Home > Student Loans > Washington’s Newest Student Loan “Fix” That Isn’t

Comments 1 Comment

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

That expression is the first thing that came to mind when I read the Student Loan Relief Act of 2015 (S.2099), which was recently introduced by Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.).

Essentially, the bill proposes to pave the way for federal student loan borrowers to refinance their presumably higher-rate, publically financed debts with potentially lower-rate private-sector loans at no cost to taxpayers.

Sounds fabulous. If only it were true.

Let’s start with the wording in Section 102(a)1, which speaks to the rates that student-loan borrowers can expect to pay when they refinance their Federal Direct and FFEL loans. It reads: “… to ensure that borrowers pay lower interest rates that are commensurate with credit risk.”

Commensurate with credit risk?

That doesn’t quite square with Section 102(a)3, which states that the “… private loan that results from refinancing under a program established under the authority of this section shall receive a Federal Government guarantee of 95 percent of the private loan, including accrued interest on such loan.”

If the government continues to backstop these debts well after the time the contracts leave the Department of Education’s balance sheet, why should the borrower’s creditworthiness come into play? For the 5% risk that the private sector is being asked to bear on loans that are virtually impossible to discharge in bankruptcy—loans that may end up being paid through the garnishment of the debtor’s Social Security benefits?

Clearly, this wording opens the door for private-sector lenders to impose whatever pricing they have in mind. There is also nothing to prevent them from pitching lower-cost variable-rate loans to borrowers who happen to have higher-rate, fixed-rate loans — that is, until interest rates begin to escalate. And what’s to stop lenders from demanding loan co-signers too?

Seems to me that what Sens. Ayotte and Capito are really proposing is a backdoor resurrection of the Federal Family Education Loan program—a program that was discontinued in 2010 in favor of the less costly Federal Direct program—where many of the loans ended up in private-sector-sponsored securitizations, with relief-seeking borrowers at the mercy of servicers that are beholden to the investors who pay their wages. The really big difference this time around, however, is that the banks get to set the interest rates.

And then there is Section 102(a)2, which is entitled “No Net Cost to Government.”

I suppose that could be true, since one way or another the feds are guaranteeing these loans. On the other hand, though, the government is currently generating more than $40 in profits through this lending program.

Call that number what you like—“astounding,” “obscene” or “unsustainable” because, after all, how long will the government be able to continue borrowing at 0% interest?—but cash is fungible, which means that these profit dollars, when added to all other governmental revenues, end up offsetting an equal amount of federal deficit.

So considering the risks that are associated with variable-rate loans, the potential for more stringent contractual terms and conditions, the fact that the government is still on the hook for these debts with less money to show for it, I can’t see how this bill is anything but a sweetheart deal for private-sector lenders.

If lawmakers are hot to trot to pave the way for something to address the student loan problem, they should pass legislation that permits all federal student-loan borrowers to refinance their unpaid balances at prevailing undergraduate rates for terms of up to 20 years.

Not only is it difficult to understand why, arguably, more creditworthy borrowers (e.g., graduate students and parents) are forced to pay extra, but it is equally nonsensical to continue a frustratingly inefficient relief-granting process that doesn’t yield any better outcome.

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://www.mycreditcounselor.net Andrew Weber Certified CC

    Simply privatizing the federal loan marketplace does not solve many of the structural issues associated with student loans, and creates a whole new set of problems. Borrowers need to be able to refinance their loans within the federal loan system.

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