U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

80–199 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 112–754 

PRIVATE STUDENT LOANS: PROVIDING 

FLEXIBILITY AND OPPORTUNITY TO BORROWERS? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND CONSUMER 

PROTECTION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

EXPLORING THE PRIVATE STUDENT LOAN MARKET AND THE 

CHALLENGES FACED BY BORROWERS OF PRIVATE STUDENT LOANS 

JULY 24, 2012 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

( 

Available at: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota, Chairman 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

MARK R. WARNER, Virginia 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

KAY HAGAN, North Carolina 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

DWIGHT FETTIG, Staff Director 

WILLIAM D. DUHNKE, Republican Staff Director 

DAWN RATLIFF, Chief Clerk 

RIKER VERMILYE, Hearing Clerk 

SHELVIN SIMMONS, IT Director 

JIM CROWELL, Editor 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio, Chairman 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee, Ranking Republican Member 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KAY HAGAN, North Carolina 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

GRAHAM STEELE, Subcommittee Staff Director 

MICHAEL BRIGHT, Republican Subcommittee Staff Director 

MARJORIE GLICK, Legislative Assistant 

DARLENE ROSENKOETTER, Republican Financial Services Counsel 

(II)
C O N T E N T S 

TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2012 

Page 

Opening statement of Chairman Brown ................................................................ 1 

Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of: 

Senator Corker .................................................................................................. 3 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 4 

WITNESSES 

Rohit Chopra, Student Loan Ombudsman, Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau ................................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Response to written questions of: 

Senator Reed .............................................................................................. 79 

Deanne Loonin, Attorney and Director of Student Loan Borrower Assistance 

Project, National Consumer Law Center ........................................................... 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Response to written questions of: 

Senator Reed .............................................................................................. 80 

Jennifer Mishory, Deputy Director, Young Invincibles ........................................ 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62 

Jack Remondi, President and Chief Operating Officer, Sallie Mae .................... 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 74 

Response to written questions of: 

Senator Reed .............................................................................................. 81 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUPPLIED FOR THE RECORD

Prepared statement submitted by the Education Finance Council (EFC) .......... 86 

Prepared statement submitted by the Consumer Bankers Association (CBA) .. 89 

(III)

(1) 

PRIVATE STUDENT LOANS: PROVIDING FLEXIBILITY AND OPPORTUNITY TO BORROWERS? 

TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met at 2:30 p.m., Room SD–538, Dirksen Senate 

Office Building, Hon. Sherrod Brown, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHERROD BROWN 

Senator BROWN. The Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and 

Consumer Protection will come to order. 

Thanks, always, to Senator Corker for the good work that he 

does with the Subcommittee. And Senator Reed and Senator 

Akaka, thank you for joining us. 

My staff particularly appreciates the working relationship with 

Senator Corker in making these Subcommittee hearings work 

much better as a result. 

On June 29 of this year, Congress passed the Transportation and 

Student Loan Package, essential legislation that not only ensured 

funding for our Nation’s infrastructure and its highway system but 

also include extension of the current student loan interest rate of 

3.4 percent for subsidized Stafford loans, an issue that Senator 

Reed especially had worked hard on. 

The passage of this legislation was important for seven million 

undergraduate students nationwide some, we figure, 382,000 of 

them living in Ohio. 

Without this extension, the average student would have faced an 

additional thousand dollars in student loan debt per subsidized 

Stafford loan. 

As others did, I spent a lot of time in community colleges and 

4-year private and public institutions in my State, particularly in 

Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Toledo, and Dayton, talking 

about hearing the stories from a number of students sharing with 

me their fears are graduating in a challenging economy with high 

levels, even without this legislation obviously, with high levels of 

student loan debt. Others shared the experience of family members 

and friends who are still paying off their loans years after graduation from college. 
2 

This is not surprising. Earlier this year, student loan debt, as we 

have heard repeatedly, student loan debt outpaced credit card debt 

soaring to more than $1 trillion. It is a problem that affects people 

of all generations, obviously not just the student but the family 

sometimes, even the grandparents. 

According to a report released by the Federal Reserve Bank of 

New York, the average student loan debt burden for borrowers 

under age 30 has risen 56 percent since 2005. Meanwhile borrowers in their 40s are the most likely to default. 

Parents and grandparents who may have cosigned for a son or 

a granddaughter must share the burden of younger generations. It 

is clear more must be done to ensure future generations are not 

saddled with high levels of student loan debt while helping borrowers of all ages pay off their student loans. 

That is why today’s hearing which will focus on the challenges 

facing borrowers in the private student loan market is so important. That is a small portion relatively of the overall student loan 

market. 

American consumers owe more than $150 million in outstanding 

private student loan debt, and their numbers have increased. Fourteen percent of undergraduates in 2000 to 2007 have taken out a 

private loan up from 5 percent in 2003 and 2004 and continuing 

to increase. This is troubling. 

Private student loans are the riskiest way to pay for college. 

Often these loans come with a variable interest rates ranging from 

5 percent, sometimes to 18 percent, often with no limits on origination and other fees. 

Additionally, unlike Federal student loans, private student loans 

are less likely to come with affordable payment plans or loans forgiveness or with deferment options or cancellation rights. 

Given the risks and the challenges as well as the opportunities 

posed by private student loans, I am proud to have fought for the 

inclusion of the private student loan ombudsman as part of the 

Dodd-Frank legislation. 

For the first time in history, private student loan borrowers have 

a central place to go file complaints and have an average on it inside the government for them. 

I am still concerned that too many borrowers are not receiving 

the assistance they need from lenders. Last week the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was also, as we know, enacted as 

part of Dodd-Frank published a report on the private student loan 

market and the consumers who use these loans. 

What was evident from this report is that many borrowers took 

out private student loans without fully understanding the terms. 

Now, many of these borrowers are saddled with thousands of dollars of debt with limited options. Hopefully, this hearing will allow 

us to further understand the challenges faced by these and other 

students. 

In the short term, we can explore ways to provide borrowers with 

short-term options to get out from under the burden of high-cost 

private student loans. 

In the longer term, I hope that we can provide students and their 

families with more transparency about private loan options and 
3 

costs as well as predictability when they are trying to work with 

their servicers. 

I will conclude with the story of Teresa from Mentor, Ohio, east 

of Cleveland, and her struggles with private student loans. She 

graduated from college in 2009. She soon after apply to join the 

Peace Corps. She almost had to turn down this once-in-a-lifetime 

opportunity because of the unwillingness of our lender to defer her 

loans while enrolled in the Peace Corps. 

She came to one of my constituent coffees to ask for help. 

Through the work of my staff, her lender finally agreed to defer her 

loans. Teresa was able to go abroad last year. While domestic 

issues of broad brought Teresa home sooner than expected, her private student loan challenges remain. 

While she has continued to pursue a career in public service that 

began with the Peace Corps, she struggles to make her monthly 

student loan payments that topped $400. In just 2 years, her balance of one of the loans has jumped from 22,000 to just under 

30,000. Without intervention, these loans will continue to grow. We 

need to think about people like Teresa as we make these decisions. 

Moving forward, I am hopeful today’s hearings will help move us 

closer to a solution of these important issues. 

Senator Corker. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BOB CORKER 

Senator CORKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 

the witnesses who are here. I am glad we are here today to talk 

about the private student loan market. But to me it is more important that we look at the entire picture. 

We have been reading in the news lately that student borrowers 

have nearly $1 trillion in outstanding student loan debt. But, we 

need to remember, as the Chairman just mentioned, only 7 percent 

of those loans are private student loans, and the other 93 percent 

are loans that are backed by the taxpayer. 

I think all of us know the real problem we need to consider are 

the rising cost of college tuition and the amount of Federal student 

loans students are borrowing. 

I might add that on the one hand the Federal Government seems 

to want to help solve this problem, on the other hand continues to 

mandate to States things like Medicaid. In our own State, for every 

percentage that we spend more on Medicaid we spend less on higher education. That is the real driver of why students are borrowing 

so much money in our own State. 

The Federal Government recently took over the Federal loan program as many of us know. I am unconvinced that that change is 

in any way benefiting students or taxpayers. 

There are income forgiveness programs on the Federal loan side 

where borrowers do not have to pay back the full freight of the 

loans they borrow, sticking the taxpayer with the unpaid burden. 

So, I think it is important for us to understand the whole picture 

and not just focus on a tiny fraction of the marketplace, and I am 

pleased that Sallie Mae is here today to talk about the progress 

that they have made in encouraging students to borrow more responsibly. 

And, I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses today. 
4 

Senator BROWN. Thank you Senator Corker. 

Senator Reed, any opening statement? 

Senator REED. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BROWN. Senator Akaka, opening statements? 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Good afternoon, panelists, and thank you for being here today, 

all of you. 

I am pleased that Congress is continuing to monitor leading 

practices regarding student loans. A quality education must include 

an understanding of economics and personal finance so that all 

Americans will be prepared to make sound financial decisions. 

I look forward to hearing an update from the Consumer Protection Bureau on the work that they have done to improve the consumer financial marketplace. 

Thank you all the panelists for your testimony today and I hope 

that your insights will help this Committee work toward ensuring 

that students have safe options for obtaining financial support for 

their college educations. 

Thank you much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Senator Akaka. 

One point I wanted to make that the reason that this hearing, 

perhaps, Senator Corker, is a little narrower than you might want 

is that, one, as you know, we do not have jurisdiction over Federal 

loans the way we do private student loans. But, I am certainly willing to work with this whole, obviously this whole issue of student 

loan debt wherever it comes from. This is serious. 

I would like to introduce the first witness, Rohit Chopra, leads 

the office for students at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau where he is designated by Secretary Geithner as the CFPB’s 

student loan ombudsman. 

Immediately prior to the opening of the agency, he worked at the 

Department of Treasury on the CFPB implementation team. He 

holds a BA from Harvard and an MBA from Wharton at the University of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. Chopra, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF ROHIT CHOPRA, STUDENT LOAN 

OMBUDSMAN, CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU 

Mr. CHOPRA. Thank you. Chairman Brown, Ranking Member 

Corker, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for holding 

this hearing today. 

To prosper in today’s global economy, our workforce needs skills 

to innovate in a highly competitive environment; but the rapid 

growth of student debt raises concerns that warrant the attention 

of policymakers. Student loan debt has now crossed the $1 trillion 

mark. 

Now, college is still a great investment. Graduates have lower 

unemployment rates and earn higher wages but there is another 

side to the story. 

Over the past decade, real wages for college graduates have declined. The growing college wage premium is largely explained by 

faster falling wages of non-degree holders. 
5 

But, the cost of college has not been falling—rising faster than 

inflation, wage growth, and healthcare costs. Growing costs, declining wages and job market uncertainty have led to more debt and 

more risk. The stories of distressed borrowers reveal the impact of 

the financial crisis and the significant work that lies ahead. 

Prior to the crisis, private student lending rapidly increased. 

Like in the mortgage industry, lax lending practices are much less 

common today. Loans are cosigned and often have significant disclosure requirements. 

But like the mortgage markets, there are still opportunities to 

make improvements. Private loans often lack repayment flexibility. 

In 2007, Congress and President Bush enacted the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, which allowed student loan borrowers to 

remain current on a loan through the income-based repayment program, but this does not impact private student loans. 

Private loan borrowers experience challenges when attempting to 

restructure their loans due to capital markets conditions and an 

unusual status in the bankruptcy code. Even the most responsible 

borrowers have sought to better manage their debt burden. We see 

that many borrowers feel stuck with high monthly payments because they cannot easily refinance. 

In March, CFPB launched a student loan complaint system 

where many borrowers have sought and received help and lenders 

have learned more about their borrowers’ experience. 

We also worked closely with the Department of Education on a 

Know-Before-You-Owe financial aid shopping sheet that we released this morning, and we have developed online tools used by 

tens of thousands of consumers on how to navigate their student 

loan repayment options, avoid default, and honor their commitments. 

The CFPB hopes to continue its work with other agencies that 

might play a critical role in addressing roadblocks to facilitating repayment flexibility and a robust refinance market. 

While student debt might not pose systemic risk to the banking 

system as we saw with mortgages, it would be imprudent to dismiss that growing indebtedness can act as a drag on economic recovery. 

Consider borrowers facing high rates and high payments who are 

dutifully meeting these obligations. Without a refinance option, 

they struggle to reduce their payments even though they have built 

a solid credit history. 

What might be the consequences of this? Take the housing market. First-time homebuyers are an important source of demand and 

data reveals that adults in prime homebuying age cohorts are living at home with their parents and seeing reductions in their own 

home ownership rates. 

In addition to home ownership, data also reveals low participation and contribution rates to employer retirement plans among 

young graduates, which can challenge their future retirement security. 

Congress and Federal agencies have taken steps to increase liquidity and the functioning of the credit markets in recent years, 

but the current conditions in student loan markets may have a 

long-term impact on the economic vitality of many borrowers today. 
6 

Many borrowers are unable to secure adequate credit accommodations to manage their debt burden. Policymakers have paid 

significant attention to conditions in the mortgage market; but 

given the potential impact of student debt on the broader economy, 

the situation demonstrates the need for attention. The CFPB will 

continue its work to make the loan marketplace work better for 

borrowers, schools, and honest lenders. 

We look forward to working with Congress and policymakers to 

ensure that economic ability is still within the reach for those who 

borrowed to invest in an education. 

I look forward to your questions. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chopra. 

In your private student loan report, you note that the average interest rate in a December sample of private student loans was 7.8 

percent. We know with the Federal Reserve monetary policy actions that interest rates in this country are pretty much at record 

lows. 

Talk to me about that differential, why it is so much higher for 

student loans, what does that mean in terms of students not being 

able to take advantage of those low rates. What, if anything, can 

we do about it? 

Mr. CHOPRA. So, one unique thing about student loans, particularly private student loans, is that once someone takes on that 

loan, let us say when they are 18 or a freshman in college, their 

credit profile can significantly change over time. 

As an 18-years-old, they might be considered high risk, but by 

the time they graduate and are gainfully employed and paying for 

a few years, they might be a much lower credit risk. 

What we see is not many refinancing opportunities to best allocate price to risk; and when markets are not appropriately allocating price to risk, we do not see a well functioning market. So, 

borrowers may be paying higher rates than what is justified by 

their risk profile. 

Senator BROWN. So, why are there not these refinancing opportunities? 

Mr. CHOPRA. It is not clear exactly, but historically the market 

developed as a consolidation market. So, essentially multiple loans 

you could consolidate into a single payment. This had to do with 

the way the Federal Family Educational Loan Program was structured, but partially it is due to capital markets conditions, but we 

just simply do not see many lenders actively competing to find borrowers who may be able to refinance. 

Senator BROWN. Is there a lack of knowledge on the borrowers’ 

part to not think about the issues of refinance, are we not? 

Mr. CHOPRA. Yes, I think that is right. 

Senator BROWN. If they were—answer that. And then if they 

were more knowledgeable, are you suggesting there would not be 

the opportunities to refinance because there are not enough opportunities in the market? 

Mr. CHOPRA. Yes, sir. You are right. I think many borrowers simply do not know that refinancing is an option, but we do hear that 

many of them are dutifully paying on time for months and years 

and unable to manage their debt better. 
7 

Currently, there is not a large amount of marketing on options 

to refinance. It is generally marketed to people so that they can reduce the number of loans they have into a single payment, but not 

necessarily to compete down the price. A more competitive market 

amongst lenders would probably serve to benefit the entire marketplace. 

Senator BROWN. Let me shift for a moment. 

Quoting your testimony, you note that Federal agencies have intervened in the private student loan market in recent years. 

Citing unusual and exigent circumstances, the Federal Reserve 

Board of Governors exercised its authority to establish the term 

asset backed securities loan facilities which facilitate the issuance 

of a wide range of ABS including those backed by private student 

loans. 

Is there a role for the Federal Reserve in providing relief for private student loan borrowers? 

Mr. CHOPRA. I think all Federal regulatory agencies, particularly 

ones that monitor the capital markets, have a role to play to make 

sure that the market is liquid and well functioning. 

I would not necessarily characterize it as relief, but characterize 

it in terms of increasing competition so that pricing is more fair 

and more connected to risk. 

We have seen in the mortgage space that the FHFA has sought 

to create the conditions for responsible mortgage borrowers to refinance. And, as I said before, many responsible student loan borrowers see their credit profile dramatically improve over time, but 

the market may simply not be liquid enough to appropriately price 

their risk and allow them to have a lower payment. 

So, we look forward to providing any expertise to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and others as they monitor conditions. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chopra. 

Senator Corker. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

again for being here. 

You know well the relationship between the investment and 

higher education at the State level and how that has been diminishing in many cases, in most cases actually because of the tremendous burden of investing in Medicaid which, you know, we have 

made happen in a big way at the Federal level, but that has a direct relationship on what tuition levels are for students and that 

is one of the main drivers of why there is so much student debt, 

is it not? 

Mr. CHOPRA. So, it is certainly true that the constrained State 

budgets, many of which were badly battered starting in 2008 due 

to declining tax revenues as well as other policy interventions, have 

led to cuts on a real basis to State higher education. 

Senator CORKER. Yes. 

Mr. CHOPRA. So, we have to not just address the underlying costs 

of higher education, but also make sure that markets are working 

properly. 

Senator CORKER. It is pretty fascinating. Here we are, we are 

dealing with an issue that over the last several years we have 

helped create and exacerbate and will continue to exacerbate over 

time. I just want to point that out. 
8 

I understand that your agency, a new agency, is advocating that 

on the private side that students just have the ability to discharge 

their loan to bankruptcy, is that correct? 

Mr. CHOPRA. No. It is actually a little bit different than that. The 

report that the Secretary of Education and the Director of the Bureau presented to Congress on Friday analyzed about five million 

records of data starting from 2001 and going forward. 

We expected that the 2005 changes to the bankruptcy code would 

have led to lower prices and greater access; but immediately following the legislative change, we did not see a price decrease. We 

actually saw a price increase, and larger capital markets conditions 

we think largely explain volume and access to credit. 

So, the Director of the Bureau and the Secretary of Education 

asked Congress to take a second look, given that borrowers for private student loans may not be able to easily restructure their amortization schedule like in Federal loans. 

Senator CORKER. So, you have asked Congress to take, one of the 

first actions of the consumer bureau is to ask Congress to look at 

allowing students of private loans, not the public loans, but only 

the private loans, to file bankruptcy as a way of getting out from 

under the terms and conditions of those private loans, is that correct? 

Mr. CHOPRA. Yes, we have asked Congress to take a second look. 

We are happy to provide technical expertise. 

Senator CORKER. I understand what you are saying and I think 

we have read the report, and I just find it fascinating that one of 

the first things that you would do as a consumer protection agency 

is get us to consider letting students, again only on the 7 percent 

private loans, not the 93 percent public loans, to be able to file 

bankruptcy which is one of the most damaging things that a consumer can possibly do. 

I just would like for people to take note of that, and I think you 

understand that on the private side they do not have the flexibilities that you do on the public side, because on the private side, the 

prudential lenders will not allow them to do many of the things 

that happen on the public side. 

You are aware that, are you? 

Mr. CHOPRA. Yes. And, in fact, we have already been working 

closely with lenders to identify areas where certain prudential 

guidance, there can be win-win situations for both borrowers and 

lenders. Lenders have said they feel constrained by the guidance 

and we think there are opportunities for capital adequacy measures to be met while still allowing the marketplace to function. 

Senator CORKER. I think you can see now why so many of us 

thought that was a really terrible idea to have the consumer agency separate from the prudential lenders, because they have this 

problem where basically you are giving guidance on the one hand 

that is very contrary to what the safety and sound regulators are 

saying on the other. 

And, it is this exact conflict, as a matter of fact again it is fascinating to me that in one of the very first things that would come 

out on a consumer agency, we see this conflict that on the private 

side the prudential regulators will not allow the private lenders to 

have the flexibility, give them the flexibilities to actually work 
9 

through these issues. And so therefore, they have contrary guidance. 

And, I think it is pretty fascinating that we are having this hearing. I think it is fascinating that you are not advocating that on 

the public side students be able to file bankruptcy. I think this is, 

speaks to possibly some of the political nature of the consumer 

agency that so many of us were concerned about in the beginning. 

Mr. CHOPRA. On the Federal loan side, there actually is a Chapter 13-like option for borrowers, which avoids the damaging parts 

of going to court and hurting your credit history. 

So, a borrower who is unable to make their payments is able to 

elect the income-based repayment option which caps their payments as a percentage of their discretionary income. That is actually a great, low-cost model for borrowers that we think is a way 

to weather the unique circumstances of a student loan product, 

given labor market uncertainty. 

And, I would say that the relationship with the prudential regulators has been extremely productive. We have actually been able 

to find opportunities where we are identifying ways to promote innovation and ways that the whole financial system can actually 

prosper. I think our work on private student loans with the other 

prudential regulators is going to be seen by lenders as one that is 

a win-win for the whole marketplace. 

Senator CORKER. I hope that is the case. I appreciate you very 

much being here. I look forward to hearing Sallie Mae’s testimony 

in just a moment. 

Senator BROWN. Senator Reed. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much. 

The first thing I want to do is to commend you for connecting the 

dots, let me say, for not just this huge debt overhang but the effect 

it will have on buying a house for the first time, of being an entrepreneur and starting a business, of reserving money starting very 

early for retirement. 

This to me is one of the most daunting challenges that we have 

to face going forward. We could have a whole generation that just 

cannot get started until they are maybe in their mid-30s doing 

things that we assume could and would be done in your mid-20s. 

So, I think that is an important point. 

Second, just jurisdictionally, your responsibility is, given the nature of the organization, is solely with respect to the private sector 

lenders, not the public domain, is that clear? 

Mr. CHOPRA. Yes. Our authority as the ombudsman and our rulemaking authority relates largely to private student loans, on the 

origination side. 

Senator REED. Right. But it is sufficient to say that a lot of the 

insights that you have drawn could be applied to the public sector. 

Mr. CHOPRA. Yes. As Senator Corker said, it is very important 

for us to look at this holistically. In a recently released report, the 

Treasury’s Office of Financial Research briefly discussed that student debt burdens could significantly depress demand for mortgage 

credit and dampen consumption, both of which may be critical drivers for the recovery. 
10 

Again, looking at it holistically, one of our first actions was working with the Department of Education to actually improve the financial aid information and student loan information people find. 

We are asking schools, on a voluntary basis, to present a simple, 

one-page financial aid shopping sheet which gives them all of their 

loan options, as well as what their estimated payment might be 

after graduation. And, already so many schools across the country 

have embraced this. We are happy to enter this for the record. 

Senator REED. Thank you. One of the major issues, of course, is 

the escalating cost of college education; and even though you focus 

in on the private lending sector, you have looked at both public and 

private institutions. 

There is acceleration in cost in private universities too I presume, correct? 

Mr. CHOPRA. Yes. There have been cost increases and increased 

debt burdens across institutional sectors. 

Senator REED. And they are not responsible for public programs 

like Medicaid or anything else. What is driving the private institutions to increase their tuition so dramatically? 

Mr. CHOPRA. I am the wrong person to answer questions about 

the specific economics of college costs. We are a bit more focused 

on the financing. But generally speaking, we have seen over a period of many, many years escalating costs of college across sectors 

in excess of inflation. 

And, particularly we have seen debt burdens be very high in that 

for-profit college sector where utilization of private loans was particularly high. 

Senator REED. That goes to just a quick technical question. I 

asked this because I do not know the answer. Are there prepayment penalties included in the language of some of these private 

loans? 

Mr. CHOPRA. The Truth-in-Lending Act actually bans repayment 

penalties for private student loans that one would anticipate would 

help facilitate a rather robust refinancing market since borrowers 

would not be penalized for trading one note for a less expensive 

note, but that has not bared fruit. 

Senator REED. Thank you. That is a very helpful clarification. 

And then, the other issue, I think, or among several that I have 

but let me pose this one. 

Is there a correlation between the school and the number of private loans? I mean, one of the things that you have suggested, you 

have now a format where everyone can sort of check it out. Are essentially some schools steering students to these private loans and 

is there any kind of relationship between the school and the private 

lender? 

Mr. CHOPRA. In 2007 at the State level, State attorneys general 

identified certain unsavory relationships between schools and private lenders. But the 2008 Higher Education Opportunity Act has 

largely changed that and we see a much better relationship between schools and lenders. 

In fact, we believe that involving schools more in the process, by 

requiring certification of private student loans, would actually help 

schools better counsel their students on their full range of options. 
11 

The only marketplace that remains where there are arrangements between private lenders and schools, which present some 

risk that is worthy of attention, is certain lending arrangements 

between the proprietary school sector that perhaps are driven to 

help with compliance with the Higher Education Act’s 90–10 requirement. 

Senator REED. If I may, just a clarification again. You point out 

that there is a quasi bankruptcy remedy under public lending 

which is to go in and make it income-based repayment. That does 

not exist on the private lending side. 

And, the issue here is not, and again I am asking the question 

so correct me. The issue is not that someone cannot file bankruptcy. It is that they cannot discharge the loan in bankruptcy, is 

that the technical issue in private lending? 

Mr. CHOPRA. Correct. The private loans are treated differently 

compared to credit card debt and others. 

Senator REED. Because of Federal statutes? 

Mr. CHOPRA. Correct. The 2005 changes. But, private lenders 

have increasingly told us that they are looking for ways to offer 

more repayment flexibility, and we think that is a great opportunity, and again, we hope to engage with lenders and prudential 

regulators to find win-win solutions for capital adequacy, student 

loan borrowers and lenders themselves. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BROWN. Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chopra, the testimony and report that you presented today 

suggests that these students have taken out too much debt through 

student loans because of predatory lending practices. You have also 

noted that students should consider taking out additional student 

loans in order to avoid excessive credit card debt. 

Can you please elaborate on the appropriate role of private student loans? 

Mr. CHOPRA. Sure. The total debt market has reached over $1 

trillion, but it is very important to note that education-induced indebtedness is certainly far higher. 

Many families utilize home-equity lines of credit, credit cards, 

and other products to ensure that they can pay for the cost of college. 

Generally speaking, a student loan is going to be a safer way 

than, let us say, a credit card, which is going to have an immediate 

re-payment requirement that might be challenging for a full-time 

student. 

So, there is certainly a role for private credit in this market. But 

we do want people to make more optimal borrowing decisions overall. We think some of these steps to make the whole market more 

transparent, like with this shopping sheet, is a good first step. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for that. 

I understand that CFPB often hears from students who are 

struggling to repair their student loan through its Student Loan 

Complaint System. 

Private student loans were initially developed to support and 

supplement Federal student loans. Since the market contracted in 
12 

2008, there have been fewer lenders offering private student loans 

and those that are offering the products often require cosigners. 

My question to you is: How Is CFPB helping students who are 

unable to access reasonable student loans? 

Mr. CHOPRA. In the report that we submitted, the Director recommended that the role of the financial aid office in lending decisions be substantially enhanced; and by having private student 

loans be certified, financial aid offices can be provided the opportunity to give the full range of financing options. 

Many times financial aid officers are able to use professional 

judgment to adjust loan amounts so that borrowers are able to 

meet their tuition obligations while still borrowing responsibly. You 

are right, that there are still ways to make sure that the private 

loan market can meet the demand at a fair price. 

Senator AKAKA. I must commend you on your remarks that 

CFPB has been working together with the Department of Education. I wish that more departments and agencies would be working together on common goals as well. 

So, thank you so much for what you are doing, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BROWN. Senator Hagan. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Chopra, thank you for being here today and for what 

you do. 

On the report that CFPB recently released on the issue of the institutional loans made directly by the for-profit schools to the students, it is advertised as a way for students to fill the gap in their 

tuition after they have exhausted Federal loans or Pell Grant 

money. 

And then I think part of what I heard you say in answer to an 

earlier question had to do with the 90–10 rule also which we might 

ask you to elaborate on. 

But, many of these institutional loans offered by some of the 

largest for-profit institutions have interest rates as high as 18 percent. 

In addition to serving on this Committee, I serve on the Education Committee, and the Department of Ed and the Health Committee have looked at a number of the different for-profit schools 

and one in particular has an interest-rate student loan that is 15 

percent but they also have a default rate of 80 percent. 

Another school has an interest-rate, and these were in 2009 and 

2010 these interest-rate numbers, at 18 percent with a default rate 

of 55 percent. 

So, it looks like the for-profits are offering the student loans with 

high interest rates and yet a low expected repayment rate which 

I think speaks directly, in some cases, to the aggressive recruiting 

nature of some of these schools that they are really not that concerned because the default rate is so high as long as it means that 

that student is, in fact, enrolled and Federal dollars have been collected. 

Does the CFPB have plans to study these types of loans further 

and are there any recommendations that you can offer that will address the institutional loans made by the for-profit colleges and 

universities? 
13 

Mr. CHOPRA. In recent years, there has been financial reforms 

that have indicated a couple principles that might be worthwhile 

here to mention. 

One is skin in the game. The Dodd-Frank Act actually requires 

that lenders retain some interest even if they were to sell them 

into securitized pools of assets. 

Another is considering ability to repay. In the mortgage market, 

lenders will be required to consider whether a mortgage borrower 

can actually repay. 

Senator HAGAN. That is a good idea. 

Mr. CHOPRA. And in general, when an entity is able to come out 

ahead even when they expect upfront that the customer will likely 

fail, that may be a sign that competitive market forces are not really working and that incentives are distorted. 

I think the Bureau has significant expertise in the area of institutional lending and the role that 90–10 might play. So, we will 

continue to monitor that market closely and, as you have mentioned before, we have also looked in this sector at the recruitment 

of veterans and service members as it relates to compliance with 

90–10. 

My colleague Holly Petraeus has been quite outspoken about 

that and we look forward to continue working with other agencies 

to monitor this market. 

Senator HAGAN. Speaking of that, of the 90–10 rule, the GI Bill 

is not included in the 90 percent. So, in most of those cases, the 

Federal part, the Federal loan position assistance is much higher 

than the 90 percent. 

Mr. CHOPRA. What you are saying is correct. We are currently 

experiencing a rapid increase in the number of veterans returning 

from foreign conflicts who are enrolling in higher education. 

So, it is in the interest of all of us to ensure that they continue 

to be an economic engine as they were after World War II, but also 

that they do not unnecessarily take on high-cost credit when they 

have benefits that they have earned. 

Senator HAGAN. And especially when you look at the high expected default rate needs to be taken into consideration. 

Mr. CHOPRA. Yes. We closely monitor all aspects of how the marketplace works to ensure that the market is fully functioning and 

that there is compliance with consumer laws. 

Senator HAGAN. One of the recommendations made in the recent 

report states that Congress should require the institutions of higher ed to work proactively to protect and inform the private student 

loan borrowers. 

What would this look like? Would it be like Know-Before-YouOwe or should it be solely the responsibility of the school to protect 

and inform the borrower? Or should the lenders take some responsibility in ensuring that their borrowers have the clear, concise, 

and accurate information regarding their student loans? 

Mr. CHOPRA. Everyone has responsibility and borrowers certainly 

need to take responsibility for the commitments they take on, and 

they need clear information. 

But the point about financial aid offices is an important one. 

Currently, most lenders are requiring loans to be certified by the 

school; to simply verify that the student is actually enrolled, and 
14 

that they have not already over borrowed. This is a very common 

sense underwriting principle that was certainly not well observed 

in the years prior to the financial crisis, where capital market conditions created the incentives for originators to make substantial 

fees without really needing the borrower to have the ability to 

repay. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Senator Hagan. 

Senator Menendez. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chopra, how are you? 

Mr. CHOPRA. Good. How are you, sir? 

Senator MENENDEZ. Very well. 

Let me ask you. I heard your response to a question with reference to borrowers who feel trapped in their present interest rate 

and are not able to refinance, in essence, at a lower rate. And, I 

think your answer to the question as a barrier is that there was 

not enough competition, is that correct? 

Mr. CHOPRA. There might also be issues in the servicing infrastructure where borrowers may not know that they are able to 

make certain changes to their loans. I think it is market conditions 

as well as financial education and the servicing infrastructure. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Does the Bureau have any ideas or suggestions as to either how we create greater market competition or 

greater inflows of information for individuals so that they can exercise their rights? 

Mr. CHOPRA. Sure. We have a strong role to play in educating 

borrowers about what their options are when they may not be able 

to make their payments; and we have already released a number 

of Web tools and other products so that students know how to manage their debt better. 

But, one thing we do hear is that even if they want to refinance, 

there simply is not that much opportunity for them. It is something 

that many mortgage borrowers think about when they want to refinance but the current market conditions often constrained them 

and the processes to do so can be paralytic. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, as someone who has been a strong advocate in a different context of being able to allow mortgage borrowers to refinance at historically lower levels, it seems to me that 

we should find the wherewithal to be able to achieve this, have responsible, continue to have people be responsible borrowers, be able 

to relieve some of their debt load at the end of the day. 

So, we would love to, maybe, pursue that a little bit more with 

you as well as how do we stimulate creating competition so that, 

in fact, that the marketplace itself would find itself more robustly 

engage in which rates would fall. 

How about the part of your report that noted that about 40 percent of private student loan borrowers had not exhausted their 

Federal student loan limits? 

And, in that respect, obviously before you go and borrow in the 

private sector would it not be more desirable to maximize that 

which is available to you under Federal student loan limits because 

those are at lower rates than generally in the private marketplace? 
15 

Mr. CHOPRA. Yes, and in fact, if you count people who do not 

even apply for Federal loans, that number goes north of 50 percent 

I believe. 

One of the key issues, which we put forth in the report, is involving the financial aid office more in the process and giving much 

clearer information. 

There has been an abundance of fine print in quite small font 

that had invaded so many of our credit card agreements, mortgage 

agreements, and all other things. 

And, there is a lot of work that we try and do to simplify disclosures. We find that this actually is lower cost for smaller financial 

institutions to provide, and much more clear, to borrowers. You 

should not need an attorney and a magnifying glass to understand 

your obligations at age 18. 

Senator MENENDEZ. So, the question is: Is there a way to enhance, I mean you mentioned some of the Web sites, are there 

other opportunities in which we can get, you know, financial aid 

departments to be more robustly engaged in saying here is the ability, if you qualify. Before you consider taking a private sector loan 

that will be more costly, you should consider the Federal loan limits. 

Mr. CHOPRA. Yes. In fact, most lenders will strongly agree that 

Federal loans should be looked at first and many of them communicate that to their borrowers. 

So, giving financial aid officers the opportunity to actually counsel the student before the consummation of a private student loan 

would help. We have heard broad support from lenders, schools, 

and consumer groups for this. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Finally, I listened to my distinguished friend 

and colleague, Senator Corker, express his concerns about the 

interface between the Bureau and prudential regulators. And, I 

just wonder. In the process of doing this work, did you find that 

prudential regulators were doing the type of consumer information 

and advocacy that the Bureau has been doing in this particular regard? 

Mr. CHOPRA. We have a very explicit mission on financial education and also to assist borrowers with the completion of financial 

aid applications. Their primary role is, of course, to ensure the capital adequacy of the financial system and they do work with us on 

financial education work; but we have placed a major emphasis on 

that because we believe it can ensure a more robust marketplace 

across all consumer financial products. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Senator Menendez. 

Senator Corker, has one more question and then we will move 

to the second panel. 

Thank you, Mr. Chopra. 

Senator CORKER. First of all, you are obviously a very intelligent 

person. It sounds like you have done a lot of good work and I want 

to thank you for that. 

I, you know, meet with students who are 27-, 28-years-old or people who used to be students and have huge amounts of debt, and 

you look at the amount of money they are making and you just 
16 

wonder when they ever are going to have a real life because they 

are working two and three jobs to pay these loans off. 

My frustration really is the hypocrisy around all of this. On the 

one hand, we hear, you know, especially during an election cycle, 

talk about student lending and student loans and I assure you my 

heart goes out to students who have huge amounts of loans that 

may never be repaid or may take 20 years. And yet, we advocate 

policies here that drive up tuition rates. 

On the private lender side, as Senator Menendez was just referring to, they are seeking flexibility but the prudential regulators 

are hesitant to give them the flexibilities that you have on the public side. 

So, you know, there is the hypocrisy that goes with this whole 

testimony today, not you, but the difference between the consumer 

agencies and the prudential. And then, we pass a law that says 

that student rates are going to be at 3.4 percent, just pull it out 

of the air. 

So, those loans are to all comers regardless of any kind of credit 

status, all comers, no collateral, no payments made for 4 years. 

Is there anyway you, as an intelligent person, could possibly 

imagine that the Federal Government is going to come out on loans 

like that and are we not again demonstrating tremendous hypocrisy in that what we are really doing is piling up debt down the 

road that these same students are going to have to pay off? 

Is there any way that when an agency is taking all comers, there 

is no collateral being put out, no underwriting taking place, and no 

payments being made the entire time they are in college, is there 

any way the Federal Government could possibly come out to the 

good on 3.4 percent loans? 

Mr. CHOPRA. The rates set by Congress are a bit outside our jurisdiction, but I will say that the global competitive market is very, 

very fierce. 

And, across all indicators, having a highly skilled workforce, has 

very real economic growth potential and investing in a way that is 

strategic such that people who may not have means can access education, there is significant upside to that. 

Now, it is hard to underwrite that type of loan. In many cases, 

you cannot anticipate whether someone is going to be able to repay 

5 years in advance. What if they entered in 2005, then the entire 

global capital markets collapse? 

It is a difficult problem, but ensuring that the workforce is built 

with skills is something that needs to be a priority as well. We 

have to balance all of these and it is a careful one and we look forward to working with the Senate. 

Senator CORKER. I think your answer is ‘‘no’’ financially but 

there are other benefits. 

Mr. CHOPRA. No. It is an ‘‘I do not know.’’ 

Senator CORKER. Yeah. Thank you. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chopra, very much. 

I will call the second panel forward. 

I think Senator Corker, there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around 

when I see what State governments have done when we were in 

college and schools like Ohio State were considered State univer-
17 

sities and now we consider them State-supported or even State assisted. 

We can blame it on Medicaid or we can talk about tax structure 

and a whole bunch of other issues. But that can come later. 

I will introduce the three members of the panel as they are beginning to be seated. 

Deanne Loonin is Staff Attorney with the National Consumer 

Law Center and the Director of NCLC, Student Loan Borrowers 

Assistance Project where she provides direct representation to lowincome student loan borrowers. 

In her role, Ms. Loonin also assists attorneys representing lowincome consumers and teaches consumer law to legal services, private consumer attorneys, and other advocates. 

Ms. Loonin received her B.A. from Harvard, Radcliffe College, 

and her J.D. from the University of California at Berkeley. 

Jennifer Mishory is a founding member and Deputy Director of 

Young Invincibles, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that represents the interest of 18- to 34-year-olds. 

As Deputy Director, Ms. Mishory directs policy research, communication, and outreach staff for the organization. She served as a 

consumer advocacy representative to the Department of Education’s 2012 negotiated rulemaking on student loans. 

Ms. Mishory holds a B.A. from UCLA and a J.D. from Georgetown. 

Jack Remondi is President and Chief Operating Officer of Sallie 

Mae. In this role, he is responsible for the company’s loan servicing 

information technology, credit and underwriting, and marketing 

and communications divisions. 

Prior to his current position, Mr. Remondi served as Vice Chair 

and Chief Financial Officer where he helped Sallie Mae navigate 

the financial challenges posed by the economic crisis. 

He received his Bachelor of Arts degree in economics from Connecticut College. 

Ms. Loonin, if you will begin. 

Thank you to all three of you for joining us and for your public 

service. 

STATEMENT OF DEANNE LOONIN, ATTORNEY AND DIRECTOR 

OF STUDENT LOAN BORROWER ASSISTANCE PROJECT, NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER 

Ms. LOONIN. Thank you, Senator, and thanks to all of you for inviting me to testify today. 

Again, my name is Deanne Loonin and I am here on behalf of 

the low-income clients that we represent and work with. 

It is important just from the outset that when we talk about the 

students who we work with, they are not just young people going 

to traditional colleges. It is a very important population but actually the face of higher education is much more diverse these days. 

And, we have clients who are what are really called sort of nontraditional students, meaning that they are older when they go 

back to school. In many cases, they have their own dependents. 

They are actually independent themselves and do not have parents 

or families to fall back on. 
18 

So, we actually have clients who are still suffering under the burden of student loan debt throughout their lives having taken out 

the loans later in life or in some cases parents having cosigned for 

their children. 

Most of our clients have Federal student loans. But what we saw 

happen up to the credit crisis was that we were seeing a lot more 

of our low-income borrowers with private student loans. 

And, the market really that was sort of taking place prior to the 

credit crash essentially was the kind of subprime predatory market 

that, unfortunately, we saw in other credit markets as well. 

We wrote a report in 2008 where we went through some of the 

parallels to the mortgage market and I will not repeat all of those 

here but the main point was that a lot of the loans that were made 

at that time were, unfortunately, really destined to fail and they 

did fail. 

There were very high right-off rates and a lot of people who took 

out loans, they were never going to be able to pay back. I saw loans 

at that time for my clients with interest rates of upwards of 20 percent, 25 percent, and these were variable rate loans with very high 

origination fees as well. 

Some of the same sort of rationales for making those loans in the 

mortgage market we heard in the student loan market too that 

these would have benefits for low-income borrowers; and actually 

instead what we have was it was taking opportunity away from a 

lot of those borrowers, more sort of a reverse redlining situation in 

a push market. 

Fortunately, the market has changed. We do not see those thirdparty subprime loans for most of our clients anymore. There has 

been a correction because of the failure, really, of the market and 

that is why it is such an important time right now for policymakers. 

There are sort of two broad themes that I want to emphasize and 

there is more detail in my testimony about why this is such a critical time. 

The first theme is that the opportunity is now to shape the market that is going to reemerge. There are more responsible lending 

practices going on now and we are all very heartened to see that, 

but we want to make sure that the same things that happened before do not happen again even if that means that it is a smaller 

private student loan market; that is better for a lot of our clients 

if it means that they are not going to be stuck with these predatory 

loans, with these unaffordable loans. 

The second theme that we spend a lot of detail on in our testimony is that we need to figure out ways to provide relief for those 

who were harmed by the predatory practices of the past. 

The lenders, as we have seen and we will hear I am sure more 

from Sallie Mae today, have moved on for the most part but the 

borrowers have not been able to. Their futures are shattered in a 

lot of cases, these are my clients with both Federal and private 

loans but the difference that we find on the private loans side is 

that there is so little flexibility on the part of the lenders. 

We talk with the private lenders all the time. We try to negotiate 

modifications, income-based repayment, things like that; and generally, the relief that is available is very short-term relief. 
19 

Unfortunately, it is short-term relief but these are long-term 

structural problems. We understand that there are some barriers. 

Senator Corker mentioned, for example, that there are problems 

with the prudential regulators. That is what we hear. We do not 

know if that is really the problem that is preventing the lenders 

from offering broader relief; and if it is, then we want to hear more 

detail and find out ways to be flexible about those. 

In some ways, just like what is happening in the mortgage market and also heeding some of the lessons that we have learned from 

the modification programs in the mortgage market that these have 

to be flexible, affordable modifications and also some principal reduction because that is going to make it less likely that the borrowers will redefault. 

We also like to look at the possibility of cancellations in extreme 

situations like death and disability. Some lenders offer this at their 

discretion but the idea is to have a more standardized, transparent 

policy so borrowers can know what to expect in these extreme situations. 

Again, I have more detail in my testimony including policy prescriptions, and I am happy to take questions at the end about 

those. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you very much, Ms. Loonin. 

Ms. Mishory, thank you for joining us. 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER MISHORY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

YOUNG INVINCIBLES 

Ms. MISHORY. Thank you. Chairman Brown, Ranking Member 

Corker, and other Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 

having me here. My name is Jennifer Mishory and I am the Deputy Director of Young Invincibles. 

Young Invincibles is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that 

seeks to represent the interests of 18- to 34-year-olds, making sure 

that our perspective is heard whenever decisions about our collective future are being made. 

This spring we released a report detailing the experiences of 

high-debt borrowers with private student loans. The report analyzed the subset of an online self-selected survey of about 13,000 

borrowers. 

Additionally, Young Invincibles just completed a 20-State, 40-city 

national bus tour, talking to young people from all walks of life. 

Our interactions with young people make it clear. Borrowers are 

struggling, students are confused; and as the private loan market 

reemerges, future students need more guidance and more protection. 

As has been detailed already, the private loan market has shifted 

significantly in the past 10 years. Looser, more predatory lending 

led to a significant increase in the pre-recession private market. 

After the credit market dried up, lending standards tightened 

and the market merged and consolidated. Recently, there have 

been signs that the private student loan market may again be on 

the rise. 

For example, Sallie Mae is expecting growth in new loans for the 

second consecutive year. Private lenders have also begun offering 

new fixed-rate loan options. As the student loan market expands 
20 

and evolves again, stakeholders must assist struggling borrowers 

and set up the next generation of college goers for a better financial 

future. 

Borrowers have encountered an array of difficulties amidst this 

marketplace. While students do have a responsibility to do their 

homework, the sheer complexity of student loan terms and the fact 

that many young students are making their first major financial 

decision necessitates that key institutions involved take aggressive 

steps to ensure that students are informed. 

Unfortunately, this does not happen enough right now. For example, about two-thirds of private loan borrowers in our survey 

said that they did not understand the major differences between 

private and Federal loan options. 

This is problematic, given that Federal loans often have better 

rates, better repayment terms based on income, temporary relief 

when a borrower faces unemployment, and more standardized payment fee requirements. 

Current law requires disclosures regarding Federal options and 

about some private terms, but these are often too little and too 

late. At the same time, 80 percent of borrowers in the survey 

turned to their schools as trusted sources of information on these 

loans. Yet, those offices do not always have the right answers and 

they are not involved enough. 

Bus tour roundtable participants at the high school level also 

voiced similar problems. Career and college counseling in high 

schools are understaffed and often undertrained on these issues. 

We also hear frequently about significant problems after loans go 

into payment as borrowers attempt to navigate life crisis, customer 

service, repayment, and the loan terms. 

For example, Cassandra in Cleveland, Ohio, has about $90,000 

in private loans. When she was struggling, she said that Sallie Mae 

did not process your request to make interest-only payments and 

she was denied a deferment when her husband lost his job. 

Repayment terms are nearly impossible for inexperienced borrowers to anticipate on the front-end or to fight while in repayment. 

When another borrower, Bridget, went into the Peace Corps after 

graduation, she said that she was able to defer her Federal loans 

but not $46,000 in private loans. 

Her mother agreed to help make payments while she was gone. 

A few months before Bridget’s return in 2009, her grandfather 

passed away. The turn of events that ensued led to one missed payment and then one more. 

After that second missed payment, she was told that the loan 

was charged off and the full amount came due. She said that she 

was told that the only way to move it back into regular repayment 

would be to pay 60 percent of the balance up front. That is over 

$27,000. 

Currently, she says she pays $300 in monthly payments and that 

nothing has been put in writing. She does not get a bill. She is unable to check her balance online and she continues to receive bullying calls from that bank. 
21 

After 3 years of these monthly payments, she told us that all five 

separate loans still show up as delinquent every single month. So, 

her credit score has predictably plummeted. 

She tells us that she has no hope of coming up with the lump 

sum required to rebuild her financial future as none of her monthly 

payments can count toward that lump sum. 

In the wake of the Great Recession and as millions of borrowers 

struggle to deal with unemployment, delinquencies, defaults, and 

high debt, and millions more attempt to navigate the post recession 

private loan market, we must act. 

We must rethink the way we treat private loans in bankruptcy. 

The Department of Education should use its email system and online outreach to inform struggling borrowers about the new options 

in student loan complaints and send them up to the CFPB, which 

is a resource that we have sent many borrowers to already. 

We also must take aggressive action to protect future borrowers 

as they make their choices. Lenders should be required to obtain 

school certification of financial need before dispersing private student loans. 

Marketing materials should include clear explanations of repayment terms and be available earlier. We need to ease the application process of proving independence from parents so that borrowers receiving no help from their family can access a fuller set 

of Federal loans. And stakeholders must ensure that borrowers 

fully understand the difference between private and Federal 

loans—particularly with the new options on the table. 

For example, if a future teacher getting a master’s degree is receiving a competitive interest rate on a fixed-rate private loan, he 

or she will often be better served taking out a Federal loan due to 

other terms such as flexible repayment or the ability to defer during times of unemployment. 

As the private loan market evolves and potentially reemerges, we 

must ensure that new borrowers are fully informed and have access to fair-lending terms and current borrowers find some relief 

and help. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you very much Ms. Mishory. 

Mr. Remondi, thank you for being with us. 

STATEMENT OF JACK REMONDI, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

OPERATING OFFICER, SALLIE MAE 

Mr. REMONDI. Good afternoon, Chairman Brown, Senator Corker, 

Members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is Jack Remondi. I am President and Chief Operating 

Officer of Sallie Mae and I thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today on the private education loan business. 

Private education loans help families fill the gap between their 

own resources, financial aid, grants, and the total cost of the college or university of their choice. 

They are not for everyone. They were never intended to replace 

Federal aid, and in fact, they were originally called supplemental 

loans indicating their stated purpose. 

In most cases, higher education is a family commitment which 

our private education loans are designed to support. Last year over 
22 

90 percent of our private education loans had a cosigner, typically 

the parent. 

Our loans provide important features and protections that benefit the family, including extensive disclosure, interest rate and repayment options, embedded tuition insurance and death and disability loan forgiveness. 

But, the best protections inherent in any loan, including private 

education or Federal student loans is quality underwriting and 

thoughtful planning before one borrows. 

Our free Education Investment Planner helps families know before they go by assisting them with the following important steps 

for turning access into success: pick the right school, and most important, consider lower-cost options; create a financial plan that 

covers the entire cost of completing a college degree, not just one 

semester; make loan payments to keep borrowing costs down; and 

graduate. Student loans without a degree mean loan payments 

without the higher earnings to support them. 

During the application process, we disclose monthly and total 

payment information and present customers with a side-by-side 

choice of interest rate and payment options available to them. 

Customers receive multiple disclosures that quantify expected 

monthly payments and finance charges; highlight the availability of 

Federal loan programs; encourage the applicant to shop for lowercost options; and outline the right to cancel the loan. 

After disbursement, our customers receive monthly statements 

that detail their loan balance and accruing interest. Customers who 

elect to defer payments while in school are reminded of the positive 

impact that in-school payments would have on the total loan costs. 

The most recent findings of our How America Pays for College 

study shows how effective these disclosures and reminders are. Of 

private education loans borrowers, 98 percent filled out a FAFSA, 

the first step for taking out a Federal student loan. 

Among all education loan borrowers surveyed, just 3 percent borrowed only private loans. Two-thirds of our customers are making 

payments while the student is in school—allowing them to save 

thousands of dollars in interest charges over the life of the loan. 

Sallie Mae has pioneered new products and procedures designed 

to help families make informed decisions. For example, we advocate school certification as an important safeguard. We will not disperse a loan until the school certifies it. 

Until recently, nearly all borrowers deferred loan payments while 

in school. In 2009, Sallie Mae became the first lender to encourage 

school payments because they save the borrower thousands of dollars in interest charges over the life of the loan. Our in-school customers who opt for either interest payments or a fixed payment of 

$25 a month can save an estimated 30 to 50 percent in total interest costs. 

The results are encouraging even in these tough times. The stories we heard today are certainly important to hear, but they are 

not the norm. Ninety percent of our loans in repayment are current, and the charge-off rates have dropped from a high of 6 percent to under 3 percent this year. 

Still, we recognize that the recession has posed real and significant challenges for many Americans including some of our cus-
23 

tomers—and because our success depends on our customers’ success—we actively assist borrowers experiencing difficulty by understanding their individual circumstances. 

To customers who need help, we offer a mix of repayment products and counseling and collection programs that give them the 

best opportunity to manage their debt obligations. These options 

include reduced monthly payments, interest only payments, extended repayment terms, temporary interest rate reductions, and if 

appropriate, forbearance—all scaled to the customer’s individual 

circumstances and ability. 

Since 2009, we have modified $1.1 billion in private education 

loans to help our customers. Nonetheless, loan modifications and 

other efforts are sometimes insufficient. For this reason, Sallie Mae 

supports bankruptcy reform that would require a period of goodfaith payments, is prospective so as to not rewrite existing contracts with customers, and that applies to Federal and non-Federal 

education loans alike. 

We would also be interested in increasing the options available 

to defaulted borrowers, specifically the Federal rehabilitation program allows defaulted borrowers to cure their default and rebuild 

their credit. If a customer makes the required payments, his loan 

is rehabilitated and the default is removed from their credit history. For all other consumer loans, however, the Fair Credit Reporting Act does not allow for a second chance; and so, there is no 

provision to rehabilitate private student loans. For some time, we 

have been discussing the promise of providing this option to private 

education loan borrowers. We would certainly recommend that 

Congress consider it. 

In sum, market forces and legislative changes, some of which 

were developed here in this Committee, have combined to make 

private education lending better understood by students and families, better underwritten, and more targeted to provide the needed 

financing that can help American families achieve their education 

dreams and create the opportunity for a brighter future. 

Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

Senator BROWN. I want to interrupt this meeting just for a moment. On the Senate floor and the House floor and by the gate of 

the Capitol Senator McConnell and Senator Reid are marking the 

14th anniversary of the murder of the two Capitol police officers. 

On July 24 at 3:40, Officer Jacob Chestnut and Detective John 

Gibson were shot in the line of duty, and if I could ask a moment 

of silence from the room. 

[Pause.] 

Senator BROWN. Thank you all. 

Thanks to all three of you for your testimony. I want to start 

with Ms. Loonin. You made a rather telling statement. Predators 

have moved on, borrowers can not. 

Mr. Chopra’s beginning comments on the first panel spoke about 

the difficulty of refinancing. It is partly the students, potential student, the borrowers know enough about those refinancing opportunities and it is also the paucity of refinancing opportunities, if you 

will. 

Do you see what types of relief or refinancing opportunities are 

currently available to private student loan borrowers? 
24 

And I would like Ms. Loonin’s answer but also the other two of 

you if you would briefly comment on sort of your insight there and 

at the same time as you answer this, elaborate on any sort of barriers or Federal rules that may impede the lender’s ability to provide those relief options to those borrowers. 

Ms. LOONIN. Thank you, Senator. Right now what we have been 

able to see mostly working with our clients is that there are very 

few private loan refinancing options even available. 

A lot of our clients have lower credit scores and so it may be because of that but we also hear from borrowers through our Web 

site and others who are looking, who are prime borrowers really 

and are having the same problems. So, I would say there are very 

few products and opportunities out there. 

As far as barriers, just one point that I wanted to make especially since the issue of the regulators has come up numerous 

times. I think it is very telling, as Mr. Remondi mentioned, the 

number of options that Sallie Mae, for example, is offering. 

So, clearly it is possible to offer some of these options and I 

would like to hear more if they are hearing from regulators that 

they can offer some things just not too much. 

But one of the problems that we find is that there is this haphazard nature to the options, that some of the lenders will, for example, offer or say that they have programs where they will offer 

cancellations for death or disability, and sometimes we will call on 

behalf of our clients and they will say that they have them and 

sometimes we will call the same lender and they will say that they 

do not. 

So, in terms of barriers it is a little bit harder for us to know 

exactly what those problems are because we all want to work together to figure those out. 

Senator BROWN. Ms. Mishory, your comments. 

Ms. MISHORY. I would say similarly the borrowers that have 

come to us have increasingly expressed frustration at the inability 

to work with their lender to find better terms and have not found 

other options in the marketplace. 

Mr. Chopra earlier mentioned educating borrowers as well; if 

there are options, then we also need to make sure that students 

and borrowers know about those. 

And so, that is another issue as well. 

Senator BROWN. Mr. Remondi. 

Mr. REMONDI. I think, as Rohit Chopra described in his comments, there are a couple of factors here. One is that these are 

principally, in Sallie Mae’s case, family education loans; and the 

price that we charge or set for the interest rate to the borrowers 

is based on the highest credit score of both the parents and the student. So, to some extent, they are already gaining the benefit of the 

parental cosigning on that account based on the interest rate at the 

time. 

Second is that the loans are variable. Most refinancing options 

that we hear about are talking about fixed-rate loans made in a 

higher interest rate environment being refinanced into a lower interest rate environment. 
25 

Very rarely do we see interest rates or loan products being refinanced because the credit profile of the obligor has changed in such 

a dramatic way as to change the overall interest rate structure. 

And, I think because of those two reasons you see a very limited 

marketplace for private education loan consolidation or refinancing 

activities. 

Senator BROWN. What can we do about it? 

Mr. REMONDI. Well, as I said, I think in most cases those loans 

would be offered at the same terms and conditions that they are 

offered at today because they are based on the parents credit worthiness and based on a variable interest rate. 

So, as interest rates have come down since 2008, all of the interest rates on our student loans have been coming down with that 

fall in the short-term interest rate market. 

Senator BROWN. What steps do you take in your individual responsibilities or should we take in Congress to ensure students are 

aware of the differences between these loans and Federal loans, not 

just the initial interest rate but other kinds of terms of repayment 

and other problems that might arise during the repayment process? 

Ms. Loonin, why do you not start again? 

Ms. LOONIN. So, there are some changes in the Truth-in-Lending 

Act, as you know, so that the disclosures are more expansive than 

they have been in the past; and there were some very positive 

changes there. 

But, I think, we hope that Congress will take a look at the timing of some of the disclosures also as well so that borrowers get the 

terms of their actual loans earlier in the process not just a sample 

of what they may be getting because, as we know, the private loan 

products really vary quite a lot. 

The certification process that a number of people have alluded to 

here and Mr. Chopra talked about in his testimony as well, we 

think is another opportunity to make that a mandatory program. 

Some schools use that opportunity to counsel borrowers as well, 

and we think that that is an opportunity right then to give a lot 

of information before the student has actually signed on the dotted 

line. 

Senator BROWN. Ms. Mishory, your thoughts about that. 

Ms. MISHORY. I would also add in addition to the options that 

Ms. Loonin referenced, you know, on the bus tour we talked to a 

lot of high school juniors and seniors trying to figure out their next 

steps, and they were confused, and they did not have clear options 

on where to go. 

High school counselors often are not prepared to talk about differences in loans and how students can finance their college education. So, I think a lot needs to be done in college counseling offices. We need to be teaching financial literacy skills even earlier 

so that families can really prepare their education. 

Senator BROWN. Mr. Remondi. 

Mr. REMONDI. Well, I think, as we heard in the CFPB report, 

there is more disclosure today on private education loans than 

there is on any other consumer lending product out there, period. 

And, we do provide all of this information to the borrowers as 

they are going through the application process. So, they get an indicative rate and, once their credit is approved, they get their ac-
26 

tual rate and they see their monthly payment. They have a 30-day 

term to accept the offer without any changes that we would make 

and then they also have 30 days after the loan has been funded to 

cancel the loan. Each time in that process they are encouraged to 

consider lower-cost Federal loans and to shop for lower-cost options. 

So, I think, on the one hand, we are providing an awful lot of 

good disclosure today. I think to the other participants comments 

here, one of the pieces that could improve dramatically is helping 

students and families know where they go. Figure out what they 

can afford to spend on a college education, pick the right school 

(that matches the financial abilities of the family along with the 

prospective earnings they can gain from that career) and think 

about the full cost of education. 

The number one reason students default on student loans, and 

this is true whether it is Federal loans or private education loans, 

is the kid does not graduate from school. They have the debt burden but they do not have the economic benefit of the education. 

If we can help families plan better through that process and be 

more prepared before they go, we would have a better educated 

consumer and I think better results in both the Federal program 

as well. 

Senator BROWN. Do you agree with Mr. Chopra’s statement that 

you should not need an attorney and a magnifying glass? 

Mr. REMONDI. He made that statement on all loans, not just student loans; but in our disclosure statements, you are required to 

have a certain print font, size font on every disclosure statement, 

and we certainly meet or exceed all of those standards. 

He was referring, I think, to the credit card statement book that 

we get each, you know, when you get your new credit card that everyone throws away. 

Senator BROWN. Are you referring to the 25-year-old eye or 55- 

year-old eyes? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. REMONDI. I have my glasses on. 

Senator BROWN. OK. Senator Corker. 

Thank you. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you all for your testimony. I do appreciate that we have, you know, three folks of differing backgrounds 

that are trying to solve the problem, and again, I know all of us 

are concerned when we see people that are unable to make payments or paying for life for their education. 

Let me ask, Ms. Mishory, what are some of the predatory lending 

instances, if you will, that you are seeing out in the market place 

right now? 

Ms. MISHORY. Sure. I mean, as I think was discussed, fortunately 

a lot of those instances have improved over the last couple of years. 

We certainly saw from 2005 to 2007 a lot of direct to consumer 

marketing and a lot of students taking on burdens that they did 

not need to. 

So, I think that we have seen a lot of improvements. I would say 

that we still see marketing materials that are unclear to students. 

We need to make sure that marketing materials show terms and 
27 

they show those terms in a way that students who do not have the 

ability or experience with these products actually understand them. 

Senator CORKER. So, it is more an issue of just people understanding what they are getting into and maybe it being explained 

in clear language. It is not necessarily that people are out there 

purposefully trying to take advantage of students. 

Ms. MISHORY. I would say that again, as a lot of the panelists 

discussed, the market certainly has improved over the last couple 

of years, but that leaves us with the problem of folks who already 

have all of this debt that they took on. 

Senator CORKER. Right. 

Ms. MISHORY. And then also ensuring that going forward, as the 

market changes, we make sure that students know what they are 

getting. 

Senator CORKER. Mr. Remondi, of all the loans that you all 

make, I am sure there has to be data that shows that people who 

go to certain colleges are more likely to pay back their loans than 

others. 

Are you all able to look out across our country and see certain 

outliers where people go to a particular institution and they have 

more difficulty paying back their loans than others? 

Mr. REMONDI. Sure. We have over seven million borrowing customers. So we have a wealth of data that really goes across both 

Federal student loan programs and the private educational loan 

marketplace and there absolutely are differences in repayments, 

success rates, and therefore, the flip side of that, default rates. 

Senator CORKER. Right. 

Mr. REMONDI. Depending on where. 

Senator CORKER. And, when people are making loans to students 

who attend these institutions, are they taking those kind of things 

into account? 

Mr. REMONDI. I think what happened over the last couple of 

years is that people were not aware of some of the changes that 

were coming, firstly the economic environment. More recently, I 

think lenders are trying to take into consideration the overall success rate of students at a particular institution. 

We do not make private education loans to students at every 

school in the country. We have an approved school list that we use 

to determine whether or not the borrower is eligible to participate 

in our programs. 

Senator CORKER. On the Federal side, we are making loans to 

students at every institution regardless, is that correct? 

Mr. REMONDI. The Federal program also has a cutoff and it is 

based on the school’s cohort default rate or CDR, but that is a very 

high default rate standard. I believe it is 25 percent for a couple 

of years and it is only measuring the incidence of default in the 

first 2 years after repayment has begun. 

Senator CORKER. But obviously the private lenders have to take 

things like that into account because unlike us, we just cannot 

make up the numbers and go ahead and kick the can down the 

road to future generations, is that correct? 

Mr. REMONDI. No one else is writing us a check when the borrower defaults. 
28 

Senator CORKER. So, let me ask you this question. Is there any 

way, is it possibly fathomable that an institution like the Federal 

Government can make loans at 3.4 percent to all comers, no collateral, no credit checks, no payments made for years, and come out 

in a way that is net positive on the basis of the loan? 

Is that even within the realm of—and to any institution whether 

they actually have a lot of default rates or not or students attending those institutions, is that fathomable? 

Mr. REMONDI. No. 

Senator CORKER. It is not? 

Mr. REMONDI. No. 

Senator CORKER. So, I just want to say, and I know I have demonstrated a little bit of an attitude here, that the tremendous hypocrisy, the attitude is at us, it is at us, and that is that, you know, 

obviously, Ms. Loonin, great testimony and I appreciate your work 

in this regard and you were talking a little bit about how the private sector side has certain constraints, sometimes the prudential 

regulators place them on. 

Maybe some of them are not as tight as some of them advocate 

as you mentioned earlier. But, on the private side, they actually 

have to survive to the next year. I mean they actually have to 

make it in a solvency way. 

On the public side, and in an election year, we can just make 

things up and you can decide that we want to try to get votes from 

students and young people by doing things that we know make us 

even more insolvent as a country but we can just do that. 

And so, can you understand why there might be differences between what the private sector is doing that has to actually exist 

into the future and the public side which we can just print money 

and borrow money from other people and do things that make us 

more insolvent during the time of elections? 

Can you understand why you would have sort of different types 

of lending arrangements taking place? 

Ms. LOONIN. I can understand but I should say that the loans 

that I saw during the heyday of the predatory lending were the 

worst products I have ever seen and I do not think there was any 

caution put into those when the private lenders were making those. 

They were lending to schools that they are talking about now 

with the bad outcomes. They were lending to students of those 

schools back then at rates that I have never seen before also, and 

those were some of the loans that failed at the highest rates. 

So, we are talking about it now because the market has changed 

because of the crash. So, you are right about that but that is actually still a problem, frankly, in the private sector. 

Senator CORKER. And by the way, for any entity that is out there 

doing things like you just mentioned, we ought to do everything we 

can to put them out of business. I could not agree more. 

I am really just talking about really us, not you guys. I thank 

you for what you do. I just continue to be appalled at our ability 

to be a responsible. 

And, candidly, as I listen to Mr. Remondi, it sounds like that 

they are trying to be responsible. I do not know if you all would 

take any issue with some of the things that he just discussed regarding Sallie Mae’s policies. 
29 

Would you do that? 

Ms. LOONIN. I mean, I can say that I agree that they are trying 

to be responsible now and that I do have very good working relationships with their customer advocate office at Sallie Mae. I think 

very respectful relationships. 

But, unfortunately, for a lot of our clients, they are still not able 

to offer anything but I do think that a lot of the products that they 

have created going forward do show much more responsible lending 

practices. 

Senator CORKER. I thank you for your help as advocates in making that happen. 

Just in closing, Mr. Remondi, on the institutions, I know there 

was an effort by the Administration to make it so and it might 

have been a good policy so that, you know, if a private entity had 

students that were attending and they were borrowing money that 

there had to be certain outcomes there or they could no longer participate in certain governmental programs. 

It sounds like there may be a number of public institutions 

around the country that we may need to look at him that same 

way. 

Would you agree or disagree? 

Mr. REMONDI. Yes. I mean, there are good schools and there are 

bad schools that are for-profit and not-for-profit in educational outcomes for their students. 

Senator CORKER. And I guess, as far as consumers go, equally 

bad outcomes for students if they borrow money in a responsible 

way from a responsible entity whether it is public or private and 

end up attending one of these schools that really is not equipping 

them to perform in the 21st century, there is a consumer issue they 

are also, is that correct? 

Mr. REMONDI. Yes. 

Senator CORKER. Do you know of a way that we might be a with 

that? 

Mr. REMONDI. Well, I think having information available to students, information about the school’s graduation rates, information 

about the default rates of students who attend those schools is a 

good step in that direction. 

I would go back, though, to my earlier comment that says a lot 

of this is trying to address how to make a decision about the current semester. I have the tuition bill on the kitchen table, what do 

I do? 

And I think more students and families need to think about the 

total cost. How am I going to get from first year of college through 

to graduation so that I actually get the economic benefit from the 

money we are investing? 

Senator CORKER. And for the people that you are dealing with, 

it is very important to you, as a lender, that they sit down at that 

kitchen table and try to think through the entire process through 

graduation because otherwise it is going to end up creating a loss 

for your institution, is that correct? 

Mr. REMONDI. That is correct and that is why we offer our Education Investment Planner as a free Web site tool to customers and 

noncustomers alike. 
30 

Senator CORKER. Are we doing that with the Federal loan program, to your knowledge? 

Mr. REMONDI. No, we are not. 

Senator CORKER. So, we have a lot of students that are borrowing money from the Federal level and do not have this type of 

input at the Federal level, that do not have this kind of input on 

the front end and we, in essence, again us here, not you guys and 

not certainly any of the witnesses that are trying to overcome some 

of the predatory issues, we have a policy that may be, in fact, 

harming people throughout their lifetime, is that correct? 

Mr. REMONDI. We are certainly not making the information 

available to those customers and all of the disclosure examples that 

were provided today certainly do not exist in the Federal student 

loan program. 

Senator CORKER. Do you know why that would not be the case? 

Mr. REMONDI. It is exempt from the Truth-in-Lending law. 

Senator CORKER. Yeah. I think you can understand my frustration with the hypocrisy in this institution. 

Thank you. 

Senator BROWN. I guess I share Senator Corker’s views about hypocrisy but I look at many of these for-profit schools that the administration is trying to write some rules for and getting resistance 

from so many on that when we should know more about the student that you suggest, Mr. Remondi, that is coming for a student 

loan should know more about, as they look at the whole picture of 

education, what are the graduation rates of this school, a for-profit 

or not-for-profit, a 2-year or 4-year, public or private should let 

them know what placement rates, what kinds of placement counselors and job placement offices they have at these for-profit or notfor-profit schools and what the rate of getting a job are, what the 

rates of job placement are. 

So, I think all of that should be in this picture so there is plenty 

to go around. Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

tell the panel that I really appreciate your presence and the sharing of your experiences in the student loan programs. 

We have heard from you today you information that included 

that expanding the role of colleges and universities in working with 

private lenders. However, since 2008, average tuition at private 

not-for-profit schools has gone up almost 10 percent and tuition at 

public 4-year schools has gone up 15 percent. 

These increases are surely leading students to look for and take 

out additional loans. Schools both determine tuition and help students find ways to pay their tuition. 

I would like to hear from the panel what can be done to ensure 

that schools continue to provide advice with the best interest of 

their students in mind and do you see a need for a mutual third 

party to offer advice to students? 

Ms. Loonin. 

Ms. LOONIN. Thank you. The cost of college clearly has, as Mr. 

Chopra mentioned, gone up across all sectors and that is a huge 

problem; and unfortunately, there are a lot of students going to 

school who borrow more because obviously the cost is more and it 

is a complicated problem that is actually driving the costs. 
31 

I mean, one thing that I think is important to look at is accountability, something that Senator Corker was just talking about, accountability across all sectors of higher education for outcomes, for 

completion, for job placement, because the ability to repay the 

loans frankly even at some of the higher cost institutions is very 

much dependent on what the outcome is on the education. 

If you succeed, and particularly in the Federal programs where 

there is a lot of flexibility and a lot of options, most likely it is 

going to be a situation where the borrower is going to come out 

ahead and, you know, it is good for the economy and all of that as 

well. 

As far as having a neutral third-party advisor, I am not sure at 

what point of the process that you are talking about specifically. 

I think it is always important for borrowers to get neutral advice. 

I think that the schools themselves sometimes do have conflicts of 

interest where they want the student to come to the school. They 

are selling their product in a lot of ways and it may be difficult in 

some schools to be able to give neutral advice. 

On the other hand, a lot of financial aid officers do a very good 

job now of providing that kind of advice. 

Something that Ms. Mishory mentioned is to get that kind of information out to people before they get into the school doors, and 

that could be in the schools with counselors and that should be as 

neutral and objective as possible. 

Senator AKAKA. Ms. Mishory. 

Ms. MISHORY. Yes, I mean, I would absolutely agree the cost of 

college is a huge issue. We hear about it from all the students that 

we talk with. Families are really struggling to figure out how to 

pay for college; and the issue of student debt is simply related and 

the cost of college is what is impacting this debt. 

I do think there are larger issues that we need to address, like 

State investment in our public institutions. Public institutions are 

no longer supportable like they used to be. 

Someone from my mom’s generation paid a third of what I paid 

to go to a public institution. We need schools to be accountable for 

the money that they do receive and there are not that many ways 

in which we hold schools accountable like we should, and we need 

more information. 

We need kids to be able to go and look and say: 

OK, well, the school down the street has a lot of students default on loans 

and a 50 percent unemployment rate for the past two years’ graduating 

class. But, if I go across the city, kids 2 years out have an 80 percent employment rate. I am going to go to that school across the city. 

We do not have that information right now for students and they 

desperately need it. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Remondi. 

Mr. REMONDI. I would agree that the cost of college has risen 

dramatically. I think the sticker price though is sometimes a lot 

different than what the consumer pays and we have not seen debt 

burdens grow at a more rapid pace than tuition levels. 

So, the average student is graduating with about $26,000 worth 

of debt which is about 2 percent more per year over the last 10 

years. 
32 

I think one of the challenges they face is that the economy, coming out of school today, it is very difficult for students to get a job 

either in their field or pay level that they were expecting maybe 

when they started, and that is creating some of the issues. 

But again, going back to this concept of know-before-you-go, if 

students understand the dynamics, how much it is going to cost to 

complete their education, what the graduation rate is at that 

school, what the default rate is, they can make better, more informed decisions in that process. 

Senator AKAKA. Let me ask a final question here, Mr. Remondi. 

Has the recent scandal over LIBOR had any effect on how Sallie 

Mae sets lending rates and have you thought about the possibility 

of using a different measure for rate setting? 

Mr. REMONDI. Our interest rates are set using the LIBOR index. 

We have not seen any issues or problems with that. The allegations 

that have been made to date have said that LIBOR was set artificially low wage which, if that is true, would have been to the benefit of the borrowers. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Senator Akaka. 

Thank you each of you, Ms. Loonin, thank you, Ms. Mishory and 

Mr. Remondi thank you very much. 

If you have additional comments, you can submit them to the 

Committee within the next 7 days. Committee Members may also 

write questions to you, if you would get the answers to us promptly. So thank you very much for your testimony and your service. 

The Committee is adjourned. Thanks. 

[Whereupon, at 4:08 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Prepared statements, responses to written questions, and additional material supplied for the record follow:] 
33 

1 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and U.S. Department of Education: Report on Private 

Student Loans (2012). 2 Bureau of Labor Statistics: Current Population Survey, Household Data, Table A–4, Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment (June 2012). 3 Bureau of Labor Statistics: Current Population Survey, Household Data, Table A–16, Employment status of the civilian non-institutional population 16 to 24 years of age by school enrollment, age, sex, race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, and educational attainment (June 2012). 4 Economic Policy Institute: The Class of 2012: Labor market for young graduates remains 

grim (2012). 5 National Center of Education Statistics: Digest of Education Statistics, Table 395, Median 

annual earnings of year-round, full-time workers 25 years old and over, by highest level of educational attainment and sex: 1990 through 2010 (2011). 6 National Center of Education Statistics: Digest of Education Statistics, Table 395, Median 

annual earnings of year-round, full-time workers 25 years old and over, by highest level of educational attainment and sex: 1990 through 2010 (2011). 7 National Center of Education Statistics: Digest of Education Statistics, Chapter 3 (2011). 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROHIT CHOPRA 

STUDENT LOAN OMBUDSMAN, CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

JULY 24, 2012 

Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Corker, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for holding this hearing today on an issue that touches so many American students, families, and our economy. 

A few days ago marked the 1-year anniversary of the opening of the Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau. In this year, the CFPB has taken important steps to 

improve the consumer financial marketplace. The mortgage market, in particular, 

was especially bruised and battered during the financial crisis. We hope that the 

CFPB’s measures to increase transparency and improve oversight will help restore 

confidence and heal this multi-trillion dollar market with broad impact for consumers and the economy. 

But we have also placed a great deal of attention on a growing market deeply connected to the American Dream—the student loan market. To prosper in today’s global economy, our workforce needs skills to innovate in a highly competitive environment. For millions of Americans, student loans have opened doors to a college degree-offering new opportunities to create a better life. But the rapid growth of student debt raises concerns that warrant significant attention of policymakers and 

regulators. 

With outstanding student loan debt reaching the $1 trillion mark late last year,1

our economy has not just crossed a psychological threshold. Student loans are now 

the largest form of unsecured household debt, and the CFPB will play an active role 

in contributing to a properly functioning student loan marketplace. 

College is Still a Good Investment, But Not without Risk 

College is still a good investment, and higher education remains the surest path 

to a good career and job security. The unemployment rate for workers with college 

degrees is 4.1 percent, compared to 8.4 percent for those with just a high school diploma.2 For younger workers, the unemployment rate for those with college degrees 

is 8.9 percent compared to over 13 percent for those with just a high school diploma.3

But there is another side to this story. Much attention has been paid to the growing ‘‘college wage premium’’—the difference between wages for those with a college 

degree versus those without. 

Over the past decade, wages for young college graduates have actually declined 

by 5.4 percent when adjusting for inflation.4 This growing ‘‘premium’’ is largely explained by declining wages for young people without a degree. Between 1990 and 

2010, wages for workers with only a high school diploma declined by 12 percent, 

when adjusted for inflation.5 Put another way, the growing gap is not due to a college degree becoming more valuable—it’s that the wages are of non-degree holders 

are falling.6

But the cost of attendance at our Nation’s colleges and universities has not been 

falling. In the past decade, the cost of attendance at public schools increased 42 percent, and prices at private not-for-profit schools increased 31 percent, when adjusting for inflation.7 Tough economic times have led State governments to slash higher 

education budgets, exacerbating this trend. The cost of tuition and fees has risen 
34 

8 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI–U), College 

tuition and fees, 1979–2011 (2012); Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index for All 

Urban Consumers (CPI–U), All Items, 1979–2011 (2012); Bureau of Labor Statistics, Median 

usual weekly earnings, Employed full time, Wage and salary workers, 1979–2011 (2012); Bureau 

of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI–U), Medical Care, 

1979–2011 (2012). 9 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and U.S. Department of Education: Report on Private Student Loans (2012). 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13Lenders have voiced that the offering of alternate repayment schedules is limited by prudential guidance, which might often require greater provisions for loan losses when granting 

modifications. 14P.L. 110–84. 15 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a). 

more than tenfold since 1979, vastly outpacing inflation, wage growth and 

healthcare costs.8

Growing costs, declining real wages, and job market uncertainty have led to more 

debt and more risk. The consequences of this increased risk are real, as evidenced 

by troubling employment outcomes and student loan defaults, which are disproportionately felt in the for-profit college sector. While perhaps fewer in number than 

the struggles of American homeowners, the stories of distressed young college graduates reveal the impact of the financial crisis and the significant work that lies 

ahead. 

Private Student Loans Carry More Risk 

While seemingly quite different, dysfunction in the student loan market bears 

some remarkable similarities to the mortgage market in the years leading up to the 

financial crisis. High-credit-quality conforming mortgages and Federal student loans 

originated in this time period were rather ordinary. 

But, of course, not all mortgages were so ordinary, and phrases like ‘‘no-doc’’ and 

‘‘Alt-A’’ were well-known in the subprime market. While student loans have been 

originated outside of the Federal loan programs for years, private student loans 

boomed in the years leading up to the crisis.9 From 2003 to 2007, the number of 

undergraduates who took out private student loans almost tripled.10

Fueled by investor appetite for asset-backed securities, many private student 

lenders reduced their underwriting standards and marketed directly (and sometimes 

heavily) to students. Holders of these securities likely did not expect the levels of 

delinquency and default on these loans.11 Theoretically, the rating agencies who 

evaluated the securities would have served to police quality issues and align incentives of investors and issuers. That alignment appears, in retrospect, to have been 

imprecise. 

Like the subprime mortgage industry, lax lending practices are far less common 

in the current environment. Most private student loans today are co-signed by creditworthy borrowers and have significant disclosure requirements.12 But like the 

mortgage market, there are still cracks in the system that need mending. 

Private student loans often lack repayment flexibility 13 when young graduates 

face a difficult labor market—a marked contrast to the Federal student loan program. In 2007, Congress and President Bush enacted the College Cost Reduction 

and Access Act, which recognized the need for student loan borrowers to have an 

option to service their debt as a portion of their income.14 The income-based repayment program allows a student loan borrower to remain current on a loan, so long 

as they are paying a fixed percentage of discretionary income; but this is generally 

not a feature offered to private student loan borrowers. 

In addition, some for-profit colleges arrange institutional lending programs for 

students to borrow directly from the school or a school-affiliated entity. These companies report that they anticipate high levels of default on these loan portfolios. 

Private student loan borrowers also experience significant challenges when attempting to restructure their loan obligations, due to an unusual status in the Federal bankruptcy code and a nearly nonexistent refinance market. 

Compared to other forms of consumer debt, like credit cards, private student loan 

debt is more difficult to restructure. In the bankruptcy code, distressed private student loan borrowers are put in the same category as those who cause injury when 

driving drunk, skip out on taxes, or avoid child support.15

Even some of the most responsible borrowers—those who may be making significant sacrifices to make payments on their private student loans—have sought help 

to better manage their debt burden. Despite a significant change in the interest rate 
35 

16This report is pursuant to Section 1035 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. 17 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and U.S. Department of Education: Report on Private Student Loans (2012). 18 Ibid. 19 U.S. Census Bureau: Families and Living Arrangements, Table AD–1, Young Adults Living 

at Home: 1960 to Present (2010). 

environment, we see that many borrowers feel stuck in high interest rates and high 

monthly payments, because they cannot easily refinance. 

Important Steps Forward in the CFPB’s First Year 

The CFPB has already begun to act to address concerns in this market. In March, 

we launched a student loan complaint system where borrowers can get help. Any 

consumer with a student loan can come to our Web site (consumerfinance.gov) or 

call our toll-free call center to get help. For borrowers with private student loans, 

we receive complaints directly from borrowers and, through our Web-based portal, 

connect borrowers with their lender or servicer and work to resolve their complaints. 

In our monitoring of the student loan market, as well as through what we hear 

in complaints and other feedback from borrowers, we observe many issues similar 

to those experienced by consumers in the mortgage servicing industry. For example, 

borrowers have told us about problems in the crediting of payments and processing 

of paperwork, confusion when financial institutions buy and sell portfolios of loans, 

and difficulty getting clear guidance from student loan servicing personnel when facing financial hardship. 

Our complaint system has already helped many borrowers when faced with billing 

errors, lost paperwork, and other loan servicing issues. We will continue to monitor 

these servicing issues and plan to provide a report to Congress later this year.16

We also worked closely with the Department of Education on a Know Before You 

Owe ‘‘financial aid shopping sheet’’ to help schools provide better information on student loans and grants. And we’ve developed online tools, used by tens of thousands 

of consumers, on how to navigate their student loan repayment options, avoid default, and protect their credit history. We’ve also begun to supervise the Nation’s 

largest banks, where much of today’s private student loan origination takes place, 

for compliance with Federal consumer financial laws and to detect and assess risks 

to consumers. 

The CFPB hopes to continue and expand our work with other agencies that might 

play a critical role in addressing roadblocks to facilitating repayment flexibility and 

a robust refinancing market.17

Congress can also play a role. Last week, CFPB Director Richard Cordray and 

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan presented a report to Congress on the private 

student loan market. Both Director Cordray and Secretary Duncan provided recommendations on potential improvements to the marketplace. They each asked Congress to consider requiring school certification of loans, modifying the definition of 

a private student loan, and further investigating whether the 2005 change to the 

bankruptcy code met its intended goals.18

Student Debt in the Broader Economic Puzzle 

Over the past year, the CFPB collected thousands of comments from individual 

student loan borrowers about their experiences with private student loans. A common theme in these stories was the impact of their debt on reaching economic milestones. 

Compared to mortgages, student debt does not pose the same sort of systemic risk 

to the banking system. While policymakers are highly focused on conditions in the 

labor and capital markets, it would be imprudent to dismiss that growing student 

indebtedness can act as a drag on economic recovery. 

Consider a private student loan borrower with a high interest rate (which could 

creep even higher given today’s interest rates) on a large balance. Many borrowers 

are dutifully meeting these obligations. But without a robust refinancing market, 

they struggle to reduce their monthly payments, even though they might have built 

a solid credit history since their early days of college. Will these honest borrowers 

be precluded from reaching the economic milestones familiar to American life? And 

if so, what might be the broader consequences? 

Take the housing market: first-time homebuyers are typically an important source 

of demand and help facilitate move-up purchases from existing buyers. Census data 

reveals that 6 million Americans ages 25–34 lived with their parents in 2011, a 

sharp increase from just a few years ago.19 The 25–29 year old age cohort has expe-
36 

20 U.S. Census Bureau: Housing Vacancies and Homeownership (CPS/HVS), Table 15, Housing 

Inventory Estimates by Age of Householder and by Family Status: 1982 to Present (2011). 21 National Association of Realtors: Profile of Homebuyers and Sellers (2011). 22 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System: US Housing Market: Current Conditions 

and Policy Considerations (2012). 23Speech to the 2012 National Association of Homebuilders International Builders’ Show (February 10, 2012). 24 Northern Trust: Line of Sight: The Path Forward—Engaging the Younger Employee in DC 

Plan Participation (2011). 25 Aon Hewitt: Navigating the Path to Retirement: 2011 Universe Benchmarks Highlights 

(2011). 26 Northern Trust: Line of Sight: The Path Forward—Engaging the Younger Employee in DC 

Plan Participation (2011). 27 In 2008, Congress enacted the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act, which gave 

the Department of Education the authority to provide liquidity to financial institutions originating student loans through the Federal Family Educational Loan Program. The Department 

of Education established programs, including a buyer-of-last-resort supported asset-backed commercial paper conduit, which purchased in excess of $100 billion in student loans. 28 It is worth noting that Federal agencies have intervened in the private student loan market 

in recent years. Citing ‘‘unusual and exigent circumstances,’’ the Federal Reserve Board of Governors exercised its authority pursuant to Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act to establish 

the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF), which facilitated the issuance of a wide 

range of ABS, including those backed by private student loans. 

rienced significant reduction in homeownership rates since the financial crisis.20

The National Association of Realtors estimates that people aged 25–34 made up 27 

percent of all home buyers in 2011, the lowest share in the past decade.21

A recent Federal Reserve Study shows the share of individuals age 29–34 getting 

a first-time mortgage dropped significantly in the past decade.22 According to Chairman Ben Bernanke, ‘‘Lending to first-time homebuyers has dropped precipitously, 

even in parts of the country where unemployment rates and housing conditions are 

better than the national average.’’23

It is not just the goal of homeownership that seems further out of reach. A recent 

report revealed that just 50 percent of workers under the age of 30 have enrolled 

in their employer’s 401(k) plan.24 Forty-three percent of young workers do not save 

enough to receive a full employer match,25 and are more likely to cash out their 

plans when changing jobs.26 The inability to afford making contributions to these 

employer plans can lead to significant reductions in future nest eggs, calling into 

question whether young, debt-burdened graduates will enjoy a retirement like previous generations of Americans. 

While there are certainly many factors that could explain these trends, we might 

find continued economic stress for young graduates due to high debt levels—even 

if the broader labor and capital markets improve significantly. 

Congress 27 and Federal agencies have taken steps to increase liquidity and the 

functioning of the credit markets in recent years, but the current conditions in the 

student loan market may have a long-term impact on the economic vitality of many 

student loan borrowers.28 Many student loan borrowers today—even those who are 

making large monthly payments on-time—are unable to secure adequate credit accommodations to refinance or modify their debt burden, despite today’s historically 

low interest rate environment. 

Policy makers have paid significant attention to the refinancing and modification 

conditions in the mortgage market. But given the potential impact of student debt 

on the broader economy, the situation is rapidly demonstrating the need for attention to determine whether action is required. 

The CFPB will continue its work to make the private student loan marketplace 

work better for borrowers, schools, and honest lenders. We look forward to working 

with Congress and policymakers to address risks in the marketplace and identify 

ways to ensure that economic mobility is still within reach for those who borrowed 

to invest in an education. 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 

1 College Board, ‘‘2011 Trends in Student Aid’’, McKinsey & Company. 

2 College Board, ‘‘2011 Trends in Student Aid’’. 

3Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, August 2011. 

4 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey, June 2012. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACK REMONDI 

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, SALLIE MAE

JULY 24, 2012 

Good afternoon Chairman Brown, Senator Corker and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Jack Remondi. I am the President and Chief Operating Officer of Sallie Mae. I thank you for the opportunity to testify on the private education 

loan marketplace, which has witnessed a significant transformation in recent years. 

More than ever, a college degree provides a pathway to a lifetime of higher income 

and employment. Yet, with today’s cost, most families find they need to finance a 

portion of the total cost. Private education loans provide a small, but important, 

supplement for students and families that can help them access a higher education. 

In our 40 years, Sallie Mae has helped more than 31 million Americans achieve 

their college dream. As a result of our experience, Sallie Mae understands the importance of education, and how it can drive positive economic change for individuals 

and families across the economic spectrum. We take seriously our role of providing 

responsible private education loans to those who rely on them when making the college investment. 

As the country’s leading saving-, planning- and paying-for-college company, with 

the mission of helping make higher education accessible and affordable for American 

families, Sallie Mae is grateful for this opportunity to share our perspective in this 

discussion. 

Overview 

The market for private education loans is a small, but important, source of funding that helps students and families responsibly fill the gap between their own income and savings, financial aid, grants, Federal loans, and the total cost of their 

chosen college or university. Created decades ago, at a time when available aid was 

not enough to meet the full cost of education, private education loans were introduced to support families in meeting remaining costs after other resources and were 

never intended to replace Federal aid. In fact, they were originally called ‘‘supplemental’’ loans, indicating their stated purpose. We recommend that the Committee 

consider today’s market in terms of size and providers, and its limited, but important, supplemental role in financing higher education. 

In academic year 2007–08, students and families borrowed $23.2 billion in ‘‘nonFederal,’’ or private education loans, representing about 6 percent of all spending 

on higher education. With increases in Federal loan limits, more robust underwriting standards and a very difficult economic environment, 3 years later, in academic year 2010–11, students and families borrowed less than $8 billion in non-Federal education loans, representing about 1 percent of total spending on higher education.1

Over the same period, however, the Federal loan program grew by 50 percent, 

from $69 billion to $104 billion.2 Today, Federal loan originations are 13 times that 

of private education loans. 

We believe that education loans are not meant to be the sole source of higher education funding. In fact, we administer 529 college savings plans and interest-free 

tuition installment plans for millions of families. When those and other aid are not 

enough, families consider borrowing, and when they do, as with any loan, education 

loans should be taken out with care. Students and their families need to assess the 

total cost of education, not just the bill for the current semester, and be sure that 

what they borrow is what they can afford based on current and projected financial 

resources. 

As a means for achieving economic success in America, a higher education is more 

valuable than ever. Various studies have estimated that college graduates will earn, 

on average, between $650,000 and $1,000,000 more over the course of their careers 

than those with only high school diplomas.3 In addition to increased earnings potential, a higher education results in lower unemployment rates. National unemployment figures for June were at 8.2 percent; however, Americans with a bachelor’s degree or higher had a jobless rate of just 4.1 percent. The benefits of employment 

extend to new college graduates, as well. The unemployment rate of new graduates 

is 9.8 percent compared to 20.6 percent for their same-age peers with no post-secondary education.4
75 

5 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Department of Education, ‘‘Private Student 

Loans,’’ July 2012. 

Higher education is a major lifetime investment and helping college-bound students and their families responsibly make this investment is Sallie Mae’s top priority. Experience has taught us that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work. That 

is why we have developed a suite of tools and products that help students and families build plans that are right for their situations and that will assist them whether 

college is a long way off or right around the corner. 

Our goal is to educate families up front about the entirety of the education finance 

process, and to make sure that access yields success. Families will be their own best 

defense against over-borrowing if they keep these basic principles in mind: 

• Choose a school that is within financial reach. 

• Create a financial plan that goes beyond the first year and includes all the expected costs through graduation. 

• Consider career plans and likely starting salary in the borrowing decision. 

• Remember that loans require repayment. 

• Explore Federal loans first. 

• Keep balances down by doing whatever can be done to make loan payments 

while in school. 

• Make loan payments, even partial ones, if at all possible when out of school to 

keep balances from growing out of control. Deferring payment is the same as 

borrowing more—the loan balance grows every day. 

• Perhaps most important of all, graduate. Nobody wins when debt is incurred 

for a degree that does not materialize. Student loans without a degree mean 

loan payments without the increased employment prospects and higher earnings to support them. 

Sallie Mae has a long-standing practice of advising a ‘‘1–2–3 approach’’ to paying 

for college to empower families to make informed decisions. Specifically, we recommend that families do the following: 

1. Use scholarships, grants, savings and income. 

2. Explore Federal loans. 

3. Consider an affordable, responsible private education loan to fill any remaining 

gap. 

The Administration’s recent report on private education loans stated, ‘‘Students 

and their families would be better served by having access to all pertinent financial 

information concerning the college decision prior to deciding which college to enroll 

at and how much debt to incur.’’5 Sallie Mae couldn’t agree more. Although applying 

for financial aid is an annual exercise, we encourage families to plan for the multiyear commitment required to fund a college degree. In fact, we design our planning 

tools to assist families in determining how to meet the full costs of a college education. A 1-year snapshot is simply not enough. 

Our free Education Investment Planner gives families the tools and information 

they need to become educated planners and savers. The free tool helps users ‘‘know 

what they will owe’’ over the entire course of completing their college degree, and 

assess before borrowing whether that amount will be manageable given their current and expected future income. 

In most cases, higher education is a family commitment. Sallie Mae’s How America Pays for College research found that three out of four families believe parents 

and students should share the responsibility for paying for college. In practice, six 

out of 10 parents contribute, either through savings or borrowing, to fund their children’s educations. Our private education loans are designed to support that shared 

responsibility and commitment. Last year, over 90 percent of our new private education loans had a cosigner, usually a parent. 

At Sallie Mae, efforts to inform students and families about their loans begin at 

loan application and continue until the loan is paid in full. During the application 

process, students and their cosigners view monthly and total payment information 

customized to their borrowing amount and qualifying interest rate. Applicants are 

presented with a choice of interest rate structure, variable or fixed, and a choice of 

repayment options that include in-school payments of interest, nominal payments 

of $25 a month or deferred payments. 

Once approved, customers receive multiple disclosures with detailed loan information. These communications clearly highlight the availability of Federal loan pro-
76 

grams, quantify expected monthly payments and finance charges, encourage the applicant to shop around, and outline the right to cancel the loan after disbursement. 

The education process continues after loan proceeds are disbursed. Our private 

education loan customers receive statements monthly that detail their loan balance 

and accruing interest. Customers who elected to defer payment while in school are 

reminded of the effect that making in-school payments would have on their total 

loan costs. This continuing education has been successful, and we are pleased that 

so many of our customers have benefited from this cost-saving practice. 

Sallie Mae’s private loan portfolio is strong, and our underwriting is sound. Even 

in these tough times, the vast majority of our customers are successfully making 

on-time payments. In fact, 90 percent of our loans in repayment are current. Our 

private loan delinquencies have steadily declined since the peak of the recession, 

and charge-offs have dropped from a high of 6 percent of loans in repayment to 3 

percent this year. 

Still, we recognize that the economic recession has posed real and significant challenges for some of our customers. Our success depends on our customers’ success, 

and therefore, we are committed to working with customers to help them navigate 

difficult financial circumstances and preserve their good credit standing. To assist 

borrowers with past due loans, we reach out to gain an understanding of the individual circumstances they face. To customers who have exhausted traditional repayment options and are demonstrating a reduced ability to pay, we offer a mix of repayment products, counseling and collection programs that give them the best opportunity to manage their debt obligations and succeed. These options include reduced monthly payments, interest-only payments, extended repayment schedules, 

and temporary interest rate reductions, all scaled to a customer’s individual circumstances and ability to make manageable payments. Since 2009, we have modified $1.1 billion in loans to help our customers manage their loans. 

Nonetheless, in some cases, loan modifications and other efforts are insufficient 

and bankruptcy may be the only path. Sallie Mae supports reasonable reform to 

bankruptcy laws that would allow borrowers to discharge their education loans— 

both private and Federal—after a good faith period of attempting to repay. Any reform must recognize that education loans have unique characteristics and benefits. 

They are unsecured credit extended to borrowers whose assets are initially limited, 

but can be expected to grow over a lifetime of greater earnings power attributable 

to the value provided by the education obtained through these loans. Consequently, 

given the lifelong nature of this ‘‘collateral,’’ Congress saw fit that neither private 

nor Federal loans be easily dischargeable in bankruptcy. This has been the case for 

Federal loans since the late 1970s. Private education loan rules, which had mixed 

treatment depending on the lender/guarantor, were standardized with the same protection in 2005. 

Recent graduates with sizable education loans and relatively few assets, a common combination in education lending, create a moral hazard that drove the creation of these bankruptcy protections. ‘‘Many Students Avoiding Payment of Loans 

by Filing for Bankruptcy’’ was a 1976 New York Times headline about this unique 

problem. As graduates become employed, increase their earnings and assets and recognize the value of establishing good credit, this hazard diminishes. Sallie Mae supports bankruptcy reform that would require a period of good faith payments, that 

is prospective so as not to rewrite existing contracts, and that applies to Federal 

and non-Federal education loans alike. 

Education loans are an important financial tool for responsible borrowers. They 

help provide access to a brighter future. Responsible lending standards, clear information and consistent laws are good for borrowers and lenders alike. We take this 

point seriously. Sallie Mae is ever mindful that our success is tied directly to the 

financial success of our customers, and our products and practices reflect that reality. 

Our loans provide important protections for the family, including tuition insurance, and death and disability loan forgiveness. But the best protection inherent to 

any loan, including a private education loan, is the underwriting of the loan itself. 

Further, we all have a role to play in preventing over borrowing and working to assure as many students graduate as possible. 

In the last 5 years, the private education loan marketplace has undergone significant change. Driven by the credit market crisis and changes at the State and Federal levels—including changes developed by Congress—today’s smaller private education loan marketplace provides extensive disclosures, adherence to new rules for 

financial aid offices, and tightened underwriting standards that better match loans 

with a family’s ability to repay. 

As you examine the private education loan marketplace, we hope Congress will 

recognize the comprehensive series of legislative and marketplace changes imple-
77 

6 Examples of these disclosures are available at www.SallieMae.com/primer. 

mented in recent years that strengthened consumer protections and witnessed product innovations that have reduced costs for borrowers. 

It is a mistake to believe ‘‘private’’ or ‘‘non-Federal’’ is synonymous with ‘‘un-regulated.’’ The private education loan marketplace is extensively regulated. The vast 

majority of private education loans are made through highly regulated traditional 

banking channels, to borrowers protected by numerous State and Federal consumer 

lending laws. As the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and U.S. Department 

of Education noted in their report: 

Private Student Loan borrowers have significant protections under the 

Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 

the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Fair Debt Collection Practices 

Act (FDCPA), the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), and the Consumer Financial Protection Act. (p. 67) 

The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 amended the Federal Truth-inLending Act to establish a series of extensive, modernized disclosures to provide private education loan borrowers clear, consistent, and easy-to-compare information 

about private loans. Quoting again from the report: 

The new Truth in Lending Act (TILA) disclosures for Private Student Loans 

are unique to that product. No other installment loan is subject to quite so 

much disclosure. (p. 68) 

Also, the private education loan marketplace operates in accordance with important common safeguards to private education loans that were developed by Congress 

and passed as part of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. The HEOA 

established borrower protections such as a guaranteed 30-day window to accept the 

loan without term changes and the right to cancel loans after approval; it limited 

certain practices, such as school co-branding; it regulated campus lender lists; and 

it required borrowers to self-certify their costs of education and to confirm they are 

aware of the availability of Federal loans before completing their private education 

loan applications. 

As a result of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 

rulemaking authority under many of these laws and regulations has been transferred to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. We have been working with 

the CFPB, including participating in their recent study, to ensure that consumers 

have access to responsible education loan products that not only help provide access 

to higher education, but also are designed to help produce success. 

At Sallie Mae, our disclosures provide borrowers clear, consistent, and easy-tocompare information about private education loans.6 These disclosures inform borrowers of the potential life-of-loan costs and provide multiple reminders to explore 

the availability of lower-cost options, including Federal loans. In the most recent 

findings of our How America Pays for College study, we found how effective these 

reminders are: 

• Of private education loan borrowers, 98 percent filled out the Free Application 

for Federal Student Aid form, or FAFSA, which is the first step toward taking 

out a Federal loan. 

• Last year, 25 percent of students borrowed Federal loans only, 9 percent used 

a mix of Federal and private loans, and 1 percent tapped private loans only. 

We believe that these significant results are directly related to the increased disclosures provided to consumers. In addition, Sallie Mae has pioneered new products 

and procedures designed to further help families make more informed, affordable 

choices. 

Today, most private education loans are certified by the school. Sallie Mae advocates school certification as an important safeguard against over-borrowing; we will 

not disburse a private education loan until the school financial aid office certifies 

the need for and the amount of a loan. This is not because we are required to— 

we are not—but because it is an important check against over-borrowing. 

Until 3 years ago, nearly all borrowers deferred loan payments while in school. 

In 2009, Sallie Mae became the first national lender to encourage payments while 

in school. In addition, we designed shorter repayment periods based on loan 

amounts, which, combined with in-school payments, dramatically reduce finance 

charges. 

We encourage payments before graduation because it saves thousands of dollars 

over the life of the loan, and we reward customers who elect an in-school payment 
78 

option with lower interest rates. Our in-school customers who opt for either the interest payment plan or the fixed $25 per month plan can save an estimated 30 to 

50 percent in total interest costs. 

In academic year 2011–12, when offered the choice of three repayment options, 

including no payments while in-school, 63 percent of Sallie Mae in-school customer 

families choose to lower their costs of borrowing by making payments. This compares to just 5 percent of customers who made in-school payments before we introduced the practice of encouraging them. 

One area where we are anxious to see some change is in the area of working with 

defaulted borrowers. For those who have defaulted on their Federal loans, the Federal rehabilitation program provides a powerful incentive to borrowers to return to 

regular repayment and rebuild their credit. Under this program, if a customer 

makes a specified number of timely payments, his loan is ‘‘rehabilitated’’ and, by 

law, the default must be removed from his credit history. The statute requires the 

lender to report this change to the credit history. For all other consumer credit, 

however, the Fair Credit Reporting Act does not allow such a ‘‘second chance.’’ 

There is no provision for lenders to rehabilitate defaulted private loans and then 

request the removal of a default that did, in fact, occur. For some time, we have 

identified the need for a similar rehabilitation solution. We believe it is appropriate 

for Congress to consider legislative changes that could provide this option to private 

education loan borrowers. 

Conclusion 

Higher education is an American priority, and how to pay for college is a family 

decision. Families will maximize the return on their investment when students 

graduate; thus, they should approach paying for college as they would any other serious investment: by understanding the full cost and the expected return. 

Sallie Mae has long recommended that students and their families finance higher 

education from savings, scholarships, grants, Federal student loans, and, if necessary, a responsible private education loan. 

Private education loans are a small but critical component of how families pay for 

college. Used by just 10 percent of families, private education loans help families 

cover the gap between other financial aid and their chosen school’s cost of attendance. 

Legislative changes and market forces have combined to make private education 

lending better understood by families, better underwritten, and more targeted to 

provide the needed financing that can be the difference between achieving an academic goal and failing to do so. 

Sallie Mae is proud to have helped more than 31 million Americans achieve their 

dream of a higher education. We pledge to continue responsible lending practices 

and to work with policymakers where there are opportunities to make further improvements. 

Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 
(79) 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR REED FROM 

ROHIT CHOPRA 

Q.1. Are we seeing some signs of renewed growth in volume for private student loans? What steps should we take now to prevent a 

return to the lax underwriting and predatory lending that we saw 

between 2001 and 2008? 

A.1. Since 2008, origination of private student loans has grown, but 

has not reached the level seen prior to the financial crisis. In the 

Report on Private Student Loans submitted by the Director of the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Secretary 

of Education, CFPB Director Richard Cordray and Education Secretary Arne Duncan each recommended that Congress consider requiring all private student loans to be ‘‘certified’’ by the school’s financial aid office. This step could help students to avoid overborrowing and help to ensure that schools have the opportunity to 

counsel students about potentially lower-cost loan options before 

students take out private student loans. 

Q.2. Are you seeing patterns of complaints from borrowers? What 

are some of the more frequent complaints? How have they been resolved? 

A.2. Since launching our consumer response function for student 

loan complaints in March of this year, we’ve received over 2,500 

complaints from borrowers experiencing difficulties with their private student loans. Prior to the establishment of the CFPB and the 

ombudsman function for private student loans, there was no single 

point of contact for consumers to file complaints about private student loans. 

The most notable subset of these complaints involves borrowers 

seeking loan modifications due to difficulty securing adequate employment. A significant number of borrowers are experiencing general servicing problems, ranging from billing disputes and lost paperwork to difficulties obtaining alternative payment plans advertised by lenders and servicers. 

We are pleased that many of these complaints have been favorably resolved by lenders and servicers. Borrowers have been able 

to enroll in new payment plans and have received refunds for errors by lenders and servicers. Pursuant to Section 1035 of the 

Dodd-Frank Act, we will provide a report to Congress later this 

year providing further details on the student loan complaints we 

have received. 

Q.3. In the private student loan report that the CFPB and the Department of Education submitted to Congress last week, it was 

noted that in the wake of the student loan boom and bust there is 

more than $8 billion in defaulted private student loans. What steps 

can lenders take to assist borrowers who are in default on their 
80 

private student loans? Are there examples of lenders that have 

made significant efforts in this regard? 

A.3. Unlike many other consumer financial products, such as auto 

loans and mortgages, student loans are not secured by collateral 

and very difficult to restructure in bankruptcy. These attributes 

might reduce the incentive of lenders to employ typical loss mitigation interventions. It is also very difficult to restructure private 

student loans in bankruptcy proceedings, further diminishing lenders’ incentives to offer loan modifications. 

To our knowledge, there have not been examples of successful 

large-scale efforts by lenders to modify private student loans in default. Generally speaking, defaulted loans are charged off and lenders often take legal action or utilize third-party debt collectors to 

make recoveries. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR REED FROM 

DEANNE LOONIN 

Q.1. How much responsibility do institutions of higher education 

bear in the private student loan boom and bust described in the 

CFPB report? What should their responsibilities be going forward? 

A.1. There are many ways in which institutions of higher education 

bear some responsibility for the boom and bust cycle and the resulting harm to student borrowers. The clearest example is the cost 

of higher education. There are many reasons why costs have skyrocketed and schools are not fully to blame, but they do share some 

of the blame and responsibility to help curb costs and therefore reduce student borrowing. 

In addition, particularly prior to the credit crisis, many schools 

engaged in practices that created conflicts of interest, including 

promoting certain lenders, marketing lender products at schools, 

and referring students to particular lenders. Schools bear the responsibility of ensuring that they are acting in the best interests 

of students, not lenders. 

Some schools bear direct responsibility for the boom and bust 

cycle due to irresponsible institutional lending practices. These 

practices are documented in detail in the CFPB report and in 

NCLC’s January 2011 report, ‘‘Piling It On.’’ 

Going forward, schools can help prevent harm to students by establishing effective counseling and loan certification programs. 

They can also provide transparent information about financial aid 

packages, clearly delineating grants vs. loans and Federal loans vs. 

private loans. 

Schools should work only with lenders that include FTC Holder 

notices in their loan agreements. In addition, schools that refer students to particular lenders should provide as much information as 

possible to students about these products. Schools should investigate lender practices and take steps to work only with lenders 

that meet minimum standards and do not engage in deceptive and 

abusive practices. 

Q.2. The CFPB and the Department of Education recently made 

recommendations regarding improvements to private student loans 
81 

to Congress. What are your thoughts on these recommendations? 

What additional recommendations to Congress would you suggest? 

A.2. We support the recommendations in the July 2012 CFPB report. However, we believe even stronger action is needed. Our additional points below focus on recommendations to Congress: 

a. Bankruptcy reform. The CFPB and Department of Education 

recommend investigating whether changes are needed to the 

treatment of privateloans in bankruptcy. Although further investigation may be helpful, we believe that Congress has sufficient information to restore bankruptcy rights to these borrowers. There was no valid reason to eliminate these rights 

for private student loan borrowers in 2005. Congress should 

act quickly and restore bankruptcy rights for struggling borrowers. 

b. Non-bankruptcy relief for private student loan borrowers. The 

report notes that private student loans do not offer any of the 

debt management or mitigation options enjoyed by Federal 

loan borrowers. We agree with the conclusion that Congress 

should work with the CFPB and Department of Education to 

investigate this issue further. However, this is not enough. We 

recommend additional action, including: 

• Investigating any regulatory barriers to private student loan 

relief and working with regulators to amend guidance as 

necessary to ensure that private lenders have flexibility to 

offer meaningful relief to distressed student loan borrowers. 

• Require that private lenders offer a standardized set of loss 

mitigation relief prior to acceleration of debts. 

• Create a mandatory, standard loan modification program for 

distressed borrowers. 

• Require private student lenders to offer death and disability 

discharges and investigate the current discretionary death 

and disability private loan discharge programs to determine 

whether lenders are offering accurate information about 

these options. 

c. Ban mandatory arbitration clauses in private student loan 

agreements. 

We also urge Congress and the Federal agencies to investigate 

servicing practices in the private student loan industry. Ultimately, 

we recommend creation of national servicing standards that will establish minimum protections that must be offered to borrowers. 

This may also require amendments to ensure that the Fair Credit 

Billing Act applies to private student loans. 

Thank you for holding this hearing and soliciting additional 

input. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR REED FROM 

JACK REMONDI 

Q.1. In the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s report to Congress, it was noted that there was approximately $8 billion in default from 850,000 distinct private student loans that were made 
82 

prior to the credit crisis in 2008. What percentage of these loans 

are Sallie Mae loans? 

A.1. Sallie Mae and eight other lenders provided a dataset comprised of loans originated between 2005 and 2011. As CFPB stated 

in their report, this information was provided under a non-disclosure agreement and is protected under various Federal laws as proprietary and confidential business information (see footnote 3 on 

page 109 of CFPB’s Report on Private Education Loans). 

Sallie Mae does provide a significant amount of public data and 

information on the performance of its private education loan portfolio, every quarter, through its investor releases and its submissions to the Securities and Exchange Commission. In terms of defaults, Sallie Mae reports the amount of loans that have been 

charged off, meaning the amount that has failed to make a payment for 212 days. With the credit crisis and the onset of the recession, Sallie Mae experienced an increase in private education loan 

defaults, i.e., charge-offs. Annual charge-offs peaked in 2009 at $1.3 

billion and have since declined steadily since. For the first half of 

2012, private education loan charge-offs were $459 million. 

Q.2. In your testimony, you state that since 2009 Sallie Mae has modified $1.1 billion in loans to help your customers. Please provide a breakdown of the types of modifications offered, broken 

down by the number of borrowers, the dollar value of the modification provided, and the percentage of modified loans that are currently in good standing. 

A.2. During 2009, we instituted an interest rate reduction program 

to assist customers in repaying their private education loans 

through reduced payments, while continuing to reduce their outstanding principal balance. This program is offered in situations 

where the potential for principal recovery, through a modification 

of the monthly payment amount, is better than other alternatives 

available. Along with demonstrating the ability and willingness to 

pay, the customer must make three consecutive monthly payments 

at the reduced rate to qualify for the program. Once the customer 

has made the initial three payments, the loans status is returned 

to current and the interest rate is reduced for the successive 12- 

month period. 

Since the inception of the rate reduction program, we have cured over 32,000 unique borrowers for $1.3 billion in outstanding loans. 

All of the borrowers in the program have their interest rates reduced to a level where they can manage to keep up with timely 

monthly payments. Roughly 50 percent of the customers in the rate 

reduction program have their interest rate lowered to 1 percent interest rate during the program period. Currently we are experiencing a 78 percent success rate, as defined by borrowers remaining current and completing their 12-month program. 

Q.3. When is a Sallie Mae private loan determined to be in default? 

Please describe any programs or procedures that Sallie Mae has in 

place to prevent borrowers from defaulting on their loans. 

A.3. At Sallie Mae, we charge off the estimated loss of a defaulted 

loan balance, at the end of each month, for loans that are 212 days 

past due. Other lender’s policies may vary, since each lender makes 

this determination as a result of guidance from their respective 
83 

Federal banking regulator. In the Federal programs, a borrower is 

considered in default if they have not made a payment in over 271 

days. 

It is important to recognize that the vast majority of our private 

loan customers manage their payments successfully. In our most 

recent quarter, our annualized private loan charge-off rate was 3.1 

percent, down from 5.4 percent in 2009, a remarkable decline particularly in light of the current raised levels of unemployment. 

The first step in preventing defaults is the loan underwriting 

process, which assesses a borrower’s ability and willingness to 

repay the loan. In most instances, our private education loans are 

made to the family where a parent and student borrower share the 

responsibility of evaluating loan choices and in making decisions 

about loan amounts required to supplement other resources and fill 

the financing gap. 

One vital component of reducing defaults is early education for 

borrowers on the value and costs associated with higher education. 

That is why we provide tools, such as our Education Investment 

Planner, to make sure that students and families can plan for the 

full cost of attaining a degree. 

We find that customers who make in-school payments have lower 

delinquency rates when commencing full payment because they 

have already developed good payment habits and have kept the 

amount due lower. That is why we design our loan products to encourage in school payments, providing financial incentives to make 

payments in school to keep borrowing costs low. We go beyond the 

mandatory Truth-in-Lending disclosures, to show our customers 

the choices that they have in products and the long-term costs/savings of those choices. We provide monthly statements to all private 

education loan customers in school. Even for the one-third of our 

customers who chose to defer payments while in school, we provide 

them monthly statements and encourage them to make any payments to defray the long-term costs of their loans. 

We also encourage customers to enroll to make payments via 

auto debit, which results in significantly lower rates of delinquency. To incent them to enroll in this program, we typically offer 

a 0.25 percentage point interest rate reduction. 

Loan repayment and default prevention programs should be part 

of a thoughtful strategy that (1) reduces the likelihood of default 

over the life of the loan and related impacts to a consumer’s credit, 

(2) makes the payment amount manageable given income and necessary expenses, and (3) manages and reduces the overall and lifetime cost of borrowing. Sallie Mae’s position is that repayment 

plans and strategies that ignore any of these components are likely 

to yield unintended consequences in the long term. 

Some of the repayment plans that Sallie Mae offers to distressed 

borrowers include: tiered monthly payment options, interest-only 

payment periods, extensions of loan terms, and forbearances. In additional to the traditional programs, Sallie Mae developed the rate 

reduction program described in the previous response. Critical to 

the success of any of these tools is the process that we undertake 

with the customer to make sure that the program will work. We 

work with the customer to assess their overall financial situation. 

With the customer, we assess their current private loan obligations, 
84 

Federal student loan payments, other consumer debts, income, and 

discretionary and essential spending in order to put together a 

comprehensive view of their personal budgets. We use this view to 

help identify repayment options to best meet their individual situations and ability to pay. However, in all cases, we make clear to 

the borrower that alternative payment schedules will increase the 

overall cost of the loan. 

We have modified loans for tens of thousands of borrowers, and 

continue to make these modifications based on the borrowers’ personal situations. The great majority of these consumers have successfully kept their loans from returning to delinquency or defaulting. 

Q.4. For loans made between 2004 and 2008, what percentage are 

in default? What is the dollar value of these defaulted loans? 

A.4. Response: As part of our public disclosures, we provide detailed default information. The vast majority of defaults occur within 3 years of entering repayment. As a result, the vast majority of 

our charge-offs since 2008 have been associated with our older 

loans. Our charge-offs are reported in our quarterly investor disclosures that we file with the Security and Exchange Commission, 

which we discuss in our response to the first question. As part of 

our public investor information, we do provide default information 

on certain private education loans, which are eligible for 

securitization trusts, by year of entering repayment and year of default. A sample table showing this information is included below. 

The most recent public release was in our Q2 2012 Investor Presentation, which can be found at https://www1.salliemae.com/ 

about/investors/webcasts/ 

Q.5. For loans made after 2008, what percentage are in default? 

What is the dollar value of these defaulted loans? 

A.5. See previous answer. 

Q.6. How has Sallie Mae’s private student loan underwriting 

changed since 2008? 

A.6. In 2008, we tightened our underwriting requirements and applications with coborrowers increased. Our proprietary under-
85 

writing model uses multiple factors to assess ability, stability, and 

willingness to repay. To determine the ability to repay we look at 

such factors as a family’s debt-to-income ratio and cash-flow available to manage outstanding debt. We assess the willingness to pay 

by looking at credit scores and prior payment history. Today, our 

loan originations have high levels of cosigners (currently about 90 

percent for undergraduate loans). Our private education loans are 

designed to support that shared responsibility and family commitment. In fact, in the majority of cases, a creditworthy cosigner 

helps applicants receive a lower interest rate offer than they would 

otherwise and serves as a vital influence on the student’s borrowing experience. 

Since 2008, both the average FICO on new private education 

loans and the percentage of loans that are cosigned have steadily 

increased, as shown below: 

• 2007: average winning FICO of 709 and 55 percent were cosigned. 

• 2008: average winning FICO of 726 and 65 percent were cosigned. 

• 2009: average winning FICO of 745 and 83 percent were cosigned 

• 2010: average winning FICO of 739 and 89 percent were cosigned. 

• 2011: average winning FICO of 748 and 91 percent were cosigned. 
86 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUPPLIED FOR THE RECORD
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92