WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The first round of the Federal Reserve’s controversial bond-buying program helped most in parts of the country that needed it least, new research released Monday showed.

Conversely, metro areas hit hardest by the recession received the smallest amount of Fed stimulus.

At issue was the Fed’s desire with its first round of asset purchases to boost mortgage activity.

Mortgage originations, mostly refinancing existing loans, did boom after the Fed announced in November 2008 that it would purchase $500 billion of agency mortgage-backed securities and $100 billion of direct obligations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

But the research, conducted by a team of economists from the University of Chicago and the New York Fed to be presented at a Brookings Institution conference, found mortgage refinancings increased mainly in parts of the country with the fewest underwater homeowners.

Also see:City-by-city look at house prices

Loan-to-value ratios varied widely across regions, the study found. Refinancing activity increased most in places where there were few mortgage holders with a loan-to-value ratio above 0.8%, areas including Buffalo, N.Y., and Philadelphia.

Most places that experienced large declines in home prices had loan-to-value ratios well above that level, including Las Vegas, Miami and Orlando. So the smallest refinancing response for “QE1” took place in the locations that were hit hardest by the recession. Areas where borrowers refinanced the most in early 2009 were the same areas in which car purchases increased the most.

A separate paper to be presented at the Brookings conference said the Fed’s quantitative-easing programs did not exacerbate income inequality.

Josh Bivens, research and policy director of the Economic Policy Institute, said it’s not even clear whether the Fed’s programs were slightly regressive or progressive. While stock-price gains benefited the top 1%, home prices increases helped the bottom 90%, he said.

But Bivens warned that the Fed would foster inequality if it rushes to tighten monetary policy before the labor market returns to full employment.

“The recent debate about the proper future path of Fed tightening in the next couple of years ... is one in which distributional concerns should rightly be front and center,” Bivens said.