Showing posts with label student loans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label student loans. Show all posts

Friday, May 23, 2014

QUINN ON REDFLEX, STUDENT LOANS…AND GRANITE COUNTERTOPS(?)

5/23/14

On this last week of unofficial Spring, I managed to find the time to come up with only three posts, but on a dizzying array of topics…

HGTV’S HOUSE HUNTERS:  “WHAT?  NO GRANITE COUNTERTOPS?!”
Let it never be said that this is not an eclectic blog.

STUDENT LOANS:  ANOTHER SCHEME FROM DICK DURBIN TO “LIGHTEN” THE LOAD
While I may not be much of a Republican, people like Dick Durbin are the reason it is highly unlikely that I will become a Democrat.  I use the term “highly unlikely” because only a fool uses the terms “never,” however tempting it might be in this context. 

REDFLEX:  COULD JOHN BILLS HAVE PULLED THIS OFF (NEARLY) ALONE?
What I’ll think about and what I’ll believe are two different things, but this is a theory that has to be considered by any serious student of the Redflex affair, which I contend has the potential to be one of the biggest local political stories of the still new century.

Enjoy Memorial Day and take time to honor those who gave so much for us.



For more on Chicago’s politics, see my books:
The Chairman:
The Chairman’s Challenge:


Friday, November 15, 2013

“…LIVIN’ ON MONEY THAT I AIN’T MADE YET…”

11/15/13

The New York Fed came out with its quarterly report on consumer debt yesterday.  Conventional thinkers are nearly overjoyed at the news that total consumer debt increased by $127 billion, or 1.1%, for the third quarter, the fastest pace since 2008. 

Some of this increase in debt came about because of fewer mortgage foreclosures and bankruptcies during the third quarter.  As regular readers know, it was bankruptcies and foreclosures, or nice ways of describing stiffing one’s creditors, that provided Wall Street economists an opportunity to wax joyful about the “deleveraging” and “balance sheet clean-up” that the American consumer was “achieving.”  Now that we are stiffing fewer of our creditors, it seems that debt outstanding is going up.  The obvious suspicion, therefore, is that debt in any realistic sense has been going up all along but that a trail of sorry creditors was masking our continuing propensity to take on debt in order to achieve the “lifestyle” we are somehow entitled to simply by virtue of living in the United States of America.

Other observations arise from the New York Fed data.   First, those who think that taking on more debt to excrete away more money on stuff we don’t need is the key to our economic recovery, while being overjoyed at the increase in debt levels, are sullen and down-in-the-mouth that credit card debt is barely growing; it was up $4 billion, or 0.6%, in the third quarter.  Though we would prefer actual decreases in credit card debt to mere slowings of its increases, those of us who are so benighted as to think that we have to learn to save money again see this slowdown in revolving credit accumulation as a favorable development.   Perhaps our sanguinity is poorly placed.   Just as I was reading about the slowdown in the growth of credit card debt, I heard an ad on the radio from a mortgage broker who was preaching the fiscal soundness of refinancing one’s credit card debt by taking out mortgage debt.   One wonders how much the return of the popularity of this game of financial three card monte had to do with the slowdown in the growth of total credit card outstanding in the third quarter.  More importantly, one sees the return of the highly popular dinner out financed with a thirty year mortgage as yet another reminder of the people’s short memories and another sign of financial trouble down the road.

Second, the widely advertised big culprit in the increase in consumer debt is the increase in student loans, which passed $1 trillion last quarter by increasing $33 billion, or 3.3%.   Mark my words:   this surge in student debt, and the growing acceptance of student debt as something one takes on in the perfectly normal course of one’s life, is not only an enormous financial problem for the borrowers and for the economy on a whole, but it is speeding us down the road to making higher education yet another “free” entitlement.  

There are some who ascribe to the Obama Administration enough Machiavellian cunning to believe that the whole defecation show that ObamaCare has become is just a ploy to get the American people to throw up their hands and beg for a single payer health system as a solution to the intentionally inflicted maladies the Affordable (Says who?) Care Act has thrust upon them.   Whether yours truly gives the Obamaites such credit is open to question.  But I can easily see the growing, and increasingly unrepayable, pile of student debt as a Machiavellian way of getting the government to pay for college by simply forgiving the debt, thereby stiffing those of us who made the sacrifices, and choices, necessary to pay for our own kids’ education.   That’s government for you.


Third, even though student debt is supposedly the most salient source of increasing consumer debt, people don’t mention that car loans outstanding went up even more on a percentage basis, or by 3.8% to $845 billion.  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:  nearly all the prosperity we are seeing in the auto business and in the auto stocks has been manufactured by the Fed.   Other than housing, what industry benefits more from engineered interest rates than the automobile business?   All this talk of pent-up demand is largely nonsense.   Yes, the fleet is old but one can drive a modern car hundreds of thousands of miles with little difficulty.   What we call pent up demand would stay pent up were it not for the cheap financing Ben Bernanke’s War on the Elderly has provided for new car buyers.   Auto sales are a bubble that would burst quickly if the low interest rate elixir is ever removed.   This is, of course, yet another reason that the Fed cannot let rates normalize, on either the long or short end, any time soon, but that is another conversation. 

Sunday, July 7, 2013

STUDENT LOANS: TEACH YOUR CHILDREN POORLY

7/7/13

In writing my already seminal diatribe of a few days ago on student loans (KEEPING STUDENT LOAN RATES DOWN:  PAYING FOR YOUR, AND YOUR NEIGHBOR’S, KID’S EDUCATION, 7/5/13), I listed a number of reasons why I am nearly reflexively opposed to borrowing to pay for college.  However, as I thought about this issue over the Independence Day weekend, I came up with yet another reason to oppose the student loan cancer on our society, perhaps the most insidious aspect of our nation’s vast over dependence on borrowing to educate its children.

By making borrowing for college, and, as I put it on 7/5, making “signing up for ‘your loan’…as routine as signing up for classes,” we are teaching our students a lesson that is even more dangerous than some of the stuff their professors are forcing into their heads:  we are teaching our kids that borrowing is the acceptable way to pay for things.   There is no need to work and save for the things that you want; just go out and borrow the money, get whatever your heart desires, and worry about paying for it later…or find some way to stick someone else (taxpayers, creditors, etc.) with the bill.

Borrowing for whatever might strike our fancy is an acceptable way of conducting one’s financial affairs in a nation that has driven itself over the economic cliff due to its collective inability to delay gratification.   But what is acceptable, especially in a society that has gone so far off the tracks as has ours, is not necessarily, indeed, rarely is, right.

Friday, July 5, 2013

KEEPING STUDENT LOAN RATES DOWN: PAYING FOR YOUR, AND YOUR NEIGHBOR’S, KID’S EDUCATION

7/5/13

Both political parties, and both non-judicial branches of government, are scrambling to reverse the doubling of the interest rate (from 3.4% to 6.8%) on a variety of federal student loans.  

Yours truly has written extensively on student loans (See, inter alia,


for just a sampling of my highly unpopular thoughts on this topic.  In summary, I am firmly opposed to rolling back this interest rate increase because I am, for the most part, firmly opposed to the idea of borrowing to pay for one’s, or one’s children’s, college education.   Why am I so curmudgeonly on this issue, other than my normal predisposition toward curmudgeonliness?

First, the explosion of student debt is the next big debt time bomb in our economy and financial system.  We ought to be looking for ways to discourage, rather then encourage, such borrowing.

Second, the whole notion of borrowing heavily to finance college grows from the preposterous, and increasingly dangerous, notion that everyone should go to college.   The almost peculiarly American idea that everyone has to go to college has led to an economy top-heavy with people who majored in, say, minority studies, film studies, or sexual sociology from third or fourth rate “universities” and who thus feel entitled to the “middle class lifestyle that a college education affords them.”  Meanwhile, we don’t have enough people who can do actual work for which real consumers are willing to pay with their own money, such as plumbers, mechanics, construction workers, etc.   Then our hyper-informed populace complains when we import people to do such tasks so our kids can major in, say, gender studies and sit around and complain about not getting the jobs they feel they are owed.  Such is the state of modern American society, but I digress.

Third, there are other ways to pay for college, all of which are doable but none of which anyone wants to do as long as Uncle Sam is ladling out your dollars at ridiculously low interest rates.  Some of these highly unthinkable methods include:

·        working to pay for one’s education.
·        attending a community college for a few years before moving on to a four year institution,
·        paying attention to costs when selecting colleges and perhaps resigning one’s self, or one’s children, to the ignominious fate of having to attend a state university,
·        or, most reprehensible at all to the modern, middle class but ever so status conscious American, actually making some sacrifices to send your kids to college.  (You mean I have to give up dual Lexi, a summer home, regular expensive restaurant meals, $200 shoes, and a trip of a life time every year just so my kids can go to college!  Horrors!   The government should do something about this!)

Simply put, one should borrow to finance one’s, or one’s kid’s, education only as the very last resort.  And if one has to borrow to pay for college, one better major in something that will enable him or her to pay back the loan.  Unfortunately, we have made borrowing the first resort, and signing up for “your loan” has become as routine as signing up for classes, many of which are educational and financial dead-ends.

Fourth, one would be hard pressed, or unbelievably obtuse, not to conclude that the direction of all these efforts to “lighten the burden on our next generation of leaders” is toward all out debt forgiveness.  This would leave those of us who actually took the steps outlined above and thus will have our kids graduate without any student debt looking like the chumps we are.   We sacrificed to send our kids to college; our neighbors said “What the hell?”, bought BMWs, joined country clubs, shopped at Whole Foods, and borrowed heavily to send their kids to hyper-expensive colleges and will soon be forgiven of all their debt and thus their obligations to their kids.   Who were the fools in this scenario? 

And, yes, I am talking my own interest here; I simply don’t want to pay for my kids’ education and the educations of my neighbors who live better than I do.   But the next time you find someone whose politics do not reflect, to some degree, his or her own self-interest, let me know.  I won’t be waiting by the phone.


Now I have even more reasons to be opposed to this all-out effort to keep interest rates on student loans outrageously attractive, inducing students to further put themselves in debt so deep they will never climb out---until all loans are forgiven in the interest of “fairness.”

First, I hope most people know this but think most people don’t:  the increase in interest rates will only be on NEW debt.  Existing debt won’t be affected.  So students who are not so busy studying the sociology of the vagina or some other such nonsense, and their parents, will know that new debt will be expensive and perhaps will, but probably won’t, make prudent decisions based on the new rate.   There won’t be any surprises on the bills for existing debt.

Second, the Wall Street Journal reports today (“Student Loans Caught in Capitol Crossfire, 7/5/13, page A4), the average subsidized Stafford loan has a balance of about $3,400.   The Journal calculates that the increase in the monthly payment on such a loan, assuming a 10 year repayment period, at $7 per month.   (I calculated $5.67 per month, and I think I’m right.  But since I didn’t go to an expensive (er, sorry, “prestigious”) university in reasonable proximity to either coast, what could I possibly know?   Thankfully, the difference matters little.)

Six or seven bucks a month?   Back in the dark ages, when I went to the university that MIT wishes it could be, that amounted to two pitchers of beer, or four at happy hour, per month.  Now that we are in more enlightened times, that six or seven bucks amounts to a frappe lappe dappe mocha moustache latte drink these kids just have to have in order to get though a half hour of studying, or, at the most, two of these dyspeptic concoctions that are, for some weird reason, sold at establishments that bill themselves as purveyors of coffee, which can be made at home for pennies or bought at McDonald’s or White Castle for a buck.  But who wants to make such excruciating sacrifices when the government will absolve you from having to endure such indignities?

If our legislators and president had any courage, common sense, honor, intelligence, or even the slightest lack of hypocrisy, they’d let these rates on student loans go to 6.8%, or even higher.  So we can assume that, before long, the rates will go back down to 3.4%...further encouraging our kids to impale themselves on the stake of onerous debt.   But not to worry; the dire financial straits into which our esteemed public servants have helped put “our students” will give these pathetic lifelong payrollers an excuse to do more “good”…by using your money to forgive these loans, thus sticking you with the bill for your neighbor’s education, as he waves at you while driving off in his new Audi.

Monday, May 6, 2013

CAR LOANS: TAKE MY MONEY…PLEASE!

5/6/13

This may not come as a shock to those of you who have been shopping of late for cars and financing for those cars.   However, since I have not shopped in earnest for the former and never shop for the latter, I was floored…

I was talking to a guy the other day who will remain nameless but whom I trust implicitly; he wasn’t BSing me.   He had just bought a (slightly) used car and had no intention of borrowing any money to pay for it.   However, when the dealer offered him a loan at (Get this.) 2.25%, and practically begged him to take the money, he felt compelled to borrow at least a portion of the purchase price. 

2.25%???!!!!



Note that this wasn’t some kind of incentive deal; this was the rate at which the lender with whom the dealer was working was lending money on cars.

So I asked my friend what term we were talking about.  He said it didn’t matter.   The lender would have let him borrow at 2.25% for 36, 42, 48…up to 72 months.
2.25% for 72 months on a used (albeit very nice and not inexpensive) car???!!!!

I have long felt that the go-go car sales we have seen of late were largely the result of very cheap and available money; note my 4/25/13 piece IMPORTED FROM DETROIT:   MARCHIONNE BETTER BE AS FAST AS A CHRYSLER 300 SRT8 in which I said

All this talk of pent-up demand and the age of the fleet has some surface validity, but you can be sure that if money were not so cheap and readily available for vehicle financing, and payments thus so low, people would be able to satisfactorily, and perhaps happily, drive their old cars for many more miles, given how well cars are built nowadays.  In other words, if financing cars were not so cheap and readily available, so called pent-up demand would stay pent-up.
 
News of this very cheap and very available money, even to a guy, like my buddy, with stellar credit, only confirms my suspicions that

  1. Cheap money is propping up the car market, just as it is propping up the housing, stock, and bond markets.
  2. We may be in for some rough time when (if?) the Fed ever pushes itself away from the table, even if ever so slightly.
  3. While student loans remain the most likely candidate for the next big blowup (See my 5/5/13 post, TAMMY DUCKWORTH’S “ROUNDTABLE” ON STUDENT LOANS:   AIN’T THAT A KICK IN THE HEAD?) one suspects that car loans present another potential source of, er, unpleasantness.

Sunday, May 5, 2013

TAMMY DUCKWORTH’S “ROUNDTABLE” ON STUDENT LOANS: AIN’T THAT A KICK IN THE HEAD?

5/5/13

Congressman Tammy Duckworth (D, IL) held a “Roundtable” on student loans at the College of DuPage last Thursday.   Ms. Duckworth’s focus was on a pending increase in the interest rate on federally subsidized Stafford loans from 3.4% to 6.8%.   (See my 4/28/12 post on the now defunct Rant Finance entitled “TEACH YOUR CHILDREN WELL…”, which is reproduced below for your convenience.)  Claiming that the doubling in interest rates would cost 7 million students an average of $1,000 per year, Ms. Duckworth touted her co-sponsorship of the Student Loan Relief Act of 2013 (“SLRA”), which would prevent that scheduled 7/1/13 increase.



The SLRA and other such efforts to make borrowing for college as cheap and easy as possible has some surface attraction for people who don’t think very deeply; who can argue with such anodyne sentiments as “making sure everyone gets a college education”? 
But, with only a glance beneath the surface, the pernicious effects of the SLRA become clear.   Leave aside for a moment the utter silliness, or worse, of the idea that “everyone needs a college education” and concentrate, for today’s purposes, on the SLRA’s, and its kindred efforts’, financial effects.

Such efforts can only exacerbate the impending student loan debacle, our next great debt crisis.   Perhaps more insidious, making borrowing for college easy and cheap sends a dangerous message to students, prospective students, and their parents:

Don’t be a chump.  Don’t save for college.   Don’t make any sacrifices or deny yourself in any way to pay for your, or your kids’, educations.   We, at the government, are here to help you.  We’ll make it easy and cheap to dig yourself, and your kids, into a debt hole that will envelop them for much of the rest of your lives.

But don’t even worry about that debt hole.   If the problem gets severe enough, and you wait long enough, we’ll take steps to reduce, or even eliminate, student debt.  If enough people get into enough trouble, we’ll just forgive the debt.   The taxpayers, and especially those stupid enough to actually pay for college themselves, will pick up the tab for your, or your kids’, educations!

The SLRA and similar efforts to “help students pay for the college education they need” will turn out to be yet another case in which the financially responsible get kicked in the teeth…and then presented with the bills of the financially irresponsible.

The politicians will then wonder why so few people are saving while so many are spending and why we consequently go from financial crisis to financial crisis.  Ironically, such puzzlement on the part of our lawmakers illustrates the weakness of the argument that a college education somehow makes one intelligent.



 PROMISED REPROCUCED POST

“TEACH YOUR CHILDREN WELL…”

4/28/12

Yesterday, we learned that both the Republicans and Democrats want to stop the scheduled doubling of the interest rate on one of the largest government student loan programs from 3.4% to 6.8%.  Even the higher rate doesn’t approximate market.   Would you loan money, unsecured, to a borrower with no job and, at the time the loan was made, few or no job skills, and who will not begin repaying you for at least for years?  The only disagreement between the GOP and the Dems on this issue is how to pay for it, and “paying for it” has never kept our pols from spending any of your money that they had the faintest desire to spend.

We also learned yesterday that Congress is considering making private student loans (i.e., loans made by privates sector entities rather than by the government and not backed by the government) dischargeable in bankruptcy, reversing a 2005 law that made student loans not subject to the bankruptcy laws.   The obvious problem with this latest effort on the part of government to help us is that it will discourage private lenders from making student loans and will force those that choose to keep doing so to tighten the terms and increase the cost of those loans.   So this effort will turn out to be yet another example of the government’s efforts to address a perceived problem making that problem both real and more acute.

The larger, and perhaps less obvious, problem with both keeping interest rates low on government student loans and making private student loans dischargeable is that these “initiative” are, given the typical pol’s enthusiasm for handing out your money to just about anyone capable of concocting a sob story and/or writing a campaign check, just steps on the roads to forgiving student debt.   So those parents who saved and sacrificed to send their kids to school with no, or as little as possible, student debt, those students who worked full or part time to finance their educations, and both students and parents who chose financially sensible schools and marketable majors rather than studying Public Advocacy or Modern Hip-Hop at the “the school of my dreams” will be made to be chumps.   Why, parents, did you bother forsaking the nicer cars, home, or vacations in order to put money aside to fulfill one of your responsibilities as parents by financing, or helping to finance, your kids’ education?   Why, students, did you bust your hindquarters working at McDonald’s or Starbuck’s 20 or 40 hours a week while carrying an 18 hour class load in, say, Engineering or even a solid liberal arts course of study that would have taught you to write and think and fulfill your role as a responsible, self-governing citizen when you could have been drinking yourself stupid at the bars or hanging out in your dorm room or at the coffee shop (perhaps the coffee shop at which you work) contemplating your navel and cursing the injustices of the capitalist system while pursuing a major in, say, Modern Grievance Nurturing?   The federal government will show responsible parents the error of their ways by forgiving the debts of those who would not help their kids with college because, after all, those parents could not bear the ignominy of living in, say, Naperville or Oak Lawn, driving a Ford or Chevy, or having to tell their neighbors in Hinsdale or Kenilworth that little Ogelthorpe goes to the U of I, ISU, or the local community college for a few years when those neighbors’ children go to the highly exclusive Snuffy SnotNose U.   You students who worked both inside and outside the classroom to graduate with a meaningful degree will also be shown how silly you were when the government rewards those students who chose having a good time over working; why bother earning money when you can just borrow it cheaply and discharge it altogether due to “inability to pay” (while paying for the expensive apartment and the BMW, of course)?

I can hear the objections already:   “Why, not everybody who takes out student loans so that he can use his fungible (probably too big a word for those who would make such an argument, but I digress) funds to buy a Lexus and a place on the lake while sending his kids to UpScale U.   Some of these families really need the loans to send their kids to reasonably priced schools.”   I agree.  Not every borrower is using student loans as yet another means to finance a lifestyle he or she could otherwise not afford.   Surely, those who will argue for debt forgiveness will trot out the most pitiable cases when making their pleas for “economic justice.”   But I would wager that a very large proportion of those who do take out student loans would not have to do so if their parents would make even the smallest sacrifice, they and their parents chose a lower priced college or university, and/or the student borrower put enough value on his or her education to work at least part time to finance that education.   Further, if we want to help those who genuinely cannot afford college, any college, we could more effectively employ mechanisms such as Pell Grants.

As it is, though, we are headed toward forgiving the loans of those parents and students who decided to borrow, and perhaps bet on some kind of forgiveness scheme, rather than make the sacrifices necessary to finance their education on their own dimes.   And we will slap those who financed their, or their kids’, educations in the face by, ultimately, forcing them to pick up the tab not only for their own educations but for those of their neighbors who, in many cases, live better than they do.   This is how we treat those who work hard, sacrifice, and save in this country.   And then we wonder why we get so little hard work, sacrifice, and, especially, saving in this country.