US student Loan Crisis, an Education Bubble?

Peter J ReillyI started following the student loan crisis when I noted that student loans seemed to be neck and neck with health care as the primary grievances on the We Are The 99% site.  I was very lucky to get two pretty regular guest posters Alan Collinge and Tim Smith, who have written on the issue from different angles.  I was astonished to get a call from Sallie Mae asking me how they could get their side of the story onto Forbes.com.  At the risk of being prosecuted for impersonating a journalist, I did a brief interview with John Remondi, President and COO of Sallie Mae.  I’m still hoping for some guest posts from Sallie Mae, but nothing has come through yet.  Sunday, I heard from Tim Smith, who let me know that the New York Times was picking up on the issue with this piece.  I invited him to share his reaction.  Here it is.

The Education Bubble Won’t Create A Disaster, Right?


“Looking back, anyone could have predicted the housing bubble.”  This sentiment has been echoed many times, and graphs of the past housing bubble almost make it seem obvious before the bubble burst.  The education bubble?  While many acknowledge the soaring cost – especially those in the education fields – fewer agree that we’re about to see the education bubble pop and create a bigger mess than the housing bubble.  Education may have its critics, but it also has major defenders.

However, the chorus seems to be changing.  Even the New York Times recently joined with an article that compared the education bubble to the housing bubble (this analogy has been used multiple times, but like the above graph shows, under predicts the mess that the education bubble will cause).  Even while other media players have finally seen this bubble, the warning signs were spelled out on this blog :

These warning signs would be favorable laws toward discharging student loans in bankruptcy (making it more challenging for students to receive money for education); a societal zeitgeist toward education changing (for instance, businesses preferring certification or a degree from something similar to the Khan Academy over traditional colleges); a major recession coming back to the United States, taking away more employment (making it more difficult for student with loans to pay back their loans); students becoming discouraged by negative news toward education (causing many to drop out or to avoid college).
Of course, some readers might wonder if all four signs must appear for the education bubble to pop, and the answer is “No”.

Even though the education bubble has received attention, few expect the consequences to be bad.  In fact, the Times’ article mentions that economists don’t see the consequences being similar to the housing bubble – in other words, the education bubble pops, and everything is fine.  Consider the potential reality:

1.      High student loan balances discourage future and current demand for other products and services (consider the attitude, for instance, of Natalia Antonova, who faced a debt crisis with her student loans).  This subtracts money flow from the economy to provide jobs in other areas.  Even without the bubble popping, this is the current situation.
2.      If the demand for education drops, the consequences will affect those in the education system – schools will need fewer professors, advisors and others in the education field.  This will create a terrible job hunting situation, where graduates will be placed against high-credentialed people (some of whom may have been their professors).  Remember that in order to keep these people employed, the demand for education must remain the same or rise.
3.      If the demand for education declines, the demand for educational products will decline also – textbooks, construction, and many of the expenditures that some colleges think are necessary to provide a good education.  This drop in demand will cause business, which sell products and services to educational institutions, to cut back on their staff to offset their losses.
There is one way in which economists might be right – if wages began to soar.  Like the housing bubble, Americans felt the mess because the decline in housing prices meant that debt was owed on something that had little value.  If education continues to rise, while wages stagnate or slowly rise, a college degree will be like a home, which has lost its value.  If wages soar, however, a college degree will still mean the path to prosperity.

Tim Smith blogs on the “Echo Boom”, also known as Generation Y (Americans born between 1980 – 1995). Tim has previously appeared here discussing his generation’s attitude towards homeownership and education.

I’m beginning to think that the “bubble” metaphor may not work that well for education.  In the case of the stock market and real estate people own assets that they think they can sell at any time for some minimum price.  Then something happens and everybody heads for the door at once.  At that point the seeds of the next bubble are sown, because the assets have some level of intrinsic value and somebody will buy them for something and may get rich on the next turn of the wheel.  Educational credentials, on the other hand, are not at all fungible.  They can only be cash flowed, not liquidated.  If they are not used when fairly fresh, their value erodes rather quickly.  The actual economic value of the credential will often be quickly replaced by the experience which the credential enables.

By Peter J Reilly, Forbes Contributor  Newscribe : get free news in real time

Related posts:
American mounting student loans a ‘debt bomb’ waiting to explode! Inside America’s Student Loan Bubble!
American Student Loan Debt: $1 Trillion and Counting
America, a “Generation of Sissies”
A “great haircut” for U.S. growth

American mounting student loans a ‘debt bomb’ waiting to explode! Inside America’s Student Loan Bubble!

It’s a vicious cycle. Many families in this country cannot afford the skyrocketing cost of higher education without student loans. But many graduates cannot find a job and cannot pay off the loans. As a result, they wind up in a much deeper hole (as the interest and collection fees accrue) with no way out.

Student loan debt in the U.S. now totals more than $1 trillion. That’s more than all the outstanding credit card debt in the country.

A recent report by the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys found that both students and parents are borrowing at record rates.

College seniors who graduated with student loans in 2010 owed an average of $25,250, up five percent from the previous year. Parents had an average of $34,000 in student loans for their children. The report says the number of these parental loans has jumped 75 percent since 2005-2006.

“These are enormous numbers,” says Ike Shulman, a bankruptcy attorney in San Jose, Calif.  “They’re basically setting us up for having a large number of fellow citizens become economically non-functional for the rest of their adult lives.”

Growing numbers of people are being crushed by this debt — unable to pay and unable to get relief. A recent nationwide survey of bankruptcy attorneys by NACBA found that most (81 percent) had seen a spike in the number of people with student loan debt looking for help. But in most cases, there is nothing a lawyer can do.

Current law makes it almost impossible to discharge student loan debt through bankruptcy. And unlike other unsecured debt, there is no statute of limitations on student loans. Lenders can pursue borrowers to the grave.

“It’s not fair and it needs to be corrected,” says NACBA president William Brewer. “It is a debt bomb that could cripple our society.”

The association’s report says the country faces a serious economic threat from this growing mountain of student debt, one that could be every bit as devastating as the mortgage meltdown.

“This will be a drag on the economy for the foreseeable future,” warns John Roa, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center and NACBA’s vice president.

It’s a problem for students and parents who co-signed loans
Dave Ingham, a disabled Vietnam veteran who lives in Minneapolis, fears he could lose his savings and his house because he co-signed student loans — now in default — for his son. Ingham is being sued by collectors.

His son Shannon has been unable to find work since October 2009. He’s now been diagnosed with acute anxiety disorder and depression. He’s still looking for work, but his father says the loan defaults keep him from getting hired.

“It seems that whenever he comes close to a job interview, they run a credit check, see his loan defaults and the interview does not proceed,” Ingham said at a recent telephone news conference arranged by NACBA.

Can something be done?
With student loans backed by the federal government, someone in trouble can try to get the payments deferred or modified. There are even loan forgiveness programs.  With private loans, it’s pay or end up in default.

The National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys wants a “safety net” under student loans, just as there is for other consumer lending.

If you start a business that fails, they point out, you can file for bankruptcy and go on with your life. But college students — or their parents — don’t have the same protection.

“We need to make some common sense reforms, something like creating an escape valve to relieve some of the pressure before the whole thing blows sky high,” says NACBA vice president John Roa. “There’s no way to diffuse this bomb if the status quo remains the same.”

NACBA wants Congress to roll back the bankruptcy code to 1978, when borrowers who couldn’t pay off their student loans (private or government-guaranteed) could discharge that debt in bankruptcy.

Rep. Steve Cohen, (D-Tennessee), has introduced a bill, H.R. 2028: Private Student Loan Bankruptcy Fairness Act, which would treat private student loan debt the same as other consumer debt.

Congressman Cohen says his bill would “restore fair treatment to Americans in severe financial distress” and give “an honest but unfortunate debtor a chance for a financial fresh start.”

The bill is supported by the American Association of Community Colleges, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the American Council on Education and the American Federation of Teachers, as well as various consumer groups. There is currently no formal opposition.

The idea of making it easier to discharge student loan debt via bankruptcy will not sit well with those who backed bankruptcy reforms passed in 2005. Clearly, getting the law changed is a long-shot.

Dave Ingham says he doesn’t know how to solve the current situation. But he believes something should be done before others face the same financial ruin he does.

“It’s something that’s really out of control,” Ingham says. “There are thousands and thousands of us out there who need help with this situation. Please do not give up on us.”

By Herb Weisbaum, The ConsumerMan MSNBC.com

Unforgiven: Inside America’s Student Loan Bubble

by Ben DeMeter

Rickina Velte was four classes away from earning her bachelor’s degree before mounting student debt and the difficulty of raising a family as a student forced her to drop out. “I now am over $65,000 in debt with payments spiraling towards $400 a month,” she says. “I’ve consolidated at least twice, but I can’t keep track of where the payments are going. I can’t see a light at the end of the tunnel. My job barely pays enough to cover childcare and school expenses for my boys. I’m considering filing for bankruptcy, but I know that my student debt won’t be included. And on top of that, my husband is in the military and a bankruptcy could damage his security clearance. I’m at my wits’ end.”

Rickina’s story is tragic, but it’s just one of many. These days, tales of suffocating student debt are a dime a dozen. The national student debt now officially stands just shy of $1 trillion, and default rates for some loans are as high as 20% in some areas of the country. It’s easy to see that there’s something wrong with the way we pay for college.

But while media outlets continue to churn out reports on an impending student loan crisis, nobody has bothered to stop and wonder how exactly we got here in the first place. There’s been no talk of where or why things went wrong. We’d like to fix that. In this article, we’ll review the history of student lending and explore how unchecked enthusiasm for college, combined with an unregulated industry, has lead to the biggest financial crisis we’ve experienced since the housing collapse of 2008.

Sowing the Seeds of Student Aid

Let’s start at the beginning.The idea of financial aid for college students was introduced by the Indiana General Assembly in 1935. The assembly awarded college fee remissions to students who scored the highest on a variety of competitive tests. The pursuit of discounted college tuition quickly became so popular that the state created the Indiana State Financial Aid Association to oversee the distribution of scholarships at state schools like Indiana University.

The program was well-run, and as a result, many colleges in neighboring states elected to join the ISFAA as well. However, despite the ISFAA’s success, the program would remain relatively small until after World War II, when the race against the Soviet Union for global superiority drove the United States to push for higher education harder than it ever had before.

The U.S. government started looking for a way to get more of its citizens into college when the baby boom took off in the years following World War II. When the USSR successfully launched Sputnik in 1957, the U.S finally took action. In 1958, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act. The act set up a loan specifically designed to help students from lower-income families pay for college. The loan carried a 5% interest rate, and students had 10 years to pay if off after graduation. Believe it or not, this loan still exists today, though it’s now known as the Federal Perkins Loan.

The National Defense Education Act proved to be a rousing success. Over the next two decades, the government introduced numerous bills and programs designed to make the dream of higher education attainable by any citizen from any social class. These include the College Work-Study program (which allowed students to take co-ops to help subsidize the costs of their degrees), the Educational Opportunity Grant Program (which allowed exceptional students from low-income families to attend college for free) and the Middle Assistance Act, which removed the income on limit federal aid programs in order to make loans more available to America’s emerging middle class.

By 1983, the Department of Education had paid out more than $6 billion in student loans. Thanks to the availability of financial aid, America’s colleges and universities were enrolling over 10 million students annually. As a result, the perception of higher education changed.

A college degree was no longer considered an exceptional achievement, but a mandatory benchmark in a young person’s career. This, in turn, created an increased demand for graduate degrees, so Congress passed the Student Loan Consolidation and Technical Amendments Act, which allowed students pursuing a Master’s or PhD to consolidate their new loans with their existing ones into a Guaranteed Student Loan with a 10% interest rate.

At the time, the emphasis on higher education made sense. Between 1984 and 2008, unemployment peaked at 7.5% and was sometimes as low as 4%. People with college degrees were expected to earn 75% to 100% more in their lifetimes than people who only had a high school diploma. So where did things go wrong?

A State of Calamity

When we examine the student loan situation today, it looks like the garden we planted during the Cold War has grown out of control. Tuition has risen by 3,400% since 1972. The average student debt is now sitting at $25,000, up 25% in 10 years. The interest on loans guaranteed by the government-sponsored enterprise Sallie Mae is currently 3.4%, but it is set to double in July 2012. If it does, students will incur an additional $6.3 billion in debt over the 2012-2013 school year. Overall, national student debt is expected to exceed $1 trillion by the end of the year.

And of course there are the horror stories, the suicides and the tales of people like Bob Johnson, who took on student debt not once but twice in order to find work in an ailing market and who are now struggling just to stay off welfare. After graduating in 1987 with a BA in journalism, the NYC native struggled to find work. By the time he got a job that paid about $800 a month, he had already been forced to defer his loans twice. When he was laid off in the mid-’90s, he decided to go back to school for his MFA in theatre management, believing that it would increase his chances for employment. “I went back to school,” he says, “and foolishly took out more loans.”

Bob was laid off again when the recession struck in 2008. He has since struggled to find work. He’s managed to stay off of welfare by picking up odd jobs that run the gamut from photography and video production to apartment painting and social media coaching. In the meantime, his student debt has grown from less than $100,000 to several hundred thousand dollars. “The money coming in is not great,” he says. “I currently have $700 or so in the bank, $400 in a drawer and $5K in a retirement account that will probably eventually be seized by the student loan people. It eats at me every day. I don’t ever see myself getting out of debt. I worry about my future.”

Young professionals aren’t the only ones struggling with student debt, either. For every self-made baby boomer who is sick of hearing kids complain about their debt, there’s another for whom the dream of a lucrative post-college career turned sour. At the moment, people 60 and over owe more than $36 billion in student loans, and people aged 40-49 account for 15% of all student debtors.

“I didn’t understand at the time what I was signing or the consequences,” says Faith, who is still paying off her student loans at 44. “I didn’t understand about compound interest. I’ve tried to negotiate with them. I’ve begged for help from them. All Sallie Mae says is, ‘You’ll have to pay it back no matter what.’ But I can’t. I’ll probably die with this debt, and I’m just about to give up and stop even trying.”

A college degree was once the key to a brighter future. Now it’s more like a financial prison sentence for so many Americans. Where did things go wrong?

A Two-Headed Snake

Many people blame the job market, and on the surface, it makes sense. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the unemployment rate for Americans aged 16-24 is the worst it’s been in the 60 years that the institute has been monitoring the data. This is especially true for minorities. While the unemployment rate for white college graduates sits at 8.4%, it pales in comparison to the 13.8% unemployment rate for Latino college graduates and the 18% rate for black graduates. While the terrible job market certainly exacerbates the student debt crisis, it doesn’t explain why so many students have come to struggle with such significant debt.

When we trace the evolution of the student loan crisis, we see two major forces at work. The first is the ever-growing importance that we place on having a college degree, even though the majority of Americans have their doubts as to what higher education can actually provide for their children. For example, a study by Pew Research found that 57% of Americans think that college is not a good value, and 75% believe that it is too expensive for most people to afford. And yet, in a separate study, Pew discovered that 94% of parents still expect their children to go to college.

In many ways, it seems like a natural expectation. Think about what your grandfather did for a living, then what your father did, and then what career your parents expected of you. As a parent, you want your child to have a better life than the one you were able to provide for them. Unfortunately, this becomes exponentially harder to do with every generation, since the number of available “good” jobs is shrinking and becoming increasingly specialized. The Bureau of Labor Statistics states that “mid-skill” jobs – jobs that require less education than a bachelor’s degree – will account for 45% of the available work in 2014. But the rate of enrollment for trade and tech schools isn’t trending that way.

College students from middle-class families enter the system expecting to earn a certain amount of money for a certain career. When things don’t work out that way, life becomes difficult. Saddled with debt and in search of meaningful work, they’re forced to move back home and take a minimum-wage or part-time job that can barely pay for the grocery bill. And according to a Brookings Institution study, the odds that they’ll ever get a job related to their degree shrink with every month that passes.

Thomas J. Fox, the community outreach director at Cambridge Credit Counseling in Cambridge, MA, has seen this disconnect between expectations and reality all too often in his line of work. “Like many people in my generation, I was raised with the advice that securing a degree is the key to prosperity in America,” he says. “For the better part of a century, that logic has held true. However, things have changed. No longer is a degree itself a guarantee of success […]. Many students I’ve worked with have an unrealistic expectation on earnings. Many think they’ll enter the workforce making $80,000, with no experience. More alarmingly, others believe they’ll make a YouTube video that will go ‘viral’ gaining them fame and fortune, or develop the next Instagram.”

Lending Left Unchecked Goes Haywire

Many students enroll in expensive four-year universities without considering their future earning potential, and that certainly contributes to the student loan crisis. But it’s the unregulated lending industry itself that bears much of the blame for the skyrocketing debt. Mitchell D. Weiss, a professor of finance at the University of Hartford and the author of “Life Happens – A Practical Guide to Personal Finance from College to Career” sees the student debt crisis as an example of predatory lending gone out of control.

“I counsel a fair amount of students who are struggling with very large levels of debt and the stories are disturbingly similar,” he says. “Many of them were the first in their families to go to college. Mom and Dad didn’t have a lot of money, and they weren’t well versed when it came to financial matters. So, they left it up to Junior to figure out how to make that side of things work.”

Since the typical college student doesn’t know how to get a loan, Weiss says, they tend to lean on university-appointed loan officers for help. From there, the lenders are free to sign the student up for any sort of loan they please and pass it off as a “discounted” rate.

“Not only were the loans pretty easy to get,” Weiss says. “They didn’t have to be paid back until after Junior was done with school. In the meantime, though, the college got its money, the lenders – both government and private – are getting their interest and Junior’s living in Mom and Dad’s basement because the magnitude of his loan payments preclude his ability to afford a place of his own. Adding up the pieces, you have an educational failure that’s compounded by an alignment of interests between the schools and the lenders that runs contrary to those of the student borrower.”

The degree to which the lending industry’s interests have “conflicted” with those of America’s students is staggering. Testifying before Congress in a 1991 hearing, Senator William Roth stated that the Department of Education had an “abysmal record” in providing oversight to university lending policies.

Even that, though, is an understatement. Since the Department of Education became the officiating body in charge of overseeing university lending policies, it has given lending agency executives free reign over the system, and they’ve used their power to squeeze America’s college students for every penny they’re worth. According to Citizens for an Educated and Democratic Republic co-founder Peter O’Lalor, “Predatory lending has been found to be widespread throughout the industry in both nonprofit and for-profit student loan companies. One student loan collection company even went so far as to install a 4,000-gallon shark tank in their headquarters.”

Even the nonprofits are getting in on the action. A 2007 investigation into PHEAA, Pennsylvania’s state lending agency, revealed that executives of the nonprofit had used the income they gained from jacking up interest rates to 9.5% to reward themselves with luxuries like a $45,000 Learjet rental, spa treatments, limousine rides and falconry lessons. Yes, falconry lessons. Further inquiry revealed that PHEAA had been using a legal loophole to overbill the government, and therefore the taxpayers, for $15 million.

In that same year, an investigation led by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo revealed that the country’s largest lenders had made illegal arrangements with the loan officers at more than 100 colleges and universities across the country, including Johns Hopkins, Columbia and Syracuse. In exchange for lavish vacations and cash bribes, the officers agreed to put banks like JPMorgan Chase on their school’s list of “preferred lenders.”

And what has the government done to curb this rampant corruption? The late Ted Kennedy probably said it best when he addressed Congress in 2004. “A year ago, Senate Democrats proposed legislation to shut both [lending] loopholes down once and for all. The Senate Republicans did not act on that proposal, did not introduce their own legislation, and did not hold a single hearing. They asked no oversight questions of the Bush Administration. In short, they did nothing.”

Sallie the Jailer

The most disgusting part about the entire student loan crisis is that the agency created to keep student loans in check has done more than anyone else to guarantee that student debt remains a get-rich-quick scheme for industry executives. Founded in 1972, Sallie Mae is the government-sponsored enterprise tasked with backing, managing and collecting student debt. Since it was given that authority, it has systematically stripped student borrowers of every protection they have ever enjoyed.

In 1996, Sallie Mae led the charge to get student loans exempted from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In 1998, it worked with the Consumers Banking Union to lift the statute of limitations on student loans in an amendment to the Higher Education Act. Through these two acts, the heads of Sallie Mae guaranteed that student loans could never be charged off in bankruptcy and that they could never expire. Then, in 2003, Sallie Mae bragged to shareholders that it was able to increase its profit margins by 29% (compared to the previous year’s profits) thanks to the increased amount of debt money it was able to collect under the new legislation.

Under Sallie Mae’s guidance, student aid has become one of the most dangerous loans in the country. These days, when a student takes out a Sallie Mae-backed loan, they’re stepping into a scary financial labyrinth. No matter how old the loan is or how few assets a graduate has, they must still pay their debts – and if they don’t, they’ll be subjected to relentless harassment by debt collection agencies, not to mention lawsuits.

To compound the problem, the average default rate for student loans – 80% of which are backed by Sallie Mae – is 8.8% as of last September. In some states like Missouri, that number can be as high as 20%.

But if you ask any Sallie Mae employee, they’ll tell you things are just peachy. “The economy poses a significant challenge, but the overwhelming majority of our customers are successful in managing their obligations,” Spokesperon Patricia Christel told the Washington Post this March. “Only 3.5 percent of our private education loans default and no one benefits in that situation. That is why we work so diligently to reach customers and counsel them.”

The For-Profit Sham

But if Sallie Mae is bad, then for-profit colleges are worse. These schools – which include the Art Institutes, DeVry University and other online colleges – have been involved in numerous scandals over the past few years. Fueled by the renewed interest in trade careers, many for-profit colleges charge exorbitant fees in exchange for enrollment in career-specific classes. But often, a student can attend such classes through a local tech school for far less.

The for-profit industry has gotten so out of control that one former student loan executive said this to Congress: “In the trade school system, what you sell are dreams. If the student breathes, can write, and is over 18, he is qualified to become a student and to get a loan”.

Due to the low quality of the education that many students receive, the default rate on loans issued by for-profit colleges is disturbingly high. In an investigation into the industry, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) found that nearly half of all federal student loan defaults occur at for-profit colleges, even though these schools only enroll 10% of the higher-education student population. Currently, the default rate for all loans issued by for-profit schools is sitting at 15%, much higher than the national average.

A Bubble, or Something Worse?

Now that student debt is pushing $1 trillion, some experts like Robert Reich have begun to throw around the word “bubble” in their articles, likening student loans to the subprime mortgages that collapsed the housing market and triggered the recession in 2008. In many ways, it’s a fair comparison to make. College students are the ultimate subprime borrowers. They have limited, if any, credit history and very little experience with loans – and in many cases the amount of money they’re being handed by Sallie Mae and other lenders is on par with a mortgage. But could the bursting of a student loan bubble really be as catastrophic as the one that toppled the housing market?

Not quite. While some experts are sold on the idea of a bubble, just as many are convinced otherwise. According to For Student Power spokesman Patrick St. John, the structure of student loans inherently prevents them from exploding the way mortgages did in 2008. “The student loan bubble will not burst in the same way the housing market’s bubble burst,” he says. “Federal student loans are fully insured by the federal government, so if a student refuses or is unable to pay, the private loan provider is fully compensated. Because of this ‘built-in bailout’ there won’t be a crisis point like there was with housing.”

However, just because student loans might not be subject to a burst-bubble effect, that doesn’t make them any less problematic. The de-facto bailout that loan companies enjoy may keep the industry from collapsing, but it also makes overhauling the system that much harder – and for every day that passes without reform, our children’s future grows that much bleaker.

“We’re talking about a generation of young men and women who are losing hope of attaining anything close to what their parents have realized for themselves,” says Weiss. “This isn’t only economic in the form of diminished consumerism and the accumulation of wealth, it’s social. Take away the hope for a better tomorrow and the unrest that’ll ensue will, in my opinion, be no less convulsive than what my generation lived through in the late ’60s.”

Fox agrees. “As more people struggle with debt,” he says, “it will make the appeal of college less alluring. We already suffer from a lack of suitable individuals to fill positions. In the end, unchecked student loan debt will diminish our economic leadership position.”

To Forgive or Not to Forgive

Although awareness over an impending student loan crisis is at an all-time high, the debate continues to rage over the best way to fix it. The popular opinion seems to be that we should reinstate student debt forgiveness. Before Sallie Mae had its way with the legislation, the statue of limitations on student loans expired after seven years. They could also be forgiven through bankruptcy. At the moment, the legislators pushing hardest for loan reform believe that rebuilding these escape routes is the best way to ease the burden on America’s students and taxpayers.

Currently, Majority Whip Richard Durbin – creator of the Durbin amendment – is sponsoring legislation that would reinstate the borrower’s right to charge off private student loans in bankruptcy. Though the borrower would still have to pay their federal loans, the amendment would give distressed graduates a little more wiggle room than they currently enjoy. “The student debt crisis in this country is largely ignored by Congress,” he told Congress in a hearing. “There are a lot of lives that are being changed.”

However, some experts believe that Durbin isn’t taking reform far enough. Senator Hansen Clarke (D-MI) is working in conjunction with Student Loan Justice, a nonprofit organization, to push the Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012. The act would allow people with student debt to be forgiven of it if they agree to pay 10% of their discretionary income for a period of 10 years. Furthermore, anyone who takes out student loans after the bill is passed would be eligible for the same deal, with a cap at $45,520 – the average cost of obtaining a four-year degree. Currently, an online petition supporting the bill has more than half a million signatures.

While the debate continues to rage over how much we should forgive student debt, Weiss says that there are plenty of ways that students can lessen their debt burden. These include testing out of as many courses as possible via CLEP and AP exams in order to reduce enrollment fees. Students can also start out at a community college and then transfer credits to a four-year university after two years. Another strategy is to take winter and summer sessions at schools that are less expensive.

Final Thoughts

The student loan crisis is every American’s problem, regardless of our political leanings. Our unyielding infatuation with the four-year college degree and an unchecked and unscrupulous lending industry have together created an abscess on our economy. Every year, student loans get more expensive. Every year, more and more college graduates are forced to default on their debt in the face of an uncertain job market. And every year, scores of retirees are reminded that no matter what they do, there is no escaping a student loan.

It’s a hard sell, since even loan forgiveness offers no guarantee that the buck won’t simply be passed on to the next generation. But the need for change – some change, any change – in the lending industry is no less dire. Something needs to be done, and both parties can agree on that. Regulations need to be tighter on for-profit colleges. We must place an emphasis on making accredited two-year schools just as attractive as traditional universities. Most of all, students need to be well-educated about college debt before they apply to school, not after they graduate from it. Anything at all to get us off this road to calamity we’re headed down.

Related post:

American Student Loan Debt: $1 Trillion and Counting

A “great haircut” for U.S. growth

FCC Proposes:Fine for Google Wi-Fi snooping ‘obstruction’

By TheStreet Staf

WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission has proposed fining Google(GOOG_) $25,000 for obstructing an investigation into the company’s collection of data from unencrypted Wi-Fi networks in 2010, according to a published media report.

 Although the FCC has decided there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the data collection violated federal rules, the commission said Google deliberately impeded the investigation, The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday.

The probe looked at whether Google broke rules designed to prevent electronic eavesdropping when its Street View service collected and stored the data from the Wi-Fi networks, the newspaper reported.

The FCC proposed the fine late Friday night, the Journal said.

Google may appeal the proposed fine before the commission makes it final, the Journal said. The company has said that it inadvertently collected the data and stopped doing so when it realized what was going on, the newspaper added.

Shares of Google closed Friday down $26.41 at $624.60.

FCC proposes fine for Google Wi-Fi snooping case ‘obstruction’

By Zack Whittaker

Summary: The U.S. FCC has proposed a $25,000 fine after Google “impeded and delayed” an investigation into collecting wireless payload data from unencrypted Wi-Fi networks.

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission is proposing a $25,000 fine against Google for “deliberately impeded and delayed” an ongoing investigation into whether it breached federal laws over its street-mapping service, the Wall Street Journal reports.

The FCC initiated an investigation in 2010 after Google collected and stored payload data from unencrypted wireless networks as part of its Google Maps Street View service. Its intended use, Google says, was to build up a list of Wi-Fi network hotspots to aid geolocation services on mobile devices through ‘assisted-GPS.

The U.S. followed suit after many European countries, including Germany, which has some of the strictest data protection and privacy laws in the world. But the European nation went one step further and told Google to withdraw its Street View cars from the country altogether.

Google also drew fire from the UK’s data protection agency after it was told it committed a “significant breach” of the UK and European data lawswhen it collected wireless data from home networks. It was audited by the regulator and was told it “must do more” to improve its privacy policies. Google said it had taken “reasonable steps” to further protect the data of its users and customers.

But the FCC stopped short of accusing Google of directly violating data interception and wiretapping laws, citing lack of evidence. The federal communications authority did not fine the company under eavesdropping laws, as there is no set precedent for applying the law against ‘fair-game’ unencrypted networks.

The FCC took the action after it believed Google was reluctant to co-operate with the authorities after the scandal emerged. An FCC statement added that a Google engineer thought to have written the code that collected the data invoked his Fifth Amendment rights to prevent self-incrimination.

Google can appeal the fine. Despite the fine being a mere fraction of the company’s U.S. annual turnover, not doing so until its legal avenues are exhausted would almost be an admittance of guilt.

The search giant eventually offered an opt-out mechanism for its location database by adding text to the networks’ router name. But further controversy was drawn after another Silicon Valley company offered an opt-out only solution.

Facebook also drew fire from the regulators after the U.S. Federal Trade Commission allowed the social networking giant to settle, allowing users to opt-in to its sharing privacy settings, rather than opting-out; seen as a major win for U.S. users’ privacy on the site.

Newscribe : get free news in real time

Related articles and posts:

US Monopoly on World Bank Presidency Challenged

U.S. President Barack Obama arrives at the Osan Air Base in Seoul, South Korea, on March 25, 2012. Obama arrived in South Korea to attend the 2012 Seoul Nuclear Security Summit to be held on March 26-27. (Xinhua)

The United States on Friday named its candidate to lead the World Bank (WB), but this time the selection is not a solo any more.

Two candidates endorsed by developing countries unprecedentedly challenged the U.S. monopoly on the top post of the WB, the leading global financial institution for fighting poverty and supporting development.

SURPRISE PICK

As the deadline loomed, U.S. President Barack Obama announced the nomination of Jim Yong Kim, a Korean-American global health expert, as candidate to replace outgoing Robert Zoellick, whose term as WB president expires at the end of June.

“It’s time for a development professional to lead the world’s largest development agency,” Obama said as he made the announcement.

“Jim has truly global experience,” said Obama, “He has worked from Asia to Africa to the Americas, from capitals to small villages. His personal story exemplifies the great diversity to our country.”

The selection is commonly considered as a surprise pick because Kim, the current Dartmouth College president, has hardly been talked about for the nominee in the past week.

The U.S. traditional choices of the WB head have been either politicians or business leaders since the bank was founded after World War II.

Obama chose Kim out of several more well-known candidates, such as Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and Lawrence Summers, former director of the president’s National Economic Council.

Arvind Subramanian, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International economics, called it a “quite unusual choice.”

Yukon Huang, a senior associate in the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Xinhua the message the White House conveyed was that the nominee is a man of the world – born in Korea, raised and educated in the United States with professional interests that are highly relevant for developing countries.

U.S. economist Jeffrey Sachs, who openly campaigned for the job and finally withdrew, said in an article posted on the Washington Post website that “without incisive leadership, the bank has often seemed like just a bank.”

“And unfortunately, Washington has backed at the helm bankers and politicians who lack the expertise to fulfill the institution’s unique mandate,” Sachs added.

UNPRECEDENTED COMPETITION

Following the close of the nomination process, the WB announced two more candidates for the position: Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala of Nigeria and Jose Antonio Ocampo of Colombia.

For the first time, two non-American candidates will compete with a U.S. nominee. What’s more, both of them have impressive credentials as economists and diplomats.

Okonjo-Iweala, the current Nigerian finance minister, was nominated by three African countries – South Africa, Angola and her native land. She has profound working experience in the multinational World Bank and her capability has been widely recognized.

Ocampo, endorsed by Brazil, has strong academic background and held posts in the Colombian government as well as the United Nations.

Although Yukon Huang said Kim’s selection was not driven by domestic political considerations but by his professional qualifications, Subramanian doubted whether Kim is a better choice in terms of international experience and management.

Domenico Lombardi, a former WB board official said the impressive background of both Ocampo and Okonjo-Iweala signals a big shift and really reflects a game change. He said this is the first time in history for a truly contested election.

However, analysts believe that the United States is very much likely to laugh last as it is the WB’s largest donor and has the largest voting share.

Uri Dadush and Moises Naim, senior associates at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, criticized the way that top leaders of the WB and International Monetary Fund (IMF) have been selected.

They said the leaders of both the WB and IMF are selected through “opaque, quota-driven negotiations,” which have been defied by the meritocracy.

“No well-run global company selects its senior management this way,” they added.

Rogerio Studart, the Brazilian member of the WB’s 25-member executive board, said there was a strong sense among developing countries that the selection of Zoellick’s successor should involve a broader discussion about the bank’s future.

By (Editor:厉振羽) 

Newscribe : get free news in real time

Related Reading

  1. Profile: World Bank president candidates
  2. World Bank announces candidates for presidency
  3. World Bank to give Pakistan 1 bln USD for electricity, irrigation improvement
  4. East Asia Pacific makes progress on gender equality, challenges remain: World Bank
  5. WB sees improving gender gaps in Pacific islands as answer to poverty
  6. Lee, Obama welcome implementation of S. Korea-US FTA
  7. Chinese consulate-general honors former U.S. Congressman Bill Archer
  8. World Bank chief selection doesn’t deserve much attention: Zhou Xiaochuan
  9. World Bank president should be selected on merit, not nationality
  10. US has no right to make decision for Arabian people 
  11. Obama arrives in Seoul to attend Nuclear Security Summit (2)
  12. Obama arrives in Seoul to attend Nuclear Security Summit
  13. DPRK to hold parliamentary session as satellite launch enters “full-fledged” stage
  14. Anti-gov’t protests erupt in Syria amid clashes with rebels
  15. Obama says Trayvon Martin killing “tragedy”
  16. U.S. soldier killing Afghan civilians faces criminal charges 

American Student Loan Debt: $1 Trillion and Counting

Day 3 of the protest Occupy Wall Street in Man...Day 3 of the protest Occupy Wall Street in Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Whatever happened to the American dream of going to college, landing a great job and living happily ever after? College is supposed to be about getting off to a great start, but it’s a financial noose that threatens to kill our young and everybody else too. The U.S. has the dubious distinction of now having more than $1 trillion in outstanding student loan debt.

The crisis has the full attention of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which in a recent blog , presented its sobering findings. “Unlike other consumer credit products, student debt keeps growing at a steady clip. Students borrowed $117 billion in just federal student loans last year. And students continue to borrow private student loans, which lack the income-based repayment and deferment options of federal student loans. If current trends continue, there will be consequences not just for young people, but for all of us,” wrote CFPB’s student loan ombudsman Rohit Chophra.

Worse still, he writes, according to data from the Department of Education, federal student loan debt isn’t growing just with new originations — with so many borrowers unable to keep up with interest payments, debt is growing even for many who have left school. Too much debt means too much risk for a generation of young people, many of whom are struggling in today’s economy.

What’s the impact? Excessive student debt slows a recovery still trying to find its sea legs. Study after study has shown that young people are delaying the traditional rite of passage of launching out on their own and starting families. With so much debt, on average about $26,000 for undergrads, and many unemployed or underemployed, they are running back home, instead of looking for their first apartment or home.

A decidedly grim picture could get worse. In July, if Congress doesn’t get its act together and takes some of the momentum of a crisis with explosive potential, a 2007 law that kept federally subsidized Stafford loan interest rates low will expire this summer, meaning the rates will double from 3.4 to 6.8 percent. This is more bad news on top of the real possibility that proposals to financial aid may become reality – the Pell Grants could move from mandatory to discretionary spending, meaning who knows what will happen, but likely none too good. There is also a bill to repeal the expanded Income-Based Repayment program, that lessens the sting of college students by letting them pay back what they own in proportion to their salaries.

The CFPB is working with the Department of Education, and launched a Know Before You Owe project , to solicit input on a “financial aid shopping sheet”. The sheet is designed to help students understand the debt implications of their college choice. CFPB is supervising private student loan providers to ensure they comply with Federal consumer financial protection laws and CFPB is providing tools for borrowers to help them navigate their student loan repayment options. A newly established student loan complaint system will help ensure that private student lenders and servicers are responsive to potential mistakes and problems that borrowers encounter. This summer, the CFPB will release the full results of its private student loan market.

Where is the outrage over the continue increase in tuition at a time when some colleges are raising salaries for their presidents?

Just this week a plan was approved to give pay raises to two university presidents in California. This comes at a time when the California State University system is grappling with a $750 million budget shortfall and is considering limiting enrollment for the spring semester.

There’s something so wrong with this picture. Students will pay the price, families will pay the price, society will feel the ramifications for some time to come.

By Sheryl Nance-Nash, Forbes Contributor  Newscribe : get free news in real time

Billionaires Channel Millions to Think Tanks

Laurie BennettLaurie Bennett, Forbes Contributor

Examining the social, political & business networks of the rich.

Just as big money is transforming politics, it’s also helping to reshape American think tanks.

Members of the Forbes 400 have poured millions of dollars into research organizations that fit their social, political and/or business concerns.

The conservative Heritage Foundation has received funding from libertarian Charles G. Koch, CEO of Koch Industries, as well as from Richard Mellon Scaife, owner of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and heir to the Mellon banking fortune.

DAVOS/SWITZERLAND, 27JAN10 - George Soros, Cha...Image via Wikipedia

At the left end of the spectrum, financier George Soros has supported the Center for American Progress and the Center for Economic and Policy Research. (It should be noted, however, that his foundations have also donated to centrist groups and the conservative Cato Institute.)

In the middle, Bill Gates and Henry Kravis support the Council on Foreign Relations. Kirk Kerkorian, Haim Saban and Kirk Kerkorian have donated to the Brookings Institution.

The number of think tanks has grown from a few dozen in the mid-1940s to more than 1,800 today, providing wealthy donors with an ever-larger array of institutions to choose from.

And yet some still start their own organizations. Billionaire investor Nicolas Berggruen founded the Nicolas Berggruen Institute, which explores ideas for good governance. One of the institute’s projects, the Think Long Committee, has called for tax reform to help fix California’s economy.

While the Think Long Committee has brought together Democrats and Republicans, some of the newer think tanks are unabashedly partisan.

As real-time sources of analysis and forecasting, these groups play an expanding role in public debate. Fellows blog responses to the State of the Union. Wonks appear regularly on cable TV to opine on health care, defense spending and other national issues.

Think tankers also contribute to mainstream media such as Forbes. Manhattan Institute fellow Josh Barro, for example, recently responded on this site to a Heritage blog post about taxes paid by the top 1 percent.

The commentary can easily become fodder for those trying to shape policy. Some think tanks, including the Heritage Foundation and the Center for American Progress, have even formed separate action funds that advocate for specific policies and legislation.

In a recent article in National Affairs, Tevi Troy, former deputy secretary of Health and Human Services and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, warned against the trend toward partisanship.

“I’m a full-throated fan of think tanks,” Troy said in a subsequent interview. But the price of politicization, he said, “is that some good public policy research is not going to be taken seriously.”

In most cases, research organizations operate as 501(c)(3) nonprofits. Donations are tax deductible.

Billionaires, of course, aren’t the only funders. Think tanks draw support from individuals, corporations and other foundations. Some are affiliated with universities.

But deep pockets enable America’s wealthiest individuals to have a growing impact in this world.

Calculating their reach is difficult, because think tanks do not have to publicly disclose donors. We approached the issue from the opposite direction, examining U.S. tax returns of foundations established by billionaires.

We found foundation grants to a total of 46 national think tanks. The table below lists these funding connections.

Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Too Young to Fail

17-year-old Laura Deming doesn’t drive and can’t vote. Is now her chance to change the world?

Thinking ahead: Academic prodigy Laura Deming left school and moved to Silicon Valley after winning a $100,000 grant to start a business.
Jessica Leber

Laura Deming was studying for finals in a crowded MIT reading room last April when her phone rang. That’s when she learned she may never again take another exam.

Deming, only 17, had just been chosen by Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel for a high-profile experiment: Put $100,000 apiece in the hands of 24 entrepreneurial teenagers and give them free rein to pursue innovative ideas.

The condition? Deming had to leave her studies and classmates, and vow to stay out of college during the two-year fellowship.

Thiel, who is PayPal’s co-founder and holder of two Stanford University degrees, says higher education today is in a “crazy bubble” that, like a bad mortgage, saddles students with tuition debt often for little in return. A vocal libertarian, Thiel, 44, takes the view that a college degree can be harmful to innovators because of the conservative, career-driven mindset it imparts.

“Youth have just as much intelligence and talent as older people,” says James O’Neill, head of the Thiel Foundation and managing director at Thiel’s investment fund, Clarium Capital. “They also haven’t been beaten down into submission by operating within an institution for a long time.”

Thiel has attracted critics for his anti-higher-education message. After all, not every young person is like Deming, a home-schooled prodigy who learned calculus at 11 and sought experience in a cutting-edge genetics lab at 12. That’s where she first had a chance to explore the science of extending the human lifespan, an idea she’s now hoping to turn into a business.

For Deming and her cohort, chosen from more than 400 applicants, the publicity around Thiel’s endorsement has been followed by some quick successes. Eden Full, 19, won a $260,000 social entrepreneurship award for her efforts to improve solar energy in developing countries. Dale Stephens, 20, landed a Penguin deal for his book Hacking Your Education.

Still, the foundation embraces the startup ethic that failure is inevitable, even desirable. So does John Deming, Laura’s father, an investor who moved the family to Boston when his daughter enrolled at MIT at age 14: “What I say to Laura is ‘The biggest problem you have so far, kid, is you haven’t failed yet.’”

After packing up her things at Sigma Kappa sorority, Deming moved across the country to a tiny room in a shared house in Palo Alto. Most days, she gets up before sunrise and heads out on foot to catch a commuter train to San Francisco, where she is talking to investors about a venture capital firm she wants to create to back research on new therapies for age-related diseases.

Because of SEC rules, Deming says she can’t go into details about the firm. But she jokes that one question now is whether to wait until her 18th birthday so that she can legally sign up investors or ask her father to do it. “The cool thing about Silicon Valley is that, though people might be skeptical of youth, they don’t actually know that you’re not smart enough or capable enough to make it work,” she says.

With startup success stories tempting undergraduates to quit, universities have raced to add entrepreneurship to their curricula. Stanford has StartX, an accelerator for student-run startups. Similarly, last year UC Berkeley created FounderSchool, which prepares students to raise venture money. James G. Boyle, managing director of the Entrepreneurial Institute at Yale University (which lost four undergraduate students to Thiel fellowships) agrees that more colleges should help kids start companies, but he says that most students benefit from an environment where they can test ideas without betting their future.

Deming doesn’t know yet whether she’ll ever go back to finish her college degree. “The funny part is I think I’ll miss studying for exams,” says Deming. “It’s the sort of thing that was very fun—like a sudoku puzzle or a crossword puzzle can be fun. But I thought that I could learn a lot more about the biotech industry and business by diving right into it.”

Newscribe : get free news in real time

Why Americans Should Wait To Buy A House?

by Michael Sanibel

The U.S. government is doing its best to convince the American public that there’s an economic recovery underway, but is that really true? The economy is being artificially propped up by $1,500 billion in annual debt, and the Federal Reserve has printed trillions of dollars to keep banks afloat. It was too much debt that got the country into trouble to begin with, yet the government is essentially saying that even more debt is needed to fix the problem. This is one of the fundamental pillars of the theory developed by economist John Maynard Keynes in the early 1900s.

Not everyone agrees with Keynesian economic theory. Free market capitalists believe that markets should be unfettered by government intervention and allowed to reach equilibrium on their own. Their argument is that supply and demand should set asset values and prices without interference by artificial stimuli and freshly printed cash. (To learn more, read How To Buy Your First Home: A Step-By-Step Tutorial)

When analyzing whether or not to buy a house in this economic environment, the best approach is to focus on reality, not the talking points offered by politicians. Here are some factors to consider before taking the plunge with a new mortgage.

The Bubble
The housing bubble was caused by a lethal combination of easy credit, low interest rates and rampant speculation. This “perfect storm” reached its pinnacle of power in four states: California, Nevada, Florida and Arizona. The landscape of these states is littered with unfinished housing developments and empty condominiums. Even though prices have dropped 50% or more in some areas of these states, they are all plagued by debt-to-income ratios (DTI) that are still higher than the historical norm of three to one. This will continue to put downward pressure on prices.

Nationwide, the inventory of unsold homes was 3.33 million at the end of October 2011, an eight-month supply at the current sales rate. While this is a positive downtrend from the inventory peak of 4.58 million units in July 2008, the inventory overhang is still having a negative effect on prices. The median existing home pricewas $162,500 in October for all housing types nationwide, a drop of almost 5% from a year ago.

Prices are also being impacted by the high rate of contract failures, which is almost double that of September, and four times what it was one year ago. These failures represent canceled sales contracts resulting from unqualified mortgage applications, appraisal values below the sales price, unsatisfactory home inspections and unfulfilled contract contingencies. One-third of all sales contracts in October did not make it to closing, causing those homes to re-enter the market and increase the unsold inventory.

100-Year Trend
Yale economist Robert Shiller, known for the Case-Shiller price index, has calculated that U.S. home prices rose an average of 3.35% per year during the period 1900-2000. This timespan includes extended periods of both falling and rising prices, from the Great Depression up to the bull markets of the late 1980s and late 1990s. (For related reading, see Understanding The Case-Shiller Housing Index.)

In January 1998, just before the bubble started to inflate exponentially, the price index stood at 82.7. If prices had followed the 100-year trendline over the next 12 years, the index would have reached 126.7 in October 2010. Instead the index hit 159, a full 25% above the long-term trend. So, even though prices have already dropped more than 30% nationwide in the past five years, data suggests that the bubble has not been deflated and more price drops could be on the way.

Important Factors
There are many forces at work contributing to instability in home prices:

  • Continued high unemployment, with weekly unemployment claims consistently hovering around 400,000
  • The possibility of higher interest rates to combat inflation fueled by the increased money supply
  • Strategic defaults, foreclosures and short sales all force prices lower
  • High levels of underwater mortgages
  • A “shadow” inventory of unsold homes held by banks will put pressure on prices when these homes are marketed
  • Stricter mortgage qualification requirements, including bigger down payments, higher credit scores and verifiable income
  • Lower conforming loan limits as of Oct. 1, 2011
  • Continued high levels of government and personal debt
  • The threat of more U.S. credit rating downgrades
  • The potential for a European financial collapse rippling through the U.S. economy and financial institutions
  • Changing demographics, slowing population growth and smaller families are causing reductions in overall demand
  • Many baby boomers are downsizing their lives, including the size of their homes
  • Possible future actions by the government between now and the 2012 elections: tax policy changes, stimulus spending, mortgage modification programs, etc.

The Bottom line
The evidence suggests that without government intervention, home prices would be much lower than they are now. Record low interest rates, the homebuyer tax credit, mortgage assistance programs and bailouts for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have all softened the freefall in prices. These actions have not changed the fundamentals of a weak economy that relies heavily on consumption for GDP growth and too little on industrial production.

Price stability is not likely to be reached until the excess is wrung out of the bubble that expanded by a breathtaking 19.2% per year between 1998 and 2006. Government policies have slowed the correction, but not stopped it. This has kept wary buyers out of the market because they don’t believe the market has hit a true bottom. This has delayed a sustainable housing recovery and prompted potential buyers to wait for lower prices next year. (To learn more, check out The Truth About Real Estate Prices.)

Newscribe : get free news in real time

Think Twice About Paying Off Your Mortgage, Retirees!

Retirees: Think Twice About Paying Off Your Mortgage

NEW YORK (CNBC) — The countdown to retirement is on for millions of baby boomers and, thanks to a lifetime of diligent saving, some have amassed enough wealth to pay off their mortgages and live debt free.

Conventional wisdom says it’s best to pay off your mortgage before retirement, but given the low-interest rate environment, and the need to preserve cash in an unstable economy, that strategy is no longer absolute.

“Paying off your house is one goal, but having a zero-mortgage liability is not the answer for everyone,” says Jennie Fierstein, a certified financial planner (CFP) in Westborough, Mass. “If you don’t have a stream of resources to replenish it, you might do yourself a disservice by taking money out of the bank to pay off your mortgage.”

Retirees themselves, it seems, are equally torn as to the most prudent course of action.

According to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, 41% of U.S. households aged 60 to 69 in 2007 maintained a mortgage. Of these, 51% had sufficient assets to repay their loans.

When it pays to borrow
While most financial planners agree that owning your home free and clear during retirement is a worthy goal, Elaine Bedel, with Bedel Financial Consulting in Indianapolis, says there are times when it makes more financial sense to keep your money in the market and use the earnings to pay off your loan.

That’s particularly true, she says, if you need to invest (however conservatively) for growth.

“There are a few of my clients who feel like if they don’t take the risk to get the growth, they’re not going to be able to meet their retirement objectives and live the lifestyle they want,” says Bedel. “If you take a big chunk out of your nest egg and the income it was generating was being used to meet your mortgage payments, as well as additional living expenses, that may not be the right thing to do.”

CFP Fierstein agrees, noting most retirees are advised to withdraw no more than 4% from their nest egg each year to ensure they won’t outlive their income.

Thus, if you take $200,000 out of a $500,000 portfolio to pay off your house, your income based on that 4% drawdown rate would drop to $12,000 from $20,000 per year. (The $20,000, of course, would have had to help pay for your mortgage.)

“It’s very dangerous to tie up all your money in your house, because your house is not going to generate income,” says Fierstein. “It’s nice security, but you lose flexibility and depending on how conservatively you invest your remaining portfolio you may not have enough income to live on.”

What’s your rate?

When determining whether to pay off or keep your mortgage, you should also consider your interest rate.

If the average after-tax return on your investments is greater than the after-tax cost of your mortgage, it may make sense to keep your money invested, says Fierstein.

Don’t forget to factor in the effect of the mortgage-interest tax deduction.

If you’re in the 30% tax bracket and you’re able to claim the full deduction, a 5% loan is really only costing you roughly 3.5%.

Thus, you’d only have to earn 4% on your investments to make it worth your while. (Given the low interest-rate environment, however it’s nearly impossible to achieve that rate of return on more conservative, fixed-income products such as bonds and certificates of deposit.)

“It’s hard to find comparable risk-free investments, so you have to be able to stomach a loss if you want to go that route,” says Jean Setzfand, AARP’s vice president of financial security. “You can’t get a plain vanilla CD anymore, because those rates are too low.”

Getting close

If you’re nearing retirement but haven’t yet quit, the case for keeping your mortgage and continuing to invest is more clear — at least until you part ways with the boss.

According to a 2007 study by the Federal Reserve, directing extra money towards your low-interest mortgage loan at the expense of continued contribution to your 401(k) is a costly mistake.

Organization of the Federal Reserve SystemImage via WikipediSome 38% of the U.S. households that are accelerating their mortgage payments instead of saving in a tax-deferred account, such as a 401(k) or traditional IRA, are making the “wrong choice,” it concluded.

For those households, reallocating their savings towards a tax-deferred account instead would yield a mean benefit of 11 cents to 17 cents per dollar, depending on the choice of investment assets in the account. In all, the study notes, “those misallocated savings are costing U.S. households as much as $1.5 billion per year.”

When to pay it off

Despite the limited scenarios in which keeping a mortgage during retirement might make sense, AARP’s Setzfand and financial planners Bedel and Fierstein agree that most retirees would be better off eliminating debt (however low the interest rate) for the peace of mind it affords.

Money, after all, isn’t just about the math.

“I think for the general population our guidance is still the old adage of paying off your mortgage before you retire,” says Setzfand of AARP. “There isn’t anything as safe as being rid of that mortgage and that burden before you hit a period of your life where you’re not bringing in a paycheck.”

Indeed, mortgages consume 20% to 30% of the typical household’s fixed expenses.

While some maintain that using savings to pay off one’s mortgage is unwise, as it leaves you less cash on hand for unexpected expenses, such as medical costs and home repairs, Anthony Webb, the research economist who authored the Center for Retirement Research study, believes that argument lacks validity.

Households “need to consider what they would do if the bad event actually happened,” he writes. To wit, how they “would maintain their mortgage payments once their financial assets had been spent.”

Remember, too, says Bedel, you can always take out a home equity line of credit on your paid off home, which can satisfy the need for cash reserves.

If you can’t pay off your mortgage in full without depleting your nest egg, says Fierstein, at least shoot for a more manageable monthly payment.

“I strongly advocate trying to pay down your mortgage, so when you reach retirement you’re not faced with a standard of living crisis,” she says. “There is some wisdom to paying off a portion of your mortgage so you have minimal payments and some left over in an emergency fund.”

A generation ago, retirement planners often started with the premise of a paid off home, using Social Security, company pensions, and other income sources to help their clients cover living expenses.

Today, however, with interest rates at historic lows and many retirees chasing returns to offset losses incurred during the market meltdown, a mortgage-free retirement is not necessarily the long-term goal.

Deciding what makes sense for you depends on your financial profile, interest rate, and your ability to stomach risk.

Written by Shelly K. Schwartz, special to CNBC

Newscribe : get free news in real time

Facing still more of the same – 10 years after 9/11

Facing still more of the same

Behind The Headlines By Bunn Nagara

Ten years after 9/11, little has actually changed, least of all political attitudes.

In a world gone madImage by Walt Jabsco via Flickr

UNTIL Sept 10, 2001, the world seemed a simpler place.

Terrorism was a scourge that needed to be kept in check, if not eliminated while Afghanistan was a tribal wasteland in the boondocks and the legendary graveyard of foreign empires.

Iraq was an oil-rich autocracy and established US ally against Iran but with a tendency to slip into unilateral nationalist fervour, and the United States was a neo-conservative right-wing Republican bastion huffing and puffing for something to blow at.

The next day, two planes slammed into the two towers of New York’s World Trade Center. Neither bad coincidence nor pilot error was ever an issue.

Other aircraft had been hijacked the same day, but the twin crashes at the twin towers were more dramatic and dominated headlines, sound bites, political posturing and public imagination.

As the heart of lower Manhattan seemed to dissolve in a rising mound of smoke and dust, more than just debris was in the air. It was a time of change for the US and certain parts of the world.

Suddenly, the United States had the national tendency to slip into unilateralist fervour, Afghanistan and Iraq became targets that needed to be kept in check if not eliminated, and terrorism, oil-rich autocracies and Muslim states came to be profiled as one from many a Washington desk.

The neo-conservative right-wing bastion in the White House had found a couple of things to huff and puff at. Such was its enthusiasm that it forgot how Afghanistan remained very much a graveyard of foreign empires.

The result now, a full decade later, is described in Washington circles and elsewhere as the worst US policy overreaction of the century.

Within weeks, the George W. Bush administration blamed the attacks on Osama bin Laden and his followers, collectively called “al-Qaeda” as the Arabic translation of “the base,” the name the CIA originally gave Osama’s group and training camp. Nobody had claimed responsibility for the New York attacks, and al-Qaeda soon after denied any involvement.

The Taliban government in Afghanistan was then accused of sheltering al-Qaeda, so that made it fair game for elimination. In late 2001, Afghanistan’s Taliban leaders were ousted and replaced by the Pashtun activist and CIA point man Hamid Karzai.

The Zionist neo-cons in Washington were on a roll, “regime change” was the name of the game, and they were about to aim that exuberance and momentum at another target. But for the purpose to hit home, some points still needed to be made at home.

So Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was to be the new Hitler, he trashed his country’s wealth on costly palaces, he killed many people (decades ago), and he endangered the world or at least Israel with many nasty ABC (atomic, biological, chemical) weapons.

The problem was getting enough voters in the US and the general public in ally countries to go along with the idea. Bush and his British counterpart Tony Blair then decided the latter reason was the most persuasive: that Saddam had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction” (WMDs).

This was despite UN weapons inspectors having found no Iraqi WMDs, a recent major feature in Newsweek magazine coming round to the same conclusion, and the story about secret sourcing of radioactive material for a bomb discovered as fake. What mattered more instrumentally, however, was whether the UN Security Council could be massaged into endorsing a US invasion of Iraq.

It could, China’s abstention notwithstanding. As plans for an invasion of Iraq were being drafted, the US public also needed convincing.

So there was the ruse that Saddam was linked to al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda was responsible for all the nasty things. Meanwhile Osama, having found that such issues could really rile the world’s sole superpower, “admitted” that he was responsible for the policy panic in Washington.

Thus Saddam was eliminated and replaced by a US ally, although the vast quantities of high-grade Iraqi oil seemed more elusive. But the violence and instability in Iraq also meant China could not access the oil either.

Still, the casualty rates in terms of human lives, economic cost and national destruction and degradation continue to mount. Ten years on and with the follies rather more exposed, senior US and British officials have queued to disown any responsibility for the continuing debacle.

Errors of judgment

Early this month, former head of British intelligence service MI5, Lady Eliza Manningham-Buller, gave a BBC lecture to enumerate the multiple errors of judgment across the Atlantic at the time. Critics replied that she should have said so then, since it is now too late.

Former British foreign minister Jack Straw pleaded innocence through ignorance, saying that the Blair government at the time had been misinformed by allies, including the US. As justice minister later, Straw refused to apologise personally to an Algerian pilot whose career was ruined after Straw wrongly accused him of training a Sept 11 hijacker.

Former US vice-president Dick Cheney also released a biography focusing on that period, typically accusing others who disagreed with him at the time. Former US secretary of state and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Gen Colin Powell swiftly blasted him for the effort.

Powell was followed by former US secretary of state and national security adviser Dr Condoleezza Rice, who also found Cheney small-minded and mistaken. Rice should be replying more fully in her own biography later this year, so her critics should in turn be prepared.

However, the whole point of being honest, truthful and accurate should be to acknowledge past mistakes and avoid new ones. With the military occupation of Afghanistan now set to extend beyond the promised deadline, and new occupations likely in Libya if not also Syria, avoiding mistakes is not going to be easy or even possible.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 95 other followers