Home > Student Loans > Lower-Cost Student Loans? Not Really.

Comments 1 Comment

Auctions of U.S. Treasury notes and bonds don’t usually attract a lot of attention unless we are in the midst of tumultuous times or when the lending rates for a pretty important loan program are indexed to one of these.

At nearly $1 trillion and counting, the Federal Direct Student Loan program deserves all the attention it can get.

So when the Treasury Department sold a fresh batch of 10-year notes last week at a yield that turned out to be more than a third of a percentage point lower than it was at in the same period in 2014, the headlines touted the corresponding decline in student-loan rates as welcome savings for student borrowers. I suppose that’s true if one were to ignore the pace at which tuition prices have been increasing each year and the large number of students who fail to complete their studies because they can no longer afford enrollment. (Nearly 50% of all students don’t complete their degree.)

How Much Does the Government Profit From These Loans?

The truth is that although the cost of financing higher education has declined because of favorable market conditions—a sword that most people realize cuts both ways—the politically contrived methodology for setting these interest rates in the first place continues to result in enormous profits for the federal government, given the way it borrows to support this activity.

Take, for example, the new 4.29% rate for Federal Direct undergraduate loans. It’s based on the recent 2.24% yield-at-auction for the 10-year Treasury note plus a 2.05% markup. Perhaps lawmakers chose the 10-year T-note because it coincides with the 10-year repayment term for these loans. If so, someone should let them know that that’s not how structured finance works in real life.

Loans that fully amortize over time are typically bankrolled at rates that approximate their so-called half-life: roughly 5 years for a 10-year loan. That means the 5-year T-note should be the basis for pricing these loans, rather than the 10-year.

What does that mean? The difference between the higher-rate 10-year and lower-rate 5-year notes was 0.68% at the time of this writing, which doesn’t sound like much until you translate that into present value profit dollars. Doing so, that 0.68% becomes worth 3.4% in cash profits if these were paid upfront. That’s in addition to the aforementioned 2.05% markup, which Congress also authorized and is worth an additional 10.25% of front-ended profit. Add to that the 1% cash fee that the government charges on its undergrad and grad/professional loans on day one and the feds have a respectable 14.65% payday coming its way: nearly 10 cents on every borrowed dollar.

But wait, there’s more.

As it turns out, not only isn’t the government borrowing 10-year money to fund this program it’s not borrowing less expensive 5-year money, either. In fact, past reports indicate that the Education Department is actually financing its programs with dirt-cheap, very short-term debt: currently priced at 0.01% interest. That means there’s an extra 2.23% of interest-rate spread at play (2.24% minus 0.01%), which translates into an additional 11.15% of present value profit.

Everything taken into account, the ED’s program delivers nearly 26 cents in profit on every borrowed dollar. And that’s just for undergraduate loans. The same calculation, when applied to the graduate and professional program, results in a 30.15% profit, and a whopping 38.15% for parent PLUS loans—all of which comes at the expense of student borrowers and the parents who support them.

Is There a Better Approach?

It’s important to note that the “government” in the form of the ED didn’t devise this pricing mechanism on its own. The folks we elected to the House and Senate did two summers ago.

There are two ways to deal with this outrage. One would be to hammer our representatives for a more economically reasonable and rational rate structure. The other would be to use what’s already in place to the students’ advantage.

If lawmakers insist on maintaining as the basis for these programs rates that more properly support 20-year payment plans, they should grant to all students the right to refinance their existing debts for the same 20 years at the rates that are currently in place. Not only would their monthly payments become more manageable, but doing so could also lower the rate of payment delinquency and default, and diminish the need for additional relief as well.

Oh, and one more thing.

Since Congress appears to be OK with a program that generates profits almost as high as those that result from long-term credit card debt, how about making student debts comparably eligible for discharge in bankruptcy? That’ll go a long way to providing all lenders and loan servicers with a really good reason to deal more forthrightly with their financially distressed borrowers.

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

More on Student Loans:

Image: iStock

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.

  • Jessica

    I appreciate what you’re trying to say, but ” and the large number of students who fail to complete their studies because they can no longer afford enrollment. (Nearly 50% of all students don’t complete their degree.)” – it’s somewhat disingenuous.

    Many students leave school because life happens – pregnancy, medical issues, mental health issues, job offers, family issues, failure to adapt to the freedom that comes with being away from parents, wanting to move back closer to a significant other, etc. While many students cite financial reasons as withdrawing – and that is actually the case for many, it’s the easiest issue to cite even when there is actually something else going on.

    At my former institution, we started asking detailed questions of students who were withdrawing. I don’t remember the exact numbers, but I do remember the gist being that the majority said they were leaving for financial issues because it seemed like an “acceptable” answer to give, but when pressed further, many of the other actual issues were given.

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