Higher Ed Watch - logo
 

Please Don't Make Us Bid on PLUS Loans!

February 25, 2009 - 4:30pm

Are private student lenders and their allies in the financial aid world thankful for the credit crunch? If they can use the market turmoil as an excuse to torpedo the PLUS loan auction set to begin this year, they may very well be.

The student loan industry and their friends in the national and state associations representing financial aid administrators are calling on Congress and the Obama Administration to postpone or eliminate the new pilot auction program, arguing that current financial market disruptions would make it unworkable. They also argue that the program, which would use market forces to set student loan subsidy rates for lenders making federal PLUS loans to parents, won't reduce costs for the government.

Policymakers should bear in mind a few key points when considering the loan industry's latest cries.

Credit market disruptions have made the whole Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program structure untenable. Only an emergency law -- the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act (ECASLA) -- saved the system by allowing the U.S. Department of Education to buy FFEL loans and convert them into direct loans, as well as to lend federal money to FFEL lenders. The auction as designed may very well be an awkward fit within this new FFEL paradigm.

Yet, where there is a will, there is a way... to make the auction work. The ECASLA programs are a perfect example of how creative policies have been implemented to ensure the FFEL program continues to function in the face of credit market turmoil. These policies, however, are possible only because of the cooperation and support of the student loan industry, the Congress, and the Administration.

We don't doubt that these groups could find a way to make the auction work under the new FFEL structure and credit market environment. For starters, Congress could enact legislation increasing or removing the arbitrary cap on the subsidy bids lenders are allowed to make under the pilot auction program.

Policymakers should know, however, that such cooperation is unlikely, as the loan industry opposed any auction even before Congress had drafted its first proposal in early 2007. In fact, the lenders' concern about credit market conditions is largely a smokescreen. Lenders fear an auction because they would have to bid for the federal subsidies that they receive for making FFEL loans. This would require that they tip their hand and show the federal government and taxpayers what an appropriate subsidy rate really is. Moreover, the least efficient lenders would be squeezed out of the program. (Gee, imagine that.)

The industry's claims regarding auction costs savings are also a straw man. The auction program isn't so much about reducing costs as it is about getting student loan lobbyists and the Congress out of the business of setting subsidy rates. This model for setting loan subsidies is a terribly inefficient policy and one that we have criticized in a number of posts (available here, here, and here). Bear in mind, even if the auction increases costs for taxpayers, it is still superior to the existing subsidy setting approach.

The FFEL program wasn't designed to work under current credit market conditions. But the loan industry, of course, didn't argue that we should abandon the FFEL program or "postpone" it. Instead, they helped Congress and the Bush Administration design a solution. Why then should the auction be postponed or abandoned?

Comments

Talk to a school--ask them why they are opposed to the auction

Would I be out of line to suggest that Mr. Delisle talk to some schools? The work of financial administrators is hard enough, but the confusion and uncertainty of the the PLUS auction has made their job more difficult. They are petitioning Congress and the Department of Eduaction to delay or cancel the auction because they believe not doing so will disrupt aid packaging and, in some cases, prompt unnecessary changes in educational plans. Please, Mr. Delisle, talk to some schools. This situation is not a policy debate--it is an attempt to avoid a train wreck.

I definitely agree with the

I definitely agree with the comment that the author should speak with schools. I know the parents (and graduate students using the GRAD PLUS) of the student population at my school will be very upset if they are forced to switch their PLUS lender to what is mandated by the auction. Most of our parents/students have been using the same PLUS lender for years. I know this will create very upset families that our office will have to deal with. It is very frustrating when Congress and other entities make decisions about our field but do not have the experience implementing these decisions or the ability to see how this directly affects students.

Inefficient lenders

If we abandon the FFEL program, who will squeeze out the inefficiencies of its replacement? Maybe it's just me, but I always thought competition was a good thing for consumers!

Monopolists

The auction scheme should be called what it actually is government protected monopolies. Costs will increase, service will diminish, and localized shortages will exist. As someone who advocates for the full privatization of educational lending, I see yet another step by the legislators to destroy the federal program with unworkable compliance costs. So by all means, if Congress will not liberate lenders from FFELP by ending the program, then it can quickly destroy the program with more regulatory nonsense.

Service Based Model Best

If either party--or the hacks who write for this site--were truly interested in both serving the student borrower and protecting the taxpayer, they would have been promoting the service-based model which has been a fleeting discussion topic for years. In this model, student loan providers would originate and service student loans but use federal, as opposed to private, dollars. These service providers would also perform the necessary due diligence to keep loans out of default. There could easily be a dozen or more such service providers including Sallie Mae, AES/PHEAA, Great Lakes, ACS, Nelnet, The Student Loan Corp., etc. The feds would only pay for loan origination (a low figure for the standardized FFELP program), servicing (a few dollars per account per month) and the efforts of the service provider to prevent defaults. I have no statistical analysis to verify my claims but I would bet the farm that this would be cheaper than even Direct Lending and would ensure that competition and private sector innovation continue to allow for student and school choice.