Home > Students > How the Incoming Trump Administration Can Help Student Loan Borrowers

Comments 0 Comments

The 2016 presidential election is settled and a new administration will take office in two months’ time. Considering all that was said during this particularly contentious campaign, it’s no surprise that student loan borrowers are concerned about what that will mean to them beginning in 2017.

Two of the many items on my list of concerns have to do with the future of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, within the context of a potential repeal or overhaul of the Dodd-Frank legislation that created the consumer watchdog agency in the first place, and the Federal Direct Student Loan program, which the Obama administration established in 2010 as a successor to the simultaneously discontinued Federal Family Education Loan program.

The Possible Negatives

In the case of the CFPB, should Congress move to curtail the agency’s regulatory authority and/or impose more stringent oversight on its activities, I worry that less will be done to address loan-servicing-related problems, which include the misapplication of remittances on the part of private-sector administrators and their failure to promptly conduit financially distressed debtors into a government-sponsored payment relief program, or to prevent collection companies from pursuing past-due payments in a manner that violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. (You can see how your student loan repayments are impacting your credit by checking your two free credit scores, updated every 14 days, on Credit.com.)

As for the Federal Direct Loan program, a financial services industry that benefited from virtually risk-free income courtesy of the government-guaranteed FFEL program is probably getting pretty excited about the potential for its reincarnation, now that smaller-government-minded lawmakers are in control of all three branches of our system. And not just for the new loans that will be taken out in the future.

A Fresh Approach

At present, roughly one trillion dollars’ worth of Federal Direct Loans are currently on the books, plus another $200 billion to $300 billion in legacy FFELs.

But if one were to tally together all the federally-backed loans that are at present delinquent and in default, plus all those that have been granted temporary forbearance and longer-term relief to date, and compare that total to the aggregate value of all the loans that are currently in repayment, that number would approach 50%.

Any loan portfolio that looks anything like that is one whose loan agreements were improperly structured at the outset. If we want these debts to be repaid anytime soon — without continuing to spend outrageous sums of money to accomplish that objective — the new administration would be wise to bite the bullet and restructure all these contracts over an extended term at a rate that properly reflects the federal government’s costs.

That’s the first step.

The second is to lock in that cost by financing the Federal Direct loans that currently reside on the education department’s balance sheet as any prudent private-sector lending institution would, instead of continuing the government’s potentially ruinous tact of borrowing short to lend long in a rising-interest-rate environment. The new financing can take the form of direct borrowing on the part of the federal government as it does now, or the education department can oversee the sale of these loans into the private sector while retaining administrative oversight of their servicing.

This stands in contrast to the old FFEL program, where private-sector lenders originated student loans backed by the federal government, and had the option to later sell these contracts into the secondary market for added profit. Not only did that program create significant remunerative opportunities at the expense of taxpayers (who would be called upon to make good on the government’s guarantees), but it also distanced the feds from directly overseeing the administration of the loans it backed.

In a nutshell, that’s the key reason why there’s been so much foot-dragging on the part of the companies that service the FFEL loans that are in repayment: the interests of the private-sector note holders and investors are at odds with those of the taxpayers.

Finally, the new administration would also be wise to address the matter of student loan dischargeability in bankruptcy. Not so that borrowers would have an easier time getting out from under the legitimate debts they incurred, but so the potential for abject loss at the point of default would inspire all lenders to negotiate in good faith with financially distressed debtors who, for the most part, truly desire to honor their obligations.

All of this boils down to having the courage to take an evenhanded approach to solving a trillion-dollar problem. Hopefully, this new administration has enough of that to go around.

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

Image: Bastiaan Slabbers

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