4 ms·

> The full reason is that preventing bankruptcy is the only way to keep interest rates low and make the loans widely available "They are eating the dogs and ca

> The full reason is that preventing bankruptcy is the only way to keep interest rates low and make the loans widely available "They are eating the dogs and cats." It simply isn't true. I got my student loans a quarter century ago. Back then the loans were dischargeable and low. My loans came in at like 4% interest at the time. It is propaganda that it was a widespread problem and the "solution" was to legally protect banks from risk. Then rates exploded and regulatory capture kept people locked in.

kentm 3mo ago
In 1978 loans were made non dischargeable for the first 5 years and extended to 7 years in 1990. In 1998 the waiting period was eliminated making them non dischargeable in perpetuity. Private loans were made non dischargeable in 2005. So while student loans were technically dischargeable approx 28 years ago there were some big caveats.
- sethammons 3mo ago
  Technically true is the best kind of true. Fact: they were dischargeable. Fact: there was no crisis else rates would have already factored in. Else the argument is they were losing money overall. They wouldn't do that for literal decades. Fact: after the loans were no longer dischargeable, banks were guaranteed their rates and stopped being competitive with them and rates increased.
  - Aurornis 3mo ago
    You're still getting your facts wrong. Loans are still dischargeable under certain conditions. You claimed that "a quarter century ago" student loans could be discharged in bankruptcy, but that's not really true either. The restrictions started in 1978 with waiting periods and those waiting periods were eliminated in 1998 for government loans and shortly after that for private loans. The period in which you got this 4% loan was within the period where bankruptcy protections were in place, not before it.
  - quickthrowman 3mo ago
    It is impossible that you paid 4% interest on (easily) dischargeable student loans. Any lender would be insane to do that with zero risk premium, and the risk would be substantial given it’s an unsecured loan. Possibly there was a clause stating something like “if you are permanently disabled and unable to work forever, you can have this loan discharged.” That’s not what I would consider dischargeable, it’s just the lender acknowledging they can’t squeeze blood from a stone and writing of the debt lets them recover a portion of the money they lent via writing of off. You are simply misremembering. If it’s true, scan and upload the loan agreement. I just don’t believe it based on how lenders operate.
AnthonyMouse 3mo ago
If a non-negligible proportion of people would discharge their student loans in bankruptcy then the rates would have to increase by a non-negligible amount to make up for it. If a negligible proportion of people would discharge the loans as you suggest then the need to do it is the "eating the dogs and cats" in this case, since it doesn't matter a whole lot if nobody can do something nobody would have done anyway. So which one is it?
- sethammons 3mo ago
  Which is it? Greed by banks. They were functionally fine up through the late nineties. The rules changed because banks wanted all their money instead of nearly all their money. This is not market economics. This is regulatory capture. Market economics suggests they were more market based when there was risks to banks. The risks are removed and they can print out debt.
  - Aurornis 3mo ago
    > Which is it? Greed by banks. They were functionally fine up through the late nineties. Except the regulations for student loan discharge started with government loans, not private loans. Congress restricted discharge of government loans first, because they were trying to protect the continued existence of the program and the low interest rates. You've had incorrect facts all throughout this thread and you're refusing to acknowledge all of the people trying to bring real facts into the discussion. > The rules changed because banks wanted all their money instead of nearly all their money. You're not understanding how interest rates work. Banks aren't charities. They don't give people money and hope that it gets paid back. They set the interest rate in accordance with the risk. There are two ways this can work: 1. The debts are easy to discharge in bankruptcy. Banks do their analyses, estimate how many will be lost ot bankruptcy, and increase interest rates until the net result makes lending justifiable. 2. The debts are hard to discharge. The analysis shows a higher recovery rate. They can lower interest rates because the risk of default is down. There is not a 3rd scenario where banks keep interest rates low and eat the losses from bankruptcy. If you think that a business wanting "all of their money" is greed then you don't understand how business works. If loans became a money-losing proposition, they just wouldn't loan the money! Though honestly there are some good arguments that we shouldn't be lending money to people who might not pay it back, but there are a lot of people who dislike this idea that we should only give loans to people pursuing careers that pay well.
Aurornis 3mo ago
> It simply isn't true. I got my student loans a quarter century ago. Back then the loans were dischargeable and low. The Bankruptcy Reform Act which introduced restrictions on discharging student loans was introduced in 1978, a full quarter century before your experience. Loan dischargeability was further restricted in subsequent years. If you got your loans a quarter century ago, you were deep into the time when it was hard to discharge loans. You are remembering wrong.
- chneu 3mo ago
  Two centuries?
  - Aurornis 3mo ago
    Good catch, sorry. Was trying to put it in terms of the parent comment's "quarter century ago" claim. They didn't realize that the student loan protections had gone in a full quarter century prior to their experience, which contributed to their 4% rate.
  - dxdm 3mo ago
    Generations, presumably.

kentm 3mo ago

In 1978 loans were made non dischargeable for the first 5 years and extended to 7 years in 1990. In 1998 the waiting period was eliminated making them non dischargeable in perpetuity. Private loans were made non dischargeable in 2005. So while student loans were technically dischargeable approx 28 years ago there were some big caveats.

sethammons 3mo ago
Technically true is the best kind of true. Fact: they were dischargeable. Fact: there was no crisis else rates would have already factored in. Else the argument is they were losing money overall. They wouldn't do that for literal decades. Fact: after the loans were no longer dischargeable, banks were guaranteed their rates and stopped being competitive with them and rates increased.
- Aurornis 3mo ago
  You're still getting your facts wrong. Loans are still dischargeable under certain conditions. You claimed that "a quarter century ago" student loans could be discharged in bankruptcy, but that's not really true either. The restrictions started in 1978 with waiting periods and those waiting periods were eliminated in 1998 for government loans and shortly after that for private loans. The period in which you got this 4% loan was within the period where bankruptcy protections were in place, not before it.
- quickthrowman 3mo ago
  It is impossible that you paid 4% interest on (easily) dischargeable student loans. Any lender would be insane to do that with zero risk premium, and the risk would be substantial given it’s an unsecured loan. Possibly there was a clause stating something like “if you are permanently disabled and unable to work forever, you can have this loan discharged.” That’s not what I would consider dischargeable, it’s just the lender acknowledging they can’t squeeze blood from a stone and writing of the debt lets them recover a portion of the money they lent via writing of off. You are simply misremembering. If it’s true, scan and upload the loan agreement. I just don’t believe it based on how lenders operate.

AnthonyMouse 3mo ago

If a non-negligible proportion of people would discharge their student loans in bankruptcy then the rates would have to increase by a non-negligible amount to make up for it. If a negligible proportion of people would discharge the loans as you suggest then the need to do it is the "eating the dogs and cats" in this case, since it doesn't matter a whole lot if nobody can do something nobody would have done anyway. So which one is it?

sethammons 3mo ago
Which is it? Greed by banks. They were functionally fine up through the late nineties. The rules changed because banks wanted all their money instead of nearly all their money. This is not market economics. This is regulatory capture. Market economics suggests they were more market based when there was risks to banks. The risks are removed and they can print out debt.
- Aurornis 3mo ago
  > Which is it? Greed by banks. They were functionally fine up through the late nineties. Except the regulations for student loan discharge started with government loans, not private loans. Congress restricted discharge of government loans first, because they were trying to protect the continued existence of the program and the low interest rates. You've had incorrect facts all throughout this thread and you're refusing to acknowledge all of the people trying to bring real facts into the discussion. > The rules changed because banks wanted all their money instead of nearly all their money. You're not understanding how interest rates work. Banks aren't charities. They don't give people money and hope that it gets paid back. They set the interest rate in accordance with the risk. There are two ways this can work: 1. The debts are easy to discharge in bankruptcy. Banks do their analyses, estimate how many will be lost ot bankruptcy, and increase interest rates until the net result makes lending justifiable. 2. The debts are hard to discharge. The analysis shows a higher recovery rate. They can lower interest rates because the risk of default is down. There is not a 3rd scenario where banks keep interest rates low and eat the losses from bankruptcy. If you think that a business wanting "all of their money" is greed then you don't understand how business works. If loans became a money-losing proposition, they just wouldn't loan the money! Though honestly there are some good arguments that we shouldn't be lending money to people who might not pay it back, but there are a lot of people who dislike this idea that we should only give loans to people pursuing careers that pay well.

Aurornis 3mo ago

> It simply isn't true. I got my student loans a quarter century ago. Back then the loans were dischargeable and low. The Bankruptcy Reform Act which introduced restrictions on discharging student loans was introduced in 1978, a full quarter century before your experience. Loan dischargeability was further restricted in subsequent years. If you got your loans a quarter century ago, you were deep into the time when it was hard to discharge loans. You are remembering wrong.

chneu 3mo ago
Two centuries?
- Aurornis 3mo ago
  Good catch, sorry. Was trying to put it in terms of the parent comment's "quarter century ago" claim. They didn't realize that the student loan protections had gone in a full quarter century prior to their experience, which contributed to their 4% rate.
- dxdm 3mo ago
  Generations, presumably.