> There is no expectation that the servicer will act in the interest of the consumer... Navient says its public statements encouraging borrowers to contact the company didn’t mean it would act in their best interest.
So, pardon in advance for the vulgar language, but why the fuck is this OK? From any company?
I'm getting real damn sick and tired of "what the big print gives, the spidery print takes away" and how we're all just supposed to be OK with this, as if this is how the world works or some crap.
If your public advertising--especially, but not limited to, when administering a service on behalf of the government--explicitly says "call us and we will help you," your company should not then be able to turn around and say "well, caveat emptor for calling us, sucker." Meanwhile, the handful of agencies devoted to trying to help the individual get any kind of a fair shake from the company "provider" that massively outguns any one individual customer, are all under attack from all sides as being "too heavy handed." (I love the CFPB, in case you can't tell.)
Oh, and this whole "consumer" crap? I'm not a "consumer," I'm a customer. I'm not consuming anything from a financial services provider, I'm using their services. Stop with the idea that all of us are just mindless drones, eating our Pac Man-like dots on the way to a swift end, and maybe get back to the idea that real people are on the other end of those faceless account numbers.
(FWIW, this applies to every company with mandatory, binding arbitration clauses, including the oh-so-enlightened participants in Y Combinator. Don't restrict my ability to hold you to your side of the agreement while reserving all rights to pound me into the sand at your leisure.)
>I'm getting real damn sick and tired of "what the big print gives, the spidery print takes away"
I propose "the bigger the print, the stronger the statement". Therefore, if you make one claim in 24 point and then attempt to rescind or modify it in 8 point, the 24 is legally binding because it was larger and so nullified the smaller. This also means that if you want to place limitations (like 'one per customer' etc) on an offer you make in print, those will have to be printed in an equal font in order to be valid.
> So, pardon in advance for the vulgar language, but why the fuck is this OK? From any company?
I dunno, why wouldn't it be okay? I interact with a lot of companies on a day-to-day basis; big ones (Facebook, Google), small ones (the corner shop I bought an energy drink at on my way to work), and everything in between.
Offhand I'd say that none of them have a legal expectation to work in my best interest, nor would I have expected any of them to, nor do I believe a law requiring them to would be workable.
My interest in buying an energy drink is to get the brand I wanted at the lowest possible price; the store's interest is in selling it to me at the highest possible price. If they had to work in my best interests would they be required to sell it to me at cost? Maybe I drink too many energy drinks, would they be required on pain of criminal sanctions to try and talk me into buying some fruit juice instead? The mind boggles. :)
Or do you think there's something special about this particular product that makes it different than every other good or service in the economy? Or that their very vague ads somehow set up a special relationship that's more akin to a doctor/patient relationship than the borrower/lender relationship one would expect from, you know, a loan company?
I have had the idea for a long time that the FTC should basically work as follows: put a few dozen randomly chosen people through a sales funnel and then give them a quiz at the end about how much they will be charged and other terms of service engagement. If more than x% of people fail the quiz, then you are guilty of misleading advertising.
> So, pardon in advance for the vulgar language, but why the fuck is this OK? From any company?
Because that's the default rule when it comes to arm's-length transactions in the economy? Unless there is a special relationship (e.g. doctor-patient), everyone takes care of their end of the transaction. The government offers very generous loan repayment options for student borrowers. It's Navient's job to collect payments, which helps keep the whole system solvent and lowers interest rates for other borrowers. Why should it be its job to help borrowers figure out their repayment options?
That's the thing that pisses me off: if you're going to act a certain way, say so. I'm actually totally ok with a company that is going to act in its best interests (and not its customers), as long as they are up-front and clear that that's the case.
If you advertise that you're going to help people deal with their debt better, then that should be legally binding (regardless of what your fine print says), and a failure to do so should at the very least be illegal under false advertising laws, and I'd say more reasonably it should be considered breach of (implied) contract.
(IANAL, so clearly my terms are not meant in a strict legal sense, because I have no idea what I'm talking about.)
One of the measures from Dodd-Frank that the current administration wants to roll back is a provision that investment professionals act in the best interest of their clients.
Presumably, they want the option to steer you towards their in house funds that have the highest fees instead of helping you het the max return on your investment.
For the same reason that it's always been expected from any company. Do you expect a local car dealer to act in your best interests if you show up as a result of a radio ad?
Caveat Emptor is in Latin for a reason - people have been living by the maxim for a really really long time.
This is a consequence of a weak FTC and anti-trust bodies. I facepalm every time I see the FTC fining a company making tens of billions of dollars a year something like $2 million over significant multi-year violations.
If you gave a rapist a week in jail, would that make him stop? If not, then why are we acting as if a $2 million fine is going to stop a company from doing further violations that help it make billions of dollars?
And all the settlements, which don't even ask the company to admit to any wrongdoing, are even more blood-boiling. It's almost like it pays to be on the side of corporations when you work for the government these days.
It's mind-blowing how the majority of high school students are lied to each year about the ROI of college. The internet has re-written the rules, and high school educators don't know how to teach that.
I would have benefited so much more from a program that taught how to be self-sufficient and the major, major benefits of living debt free.
Context: $150k in student loans - lucky enough to have an electrical engineering corporate job to (minimally) pay the bills.
EDIT: More Context: I went to an engineering focused private university, borrowed my way through the whole thing (housing, food, everything), parents didn't pay a dime. Stupid? Yes.
IMHO, reality paints a sightly more optimistic picture...the average debt per graduate is $30,000--about the price of a new car, but as measured by wages, a degree gains value (this is because since 2009 wages for grads have seen much stronger growth than wages for non-grads) http://greyenlightenment.com/is-college-a-big-waste-of-time-...
I read stories on Reddit about grads who have debt but are also making decent 5-6 figures and paying the student loan debt, but also also investing the stock market and buying a home, so it's not like they are in poverty or living paycheck to paycheck. The student loan debt can be manageable in many instances, especially if you major in a high-ROI subject.
College degrees still mostly have a good ROI. The huge lie is the ROI on pedigree, prestige, whatever you want to call it. Kids are still being told to apply to expensive small private schools and to worry about the financial aid process later. Kids are told to find the right fit.
None of that really matters. The big ROI is just getting a degree or the type of degree. There are few elite schools that have a much better ROI but they tend to be very generous with financial aid anyway.
Also, community colleges are a great resource. As long as community colleges exist, we shouldn't even allow student loans for the freshman and junior year. You can do your first two years while working part time to pay the very minor tuition. Then you can transfer to another school. Every flagship state school takes tons of transfers. My buddy transferred from a podunk community college to Stanford.
And when you transfer you should go to a cheap school. Unless you get a great college scholarship, it should be your state's flaghship public school.
Nortwestern is a great school, but not 150k better than UIUC (and for engineering its not better period). If you get a nice financial aid award, great, but otherwise don't go. My college counselor in high school was telling people to pay full price for DePaul instead of UIUC just because they wanted a "city experience." No, that's not worth it.
High school should teach students how to get what they want from life and give them the rudimentary foundation they need to attain it. In retrospect my education was greatly lacking in certain aspects. High school should involve at least one course on directing your life - studying the benefits and downsides of trade school, college, university, proprietorship, basic business operations, political action, personal finance... give them a taste of the options at least. Seems like home economics was an attempt at this but grew outdated and became an elective. This education should be mandatory for all students regardless of what they want to do with their lives. They are the basics of earning a living in the US and even if the skills do not become necessary for an individual, they should know where to start looking when they need money. Without these skills people resort to shitty options like payday loans, student debt, etc...
Did you run the numbers? Look at the outcomes for those with just a high school diploma, they are very grim. If the internet has re-written the rules it sure hasn't shown up in the data yet.
I don't have much to add but that it's nice to see comments from someone in the same situation as me. When I was growing up, I was basically told that an undergrad STEM degree was a golden ticket, and when I asked about how such an expensive tuition could be worth it, I was told time and time again that I would make more than enough money to pay it off. Turns out I make just enough money to keep up with my minimum payments, but not enough to keep up with terrible interest rates on 100k+ of debt and pay rent.
There is absolutely no reason to pay so much for a BA. For example, annual tuition for an BA from a California State University is $5,742 (2017-2018; there are some fees on top of this). Many "working class" public universities have a large positive ROI. See: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/opinion/sunday/americas-g...
On the flip side, your chances of ever getting past 200k/year (or equivalent) are much better with a degree... if you accept that you aren't likely to hit the top 5-10% of income earners, then most people are not better off with the college experience.
It's not just the internet. It's also a question of supply and demand. Supply is up; demand is down. ROI on college can be quite good, but you have to pick the right major - "have a college degree" won't get you too far any more unless you're planning to work for the government.
One of the big problems is structural changes in the legal business. It used to be if you didn't have a very marketable undergraduate degree you would go to law school. But discovery work that used to be the bread and butter of newly minted lawyers is now being done by computers.
"[Navient pointed out]...more than 40 percent of loan balances it services for the Education Department are enrolled in income-based repayment plans."
Over 40% of people with US Government-sponsored student loans--which were presumably taken out in order to advance the career prospects of the borrower--are not being paid sufficiently to repay their loans on the basis of their original issuance, _and this is presented as a good thing_.
Navient is a debt collector. They were sold loans owned by the US Dept of Ed (or hired by the department of ed maybe?)
"more than 40 percent of loan balances it services...." means that out of the loans that the US Dept of Ed decided it can't collect on anymore -- many of those are using the option that would benefit them the most.
The article talks about Navient saying one thing: "we want to help all of the borrowers because they are actually not just borrowers but citizen/constituents"; while doing another: "thanks for calling Navient, having trouble paying your loan? Just hit the loan-pause-button and we will pause your loan for 24 months. No, we will not tell you this but you could have asked for the 'smaller loan payments because you're not earning much' button'."
While I appreciate that people are sour about student debt, I don't think Navient, qua big business, should behave in any other way.
I personally think public universities should be free and highly selective, rather than the opposite. But I also think taking out loans with no plan to repay them is criminally stupid. If the education product being sold is fraudulent, go after the fraudulent institution (as has been done). But the bank? They're just a bank. And no, I don't think it's good that we have banks financing student debt, but I sure as hell don't blame banks for doing it.
This is a fabulous example of why privatizing what should be a public service is a terrible idea, yes, and this is the ridiculous game we get to play as a result... blaming the bank for playing hardball over money. Really?
The core of the issue is still the university tuition rates, and universities involved are usually not privatized. These public institutions have become profit centers, benefiting from the captive audience of young career seekers, and cranking up administration overhead costs in their budgets to absorb the increased amounts of loan money available to prospective students.
Loans are always hardball business, and student loans are no different (although this case is clearly false advertising). The fact that the government sought to get more university degrees into the hands of citizens by increasing loan availability and size is the short-sighted idiocy that helped bootstrap this mess.
Withholding information is not playing hardball, that position is just stupid. So you're saying banks should be able to lie and mislead people, with no consequences or regulation?
I believe that school loans should only be allowed for jobs. If you love art and are interested in "under water basket weaving" as a degree that is great, but it won't pay the bills and so you should save your money to pay for it. When you decide to become a medical doctor, it is understood your eventually worth will pay off reasonable loans.
My solution: student loans may be discharged in bankruptcy, but your school records are discharged too. Thus if you get an expensive degree that won't pay off the loan just give up the degree and credits. Doctors will not do this because their pay.
Note that loan companies now have incentive to ensure you graduate and get a job. Getting Ds in a few classes: they will cut you off now rather than try to see if you can turn it around. Maybe you can find the money to pay for your next semester one your own and improve your grade, and if you do this long enough they might change their mind and give you loans to finish.
The only angle I'm still working out is if someone finishes a degree, declares bankruptcy, and then goes back to the same degree (elsewhere) - they don't have the credits but they presumably know the material and can easily pass all the classes the second time around with a better grade.
My wife and I have dealt with these goons before. Their favorite trick is missing a payment, leaving it on a desk and then despoiting it weeks later, after charging fees. Or, if you have 2 loans, they are sure you never pay any of them down, even if you literally tell them (pay loan #1 all of this months payments, ending it). They purposefully screw up...
All roads lead to money in politics allowing them to do whatever they want and not have repercussions.
Why is a student loan servicer any different from a mortgage servicer? I don't go to my mortgage servicer for leniency or charity; why should my student loan servicer be any different?
If we want student loan servicer behavior to change, we need to legislate it. Just like we did (or didn't, depending on your point of view) for mortgage servicers.
Not to actually argue for or against, but mortgage holders don't hand 5 or 6 figures of unsecured debt to an 18 year old without any due diligence on if the loan has a chance of being repaid.
when they took over my loans from salliemae they told us (in writing) that auto-pay would transition.... then it didn't transition, and they tried to ding me for a missed payment. what a nightmare. ultimately my issue was resolved, but only after i filed a complaint with a team at the federal student aid office that handles disputes that cannot be resolved through the lender:
Maybe this is tangential but this is a theme that seems to have infected schools themselves as well. I was recently swindled (yes, straight up swindled) by my university. I go to a uc (not riverside or merced) and the student health and wellness center literally swindled me out of almost a hundred dollars by using fine print. To protect my anonyminity i wont go into details but rest assured a called every authority i could and nothing was done. Consider that and then look at the swelling administration, lack of class availability, the sheer cost of attending and finally and most importantly the lack of meaningful learning. Its all a huge scam. But you need a degree if you want to have a high quality of life (unless youre exceptional in some way which the average dude is of course not) so nobody can do a damn thing about it. Fuck this shitty sytem.
This is good advice for a certain subset of people. If your income is high enough that you won't qualify for the income-based repayment plans, it can make sense to refinance.
On the other hand, if you need IBR, or some of the other protections offered by federal loans, you are taking a risk by refinancing. You'll lose those protections, and you might need them in the future. If you are pursuing one of the public service loan forgiveness programs, you probably need to keep the federal loans.
I refinanced with Commonbond, a Sofi competitor, a few years ago. My loan balance was fairly low compared to my income, I would never qualify for income-based repayment, and my federal loan rate was something like 6.8%. I refinanced my 10-year loan to a 5-year loan with a low interest rate. My situation was ideal for this. However, if your loan balance is more than your annual salary, or you need to rely on the federal loan protections for some other reason, you shouldn't do it.
On the other hand, there seems to be no downside to refinancing private student loans.
Honestly, this is a private corp acting in its own best interests under the law. Everyone here complaining that Navient is horrible... this is what capitalism is. If you don't like the law, talk to your congressman/senators and get the law changed.
IMHO the schools are the bad guys here.. they are taking advantage of a situation where the government will just hand loans to everyone and there is no way they can lose. Why not just make an undergraduate degree a public good at this point. Taxpayers are already paying to bail all these people out, it is partially a public good already except the students who hold all the debt have to go through hell and Navient gets a cut of the taxpayer money in the process.
So does anyone know where to find stats on student debt amounts outstanding, the maturity schedules, and the proportion of variable rate to fixed rate debt? I'm curious to see how vulnerable the country is to default risk should interest rates move upward or some other shock to the economy take place.
Anyone here know if this whole mess is going to end badly?This is something I google a lot as I kind of don't want to pay, but I suffer from selection bias and HN usually has good insight on things.
The way I see it, maybe there is a misunderstanding going on,
Or maybe Navient's publicity materials are too touchy-feely.
According to the article, Navient is a private company,
So shouldn't they have an expectation of return on
Investment. This is not the U.S. government, which may
Forgive debt.
Another point is why the hunger for expensive education,
Which may be a Marxist critique, but since when did
A credential make you a better software designer.
People are dying all over the globe, and we are worried
About the top 20 percent wage earners of the superpower
USA.
When public agencies push for more than kickback money, they always run the risk of being declared unconstitutional in a costly court battle that at best case undermines the agencies' budget.
The CFPB is young and they might have bat higher than they should have.
Take a page out of the SEC playback and settle for kickbacks.
[+] [-] techsupporter|9 years ago|reply
So, pardon in advance for the vulgar language, but why the fuck is this OK? From any company?
I'm getting real damn sick and tired of "what the big print gives, the spidery print takes away" and how we're all just supposed to be OK with this, as if this is how the world works or some crap.
If your public advertising--especially, but not limited to, when administering a service on behalf of the government--explicitly says "call us and we will help you," your company should not then be able to turn around and say "well, caveat emptor for calling us, sucker." Meanwhile, the handful of agencies devoted to trying to help the individual get any kind of a fair shake from the company "provider" that massively outguns any one individual customer, are all under attack from all sides as being "too heavy handed." (I love the CFPB, in case you can't tell.)
Oh, and this whole "consumer" crap? I'm not a "consumer," I'm a customer. I'm not consuming anything from a financial services provider, I'm using their services. Stop with the idea that all of us are just mindless drones, eating our Pac Man-like dots on the way to a swift end, and maybe get back to the idea that real people are on the other end of those faceless account numbers.
(FWIW, this applies to every company with mandatory, binding arbitration clauses, including the oh-so-enlightened participants in Y Combinator. Don't restrict my ability to hold you to your side of the agreement while reserving all rights to pound me into the sand at your leisure.)
[+] [-] noonespecial|9 years ago|reply
I propose "the bigger the print, the stronger the statement". Therefore, if you make one claim in 24 point and then attempt to rescind or modify it in 8 point, the 24 is legally binding because it was larger and so nullified the smaller. This also means that if you want to place limitations (like 'one per customer' etc) on an offer you make in print, those will have to be printed in an equal font in order to be valid.
[+] [-] Lazare|9 years ago|reply
I dunno, why wouldn't it be okay? I interact with a lot of companies on a day-to-day basis; big ones (Facebook, Google), small ones (the corner shop I bought an energy drink at on my way to work), and everything in between.
Offhand I'd say that none of them have a legal expectation to work in my best interest, nor would I have expected any of them to, nor do I believe a law requiring them to would be workable.
My interest in buying an energy drink is to get the brand I wanted at the lowest possible price; the store's interest is in selling it to me at the highest possible price. If they had to work in my best interests would they be required to sell it to me at cost? Maybe I drink too many energy drinks, would they be required on pain of criminal sanctions to try and talk me into buying some fruit juice instead? The mind boggles. :)
Or do you think there's something special about this particular product that makes it different than every other good or service in the economy? Or that their very vague ads somehow set up a special relationship that's more akin to a doctor/patient relationship than the borrower/lender relationship one would expect from, you know, a loan company?
[+] [-] 55555|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|9 years ago|reply
Because that's the default rule when it comes to arm's-length transactions in the economy? Unless there is a special relationship (e.g. doctor-patient), everyone takes care of their end of the transaction. The government offers very generous loan repayment options for student borrowers. It's Navient's job to collect payments, which helps keep the whole system solvent and lowers interest rates for other borrowers. Why should it be its job to help borrowers figure out their repayment options?
[+] [-] kelnos|9 years ago|reply
If you advertise that you're going to help people deal with their debt better, then that should be legally binding (regardless of what your fine print says), and a failure to do so should at the very least be illegal under false advertising laws, and I'd say more reasonably it should be considered breach of (implied) contract.
(IANAL, so clearly my terms are not meant in a strict legal sense, because I have no idea what I'm talking about.)
[+] [-] FullMtlAlcoholc|9 years ago|reply
Presumably, they want the option to steer you towards their in house funds that have the highest fees instead of helping you het the max return on your investment.
[+] [-] metaphorm|9 years ago|reply
shareholder capitalism. they have zero accountability except to their shareholders.
[+] [-] djrogers|9 years ago|reply
For the same reason that it's always been expected from any company. Do you expect a local car dealer to act in your best interests if you show up as a result of a radio ad?
Caveat Emptor is in Latin for a reason - people have been living by the maxim for a really really long time.
[+] [-] mtgx|9 years ago|reply
If you gave a rapist a week in jail, would that make him stop? If not, then why are we acting as if a $2 million fine is going to stop a company from doing further violations that help it make billions of dollars?
And all the settlements, which don't even ask the company to admit to any wrongdoing, are even more blood-boiling. It's almost like it pays to be on the side of corporations when you work for the government these days.
[+] [-] jordanmoconnor|9 years ago|reply
I would have benefited so much more from a program that taught how to be self-sufficient and the major, major benefits of living debt free.
Context: $150k in student loans - lucky enough to have an electrical engineering corporate job to (minimally) pay the bills.
EDIT: More Context: I went to an engineering focused private university, borrowed my way through the whole thing (housing, food, everything), parents didn't pay a dime. Stupid? Yes.
[+] [-] paulpauper|9 years ago|reply
I read stories on Reddit about grads who have debt but are also making decent 5-6 figures and paying the student loan debt, but also also investing the stock market and buying a home, so it's not like they are in poverty or living paycheck to paycheck. The student loan debt can be manageable in many instances, especially if you major in a high-ROI subject.
[+] [-] rhino369|9 years ago|reply
None of that really matters. The big ROI is just getting a degree or the type of degree. There are few elite schools that have a much better ROI but they tend to be very generous with financial aid anyway.
Also, community colleges are a great resource. As long as community colleges exist, we shouldn't even allow student loans for the freshman and junior year. You can do your first two years while working part time to pay the very minor tuition. Then you can transfer to another school. Every flagship state school takes tons of transfers. My buddy transferred from a podunk community college to Stanford.
And when you transfer you should go to a cheap school. Unless you get a great college scholarship, it should be your state's flaghship public school.
Nortwestern is a great school, but not 150k better than UIUC (and for engineering its not better period). If you get a nice financial aid award, great, but otherwise don't go. My college counselor in high school was telling people to pay full price for DePaul instead of UIUC just because they wanted a "city experience." No, that's not worth it.
[+] [-] heurist|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bradleyjg|9 years ago|reply
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=77
[+] [-] chickenfries|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whyenot|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tracker1|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gozur88|9 years ago|reply
One of the big problems is structural changes in the legal business. It used to be if you didn't have a very marketable undergraduate degree you would go to law school. But discovery work that used to be the bread and butter of newly minted lawyers is now being done by computers.
[+] [-] greggeter|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Arubis|9 years ago|reply
Over 40% of people with US Government-sponsored student loans--which were presumably taken out in order to advance the career prospects of the borrower--are not being paid sufficiently to repay their loans on the basis of their original issuance, _and this is presented as a good thing_.
Unbelievable.
[+] [-] wyldfire|9 years ago|reply
Navient is a debt collector. They were sold loans owned by the US Dept of Ed (or hired by the department of ed maybe?)
"more than 40 percent of loan balances it services...." means that out of the loans that the US Dept of Ed decided it can't collect on anymore -- many of those are using the option that would benefit them the most.
The article talks about Navient saying one thing: "we want to help all of the borrowers because they are actually not just borrowers but citizen/constituents"; while doing another: "thanks for calling Navient, having trouble paying your loan? Just hit the loan-pause-button and we will pause your loan for 24 months. No, we will not tell you this but you could have asked for the 'smaller loan payments because you're not earning much' button'."
[+] [-] jknoepfler|9 years ago|reply
I personally think public universities should be free and highly selective, rather than the opposite. But I also think taking out loans with no plan to repay them is criminally stupid. If the education product being sold is fraudulent, go after the fraudulent institution (as has been done). But the bank? They're just a bank. And no, I don't think it's good that we have banks financing student debt, but I sure as hell don't blame banks for doing it.
This is a fabulous example of why privatizing what should be a public service is a terrible idea, yes, and this is the ridiculous game we get to play as a result... blaming the bank for playing hardball over money. Really?
[+] [-] white-flame|9 years ago|reply
The core of the issue is still the university tuition rates, and universities involved are usually not privatized. These public institutions have become profit centers, benefiting from the captive audience of young career seekers, and cranking up administration overhead costs in their budgets to absorb the increased amounts of loan money available to prospective students.
Loans are always hardball business, and student loans are no different (although this case is clearly false advertising). The fact that the government sought to get more university degrees into the hands of citizens by increasing loan availability and size is the short-sighted idiocy that helped bootstrap this mess.
[+] [-] givinguflac|9 years ago|reply
Do you not remember 2008?
[+] [-] srtjstjsj|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bluGill|9 years ago|reply
My solution: student loans may be discharged in bankruptcy, but your school records are discharged too. Thus if you get an expensive degree that won't pay off the loan just give up the degree and credits. Doctors will not do this because their pay.
Note that loan companies now have incentive to ensure you graduate and get a job. Getting Ds in a few classes: they will cut you off now rather than try to see if you can turn it around. Maybe you can find the money to pay for your next semester one your own and improve your grade, and if you do this long enough they might change their mind and give you loans to finish.
The only angle I'm still working out is if someone finishes a degree, declares bankruptcy, and then goes back to the same degree (elsewhere) - they don't have the credits but they presumably know the material and can easily pass all the classes the second time around with a better grade.
[+] [-] VonGuard|9 years ago|reply
All roads lead to money in politics allowing them to do whatever they want and not have repercussions.
[+] [-] kchoudhu|9 years ago|reply
If we want student loan servicer behavior to change, we need to legislate it. Just like we did (or didn't, depending on your point of view) for mortgage servicers.
[+] [-] jimktrains2|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jnagro|9 years ago|reply
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/disputes/prepare/co...
then a navient person in that department reached out to me almost immediately.
Edit:
You can also file complaints for general consumer financial help here:
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/
[+] [-] givinguflac|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] popopobobobo|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thebooktocome|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onmobiletemp|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ikeboy|9 years ago|reply
This is literally how costs go up. "OMG we need this, damn the costs" "OMG why does everything cost so much, why is the debt so high?"
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jorblumesea|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twblalock|9 years ago|reply
On the other hand, if you need IBR, or some of the other protections offered by federal loans, you are taking a risk by refinancing. You'll lose those protections, and you might need them in the future. If you are pursuing one of the public service loan forgiveness programs, you probably need to keep the federal loans.
I refinanced with Commonbond, a Sofi competitor, a few years ago. My loan balance was fairly low compared to my income, I would never qualify for income-based repayment, and my federal loan rate was something like 6.8%. I refinanced my 10-year loan to a 5-year loan with a low interest rate. My situation was ideal for this. However, if your loan balance is more than your annual salary, or you need to rely on the federal loan protections for some other reason, you shouldn't do it.
On the other hand, there seems to be no downside to refinancing private student loans.
[+] [-] thoughtpalette|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jm__87|9 years ago|reply
IMHO the schools are the bad guys here.. they are taking advantage of a situation where the government will just hand loans to everyone and there is no way they can lose. Why not just make an undergraduate degree a public good at this point. Taxpayers are already paying to bail all these people out, it is partially a public good already except the students who hold all the debt have to go through hell and Navient gets a cut of the taxpayer money in the process.
[+] [-] lr4444lr|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] necessity|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryanalam|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] loblollyboy|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Neliquat|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] koga-ninja|9 years ago|reply
According to the article, Navient is a private company, So shouldn't they have an expectation of return on Investment. This is not the U.S. government, which may Forgive debt.
Another point is why the hunger for expensive education, Which may be a Marxist critique, but since when did A credential make you a better software designer.
People are dying all over the globe, and we are worried About the top 20 percent wage earners of the superpower USA.
[+] [-] kevmo|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elastic_church|9 years ago|reply
The CFPB is young and they might have bat higher than they should have.
Take a page out of the SEC playback and settle for kickbacks.