Home > Students > How a Trump Administration Plan to Privatize Students Loans Could Help

Comments 2 Comments

Remember when you were a kid and your folks made you wait patiently before tearing into a pile of presents that were just beyond your reach? How you rubbed your hands together so quickly that your palms heated up and the skin-on-skin sound you made could be heard in the next room?

Well, imagine a bunch of blue-suited, white-shirted, red-tied, black-shoed lenders doing the same thing as they not-so-patiently wait for a new administration to divest some or all of the roughly $1 trillion of student loans that currently reside on the federal government’s books and supplant the Federal Direct student loan program with a modern-day version of the one that enriched them years ago.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, the banks and other lending institutions that were once the middlemen of choice for the government-guaranteed Federal Family Education Loan program have good reason to believe that the incoming Trump administration — in tandem with a Republican-controlled House and Senate —will move to resurrect what the Obama administration discontinued in 2010 because of cost. (The Trump transition team did not respond immediately to Credit.com’s request for comment on this possibility.)

When that happens — and in all likelihood it really is a matter of when more than if — we can expect a triumphant resurgence in the secondary financial markets as securitization after securitization of government-guaranteed education loans are flogged out to an investment community that’s clamoring for an opportunity to earn more than 1% on a virtually risk-free gambit. At the same time, though, we should also worry about what that portends for the tens of millions of financially distressed borrowers who may well find themselves at the mercy of loan administrators that are more concerned with the interests of their benefactors (the aforementioned investors) than they are them or the taxpayers who will be left holding the bag when they default.

An inescapably bleak scenario? Doesn’t have to be.

The simple truth is that trees don’t grow to the sky: The government’s balance sheet is not infinite. At some point, the Department of Education will have no choice but to rid itself of some portion of the Federal Direct loans it owns, not least because the nearly dollar-for-dollar amount of debt that the federal government incurs to fund that program has the potential to interfere with its other financing needs. But that doesn’t mean that education borrowers should be left to fend for themselves.

The incoming administration and its legislating compatriots can move to extract much-needed debtor and taxpayer-guarantor protections in exchange for the governmental backstop against default that will be necessary to move these debts into private hands.

It can, for instance, mandate specific loan servicing standards, such as those that require responses within a reasonable period, and prohibit servicers from moving financially distressed borrowers into temporary and expensive forbearances (because of the interest-compounding effect) instead of permanently modifying their contracts by extending loan durations. It can also prohibit any after-the-fact contractual changes, such as for prepayment penalties or requiring loan cosigners, in exchange for granting relief.

Better yet, given that roughly half of all student loans that are currently in repayment are either delinquent, in default, temporarily accommodated or participating in some form of income-based repayment plan, wouldn’t it make more sense to restructure the entire portfolio by extending the remaining terms for every contract before any of these are sold into the private marketplace?

The fundamental problem that plagues the modern-day student loan program is structural — too short a repayment duration for the high level of borrowing that’s currently taking place.

This needs to be addressed before Washington lets the financial services industry have its way at the party table.

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.

  • smaneck

    Are you nuts? The federal government started giving out more direct student loans because the privatization was costing the government money. Taking those loans back was one of the ways the Affordable Care Act was funded. The privatized loans cost the government just as much money because the government guarantees them. The only way I would support privatizing student loans is if those guarantees are removed and lenders have the same right to declare bankruptcy for these loans as any other. Yes, companies stand to gain by this program, but not students.

  • msufan

    This is absurd.

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