Home Logon FTA Investment Managers Blog Subscribe About Us Contact Us

Search by Ticker, Keyword or CUSIP       
 
 

Blog Home
   Brian Wesbury
Chief Economist
 
Bio
X •  LinkedIn
   Bob Stein
Deputy Chief Economist
Bio
X •  LinkedIn
 
  Biden’s Student-Loan Fiasco
Posted Under: Government • Monday Morning Outlook • Spending

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 1,000 points on Friday, caused apparently by Fed Chairman Jerome Powell’s attempt to use a brief speech to channel the ghost of Paul Volcker.  Obviously, this was part of the market’s worries, but the stage was set when the Biden Administration announced a student loan forgiveness program last week.  The more we learn about this, the worse it looks. 

The executive order would send an already very bad student loan system – a system designed more to create jobs for academics than to really help students – into overdrive, generating huge costs for taxpayers, soaring college prices, and a massive shift in resources toward the already bloated college sector, which already generates negative marginal value-added for both students and our country.

The Biden Administration says the changes would cost $240 billion in the next ten years.  The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says $440 - 600 billion.  A budget model from Wharton says $1 trillion.  But even that $1 trillion figure might be way too low.

The key is that, as bad as it is, the cancellation of some student debt that already exists is only a small part of the policy change.  The much bigger change, and the one that the market has finally begun to absorb, is limiting future payments on debts to 5% of income, but only after the borrower’s income rises above roughly $30,000 per year.  For example, if someone makes $70,000 per year, then no matter how much they borrow they’re limited to paying $2,000 per year (5% of the extra $40,000).  After twenty years, any remaining debt would simply disappear.

Think about the perverse incentives!  

For the vast majority of students, choosing this “income-based repayment” system would be a no-brainer. And once they pick it, they wouldn’t care at all whether their college charges $35,000 per year (tuition, room, board, and fees), $85,000, or even $150,000.  In fact, students would have an incentive to pick the priciest college with the best amenities they could find and pay for it all with federal loan money, because their repayments are capped.  If you always wanted Rodney Dangerfield’s dorm room from the movie Back to School, you’re in luck!

Meanwhile, students would have the incentive to take out loans greater than what they need because they can turn the excess into cash for “living expenses.”  Then they could use it to buy crypto, throw parties, or pretty much anything else.  Who cares?!?  The government would limit their future repayments.

And here’s what might be the worst part: colleges would have an incentive to enroll students even if they have horrible future job and earning prospects.  By enrolling people no matter how poorly prepared they are, a college can charge whatever they want and get huge checks from the federal government.  And the unprepared students won’t care because they really don’t have to pay it back.  In effect, colleges could create massive and perfectly legal money-laundering schemes.

We are not legal experts and do not know whether the new proposal will be implemented fully.  But, if it is, watch out: college costs are poised to skyrocket and academia is courting a political backlash of enormous proportions.  Meanwhile, the market is attempting to digest just how far from economic reality politicians have become.  The political allocation of capital is a recipe for economic disaster.

Brian S. Wesbury – Chief Economist

Robert Stein, CFA – Deputy Chief Economist 

Click here for a PDF version

Posted on Monday, August 29, 2022 @ 11:10 AM • Post Link Print this post Printer Friendly

These posts were prepared by First Trust Advisors L.P., and reflect the current opinion of the authors. They are based upon sources and data believed to be accurate and reliable. Opinions and forward looking statements expressed are subject to change without notice. This information does not constitute a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any security.
Search Posts
 PREVIOUS POSTS
High Frequency Data Tracker 8/26/2022
Personal Income Rose 0.2% in July
Real GDP Growth in Q2 Was Revised Higher to a -0.6% Annual Rate
New Orders for Durable Goods Were Unchanged in July
New Single-Family Home Sales Declined 12.6% in July
Distorted
High Frequency Data Tracker 8/19/2022
Existing Home Sales Declined 5.9% in July
Retail Sales Were Unchanged in July
Industrial Production Increased 0.6% in July
Archive
Skip Navigation Links.
Expand 20242024
Expand 20232023
Expand 20222022
Expand 20212021
Expand 20202020
Expand 20192019
Expand 20182018
Expand 20172017
Expand 20162016
Expand 20152015
Expand 20142014
Expand 20132013
Expand 20122012
Expand 20112011
Expand 20102010

Search by Topic
Skip Navigation Links.

 
The information presented is not intended to constitute an investment recommendation for, or advice to, any specific person. By providing this information, First Trust is not undertaking to give advice in any fiduciary capacity within the meaning of ERISA, the Internal Revenue Code or any other regulatory framework. Financial professionals are responsible for evaluating investment risks independently and for exercising independent judgment in determining whether investments are appropriate for their clients.
Follow First Trust:  
First Trust Portfolios L.P.  Member SIPC and FINRA. (Form CRS)   •  First Trust Advisors L.P. (Form CRS)
Home |  Important Legal Information |  Privacy Policy |  California Privacy Policy |  Business Continuity Plan |  FINRA BrokerCheck
Copyright © 2024 All rights reserved.