HIGHEREDWATCH.ORG

Some Buzz and the Basics For Higher Ed Watch

January 10, 2007

The polls are closed and we didn't make the cut. Sixteen education-related blogs made Jay Matthew's Top 10 list and we weren't one of them (although, we're still new). While it's tempting to criticize Matthew's fuzzy math, we understand the difficulty of his task, and the right thing to do is to recognize the excellent work done by all the people that contribute to those blogs. Especially, we'd like to say congratulations to our friends Andy and Alexander. They may not always get along, but we've worked with both in the past and have a lot of respect for them.

While we may have missed out on the big prize, there is some joy in Mudville. One of our recent blog posts got picked up and commented on by one of the real big fish in the blogging pond. TPM Cafe's Warren Reports gave us a nod in this post.

The really interesting thing though isn't the post itself (no offense to TPM Cafe). The interesting part is in the comments. TPM commenter "HeyNorm" makes an argument very similar to that put forward by one of our most frequent readers and commenters in response to "The Lender of Venice?"

Our reader "David Starr" writes:

"Of course, there may be another,
less sensational reason why Sallie Mae
is so successful: It's well managed and
efficient in a low return, high volume
business? The reliable analytical organizations
you cite have also been quick to point out that
the government's cost estimates don't tell
you how much direct loans REALLY cost.
CBO said in 2005: "The subsidy calculations...
are NOT DESIGNED TO FULLY CAPTURE THE
ECONOMIC COSTS TO THE GOVERNMENT."
“[T]he estimates are based on projections
of key variables for many years into the
future and therefore are QUITE UNCERTAIN."
Heck, the Clinton Era IG for the Department 
of Education cautioned, "a total cost figure for
any one year DOES NOT DEFINITIVELY answer
the question of whether the FFELP or FDLP
is more expensive.”"

HeyNorm and David Starr got us thinking a bit about our presentation. We get pretty deep in the student loan weeds sometimes and move quickly without always describing the basics for our readers. The fact this same line of reasoning keeps popping up on other blogs suggests that we need to elaborate on our thinking.

Starr is correct that Sallie Mae appears well managed and efficient. Sallie didn’t squander the advantages given to them as a quasi-governmental organization when they privatized. They have been very aggressive about growing their market by expanding into private loans as well as by offering “enrollment management” and consequently “financial aid leveraging” services.

From a shareholder's persepective, Sallie Mae Chairman Al Lord has done a tremendous job and deserves the praise lavished on him by Wall Street insiders. However, we tend not to examine these things from a shareholder's perspective. We didn’t make up those Wall Street quotes about Sallie Mae for sensational purposes.  Those quotes are verbatim from Morningstar Ratings, which has a reputation as being the top rating agency for financial services and investment purposes.

As for the caveats in the CBO and ED studies, again, our commenter is absolutely correct. CBO includes those kinds of cautions and qualifications in their reports on student loans and just about everything else. In our opinion, that’s a big part of what makes them a reliable source. They offer up their best judgment, tell you how they made it, and if they’re certain about anything, it’s that they won’t be able to forecast anything right on the nose. Five and ten year budget projections from CBO are a great example. I think TPM Cafe's arguments on this topic are much clearer and more eloquent than any I could make. To read that exchange, please click here.

The bottom line is there will always be uncertainty in projecting fiscal outcomes to policy changes. It is better to acknowledge those up front. However, the very strong preponderance of evidence from reliable analytical and independent organizations over time leads us and Morningstar Ratings service, to believe that the Direct Loan program is a cheaper alternative for the federal government than the Sallie Mae-dominated, Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program alternative.

Separately, the behavior of Sallie Mae and other FFEL lenders leads us to believe that their primary obligation is to their shareholders, not student borrowers.  That’s how we see the basic principles of this issue, and that's why we think there ought to be serious reconsideration of the current student loan system.

Sign Up For Higher Ed Watch E-mails | Return to Main Blog Page

Comments

But what about...?

Well done folks, I think that this posting does a lot to qualify your position. However, let me throw a couple pitches your way and see if you can hit 'em or if you strike out. 1. If DLP is so great, why then have so many schools left the program after initially signing up for it? I know there's considerable debate about preferred lender lists and supposed kickbacks but come on, if it really is such a bonus to students I'm not necessarily sure that the large (and let us not forget "continuing") exodus from DLP and back to FFELP would persist. Indeed one could make the argument that if it's such a great program then colleges and universities would trumpet their offering it as a way to lure students. Perhaps there's something to be said for market competition driving private lenders to be more responsive to consumers than a monopolist. 2. Speaking of which, while Sallie Mae has fielded the brunt of criticism leveled at private lenders in recent years, one place where we (the public) most certainly owe them their due is in the contract negotiations for servicing the DLP loans. ACS was initially granted a no-bid contract to service the government's loan program and it was Sallie Mae who pitched a fit and got the government to re-open the bidding. If memory serves me, I believe that when ACS resubmitted their bid (in competition with Sallie Mae's bid - which obviously was not selected), it was on the order of $1-BILLION LOWER than their previously agreed upon contract! It would seem that some level of fleecing was going on and, thanks largely to Sallie Mae and the principles of market competition, they saved taxpayers a cool billion. 3. Let us also consider where the blame for the current state of the private lending market lies. The arrangements under which private lenders operate are not the product of sinister secret board meetings but in response to programs and policies that the government itself created and has continuously fostered. Should private lenders be chastened for utilizing tax-exempt bonds to finance student loans or should the government be chastened for not closing the loophole years ago? Should private lenders endure grief for their SAP revenues or should the government endure grief for artificially establishing such levels and not letting them float with market rates? You are correct that Sallie Mae and other private lenders are responsible first and foremost to their shareholders, but principles of economics tells us there is absolutely nothing wrong with that (the for-profits' fundamental objective is to maximize shareholder wealth). In essence, to suggest that private lenders are somehow wrong for caring about their shareholders above all others is not a legitimate argument. Maybe some more blog space ought to be devoted to critically evaluating what the government is, and is not, doing since it is the primary agent controlling the mechanisms that distribute revenues in the student loan market.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.