Search News


Browse Archives

News

A Student Loan Credit Crunch -- But for Whom?

March 12, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The phrases "credit crunch" and "student loans" are blaring with increasing frequency from newspaper headlines and TV news broadcasts. With growing numbers of banks and other loan providers announcing layoffs or plans to leave or limit participation in the student loan market, it is clear that the general problems in the financial markets have created a credit crunch crisis for student loan providers. But is there a loan crisis for student borrowers themselves?

That depends in large part on what kind of loans -- and what kind of students -- you're talking about.

To date, the impact has been largely limited to private, or alternative loans, the higher-cost loans, held by fewer than 10 percent of student loan borrowers, that students typically take out to cover the difference between the total value of their federal, state and institutional grants and loans and the full price of attending the college of their choice. Parties including Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, and (even) the Consumer Bankers Association have taken pains in recent days to make clear that federal loans remain available to all students who seek them.

And, to this point, the impact has been felt most heavily by far by students at for-profit colleges, which tend to be relatively high cost and to serve a disproportionate number of low-income, first-generation college students.

Those facts -- that the credit squeeze has so far been relegated to private loans and to career colleges -- have created a situation in which the credit crunch has become a major cause of concern for the loan industry and for the for-profit higher education sector (which are pressuring Congress and the Education Department to act to ease it) but largely played down by many traditional college officials, advocates for students, and the generally Democratic politicians with whom they are traditionally aligned.

"Students with poor credit ratings, particularly those at trade schools whose graduates have poor repayment track records, might be unable to find a willing private student loan provider," the New America Foundation's Education Policy program wrote on its blog this month. "All students, however, who apply for a private student loan with a creditworthy co-signer should be able to obtain a loan and obtain it at a lower interest rate than they otherwise would receive. Private student loan borrowers who don't have a creditworthy co-signer and who are pursuing academic programs at schools with dubious job placement and loan repayment track records should consider lower cost education options."

The idea suggested in the New America post -- that the credit crunch isn't a major problem because it is affecting mostly students at for-profit colleges, and should actually prod students who take out costly private loans at for-profit schools to enroll instead in community colleges or other lower-cost institutions -- has been a subtext of some of the discussion surrounding the credit crunch, and reveal just how differently the crisis is perceived in various quarters.

The divisions were on full display Tuesday as representatives from Congress and the Education Department spoke to the Career College Association's annual policy forum in Washington. As a panel of Congressional aides addressed the presidents, government relations officers and other leaders of for-profit technical and career-oriented institutions for what was supposed to be a general discussion of the Washington scene, most of the conversation revolved around the group's concerns about the availability of loans for their students were palpable, and on their hopes that politicians might act to ease the crunch, perhaps by increasing limits on how much a student can borrow in federal loans.

J.D. LaRock, a top education aide to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said Congressional leaders were paying close attention to the developing situation in the loan market (a view echoed by aides to Sen. Michael B. Enzi and Rep. Howard P. McKeon) but played down the impact so far. "We have to deal with the facts at hand," he said. While there "have been some changes in the federal loan arena," he said, noting decisions by the College Loan Corp. and Pennsylvania's student loan guarantor to stop making federal loans, "there remain well over 2,000 players in the [Family Federal Education Loan Program] market place.... The credit crunch has affected private loans most of all."

When Arthur Keiser, president of Keiser Collegiate System, characterized the credit crunch as a "meltdown" of the student loan market place, and another audience member suggested that Congress should be "proactive rather than reactive," LaRock bristled.

He noted that Kennedy was working closely with the Senate Banking Committee to monitor the burgeoning instability in the credit markets and that the House education panel plans a hearing on the loan situation this Friday, and he announced that Kennedy would hold a hearing of his panel in Boston on March 17. He also acknowledged that Kennedy and his aides had begun discussing steps that Congress might take if the situation grew worse, including "expanding federal loan eligibility if [students] can't get private loans." (Although that tidbit of news intrigued the crowd, LaRock said he could provide no additional details about the possible legislative proposal, such as to what kind of loans -- unsubsidized, a new form of parent loans for independent students -- access might be expanded.)

"It's being proactive to think about expanding loan eligibility and to work with the Banking Committee," LaRock said. "But it's also important to be very careful about recognizing the realities of the situation we find ourselves in, which sometimes departs from the rhetoric we find ourselves hearing."

When it was her turn to speak to the career college meeting, Diane Auer Jones, assistant U.S. secretary for postsecondary education, also characterized the credit crunch as a potential rather than existing crisis. While emphasizing that department officials are "monitoring it very carefully -- we're reading the same newspapers, hearing the same concerns," she said that at this point in time, we haven't had a single institution say, 'No, we don't have a lender.' We haven't had a single student say, 'No, I don't have a [federal] loan.' "

Comments like that did not resonate with many of the career college officials and their supporters, who believe they and their students have been hurt, but they veered between noting the powerful impact their institutions were feeling and warning that it would be a mistake to characterize the credit crunch as limited to their sector.

"One reason why this credit crisis is so huge for us is because we're dealing with a lot of nontraditional students, independent students," many of whom have already been extended credit for their homes or other purposes, said Mark Dreyfus, president of ECPI College of Technology, in Virginia. "On top of the fact that federal financial aid is skewed to traditional students, now they cannot get credit" to pay for their educations, either.

"Is it an acceptable policy outcome for Sen. Ted Kennedy for students attending career colleges to have their educational plans disrupted, often in mid-program, because of the lack of availability of student loans?" John Dean, a lawyer who represents the Consumer Bankers Association, asked rhetorically (LaRock had already left the meeting).

Dean warned that just because the impact of the credit crunch on federal loans (and therefore on many traditional nonprofit colleges) had been mild so far, that could change in a snap. Barring a major turnaround in the credit markets (which the Federal Reserve took steps Tuesday to try to bring about), he predicted "dramatic announcements in the next month" in which lenders might announce that they were, for instance, toughening their criteria for awarding federal loans (in ways that could affect other institutions with large numbers of low-income students more prone to default on loans, such as historically black and community colleges). Perhaps only when those institutions start to have their students affected, Dean said, will a "broader array of voices" be raised to urge Congress and the Bush administration to take steps to bolster the loan programs.

Mark L. Pelesh, executive vice president for legislative and regulatory affairs at Corinthian Colleges Inc., said that many institutions face a problem with financing the "gap" between what federal student aid covers and a student's college payments. As available loan capital shrinks, he said, "I believe it will affect all institutions, all types, sizes, missions. Elite institutions may be able to manage this, but I believe the problem of financing this gap, coupled with the collapse of the lending market for lower-income students ... is not just a for-profit or proprietary school issue. There are HBCU's, private not-for-profit institutions that have a more substantial gap than many proprietary schools do. All of them will be facing this problem."

And yet, Dean asked, "Have you heard from the other sectors of higher ed? ... You don't have independent colleges knocking on the doors of Congress saying you need to do something. But I can tell you that their anxiety is very high."

Nonprofit colleges may have been publicly quiet, but Dean is right that for some of them, especially high-priced, tuition-dependent private institutions without huge endowments, concern is indeed growing.

The National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities is surveying its members now about "if they do or don't have a problem" with loan availability, said Sarah A. Flanagan, vice president for government relations and policy development at the private college group. "It is serious enough that people are responding; there's definitely a lot of nervousness, because we're all reading the same papers."

David B. Laird, president of the Minnesota Private College Council, said the credit crunch is beginning to have an impact for families with college students in the Midwest. "We're just beginning to see students that aren't making the credit score thresholds and are not able to use any kind of co-signer within the family, mostly with private loans but also with unsubsidized federal loans," he said.

The big crush for Minnesota's private colleges, he fears, could come "when the FFEL lenders run out of capital later this spring" if they are unable to find investors to finance a new round of loans for the fall. Anticipating that eventuality, Laird said, some colleges are "signaling to families, 'Get your loan applications in now during the spring, while [the lenders] still have their capital.' "

Right now, many institutions aren't quite sure what to expect, and they're not necessarily getting good information from the lenders they work with, Laird said. "Put yourself in the position of being a lender marketing rep. Until you know you're running out of capital, you're not going to tell anybody the bad news."

Laird said he understood that career college officials might be frustrated that their nonprofit peers were not joining them in sounding an alarm about the credit crunch. But "most responsible people [in the traditional college sectors] are waiting until they see pretty significant signs of problems before they put the red flag up," he said. "I think they're actually being responsible. No doubt they're anxious and on edge, but I give them credit for the fact that they're not standing on the top of the hill and yipping about it" to Congress or the Education Department.

"For everybody except the proprietary sector, the need is not well enough defined for us to expect them to act yet."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on A Student Loan Credit Crunch -- But for Whom?

  • Banks looking for a handout...again.
  • Posted by Alan Collinge , Founder at StudentLoanJustice.Org on March 12, 2008 at 5:35am EDT
  • Let us recap the events that led to the current situation:

    In 2005, lenders cleverly convinced Congress to remove bankruptcy protections for private student loans. By 2006, one could not turn on MTV for 5 minutes without seeing an ad for a high interest, private student loan.

    The number of students being railroaded into high interest/no consumer protection private loans exploded. Interest rates of 18%, and even much higher in many instances (nevermind the fee income) abounded.

    In late 2007, the credit markets tightened. Concurrently, graduates who borrowed at far too high interest rates only to find that their entry level paychecks were being consumed to cover just the interest on loans that were gladly loaded on them by these clever lenders Concurrently, students began defaulting in (likely) record numbers on these private loans.

    Are we to be surprised or shocked at this outcome? No one who follows this industry is surprised. Most predicted this years ago, in fact.

    And now the lenders, who already conned Congress into removing basic, standard consumer protections for these loans are expecting Congress to bail them out yet again? This is beyond shameless, and the real tragedy is that the students, who have already had bankruptcy protections taken from them, are being held hostage.

    The banks can point the finger at the student, and personal responsibility all they want, but no one is buying it any longer. This has been used for far too long as a cover for irresponsible lending. The private loan crisis simply brought this behavior into sharp, and incontrovertible focus.

    The students know it. The lenders know it. The Colleges know it. Congress Knows it.

    Congress needs to look past the begging, and do what's right: Restore the standard consumer protections that were taken away from student loans (Both public and private), beef up federally guaranteed lending to the extent possible, and quit cowtowing to the banks.

    Schools need to reconsider the longstandig model of jacking up tuition every time no ones looking, and perhaps take a page from the tech industry, and actually reduce price...they can find the room...everyone knows they've increased tuition at double the CPI for decades running.

    Students need to reconsider the entire notion of borrowing for college. The downside of the terms on these notes, under current law, simply outweigh the benefits in many instances.

    Finally, the banks need to own up to their irresponsibility in lending for once, and perhaps find another industry to wreck.

  • Cost Spiral
  • Posted by John McDonald on March 12, 2008 at 7:35am EDT
  • Alan, I mostly agree with your analysis but I don't really blame the colleges for the fact that annual cost increases double the CPI. Food, energy, medicine - they are all going up as fast as education and I think it just goes to show that CPI is a highly manipulated statistic with little relevance to real world prices.

    Anyway, thanks to yesterday's $200 Billion bank bailout, I expect the private student loan companies will be back to "business as usual" any moment now.

  • Posted by Mark Kantrowitz , Publisher at FinAId on March 12, 2008 at 8:00am EDT
  • While some education lenders may be seeking a rollback of the subsidy cuts, the real issue of concern is the lack of liquidity faced by non-bank lenders and state loan agencies. If they don't have liquidity, they can't make new loans.

    The Federal Reserves announcement yesterday does not help education lenders as it is limited to the mortgage-backed securities market.

  • More Greed Please!
  • Posted by R.F. on March 12, 2008 at 8:40am EDT
  • “One reason why this credit crisis is so huge for us is because we’re dealing with a lot of nontraditional students, independent students,” many of whom have already been extended credit for their homes or other purposes, said Mark Dreyfus, president of ECPI College of Technology, in Virginia. “On top of the fact that federal financial aid is skewed to traditional students, now they cannot get credit” to pay for their educations, either."

    Hey Mark, federal financial aid is in need of improvement that is for sure, but it is not "skewed to the traditional college student" as you suggest. it is skewed to "needy" students for the most part. If your students have been extended credit for other purposes as you suggest then by the federal definition they are not needy.

    I thought the point was that many of the private college's "needy" students would be denied access to private student loans due to lack of or bad credit. I hope you are not suggesting that wealthy students are being denied access to private student loans because they are not!

    Many would argue that if needy students don't get saddled with an expensive alternative loan that would be a good thing. There are other, more cost effective educational alternatives. Perhaps private career schools have priced themselves out of the picture. The greed has come home to roost.

  • It takes a nation...
  • Posted by feudi pandola on March 12, 2008 at 9:10am EDT
  • There is sonething very peculiar going on lately with this student loan credit crunch.
    Many of the organizations leaving the market are state lending agencies in Montana, Missouri, and Pennsylvania. In my state, not one single bank has left the FFELP program. These agencies have stated they stopped lending because of failed security auctions, yet there should have been enough cash comimg in from paying students in the pipeline to fund current operations which are at a low ebb this time of the year. In short, the reasons given do not seem to match the reality on the ground. Seems to me there is something going here and we don't know what it is...

    My guess is that there has been an accommodation made between the banks and state agencies. The banks will continue to lend providing that the states get out of the business. Watch next for a revision to CCRAA to increase allowable interest rates on FFELP loans.

    As always, follow the money...

  • A Little Reality-Testing Here
  • Posted by Tom Flint , Director of Accreditation at Kaplan University on March 12, 2008 at 10:30am EDT
  • It is stylish to try to stigmatize for-profit higher education, such as R.F.'s comment about 'greedy' private career schools, and Doug's characterization of for-profit schools as 'relatively high-cost.' Well yes, compared to institutions in the public sector (2yr & 4yr), any kind of private education costs more. Yet the federal government's data shows that for-profit private colleges are substantially *less* costly (on the order of 1/3rd less) than not-for-profit private institutions. See http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006186.pdf, page iv.
    Nor can one assume that lower-cost alternatives to private for-profit education are equally effective. The Community College Research Center at Columbia University has concluded that CC's have much of value to learn from the for-profit sector in many arenas of service to students. See http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?uid=87. So it is entirely reasonable to conclude as stated in the article that the non-profit sector has plenty reason to be concerned about the credit crisis, even if that sector has been relatively silent so far.

  • Students Will Feel the Crunch
  • Posted by Student Loan Watcher on March 12, 2008 at 10:40am EDT
  • The situation is quite simple. Private student loans are on a sharp rise. This is happening because colleges are raising their prices at a much higher rate than Federal loan limits are allowing for. This leaves students who used to be able to pay for their entire education with Federal aid left in a desperate position.

    Private student loans were never supposed to be the only loan a student applied for. They were created to help supplement the lower-cost Fed. loans. The fact that more and more students are driven to them does not reflect the industry "railroading" anyone, it does however show that college is becoming too expensive and students are not making wise choices when it comes to which school to attend.

    So what does all this mean? Very simple. Private lenders are tightening credit criteria which means less loans for those who probably need it the most.
    In the end, perhaps it is a good thing as students will now be forced to go to less expensive schools. Maybe the market itself will finally start to counter-act the outrageous prices of some higher tiered schools.

  • Style points?
  • Posted by R.F. on March 12, 2008 at 11:05am EDT
  • "Nor can one assume that lower-cost alternatives to private for-profit education are equally effective. The Community College Research Center at Columbia University has concluded that CC’s have much of value to learn from the for-profit sector in many arenas of service to students."

    Of course, depending on each individual institutions strength and weaknesses one could also commission a study to conclude that career colleges have much of value to learn from community colleges. One can find statistics to bolster any viewpoint.

    By the way the community college that I worked for previously offered both great services and a great education.

    As far as effectiveness, I don't know about services to students, but is the EDUCATION that one gets from a career college ten times better than an education one can get from a community college as the tuitions would suggest? The answer is no. While I saw many unprepared career college students overburdened with private loans transfer to my college, I do not see a huge groundswell going in the opposite direction.

  • Rationale Tuition Pricing
  • Posted by Bob Barker , President at BEST LLC on March 12, 2008 at 11:40am EDT
  • One possible outcome is that many of these schools may have to review their tuition structure. A short time ago Inside Higher ED featured a college that lowered their tuition to increase enrollments. It is conceivable that some of the more expensive for-profits may lower their rates to get back in line with the lower cost and more readily available funds.

  • About that Columbia University research
  • Posted by Tom Flint , Director of Accreditation at Kaplan University on March 12, 2008 at 2:45pm EDT
  • R.F., if you think the people at Columbia University are the type to "find statistics to bolster any viewpoint," then you must have a lot less respect for them than most of us. A short piece from the CCRC report from link I provided: "Today most successful and well-known for-profit institutions share more characteristics with public community colleges and four-year colleges than the typical proprietaries of earlier decades." The CCRC authors note how often in for-profits, practice is linked to theory, as well as the integration of admissions, advising, and career services or placement. Your own experiences with former career school students may not be representative of all. And that is the beauty of reputable research, isn't it?

  • Nicely Done
  • Posted by R.F. on March 13, 2008 at 8:10am EDT
  • Tom,

    I wasn't assigning motivation to the people at Columbia, merely pointing out the flexible aspects of statistics, but...

    You avoided the whole issue of the value of education versus the enormous costs of private schools.

    BTW, my experience spans 20+ years working in two states at a variety of different sector schools. When your experience is consistent across sectors over a long period of time, it counts for oh so much more than an anecdote.

  • cost vs price
  • Posted by J. L. on March 13, 2008 at 12:00pm EDT
  • Cost is how much the education costs. Price is the amount a student pays. By this measure, the cost of community colleges is about the same as most private career colleges. The difference is in who pays the cost.

    Another way to think about the price student's pay is the opportunity cost, the amount of money lost by being out of the labor market. Career colleges do not follow the same academic schedule as community colleges, thus graduate an AA student abut six months sooner than a CC, that represents several thousand dollars of income that offsets some of the higher tuition. Also, the completion rate at private career colleges is higher than CCs.

  • Railroaded?
  • Posted by Jerry on March 13, 2008 at 1:20pm EDT
  • "The number of students being railroaded into high interest/no consumer protection private loans exploded."
    Sorry for my ignorance. Just how are students being 'railroaded'? I didn't know students are being forced to sign loan papers. Is that the same thing as being 'forced' to buy a car that is too expensive? Its not the consumers fault, right? Its the car dealership's fault.

  • Consumer Protection for whom
  • Posted by Common Sense on March 13, 2008 at 4:45pm EDT
  • It seems every time Student Loan Justice makes a comment on these, it is ALWAYS about restoring the ability to file chapter 11 on private student loans. I am not convinced you care about anything else but this topic. Lets get in your bank account now. Make a loan to any unemployed 18 to 23 year old, be sure to write in there that if they cannot pay it back for any reason, not to worry just file bankruptcy. How would you feel about that? 1, would you just keep doing it for others? Or 2, would you make sure in the next 18-23 year old unemployed student is going to pay you back? If you do the first option, eventually you will be out of business and broke. If you select the second one, you will be able to continue helping 18-23 year olds with financing their education. Like it or not, you will have to go with option 2. That is the way business is in our world. If you don't pay your mortgage, they come and take your house. If you don't pay for your car, they come and take your car. They can't take back your diploma. It is Business 101 like it or not. All student lending is a loan for mostly unemployed students and they will not make a payment on that loan for over 4 years in most cases. This is money sitting on the books for that lender. The hope for that lender is that the students does actually pay the loan when it is due. Lenders do NOT get 100% back from the government if that student goes into Default. Lenders only get 95-98%. Those are huge loses for a lender that has already sat on that money for over 4 years. If truth be told, did you take out your private loans to go to a school that you should not have attended? Did you use loan money to live on in any way? Are you using your degree for what you went to school for? Could you have made better choices with how you borrowed for college? I would love to work at the financial aid office you went thru for your aid just to see how you used the aid you received.