Earlier in 2013, CBO’s Douglas Elmendorf’s forecasted return on Student Loan’s resulting in a positive return for the Government. Later Elmendorf reversed the forecast claiming student loans would cost the government and the taxpayers by generating a negative return. Using one cost model (FCRA) to estimate the return, the government will make $184 billion on student loans in the next 10 years. Using another cost model (Fair Market Valuation ) to estimate return, the government will lose $95 billion over the same period. So why the difference? Utilizing the Fair Market Valuation methodology would necessitate additional compensation for investors to accept the risk that losses may exceed those already reflected in the cash flows. A premium for the possibility that debtors will default in large numbers is added into the calculation. Wait a minute, these are students locked in by signature to these loans which can not be discharged through bankruptcy. So why?
I happened upon a New America Foundation article by a former senior analyst in the Republican staff of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee Jason Delisle, who proclaims much the same as the CBO’s Douglas Elmendorf positing the Fair Market Valuation methodology being a fairer and more accurate way to assign risk to student loans. Beneath Jason’s article and within the comments section associated with the article by Jason were comments by Alan Collinge of the Student Loan Justice Org disputing Jason’s assumptions on Fair Market Valuation (The New America Foundation agreed to a discussion with Alan and reneged. Alan has gone unanswered by Jason and The New America Foundation). Alan’s argument is the Fair Market Valuation methodology uses the less abundant commercial data to evaluate the return on student loans as opposed to the more readily available and abundant Department of Education student loan data (which has been used in the past by the CBO). The difference between the two databases is the Fair Market Valuation uses commercial loan data reflecting riskier loans than what occurs from the Federal Direct Loans program. While there exists a level of default within the student loan program administered by the Federal Direct Loans program; remember too, Federal Direct Loans can not be discharged through bankruptcy proceedings. Additionally, the collection percentage on Federal Direct Loans is much higher than commercial credit collections which can be disposed of via bankruptcy proceedings. Griffith and Caperton of the Center for American Progress add to the criticism of using Fair Market Valuation stating government loans of all types has cost taxpayers 94 cents for every $100 loaned over the last 20 years. While the FHA took a huge hit when Wall Street crashed, it still performed better than the commercial counterparts. Government programs appear to be on pretty stable ground in their projections yet The New America Foundation and the CBO arbitrarily claim otherwise. Reviewing the history of government lending over the last 20 years shows it has overestimated the total costs to government by $3 billion. For those who may not know, Federal Student loans are like a Roach Motel, checking in by loan signature is near to impossible to negate or check out except to die, become disabled, or pay it off . . . a bankers dream. CBO’s Douglas Elmendorf is showing a partisan preference for the Fair Market Valuation of Student Loan which in the end favors commercial interests over students and the Direct Loan program.
Most recently, another supporter of the Fair Market Valuation methodology of loans, Jason Richwine formerly of the Heritage Foundation and the AEI, wrote an article at the National Review on Farm Subsidies. Myself, I am not a big fan of farm subsidies; but if it comes to eating, I would prefer my food to be homegrown rather than controlled by an out-of-country food cartel the way oil is today. ~ 50% of the US food base is imported today, so why more? There is a need to control subsidies to food manufacturing farms which differ from the family farms as many know them; but to throw the baby out with the wash, I am not sure is necessary. The SNAP program has been heavily contested in Congress with the Repubs looking to balance the budget on the back of the poor. One comment by Jason Richwine within his Farm Subsidy article challenges the ~$4.50/day food stamp recipients get daily and its correlation to health:
“Henry Olsen criticized House Republicans for seeking to cut food stamps but not crop-insurance subsidies in the recently passed ‘farm bill.’ Point taken. But personally I think he is being too hard on conservative activists. To say that cutting the food-stamp budget by a small percentage is ‘the taking of food from the mouths of the genuinely hungry’ and will ‘cut back on your dinner’ is a bit overblown. In fact, I would guess that a randomized controlled study, were it done, would show that food stamp recipients are no healthier than non-food stamp recipients in the long run.”
Well Jason Richwine is correct on one thing, the Food Stamp recipients would be no healthier than the poor non Food Stamp recipients not on SNAP. Consider the SNAP ~$4.50/ day could not buy a one time saltier and higher fat content Quarter pounder meal (soda + fries) at McDonalds. So why quibble over 5 or 10 cents? The true issue is ~$4.50 per day does not go far in many sections of town or in the suburbs and at the store as it now stands. If health is truly the issue here, maybe the program should be expanded to include others and increased in daily dollars? Health is not so much the issue as being hungry or hungrier and then being expected to work while hungry in order to gain the Food Stamps as expected by many states. Or perhaps they can eat cake?
Jason Richwine claims the Fair Market Valuation methodology (based upon commercial data) will give a more accurate picture for the farm subsidies which he also asserts are also less risky than the Food Stamp and the Student Loan Programs. Jason may have a point here since the economic growth of recent has been driven by wild swings on Wall Street and Repubs always look to the poor to make up the difference. I would want to look to past projects to determine what the historical difference has been before making radical changes resulting in phantom deficits. This seems to have been throw to the side with the push to use Fair Market Valuation for relatively stable programs with good returns. The Food Stamp program is but one area for Fair Market Valuation to come from Jason Richwine.
“Right now, the cost of almost every government credit or insurance program – from crop insurance, to student loans, to public pensions – is underestimated. The movement for ‘fair value’ accounting is intended to fix that problem.”
What Alan Collinge points out does makes sense. Jasons Delisle and Richwine and CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf scrapped decades of data on student loans and other programs which show a return even after historical cost. In place they assume higher risk as taken from commercial loan data, a riskier environment which is not reflective of degree of risk within these programs. We are not talking MBS or CDOs here and the end game are students locked into these loans whether they default or not. The long arm of the government extends much further for students than it does for AIG, Lehman, or Goldman’s Executives to the extent it will garnish Social Security or Disability benefits and future wages. The risk of default Delisle and Richwine, which is so prevalent in commercial loans, is mitigated substantially in Student Loans. The wild swing seen in the CBO’s projection of Student Loan Return was caused by using the riskier data of FMV and assuming the interest rate charged no longer covers the cost of the Student Loan program. Commercial Investors would demand a higher interest rate to cover losses in case Wall Street blows up the economy again or risk as taken from commercial data (Fair Market Value) rather than the historical data (FRCA) of the US Department of Education. In the end, this will drive interest rates higher for student loans and other loan programs to cover projected potential phantom deficits or costs. This makes sense on Wall Street and for TBTF who failed to mark down investments when they defaulted; but, it does not make much sense for student loan borrowers who are locked into it. there are other things to consider.
An Invitation to Jason Delisle of The New America Foundation by email on September 25, 2013:
from: run75441 aka Bill H
Good morning Jason:
I write on Angry Bear Blog and I have also helped many soon-to-be college students apply for grants and loans.
I have been reading and watching the discussion going back and forth on Fair Market Valuation of student loans and the resulting change in return as projected by Douglas Elmendorf’s CBO. This change in valuation establishes a basis for a dramatic change in how student loans rates are calculated for risk and return which in most cases does not exist in the same manner as what exists for commercial loans when using commercial loan data. There is no bankruptcy for student loans which would mitigate the risk factor and is also reflected by the collection rate as opposed to lets say credit cards?
Allan Collinge has rasied several points challenging Douglas Elmendorf and your conclusions on the utilization of Fair Market Valuation in determining the return on student loans. Reviewing all of the posts, I have not come across a response to Allan’s points arise from The New America Foundation. His points go unchallenged and I would offer you an opportunity to respond in dilogue to Allan on Angry Bear Blog in your own and unaltered words. Is this a possibility?
Please let me know. Thank you for your time and consideration.
1. Deseret News; August 14, 2013 “Making a Killing or Getting Fleeced?”
2. The New America Foundation; March 23, 2012, “Fair Values Accounting Shows Switch to Guaranteed Student Loans Costs $102 Billion”
4. Forbes, July 11, 2013 “Interview with Student Loan Activist Alan Collinge – Fair Value In An Unfair System?”
5. The Center for American Progress, May 2012 , “Managing Taxpayer Risk”
6 National Review, September 23, 2013; “Farm Subsidies, Even Worst Than You Think”
7. The Center for American Progress, April 26, 2006, “Understanding Mobility in America”
8. The Heritage Foundation; May, 2012 “The Real Cost of Pensions”