Submitted by Patrick Bott on February 14, 2008 - 11:10am.
The war on the money changers continues unabated! No quarter given by the NAF! Now NAF’s accusing the most venerable financial newspaper in the country of “spinning” the truth! Wow, how much spin is too much spin NAF? I’m starting to get dizzy!
Chase is offering discounted loans eh NAF? Since when is one lender representative of the health of the whole population? I see you’re using your rigorous statistical methods again to bring us the best data that suits your particular ideological bent! What you fail to mention is that Chase unlike many of its competitors has access to deposits as a source of capital. Sallie Mae, CLC, Goal, Michigan, Brazos, don’t have access to deposits to fund their loans! They must rely solely on the capital markets which, as the Journal correctly points out-are dysfunctional! Did it ever occur to you that Chase might also be attempting to take advantage of the competition’s weakness in this regard to gain market share (foregoing normal profits so that when markets do normalize they have less competition)? Ah phooey, that makes too much sense!
Borrowers with scores below 660 are going to encounter difficulties obtaining supplemental private loans NAF. Just because you think it’s a raw deal to take out one of these loans doesn’t mean that the individual does! In fact, the majority of the borrowers in the 660-620 range do pay back their loans just fine. Perhaps you should stop projecting your ideological bent here too NAF. The sanctity of individual choice is guaranteed by our Constitution. I know you’d like to have it the other way, where the Statist Direct Loan program rules the day!
Your callous comment “who cares” with respect to FFELP lenders who have exited the business is misplaced as well. The consumer voting with his / her wallet determines the most efficient provider of the good or service! They didn’t have a say in this one. The “elites” decided for them who was to be “efficient”. For instance, CLC seems to have been very efficient answering phone calls from their customers. Hard to believe huh NAF that some people pay for good customer service! Again, the individual’s rights are what are important. Shame on you and others for trampling on them!
Spin, Spin, Spin!
The war on the money changers continues unabated! No quarter given by the NAF! Now NAF’s accusing the most venerable financial newspaper in the country of “spinning” the truth! Wow, how much spin is too much spin NAF? I’m starting to get dizzy!
Chase is offering discounted loans eh NAF? Since when is one lender representative of the health of the whole population? I see you’re using your rigorous statistical methods again to bring us the best data that suits your particular ideological bent! What you fail to mention is that Chase unlike many of its competitors has access to deposits as a source of capital. Sallie Mae, CLC, Goal, Michigan, Brazos, don’t have access to deposits to fund their loans! They must rely solely on the capital markets which, as the Journal correctly points out-are dysfunctional! Did it ever occur to you that Chase might also be attempting to take advantage of the competition’s weakness in this regard to gain market share (foregoing normal profits so that when markets do normalize they have less competition)? Ah phooey, that makes too much sense!
Borrowers with scores below 660 are going to encounter difficulties obtaining supplemental private loans NAF. Just because you think it’s a raw deal to take out one of these loans doesn’t mean that the individual does! In fact, the majority of the borrowers in the 660-620 range do pay back their loans just fine. Perhaps you should stop projecting your ideological bent here too NAF. The sanctity of individual choice is guaranteed by our Constitution. I know you’d like to have it the other way, where the Statist Direct Loan program rules the day!
Your callous comment “who cares” with respect to FFELP lenders who have exited the business is misplaced as well. The consumer voting with his / her wallet determines the most efficient provider of the good or service! They didn’t have a say in this one. The “elites” decided for them who was to be “efficient”. For instance, CLC seems to have been very efficient answering phone calls from their customers. Hard to believe huh NAF that some people pay for good customer service! Again, the individual’s rights are what are important. Shame on you and others for trampling on them!