Home > Students > The Brainless ‘No-Brainer’ Fix to the Student Loan Problem

Comments 0 Comments

You know what they say about opinions, right? Well, the same can be said about so-called no-brainer fixes to the student loan problem, as a recent Bloomberg.com article illustrates.

This particular “fix” has to do with the 57% of federal student loan borrowers who were drop-kicked out of the government’s various income-based repayment (IBR) plans in 2015 because they failed to file their income-verification paperwork on time.

According to the Obama Administration and the departments of Treasury and Education (and that post on Bloomberg.com), the process needs streamlining. How? By permitting borrowers to authorize the Internal Revenue Service to share their tax return data with the private-sector companies that administer their government-backed student loans.

Hang on…

Aren’t we talking about the same administrators that the government had called out for loan-servicing malfeasance?

Hmmm.

And what about requalification as a concept? Why is there even such a thing when loan restructures—which is what we’re talking about here because interest rates and principal balances remain unchanged—are typically a once-and-done affair?

Yes, I know that income-based repayment is income specific. But if we are to take the ED at its word when it says that IBR is the key to achieving a “zero default rate among student loan borrowers,” and if this type of relief plan accomplishes this by extending repayment terms to as long as 20 years’ time — twice the duration of the standard student loan agreement — wouldn’t doubling the remaining term of any student loan yield the same result?

According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s August 2016 report on consumer credit, 11.1% of all student loans are 90 or more days past due. Well, since roughly half of all these loans are actually in repayment (the balance is deferred because the borrowers are still in school), that means that more than 20% of the loans that are “live” are, technically speaking, in default.

Technically, because that’s the way all of the lenders I know treat all other consumer and commercial financings that are three or more payments in arrears.

Add to that, the loans that are between 30 and 90 days past due — because these may well portend future defaults — along with those that are being temporarily accommodated with forbearances (not to mention the loans that have already been granted conditional relief under the various income-based plans) and it’s not hard to see how nearly half of all loans that are currently in repayment are distressed.

A portfolio that is so clearly troubled is one that was improperly structured at the outset. So, if you’re seeking a true no-brainer fix, refinance the whole damn thing.

And not at the rates that are currently being charged, either.

The reason that the government has been reporting multi-billion dollar profits in this sector is because the feds are, in effect, lending long and borrowing short. Back in 2013, Congress devised a plan that charges students for borrowing 10-year money at rates that are roughly commensurate with that duration, only to have the Treasury turn around and fund the ED’s program with significantly less expensive short-term debt.

That the profits from this scheme offset the federal deficit is of course a happy coincidence. And that the government runs the risk of bankrupting its existing portfolio of reduced-rate loans if (and when) short-term rates rise to the point of exceeding those that are implicit within the underlying agreements is also beside the point. Right?

Wrong.

Just as Congress should acknowledge what is painfully obvious about the tenuous condition of these debts and move to refinance all government-backed student loans, so too should it devise an appropriate rate to charge.

It can start by acting like it knows what it’s doing.

Interest rates are built from the ground up. The first building block is the lender’s raw cost of borrowing, which, if we’re talking about 20-year loan terms, is the 10-year Treasury note (lenders use the so-called half-life rate for term loans). Add to that the interest rate equivalents of the costs of originating and servicing these contracts, along with a reasonable estimate for losses.

Here’s how the numbers shake out.

At the time of this writing, the 10-year Treasury note yielded 1.8%. Also at the time of this writing, the ED is charging slightly more than a 1% upfront fee for originating undergraduate student loans (a 0.1% interest rate add-on), and loan servicers are typically paid 1% for administering contracts of this type (another 0.1% interest rate add-on). As for the losses, let’s say that the government is wrong about zero defaults and put that number at 10%—higher than for any other form of consumer debt. The interest rate equivalent of that is 1.0%. Add up the pieces and you get 3.0%.

Wait a minute…

That means that the 3.76% rate that Congress concocted for the ED to charge at this time for its 10-year Federal Direct loans is overpriced by a whopping 25%. And that’s without taking into effect the fact that the pricing basis for 10-year loans should have been the 5-year Treasury note, which costs about a half a point less than the 10-year instrument.

All the more reason to reject this no-brainer fix and do what truly needs to be done: Permanently modify the contracts that are currently in place and adjust the existing program’s terms to match.

And one more thing.

Let’s not punish the roughly 50% of borrowers who are not having difficulty making their payments by forcing them to incur higher aggregate interest costs over the newly extended term. Instead, pave the way for them to continue paying what they’ve been paying by mandating that loan servicers automatically credit all supplemental remittances against principal (when no other payment-related obligations such as late fees are outstanding), rather than against future payments as is often the case.

Just because a borrower may neglect to specify his intent, or fail to realize that paying ahead on a loan is akin to remitting interest that has yet to be earned, shouldn’t mean that the lender or its subcontracted loan administrator is entitled to selfish advantage.

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

Image: Jacob Ammentorp Lund

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 sponsored content on Credit.com are Partners with Credit.com. Credit.com receives compensation if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any financial products or cards offered.

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.



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