Search News


Browse Archives

News

Senate Panel Proposes No-Cost Help for Lenders

April 23, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Momentum has been building for the federal government to take increasingly aggressive steps to wade into the student loan markets, even amid continuing disagreement about whether and/or how serious a crisis there really is. At the urging of lenders, lawmakers have moved from merely seeking to ensure that there are alternative providers of loans, so that students do not lose access to college, to calling for outright financial assistance for banks and other loan providers.

Education Secretary Margaret Spellings and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson are reported to be preparing this week to announce some joint attempt to restore liquidity to the credit markets on which lenders depend, perhaps by calling for an existing government entity like the Federal Financing Bank to buy student loans that lenders are unable to sell through the traditional credit market, as suggested by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and others.

With that possibility lurking in the near future, though, aides to lawmakers on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee are floating another idea that lenders favor but critics deride as an unprecedented, unnecessary and potentially damaging bailout.

Under the proposal, which was described in an e-mail message sent by a Senate aide that was shared with Inside Higher Ed, the Education Department would commit to buying "from time to time any or all of such loans originated or purchased by" any lender that so desires, at the face value of the loan. The plan would then allow the lender to repurchase "any of the loans sold to the Secretary" within a year "upon the same terms and conditions" under which the department bought the loans from the lender. The arrangements, known as "standby loan purchase agreements," would be possible through July 2009.

As described by the Senate aide, the plan -- which was suggested by the Education Finance Council, which represents nonprofit lenders -- "would allow lenders to issue bonds more easily because they could demonstrate that investors could get out of them at any time because [the] Secretary has agreed to purchase loans."

Peter Warren, senior vice president for government relations at the Education Finance Council, said that because "investors would know they can sell [student loans] on an expedited basis, I think they can be brought back into this market.... Having the department as a standby purchaser would enable that."

The lenders' expectation, he said, is that "the department wouldn’t end up purchasing the loans," because just the knowledge that the federal government is poised to buy them, ensuring a way for an investor to sell the loans at face value, would be enough to restore the loans' value in the credit markets. "This would be actually mean less federal intervention," he said.

Several people familiar with the student lending market, however, characterized the proposal very differently. The fact that a lender could sell to the Education Department any loans that it chooses and then buy the loans back essentially means that the federal government is providing lenders with a "completely free line of credit, which anybody else has to pay for," said Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. Even the other proposals suggested by the lenders and lawmakers, like the one in which the Federal Financing Bank would make loans to lenders to enable them to make student loans, would require lenders to pay some interest on the funds they borrow.

The proposed arrangement could also enable lenders to pick and choose which loans they decide to sell and buy back, potentially resulting in a situation in which lenders hold on to their safest and most profitable loans (those they are likeliest to be able to sell to traditional investors in the credit markets) and to "dump" their riskiest loans, and those most likely to go into default, on the federal government.

"The government will regret it," Nassirian said, "if it gives the keys to the treasury to lenders once again."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Senate Panel Proposes No-Cost Help for Lenders

  • Posted by student loan analyst on April 23, 2008 at 7:30am EDT
  • This sounds even more expensive than the generous subsidies congress just got rid of less than a year ago. If taxpayers are going to be on the hook for the costs of the bad loans, without receiving the profit of the paid loans, why not just give the students grants in the first place?

  • Say It Isn't So!
  • Posted by John Q. Public on April 23, 2008 at 8:20am EDT
  • Not another government bail-out for greedy financial institutions who chose yet another avenue to pursue the the quick buck by offering high-risk loan products to borrowers who are least likely to pay. A bail-out would certainly be another 'constructive' use of taxpayers' money for another 'long-term' solution to a much broader and far more complex problem. To expect the taxpayer to purchase these securitized bundles of self-imposed bank problems is foolish. The real cost is far greater than the bond price reveals. I wonder how high private college tuition would be if all these high-risk loans were simply not available any more? Would some students be forced to choose a more affordable institution? Would some schools be forced to lower there price? God forbid, would students be denied the "college experience" of living on a resort while attending classes?

  • Posted by RJW on April 23, 2008 at 8:35am EDT
  • The Student Loan Analyst's point is well taken and brings to mind an analogue related to our establishment of a Strategic Petroleum Reserve back in the 70's. One might have asked why would anyone pump oil out of the ground, ship it thousands of miles, and then pump it back into the ground, when other cheaper and more rational means might be considered. Follow the money flow for the answer. Could it be that our incestuous political/corporate system works overtime to ensure profitability at any cost to the taxpayer and through any means beneficial to the interests of its wealthy, powerful patrons? Instead of buying for the future we are selling it off to the present.

  • Posted by old timer on April 23, 2008 at 10:45am EDT
  • The last time I looked Barmak Nassirian works for AACRAO. I would be very interested to hear comments from actual financial aid administrators and the NASFAA leadership leadership as opposed to someone whose organization represents registrars and admissions counselors.

    The admissions office will not be confronted with upset students and parents who can't find loans - that will fall on the shoulders of the financial aid office.

  • No bail-out!
  • Posted by Ken D. on April 23, 2008 at 11:25am EDT
  • Why should Secretary Spellings reach into taxpayers' pockets to subsidize the corporate greed of irresponsible lenders? Better to let the people who made the poor decisions live with the consequences of their actions.

    Also, sooner or later colleges and universities are going to be forced to become more efficient. Why delay the inevitable? When enough students feel they can't afford a higher education, colleges and universities will find ways to offer better value.

  • Better Alternatives than This Bailout
  • Posted by Professor Taxpayer on April 23, 2008 at 11:50am EDT
  • Why should the Secretary create a market when there already is one? Earlier this month, Nelnet sold $1.3 billion of student loans to a large national bank and took a $28 million loss on it. Exclusive of other considerations, that's 98 cents on the dollar. Moreover, there will be a huge infusion of liquidity into lenders starting July 1, when borrowers with variable rate loans issued before July, 2006, will be able to consolidate (pay off) existing loans and lock in much lower rates.

    If the Secretary were allowed to promote Direct Loan Consolidation with borrowers, it would simultaneously inject liquidity into FFEL lenders, save taxpayers money as they get out from under the old, pre-CCRAA subsidies, and help borrowers with big reductions in their interest costs, simultaneously.

    Instead, EFC is promoting a Rube Goldberg scheme the likes of which has not been seen since EFC told its members incorrectly in 2002 that they could create new loans that guaranteed them a 9.5 % return, embarrassing the Department of Education and costing federal taxpayers hundreds of millions in a fiasco that has yet to be sorted out.

  • Proposing a Truce to Benefit Students
  • Posted by Quentin Wilson , President and CEO at ALL Student Loan on April 23, 2008 at 1:20pm EDT
  • Understanding the acrimony over the history of relations between the government and student loan providers, I propose a truce. The policy battle lines are clear. On the one hand, program design and management practices added a total of more than $1 billion in unexpected cost to the program over a number of years. Partly in response, Congress cut student loan funding by $40 billion over a similar number of years.

    Both sides have legitimate complaints about policies, practices and legislative reactions. I am not suggesting peace, just a truce. We can resume "discussing" the past later this fall. For the next five months, why don't we instead work together to get money into the hands of students, families and schools to help pay for higher education this fall. From the story about fishing with dynamite, "You gonna talk or you gonna fish?"

    The Standby Loan Purchase Agreement is a good idea, and one that the administration should work hard and quickly to design and implement. It's been done before, with none of the hazards some readers fear.

    If the author, or any reader, would like to learn more about this provision, please e-mail me at qwilson@allstudentloan.org or call me at 310-242-8810. I will try to help anyone who contacts me understand the rationale for this proposal.

    The criteria of ALL Student Loan that this measure has met are fairly simple (although it took our financial advisor a while to get it through my thick skull):

    1. Make student loan funding more available for the coming school year; and
    2. Minimize the cost and risk of the federal support.

    Those interested in college access need not assume selflessness on the part of student lenders. Increased FFELP loan availability this fall, with lower cost and lower risk to the federal government, is in the self-interest of all student loan providers. I hope it also becomes a primary focus of advocates of higher education success.

    Quentin Wilson
    ALL Student Loan

  • Posted by jdub on April 28, 2008 at 10:05pm EDT
  • In response to Student Loan Analyst... The American taxpayer is already on the hook for the bad student loans. The Deparment of Ed guarentees all federal loans against default. So allowing lenders the option to free up capital will help prevent any possible disruptions cause by CCRAA.

  • money for teenage's home
  • Posted by Kathleen Minton , Home's for Teenages on June 6, 2008 at 6:05pm EDT
  • This has always, been my dream, that I could help children, there is a lot of foster house out there, I was in one when I was young, and things have not chaged, small children's can get a home, but it is harder, for the teenages to get a home, the people thinks, that thier to old to learn or it will just be to hard to help them, I pray all the time the I would win same money, to get same land, and have a nice home build on it, and horses, cows, chickens, garden,have it big so I can have about, 20 teenages on it, and thier can work on it, and have fun on it, go to church, and so them that it is not to late for them, that God loves them, how would you be able to get money from the govnement, to have this done, I pray you can help me, thank you, from Kathleen