Category Archives: PLUS

STUDENT LOAN DEBT PROTEST!

Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corp. Image by D...

Image via Wikipedia

UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL! In protest of the nearly $1 trillion dollar student loan debt bubble and your ASTRONOMICAL student loan debt that’s growing bigger by the day!Apply for an UNAUTHORIZED SIGNATURE / UNAUTHORIZED PAYMENT false certification loan discharge  The nearly $1 trillion dollar student loan debt, the $1500/month interest only payment, the double in some cases almost triple outstanding principle amount owing, etc. is due to the following:

Bank FFELP lenders partnered with loan guaranty agencies and student loan servicers to create student loan brokerage firms aka special purpose entities the majority of which were incorporated in State of Florida. For example, Student Loan Xpress, Goal Financial, K2 Financial, Education Finance Partners, US Education Finance etc. Kinda like the storefront mortgage companies and unlicensed brokers, think Enron’s LJM2, the Raptors, Chewco etc .  The bank ffelp lenders, servicers and guaranty agencies used the student loan brokerage companies to access and repeatedly access students’ personal information, nslds, and credit reports for what they claimed were Marketing or Promotional Purposes. If you don’t believe me then just check your credit reports from 2006-2008. I bet you’ll have 3 ‘Promotional Purpose’ pages that are all student loan companies.

Unfortunately, they weren’t accessing your reports for marketing purposes as they claimed. They were accessing the reports for your personal information which they unlawfully used to originate federal consolidation loans. The consolidation loans were then purchased by student loan servicers/guaranty agencies from lenders on the Federal Family Education Loan Program secondary market.  The servicers/guaranty agencies issued tax-exempt bonds to obtain funds to acquire loans.  Billions of such bonds issued prior to October 1, 1993, were outstanding.  The servicers/guaranty agencies  bills the U.S. Department of Education for 9.5 percent special allowance payments on the loans it purchases, holds, and services.  

For example, in April 2003, Nelnet implemented a process (“Project 950”) to increase the amount of its loans receiving special allowance [taxpayer subsidy payments] under the 9.5 percent floor. . . . Nelnet repeated this process many times, increasing the amount of loans it billed under the 9.5 percent floor from about $551 million in March 2003 to about $3.66 billion in June 2004. PHEAA did it too! Guess how they did it? You guessed it, by partnering with lenders to create student loan brokerage firms, special purpose entities and special purpose vehicles that unlawfully used your personal information to create federal consolidation loans. The lenders then used the fraudulent consolidations loans to replace loans that defeased, were repaid or discharged in their 9.5 percent floor loan securitized trusts and student loan revenue bonds. Consequently, because the federal consolidation loans were unlawfully created by the student loan brokerage firms (lenders + servicers + guaranty agencies) theft of your personal information they are not valid obligations; thus they are not enforceable! So, in protest of the nearly $1 trillion dollar student loan debt bubble and your ASTRONOMICAL student loan debt that’s growing bigger by the day pull your NSLDS report highlight that fraudulent loan, complete an UNAUTHORIZED SIGNATURE / UNAUTHORIZED PAYMENT false certification discharge form, and send it to fraudnet@gao.gov!

Don’t forget to name your lender, servicer, and guaranty agency on the discharge form and attach your NSLDS report with showing the fraudulent consolidation loan you never applied for or agreed to!

UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL!!!

Leave a comment

Filed under 9.5 percent, 9.5 percent SAP, federal direct loans, FFELP, for-profit colleges, for-profit schools, PLUS, Stafford, student loan lenders, student loan program, student loan scandal, student loans, Uncategorized

Student Loans And For-Profit Colleges: “They’re Worse Than You Think” – OpEd

University of Phoenix

Image via Wikipedia

Written by: Mike Whitney

Student loans are a big business. In fact, student debt now exceeds $895 billion which is more than the total Americans owe on their credit cards. And, most of these loans are underwritten by the US government, which means that the taxpayer is on the hook when students can’t repay the debt. This is a big problem, because many of the people taking out loans are not really qualified for college, so they end up dropping out of school and defaulting on their loans putting themselves in long-term debt while passing the bill along to Uncle Sam. But not everyone loses on the deal. In fact, the institutions that help unqualified applicants get loans, do quite well. After all, they’re paid in full by the government. If this sounds like it might be a scam; it’s because it is. All the recruiters need to do is find a credulous subject, bamboozle him into signing on the dotted line, and hold his hand for the first few weeks of the new semester.That’s all it takes to net a big government payout.

Here’s a rundown of how it works from an article by Chris Kirkham at the Huffington Post:

“The goal, employees say, is getting “starts”: students who fill out the paperwork for student loans and make it through at least four weeks of their first five-week course. That is the point at which the university is able to keep the student’s federal aid money, regardless of whether they continue their studies. After that, according to the Ashford employees, any form of counseling drastically drops off.

“There were numerous times when I enrolled students and thought, ‘All I’ve got to do is babysit them for four weeks,’” said a former leader in the admissions department, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified because he is still employed at another for-profit university. “I’d be thinking, ‘Come on, this person is clearly not ready to go to school.’ But I’d call you, pump you up, keep you confident for four weeks, and once I knew you completed, you were forgotten. It’s easy when I’m counting the money.” …

According to the Ashford employees, the pressure drives recruiters to enroll students who they know have little chance of success: people who openly say they have no regular access to a computer or the Internet, despite the exclusively online course offerings, and even those who acknowledge they have difficulty reading.

Bridgepoint has among the highest withdrawal rates of any publicly traded school in the industry, according to a Senate report last year. Based on a pool of students examined between 2008 and 2009, more than 80 percent of those in an associate’s degree program had exited within two years of enrollment, and nearly 65 percent of bachelor’s degree students had left the company’s schools in the same timeframe.

Last year, Bridgepoint posted its best year ever: netting income of more than $127 million, almost triple the year before. The company spends about 37 percent of operating costs related to education; the rest goes to marketing, corporate compensation and overhead.” (“Buying Legitimacy: How A Group Of California Executives Built An Online College Empire”, Chris Kirkham, Huffington Post)

Nice, eh? Just sign them up, dupe them into believing you care about their future, and then fleece ‘em til they bleed. Cha-ching; in rolls the money from Uncle Sugar. But aren’t we blaming the wrong people? Shouldn’t the young people who took out the loans be responsible for their own actions? After all, no one put a gun to their head and forced them to sign, right?

It’s a persuasive argument–and one that’s been used many times by industry lobbyists and their lackeys in congress–but it’s easy to disprove once we take a look at the victims in this swindle.

So, who are the victims? Well, as it turns out, quite a few of them are hard-luck cases and ex-military personnel who were hoodwinked by smooth-talking recruiters into signing their lives away. For example, here’s a clip from an article that appeared in Bloomberg in 2010:

“Benson Rollins wants a college degree. The unemployed high school dropout who attends Alcoholics Anonymous and has been homeless for 10 months is being courted by the University of Phoenix. Two of its recruiters got themselves invited to a Cleveland shelter last October and pitched the advantages of going to the country’s largest for-profit college to 70 destitute men.

Their visit spurred the 23-year-old Rollins to fill out an online form expressing interest. Phoenix salespeople then barraged him with phone calls and e-mails, urging a tour of its Cleveland campus. “If higher education is important to you for professional growth, and to achieve your academic goals, why wait any longer? Classes start soon and space is limited,” one Phoenix employee e-mailed him on April 15. “I’ll be happy to walk you through the entire application process.”

Rollins’s experience is increasingly common. The boom in for-profit education, driven by a political consensus that all Americans need more than a high school diploma, has intensified efforts to recruit the homeless, Bloomberg Businessweek magazine reports in its May 3 issue. Such disadvantaged students are desirable because they qualify for federal grants and loans, which are largely responsible for the prosperity of for-profit colleges….

Other schools see nothing wrong with reaching out to the disadvantaged. “We don’t exclusively target the homeless,” says Ziad Fadel, chief executive of Drake, which also sends recruiters to welfare and employment agencies…

While many caseworkers for the homeless are gratified by the attention, some see only exploitation. The companies “are preying upon people who are already vulnerable and can’t make it through a university,” says Sara Cohen, a case manager at Shelter Now in Meriden, Conn. “It’s evil.” (“Homeless High School Dropouts Lured by For-Profit Colleges”, Bloomberg)

So, is this a legitimate business that’s adding educated people to the workforce or just a scam that targets vulnerable young people in order to bilk the government out of billions of dollars?

Keep in mind, the Bloomberg story is not exceptional at all; there are loads of similar stories on the Internet. Here’s an excerpt from an article by Peter Fenn who fills in some of the important details:

“In just a few years, however, enrollment (in for-profit colleges) went from 365,000 to 1.8 million students. Marketing madness resembled March Madness for these schools, and many more new ones were established. Slick TV ads and thousands of marketers were hired. Returning vets were targeted, even at hospitals.

The key: Bring in millions from Pell grants and student loans. Taxpayer money.

By 2009, these for-profit schools were raking it in—$4 billion in Pell grants and $20 billion in student loans provided by the Department of Education. Over 80 percent of the revenue for the for-profits came from federal loans and grants.

In many cases, these were shell games. No campuses, few classrooms, and little interaction with teachers, but make no mistake about it, they were not cheap. Students were told they could get loans and grants and just send in the checks.

So, how was all this working? Graduation rates for private colleges are about 65 percent, for state schools about 55 percent, and for the for-profit colleges? Twenty-two percent.

Houston, we have a problem.” (“Congress Should Put a Stop to For-Profit College Rip Offs”, Peter Fenn, US News)

Huh? So, for-profit colleges are netting $24 billion from the government and only graduating 22% of their students? It’s mindbogglingly. Fenn continues:

“The top executives for the top 15 for-profit colleges pulled in $2 billion last year. Two billion dollars, practically all taxpayer money.

And that student loan money?—the default rate at these for-profits is 43 percent!

So, only 22 percent graduate and 43 percent default on the loans, leaving us holding the bag because students have been sold a bill of goods by slick marketers.” (“Congress Should Put a Stop to For-Profit College Rip Offs”, Peter Fenn, US News)

Can you believe it: “43 percent default on their loans”? That’s got to be some kind of record. Good grief, at the peak of the subprime fiasco the loans were only blowing up at a 6 percent rate. This is 7-times bigger than subprime. And we’re not talking chump-change either. There’s hundreds of billions involved in this Ponzi-scam. And on top of that, the Fed has been using the distorted numbers from this flimflam to show that a credit expansion is underway. Here’s what they said in the recently released Credit Report: :

“The new U.S. consumer credit numbers reflect an economy that is reaccelerating, and that is very bullish for growth — as well as inflation. All in all, U.S. household credit surged by $7.62 billion in February, ramping up faster than at any other time since June 2008.” (Hat tip to The Big Picture)

What a joke. The taxpayer is getting reamed and the Fed is boasting about a “recovery”. Go figure? The only area of credit that’s budging at all (apart from subprime auto loans) is student loans, which are experiencing a veritable goldrush as every scoundrel, scalawag and miscreant flocks to get a piece of the action. These chiselers know that these kids will never be able to repay their loans. In fact, they make more money when they’re delinquent. They just jack up the interest rate and grab what they can before crying “Default” and gouge the government for the balance of the loan. What a swindle.

The GOP-led congress is up to their eyeballs in this crookery. They’ve been using every trick in the book to protect their fatcat buddies by blocking the implementation of regulations that would prevent gullible students from being plucked-clean by cheesebag recruiters. The Republicans would rather defend the “inalienable right” of shifty recruiters to rip off students then save the taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars.

Boy, these guys really stink.


Leave a comment

Filed under 9.5 percent, 9.5 percent SAP, federal direct loans, FFELP, for-profit colleges, for-profit schools, PLUS, Stafford, student loan lenders, student loan program, student loan scandal, student loans, Uncategorized

Admissions Rep Sues Pennsylvania Trade School

Seal of the United States Department of Education

Image via Wikipedia

Pennco Tech admitted every student who applied, suit charges

04/19/2011 | Truman Lewis | ConsumerAffairs.com

An admissions rep at Pennco Tech, a trade school in Bristol, Pa., claims the school fired him for refusing to participate in a racketeering scheme that ensured that every student who applied would be enrolled.

Matthew Hamilton claims the scam was so blatant that a senior admissions rep “had to physically stand over the students to make sure they were entering the correct answers” on entrance exams.

Hamilton’s suit is just the latest in a lengthy series of lawsuits and allegations that many for-profit schools are providing nearly-worthless degrees and certificates while burdening students with large debts that they are unlikely to repay.

Hamilton’s study alleges that during his one and a half years at the school, test results were falsified, students were misled and the government and lending institutions were defrauded. Hamilton said some students had learning disabilities so severe that admissions staff “had to physically stand over them to make sure they were entering the correct answers,” even though accrediting requirements prohibit admissions personnel from administering tests.

Hamilton said he was “point-blank directed … to participate in the falsification process” to ensure that every student who applied was enrolled even though he said he “adamantly objected.”

Besides seeking damages for wrongful discharge, Hamilton’s suit alleges that his firing constituted a violation of the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Act.

Trade school

Pennco is a trade school that provides education in fields including pharmacy tech, auto repair, air conditioning, plumbing and many other fields. It is accredited by the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges (ACCSC), Arlington, Va. Besides its Bristol location, it also operates a school in Blackwood, N.J.

Pennco does not appear on the ACCSC’s list of schools that are currently on probation. Schools currently on the probation list include State Barber and Hair Design College, Oklahoma City; Professional Massage Training Center, Springfield, Mo., Universal Career Community College, Puerto Rico; and Universal Technical College of Puerto Rico.

New rules

The U.S. Department of Education has proposed rules that would make these for-profit colleges and universities ineligible for government-backed student loans if fewer than 35 percent of students and former students are paying their loans. Schools would also be denied access to federal funds if graduates are spending more than 12 percent of their income to pay back student loans.

Meanwhile, many for-profit schools have begun making costly private student loans knowing in many cases that more than half of these loans will never be repaid, a report from the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) finds.

Most of the schools started the institutional loan programs when third-party private student lenders began terminating their partnerships with for-profit schools following the credit crash.

The report said schools seem to view these “institutional loans” as loss leaders to keep the federal dollars flowing. Among other reasons, proprietary schools must show that at least 10% of revenues come from sources other than Department of Education federal student assistance.

Schools thus make unaffordable loans as a way of filling up the 10% category with “vapor” revenues derived from loans that will never be repaid, the report said.

1 Comment

Filed under 9.5 percent, 9.5 percent SAP, federal direct loans, FFELP, for-profit colleges, for-profit schools, PLUS, Stafford, student loan lenders, student loan program, student loan scandal, student loans, Uncategorized

New Report Attempts to Bring Transparency to For-Profit Colleges

Posted by Kay Steiger-April 20th, 2011

Youth Today, a trade publication for youth service professionals, released an intensive report on for-profit colleges that attempts to do something that for-profit colleges sometimes don’t always do a great job of themselves: Offering a transparent profile of each school’s default rate, tuition, and stockholder information in one place.

The creators of Youth Today’s report [sub. req.] sifted through Department of Education data, as well as Securities and Exchange Commission filings for publicly traded schools, and requested information directly from the schools themselves. The authors even provide a repayment table to better help incoming students understand how much a loan will ultimately end up costing them.

The report is a step in the direction of making  higher education—and for-profit education particularly—more transparent and accountable for their student outcomes – a trend the education industry has often resisted.

Part of the problem is that for-profit schools tend to be some of the worst offenders when it comes to transparency. Simply pressuring schools to be more upfront about crude but crucial statistics like graduate employment rates and student loan default rates is one way students could make better decisions about which school to attend.

Of course, measures like default rates, graduation rates, and employment rates aren’t perfect. “There are numerous ways to game that system,” says American Enterprise Institute research fellow Andrew Kelly, citing some recent reports in the Chronicle of Higher Educationthat document consulting firms that aim to keep schools from having high default rates by setting students up with forbearance or other loan deferral methods. “No matter where you put that goal post, they’ll find ways” to manipulate the data, Kelly says at an event Youth Today held on Wednesday. Only three attendees came to learn about the report.

The Department of Education has proposed a rule known as gainful employment that would pull federal aid funding from schools that have too-high default rates. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan recently promised a finalized rule in the coming months.

“There are students who will default through no fault of the colleges, but [high default rates are] an indicator that something is wrong,” says Julie Morgan, a policy analyst with the Center for American Progress, the parent organization of Campus Progress.

Youth Today’s report, while a serious attempt to offer a comprehensive perspective on for-profit schools, is still lacking. The text-heavy pages and color-coded banners are best suited to industry insiders rather than students attempting to make decisions about where to invest in higher education. Youth Today also wants to charge $6 a copy for the report, but even such a nominal barrier could keep such important information from students who are considering these schools. Morgan suggests that such information should be available on for-profit schools’ websites and on forms they need to sign.

And while Youth Today’s report does a good job of comparing for-profit schools to each other, most often students are comparing a number of options, both for-profit and non-profit, when making decisions about where to attend higher education.

Still, such a report is yet another reminder that, while the battle over what to do with for-profit schools has largely been fought over regulations, it is also about providing clear and accessible information for the students so they can make the best decisions.

Kay Steiger is the editor of CampusProgress.org.

Leave a comment

Filed under 9.5 percent, 9.5 percent SAP, federal direct loans, FFELP, for-profit colleges, for-profit schools, PLUS, Stafford, student loan lenders, student loan program, student loan scandal, student loans, Uncategorized

Report: For-profit colleges ‘defraud’ students

By Ben Wolfgang -The Washington Times

For-profit colleges, already the target of Senate Democrats, took another beating in a report released Wednesday by an education trade publication that says such institutions “defraud” young people.

Youth Today Publisher Sara Fritz, who unveiled the “Guide to For-Profit Colleges” at the National Press Club in Washington, said many for-profit institutions promise a first-class education to young people but instead leave thousands of dropouts with insurmountable piles of loan debt.

“There are many, many young people for whom this is the alternative, the best alternative, because these schools are easy to get into … this is obviously an appealing option for kids who didn’t do very well in high school,” she said.

The guide provides details on more than 100 nontraditional college campuses, including trade schools, fashion institutes, online-only institutions and others. The colleges are compared by graduation and loan-default rates, tuition costs, transparency in providing information, percentage of revenue from federal financial aid and other figures.

Andrew P. Kelly, research fellow in education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, said that while the report raises questions, it cannot be used as a “blanket indictment” of all for-profit colleges, which vary in size, scope and mission.

For example, Mr. Kelly said graduation rates among nontraditional colleges differ greatly, ranging from 5 percent to nearly 90 percent. The average amount of loan debt after graduation is also widely varied, with students at some for-profits only a few thousand dollars in the hole after getting their diplomas.

For-profit schools have become a hot-button issue on Capitol Hill, with Senate Republicans threatening to boycott next month’s tentative hearing on the subject unless the focus is expanded to include all colleges and universities.

Sen. Tom Harkin, Iowa Democrat and chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, already has held four hearings on for-profits. Republicans on the committee think Democrats are waging a war on for-profits and say the biased hearings have been little help in finding solutions. The problems highlighted by Youth Today, Republicans and for-profit proponents argue, are present in all corners of higher education.

The survey singles out Corinthian Colleges Inc., which operates more than 100 campuses in the United States and Canada and offers a wide variety of programs. But Youth Today is encouraging students to “avoid [for-profit colleges] like the Corinthian Colleges” because, among other reasons, the company dedicates more than 20 percent of its budget to student recruitment.

After the report was released, Corinthian came out swinging. Spokesman Kent Jenkins said Youth Today makes a serious mistake by comparing Corinthian campuses to other for-profit institutions, most of which, he said, offer vastly different class structures and have very different student bodies.

“The statements they made today seem to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of private-sector colleges,” Mr. Jenkins told The Washington Times. “They seem to believe we are a one-size-fits-all, everybody is the same sector. We’re not.”

He also said Corinthian, like other for-profits, challenges last year’s Government Accountability Office report that found misleading recruitment practices at 15 randomly selected private-sector colleges. The GAO issued revisions to that report several months later but stands by its general findings.

Youth Today, an independent, nationally distributed education trade publication, is primarily funded through donations, including money from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Atlantic Philanthropies and others.

© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC.

Leave a comment

Filed under 9.5 percent, 9.5 percent SAP, federal direct loans, FFELP, for-profit colleges, for-profit schools, PLUS, Stafford, student loan lenders, student loan program, student loan scandal, student loans, Uncategorized

Students: You Are Exploited Debt-Serfs

By Charles Hugh Smith on 04/12/2011 – 7:10 am PDT — Investing & Markets

Students and parents, wake up: your only salvation lies in political engagement and action.

Of all the exploitative systems in the U.S., none is more rapacious than the Education Cartel. Like the proverbial frog that is unaware that it’s being boiled because the water temperature rises so gradually, college students and their parents are unable to recall what higher education was like before students were herded into debt-serfdom.

Apologists for the Education Cartel like to blame Corporate America or the banks, but the reality is that the Federal and State governments and the employees of the Cartel are willing partners in the exploitation and fraud. How did we get to the boiling-water point where students are expected to take on $100,000 or more in debt to attend college–even a mediocre one?

Answer: immensely profitable Government-backed loans. If the Central State wasn’t partnered with the Education Cartel, today’s debt-serfdom would be impossible.

The partnership plays out on multiple levels. The San Francisco Chronicle recently reported that “Liberal” U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi is fighting vigorously to defend the debt-serf-based empires of for-profit “colleges.” Why? because these billion-dollar empires give her hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions (duh!). (“Conservatives” love for-profit “colleges” for the same reasons, of course.)

There is nothing remotely educational or liberal about an exploitative Cartel that provides no measurable value to its students while graduating 10% of them. As reported in The New Republic, when General Accounting Office (GAO) investigators posing as prospective students applied to 15 major for-profit “colleges,” every one made misleading sales pitches.

The largest for-profit, the University of Phoenix, graduates less than 10% of its students within 10 years. You may not get any useful skills or a meaningful diploma, but you will end up with $100,000 in debt that can never be written off. Loans imply risk: nobody forces a lender to take on the risk of lending money to a borrower. If the borrower ends up being unable to pay his debts and declares bankruptcy, the debt is wiped off the books and the lender loses the money that was at-risk.

Thanks to the Central State’s partnership with the Education Cartel, student loans cannot be dismissed even in bankruptcy. This makes them unique in the world of credit and debt. Banks lobbied the Central State for guaranteed, no-risk student loans, and the Government was pleased to oblige.

The Status Quo fully supports colonizing the “home” population of vulnerable students and turning them into debt-serfs that banks can hound til death and beyond; they’re much more pliable and less troublesome than foreign populations who might rebel against the Imperial lash. (This is drawn directly from theSurvival+ critique.)

Leave a comment

Filed under 9.5 percent, 9.5 percent SAP, federal direct loans, FFELP, for-profit colleges, for-profit schools, PLUS, Stafford, student loan lenders, student loan program, student loan scandal, student loans

The Root Cause of Your Student Loan Miseries….The 9.5 Percent Special Allowance Payment Subsidy

Intended to Cut Lender Subsidies, It Created a Windfall

In the guaranteed student loan program, lenders receive interest payments from both students and the government. Under the 1980 law, the government payments (known as “special allowance payments”) assured lenders a quarterly return on their guaranteed student loans equal to the average bond-equivalent yield on 91-day Treasury bills plus 3.5 percentage points. Any quarter when borrower payments were insufficient, the government would make up the difference. (Loans made today receive the 91-day commercial paper rate plus 2.34 percentage points during repayment.) For loans backed by tax-exempt bonds, the 1980 formula cut subsidy payments in half but guaranteed at least a 9.5 percent return. In other words, lenders receive the greater of either (a) one-half the regular subsidy payments or (b) the amount necessary to provide a 9.5 percent return.[1]

Example 1: In times of high interest rates, the formula reduces subsidies.

Under interest rates prevalent in 1979, the new formula cuts lender returns from 13.5 percent to 10.25 percent.10

 

Regular Loans:

 

Student Rate                                        Special Allowance:                       Lender Return:

7.0%                                                        6.5%                                       13.5%

 

Loans Made with Tax-Exempt Bonds:

Special Allowance:                                                                                  Lender Return:

3.25%                                                                                                   10.25%

Example 2: But with the lower rates that have been more typical in recent years, the 9.5 percent floor creates windfall profits.

In the second quarter of 2004, regular loans earned a 3.57 percent return, including only 0.15 percentage points in federal subsidies. Loans eligible for the 9.5 percent floor collected 25 times more in federal subsidies.[2]

 

Regular Loans:

 

Student Rate                                          Special Allowance:                 Lender Return:

3.42%                                                      0.15%                                      3.57%

 

 

Loans Made with Tax-Exempt Bonds:

Special Allowance:                                                                             Lender Return:6.08%                                                                                                  9.5%

 

 

The 1993 Attempt to Repeal 9.5 Loans

In early 1993, the borrower interest rate on regular new student loans fell to 6.15 percent, highlighting the absurdity of guaranteeing a 9.5 percent return on tax-exempt loans.12 Congress decided to try again to fix the problem.The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 eliminated the 1980 formula for all loans financed with new student loan bonds. However, responding to arguments that bond investors need stable, assured returns, it kept the 1980 formula for loans backed by existing bonds, including loans made with collections from earlier loans. It seemed like a limited liability, confined only to pre-existing bonds, and involving non-profit and government entities.[3]



[1]Money for Nothing • Skyrocketing Waste of Tax Dollars • A Report by TICAS:The Institute for College Access and Success


[2]Author’s calculations based on U.S. Department of Education,“Federal Family Education Loan Program Special

Allowance Rates for the Quarter Ending June 30, 2004,” July 6, 2004.


[3] General Accounting Office and U.S. Department of Education, Final Report Regarding the Findings of the Study Group on the Feasibility of Using Alternative Financial Instruments for Determining Lender Yield under the Federal Family Education Loan Program, January 19, 2001, pp. 120, 123.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under 9.5 percent, 9.5 percent SAP, federal direct loans, FFELP, PLUS, Stafford, student loan lenders, student loan program, student loan scandal, student loans

Enriching a Few at the Expense of Many

Hmmmm…this article makes me think of the executives at the student loan companies….like Sallie Mae’s CEO.

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: April 9, 2011

SOME people say it doesn’t really matter how much companies pay their executives, at least as far as the shareholders are concerned. Whether investors prosper depends on the executives’ management skill, not on penny-ante items like pay, this argument goes.

To this, Albert Meyer, a money manager at Bastiat Capital in Plano, Tex., responds with a resounding “phooey.”

Executive pay is not only a sign of how a company views its duties to shareholders, Mr. Meyer says, but it is also a crucial tire to kick when making investment decisions.

“When compensation is excessive, that should be a red flag,” Mr. Meyer says. “Does the company exist for the benefit of shareholders or insiders?”

As investors scan corporate proxy statements this spring and prepare to vote in annual elections for company directors, executive pay is again moving to center stage. After a few years in the wilderness, top executives are getting hefty raises, according to Equilar, a compensation analysis firm in Redwood City, Calif. But while outrage over executive pay has been eclipsed in recent years by anger over the causes and consequences of the financial crisis, compensation issues still resonate among many investors.

Of course, pay is just one item that Mr. Meyer takes into account when analyzing companies. In his search for shares he can own “forever,” he also hunts for companies with high-quality earnings — that is, those that don’t depend on accounting tricks — as well as generous cash flows and management integrity. Companies he avoids include those that award oodles of stock or options to their executives. Such grants vastly dilute the earnings left over for a company’s owners: its shareholders.

Stock-based compensation plans are often nothing more than legalized front-running, insider trading and stock-watering all wrapped up in one package,” Mr. Meyer says.

A former professor of accounting, he earned recognition when he identified a Ponzi scheme in Philadelphia that had scammed nonprofits out of hundreds of millions of dollars. It was called the Foundation for New Era Philanthropy, and it went bankrupt in 1995. As an equity analyst, he has identified aggressive accounting at Tyco, Enron and other companies over the years.

At Bastiat Capital, a money management firm he founded in 2006, Mr. Meyer oversees $25 million in private clients’ capital. About $8 million of that is invested in the Mirzam Capital Appreciation mutual fund, which he manages. It is up an annualized 4.5 percent, after expenses, since its inception in August 2007. It is up 4.57 percent this year.

His interest in executive pay has led Mr. Meyer to a raft of international companies whose pay and other corporate governance practices are, in his view, more respectful of shareholders than those of similar companies in the United States. He cites as good stewards Statoil, the Norwegian energy company; Telefónica, the Spanish telecommunications concern; CPFL Energia, a Brazilian electricity distributor; and Southern Copper of Phoenix, a mining company with operations in Peru and Mexico. These and other companies he favors have performed well, while paying relatively modest amounts to executives, he says.

Mr. Meyer’s favorite pay-and-performance comparison pits Statoil against ExxonMobil. Statoil, which is two-thirds owned by the Norwegian government, pays its top executives a small fraction of what ExxonMobil pays its leaders. But Statoil’s share price has outperformed Exxon’s since the Norwegian company went public in October 2001. Through March, its stock climbed 22.3 percent a year, on average, Mr. Meyer notes. During the same period, Exxon’s shares rose an average of 11.4 percent annually, while the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index returned 1.67 percent, annualized.

According to regulatory filings, Statoil paid Helge Lund, its chief executive, 11.5 million Norwegian krone in 2010 (roughly $1.8 million at the exchange rate last year). There were no stock options in the mix, but Mr. Lund was required to use part of his cash pay to buy shares in the company and to hold onto them for at least three years.

By comparison, Rex W. Tillerson, the chief executive of ExxonMobil, received $21.7 million in salary, bonus and stock awards in 2009, the most recent pay figures available from the company. Mr. Tillerson’s pay is more than double the combined $8.3 million that Statoil paid its nine top executives in 2010.

OTHER aspects of Statoil’s governance also appeal to Mr. Meyer. Its 10-member board includes three people who represent the company’s workers; management is not represented on the board. In addition, Statoil has an oversight group known as a corporate assembly, something that is required under Norwegian law for companies employing more than 200 workers. This 18-person group oversees the company’s directors and the chief executive’s management and makes decisions about Statoil’s operations that affect its work force. The assembly members are elected for two-year terms; shareholders elect 12 and workers elect 6.

That second layer of corporate governance protects the shareholders and the employees,” Mr. Meyer says. “They are really doing it as a civic duty to oversee the actions of the directors.”

Another company whose approach to pay is commendable, Mr. Meyer says, is Telefónica. Based in Madrid, it dispenses stock options to employees but eliminates the dilution to existing shareholders by buying a call option in the amount of shares given out as compensation.

At CPFL Energia in Brazil, financial statements routinely compare the highest level of executive pay with that of the lowest-paid workers. In 2010, that ratio was 79 to 1. (Comparable multiples for United States companies range from 100 to 300, depending on the size of the company.) CPFL Energia also discloses the number of “complaints and criticisms” it receives each year — whether from customers, employees or others — and how many are resolved.

“This is an ideal for disclosure,” Mr. Meyer says.

He also rejects the argument that sky-high pay is necessary to attract talented managers. “Look at some of the pay at the companies my fund owns,” he says. “They prove that you don’t have to pay nosebleed compensation to attract good people.”

FEW money managers seem to share Mr. Meyer’s view that pay should be factored into investment decisions. His background as a forensic accountant made him train his eye on corporate proxy statements, where pay practices are outlined. Indeed, he says he first became interested in how executive pay affects shareholder returns during the early 1990s, when companies began issuing boatloads of stock options that they did not have to deduct as compensation costs.

The fiction that options should not be counted as a business expense finally changed in 2005, when the Financial Accounting Standards Board required that companies recognize the costs of options in their financial statements. But options had become the drug of choice for those addicted to excessive compensation, whether on the receiving end or delivering it as directors on a corporate board’s compensation committee.

Middle-class America experienced a lost decade in their retirement accounts, whereas executives enjoyed record compensation packages through the subterfuge of stock option programs,” Mr. Meyer says.

“There has been a massive wealth transfer from middle-class America’s retirement accounts to the bank accounts of the privileged few. The social consequences of this wealth transfer bear scrutiny.”

Leave a comment

Filed under 9.5 percent, 9.5 percent SAP, federal direct loans, FFELP, PLUS, Stafford, student loan lenders, student loan program, student loan scandal, student loans

Interlude-I Guess Crime Really Does Pay! Sallie Mae Albert Lord Made $$5.45 million in 2010

   By Melissa Korn
   Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)–SLM Corp. (SLM) Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Albert Lord received a 2010 compensation package valued at $5.45 million, nearly flat with the prior year.

Lord was paid a base salary of $1.03 million, compared with $1.3 million in 2009. His bonus jumped 58% to $1.5 million, paid half in cash and half in restricted stock.

SLM, commonly known as Sallie Mae, said the student loan company’s leadership “continued to demonstrate its ability to safely guide the company through the unprecedented turmoil the company, the student loan industry and capital markets have experienced over the past several years.”

SLM had derived nearly one-third of its revenue from originating student loans on behalf of the federal government, but that revenue stream was cut off in July as the government brought the originations in-house.

Lord received stock awards valued at $1.24 million, compared with $560,500 in 2009. However, he received options awards valued at $1.56 million, 39% less than the prior year.

Lord’s employment agreement expired in December and was not replaced, making Lord an at-will employee going forward.

President and Chief Operating Officer John (Jack) Remondi, who had been vice chairman and chief financial officer until early January, saw his 2010 compensation fall nearly two-thirds to $2.84 million as he received no options awards in the latest year. Remondi claimed options valued at $5.94 million in 2009.

Remondi, who is also an at-will employee as of earlier this year, received $100,000 in use of the company aircraft to travel between his home and corporate offices. He also received $53,458 to cover an apartment near the headquarters in Reston, Va., as well as utilities, housekeeping and taxes.

Sallie Mae relocated its main office to Newark, Del., earlier this year.

-By Melissa Korn, Dow Jones Newswires

This makes absolutely no sense! While Sallie Mae is STEALING BILLIONS of DOLLARS from the government and the  taxpayers to IMPOVERISH the future generation….the CEO and CFO receive 7-figure compensation, a mid-five figure apartment allowance, 6-figures to use the company’s private jet to IMPOVERISH the future generation and commit fraud

Leave a comment

Filed under 9.5 percent, 9.5 percent SAP, federal direct loans, FFELP, PLUS, Stafford, student loan lenders, student loan program, student loan scandal, student loans

The Beginning of the End…Meet the Tax-Exempt Student Loan Bond

As part of the effort in the 1970s to ensure that loans would be available for all eligible students, provisions were included in the Tax Reform Act of 1976 to encourage states to issue tax-exempt student loan bonds. In the years that followed, states established more than 30 student loan authorities. These authorities sell both tax-exempt and taxable bonds and use the proceeds to make loans to students. Authorities also buy loans from banks to encourage them to make new loans, instead of lending directly to students, and thereby encourage banks to make new loans to new students.[1]

Congress made states eligible for full federal subsidy payments, the same as all other student loan providers, even though the loan authorities would have the advantage of raising capital to be lent out to students from low-cost, tax-exempt bonds. Congress also gave states relief from the “arbitrage” tax rules.

Typically, the federal government limits state profits on tax-exempt bonds by requiring state and local governments to rebate excess returns (above 2 percentage points for student loan bonds) to the federal government. However, in 1976 Congress excluded the federal payments from the arbitrage calculation.

Before long, states were issuing bonds at 6 percent interest while earning up to 16 percent interest on student loans. A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study predicted that the bonds would cost taxpayers as much as $500 million a year, including both tax benefits and federal interest payments.

In 1980, Congress did just that. It halved federal subsidy payments to lenders on loans funded with tax-exempt bonds. States argued, however, that they make long-term commitments to bondholders. If interest rates dropped too low, they said the student loans would not bring in enough income to make payments on the bonds and to cover administrative expenses. So Congress guaranteed a minimum return of 9.5 percent.

Congress did not intend for the student loan bonds to be immensely profitable—only profitable enough so that states would participate. But almost immediately after they were created in 1976, the bonds were earning huge profits for the loan authorities. Ever since, the Federal government has been trying to rein in the problem, but the efforts have often failed or even backfired, compounding the initial error.[2]

P.S. The portions highlighted in red are a VERY IMPORTANT component of this story REMEMBER THEM….Just in case that slipped by everyone.


[1] Money for Nothing • Skyrocketing Waste of Tax Dollars • A Report by TICAS:The Institute for College Access and Success


[2] Money for Nothing • Skyrocketing Waste of Tax Dollars • A Report by TICAS:The Institute for College Access and Success

 

Leave a comment

Filed under 9.5 percent, 9.5 percent SAP, federal direct loans, FFELP, PLUS, Stafford, student loan lenders, student loan program, student loan scandal, student loans