iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Credit.com

GET UPDATES FROM Credit.com
 

Student Loans Need Major Overhaul, Not Small Fixes

Posted: 06/15/2012 10:45 am

By Mitchell D. Weiss

Student loan debt is the elephant in America's living room, and with good reason. According to the most recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Center for Education Statistics, the average annual cost of tuition for a four-year school represented more than 40 percent of median household income in 2010.

That helps to explain why two out of three college students who are graduating with debt are doing so with an average of $25,250 in education loans plus another $4,100 in related credit card debt (per The Project on Student Debt and SLM Corporation, respectively).

Liabilities of this magnitude so early in a student's life have the potential to diminish the quality of that life by crowding out many of the things we take for granted. Cash-strapped grads are delaying marriage and children, or even moving out of their old bedrooms at home for that matter. They're also putting off car and other major purchases, with obvious macro-economic ramifications.

And yet, we're quibbling over interest rates instead of coming to terms with a problem that requires a great deal more than the plodding, incremental approach being taken by the Federal Student Aid office and congress.

For example, while the government's Income-Based Repayment Program is a decent starting point for addressing this crisis, it excludes private education loans, those that are already in the IBR Program or in ordinary repayment (for 2011 grads and older), as well as those that are currently in default -- arguably the loans that should be addressed before all others.

By contrast, the Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012 (H.R. 4170) proposes to include older as well as private loans but, in the case of the private loans, only when total education debt (government and private combined) exceeds average household income for each of the previous three years. Also, it's unclear whether or not defaulted loans would be eligible for consideration.

As for the "forgiveness" part, the government program requires 20 years of payments to reach that point as opposed to the 10 under H.R. 4170. The House resolution also ups the ante by proposing to forgive borrowers who've already paid in for 10 years.

With all of this in mind -- and speaking as a former lender, student loan borrower and a parent of two kids who've made their own way through college and grad school -- I'd like to suggest an alternate approach that has the potential to address the totality of the problem while distributing the pain a little more evenly. I say that because while I'm convinced that the schools, government and private lenders have all contributed to the making of this grand mess, students and parents are also responsible for their part of it.

  • I believe that the government's Income-Based Repayment Program should be expanded to include all loans without preconditions (i.e.; older, restructured, defaulted and private loans). The soon-to-be-implemented modifications to the discretionary income calculation would prevail, resulting in the potential for some level of loan loss on the part of the government and the private lenders, should distressed borrowers remain in the program for its duration.
  • The bankruptcy laws should be changed as well, to permit the discharge of private education loans. This would give the private lenders the proper incentive not to resist this workout program. It would also level the playing field somewhat -- lenders that know that their borrowers have the ability to pull the plug (declare bankruptcy) are well motivated to find solutions, particularly when their loans are under-collateralized or, as it is in the case of education loans, where there is no underlying collateral.
  • The interest rate for these restructured loans should be no greater than for the subsidized Stafford program (3.4 percent). After all, this is a workout.
  • The maximum repayment term should remain at 20 years because anything less would unfairly reward those who borrowed the most.


Going forward, I'd also like to suggest that the government-sponsored loan program be modified as follows.

  • The Aggregate Loan Limit would be annually reset to a maximum of one times the then-current average salary for college graduates, which the National Association of Colleges and Employers reports as $42,000 for 2012. At today's 6.8 percent government rate (Direct Unsubsidized), the monthly payments would equal 14 percent of that salary when the repayment term is 10 years, 11 percent when the term is 15 years and 9 percent when it's 20 years.
  • The standard repayment term for all government loans would be set at 20 years. Unsubsidized borrowers should be encouraged (if not required) to pay the interest while they're in school in order to avoid the compounding effect that would add to their obligation, while diminishing their ability to borrow under the program.
  • Rates would be indexed to the 10-year Treasury, plus a premium to cover administrative costs. (The 10-year Treasury approximates the cost to fund a 20-year, fully amortizing loan program.)


Consumers requiring additional borrowing may then decide to apply for loans from the private lenders, although with the change in bankruptcy laws that I'm advocating, that's probably going to be tougher to accomplish. Consequently, I would expect students and their families to become even more frugal with their higher education dollars as they consider alternative school settings, degree acceleration and other cost-saving strategies.

I would also expect these moves to pressure the schools to rethink their cost structures, as they should.

This story is an Op/Ed contribution that originally appeared on Credit.com. It does not represent the views of the company or its affiliates.

Free Credit Check & Monitoring

 

Follow Credit.com on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CreditExperts

FOLLOW MONEY
 
 
  • Comments
  • 42
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
01:23 PM on 06/19/2012
Why am I reading so many articles that claim to have the solution to fixing the problem but are just solutions that are progressively getting more complicated and larger in scope in the hopes of being a real solution while still remaining nothing more than tinkering around the edges?

Why are we not hearing more about education as a human right, doing away with the need for student loans to begin with, and cutting corporations out of the mix entirely.

Post-secondary education should be provided, without charge, perhaps based on merit, perhaps not, to any and all that desire to pursue it, and yes, you should pay for it, I should pay for it, we should all pay for it, just like we pay for everything else that is essential to progress, just like we pay for primary and secondary education now.

Most importantly, corporations should be paying for it, after all, they stand to gain the most from having an educated workforce.
08:41 PM on 06/19/2012
I hear you, MFAINE, but until that day comes, there are millions of students and alums with a trillion dollars in aggregate student loan debt that need to be addressed, not to mention the new students who are entering the system and borrowing new dollars of their own. That's why I'm attempting to connect today's cure with tomorrows prevention.
08:27 PM on 06/18/2012
Mitchell, thanks for pointing out the facts. Quibbling with the interest rates is one thing, but the government is avoiding the real problem, which you discussed.
Many middle-aged people ( & people over the age of 60), have student loans which they just can't afford to pay. Especially the private loans, which are very dangerous & highly predatory. Private lenders gave student loans at 14% plus Libor, and higher. Those loans are now double or triple. The monthly payments can't be deferred at all, & there is no IBR for private loans. If Sallie Mae says your payment is $500 a month, well, that is it. The loan defaults if you can't afford the inflated monthly payment. Federal loans are more flexible.
Bankruptcy protection should be returned to borrowers of private student loans, especially since many people were steered into these loans without even knowing that they could have requested other types of Federal loans.
09:57 PM on 06/18/2012
Thanks for the note! We're on the same page re/discharging private loans in bankruptcy and you're correct about students (and parents) not always being properly counseled. This past semester, I heard from several students whose parents arranged for private education loans without first considering what the government had to offer. Unfortunately, private loans are ineligible for consolidation with government loans at this time. Hopefully, this will change.
04:22 AM on 06/18/2012
When all understand the concept of 2 big to fail, as they did with the Banks and refuse to pay another cent this will be corrected. Until then there is a large doubt this will change.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
moevaughn
facta non verba
02:52 PM on 06/17/2012
Thank you, Mitchell, for your focus on much-needed student loan reform. Are you (as part of your reform package) advocating for the elimination of compounding interest and other consolidation fees whereby borrowers end up paying double, triple, or even quadruple what they originally borrowed? Also would you make it illegal to garnish social security income applied to student loan debt? Thanks!
07:35 PM on 06/17/2012
Thanks for the comment, Moe.

Compounding can’t be avoided unless the loan is structured to be "simple interest" in nature, provided that the payments are made in full and on time. Otherwise, the shortfall would then be added to the loan balance and interest would end up being applied against the adjusted total. In other words, you’d end up with a loan that compounds.

I’m advocating for a wholesale restructuring of those loans that cannot be paid in full so that the payment shortfalls are no longer "negatively amortized". In my view, it’s the only responsible way to deal with this problem.

As for the matter of garnishment, I know that I'm going to make some enemies when I say this but loans need to be repaid. Otherwise, who would be willing to lend to anyone else ever again? Still, garnishment should truly be a last resort for a lender. I know it was for the companies that I owned and operated. In fact, the only times we traveled down that path was when the borrower was unreasonably uncooperative or deliberately obstructive.

It's been my experience (after more than 30 years in the financial services industry) that the vast majority of borrowers who hit a rough patch in their lives have as strong a desire to honor their obligations as those who continue to have the means. All they need is a lender who's willing to find a way to help them to do so.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
moevaughn
facta non verba
08:53 PM on 06/17/2012
"Compounding can't be avoided unless the loan is structured to be 'simple interest'". So would you be in favor of restructuring loans and allowing all debtors to pay back what they actually borrowed plus a reasonable, simple interest? (Also many borrowers have had their original amount doubled (tripled and even quadrupled) through consolidation fees added to the principal along with the capitalized interest.) If a borrower has already paid back more than his original amount, would you be willing to let the rest be "forgiven"?
02:47 PM on 06/17/2012
I feel graduates should be able to refinance student loans; consolidation is good, but not fair. If I can pay 3% for a home and refi as many times as necessary to get a good interest rate. I should be able to refinance from an 8.25% interest rate to a lower rate. If I had a lower interest rate the $600.00 i pay per month will pay off my loans quicker.
04:48 PM on 06/17/2012
You make a good point, Gabrielle, however the reason you can finance a house at so a low an interest rate is because the bank has the ability to foreclose upon and sell your house in order to recover its money if you were to default on your mortgage. Not so with education loans because the lenders have no such collateral underlying them. What they DO have is protection against discharge in bankruptcy and because of that significantly diminished risk, they should also be paid far less than they are today. That's why I'm advocating for a 3.4% refinancing rate for these loans.
12:21 PM on 06/17/2012
a law on how large the interest bearing student loan can legally grow through capitalization, fees and fines, federal or private. penalties like immediate dismissal of the entire debt for breaking the law.
04:54 PM on 06/17/2012
You're right, Dawn--there isn't a law that limits what's called "negative amortization" (when the monthly payment is not enough to cover the interest that's owed). However, this is what should take place in a workout----the clock is stopped and the debt that's been racked up to that point begins to amortize via an agreed-to repayment schedule. The only caveat--and it's a big one--is that the workout is something the borrower can live with. To my mind, anything less is nothing more than a perpetuating debt trap. Unfortunately, that's where we are today and it'll persist until a fair and comprehensive deal is struck.
08:08 AM on 06/18/2012
As far as I can see, lenders heve absolutely no incentive to come to the table and create a fair and reasonale repayment plan. Collection companies alone reap 15-25 % profits off the top for just sending a few letters and trying to convince a borrower to move their entire inflated balance into a new loan with lengthy repayment terms. Their next best hope is to get as much as they can monthly through any means necessary for which they receive 20 % off the top. It's like shooting fish in a barrell with a machine gun.
09:38 PM on 06/16/2012
Good suggestions but you fail to discuss how accreditation of pseudoscience allows some college programs to misrepresent their offerings and rip off students with many of them entering default. An OpenSalon article covers the problem here: http://tinyurl.com/7z3zqt9
That article links to this petition to stop the practices that encourage many defaults here http://tinyurl.com/6ssql5s. Please visit these pages to learn more and help stop them.
09:33 PM on 06/16/2012
Good suggestions but you fail to mention another issue-the accreditation of pseudoscience by colleges that misrepresent their offerings. This is covered in an OpenSalon article here http://tinyurl.com/7z3zqt9. The article has a link to a petition to stop the practices here: http://tinyurl.com/6ssql5s. Please visit these links to learn more about how these programs rip off students and sign the petition to help stop them. The petition has a great feature where you can tell others through facebook.
07:45 PM on 06/17/2012
In my opinion, one of the few good things to come out of this crisis is the added attention that's being paid to school choice and program selection. To your point, parents and students should focus on outcomes (graduation and employment rates) on a school by school and demographic by demographic basis. There are some good sites that can help in this regard, such as CollegeResults.org.
09:04 AM on 06/16/2012
Let's talk about the REAL elephant in the room. Student loans are the most corrupt and predatory lending instrument in the history of the United States. Lenders, servicers and even the DOE stand to make more money on loans that default than loans that pay on time. Paying "on time," by the way is a very misunderstood concept. Even those who do not default are forced into consolidation plans and other repayment traps, such as deferment , forbearance and extended payment periods.
The default rate is as many as 1 in 3 loans. Of the rest, it seems impossible to acquire accurate information as to how many actually manage to pay their loans within the "standard" repayment period ( usually 10 years ).
Moreover, for those of you who think you don't have a horse in this race because you don't have loans or your good fortune allowed you to pay yours "on time." - consider this.
The cost of college education has risen at an inflationary rate of over 800% since 1980. The corellation between the gradual elimination of all consumer rights and protections for borrowers and the staggering increase in college tuition and fees should seem familiar to anyone impacted by the sub-prime mortgage debacle.
Sadly what was presumably done to protect taxpayers and borrowers has badly backfired.
08:10 PM on 06/17/2012
There is no question that "easy money" has made this problem what it is today, Edward. That's why I am also proposing a cap on the value of low-rate student loans to no more than one-times the average projected first-year salaries that graduating seniors can reasonably expect to earn. There are only so many salary dollars to go around and this cap will help graduates to actually have a life after their checks are posted. It will also force some schools to address their cost structures or to make other decisions because their "customers" will no longer be able to afford their higher priced "products."
07:53 AM on 06/18/2012
With all due respect Mitchell I fail to see how these steps will make any significant impact on the incentive that stil exists to prey on students who, for any number of reasons, reach a default. This has become like a 'land of no return." A kind of financial dead zone with few, if any, incentives for the borrower to return to the table and make a a fair and reasonable agreement that will allow them to retire their principle debt in a reasonable manner.
If this situation existed with any other debt instrument their would be a catastrophic financial meltdown.
Some will say that allowing bankruptcy protection on guaranteed loans will be unfair to the taxpayers. Wake up call folks....we all pay and allways have paid a premium for financing and products to absorb the cost of bankruptcy in other private and public debts. It is a big part of how the system works in the first place.
08:11 PM on 06/15/2012
Problem some face as my son does is he graduated with Honors yet his student debt is very high. He is working second shift at a plant for minimum wage and making payments on what is not deferred. What he has left will not pay rent/gas/food/insurance and pay the private loans also. When I even tried to discuss lowering his payments the Private Loan Company would not go lower than 400 a month. He does pay over 60 percent of his income now to School loans both Fed and Private. While he wishes to pay he cannot afford to do such every month at this rate. Shame is since they threatened to Garnish his wages he quit work today, cant say I blame him a bit

Shame is I retired from Service to see it all come to this in America
11:33 AM on 06/16/2012
I've very sorry to hear about the problems your son is having, MISG. This is precisely why the bankruptcy laws need to be changed. Speaking from my experience as a lender, when the workout folks (those who work with severely delinquent and defaulted loans) know that the borrower (whether it is a company or an individual) has another way out of the room (via bankruptcy), they are then well motivated to find a solution that can work for both parties. These days, the government is attempting to address the problem by way of its IBR programs, but their efforts are just not good enough, given the magnitude of the crisis. By contrast, the private lenders are making matters worse by extending loan durations as a means of reducing monthly payments to more "affordable" levels. This half-baked approach increases interest costs for borrowers and interest income for the lenders. In other words, a solution without a future.
05:02 PM on 06/15/2012
You haven't addressed the full nature of the problem in your solution. Namely, the retroactivity of the laws. The lack of a statute of limitations. The tax payment when the student loans are forgiven under the IBR--you go from harassment from the Dept of Ed to harassment from the IRS about the time of your retirement. Federal loans that defaulted over 10 years ago still on the books without even the full amount of the interest getting collected but the borrower is 50 years old or more. The federal government having no need to step foot in court before TAKING money from the borrower's pay check. The time frame for repayment covers the time for saving for your child's education along with paying for retirement, not to mention paying for your house and furniture and ever getting the car of your dreams. Releasing those already bankrupt.
11:46 AM on 06/16/2012
You raise a good point, Mangos, which I'll address in a slightly different way. There's a law in place that exempts from taxes the early extinguishment of mortgage debt (http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=179414,00.html). Since no one knows the extent to which student loans that enter into the IBR programs will remain in these programs for the maximum term (currently 25 years, prospective change to 20), it would make sense for this law to be extended to cover these loans, provided that they remain in the program through their duration.
04:38 PM on 06/15/2012
So you only support the basic free market capitistic mechanisms of consumer protection such as bankruptcy for private loans which make up only a tiny fraction of all current student loans?
12:10 PM on 06/16/2012
In my opinion, there's a trade-off regarding bankruptcy because rates are risk-based: the lower the risk, the lower the rate and vice versa. The government's loan programs (subsidized & unsubsidized Stafford) charge below-market rates, given the unsecured nature of these loans not to mention their lengthy durations (10 years +). Consequently, what should otherwise be a higher-rate loan is in fact being subsidized by a protection against bankruptcy. By contrast, the private lenders charge rates that are often a multiple of what the government charges and yet, they enjoy the same protections. This is egregious. Based upon the most recent Fed report (end-2011), a little more than $500 million of education loans are on the government's balance sheet, another $300 million are guaranteed by the feds but owned by the private lenders, leaving between $150 and $200 million that do not carry any type of government guarantee. So you know the scope of the problem with these loans, I counsel (pro bono) a fair number of students and alums at the school where I'm adjunct faculty. On average, their unsubsidized government loans cost roughly 6% while their private loans carry rates that are 12% and higher. Under these circumstances, borrowing from a private lender results in a monthly payments that are 25% higher. Said differently, borrowing $10,000 from the government is the same as borrowing $12,500 from a private lender when you take into consideration the higher rate of interest that's being paid.
01:42 PM on 06/16/2012
This all makes sense to me but it is a very very small change you are proposing to resolve an enormous issue. You serve up a great explanation, justifying your rational but like, but like I said, private student loans only make up a very small amount of the total student loan debt in America.
12:28 PM on 06/17/2012
ours is 8.25% interest on 400% larger principle...hardly 'below market rates'. all federal...all the time.