Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
Student loan reform shares health care fate
When the House votes on a health care package this weekend, it will also consider a proposal to make federal government the one-stop-shop to get cheap student loans.
However, a review by Congress' budget arm found the revised proposal will have less in new overall savings on student loans over 10 years -- $61 billion vs. the original $87 billion -- primarily because so many schools have already adopted the program.
About $10 billion of those savings would go to offsetting the deficit -- including the cost of extending health care to millions of uninsured Americans.
The student loan proposal, which cuts out bank middlemen who now collect a subsidy to make federally backed student loans, would still provide $51 billion in new funding to invest in higher education, proponents said.
"What we have is a miraculous opportunity," said Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on Thursday. "Simply by stopping the subsidy to banks, we can plow those savings into our students."
The original House legislation also directed $10 billion in savings to deficit reduction. But that was when student loan savings was predicted to reach the $87 billion mark, before the Congressional Budget Office's revision.
The private student loan industry, which has opposed the student loan legislation, is crying foul, saying the government shouldn't redirect money from student loans to extend health care to the uninsured.
Student impact
"They're using student loan borrowers to fund health care reform, and that certainly was never intended," said Kevin Bruns, executive director for America's Student Loan Providers.
If the proposal passes, private banking companies such as Sallie Mae will no longer be able to make federally backed loans, such as Stafford loans, which offer the lowest interest rates because the federal government assumes the default risk.
The move would save money by ending bank subsidies and allowing the government to keep income earned on the spread between making and issuing the loans that banks now pocket.
Low-income students would benefit the most, as the government would have more dollars available to make more need-based Pell grants in the future.
The proposal would increase maximum Pell grant awards to $5,900 by 2020, up from $5,300 now. Yet, the new maximum is $1,000 less than the $6,900 originally proposed by the House last fall.
Additionally, the federal government is facing a shortfall next year in funding for the Pell grant program, as more students with unemployed or underemployed parents have been qualifying for the need-based awards. If nothing is done, students could face a 60% cut in need-based grants, Democrats said.
Under this legislation, the Pell grant program would get $13.6 billion more next year. But it would still face a $5.5 billion gap in funding for next year. The shortfall means that the maximum Pell grant award is set to dip to $5,100 next year to meet the increased demand.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, pledged that Congress would continue working on how to plug Pell grants shortfalls later.
"This bill is not as good as it originally was," said Mark Kantrowitz, a financial aid expert and publisher of FinAid.org and FastWeb.com. "It is difficult to see how President Obama will be able to meet his college graduation goals by 2020."
Consumer advocates say most students that seek federally backed student loans won't notice a difference in getting loans, since financial aid offices would continue to work as the intermediary and many offices already administer direct federal government loans.
But banks and some Republican lawmakers predict the legislation will cause delays and disruptions in processing student loans, saying the federal government doesn't have the manpower to take over the high volume of loans now originated by the private sector.
The banks also predict that thousands of jobs will be lost in the private student banking industry, including 2,500 at Sallie Mae (SLM, Fortune 500), said company spokesman Conwey Casillas.
The stakes are high, because federally backed student loans are the single most common way students finance higher education. It's a core product for student loan giant Sallie Mae, which also sells students its own private loans at higher interest rates.
As the result of the negotiations, one state is poised to receive special treatment and will continue making federally backed student loans, costing the taxpayers $50 million.
However, a review by Congress' budget arm found the revised proposal will have less in new overall savings on student loans over 10 years -- $61 billion vs. the original $87 billion -- primarily because so many schools have already adopted the program.
About $10 billion of those savings would go to offsetting the deficit -- including the cost of extending health care to millions of uninsured Americans.
The student loan proposal, which cuts out bank middlemen who now collect a subsidy to make federally backed student loans, would still provide $51 billion in new funding to invest in higher education, proponents said.
"What we have is a miraculous opportunity," said Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on Thursday. "Simply by stopping the subsidy to banks, we can plow those savings into our students."
The original House legislation also directed $10 billion in savings to deficit reduction. But that was when student loan savings was predicted to reach the $87 billion mark, before the Congressional Budget Office's revision.
The private student loan industry, which has opposed the student loan legislation, is crying foul, saying the government shouldn't redirect money from student loans to extend health care to the uninsured.
Student impact
"They're using student loan borrowers to fund health care reform, and that certainly was never intended," said Kevin Bruns, executive director for America's Student Loan Providers.
If the proposal passes, private banking companies such as Sallie Mae will no longer be able to make federally backed loans, such as Stafford loans, which offer the lowest interest rates because the federal government assumes the default risk.
The move would save money by ending bank subsidies and allowing the government to keep income earned on the spread between making and issuing the loans that banks now pocket.
Low-income students would benefit the most, as the government would have more dollars available to make more need-based Pell grants in the future.
The proposal would increase maximum Pell grant awards to $5,900 by 2020, up from $5,300 now. Yet, the new maximum is $1,000 less than the $6,900 originally proposed by the House last fall.
Additionally, the federal government is facing a shortfall next year in funding for the Pell grant program, as more students with unemployed or underemployed parents have been qualifying for the need-based awards. If nothing is done, students could face a 60% cut in need-based grants, Democrats said.
Under this legislation, the Pell grant program would get $13.6 billion more next year. But it would still face a $5.5 billion gap in funding for next year. The shortfall means that the maximum Pell grant award is set to dip to $5,100 next year to meet the increased demand.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, pledged that Congress would continue working on how to plug Pell grants shortfalls later.
"This bill is not as good as it originally was," said Mark Kantrowitz, a financial aid expert and publisher of FinAid.org and FastWeb.com. "It is difficult to see how President Obama will be able to meet his college graduation goals by 2020."
Consumer advocates say most students that seek federally backed student loans won't notice a difference in getting loans, since financial aid offices would continue to work as the intermediary and many offices already administer direct federal government loans.
But banks and some Republican lawmakers predict the legislation will cause delays and disruptions in processing student loans, saying the federal government doesn't have the manpower to take over the high volume of loans now originated by the private sector.
The banks also predict that thousands of jobs will be lost in the private student banking industry, including 2,500 at Sallie Mae (SLM, Fortune 500), said company spokesman Conwey Casillas.
The stakes are high, because federally backed student loans are the single most common way students finance higher education. It's a core product for student loan giant Sallie Mae, which also sells students its own private loans at higher interest rates.
As the result of the negotiations, one state is poised to receive special treatment and will continue making federally backed student loans, costing the taxpayers $50 million.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
New and improved mortgage forms
Starting Jan. 1, new rules go into effect that simplify and clarify exactly what mortgage lenders will charge for a loan.
The initiative from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)requires that a new "Good Faith Estimate" form be given to all applicants, one that makes it easier to compare true costs of loans from different lenders.
Facebook Digg Twitter Buzz Up! Email Print Comment on this story
"The main purpose is to give consumers the tools to be able to compare apples to apples," said Robert Grosser of Luxury Mortgage, a New Jersey-based direct lender. "All lenders must use a specific form and disclose fees in the same spots on the same forms." (See the new form.)
Until now, borrowers might have focused on interest rates or monthly payments to compare mortgages options. But fees play a big part in total cost, said Vicki Bott, HUD's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family Programs
There are generally two blocs of fees.
One covers origination charges, what the lender receives for providing you with the loan.
The second bloc consists of settlement fees, for say, title insurance or an appraisal.
If borrowers accept the offers as outlined, lenders must issue the loans under the costs listed -- with little room for surprise.
If the mortgage originator provides services in the second bloc, it must stick to the original fees within 10%. If, for example, the lender tells you the title insurance it arranges will cost $2,000, the final fee for that cannot exceed $2,200. (If you decide you're going elsewhere for title insurance, you're on your own.)
"It truly drives accountability," said Bott. "It makes the lender say, 'What I quoted is what you get.'"
The estimate is not iron clad, and can be altered if there's a material change in circumstances. If the appraisal comes in lower than expected, for example, that could affect the mortgage rate, though the lender must quickly tell the borrower, according to Bott.
The new 3-page form has lines covering all the settlement fees, such as the origination fee and points charged up-front to reduce the interest rate. It also clearly lists the initial loan amount, the term length in years, the monthly payment, the initial interest rate, and whether that interest rate can rise plus any prepayment penalties or balloon payments.
There's also a "shopping chart" on the third page in which up to four different deals can be placed side-by-side and their costs easily compared.
Say two lenders both offer a 5% loan on a $200,000 mortgage that has a monthly payment of $1,074 a month. One lender may charge $5,000 for it and another just $3,000. The new form should make it simpler for consumers to recognize the better deal.
Housing outlook 2010
"It's definitely a step in the right direction toward simpler and straightforward key information on mortgages," said Alex Pollock, an American Enterprise Institute fellow who has developed and advocated for the use of a one-page mortgage form to better help consumers understand their obligations.
He does not, however, think the new form goes far enough.
"It focuses on the question of whether this is the best deal," Pollock said. "In my opinion, it's more important to ask if I can afford this mortgage. This might be the best deal I can get but I still may not be able to afford it."
The initiative from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)requires that a new "Good Faith Estimate" form be given to all applicants, one that makes it easier to compare true costs of loans from different lenders.
Facebook Digg Twitter Buzz Up! Email Print Comment on this story
"The main purpose is to give consumers the tools to be able to compare apples to apples," said Robert Grosser of Luxury Mortgage, a New Jersey-based direct lender. "All lenders must use a specific form and disclose fees in the same spots on the same forms." (See the new form.)
Until now, borrowers might have focused on interest rates or monthly payments to compare mortgages options. But fees play a big part in total cost, said Vicki Bott, HUD's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family Programs
There are generally two blocs of fees.
One covers origination charges, what the lender receives for providing you with the loan.
The second bloc consists of settlement fees, for say, title insurance or an appraisal.
If borrowers accept the offers as outlined, lenders must issue the loans under the costs listed -- with little room for surprise.
If the mortgage originator provides services in the second bloc, it must stick to the original fees within 10%. If, for example, the lender tells you the title insurance it arranges will cost $2,000, the final fee for that cannot exceed $2,200. (If you decide you're going elsewhere for title insurance, you're on your own.)
"It truly drives accountability," said Bott. "It makes the lender say, 'What I quoted is what you get.'"
The estimate is not iron clad, and can be altered if there's a material change in circumstances. If the appraisal comes in lower than expected, for example, that could affect the mortgage rate, though the lender must quickly tell the borrower, according to Bott.
The new 3-page form has lines covering all the settlement fees, such as the origination fee and points charged up-front to reduce the interest rate. It also clearly lists the initial loan amount, the term length in years, the monthly payment, the initial interest rate, and whether that interest rate can rise plus any prepayment penalties or balloon payments.
There's also a "shopping chart" on the third page in which up to four different deals can be placed side-by-side and their costs easily compared.
Say two lenders both offer a 5% loan on a $200,000 mortgage that has a monthly payment of $1,074 a month. One lender may charge $5,000 for it and another just $3,000. The new form should make it simpler for consumers to recognize the better deal.
Housing outlook 2010
"It's definitely a step in the right direction toward simpler and straightforward key information on mortgages," said Alex Pollock, an American Enterprise Institute fellow who has developed and advocated for the use of a one-page mortgage form to better help consumers understand their obligations.
He does not, however, think the new form goes far enough.
"It focuses on the question of whether this is the best deal," Pollock said. "In my opinion, it's more important to ask if I can afford this mortgage. This might be the best deal I can get but I still may not be able to afford it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)