Government takes over all student loans

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
http://online.wsj.com/article/...O-20090917-714955.html

By Corey Boles and Robert Tomsho

Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES



WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation Thursday that would effectively end private-lender involvement in the student loan market, establishing the federal government as the sole provider of college loans.

The bill introduces sweeping changes to the U.S. higher education system, and serves as the third central plank of U.S. President Barack Obama's domestic agenda. It aims to make college more accessible and improve graduation rates.

Like the continuing efforts at overhauling health care, the changes to the federal government's higher education policies would have a serious impact on the bottom line for private-sector players currently serving the market place.

The House vote was 253-to-171, largely along party lines.

Under the legislation, all lenders would be cut out of the market for originating loans. There would still be a role for private banks and lenders to bid for a limited number of contracts to service the loans after they are made by the government.

The Federal Family Education Loan Program, wherein the government guarantees loans made by private lenders, remains the single largest source of college loans. Lenders made related loans for students at 4,465 schools for the 2008-09 academic years. Loan volume totalled $74 billion, up 13% from $65.3 billion a year earlier.

For companies like SLM Corp. (SLM), better known as Sallie Mae, the proposed changes are already having an impact. This week, Fitch Ratings downgraded Sallie Mae to BBB+ status, and called its outlook negative.

Sallie Mae's shares closed down 2.71% at $8.99.

"Today the House made a clear choice to stop funneling vital taxpayer dollars through board rooms and start sending them directly to dorm rooms," said Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee.

The Obama administration would use anticipated savings from the measure to increase grants for low-income students, boost funding for minority student groups, provide money for school construction, with a small portion left over to pay down the deficit.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said that ending fees paid to private lenders would save the taxpayer $87 billion over the next decade.

An alternative proposal floated by a group of lenders including Sallie Mae would realize the same level of savings, the CBO said.

In the Senate, staff on the Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee are drafting legislation similar to the House version, according to a Senate Democratic aide.

The Senate bill also would end private-lender origination of loans, the aide said, leaving the federal government as the sole provider of college loans.

Martha Holler, a spokeswoman for Sallie Mae, said the Senate has the opportunity to pass legislation that realizes significant savings "without sacrificing choice and competition for students."

The House vote comes after more than two years of turmoil for the student loan industry.

In 2007, Congress reduced government payments to lenders making federally guaranteed student loans by more than $20 billion.

The resulting cut in profits came just as credit markets were beginning to seize up, eventually making it nearly impossible for lenders to package student loans into securities and sell them to investors, a key source of liquidity in the student loan market.

Complaining that the business is no longer profitable, more than 180 lenders have exited all or part of the federal student loan program since the fall of 2007.

Still, remaining lenders have fought against the changes, arguing that providing loans to students is among the best ways to establish a relationship with new clients that could lead to more lucrative business in the future.

Passage of the legislation would require the Department of Education to accommodate around 4,000 schools by next July 1. And those schools would have to have their processing systems prepared well before that since most financial aid packages are typically distributed in the spring.

Lending experts at some of the largest schools in the country, such as the University of Notre Dame, have said that they won't have sufficient time to make the transition to a government-run lending program.

Having lined up additional contractors to handle the anticipated increase in direct-loan volume, federal officials say they are prepared. Absent an unanticipated breakdown in the system, industry observers say borrowers are unlikely to notice the shift.

House lawmakers attached a measure to the student loan bill ending all federal government funding of the community organizing group Acorn - the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. The group has long been in the cross hairs of Republicans, but more recently has been accused of widespread fraud and other illegal activities.

So now the government cut out private banks in the student loan market... more power to the government.
 

Cuda1447

Lifer
Jul 26, 2002
11,757
0
71
I want less government involvement in our life, not more. I guess that makes me a racist.
 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Does this mean better rates? If so, yay. If not, meh.

;)

it means pretty much any and all will get loans, and then when they default, taxes will pay for them to screw up.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,571
6,712
126
Good. Education is national security. Making money educating people is like making money off the sick. It is evil. All interest should be exactly as it is in real Islam, 2% and that's it.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,957
4,544
126
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
I want less government involvement in our life, not more.
This is a government spending CUT. Instead of forking over billions to subsidize companies every year, the government will be able to keep the subsidy cash. Of course, in the first few years, those savings are earmarked for education spending, so the savings are minimal. But in the future, there could be a lot less government spending due to this.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
Good. Private Banks ripped off students for decades. They would get the money from the goverment anyway then charge us 2-3% higher. I am so glad they are doing this. Doesn't help me much now though seeing as I am just about done paying.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
I want less government involvement in our life, not more.
This is a government spending CUT. Instead of forking over billions to subsidize companies, the government will be able to keep it. Of course, in the first few years, those savings are earmarked for education spending, so the savings are minimal. But in the future, there could be a lot less government spending due to this.

I predict loosening standards and increased default rates will offset the gains you speak of.

Also, the price of education should go up too, further fucking over the people.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,957
4,544
126
Originally posted by: JS80
Also, the price of education should go up too, further fucking over the people.
Why would the price of education go up if students and taxpayers no longer pay profits to companies?

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: JS80
Also, the price of education should go up too, further fucking over the people.
Why would the price of education go up if students and taxpayers no longer pay profits to companies?

Well it seems the more govt gets involved with education, the higher the prices get.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: JS80
Also, the price of education should go up too, further fucking over the people.
Why would the price of education go up if students and taxpayers no longer pay profits to companies?

They will loosen standards for student loans and artificially increase the demand for college.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
I want less government involvement in our life, not more.
This is a government spending CUT. Instead of forking over billions to subsidize companies every year, the government will be able to keep the subsidy cash. Of course, in the first few years, those savings are earmarked for education spending, so the savings are minimal. But in the future, there could be a lot less government spending due to this.

Projected to save over $50 billion.

I think it's a hoot when folks whine about reducing corporate welfare. It's not like the gov't has not propped up the banks or anything in the last 12 months ...




 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: JS80
Also, the price of education should go up too, further fucking over the people.
Why would the price of education go up if students and taxpayers no longer pay profits to companies?

They will loosen standards for student loans and artificially increase the demand for college.

There's nothing artificial about it. People don't go to college on a whim.
 

Auryg

Platinum Member
Dec 28, 2003
2,377
0
71
Originally posted by: classy
Good. Private Banks ripped off students for decades. They would get the money from the goverment anyway then charge us 2-3% higher. I am so glad they are doing this. Doesn't help me much now though seeing as I am just about done paying.

What the heck are you talking about? I qualify for only unsubsidized loans and the private banks have *always* had better rates than the government ones.

I assume it's different for subsidized loans but it doesn't take much to not be able to qualify for those - as a matter of fact, it irks me off that they're offered at all. I don't want to divulge how much my parents make on the internet but it's not nearly enough to pay for even a fraction of my schooling - and my sister is going as well. So what do I need to do? Take out loans. Makes sense. My poor friend gets to go to school basically for free - by poor friend I mean his parents are divorced and he is under his mom who as far as I know doesn't really work. Why shouldn't he have to take out loans too?
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Hope you dont want to get a student loan any time soon. At any point that the budget has a crisis, they can cut off the supply of student loans. Just like they do now for PELL. Instead of fixing something that is not broken, they should be fixing the runaway credit card problems and the Real Estate morgage problems that are waiting to blow up.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
I'm pretty sure this legislation only covers federal student loans (ie subsidized/unsbsidized direct loans), which makes sense. I don't see why the gov't should be paying other people for origination when they already do it themselves
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Good. Education is national security. Making money educating people is like making money off the sick. It is evil. All interest should be exactly as it is in real Islam, 2% and that's it.

Healthcare is national security, education is national security, automobiles are national security, banks are national security, weapons are national security, food is national security.....
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Originally posted by: Auryg
Originally posted by: classy
Good. Private Banks ripped off students for decades. They would get the money from the goverment anyway then charge us 2-3% higher. I am so glad they are doing this. Doesn't help me much now though seeing as I am just about done paying.

What the heck are you talking about? I qualify for only unsubsidized loans and the private banks have *always* had better rates than the government ones.

I assume it's different for subsidized loans but it doesn't take much to not be able to qualify for those - as a matter of fact, it irks me off that they're offered at all. I don't want to divulge how much my parents make on the internet but it's not nearly enough to pay for even a fraction of my schooling - and my sister is going as well. So what do I need to do? Take out loans. Makes sense. My poor friend gets to go to school basically for free - by poor friend I mean his parents are divorced and he is under his mom who as far as I know doesn't really work. Why shouldn't he have to take out loans too?

I bet you were looking at variable rate loans from private companies vs fixed direct loans. The gov't does have better rate for the fixed (next best I got was 9-11%)

I just finished a Master's in Finance and have both subsidized and unsubsidized loans from the govt. The rate is fixed at 6% (iirc), which was far far lower than the next best option from private lender.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
If this had been the case when I started school and the rules regarding who could get government loans were the same as they were then, I couldn't have gone to school. Middle class white kid = not eligible for government loans. CitiBank, however, loaned me what I needed.
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: JS80
Also, the price of education should go up too, further fucking over the people.
Why would the price of education go up if students and taxpayers no longer pay profits to companies?
Because demand for high-priced education just became inelastic. Or is the government going to be more selective in who it will loan money to, thereby only allowing those with a good credit rating to get an education?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,518
9,738
136
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: JS80
Also, the price of education should go up too, further fucking over the people.
Why would the price of education go up if students and taxpayers no longer pay profits to companies?

The government skims a lot of money off the top. People have to manage this money.
 

Cuda1447

Lifer
Jul 26, 2002
11,757
0
71
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
I want less government involvement in our life, not more.

I guess that makes me a racist.

You want less go to another country. Problem for you solved.

How about if you want more go to another country. Why am I the one who has to go? Because 51 % of America voted your way this time? Did you like it, when Bush was in office and you were complaining that others were telling you to go to another country? How about you be an adult and debate the pros and cons of more vs less government involvement.


Or here's a crazy idea, why don't you go back in history, look at what this country was founded upon, come back, then tell me if I'm the one that should be leaving, or if you are trying to fundamentally change the way this country has worked since its existence. Funny thing is, if you're honest, you'll admit you don't like the way the country has worked for the last 200 years.
 

TruePaige

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2006
9,874
2
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
If this had been the case when I started school and the rules regarding who could get government loans were the same as they were then, I couldn't have gone to school. Middle class white kid = not eligible for government loans. CitiBank, however, loaned me what I needed.
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: JS80
Also, the price of education should go up too, further fucking over the people.
Why would the price of education go up if students and taxpayers no longer pay profits to companies?
Because demand for high-priced education just became inelastic. Or is the government going to be more selective in who it will loan money to, thereby only allowing those with a good credit rating to get an education?

What the heck are you talking about?

EVERYONE can get Stafford loans.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: TruePaige
What the heck are you talking about?

EVERYONE can get Stafford loans.
I could get Stafford loans to pay for about 4% of my tuition. What good does that do me?