Interest rates on federal loans lowered to 3.4% over next 5 years!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Red Beard

Full Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
574
Reaction score
58
A bill overhauling student aid programs has just cleared the House, and among other things it will halve the rate of federally backed loans to 3.4% from 6.8%.

I was envious of those who had re-consolidated at that rate before, and was concerned it would never happen again for us. Hopefully it will become law...not sure if Bush will sign off on it or not.

Another proposal of the bill is loan forgiveness of $5000 for police, firefighters, and other public servants, with a complete loan release for these professions after 10 years. Our fearless leader :rolleyes: has threatened to veto the bill due to this provision.


I'm keeping my fingers crosse

Members don't see this ad.
 
does this apply to both undergraduate and graduate federal loans?
 
A bill overhauling student aid programs has just cleared the House, and among other things it will halve the rate of federally backed loans to 3.4% from 6.8%.

I was envious of those who had re-consolidated at that rate before, and was concerned it would never happen again for us. Hopefully it will become law...not sure if Bush will sign off on it or not.

Another proposal of the bill is loan forgiveness of $5000 for police, firefighters, and other public servants, with a complete loan release for these professions after 10 years. Our fearless leader :rolleyes: has threatened to veto the bill due to this provision.


I'm keeping my fingers crosse

If you-know-who's stated his stance on it, he's very likely to follow through, so I guess we'll just have to kiss that 3.4% interest rate goodbye. :thumbdown:
 
Members don't see this ad :)
New York Times
NYT said:
House Passes Overhaul Plan on Student Aid

Article Tools Sponsored By
By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO
Published: July 12, 2007

WASHINGTON, July 11 — The House on Wednesday approved far-reaching changes in student aid programs, voting to cut $19 billion in federal subsidies to student lenders over five years, while increasing grants for needy students and halving interest rates on federally backed loans with the savings.

The bill passed 273 to 149 in a sometimes raucous debate, with 47 Republicans joining Democrats, who took control of Congress this year on promises to help the middle class with the escalating costs of higher education.

The bill marks a stark reversal of fortune for the student loan industry, which for over 10 years had largely enjoyed unflagging support under the Republican majority. Investigations by Congress, the news media and the New York attorney general bruised the standing of lenders, exposing systems of paying colleges commissions to win business, offering college officials free trips and other perks.

While President Bush opposes some elements of the bill, it is widely expected that a broad overhaul of student aid will become law this year. Mr. Bush himself has proposed cutting government subsidies to lenders by $16 billion. And the Senate is expected to pass legislation later this month that would reduce these subsidies by $18.3 billion, while increasing the maximum Pell grant, the nation's major assistance program for low- and middle-income students, more swiftly than the House bill does.

Pointing to increases in college costs that have outpaced inflation by nearly 40 percent over the last five years, Representative George Miller, Democrat of California and chairman of the Education Committee, likened the legislation to the G.I. Bill, which began government financing of higher education in exchange for military service in 1944.

"That took us to the first place in the world, and we've been there for 50 years," Mr. Miller said. "This is about a new investment for the next generation."

House Republicans criticized the bill as creating a panoply of nine entitlement programs, which they branded "welfare programs." They offered a substitute that would have largely focused on increasing Pell grants, without cutting interest rates. The substitute was defeated 231 to 189, in a largely party-line vote.

Representative Howard P. McKeon of California, the ranking Republican on the Education Committee, said the bill approved on Wednesday "overreaches by creating new entitlement spending for every conceivable constituency in higher education." Mr. McKeon also criticized it as "extracting too much blood" out of the federally backed student loan program, which he called "a success by all measures."

But Representative Tom Petri, Republican of Wisconsin, who voted for the bill, called the federal loan program "fundamentally and structurally flawed."

"Congress has no business setting lender returns," Mr. Petri said.

Student lenders, who had lobbied heavily against the bill, predicted that it would drive some lenders out of business, and reduce services and discounts offered to borrowers. A group of private bidders planning to buy Sallie Mae, a publicly traded company that is the nation's largest student lender, warned the loan company that both the House and Senate bills might cause the $25 billion deal to fall through, according to a press release from Sallie Mae.

The release also said that Sallie Mae "strongly disagrees with this assertion" and would move to close the deal as rapidly as possible.

But a report by the Congressional Research Service found that small and medium-sized lenders would probably be hardest hit, and would face difficulties competing with industry giants like Sallie Mae. The report said Sallie Mae would likely be able to handle the cuts unscathed.

As well as cutting lender subsidies, the bill reduces the share the government would guarantee in the event of student default. It halves the interest rate on federally backed loans gradually over the next five years, to 3.4 percent from 6.8 percent, and would limit monthly payments to 15 percent of the borrower's discretionary income.

The bill raises the maximum Pell grants by $500 over the next four years, to a total of $5,200 by 2011. It also grants $5,000 in loan forgiveness for police, firefighters, prosecutors and other public servants, and a complete release from student loans for public servants after 10 years. It would also provide for complete forgiveness of federal student loans after 20 years for economic hardship.

Mr. Bush has threatened a veto over the loan-forgiveness provisions as creating new entitlement programs, and said more of the savings from the cuts in lender subsidies should go to increasing the size of Pell grants.

The Senate version of the legislation is similar to the House bill, but includes more generous increases in Pell grants. Senate aides on both sides of the aisle said they doubted that Mr. Bush would follow through with a veto after the two bills have been reconciled.

Both measures also require the federal Education Department to set up a pilot program to auction off the right to make student loans, giving the business to the lender that would charge the least.

Advocacy groups for student borrowers praised the legislation. Michael Dannenberg, director of the New America Foundation's education policy program, called Wednesday's bill "an important first step toward getting politicians out of the business of writing subsidized lender profit rates into law." The group was the first to pitch auctions as a way to set lender subsidy rates.

Eh, I'd have to read the bill. I'm glad they are decreasing the subsidies but I'm wondering how much this will affect student loans and if its just undergraduate. Great questions, anyone know?
 
The interest rates that will be lowered are for undergrad sub loans only and would be on a tiered system. If you were a freshman in college, your sub loan for 07/08 would be 6.?% (I don't have the exact %), your sophomore year loan would be 5.?%, your junior year would be 4.?% and then finally in your senior year your loan would be the magical 3.4%. You would have 4 sub loans at 4 different rates. This does NOT apply to grad students or old loans and consolidation is expected to be the weighted average of the loans you have and fixed. You would NOT get a 3.4 on a consolidation and I wouldn't be hoping for it either.
The reason loan rates will not be going down for the anyone else is a simple result of how the loan system in this country is funded. Lenders who loan Stafford/PLUS Loans basically have a guaranteed rate of return throughout the time you have borrwed that goes all the way through until the loan is payed off. When the rates plummetted to less than 3% and everyone consolidated there were lenders who had a 9.5% guarantee from the government. That is a lot of the reason that you were all swamped with offer to consolidate-- easy money, guaranteed and paying more than any other investment anywhere after Sept 11 (think of what your savings account was giving you: 1.2%). Simply speaking, the lender for your Stafford was charging you 2.875 on your consolidation and then charging the taxpayers for the other 6.63% for the length the loans life. If all the funds have been guaranteed to lenders for borrowers who will be reapying this over 30 years (no one's prepaying right?) the lender will be charging the other 6.63% to the government for many years. The problem worsened when the rates dipped again and then were at 4.72%. This was the real reason no one could "refinance" their old consolidation at a higher rate. It wasn't necessarily being punitive; there was simply not enough money to let more borrowers receive another 6.63% from the taxpayers. I would stress that the bargain rate of 2.875% is actually not the bargain it seemed like since you will all be helping to pay the extra interest to lenders for the next 30 years. It is also the reason loan limits haven't gone up much, pell grants haven't moved-- it can't be done if you've got a guarantee to a lender.
Things may change but it's going to be slow. The feds want to cut the subsidy they pay lenders and cut the profits a bit so I don't see lenders necessarily lowering their rates to you all. I'm also interested to see what happens with the reapyment incentives being thrown at you guys as well: will there be so many offers if a lenders payment is cut? Not so sure....
Currently they are all in DC trying to convince Congress that students will be screwed if their subsidies are cut. I'm not buying it. The rate of 6.8% is the statuatory MAX the lender can charge you and NOT the rate they must. They all do and then "buy it down" with incentives you'll likely never achieve.
Federal Stafford/PLUS lending is a big, multi billion dollar very profitable business for lenders. Last I heard SallieMae was looking to be bought for $24 BILLION but that deal may crash since their stocks took a hit with Congress's announcement to cut their guaranteed subsidies throughout a borrowers repayment. Oops...
 
Bush has already said he will veto the bill as it is written now.
And of course cutting lender subsidies will:
a. Cause some lenders to go out if business
b. Decrease competititive rates
c. Cost students more money
These changes have been in talks for years, why do you think they are trying to sell off Sallie Mae? It is getting down to where they are likely to pass and it will not be as profitable. You do not sell the largest and most profitable student loan entity unless you see trouble coming. Smaller companies won't be able to compensate for the income loss and will go under and all you'll have left are the large corporations.
They can't expect lenders to foot the whole bill and with as powerful as the lender lobbyists are I don't see it happening. The only ones who will benefit on the front end are taxpayers, with lenders and students paying the extra that tax dollars usually pay. It is highly arguable that this is good for taxpayers for many reasons but it is no doubt bad for students.
Even the rate decreases are only for 5 years, at the end of that period they go back up to 6.8%, so it is a short-term relief at best.
 
b. Decrease competititive rates

The only people this bill will hurt are the lenders who are getting fat off of taxpayer's (and student's) backs. How will this lead to less competitive rates when it's the government that sets the rates for everyone?

So what if those tiny (and in the big picture of student's finances, meaningless) borrower benefits are cut? They don't really help anyone substantially.

This bill will do more good for students and taxpayers than what's currently happening which is only good for the lenders. So of course George W. Bush would veto this bill!
 
The only people this bill will hurt are the lenders who are getting fat off of taxpayer's (and student's) backs. How will this lead to less competitive rates when it's the government that sets the rates for everyone?

So what if those tiny (and in the big picture of student's finances, meaningless) borrower benefits are cut? They don't really help anyone substantially.

This bill will do more good for students and taxpayers than what's currently happening which is only good for the lenders. So of course George W. Bush would veto this bill!
:thumbup: Lil bush is all about big business, no joke on that one. Hopefully someone will get in there that will make the necessary reforms.
 
The only people this bill will hurt are the lenders who are getting fat off of taxpayer's (and student's) backs. How will this lead to less competitive rates when it's the government that sets the rates for everyone?

So what if those tiny (and in the big picture of student's finances, meaningless) borrower benefits are cut? They don't really help anyone substantially.

This bill will do more good for students and taxpayers than what's currently happening which is only good for the lenders. So of course George W. Bush would veto this bill!


Because when the lenders benefits are cut who do you think will be taking up the slack? The borrowers. The government sets the base rate but it is pretty easy for now to get several percentage points off of that base rate, lenders use their repayment incentives to compete with each other. Less subsidy = less repayment reductions. Less competition = less repayment reductions. This bill will do no good for students or taxpayers. The only ones who may benefit are minority schools since the majority of the money this bill will collect is going for entitlements to American Indian, Hawaiian and other minority schools. Little of the money will go to the average student.
 
Most of the time those payment reductions aren't really helping the users that much. Now we could maybe consolidate it all and offer better incentives to the borrowers in general. Seriously, the interest rate deduction of 2% isn't going to change your payment, you're just increasing the amoritzation of the loan. Half the students don't even UNDERSTAND what these benefits are or how they work. Even some financial aid officers can't decipher them. There are all these stipulations involved and fine print. Its frustrating when trying to explain to students how financial aid works when you have these companies (and some of them ARE shams) that have all this legal fine print to state through. Oh and by the way, none of the benefits are guaranteed either which is another pet-peeve of mine.
 
No, it won't change your payment but it will still save you thousands of dollars if you can make all your payments on time. Paying for 25 years is better than 30 if your rate reductions take 5 years off of your loan. There are plenty of companies who offer permanent benefits, you just have to make sure you are using one of them.
It's very true that most students have little understanding of their financial situations when they graduate. Since we can't look up your loan info anymore the student has to know their balances and interest rates before we can give them a quote and none of them have any clue. We'll do a conference call with them (if they can remember who they borrowed from) and they are usually quite shocked at how much they actually owe. I talk to plenty of financial aid officers too and worse than being uninformed they often give completely wrong information. When I call a school I usually have to explain to them how financial aid works before they understand what information I am looking for, it's quite disconcerting.

The problem with going back to all Direct loans is it's the government, it won't work. Student loans were oiginally all Direct and they couldn't handle it. The government created Sallie Mae to handle the student loans and it got too big so they privatized the company and created the FFELP system. It's been tried, it didn't work. I don't for a second believe that the government is any smarter or more efficient today than it was 10 years ago when Sallie Mae was privatized.
 
I should mention that it is often the student's fault they don't get an exit interview. Your school is required by law to give you one but if you don't show up to it or they can't reach you they can't give you the information you need. At the exit interview they should give you a list of all your loans and creditors, make sure you go to it! Some schools let you do it online, if your school does make sure you still get your loan information.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Exit interview isn't worth it for students unfortunately. They don't help you manage your funds although I think professional schools do a decent job, undergraduate is worthless. Its all online now and a joke.

maybe we need to have one federal provider and they need to have that system in place. It sounds like this might be the best idea for the borrowers and the tax payers. Hopeful but realistic that it would never happen.
 
Most of the DMD kids I inherit $180,000 plus in debt have no clue. They all waited for what I call the "magical exit" session where they were convinced someone would talk to them one on one across a desk. I am confident in saying it just doesn't happen like that. The game of the FA office is to get you to sign a piece of paper (or certify on line) that you knew it was a loan and that you understood your rights and responsibilities. Entrance is basically the same thing. It is the carrot and the stick: you want to register, I want a piece of paper in my file to cover my ass in case of a ferderal audit; exit is always a requirement to get cleared for graduation. Entrance/exit began years ago after students decided they didn't have to pay back their loans by claiming they didn't know it was a loan-- they thought it was a scholarship. The feds basically said "we'll fix that" and require every borrower has entrance counseling in the beginning before a dollar changes hands an exit at the end so no one can weasel out of the debt based on pleading ignorance. And thus another reg was written and another piece of paper required in students file....
I think Bush is thinking the bill has gone to far by introducing loan forgiveness to the extent the Dems are trying to get it and I agree with him on that one. Federal lending in this country is a social program and I'm not sure why letting capitalists run a social program makes sense-- they have 2 competing motives. Lenders entered the picture after LBJ opened lending to all students and realized their simply wasn't enough money in the treasury to loan out. Faced with a cash shortfall, he approached the banks with a deal: you loan your money to kids and we will guarantee it: the guaranteed student loan program was in business (that's why there are laon fees etc, to cover the cost to the lender to process the laon). Anyway, I expect my hard earned tax dollars to be spent to fund education and not to provide the number one lender in the country to secure $41 Billion in profits... Funny, I didn't see them really cut the rates for students; they offered a lot of hard to get repayment incentives to entice borrowers though. From where I sit and based on numerous conversations with the "poor borrowers who will be hurt" by the elimination of lender choice and competition in the marketplace, anyone who understands this as a social program (which it is) sees the lenders and their profits a waste of everyone's money; their's included. I would also counter to the "pro-choice" side (students should have the right to choose their lender in this social program), if lenders and FA folks really were in tune with their borrowers they would have to concede that close to 99% of the time a borrower wants 1 lender/1 payment... It is why consolidation is around. It's the first thing out of a student's mouth if they actually have an in person exit-- it's all over the FA part of this forum. I think it's time we worked for what students really want. Students included.
 
A bill overhauling student aid programs has just cleared the House, and among other things it will halve the rate of federally backed loans to 3.4% from 6.8%.

I was envious of those who had re-consolidated at that rate before, and was concerned it would never happen again for us. Hopefully it will become law...not sure if Bush will sign off on it or not.

Another proposal of the bill is loan forgiveness of $5000 for police, firefighters, and other public servants, with a complete loan release for these professions after 10 years. Our fearless leader :rolleyes: has threatened to veto the bill due to this provision.


I'm keeping my fingers crosse


This bill does not help us out at all. I guess you forgot to read my earlier post.

The dems have really screwed us big time on this one. Don't you remember the promise to cut student interest rates in half. Well here is how they deliver:

Congress said:
SEC. 111. INTEREST RATE REDUCTIONS.

(a) FFEL Interest Rates-

(1) Section 427A(l) (20 U.S.C. 1077a(l)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(4) REDUCED RATES FOR UNDERGRADUATE SUBSIDIZED LOANS- Notwithstanding subsection (h) and paragraph (1) of this subsection, with respect to any loan to an undergraduate student made, insured, or guaranteed under this part (other than a loan made pursuant to section 428B, 428C, or 428H) for which the first disbursement is made on or after July 1, 2006, and before July 1, 2013, the applicable rate of interest shall be as follows:

`(A) For a loan for which the first disbursement is made on or after July 1, 2006, and before July 1, 2008, 6.80 percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan.

`(B) For a loan for which the first disbursement is made on or after July 1, 2008, and before July 1, 2009, 6.12 percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan.

`(C) For a loan for which the first disbursement is made on or after July 1, 2009, and before July 1, 2010, 5.44 percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan.

`(D) For a loan for which the first disbursement is made on or after July 1, 2010, and before July 1, 2011, 4.76 percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan.

`(E) For a loan for which the first disbursement is made on or after July 1, 2011, and before July 1, 2012, 4.08 percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan.

`(F) For a loan for which the first disbursement is made on or after July 1, 2012 and before July 1, 2013, 3.40 percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan.'.

Unfortunately the only other option would be to vote for the Republicans, who would screw us even more.:eek::eek:
 
What a load of crap. Only subsidized loans ... what's the point in that?

I hate to say it, but it is actually a genius political move. They get to say that they cut the interest rate on loans in half, without actually doing anything meaningful. The public will sheepishly go along with it thinking that Congress is doing something to look out for the little guy, because almost every press release I read says that Congress has cut the rates on student loans. Obviously, the detail that it is only for subsidized undergrad loans is what is important. I honestly doubt that the reporters even know about that detail.
 
Because when the lenders benefits are cut who do you think will be taking up the slack? The borrowers. The government sets the base rate but it is pretty easy for now to get several percentage points off of that base rate, lenders use their repayment incentives to compete with each other. Less subsidy = less repayment reductions. Less competition = less repayment reductions. This bill will do no good for students or taxpayers. The only ones who may benefit are minority schools since the majority of the money this bill will collect is going for entitlements to American Indian, Hawaiian and other minority schools. Little of the money will go to the average student.

Thanks Okbye for your insight - having this sort of perspective is something that seems to be overlooked by many of the articles written about the bill.

There is another site that is also discussing this same topic: http://www.ramenreport.org

Being this bill will effect so many of us - undergrads, grads, and even alumni (in repayment) - it is good to stay be aware of the whole story.
 
Not to be mean: but in case you all haven't figured it out, okebye works for a lender. Before you decide to write your rep, I encourage you to read my other posts to learn how federal lending works in this country and who's getting fat and happy off whom. If you don't get it, email me and I'll explain it again.
The ramen thing homepage -- I also am appalled that T.H.E. (a lender and a quite profitable one at that, as they all are) is asking you all to fight to keep their profits. Give me a break and shame on THE (whom I am certain read all the postings here to keep abreast of the market). It's going to be a bitter fight so you should all be prepared.
By the way, I am an FA Counselor in case you guys haven't figured it out and work with dental kids often leaving with somewhere around $170,000 DMD and maybe another $180,000 for post-doc specialty.
 
It's funded by Northstar financial and THE is one of their loan products. Now I get it.
 
Not to be mean: but in case you all haven't figured it out, okebye works for a lender. Before you decide to write your rep, I encourage you to read my other posts to learn how federal lending works in this country and who's getting fat and happy off whom. If you don't get it, email me and I'll explain it again.

Actually I work for a consolidation broker so lender cuts may have a bit of a trickle down effect but are not going to affect us directly. A good part of my job is researching, writing and publishing educational articles on all aspects of student financial issues. I am lucky to work for a small company whos first priority is getting the best deal for the borrower and I can tell someone that their best deal isn't the one that makes us the most money without my boss having a heart attack. Granted this is rare in the financial aid world but that's the way it is.
 
Tell me you don't work for "the consolidation referral company who shall not be named" that originated out of a school project a few years back that enraged my colleagues across the country.... If you are, too funny...
 
Not to be mean: but in case you all haven't figured it out, okebye works for a lender. Before you decide to write your rep, I encourage you to read my other posts to learn how federal lending works in this country and who's getting fat and happy off whom. If you don't get it, email me and I'll explain it again.
The ramen thing homepage -- I also am appalled that T.H.E. (a lender and a quite profitable one at that, as they all are) is asking you all to fight to keep their profits. Give me a break and shame on THE (whom I am certain read all the postings here to keep abreast of the market). It's going to be a bitter fight so you should all be prepared.
By the way, I am an FA Counselor in case you guys haven't figured it out and work with dental kids often leaving with somewhere around $170,000 DMD and maybe another $180,000 for post-doc specialty.

And T.H.E. is profitable how? Besides, lender subsidy cuts mean that lenders won't be able to offer benefits like they do today. Not all lenders are evil.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]>>WHY T.H.E.?[/SIZE]. [FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]T.H.E. is a non-profit organization that has returned more than $194 million in savings to its borrowers..
 
I don't remember using the words evil to describe your business because that is what it is: a business. There is nothing wrong with being in business. I like business, the free market and capitalism. But that's not really what you are-- free. It is the taxpayers who maintain the risk in your portfolio and it is the tax payers who pay your special allowances in this social program. To put some half truths on your ramen homepage to incite these kids to storm the hill was what I was commenting on.
Frankly, I'm not sure who in corporate thought that to be an appropriate thing to do but I think it crossed a line and from the postings, it doesn't look like I'm alone in my opinion from reading the posts. Some of them are more scathing than mine.
Share your profits with your buyers if your profits are soley made from them but that's not really the case. If you can give away $194 million then I tend to think there's a bit of fat that could be trimmed.... but it's nice of you to share while you can.
I guess you can read between the lines of my posts that I think bank based federal lending (FFEL) is by in large a waste of everyone's money but you are not evil for partaking.
 
I don't remember using the words evil to describe your business because that is what it is: a business. There is nothing wrong with being in business. I like business, the free market and capitalism. But that's not really what you are-- free. It is the taxpayers who maintain the risk in your portfolio and it is the tax payers who pay your special allowances in this social program. To put some half truths on your ramen homepage to incite these kids to storm the hill was what I was commenting on.
Frankly, I'm not sure who in corporate thought that to be an appropriate thing to do but I think it crossed a line and from the postings, it doesn't look like I'm alone in my opinion from reading the posts. Some of them are more scathing than mine.
Share your profits with your buyers if your profits are soley made from them but that's not really the case. If you can give away $194 million then I tend to think there's a bit of fat that could be trimmed.... but it's nice of you to share while you can.
I guess you can read between the lines of my posts that I think bank based federal lending (FFEL) is by in large a waste of everyone's money but you are not evil for partaking.

I'm not in the business. I have loans through T.H.E. and know how they work from my experiences with them. I have had evil lenders who do not have the student's best interest in mind. I agree the ramen blog does need the actual bill information posted for students to make a valid decision or opinion of how this bill is affecting everyone. The interest rate cuts are to help reduce the deficit...not necessarily to benefit the students. I guess I'm missing how this bill has any benefit to us graduate students. Tax payers will pay no matter whether there is the FFEL program or the Direct Lending program. FFEL has brought a lot of competition to the market. I used to have to pay origination fees on my undergrad loans until certain lenders (one of them being T.H.E.) started the zero fee program and most all lenders then followed suit in order to be competitive. There are many FFEL lenders out there that still have to charge origination fees because they can't afford not to. Unfortunately, I'm now attending a Direct Lending school and will have to pay "processing fee's" where at a FFELP lender I wouldn't have to. I'm getting the short end of the deal I feel. I have done extensive research because I like to know how I am spending my money, especially when it comes to my education. And sorry, I have no profits to share with any buyers - I don't have any buyers. I'm just a grad student....
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Congress
SEC. 111. INTEREST RATE REDUCTIONS.

(a) FFEL Interest Rates-

(1) Section 427A(l) (20 U.S.C. 1077a(l)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(4) REDUCED RATES FOR UNDERGRADUATE SUBSIDIZED LOANS- Notwithstanding subsection (h) and paragraph (1) of this subsection, with respect to any loan to an undergraduate student made, insured, or guaranteed under this part (other than a loan made pursuant to section 428B, 428C, or 428H) for which the first disbursement is made on or after July 1, 2006, and before July 1, 2013, the applicable rate of interest shall be as follows:

`(A) For a loan for which the first disbursement is made on or after July 1, 2006, and before July 1, 2008, 6.80 percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan.

`(B) For a loan for which the first disbursement is made on or after July 1, 2008, and before July 1, 2009, 6.12 percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan.

`(C) For a loan for which the first disbursement is made on or after July 1, 2009, and before July 1, 2010, 5.44 percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan.

`(D) For a loan for which the first disbursement is made on or after July 1, 2010, and before July 1, 2011, 4.76 percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan.

`(E) For a loan for which the first disbursement is made on or after July 1, 2011, and before July 1, 2012, 4.08 percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan.

`(F) For a loan for which the first disbursement is made on or after July 1, 2012 and before July 1, 2013, 3.40 percent on the unpaid principal balance of the loan.'.

Thanks for posting the factual data. I just don't see how people think this is going to benefit anyone. IMHO.
 
Tell me you don't work for "the consolidation referral company who shall not be named" that originated out of a school project a few years back that enraged my colleagues across the country.... If you are, too funny...

No, I do not work for a consolidation referal company, if I did I wouldn't have said I work for a broker. I'm not sure I even know what that is. To assume I work for one company (that doesn't even do the same thing) out of the thousands out there is just....weird.
 
To okebye: if you did work for the "consolidation referral company that shall not be named" you would find it humorous that we were crossing paths again-- take my word on that one.
Nice post on the non-profit as well.
 
Top