Search News


Browse Archives

News

U.S. Offers Plan for Bolstering Student Loan Industry

May 21, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

For weeks, student loan providers and some college officials have been urging the U.S. Education Department to act aggressively to ease their pain, given the authority it gained in a new federal law designed to ensure the continued availability of federal student loans despite the continuing credit crunch.

In recent days, as proposals circulated by department officials suggested a more cautious intervention by the government, the lenders' pleas have been increasingly tinged with an implicit "or else." Simply put: if the department does not find ways to make loan capital available, ideally up front and at terms that make loans sufficiently profitable, even more lenders will bolt the federal guaranteed loan program, potentially leaving an inadequate supply of loans for students.

At a private meeting with loan industry representatives late Tuesday afternoon, officials from the Education and Treasury Departments presented their plan for providing relief to lenders who have found themselves unable to raise money from the investors and markets that have historically purchased existing loans to give lenders money to make new ones.

The department's plan, according to sources familiar with what unfolded at the meeting, includes two short-term proposals and the promise of negotiations for a longer-term solution beginning next week.

Under the first of the short-term solutions, the government would agree to buy loans made after May 1, 2008 (and through July 1, 2009) from lenders using a fee structure that would include the full value of the loans plus accrued interest, rebates of certain fees paid by lenders, and a $75-per-loan flat fee to cover some of the lenders' costs. This proposal -- which those familiar with it defined as a kind of "price support" -- is designed to reassure investors wary of buying loans because they might later be unable to sell them that there will ultimately be a buyer for them (the government). This proposal is reportedly contingent on being shown as cost neutral to the federal treasury.

Under the second option, which the government hopes to have in place by July 1, the government would establish a fund (financed with Treasury Department money) from which it would essentially make upfront loans to lenders to finance their own loan-making operations; the lenders' student loans would be used as collateral. The government's loans to lenders would be made at a rate of half a percentage point above the rate of commercial paper, a standard rate.

In preparing their proposals, federal officials have been walking a tightrope between (a) not wanting to be seen (by Democrats in Congress and critics of the loan industry) as selling out to banks and other lenders and (b) not displeasing lenders so much that they bolt the loan program and leave students without a way to finance their educations.

In recent days, several news outlets have reported rumors that Sallie Mae, the largest provider of federal student loans, would join other major lenders in ceasing its origination of federally guaranteed loans. Some loan industry observers have characterized the threat as a scare tactic -- an unlikely outcome put forward mainly to pressure the department to increase its offerings to lenders.

A first major sign of whether the department has struck that balance in a way that satisfies lenders will come today, when Sallie Mae holds a conference call it announced late last week for its customers to discuss the uncertainty in the student loan market and its implications for the coming academic year. Sallie Mae officials declined to say Tuesday what they thought of the government's proposal or to tip their hand about what if anything they would announce Wednesday about the company's intentions.

But if the stock market is any indication, the government's proposals may have done the trick. Sallie Mae's stock rose 5 percent Tuesday amid reports, as Bloomberg put it, "that terms of an industry rescue plan will be favorable for the company."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on U.S. Offers Plan for Bolstering Student Loan Industry

  • Posted by kgotthardt on May 21, 2008 at 8:40am EDT
  • "if the department does not find ways to make loan capital available, ideally up front and at terms that make loans sufficiently profitable, even more lenders will bolt the federal guaranteed loan program"

    That's what it comes down to. Corporations like Sallie Mae are more interested in profit than anything else. While this approach might make sense to the banking industry, it doesn't make sense to families and students who borrow at their own risk and still do not have basic consumer protections.

    Can we trust entities like Sallie Mae, known for ruining students' credit and careers, to handle our futures?

    I'm convinced we cannot, based on their poor track record.

    On the other hand, what would happen if Sallie turned its student loan biz to non-profit? Sallie Mae offers plenty of other for-profit services (mortgages, insurance, and so on) as offset. Would this option solve a multitude of problems or create more?

  • Flat Fee, Interesting
  • Posted by J. R. on May 21, 2008 at 8:45am EDT
  • By paying a flat fee this might encourage lenders to keep making low ABI loans. $75 on a $2000 Stafford loan isn't a terrible return. ED would buy after full disbursement, right?

    By paaying the flat fee per loan, does this also encourage lenders to ask schools/borrowers to take out another loan when needing more money in the same academic year, as opposed to boosting the current loan? Another loan means another $75.

  • Time to Call the Bluff
  • Posted by Student loan analyst on May 21, 2008 at 8:45am EDT
  • The theory of privatizing public services is that while those corporations enjoy the profits of a boom period, they will also be forced to absorb the costs of a bust. Not so in the American socialist system - no, we provide subsidies to maximize profits during the boom and we put bailouts under the bottom line during a bust.

    Its time to call the bluff. If these companies don't want to participate in the federal student loan program, no one is forcing them to. Direct loan programs might be expensive or inefficient, but what would we call this system of private profit and public loss?

    If student loans were presented at their real cost, if they got tougher to find, maybe we could work on some efficiencies or maybe some more students would choose to attend community and state public colleges.

    This whole 'credit crisis' has come about due to the expansion of debt below market-inflation. Creating and guaranteeing more debt at those below-interest fees will just compound the problems in the long term and add fuel to the inflationary pressures on prices from tuition to oil to food.

  • Posted by Alex Hamilton on May 21, 2008 at 9:50am EDT
  • The first commenter's view is too simplistic and naive: bad, greedy private sector v. benevolent, efficient public sector. Well, in real life, it doesn't work out that way, so ditch the moralizing (FEMA, FAA and the Passport Office are just three recent examples).

    The second commenter says banks ought to hang in there during busts. 96% of them have been doing just that since Democrats busted the program last fall. Would he or she work for nothing? I doubt it.

  • Posted by Wick Sloane on May 21, 2008 at 10:25am EDT
  • A question from Finance 101:

    By exiting the student-loan business, are the capital markets saying that college is not a good investment?

    Capital hasn't vaporized in the credit crunch; it's out there somewhere, looking for better investments than sub-prime mortgages and, it seems, student loans.

    What's interesting is that the markets are not taking the traditional approach to perceptions of increased risk. That would be raising the interest rates, the risk premium, on student loans. The capital markets seem to have no interest at all in investing in loans to be paid off by students employed after college.

    Are college presidents and higher ed leaders out there convincing the markets that college is still a good investment?

  • Posted by kgotthardt on May 21, 2008 at 8:10pm EDT
  • "The first commenter’s view is too simplistic and naive: bad, greedy private sector vs.benevolent, efficient public sector."

    It has nothing to do with being simplistic or naive. It has to do with being taken in and ripped off. It has to do with wanting a solution that works for student borrowers and their families. It's about wanting government to take responsibility for what they have allowed Sallie Mae and the like get away with.

    Sallie has had a day in the sun. Well, it's cloudy now. If Al Lord and friends can't take the rain, they need to go inside and let someone else do what needs to be done.

    A little more simplicity, a lot less bureaucracy and pandering and we wouldn't have the kind of mess we have now.