Big Changes Ahead in Student Lending Programs
The private sector will service loans, with the government in charge of lending to the lucrative student market.
By Renuka Rayasam, Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter
July 23, 2009
Advertisement
Private lenders are losing the battle over student loans. By this time next summer, they will be cut out of the lucrative student lending market, with a handful of them relegated to the role of simply servicing loans made by Uncle Sam. On July 21, the House Committee on Education and Labor began marking up a bill, introduced by Rep. George Miller (D-CA), that seeks to eliminate government subsidized private student lending and replace it with direct loans to students through the Department of Education.
“This is the biggest change in federal loans for higher education since 1965 when the original program was created,” says Terry Hartle, senior vice president at the American Council on Education.
Sallie Mae was one of four companies awarded a loan servicing contract by the Department of Education. NelNet, American Education Services/PHEAA and Great Lakes Education Loan Services Inc. were the others. Even with the servicing contract, the bill means “we would be about half of our size,” says Martha Holler, spokesperson for Sallie Mae.
Look for Congress to pass the direct lending plan sometime this fall. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will save about $87 billion over the next 10 years. “Among other things, the savings will be used to significantly boost Pell Grant scholarships [ need-based grants given to low income students] to keep interest rates low on need-based federal student loans for years to come, to simplify the [Free Application for Federal Student Aid] form, [and] to invest in strengthening community colleges,” said Rachel Racusen, deputy communications director of the House Education and Labor Committee, in an e-mail.
Lenders worry that the savings will be used to plug other budget gaps rather than to fund additional higher education financing. Already, Congress’ plan dramatically cuts the level of Pell Grant entitlements envisioned in the Obama administration’s proposal to address the issue of who should be in the student lending market. Under that plan, less than half the savings would have gone toward that grant measure, with the other money going toward other purposes.
Meanwhile, many lenders argue that with only direct lending, students get less in the way of services. “We offer the ability to maintain the diversity needed to keep competition up and pressure on other lenders,” says Christopher Chapman, CEO of Access Group, a Wilmington, Del.- based nonprofit student lender. “We also provide the value-added services,” such as financial education.
Banks have their own turf to protect. The legislation means not only lost profits for banks now, but also a tougher time courting young borrowers in the future. In the past, college loans provided lenders easy entrée to establish a relationship with a future customer.
For schools, the legislation translates into a major overhaul of their lending programs. Only about a quarter of eligible schools participate in direct government lending. “To implement the proposal, about 4,500 schools would have to convert lending systems,” says Holler. “It’s not like putting a different disk in their PC; the whole system has to be reworked.”
For weekly updates on topics to improve your business decisionmaking, click here.


Reader Comments (5)
Posted by: why not? at 07/24/2009 11:31:57 AM
I agree with cutting out the middle man. While banks will lose profits, the country will have an opportunity to put those profits back into improving education. I can't relate to the banks' "building relationships" idea. I borrowed from Sallie Mae and Chase Manhattan back in the late 80's and have never had a checking or mortgage through either one. I have no sympathy for student loan lenders profiting on the backs of students with government backed money.
Posted by: vtecdaddy2000 at 07/24/2009 08:36:16 PM
This law completely misses fixing the predatory lending practices of Sallie Mae and instead rewards them. People should sell a kidney if they need to finance their education before they ever accept a dime from Sallie Mae.
Posted by: Bu-Bye, Aunt Sallie at 07/25/2009 09:49:24 PM
>>“To implement the proposal, >>about 4,500 schools would have >>to convert lending systems” >>says Holler. Don't worry about it, Holler. When the government's giving you money, you jump through any/all hoops to get it. Everyone of these schools will happily change any/all systems, if it's the only way to get their tuitions paid. Maybe now the banks will stop giving kickbacks to the schools that steer their students into the costliest student loans.
Posted by: Mitch B. at 07/26/2009 03:37:38 AM
Bravo! Finally something good for poor students and parents.I have no respect for banks; why home loans are costing borrowers less than 5% for 30 years mortgage, students are taken for a sucker ride with loans averaging 11% and more...
Posted by: Hanrod at 07/26/2009 05:07:16 PM
...and about time too! Now too the educational organizations "i.e. the increasingly corrupt "education BUSINESSES", will lose the kickbacks (i.e. bribery) that they have been receiving from these corrupt lenders. BUT, watch for major attempts to water the bill down, by Senate and House members getting campaign contributions from these "lender" organizations, as the bill proceeds to the President. And to think that, along with the cost of the bribes to the colleges and universities, the campaign contributions and lobbying costs of these greedy and corrupt "lending" organizations are considered deductible costs of "doing business" -- i.e. paid for by we working, employee, taxpayers.