Thread by @Dcollier74

Ok, time to get into this GAO report on #IDR. Reading from the perspective of who are most likely engaged in these programs (Female, Middle-Earning, High Debt Borrowers - and potentially minority borrowers).

preprints.apsanet.org/engage/apsa/ar…

ir.library.louisville.edu/jsfa/vol50/iss…

1

That abstract is catching. Credit for getting the point right away. A bit misleading though, they talk about the 7k loans eligible at $49m - but later on, those are held by 3k borrowers for $16k per borrower on average. Per borrower stat should also be up there for clarity.

2

I expect the average amount forgiven to increase over time - as the Federal Government changed the parameters of loans, more people became reliant on loans, connections to the Great Recession, and grad school enrollment. Eventually, it will get closer to averages seen in PSLF

3

Notably, GAO is saying #ED needs to be more intentional in tracking repayment data and TRANSPARENT.

If nobody can tell borrowers "why" they're in certain situations - we've failed them.

Doing loan debt work is hard - it's a black hole from the government and servicers.

4

^Regarding this point, I personally ask my servicer for updates on my IDR and PSLF qualifying payments every 6 months... just to keep track.

I know they get annoyed but IDGAF. They're there to serve my loans and by proxy ME.

5

RE Tweet #2 (I am early in this report) how much of the avg. forgiveness of the potential 7,700 loans eligible for forgiveness is... just interest? What % have already more than paid off the initial amount borrowed? Will I see this further down? Prob not.

6

This is a busy but nice graphic. Now, I want to know who is most likely to be in each of these highlighted tracks - bet not all of these things are equal and that there are unique groups of people within each of these tracks: gender, race/ethnicity, economic shocks...

7

With this GAO report and the report from last week - services are not having a great week, are they? I know some people defend servicers and it is TRUE there are systemic issues as the Government has been a bad partner in this - but servicers don't walk away unscathed here.

8

Page 11/12 is basically "We didn't collect the data." Everyone should be mad, here. We should be pissed the Government dropped the ball and the servicers didn't do their jobs in making systems that would keep reliable records. Just shows that nobody "really" cared here.

9

Btw, I want to remind people about who is most likely harmed by this lack of care... Female, middle-earning borrowers, with $40k+ in debt - and potentially minority borrowers.

ir.library.louisville.edu/jsfa/vol50/iss…

10

Here, there is no defense for #ED or the behavior of servicers (forbearance steering). If there was ever a case for loan debt forgiveness beyond fraud - this is it for these people. This is a SYSTEMIC issue and these borrowers who have been harmed need to be made whole.

11

#ED needs to make an official framework for how to go back and fix older data issues - period.

Biden could also just cancel that $49m (likely much more given the methodology) - loans that GAO suggests are right at forgiveness but did not achieve it because /shrug.

12

"Education officials said that before submitting loan history information, servicers must verify the accuracy of qualifying payment counts for the period when they were servicing the loan, but are not required to verify older counts from previous servicers."

Dafuq?

13

#ED refused to do a manual review, "process to verify qualifying payment counts would have taken 8 to 10 hours per loan."

Yea too much work to potentially make female, middle-earning (and potentially minority) borrowers whole - summarizes American policy for... well, ever.

14

"Education lacks reasonable assurance that eligible loans receive timely IDR forgiveness."

Alarmists were right to suggest #IDR would keep many in debt 4-life and gave zero fucks for decades - we now give like 3 fucks (Tweet #14). Again, who's in these programs matter.

15

The primary objective from #ED MUST be ensuring the repayments are properly tracked. That's it - no smart-ass response here, no other analysis. They must conduct a manual review pre-2016. 2014 is a marker in the report but no - make sure the new system was correct early on.

16

"...while servicers are not required to notify borrowers about these options, they're not prohibited from doing so." Servicers GAO contacted do not notify borrowers.

Lack of expectation from ED (MAJOR issue), still intentionally shit service from servicers. Both can be true.

17

Honestly, how can anyone have any trust in this system - and why should they?

This is a multi-decade systemic issue brought to us via Democratic and Republican administrations and Congressional leadership - a filled out by questionable behavior of servicers.

18

The fact that #ED has thus far declined to engage in a manual review because of "cost" and "time" is like telling older #IDR borrowers to "suck it."

"Other measures" are engaged but... no.

Again WHO is generally in these programs be be related to how "we" respond.

19

^Many kept saying the only thing that "really" matters to IDR evals/debates are $ borrowed and cost to the government - wrong.

WHO is in these programs is not well known. As such we don't know WHO is harmed, and HOW. This prevents better policy as nobody cares beyond $.

20

I am done with this thread and report for now. @FitzEdPolicy recently said I am driven by 60% Vengeance, the vengeance I feel after reading this report is elevated. A multi-decade's long permitted incompetence is on full display and... it's just so angering.

Done!

*may be related to.

I knew there was gonna be at least one typo =).