The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, act as legal, financial or credit advice; instead, it is for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not be current. This website may contain links to other third-party websites. Such links are only for the convenience of the reader, user or browser; we do not recommend or endorse the contents of any third-party sites. Readers of this website should contact their attorney, accountant or credit counselor to obtain advice with respect to their particular situation. No reader, user, or browser of this site should act or not act on the basis of information on this site. Always seek personal legal, financial or credit advice for your relevant jurisdiction. Only your individual attorney or advisor can provide assurances that the information contained herein – and your interpretation of it – is applicable or appropriate to your particular situation. Use of, and access to, this website or any of the links or resources contained within the site do not create an attorney-client or fiduciary relationship between the reader, user, or browser and website owner, authors, contributors, contributing firms, or their respective employers.
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. Compensation is not a factor in the substantive evaluation of any product.
The bill also affects roughly $300 billion of government-backed FFEL student loans, which may have been securitized by companies that had served as conduits for the discontinued program. This move will have a significantly negative impact on investors who participated in these complicated deals — the same folks who have generally resisted providing more than token forbearances to borrowers who are having difficulty making their loan payments.
But here’s the problem: Although moving to 4% interest from the current rate of 6.8% sounds great on paper — a 41% reduction — it doesn’t translate as meaningfully in practice.
For example, say a student exits college with $50,000 in student loan debt. At 6.8% interest, the monthly payment is $575.40. At 4%, the monthly payment would be $506.23 — only 12% lower. (Blame the time value of money formula for the math.)
A better solution would be to restructure the underlying term to 240 months (20 years) from the current 120 (10 years). Doing so would lower the payment to $381.67 or 34% less, without adjusting the original interest rate. Of course, a longer term means more interest paid in due course, which is why it makes sense to permit prepayments at any time, in any amount, without penalty.
And there’s another matter to take into account for any plan that’s intended to help these hopelessly indebted students: affordability.
Say the same $50,000 borrower is single and earns $44,000 per year (the average salary for 2012 bachelor’s degree graduates according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers). Under Gillibrand’s proposal, the revised monthly payment (at 4%) would still consume 14% of his or her pretax monthly salary. That doesn’t leave a lot of room for living expenses — let alone savings — after accounting for the 25% to cover taxes (including Social Security and Medicare), another 25% to 30% for rent, not to mention any other debt payments.
A better solution would be to solve for a monthly payment amount that does not exceed 10% of gross salary (unlike the government’s PAYER program, which is based on discretionary income), so that the same borrower would then be able to comfortably afford payments that run about $370 per month — $12 less than the payment amount of the aforementioned 20-year restructure and $136 less than Sen. Gillibrand’s 4% interest plan.
As important would be to incorporate into any refinancing program the most egregious of these loans: the roughly $150 billion of private borrowing. If Washington is finally willing to take on the complexities of securitized debt, it should also include the often-securitized loans that are dollar-for-dollar more burdensome than any other.
I believe Sen. Gillibrand is on the right track in her attempt to tackle all education loans that involve the federal government, especially if her bill does not discriminate against borrowers who are currently past due or in default — those who most need assistance. My hope, however, is that politicians will set aside their battles over interest rates and ignore the lobbying efforts of those who’ve unfairly benefitted in the past, and instead focus on payment affordability because that’s what’s needed to craft a fair and enduring solution.
Image: iStockphoto
August 26, 2020
Student Loans
August 4, 2020
Student Loans
July 31, 2020
Student Loans