Home > Student Loans > The Student Loan Realities We Can’t Ignore Anymore

Comments 4 Comments

An alternate view on student-loan payment performance data is challenging the prevailing narrative that tends to greatly downplay the problem.

In his recent Wall Street Journal column, Josh Mitchell correctly observes that after accounting for the fact that only half of all student loans are actually in repayment (the other half are deferred because the borrowers are still in school), nearly one-third are actually past due.

Yet as alarming as that metric may be, it doesn’t even factor in the loans that are in default (absurdly depicted as payments that are nine to as many as 12 months past due, versus three months for all other consumer and commercial obligations), temporarily accommodated (often with negatively amortizing forbearances) or permanently modified under one of the federal government’s relief programs (where an estimated 40% of borrowers under the Income-Based Repayment and Pay As You Earn plans fail to re-apply for continued relief between calendar years).

All that taken into consideration, the true level of distressed loans approaches 50%—nearly five times the delinquency rate for home mortgages at its post-economic-crash peak.

No wonder the chatter is intensifying. The question is, are we finally ready to do something about the problem? A good way to start is by grouping the myriad issues into two categories: cleaning up the mess we’ve made and preventing a recurrence.

Fixing the Problem

When a significant portion of any loan portfolio heads south, the reasons typically include poor credit underwriting or improper payment structuring on the front end, or faulty loan administration on the back.

In the case of the student-loan program, it’s all bad.

Beginning with the loan-approval process, there’s a cure for sloppy credit underwriting. It’s called discharge in bankruptcy; a course of action that’s available for all types of consumer indebtedness except for student loans (absent undue hardship), which I’ll talk more about in a moment. But first, the Department of Education complains that not enough financially distressed borrowers are taking advantage of its various payment-relief plans and it holds the loan servicers responsible for that. However, as the saying goes, “Point a finger and there are three pointing back at you.” A good deal of the blame actually rests with the ED. After all, department officials pre-screened these companies, oversee the work they do, and devised the compensation plans the servicers are using to their advantage.

So, too, is the ED at fault for the fundamental design of the government’s relief plans, particularly how not all student loans are eligible for assistance or that the onus is on the borrowers to repeatedly apply for the support they continue to require.

Given the magnitude of this problem, the correct course of action is to refinance the entire portfolio of loans for terms of up to 240 months—rather than the standard 120—at interest rates that are financially justified as opposed to politically contrived, as was the case in 2013. Borrowers should also be entitled to penalty-free rights to pay down the principal or pay off their loans entirely as quickly as possible.

Until all that happens, the right to discharge student debts in bankruptcy should be restored. Doing so will motivate the government, its agents and the lenders, and investors who own discontinued Federal Family Education Loan program contracts (which represent slightly less than half of all the loans that are currently in repayment) to move more borrowers more quickly into more relief programs so that they may avoid bankruptcy altogether.

These borrowers, who by virtue of various Truth in Lending law exceptions have been relegated to second-class consumer citizenship, also deserve the same protections to which they are entitled for all other modes of consumer financing. So, too, should they benefit by the same exemption from taxes that have been granted to home mortgagors in the wake of the economic collapse, along with having their credit bureau reports reflect only their post-relief payment performance.

As for the loan servicers, the ED has had a heck of a time spinning all that bad press about many of its subcontractors’ objectionable practices. But since the department doesn’t disclose the details of its contractual arrangements with the companies that stand accused of misleading, overcharging and failing to funnel borrowers into the relief plans to which they are legally entitled, one might assume that it’s because it’s in these companies’ interests not to do so. Hence the need for reconstituting the department’s fee structure and the rules that govern that, all within the bright light of day.

For example, one way to remedy a runaway-delinquency problem is to remit servicing fees on a sliding scale: a little less for each month for the payments that fall 30, 60, 90 or more days past due. And because temporarily accommodated loans (i.e., in forbearance) do not appear to be characterized as delinquent during that period (which invites the potential for gaming the numbers) these loans should instead continue to be counted as past due until either the borrower becomes current with his payments or the contract is permanently restructured. Finally, in no case should any accommodation—temporary or otherwise—result in negative amortization (when the unpaid interest is added to the outstanding loan balance) because doing so only makes matters worse for the borrower later on.

Going Forward

Everyone agrees that the price of tuition has reached the point of unaffordability and the schools are doing all they can think of to remain competitive. Unfortunately, it’s a race to the bottom.

According to a recent survey conducted by the National Association of College and University Business Officers, many private colleges seem to be opting for a 47th Street (New York City’s Diamond District) approach to the market where no one pays retail. The schools are reportedly discounting the price of their education products an average 46% and, perhaps, relaxing admission standards as well.

And then there are the facilitators.

Higher education financing continues to be readily available with little apparent regard for the borrower’s ultimate ability to repay his or her debt or, for that matter, the relative value of the product he or she plans on purchasing—two of the most basic, commonsense tenets of good credit underwriting. Couple that with the widespread loan-servicing problems of both government and privately originated loans—and it’s no wonder things have gone so terribly wrong.

So why haven’t we pulled the plug on this this reckless form of lending?

Well, if a consumer’s choice is between public- and private-education-related financing, the government wins. Not only are its fixed-rate loans less expensive and its terms and conditions more reasonable, but, most important, its relief programs are also more comprehensive and forgiving. The problem is that this does nothing to arrest the tuition-price spiral.

Perhaps a better way to go would be to consider what Germany has put into place—tuition-free, public higher education—which the U.S. can come tantalizingly close to accomplishing if it does these four things:

  1. Refinance the existing portfolio of student loans so the payments become affordable.
  2. Restructure all loan-servicing contracts to improve subcontractor accountability.
  3. Sell the remediated portfolio and assign the underlying servicing contracts to the private sector (with the department acting as principal for that).
  4. Redirect all the money it currently spends on higher education (originating and servicing loans, awarding grants and so forth) to funding tuition at two- and four-year schools that meet specific outcome-based eligibility requirements (such as program completion and gainful employment).

Will this cover every dollar of every cost at every college and university? No. Nor should it. Germany’s program, for example, funds only the price of tuition. Those students who qualify for admission to the nation’s public universities—a process that is arguably more rigorous than applicants experience in the U.S.—are responsible for room, board and other living costs. Consequently, many choose to attend universities that are close to home, partner up with other students to share the rent and take part-time jobs to pay the bills.

State-supported schools may be able to cover their overhead costs with this arrangement. Those that aren’t will have other decisions to make, as will their private-school counterparts, including merging with other institutions to eliminate wasteful redundancies and divesting noncore businesses such as residential housing and food services. The resulting cash can then be used to upgrade educational content and the systems that are needed for its delivery while reducing the cost of tuition.

What About Graduates?

There is one more matter to address.

If some form of tuition-free higher education actually comes to pass, what of the current and former student borrowers who, at last count, are saddled with more than $1.2 trillion worth of education-related debt? Certainly, there isn’t enough money to address their obligations too, that is, unless one was to consider an alternative source of funding.

Last year, the ED abruptly announced that it decided to drop the so-called cohort default rate (CDR) measurement from its prospective rating system—a move that still boggles the mind because loan repayment and gainful employment go hand-in-hand. But perhaps that metric can be utilized after all. What if the CDR was used as the basis for recovering from the schools a portion of the federal funding they received for the students who’ve proved to be overcharged or inadequately equipped to command the jobs that pay enough to cover their debts? Isn’t it time we held the schools to account, if only for the benefit of those who’ve been left holding the bag?

As you can see, there is more than enough blame to go around. But finger-pointing accomplishes nothing. Taking these politically and financially difficult steps will.

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

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.

  • http://batman-news.com fiscalsense

    News: Income based repayment is virtually the same thing as a restructuring under chapter 13 bankruptcy. By its definition, the borrower cannot afford to make fully amortized payments based on the size of their debt relative to income, so they only pay a percentage of their income and the remaining balance is forgiven at the end of the 20-25 year period. While great for the student and school, this is a rotten deal for the taxpayer, since there is no cap on the amount to be forgiven and those who take advantage of this are those who typically have six figure debt loads and/or multiple unnecessary master’s degrees.
    The real solution to this problem is a lower borrowing cap, period. $57,500 is plenty for both grads and undergraduates alike. Continuing to graduate school does not warrant the taxpayer taking on many multiples more in student loan risk. How do I know this? I work in student finance.

    • http://www.credit.com/ Credit.com Credit Experts

      Thanks for contributing to the conversation . . .

    • http://www.Credit.com/ Gerri Detweiler

      While I can see your point, I’d caution that there are risks with this approach that you wouldn’t have with bankruptcy. If you complete a Ch 13 bankruptcy in 3 – 5 years, discharged debts are behind you. With IBR, 20–25 years is a long time and many things could happen in the meantime that could affect your ability to complete the program. During that time, the debt continues to grow due to interest.

  • http://www.Credit.com/ Gerri Detweiler

    I don’t know enough about your dispute to answer but have you thought about talking with an attorney with experience in student loan law?

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