Home > Students > Why the Smarter Solution for Students Act Fails Our Kids

Comments 0 Comments

Last week, the Republican majority in the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1911, the Smarter Solutions for Students Act.

Unfortunately, it’s neither smart, nor a solution.

The legislation pegs all Stafford Direct Student Loan rates (subsidized and unsubsidized) to the 10-year Treasury note, adjusted annually, plus 2.5% to cover administrative costs. Borrowers who qualify for subsidized loans would pay no interest while they are still in school and all loans have an 8.5% lifetime interest rate cap. (PLUS and parent loans would be similarly indexed, plus 4.5%).

In a Washington Times op-ed, Representatives John Kline (R-Minn.) and Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) rationalize their legislation two ways: First, because fixed-rate loans create problems when “lower rates become available in the market”; second, because “politicians don’t have the know-how to pick static interest rates that will work for borrowers and fund student-loan programs.”

Reps. Kline and Foxx also respond to those who argue for perpetuating the status quo by insisting that extending the current arrangement would cost “roughly $8 billion,” even though Congressional Budget Office data suggest otherwise.

As unlikely as the Smarter Solutions Act is to find itself under Obama’s pen in its present form, the concept of indexing student loan interest rates is not new. In fact, Reps. Kline and Foxx make reference to the administration’s recent budget proposal, which also calls for market-based loan pricing.

However, the way each of these schemes is structured, student-borrowers will still end up paying more than they should.

As I explained previously, the starting point for pricing all financing transactions is the half-life. For example, a loan that is to be fully paid off in equal monthly installments over the course of a 5-year term would have a 2.5-year half-life, and one that spans 10 years (such as for Stafford loans) would have a 5-year half-life.

That half-life is then matched against comparable points on the yield curve — whether the curve depicts a Treasury note or Libor rates — before adjusting for the lender’s own creditworthiness. (In the case of federal government, the yield curve for Treasury notes is that starting point.) Afterward, additional premiums are tacked on to cover administrative (including loan servicing) and credit (delinquency, default-related risk) costs, which is presumably what the Kline-Foxx bill intends.

However, there are at least two flaws in the legislators’ thinking.

First, apart from the error of linking a 10-year government-backed financing to the yield of a comparable-term Treasury note, the fact that this legislation provides for annual adjustments tosses the entire concept of half-life-based pricing out the window. Given that structural twist, any lender would rightly fund these loans at the very low-cost end of the yield curve.

For example, according to the Treasury Department’s online resource center, the 10-year Treasury note currently yields 2.02%, the 5-year yields 0.91% and the 1-year yields 0.12%. Under the Smarter Solutions Act, Stafford loans would then be priced at 4.52% even though its real cost is 0.12% instead of 2.02%. That translates into a 4.40% upcharge versus the 2.5% premium Kline-Foxx represents to be the case.

We’re not talking about small potatoes here.

If the difference between the yields of the 1-year and 10-year Treasury notes were to remain constant over time, that 4.40% premium would result in a 23.7% present-day profit. In other words, for every dollar loaned out under this arrangement, the feds would earn a little less than a quarter, or $25.1 billion on the $106 billion the CBO currently projects will be funded in 2013.

As for Representatives Kline’s and Foxx’s other assertions, I agree that politicians — or anyone else, for that matter — don’t have the ability to accurately project market rates. But to suggest that managing fixed-rate loans is more burdensome than it is for floating-rate transactions is absurd, as any lender who has administered variable-rate loans can attest.

On the other hand, market-based pricing does indeed make sense — but not because consumers will complain when rates fall below a fixed-rate price. Rather, dynamic pricing is appropriate because the government’s own borrowing rates aren’t set in stone.

Even Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) misses the mark with the bill that she introduced the week before.

It proposes to peg student loan interest to the federal funds rate, which represents the price banks pay one another to borrow funds overnight. Other than for a populist argument to charge students the same rates the banks pay, that concept also fails to properly align loan durations. And it neglects to incorporate a spread to cover the administrative and credit costs the government incurs to operate this program.

Look, pricing is very important, but let’s first decide on the primary objective for this enterprise: Is the government in the student loan business to make money, lose money or just to cover its costs? Only then will we be able to devise a methodology that’s fair, enduring and in the best interest of our children.

This is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not necessarily reflect the views of the company.

Image: iStockphoto

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.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

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.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

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