Search News


Browse Archives

News

Big Savings From Loan Proposal

March 23, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the Obama administration's 2010 budget contained mostly distressing news for the White House, including the headline-dominating assessment that the plan would send the federal deficit sky high.

But buried within the budget office's review was one nugget sure to elate the Education Department and break the hearts of lobbyists for student loan companies: the determination that the administration's plan to eliminate the Family Federal Education Loan Program and originate all loans out of the government's Direct Loan Program would save the government $94 billion over 10 years, double the administration's own estimate.

"Under current law, the direct loan program is estimated to have a lower cost for each dollar loaned than does the guaranteed loan program. Thus, assuming that loan volume does not change, replacing the guaranteed loan program with additional direct loans would yield budgetary savings," the budget office wrote in its "Preliminary Analysis of the President’s Budget and an Update of CBO’s Budget and Economic Outlook (see page 16). "CBO estimates that savings would total $94 billion over the 2010–2019 period."

That is about double what the White House estimated in the budget President Obama proposed last month, which projected using $24 billion saved over five years (and $47 billion over 10 years) by originating all federal student loans in direct lending and using the proceeds to turn Pell Grants into an entitlement that would grow each year with inflation.

Obama administration officials have argued that the eliminating the guaranteed loan program -- in which private sector and nonprofit lenders lend money to students via their colleges, with the loans guaranteed by the federal government -- would save significant federal funds, and that they could use the money to increase benefits for students.

Lenders and some policy analysts have doubted that the change could generate significant savings, given that the government has wrung tens of billions of dollars out of the loan programs since 2005 to increase spending on Pell Grants and other financial aid programs. And they have speculated that the Congressional Budget Office, which is generally viewed as independent and nonpartisan, might offer a less-generous assessment of the savings.

But instead, the CBO estimated the student loan plan to save significantly more money, to the satisfaction of Democratic lawmakers who support the president's plan.

“This estimate is stunning news for college students, their families, and taxpayers, especially given the economic and fiscal challenges we face," said Rep. George Miller, the California Democrat who heads the House Education and Labor Committee. "President Obama has laid out an innovative strategy for making our federal student loan programs more reliable and efficient, while giving us an opportunity to save taxpayers almost $100 billion. I look forward to working with [Education] Secretary [Arne] Duncan and President Obama toward our goal of making college more affordable by providing students with access to low-cost, stable federal college loans -- and at no cost to taxpayers.”

While the Congressional agency's assessment of the loan plan may hearten Democrats, the CBO analysis of the overall Obama 2010 budget plan, which it projects to increase the federal budget deficit far more than the administration's own analysis, could throw a kink into the president's plans to significantly expand spending on education and other domestic priorities. For instance, the CBO review projects that the president's plan to make Pell Grant spending mandatory rather than discretionary would "boost mandatory spending by $293 billion over the 2010–2019 period."

And the CBO analysis prompted many Republicans and moderate Democrats to say that the administration may have to rein in its plans for spending in 2010.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Big Savings From Loan Proposal

  • Hardly good news for middle class families
  • Posted by Anonymous on March 23, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • The grim reality for middle class families is that these projections of huge costs savings mean the Obama Administartion isn't going to share a penny of it with them in the form of lower interest rates, higher annual caps, lower upfront fees, etc.? It's all profit.

    When times are tight, the government can be just as covetous of profits as any hard-nosed Wall Street financier.

     

  • Alan has been right all along
  • Posted by Kgotthardt on March 23, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • "...Direct Loan Program would save the government $94 billion over 10 years..."

    Alan Collinge has been saying something similar for years--that we pay more when lenders get involved.

    Students and the federal government have been getting ripped off for decades under the old system.

  • Yeah, sure
  • Posted by Professor Suede , Professor/History at A school in Texas on March 23, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • Yeah, sure, there will be all sorts of savings due to the efficiency we've come to expect from government. You can project figures all you want; the question is, however, where will they land. Generally, it is on us.

  • Savings Are Smoke and Mirrors
  • Posted by CL on March 23, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • The $96 billion in "savings" are a fantasy anyway. Does the CBO really think Treasury bills are going to stay at 0.25% for ten years? And that China will still buy them if they are? Like all budget estimates, the savings are illusionary but the spending they "justify" are real and permanent. And we wonder how we end up with crushing debt for our children.

  • Bankruptcy Protections
  • Posted by R.F. , FAO on March 23, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • The Direct loan program does not allow for discharge through bankruptcy either. Even more "profit" for the federal government!

    Perhaps if they are going to save so much money , it is time to use it to reinstate bankruptcy protections to student loans.

  • Consumer Protection--or lack thereof
  • Posted by kgotthardt on March 23, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • "Perhaps if they are going to save so much money , it is time to use it to reinstate bankruptcy protections to student loans."

    How about they establish basic consumer protections--as in, "Hey schools: if you defraud students, you pay them and us back."

  • Dishonest Numbers
  • Posted by Objective Observer on March 23, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • Before anyone endorses these phony numbers, take a closer look at how they reached them. Here are a few examples:

    Although the administration is arguing that we need Direct Loans for All because the FFEL program is "dying" they are assuming that the only way any more schools will join Direct Loans is if they are mandated via legislation to do it. Only by assuming this can you get "savings." I call that untruthful.

    The scoring also assumes that the 6.8 percent borrower interest rates scheduled to return on July 1, 2012 will be apply on loans. Does anyone think that Congress will allow borrower rates to go up 3.4% in one year--especially if inflation is only 1.5% as predicted by CBO. Also, am I the only one troubled that virtually all of the "savings" achieved under this propsal come in the form of charging borrowers over twice the project cost of capital and adminsitrative costs on the laons involved?

    What about the services the guarantors provide? The budget apparently assumes that all default aversion activities will end but defaults won't increase. Could it really be true that all of those phone calls and counselling where a complete waste of money? The adminsitration also set aside some appropriated funds in the budget to do some of the services that guarantors provide, but these are not counted as an offset against the savings.

    I could go on, but I hope you get the idea. Somebody here is playing fast and loose with the facts with no regard whatsoever for anything other than "producing the number we need for our agenda." The only thing honest about this budget is the estimate of the $293 billion ten year cost of the new Pell entitlement.

    The CBO budget estimate takes the already highly suspicious OMB number and miraculously makes it fit almost perfectly to meet the cost of the Pell Grant proposal. I smell a rat. Shame on CBO.

  • As if this program's been run efficiently
  • Posted by DS on March 23, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • All I would say to Prof Suede and others who support the so-called private sector FFELP industry by warning us to head for the hills any time the big bad inefficient government steps in, is that the student loan industry run by subsidized private lenders has been the very antithesis of efficiency for years, at overwhelming cost to taxpayers and staggering profits for lenders. As we've seen in all too many other stories lately, arrogant greed on the part of many lenders has drawn attention to how out of control this program was, and if they don't like what has to be done to fix things, they have no one but themselves to blame.

    And if CL wants smoke and mirrors, read the FFELP industry's statistics on how a program in which private lenders - who get bailed out of every defaulted loan by their real Rich Uncle, Uncle Sam - receive a quarter billion dollar windfall through a loophole, and lender CEO's sell off tens of millions in stock right before Congress votes to reduce their subsidies actually SAVES taxpayers money.

  • What about restoring fundamental consumer protections?
  • Posted by Alan Collinge , Founder at Studentloanjustice.org on March 23, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • I agree with the first comment, but have to add: there are some extremely disturbing elements to this plan from a consumer protection standpoint: First, the fundamental consumer protections congress stripped away from student loans (i.e. bankruptcy, statutes of limitations, etc) are still absent, and the draconian fees, and mafia like collection tools for defaulted debt are still there.

    Second, if private companies do both the servicing, and collection of these loans, the potential for continued predatory activity remains, perhaps only slightly diminished under the new program with the guarantor function gone: Companies that both service current loans, and collect on defaulted loans could still have a perverse incentive to default loans, since this allows them to come back later for a second bite at a much larger apple, bloated with "collection costs". This has horrible implications. Just like it is today, the Fed will continue to have little or no "skin in the game", (for current loans that go into default, ED projected it would ultimately retrieve every dollar of principal, plus almost 20% in fees and overdue interest). With no skin in the game, there will continue to be little incentive for ED to push the universities to keep quality high, and costs low- so the obscene inflation will continue, and the predatory activities at the expense of misfortunate borrowers will continue.

    If there is a bigger consumer protection issue in this country, I haven't found it- even home mortgage borrowers have bankruptcy protections as a last resort...whereas student loan borrowers are stuck in a virtual debtors prison that can and does relegate citizens to a lifetime of marginalization!

     

  • It is about the students...
  • Posted by Edvisors.com on March 23, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • At least that is what it used to be about. Lenders might be somewhat more expensive - but they provide significantly more services. Try calling the direct loan program and asking them some simple questions about how to get a loan to pay for school. Then call Citibank's student loan group or SallieMae's - the service will be better.

    What about choice, supporting innovation, free markets, etc.Competition has made both programs better - everyone acknowledges that. Without competition - what will happen?

  • What about the right to choose your lender?
  • Posted by Parent of a College Student on March 23, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • It used to be that students/parents could research lenders and choose who they wanted their lender to be. Some would base their decision on savings while others would base it on service. Personally I would rather pay more and receive great service then to have loans with the federal government where they can barely answer the telephone. If the FFELP is phased out then my only choice is the federal governent. This is the same federal governemnt that says I have the freedom of choice. When they shut down FFELP then I have lost my choice and am forced to borrower loans with the federal governent. This sounds more like a dictatorship which is what this country is not suppose to be.

    When you have multiple lenders competing for your business this creates better benefits to students/parents whether it be in savings and/or service. If the only choice is Direct Loans, where did the competion go? Who is really going to make sure that all students/parents are receiving the savings and service we deserve? Do you really think the government is going to do us this service? Has anyone called Direct Loans in the past? Recently I spoke with a friend who sat on hold for 45 minutes while trying to defer their loans. We as customers should be important enough for better service then that.

  • Direct Loan Savings are a Fantasy
  • Posted by Harold Thomas on March 23, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • So, we go to 100% direct loans and drop the government into $1 trillion in new debt over the next 10 years to pay for it. Hey, that sounds like a savings to me.

    Meanwhile, the CBO analysts. when asked, will readily concede that the arcane accounting rules from the federal debt reform act of the early 1980s assure that a federal direct program will always cost less than a guaranteed loan program, on paper, as it excludes many direct loan costs in the mandated calculations.

    And, why is it, that with nearly every budget, OMB states that they had to raise direct loan costs from their estimates, usually by three-fold or more, while lowering their FFELP cost estimates. As Casey Stengel used to say: "You can look it up."

    Bottom line: FFELP ain't broke, so don't fix it based on shady accounting rules.

  • Posted by R.F. on March 23, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • "How about they establish basic consumer protections--as in, "Hey schools: if you defraud students, you pay them and us back."

    I would be all for that. If anyone has evidence of wrongdoing such as this please take it to your states' attorney general.

    Despite what Mr. Collings says, most FAO's I know were never in favor of the protections being stripped away...and some of us did indeed contact our congressman about it.

    Fortunately, I was able to pay all of my student loans back. Some may not be so lucky in this economy.

    But, lets be clear...despite what Ms. Gotthardt seems to imply...the vast majority of student loans which were obtained were not purveyed in a fraudulent manner. Further, economic conditions notwithstanding, those loans that were loaned in good faith, should be paid back.

    The sad fact though, is that some loans were made in a less than ethical manner, and those holding them currently have no recourse, unless they can prove fraud.

    Reinstate the consumer protections!

  • FFELP and DL
  • Posted by Another FAA with a comment on March 23, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • Has any thought been given to keeping both programs but restructuring them so interactions are between borrowers and lenders? Under such a system, healthy competition between, and borrower choice among, lenders would be preserved, and funds would go directly to borrowers for use at any eligible school. Reasonable loan limits and eligibility formulas could replace the current cost- and need-based calculations that schools do. Schools would be responsible only for determining eligibility for, disbursing, and managing scholarships, grants, and student employment. What problems with this am I missing?

  • the myth of competition
  • Posted by DS on March 23, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • Parent of College Student, I suggest you check some recent developments with FFELP lenders since their corporate welfare was taken away by Congress (pre-Obama, it was the normally "pro business" Bush who signed that law). Competition between lenders was good for borrowers as long as lenders were getting everything they wanted at our expense. Since then we've seen lenders pull the rug on virtually all benefits that used to be almost standard, including fee reductions, they've made it much harder for borrowers in repayment to receive forbearance and they sell loans to other lenders who then fail to honor previously promised benefits. And since it's been mentioned several times in the comments for this article, these are the same people who successfully lobbied Congress to remove standard consumer protections on student loans. Then came the redlining, illegal in almost every other type of lending. Students at my school who would choose to continue borrowing from Citibank no longer have that choice because Citibank unilaterally decided that they won't lend to community college students anymore. Countless lenders just up and left altogether, and of course they take each other over through buyouts when they have enough money. So where are the borrower benefits thanks to competition?

    Has your son or daughter ever borrowed a Perkins Loan? Millions of students have borrowed through that program for 50 years and have never had a choice of lender, and nobody's been screaming about that.

    Forget the unwritten "right" to choose your lender, what about the taxpayers' right not to continue providing corporate welfare to banks?

  • Worst of two worlds?
  • Posted by Scott Fleming on March 23, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • The intracacies of federal budgeting are painful, but most of the comments are correct, there won't ever be any true "savings" from a switch to 100% FDLP. There are literally dozens of factors contributing to the program's poor performance against estimates, but here are three simple reasons:

    1 - CBO explicitly states that "assuming that
    loan volume does not change, replacing the guaranteed loan program with additional direct loans would yield budgetary savings." Note to CBO: loan volume has already changed considerably, FDLP volume increased by 54% in the current award year. That's hardly "no change" in volume.
    2 - CBO either assumes that the stimulus bill and related spending will have no effect, resulting in suppressed capital costs to the federal government over the 10-year window, or they've dramatically underestimated the financing costs to the government by using historically low rates from the past 12 months to project the next 120 months.
    3 - Estimates never take into account upward reestimates of program costs, which have run in the realm of $3-4 billion each year for the past several years. Combine the existing bias toward a lower cost with an unrealistic expectation of low financing costs over the budget window and you're setting up massive upward reestimates. It's a good thing those reestimates don't "count" - even though the money still has to be paid to Treasury, otherwise FDLP would never score a savings.

  • Direct Loan program
  • Posted by feudi , FAO on March 23, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • Let me get this straight. Federalizing the student loan industry will save taxpayers $94 Billion between 2010 and 2019. Need I remind the posters here what happened when we federalized the housing mortgage industry via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? There were many abuses under FFELP by the executive class, but these abusive practices were discontinued under recent re-authorizations. And if anyone believes for one second that ANY student loan program run entirely by the federal government will actually SAVE $94 Billion dollars, I have a bridge I'd like you to look at...

  • clarification
  • Posted by DS on March 23, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT
  • I said "Forget the unwritten "right" to choose your lender..." and acknowledge that came out wrong. Yes, borrowers certainly have the right/responsibility to choose their lender if they need the loan at a school that happens to participate in the multi-lender FFELP program. But if their choices are Direct Lending and/or Perkins, there are no various lender options.

    And, I would argue, that they're no worse off because of it.

  • Choice?
  • Posted by AMDFAO on March 23, 2009 at 4:15pm EDT
  • I will reiterate what I said about "choice" at the beginning of the lender investigation well over a year ago and got slammed for: it's a taxpayer funded social program. Banks were profit-sharing with borrowers (and some schools) which may lead some to ask " why was there a profit margin in a social program to begin with?" Answer: "To pay for the corporate jet, silly." And as an aside, didn't the Feds "buy" the loans from the banks to ensure the banks had a supply of cash to lend again in the mini-bailout?

    I still maintain that borrowers have choice: take a federal loan or don't; problem solved.

  • Where does this so called "savings" come from?
  • Posted by Just Asking on March 23, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT
  • So... let's ask another couple of questions...

    The government sets the interest rates at 6.8% on an unsubsidized stafford, 6% subsidized stafford, and 8.5% for PLUS and the big bad student loan lenders can only earn the commercial paper rate plus a very small margin and the lenders have to send the rest to the government every quarter as "EXCESS INTEREST"... (why doesn't anyone know this?)... why does the student/parent have to pay the full 6%, 6.8%, and 8.5% if it is considered EXCESS INTEREST?

    Why doesn't the government reduce the interest rate for students/parents to what their chosen lenders are only allowed to earn and save the students and parents money on the cost of their education?

    Why doesn't anyone realize this? Because everyone is on board the Smoke and Mirrors train... Lenders are not earning any government subsidies like they are made out to be... they are sending EXCESS INTEREST to the government... In actuality, students and parents are paying more than thier chosen lenders can earn on loans...

    Example: Student pays 6.8% on a stafford loan, lender can only earn approx. 3.77% (and still have to pay a 1% fee to the government to participate in the program), lender is required to sends approx 3.03% to government as EXCESS INTEREST + the 1% fee... who gets the bad end of the stick here?

    Another example: Parent pays 8.5%, lender can only earn approx. 4.37% (and pay a 1% lender fee), lender sends approx. 4.13% to government as excess interest... + the 1% lender fee... who is "paying" for this savings?

    The government took away the lenders ability to provide borrower benefits such as paying the student's origination fee, reducing rates for borrowers through various borrower benefit programs for timely payments, etc. away from borrowers and made the lenders send what was once a savings to students... to the government (in the form of a new term, "excess interest")... who is benefiting here? Not the students... the government is. Students do not earn lower rates for timely payments anymore, don't have their origination fees paid anymore... and they still have to pay the full interest rate.

    Just asking...

  • Direct Lending vs. FFELP
  • Posted by P. Revere , Self on March 23, 2009 at 10:15pm EDT
  • Considering the CBO analysis that Direct Lending will save at least twice as much as the adminstration projected,what's important is increasing money in student and family pockets and affordable education. Some guarantors have not helped the debate by behind closed doors attempting to garner relatively large retention bonuses for their Executive Management Team while not doing their organization staff any favors. And, some guarantors have cut way back on historic services to schools, primarily postsecondary and early outreach benefits to campuses. The time is right for 100% Direct Lending and the ability to increase student aid to families and enhance college affordability for current and future generations.

  • The rest of the world; basic maths
  • Posted by Conor King , Principal Consultant at PhillipsKPA (Australian HE consultancy group) on March 24, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
  • A comment from the outside world.
    In an analysis of different higher education funding systems recently each of England, Scotland, Australia, the Netherlands, and New Zealand have systems of student loans (whether for fees or living costs) that are income contingent - paid back through the taxation system based on future earnings. Governments provide the loans (funds direct to the isntitution for fees; to the student for living expenses) and collect using existing taxation infrastructure - and wear the loss since loans are subject to a price index year to year not to real interest rates.

    Avoids alot of the argument and obfuscation seen in the comments above.

    And if Parent above really wants their own personal loan nothing is stopping them going to get one from a private lender, negotiating whatever deal they wish.

  • It already exists
  • Posted by AMDFAO on March 24, 2009 at 7:15am EDT
  • Income contingent repayment exists but the newest development for Direct Lending is the income based with forgiveness after 10 years for doing something altruistic.  I'm convinced I'd never want to give "forgiveness" power to a bank since it would be pretty easy to do nothing to collect and just get your money back from the Feds anyway (with fees and penalties of course).  

    By the way: I don't see FFEL lenders/servicers tripping over themselves to provide great borrower services once I inherit your kid at my school and none of them have any idea who the guarantor is tasked to do outreach.  At least the kids will only need to know one phone number and name in future.  

  • College, still making a difference with our help.
  • Posted by Edward Katen , Owner at United College Goal on March 25, 2009 at 5:45am EDT
  • In recent years some guarantors have become much less human potential driven organizations in favor of corporate and personal greed. Valuable campus and community focused outreach progams and services have lost out to bonus and other self-serving motives. Once the slogan: "Making a difference" meant in the lives of students and families not student loan servicer management bank accounts. In '08-09 so far, one student loan servicer fired various long-time dedicated employees over personality issues {Managements not employees} disguised in business reasons. The employees are minorities. Two of the employees are losing their homes over their respective job losses. The firings are reflective of one organizations determination to ensure managements lifestyle over student, family and campus benefits, let alone those long-standing dedicated employees who loyally administer program services. The above has led to organization instability and worse, fear. Unfortunately, for private sector participation in the student loan program, the above corporate culture is what's contributing to the argument for 100% Direct Lending and securitized student, family and campus services and benefits. It would be very unfair to lump all guarantors into the above scenario. Most student loan service providers continue their long tradition of valued services to campuses, families and higher education opportunity. Regardless of which program prevails, FFELP or Direct Lending, the goal as higher education financing moves forward is to ensure campuses, students and families are the primary recipients of program benefits they can consistently count on, not unstable services subject to a guarantor following the AIG model. Let's not let the misguided judgment and leadership of some ruin an historic commitment and common goal of providing all Americans affordable, efficient and competitive higher ed services now and in the future.