College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students Jobs and internships for students -

Editorial | Private lenders should not leech off students

Published: Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Updated: Tuesday, February 9, 2010

The House of Representatives in September passed a student loan reform bill that addresses President Barack Obama’s plans to overhaul the nation’s student loan system by slowly removing banks from the process and upping federal funding to the Pell Grant. The bill is currently in the U.S. Senate but is being threatened by strong lobbying from private lending companies. Sallie Mae, the largest student lending company in the country, has doubled its lobbying spending in an effort to prevent the passage of this bill, which would end the government subsidies that private lending companies currently enjoy.

Under the current system, the federal government offers subsidies to private lending companies that give risk-free loans to students trying to pay for college. The proposed bill would stop the offering of these subsidies and instead offer loans directly from the Department of Education.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, cutting out private companies from the lending process would save $80 billion over the next 10 years. Rather than handing that taxpayer money to private companies for profit, it would be allocated to offer more students Pell Grants, expand debt forgiveness for those who go on to work in public service and improve other important educational services.

Eliminating private lending companies from the student loan business would improve overall economic efficiency and serve students better. Neither taxpayers nor the government can afford to be spending billions of dollars to subsidize private profits. Critics claim the bill would effectively be a government takeover of the lending industry. This is untrue, as loans would be handled not by the government, but by universities and colleges, as Pell Grants are now. Additionally, there would be market competition among private companies to collect and administer the loans, ensuring that loans are appropriated efficiently, and students would not lose out on any of the individualized service offered currently by private lending companies.

Approximately 10 million students in the United States are receiving loans to help them afford a college education. Many Tufts students would not be able to afford their time on the Hill if it were not for student loans and government grants. It should be the interest and intent of the student lending industry to serve as many students as possible with the best possible loans. Reforming the student lending industry to remove profiteering middlemen will ensure that students at Tufts and across the country can stay afloat financially and still get a post-secondary education. This bill is an investment in an educated public.

The private lending system has failed to serve students: Not only are billions of taxpayer dollars lost to private profits, but in the recent credit crunch, private lenders failed to provide loans and had to be bailed out by the government.

The debate surrounding this bill centers on the question of either valuing profits in the private sector or helping as many students as possible afford a college education. Obama strongly endorsed the bill in his State of the Union address, but it is stalled in the Senate, where the Democrats have recently lost their filibuster-proof majority, and Sallie Mae and other private lenders are lobbying hard against it. Hopefully, economic reason and interest in promoting education will prevail. The Senate cannot let private companies leech profits from the government at the expense of American students.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

5 comments

Anonymous
Thu Feb 18 2010 09:38
Dumbtheorist: Get your facts & terminology straight -you've mopped private loans and FFEL-based loans all into one big sloppy bucket. Private loans are NOT the same thing as PLUS and Stafford loans; in fact, the Fed's proposal to end FFEL lending from companies such as Sallie Mae ONLY concerns PLUS and Staffords. This is where the 'subsidy' issue debate is centered. Conversely, private loans (more accurately known as 'alternative loans') are COMPLETELY outside the FFEL program and have absolutely nothing at all do with the current debate. So, everything you're rant covers is nonsensical.
Anonymous
Thu Feb 18 2010 09:22
Hey Dubtheorist - pay back your private loan, and stop complaining! A private student loan is an unsecured personal loan like a credit card loan (unlike a car loan or mortgage). The lender protections you describe are in place to keep interest rates down..Have you seen credit card rates recently? they're still in the mid to high teens while private student loan rates are typically in the low teens or less. What student lender is going to give a private student loan if the borrower can immediately declare bankruptcy and wipe it clean? We should all be focused on pressuring schools to reduce their costs. Why has tuition exceeded inflation for so long?
Trace urdan
Wed Feb 10 2010 18:49
Your editorial reveals that you are simply repeating the disingenuous case being made by the White House. The "savings" comes not from any subsidy being paid to lenders, but from the interest income which is currently going to the capital markets. The cost of the defaults to the taxpayers is identical in both scenarios, so there is no 'savings." In fact, by guaranteeing only 90% of the student loan, the previous program provide some incentive to lenders to actually collect the defaulted funds. Who does the collecting in the new system has not been spelled out in the legislation. Some have suggested it could be the IRS. Once you have graduated and begun paying taxes you might appreciate just how bad this will feel.

Yes it is true that currently the government is buying all the originated loans at a negotiated set price, but this is a function of the financial meltdown. Once this program expires and the capital markets are functioning, then the loan originators will see the loans in the secondary market -- similar to how the government borrows money from the Chinese.

This is nothing but an arbitrage where the government borrows money from the Chinese and then lends it out to students. However, putting the interest income into the federal budget will forever politicize higher education leading to price controls and, of course, the inevitable moment when the politicians prevent the government from raising the interest rate on student loans even as its cost of borrowing increases. Then, instead of this wonderful "savings" the student loan program will become a net contributor to the federal deficit.

Anonymous
Tue Feb 9 2010 13:41
I work with student loan companies and I think if you would take the time to truly understand how the program works, you would see how uninformed and inaccurate your editorial is. For example, why are student loan companies that receive government fees to make and service loans "leeches", but Medicare doctors who collect government fees to care for patients aren't? Or why are the firms that will be contracted with to administer the direct loans not leeches?

But based on the similarity of this editorial with half a dozen blog columns, editorials and White House talking points, not too much original thought went into this article.

Dubtheorist
Tue Feb 9 2010 13:31
While this commentary is incredibly accurate, it leaves out one thing: the former students who are already on the hook. This is of tremendous importance as many of the graduates and current American students are also already on the hook with Private Loans. Private lenders do not have to play by any of the rules that restrict Credit Card Companies or other types of lending. Once you are on the hook for those private loans, the Private Lenders have a huge gamut of collection privileges, they are not limited on the amount of Interest or penalties they can charge, and they are not required to follow standard collection practices. Lastly, once you are on the hook for a private loan, as it stands now, you are obligated for your entire life to repay this loan, there is not any of the standard consumer protections available to you - this is a highly unregulated form of lending. The lenders can change the rules of the game anytime they want, they are not required full disclosure when originating these loans. If the lender messes up, it is still on you the borrower to repay the loan. If you have major life issues preventing you from repaying the loan, you wont even be able to restructure the loan in Bankruptcy Courts. You have very little possibility of achieving bankruptcy unless you can pass the brunner test in the Bankruptcy courts. Stop the subsidies, Restore consumer protections to existing loans, provide income contingent repayment options NOW!!






log out