Student loans - the debt collector contracts
Twelve senators have just written to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos questioning why the Education Department continues to award lucrative contracts to debt collection firms, and criticizing the seriously misaligned incentives embedded in those contracts.
While most federal student loan borrowers deal with loan servicing companies like PHEAA, Navient and Nelnet, defaulting borrowers in an unlucky but sizeable minority (roughly 6.5 million) have their loans assigned to debt collectors like Collecto, Inc., Pioneer Credit Recovery, and Immediate Credit Recovery Inc. Borrowers assigned to collection firms immediately face collection fees of 25% added on to their outstanding debt. The collection firms harvest hundreds of millions of dollars in fees, mostly from federal wage garnishments, tax refund intercepts, and new consolidation loans borrowers take out to pay off old defaulted loans. Wage garnishments and tax refund intercepts are simply involuntary forms of income-based repayment, programs that could be administered by servicers without adding massive collection fees to student debt. Similarly, guiding defaulted borrowers to consolidation loans, and putting them into income-driven repayment plans, are services that servicing contractors can and do provide, at much lower cost. In short, the debt collector contracts are bad deals for student loan borrowers and bad deals for taxpayers.
According to a Washington Post story, one of the collection firms to be awarded a contract this year had financial ties to Secretary DeVos, although she has since divested those ties. In other news, the current administration apparently reinstated two collection firms fired under the prior administration for misinforming borrowers about their rights. More in-depth analysis of the collection agency contract issue by Center for American Progress here.
Schools don't teach kids how to even balance a checkbook or keep a household budget. Why did gov't even dangle $$? The gov't surely didn't expect them to be responsible - or were they really just after their parents figuring they'd bail them out with their savings and social security?
Posted by: DeadlyClear | February 09, 2018 at 05:09 PM
Sure, both servicers and collection agencies could perform more "guiding" of borrowers if they were permitted to call borrowers who have cell phones. A sharply declining minority of borrowers still have landline phones. Yet, so-called "borrower advocates" and consumer law pundits have opposed allowing these entities from calling their own customers, thus making the much-desired borrower counseling more and more difficult to perform.
Posted by: Cesar | February 10, 2018 at 05:32 PM