Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Student Debt

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Keeping the E in FIRE

    the other horse in the team . . . .

    Alarm Raised by Plan to Ease Credit Norms on U.S. Parent Loans

    By Janet Lorin May 27, 2014 12:01 AM ET

    Parents whose financial standing disqualify them from most loans may have an easier time borrowing to pay their children’s college costs under a U.S. government proposal to ease credit standards.

    The plan doesn’t sit well with consumer advocates and economists, who are sounding an alarm. The Education Department wants to look at “adverse credit” over two years instead of five and consider approving loans even if parents have delinquent credit balances, according to an agency document released this month.

    Consumer advocates say loosening the norms for parent PLUS loans will only hurt borrowers, and default rates, already on the rise, will continue to climb. Just 45 percent of the outstanding $62 billion in parent loans are being actively repaid, mostly because borrowers don’t need to make payments until six months after their children graduate or leave college, according to department data. Families are struggling to pay for college as the costs increase faster than the rate of inflation.

    “Some of these loan characteristics -- potential payment shocks and not verifying a borrower’s income -- certainly strongly contributed to the mortgage crisis,” said Katie Buitrago, senior policy analyst with the Woodstock Institute, a Chicago-based nonprofit group focused on fair-lending issues. “If you are deferring for 4 1/2 years, that’s a lot of time for your financial situation to change.”

    ‘Bottom Line’

    When Parent PLUS loans were first offered in the 1980s, borrowers had to start repaying right away, while their children were in school. Congress changed the law in 2008 amid the financial crisis, letting parents defer payments. When the time comes to pay, many are startled by the higher balance that includes accrued interest.

    “The idea that you wouldn’t have to pay anything for years might make it more likely you don’t pay attention to what the bottom line says,” said Susan Dynarski, an economist at the University of Michigan. “I don’t understand the logic behind deferral on a PLUS loan.”

    The Education Department declined to comment on why it wants to change the standards and what the next steps are for the PLUS proposal.

    Since a 1992 change in the law, parents have been able to borrow through the PLUS program up to the cost of attendance, minus any aid the student receives. One year at a private college can top $60,000. Parents who have trouble meeting their loan obligation don’t have the option of income-based repayment, a protection offered with federal student loans.

    ‘Draconian’ Practices

    “If someone defaults on their PLUS loans, they’re subject to the draconian debt collection practices of the federal government, which include wage and benefit garnishment,” Buitrago said. “It’s much more difficult to discharge PLUS loans in bankruptcy than mortgage loans.”

    The majority of parents borrowing with PLUS loans choose to defer, according to Chris Greene, a spokesman for the department’s office of Federal Student Aid. Interest rates are fixed for the life of the loans though parents need to take out a separate loan for each school year. The rate for the academic year starting July 1 is 7.21 percent, up from 6.41 percent currently and as high as 8.5 percent in 2009-2010. Parent PLUS loans also carry an origination fee equal to 4.3 percent of the loan amount, four times the rate for the most popular student loan.

    In March, the department released default rates for parent loans for the first time. The rate for all schools rose to 5.1 percent for parents who deferred and began repaying in 2010, up from 2.6 percent in 2008.

    Default Rates

    For-profit schools had the highest default rate for parent PLUS loans in that time frame, at 13.3 percent, up from 6.3 percent. The rate at four-year public colleges was 3.1 percent, up from 1.9 percent, while it was 3.4 percent at private nonprofit four-year colleges, up from 2.0 percent. It’s unclear whether the default rates will be released going forward, said Denise Horn, a department spokeswoman.

    Many Parent PLUS borrowers have modest assets and income. In the 2011-2012 year, about 36 percent of students whose parents took out the loans also received Pell grants, which are for low-income students, according to National Center for Education Statistics data.

    “A good share of these families are not the most financially secure households,” said Thomas Weko, a former Education Department official who is managing researcher for post-secondary education at the nonprofit American Institutes for Research in Washington. “A decent number of people are going to get in trouble.”

    ‘Frightening’ Scenario

    The department had tightened some credit standards in 2011 to match the stricter requirements of private lenders, who a year earlier lost the ability to originate federal loans, Weko said.

    Under the proposed standard changes, parents could have almost $2,100 in loan balances that are delinquent 90 days or more, are in collection or charged off, and still qualify for a PLUS loan. Under current rules, any delinquency of 90 days or more is a reason for rejection, and if a parent appeals a rejection, the Education Department has used a $500 threshold for bad credit. It would still look back five years for some metrics such as default, bankruptcy and foreclosure.

    “Until we bring in some element of the ability to repay, I don’t know if we’re providing the right loans to the right people in the right amounts,” said Suzanne Martindale, an attorney for Consumers Union. “That’s frightening.”

    The Education Department doesn’t have the legal authority to impose an “ability to repay standard” for eligibility for any of its loans, said Horn, the agency spokeswoman.

    To contact the reporter on this story: Janet Lorin in New York at jlorin@bloomberg.net

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Keeping the E in FIRE

      Makes sense to me. Kid racks up big debt in school, can't find a real job, moves into mom and dad's basement, uses all their disposable income paying mom and dad back. See the numbers work. If he can not spend $10,000 of his take home pay a year, he can service 140,000 of debt, see no problem :-)

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Keeping the E in FIRE

        Originally posted by charliebrown View Post
        Makes sense to me. Kid racks up big debt in school, can't find a real job, moves into mom and dad's basement, uses all their disposable income paying mom and dad back. See the numbers work. If he can not spend $10,000 of his take home pay a year, he can service 140,000 of debt, see no problem :-)
        Finding the sweet spot. FIRE is nothing if not creative in its transfer of wealth :-)

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Student Debt - Debt engulfs institutions of higher learning

          The big question can you profit from the future default by Universities and Colleges?


          http://chronicle.com/blogs/bottomlin...l-as-students/

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Student Debt - Debt engulfs institutions of higher learning

            Here is a two pager on Wall Street profiting through getting Colleges and Universities to issue debt:
            http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.o...et_problem.pdf

            Comment


            • #51
              Turns Out It's the Resumes

              The class of 2014 who graduate from university this summer still have a choice of hundreds of jobs that they could snap up, says a poll out today.

              Nine out of 10 companies surveyed by the Association of Graduate Recruiters are struggling to fill all their vacancies, it concludes.

              The reasons are twofold, according to the AGR – more vacancies being on offer after years of austerity and too many applications of insufficient quality.

              “Much is being made at the moment about the ‘value’ of a university degree in the job market but we know anecdotally from our members that most candidates fall down at the application stage,” said Stephen Isherwood, chief executive of the AGR. “So often graduates are not taking enough time over their applications and thus not representing themselves in the best possible light.

              The AGR surveyed 68 top companies – with 87 per cent reporting unfilled vacancies. These covered a range of occupations – IT, electrical and electronic engineering and general managements jobs.

              In all, 55 per cent of the companies said they had increased the number of jobs on offer this year – but two thirds (67 per cent) said applications were of insufficient quality.

              Mr Isherwood added: “sometimes they have not paid drafting the application the attention it deserves. It’s like a spray-and-pray approach and then bang the application out.

              “As an employer if you’ve got someone who has put a lot of thought into their application, then that clear the first hurdle.”

              He also urged graduates to consider working outside London – 40 per cent of all vacancies were outside the capital. “Some are reluctant to go anywhere but London – but you can find yourself being given more responsibility in jobs outside the capital,” he added. “In the nuclear industry, for example, all the top jobs are outside the capital.”

              http://www.independent.co.uk/student...s-9441782.html


              Assume for a second, every application was perfectly written. There would still be too many people seeking jobs, than jobs exist.

              Other than a possible internship, most of these graduates have no real world experience. Moreover, some of those with internships did not do meaningful work.

              What's left is those who get hired.

              The problem is lack of relevant experience vs. expectations, and there is no way to hide that problem, no matter how creative the application.

              At the margin, someone who writes a better application has a better chance than someone who doesn't, but that will not increase the number of jobs available or the skills required for those jobs.

              http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogsp...TCPd85wOQ85.99


              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Student Debt - Debt engulfs institutions of higher learning

                Originally posted by BK View Post
                Here is a two pager on Wall Street profiting through getting Colleges and Universities to issue debt:
                http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.o...et_problem.pdf
                Thank you!

                Working with major Wall Street players like J.P. Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, and Bank of America, they issue bonds and make substantial interest payments to investors, many of whom also trade in university debt.

                Instead, many universities borrow to invest in “auxiliary services” – the umbrella term for expensive facilities like dorms, dining halls, stadiums, and recreation centers.

                And financial rating agencies like Moody’s explicitly give better bond ratings to universities they believe can increase tuition and enrollment from higher-paying out of state students.



                This is the link for their full paper: "Swapping Our Future: How Students and Taxpayers Are Funding Risky UC Borrowing and Wall Street Profits"

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Student Debt - Debt engulfs institutions of higher learning

                  Originally posted by Slimprofits View Post

                  yeah but - how else are 'we' supposed to BORROW &spend our way to 'prosperity' ??

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Student Debt - Debt engulfs institutions of higher learning

                    Most important question for any High School senior to aske when choosing a college.....What is the rating for your last bond offering and how much outstanding debt does the college or university have...
                    regard

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Student Debt

                      There are only a few industries we could not outsource or import foreign workers in large quantities. These are the few industries where wages have kept up with inflation somewhat.


                      If you look at Finster's dollar index, it is quite obvious why things are more expensive. The dollar is worth a lot less. It is not that college costs so much now, it is that we make so little in spending power comparatively. It is hard to off-shore medicine (it is done as best they can) and a university education. We have been able to mask our loss of purchasing power by a symbiotic relationship with China (ending), off-shoring, illegal workers, and debt.

                      If the government did not throw debt at universities over the past decade or two? Many would go out of business. That might be a good thing, except we wanted a society were a bachelors degree is the bare minimum for all to attain, yet we do not provide the means for that ideal to be reached.

                      I want to live in an educated society. However, if my calculations are correct, the iraq et al wars of the last decade was enough to pay the college tuition for the next two generations of Americans. Our American Empire has costs that cannot be externalized.

                      QE5 --> FED buys student debt.
                      QE6 --> The debt is determined to be fraudulent and is forgiven. It may take a couple of years, but I know I would certainly vote for the politician running on that platform.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Student Debt

                        Our American Empire has costs that cannot be externalized.
                        Currently there are blockbuster budgets (bi-partisan, naturally) being cobbled together for the replacement fast-attack fleet, as well as new missiles, aircraft, etc. So large they blow out the navy's new ship construction budget. Not to worry, they'll find a way . . . .

                        David Stockman:

                        The algos were raging yesterday morning because April durable goods orders were up by an unexpected 0.8%. Well, yes they were: The US Navy inked a gigantic $18 billion order for 10 new nuclear-powered attack submarines during the month. Consequently, the actual 0.8% decline in industrial orders was transformed into a swell “upside” surprise.

                        But folks, the US Warfare State doesn’t need no more stinking nuclear attack submarines. It already has more than 70 in service, and several more beyond yesterday’s huge order were already in the pipeline.

                        The reason we don’t need them— beyond the vast redundancy in firepower already extant— is that attack submarines have one primary mission. Namely, to kill nuclear-powered submarines carrying the ICBMs of hostile powers who may have them aimed at US cities.

                        Here’s the deal. China has just three ICBM capable submarines which have a range under 5,000 miles and which have never been deployed in the blue water; and Russia’s rusting legacy fleet of 10 subs left over from the cold war (that would be the one which ended a quarter century ago) is basically mothballed in port.

                        During the most recent year, the Russian Navy’s operating tempo was so anemic as to amount to one SSBN submarine on the water at any given time. So even though they theoretically have 160 submarine launched ballistic missiles on their 10 ships compared to 656 for the US, 90% of Russia’s SLBMs could never be launched.

                        Stated differently, during the peak of the cold-war in 1983, the Soviet Navy conducted 105 patrols compared to 5 in 2012. Yet back then we have far fewer attack subs on the water and what we had were far less lethal than today’s US fleet. Stated differently, the 70 attack subs we already have are advanced technology killers purchased at the peak of the Reagan build-up— and at a time after the current Russian fleet of aging SSBNs were already on the water!

                        Since the strategic nuclear stand-off ended decades ago, the attack submarine fleet has been given an additional mission to serve as a deterrent against surface ships and especially aircraft carrier battle groups of hostile industrial powers. Needless to say, China has one re-conditioned nuclear aircraft carrier it bought second-hand from the Ukraine! And Russia has one, and yes, it too patrols the languid waters of its homeport.

                        So the 10 new attack submarine order announced yesterday is just mindless waste. The order amounts to a preposterous exercise in military Keynesianism that adds nothing to the security and safety of the American people, but will result in the drastic waste of fiscal resources in a nation that is already drifting rapidly toward insolvency.

                        This modern day exercises in sub-sea pyramid building, however, does smoke out the abysmal economic ignorance of the so-called financial press. The writer of the story below, one Jeffry Bartash, had no trouble with the idea that pouring steel and electronics into Davy Jones’ locker was a sign that the American economy is coming back to life.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Student Debt

                          Originally posted by don View Post
                          The US Navy inked a gigantic $18 billion order for 10 new nuclear-powered attack submarines during the month...But folks, the US Warfare State doesn't need no more stinking nuclear attack submarines. It already has more than 70 in service, and several more beyond yesterday’s huge order were already in the pipeline.


                          "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

                          This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

                          President Dwight D. Eisenhower, address to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Washington D.C., April 16, 1953

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Student Debt

                            Unfortunately some young people make themselves unemployable:

                            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6EyV2hM_-8

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Student Debt

                              Originally posted by vt View Post
                              Unfortunately some young people make themselves unemployable:

                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6EyV2hM_-8
                              +1
                              yep...
                              altho... methinks there's a biz opportunity here.. somehow.

                              and i'd dare anybody to call it 'exploitation'...

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Student Debt

                                Originally posted by vt View Post
                                Why has the cost a college degree gone up so much?
                                This is explained, rather easily, via the relationship between Supply and Demand. The cost has not gone up much at all. The price has gone up tremendously, however. The supply of degrees of any type is enormous and growing in every regard, including all specialties, sub-specialties and micro-niche specialties. The demand for degrees, however, is increasing even faster. Only an individual can really stop themselves from getting a degree, because a student's creditworthiness is not much of a factor in their gaining a superfluous degree in architecture or English or whatever, and at any price they wish to pay.

                                Degree-granting institutions have simply responded to this boon by slightly increasing output of "solid" academics like the sciences and also by offering an ever-increasing variety of useless and actually detrimental courses, like mandating a music course for all degree paths and offering undergraduate degrees in gender studies and African American studies and so forth. The ability for a young adult to go so far into debt to finance a certification which is potentially quite useless or superfluous is actually a very good thing--for the smart young adults who choose well. It is absolutely terrible for those who would choose poorly. This situation with student debt is the summation of individual, personal responsibilities but with an artificially long rope (made artificially long thanks to FIRE legislation) that allows people to hang themselves more easily.

                                Students shouldn't be able to finance an education so easily. Their actual credit risk should be more of a factor, and they should be individually subject to bankruptcy protection and all of the other attributes of "normal" debt. This special category of debt which follows students until they die or finally pay off their debt is the linchpin of the excessive inflation of tuition prices. If you want prices to go down, you have to do the politically impossible thing and let demand drop off by normalizing the student debt system to match other debt systems. It's simple and impossible.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X