Home > 2016 > Students

Why All Government Student Loans Are Not Created Equal

Advertiser Disclosure Comments 0 Comments

The timing of an article in The New York Times couldn’t have been more ironic.

There we were, the day before we celebrate America’s Declaration of Independence, and the Times published an exposé on the hardball tactics that the State of New Jersey allegedly takes against student-loan borrowers who are unable to continue making their payments.

It seems that for those who fund their college education with state-sponsored money — which all 50 states and the District of Columbia offer — the word independence is actually two words: in and dependence.

How Student Loan Management Can Differ

I say that because, generally speaking, the principal difference between the loan programs run by the individual states and those run by the federal government is the government’s willingness to work with financially distressed borrowers so they can remain independent.

Something else that distinguishes federally backed higher education loans from those originated by all others — including the states and private-sector lenders — is the outsize influence the government wields on distressed-loan restructuring without regard for the ultimate disposition of the underlying contract.

In other words, even if a government-guaranteed student loan is sold to another entity — public or private, as has been the case with the discontinued Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program — the feds reserve the right to mandate a change in the contract’s repayment schedule, even though such a move would likely to have a deleterious aftermarket effect on noteholder rates of return (for example, when the repayment term is extended or a portion of the principal is forgiven).

This helps to explain why there has been so much foot-dragging on the part of loan administration companies that are subcontracted by noteholders to service FFEL contracts that have subsequently been securitized.

And then there is the matter of what constitutes a government loan.

Some time ago, a recent state-university graduate contacted me for advice on restructuring his education-related debts. He was the first in his family to go to college and, given his and his mom’s limited financial means, he funded his education by taking on a fair amount of debt — nearly three times his current annual salary.

We talked about the Department of Education’s various income-based repayment plans, and, armed with that knowledge, he contacted his loan administrator. Several days later, he wrote again to say that his debts were not eligible for relief. “How can that be?” I asked. “You told me these were government loans and the monthly payments consume roughly half your take-home pay. Clearly, you should qualify for IBR.”

As it turned out, the “government” loans he believed he’d taken out were from his state (he insists that his university’s financial aid office referred to these loans as “governmental”). A bit more digging on my part also revealed that program was, in effect, a public-private venture. Similar to the manner in which the now-discontinued FFEL program was structured, his state guaranteed against default loans that were originated, funded and later securitized by private-sector lenders. But unlike the federal government, his state seemed unwilling or unable at that point to mandate distressed-debt restructures after the fact.

Consequently, my young friend ended up like too many of his peers: living in his mother’s basement.

There are those who would say, “Yet another reason for the government to get the hell out of the education-lending business!” Certainly, the manner in which public-backed student loans are administered leaves much to be desired.

But that shortfall, as significant as it is, doesn’t outweigh the two key benefits of the Federal Direct loan program and its predecessor: lower interest rates and a panoply of relief options for when a borrower’s financial circumstances cause him to become unable to meet his payment obligations.

In fact, I would take this a step further by advocating for the federal program to accept for restructuring all types of higher-education loans, without regard for origination channel (state, private and peer-to-peer alike) or repayment status.

Think about it. Even if the base rate that the Federal Direct loan program currently charges is increased to compensate taxpayers for the added risk of guaranteeing these nongovernment loans against default, it would still yield a better social and economic outcome for the country, not least because most financially distressed borrowers are sincere in their desire to repay their debts.

The concept of independence is, after all, meaningless if the means for attaining it are nonexistent.

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: PamelaJoeMcFarlane

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