale of the property is a remedy available to the lender. Mortgage debt is a debt that was voluntarily incurred by the owner of the property, either for purchase of the property or at a later point, such as with a home equity line of credit.

% of African America’s Liabilities: 50.3%

% of U.S. Household Mortgage Debt: 5.8%

Change from 2023: +4.0% ($30 billion)

Consumer Credit

Total Value: $740 billion

Definition: Consumer credit, or consumer debt, is personal debt taken on to purchase goods and services. Although any type of personal loan could be labeled consumer credit, the term is more often used to describe unsecured debt of smaller amounts. A credit card is one type of consumer credit in finance, but a mortgage is not considered consumer credit because it is backed with the property as collateral. 

% of African American Liabilities: 47.7%

% of U.S. Household Consumer Credit: ~15.0%

Change from 2023: +10.4% ($70 billion)

Other Liabilities

Total Value: $30 billion

Definition: For most households, liabilities will include taxes due, bills that must be paid, rent or mortgage payments, loan interest and principal due, and so on. If you are pre-paid for performing work or a service, the work owed may also be construed as a liability.

% of African American Liabilities: 2.0%

% of U.S. Household Other Liabilities: ~2.8%

Change from 2023: 0% (No material change)

Source: Federal Reserve

1 Comment

Posted in Investing

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,