Unsecured Student Loans create no loss for the Lender

In a private student loan a “lender” loans the money.   The stories are endless as the “loan officer” encourages the student to increase the amount of the loan to cover books, living expenses and of course, other college expenses like alcohol, car payments and iPhones.  Once again, we encounter the exact opposite of what any reasonable lender would do because any real lender would want to make sure that the loan gets repaid. The higher the principal the less likely the loan will be performing. That is known throughout the lending industry (except in mortgage loans). These loans are unsecured.

So in essence, the “lender” receives an incomplete guarantee from the government. That is because of the risk of loaning money to a young unproven person. The guarantee is supposed to keep the interest rate down but for a while the interest rates were approaching 18%, especially on loans in default. The loans also cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, so the risk of loss is minimal or zero, in the end.

THEN the student loan was tossed into that food processor that we now know is a basket of lies — including false claims of securitization. Here is the thing. The issue of risk has already been addressed. So (1) can the government guarantee be sold or securitized? Does that not interfere with the purpose of the loan infrastructure where lenders would be lenders and would underwrite loans in a manner consistent with the projected ability to pay? (2) since the risk of loss is essentially minus (not even zero) because the “lenders” are either immediately selling the loan or just using the money of investors (like mortgage loan “securitization”) why should the private student loans be exempt from discharge in bankruptcy? (3) we have the same problem as the securitized mortgages present — who is the creditor and who can prove it?

Posted in Uncategorized |