Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Student loans: The latest credit crisis
Topic Started: Apr 29 2008, 11:53 AM (823 Views)
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Quote:
 
Student loans: The latest credit crisis

http://media.wildcat.arizona.edu/media/sto...s-3355026.shtml

An integral credit market full of risky loans suddenly seizes up.

Borrowers can't find the capital they need, and banks are hesitant to lend in an uncertain and unprofitable market. The result? A sloppy, billion-dollar bailout courtesy of the federal government.

Thinking of the credit crunch that resulted in a $30 billion rescue of investment bank Bear Sterns by the Federal Reserve last month? Think again: A similar cycle of uncertainty is underway in the market for student loans, and it could have big consequences for those who need to pay for a college education in the coming academic year.

The government is by far the biggest player in the student-loan market, providing over $83 billion in student loans each year through a farrago of federally-subsidized programs designed to make college affordable for all. But over the last two months, more than 50 private lenders have withdrawn from government-backed student loan programs. Together, they make up almost 14 percent of the loan market by volume, according to the Wall Street Journal. That's a troubling indicator of uncertainty and potential turmoil.

Sallie Mae, the nation's largest student lender, didn't mince words with its latest quarterly earnings report. "Today's environment," wrote CEO Albert Lord, "is the most difficult we have seen in our 35-year history of student lending. It has become obvious that we can only meet the enormous student credit demands we are seeing at Sallie Mae if there is a near-term, system-wide liquidity solution."

Translation: "Help us, Obi-wan Bernanke … you're our only hope!"

Policymakers are already tripping over each other to arrange yet another massive federal bailout. On Saturday, President Bush devoted his weekly radio address to student loans, affirming that "a slowdown in the economy shouldn't mean a downturn in educational opportunities" and urging Congress to rush an aid package to his desk "as soon as possible." The House is already on top of the request - earlier this month, they passed a bill that would give the U.S. Department of Education broad new authority to buy up bad loans.

How did the student loan market plunge into crisis so quickly? It's easy to blame the banks behind the mortgage mess, which has left lenders and investors wary of student loans, often sold off in bundles just like the subprime home loans that went bad in the last credit fiasco. But there's another important culprit: our lovable federal government.

Back in September, Congress passed the "College Cost Reduction and Access Act," a measure that slashed subsidies to private lenders providing federal student loans. That's not a bad idea in principle, but the bill also made two dangerous interventions in the loan market: It mandated lower interest rates for borrowers and cut yields to lenders. Although it might have managed to succeed in a healthy credit climate, current uncertainty in the financial markets and bad policy have combined to leave the market for student loans trashed worse than a frat boy on Friday night.

That's not a new story. The student loan market has long been mired in information asymmetries and the distortions of government intervention.

Student loans follow the same model as loans for tangible assets like cars and homes - lenders give students cash upfront to invest in a college education, with the expectation that they will be steadily repaid after graduation. But there are profound differences between a house and a college education. It's easy to figure out how much a house is worth, and as a physical object, it's likely to retain most of its value. But when it comes to education - a good economists refer to as "human capital" ­- calculating value is much murkier. How much will a liberal-arts degree be worth immediately after college? It's tough to pinpoint, when it's as likely to lead to fame and fortune as it is to a job slinging caramel macchiatos. Plus, unlike a home, which can be sold or seized if a borrower can't keep up with the payments, a college education can't be used as collateral. That means lenders have always been a bit hesitant, and government eager to induce them with lucrative subsidies.

But in order to prevent similar loan crunches and expand access to college without loading students with mountains of debt, we'll need to scrap the current student loan regime altogether. Traditional loans simply don't make sense for students, who face big financial changes immediately after college ends. As any recent graduate can attest, the monthly payment schedule of a student loan can quickly become an unbearable burden - and it's unnecessary when loans are backed by the federal government. Instead, as Thomas Kane, a professor of education and economics at Harvard University, suggests in a recent issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, it would make more sense for students to agree to pay a fixed percentage of their income after graduation, until the principal and interest on their loan is paid off.

More effective student loans could even be provided by markets completely free of government subsidies. Economist and revered free-marketeer Milton Friedman proposed "human capital contracts" as a replacement for student loans in which private investors would give students the capital to pay for college in exchange for a share of their future earnings - essentially investing in the profitability of individual students. Though the idea may have been infeasible when Friedman came up with it in 1955, with modern technology, implementing such a system would be easier than ever.

The student loan crisis is yet another product of government meddling in a market where it doesn't belong. Unfortunately, it looks like more of the same is in order to try and fix it.



Connor Mendenhall is a sophomore majoring in economics and international studies and the opinions editor of the Arizona Daily Wildcat. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
You can get a college education without student loans. You might have to work (OMG!) and stretch out your degree a year or two, but you can do it and graduate without the debt.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
How's this for a government distortion of the student loan market;

- Government loans from a single state backed Student Loans provider
- Interest rates on student loans capped at the rate of inflation
- No repayment required until you earn a decent salary
- Repayment only as a percentage of salary
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
38957
Apr 29 2008, 01:05 PM
You can get a college education without student loans. You might have to work (OMG!) and stretch out your degree a year or two, but you can do it and graduate without the debt.

I agree, one of the things I notice people my age around me struggling with (or at lest worrying about) is there student loans. I'm glad I don't have any.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ds9074
Apr 29 2008, 01:31 PM
How's this for a government distortion of the student loan market;

- Government loans from a single state backed Student Loans provider
- Interest rates on student loans capped at the rate of inflation
- No repayment required until you earn a decent salary
- Repayment only as a percentage of salary

I dont understand you point, is that what you want or have or have but dont want?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
HistoryDude
Member Avatar
Shaken, not stirred...
I worked my way through undergraduate school, but that's only because I lived at home and had almost no bills besides school and car/gas. And that was a cheap, in-state university. There was no way I could work my way through grad school, out-of-state, in any reasonable time-frame. I got a government stafford loan, I think it was called? Student loans are worthwhile and beneficial if you're smart about them.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Dandandat
Apr 29 2008, 05:35 PM
ds9074
Apr 29 2008, 01:31 PM
How's this for a government distortion of the student loan market;

- Government loans from a single state backed Student Loans provider
- Interest rates on student loans capped at the rate of inflation
- No repayment required until you earn a decent salary
- Repayment only as a percentage of salary

I dont understand you point, is that what you want or have or have but dont want?

Thats what we have and I personally think its a very effective way of ensuring everyone has access to a loan if they need it at an affordable rate. I think its a better option than providing subsidies to private companies to provide loans on a semi-commerical basis.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
I personaly would not like that system, the tax payer has to subsides the loans to all comers and then be stuck with the debt when and if its not made good on. Further I asume that not all schools costs the same in your counrty so some students would place more burden on the tax system then others and that does not seem fair.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Dandandat
Apr 29 2008, 08:44 PM
I personaly would not like that system, the tax payer has to subsides the loans to all comers and then be stuck with the debt when and if its not made good on. Further I asume that not all schools costs the same in your counrty so some students would place more burden on the tax system then others and that does not seem fair.

Fees are variable from £0-£3000.

The whole point is that the taxpayer should be subsidising the cost to ensure that anyone can go as far as they are academically able to.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
According to that, if you get a degree for something that is in low demand and does not pay well, the taxpayer has to pay more for people educated in stuff that society doesn't need. Sounds like subsidies at work.

If you can't afford it and can't afford to pay off the loan, you shouldn't be doing it. That is called common sense.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ds9074
Apr 29 2008, 05:57 PM
The whole point is that the taxpayer should be subsidising the cost to ensure that anyone can go as far as they are academically able to.

I would not agree with that sentiment.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Dandandat
Apr 29 2008, 10:04 PM
ds9074
Apr 29 2008, 05:57 PM
The whole point is that the taxpayer should be subsidising the cost to ensure that anyone can go as far as they are academically able to.

I would not agree with that sentiment.

Well we will have to disagree. I think it a great thing that people are helped to achieve their full academic potential, regardless of their background.

I believe the ability for everyone to have access to education that takes them as far as they can go is one of the best ways of helping people break out of poverty and reducing wasted potential.

You shouldn't have the situation where someone is capable of attending a top university but isn't able to because of the costs.

The system we have also means that people are not penalised because of sudden changes of circumstance. The year after I graduated I was hit by a chronic medical condition that means I can't physically work full time - so my wages are limited. Under the system we have I am not required to make payments unless/until I am earning enough that I can afford to do so.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ds9074
Apr 29 2008, 06:24 PM
Well we will have to disagree. I think it a great thing that people are helped to achieve their full academic potential, regardless of their background.

Perhaps worthy,

but what about helping people achieve their full academic potential, regardless of their assholeness? This is where I start to have a problem.


Quote:
 
The system we have also means that people are not penalised because of sudden changes of circumstance. The year after I graduated I was hit by a chronic medical condition that means I can't physically work full time - so my wages are limited. Under the system we have I am not required to make payments unless/until I am earning enough that I can afford to do so.


It sounds nice, but truthfully why am I responsible for the medical conditions of others? I might wish to help someone with a medical condition, but your system makes me responsible.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Dandandat
Apr 29 2008, 10:30 PM
ds9074
Apr 29 2008, 06:24 PM
Well we will have to disagree. I think it a great thing that people are helped to achieve their full academic potential, regardless of their background.

Perhaps worthy,

but what about helping people achieve their full academic potential, regardless of their assholeness? This is where I start to have a problem.

I dont know exactly what your getting at there.

One of the key points of having a state system of student finance is that it is universal and covers everyone.


Dandandat
 
It sounds nice, but truthfully why am I responsible for the medical conditions of others? I might wish to help someone with a medical condition, but your system makes me responsible.

That is part of having solidarity with your fellow citizens. If it was someone else who was ill and not me then I would be paying for them. It is the same principle that lies behind the National Health Service. That we are one society and we have responsibilities to others in that society, some of which are best discharged through the state.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ds9074
Apr 29 2008, 06:36 PM
Dandandat
Apr 29 2008, 10:30 PM
ds9074
Apr 29 2008, 06:24 PM
Well we will have to disagree. I think it a great thing that people are helped to achieve their full academic potential, regardless of their background.

Perhaps worthy,

but what about helping people achieve their full academic potential, regardless of their assholeness? This is where I start to have a problem.

I dont know exactly what your getting at there.

One of the key points of having a state system of student finance is that it is universal and covers everyone.

Exactly and that means it includes the assholes and I don't want to help assholes. :P
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus