Home > Students > Can Your Student Loan Payments Go Up?

Comments 0 Comments

Just how unjust has the student loan-industry become? Consider the following story.

I recently heard from a woman who’d borrowed $24,000 toward the cost of an MBA program she completed a few years ago. The loan—which came from a prominent private lender—was, not uncommonly, structured as a variable-rate transaction, where the interest rate on which her monthly payments were based was subject to change throughout the term of the agreement.

The woman encountered her first obstacle when she asked to have the loan’s future installments lowered after she paid down a sizeable portion of her principal. Much to her disappointment, the lender was only willing to shorten the duration of the loan, which meant that going forward, her payments would continue as before.

Most people would not have had an issue with that. After all, the shorter the term of the loan, the smaller the total amount of interest that ends up being paid.

What the MBA had in mind, though, is a strategy known as loan recasting, where the original amortization schedule is modified to reflect a change that occurs after the transaction is underway. Although it’s in the lender’s interest to accommodate that type of request (because of the extra income it stands to earn over the loan’s longer term), operationally speaking it can be a pain in the neck to implement. That’s why few lenders go along with it.

As frustrating as it was to go back and forth with several different loan-servicing reps, her exchanges led to an unsettling revelation.

The Fine Print

The underlying mechanics of variable-rate loans hinge upon three components: the index that governs the base interest rate, the margin (spread) that’s added to it and the frequency of the adjustments that ensue (e.g., monthly, quarterly or annually).

The borrower’s loan document designated the one-month LIBOR rate as the official index—a basis that’s commonly used for these types of transactions. It also stipulated that the adjustments would occur monthly if the base rate changed in between payments. Although not unusual, the potential for 12 payment changes each year can wreak havoc with even the most well-managed household budgets.

More disconcerting, however, was the manner in which the lender depicted the margin.

The spread was properly referenced within the context of the promissory note, but its value wasn’t quantified. Instead, the borrower was directed to a specific disclosure statement that was supposed to accompany the note; a document that—according to the grad—never found its way to her mailbox and ended up forgotten.

Until she looked again at her promissory note.

The way the agreement reads, the lender has the ability to raise (or lower) the amount of the margin added to the base rate at different points in time and/or under different circumstances—whether or not the contract is in default.

What’s the point of agreeing to a loan where the fundamental pricing methodology can be changed by the lender and where the borrower’s only recourse is to pay it off in full should the result not be to the borrower’s liking?

So the alum pressed the loan-servicing representative to disclose the value of that interest rate mark-up. Otherwise, how else would she know if she was being properly charged? Unbelievably, it took weeks for her to find that out, which she did only after doggedly questioning several reps—who all claimed they didn’t know, because her rate was constantly changing—and escalating the matter many levels higher. Only then did she learn that that margin was 4%…at that particular moment.

Add It to the List

The list of known student loan industry excesses seems to be growing longer with each passing day.

For example, some borrowers aren’t informed about their eligibility for certain government relief programs. Instead, the loan servicers shunt them into negatively amortizing deferments and forbearances that end up exacerbating their already tortured financial circumstances.

Payments are routinely misapplied, including those that were specifically designated to pay down principal balances.

Standard loan agreements are determinedly one-sided: Borrowers must waive their right to a jury trial in favor of arbitration (which is probably the reason we haven’t seen class-action suits), fees are credited before the interest and principal that diminishes their indebtedness, and cosigners remain on the hook for longer than they were led to believe would be the case.

Meanwhile, profitability levels have skyrocketed. And yet student borrowers keep coming back for more.

Perhaps it’s because they don’t know any better. Or maybe it’s because they and their families have been conditioned to gratefully accept what they get from the limited number of lenders that are willing to provide the education financing they need.

Either way, these loan agreements are ticking time bombs—and not just for the borrowers. True, student loans are nearly impossible to discharge in bankruptcy. But when all the negative headlines finally converge and legislators realize they can no longer bob and weave their way past the collective outrage of their constituents, discharge will be the least of the lenders’ (and their shareholders’) concerns.

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

More on Student Loans:

Image: moodboard

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