Home > Managing Debt > Should Bankruptcy Be an Option for Student Loan Borrowers?

Comments 0 Comments

Last month, the Center for American Progress—a progressive think tank—published a report that calls for “a bolder approach” to making student loans more responsive to the needs of financially distressed borrowers.

Briefly, the center is advocating for the creation of two new student loan designations: qualified and nonqualified. Qualified loans would be priced in accordance with the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act of 2013. They would also be structured to incorporate the various distressed borrower relief programs that are currently offered through the government’s Direct Loan programs—such as the Pay As You Earn Repayment plan—and more widely available deferment and forbearance arrangements. These loans must also have a “reasonable likelihood of repayment,” which suggests there would be a link between borrowing amounts and employment outcomes—a move that’s intended to hold schools accountable for the quality and cost of the education they provide.

Loans that fail to meet these standards would be designated nonqualified and thus subject to discharge in cases of Chapter 7 bankruptcy—an action that has become virtually impossible to take because of the limitations imposed by the curiously named Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

A Deeper Dive Into the Problems

On the surface, the center’s recommendations appear reasonable. They’re intended to promote responsible lending and borrowing practices, which the center believes will also lead to more affordable college costs.

Unfortunately, they don’t go far enough.

To start, it’s unclear how this will address the $1.1 trillion in student loans that are already on the books. Would the qualified/nonqualified designations be retroactively applied? If so, you can imagine the intensity of the lobbying effort that’ll ensue as lenders stand to lose significant sums of money on unsecured (uncollateralized) education loans.

What about the schools? Shouldn’t they also be held financially accountable for their culpability in the making of this economic disaster? Would it not make sense to compel the colleges to disgorge a portion of their prior earnings to cover their fair share of the losses? Perhaps the schools’ cohort default data could be used to determine the value of those chargebacks.

An Issue of Fairness

But let’s focus on the crux of the center’s report: the dischargeability of student loan debt in bankruptcy court.

That all student loans—both government and private—are virtually bankruptcy-proof has become a focal point of distressed borrower anger. It’s also become a bubbling cauldron of resentment for those who’ve not experienced these same difficulties either because of lower debt levels or more favorable employment outcomes.

I happen to fit that particular demographic.

I worked and borrowed my way through college and grad school, and repaid my loans on time and in full. What’s more, my professional background is on the lending side of the financial services industry and I teach part time at a local university. So it stands to reason that I am opposed to reforming the bankruptcy code as the center recommends. After all, I repaid what I borrowed, I’m a lender by trade and, if that weren’t enough, I’m also on a college’s payroll—a virtual trifecta of anti-leniency sentiment.

But it’s exactly because of these factors that I am in favor of modifying the code—although not to encourage mass loan defaults. Indeed, I would argue that we are already experiencing that condition, contrary to the absurd manner in which education lenders report payment performance.

What’s Reported Doesn’t Represent Reality

It is absolutely mindboggling to me as a lender that student loans are not categorized as defaulted until they are nine or more months past due. Nor does it make sense for these loans not to be categorized as impaired when deferment after deferment and forbearance after forbearance is granted, just so the borrower can continue to hobble along while the interest rate clock keeps on ticking.

Not only are these practices inconsistent with the manner in which just about every other type of loan I can think of is handled, I would argue they’re also predatory because the borrowers are at a distinct negotiating disadvantage. But before I get to that, here’s some insight into how a lender approaches a problem-loan workout.

When a loan heads sideways, the lender will update the borrower’s credit bureau report and, perhaps, FICO score, in order to determine how widespread the problem is (and because no lender wants to be the only one granting relief). The lender will also compile employment, payroll and tax information along with household budgets and updated personal financial statements (assets owned versus debts owed) so it can begin to devise an exit strategy for the loan—whether through a modified repayment plan or by forcing the borrower to sell certain assets.

Motivation Toward a Solution

So what if the borrower is truly up against it? What if his or her debt obligations have become completely unmanageable and there are no savings accounts to tap or assets to liquidate? You would think the lender would figure out a way to extract from the borrower all that it could for as long as it can because, as my banking buddies like to say, “A rolling loan gathers no loss.”

Unless the loan is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

When an unsecured borrower has the ability to pull the plug in court, the lender is powerfully motivated to craft a solution that’ll minimize the hit it would otherwise take if the borrower were to go that route. When that’s not the case, the lender is equally motivated to take a much tougher stance—which is what appears to be happening with education loans.

Student lenders know that their borrowers are stuck. So rather than restructure the debt in a constructive (and potentially profit-eroding) manner by extending the term, abating the interest rate and/or reducing the principal balance, the lender offers temporary salves in the form of negatively amortizing payment deferments and forbearances that end up increasing the borrower’s loan balance and future payment amounts.

Not only is this hardnosed approach shortsighted and unproductive, it’s also immoral. That’s why I believe it’s time to restore student loan dischargeability. We need to return to a more balanced and constructive distressed debt-negotiation process. Otherwise, we’ll never clean up the mess we’ve made for ourselves.

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not represent the views of the company or its affiliates.

Image: Creatas

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team