How should Congress budget for federal lending programs?
Lending programs create special challenges for federal budgeting. So special, in fact, that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates their budget effects two different ways. According to official budget rules, taxpayers will earn more than $200 billion over the next decade from new student loans, mortgage guarantees and the Export-Import Bank. According to an alternative that CBO favors, US taxpayers will lose more than $100 billion.
Those competing estimates pose a $300 billion question: Which budgeting approach is best?
As I document in a new report and policy brief, the answer is neither. Each approach tells only part of the story. Congress would be better served by a new approach that fairly reflects all the fiscal effects of lending.
Compared With What?
If lending programs perform as CBO expects, they will bring in new money that the US government can use to reduce the deficit, increase spending or cut taxes. In that sense, taxpayers may come out more than $200 billion ahead.
But these programs do not fully compensate taxpayers for their financial risk. If the government took the same risk by making loans and guarantees at fair market rates — perhaps by investing in publicly traded bonds — taxpayers would make much more. Taxpayers are subsidizing the students, homeowners and companies that borrow through these programs. In that sense, taxpayers come out more than $100 billion behind.
The same issue can arise in personal life. Suppose your aunt asks for a $10,000 loan to start a business. You’ve got exactly that much in a government bond fund earning 2.5%, and she offers to pay 5%. She’s got a good head for business, so the risk of default is very low; realistically you expect a 4% annual return.
The loan sounds like a winner, right? Her 4% beats the bond fund’s 2.5%, if you can handle the risk. But there’s one other thing: Your brother-in-law, equally good at business, would like a similar loan, and he’s willing to pay 6%, with an expected net of 5%.
Now the loan to your aunt sounds like a loser. Your brother-in-law’s 5% beats her 4%. You might still prefer to lend to her, but you would come out behind in financial terms.
The competing CBO estimates reflect this dichotomy. One approach compares the financial returns of lending with doing nothing (the $200 billion gain in CBO’s case, 4% versus 2.5% in yours). The other compares the returns with taking similar risks and being fully compensated (the $100 billion loss in CBO’s case, 4% versus 5% in yours).
Suppose your aunt asks for a $10,000 loan to start a business. You’ve got exactly that much in a government bond fund earning 2.5%, and she offers to pay 5%. She’s got a good head for business, so the risk of default is very low; realistically you expect a 4% annual return.
Both comparisons provide useful information. If you want to predict the government’s future fiscal condition, you should compare the financial returns of lending with doing nothing. If you want to measure the subsidies given to borrowers, you should compare returns with the fair market alternative.
When you discuss your aunt’s proposal with your spouse, you would be wise to mention not only the potential financial gain (“4% is better than 2.5%”) but the subsidy to your aunt (“4% is less than the 5% your brother would pay”). Only then can you have an open discussion of your family’s financial priorities.
The same information is necessary for an open discussion of federal budgeting. But official budget rules, created by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA), require CBO to use just the first approach in its budget analyses. Official estimates thus measure the fiscal effects of lending, not the subsidies provided to borrowers. CBO rightly believes, however, that policy deliberations are incomplete without measuring the subsidies, which CBO calculates separately using an approach known as fair value.
Policy analysts have vigorously debated the pros and cons of the FCRA and fair value for years. Neither side has scored a decisive win for a simple reason: both approaches are incomplete. Fair value measures subsidies well, but tells us nothing about fiscal effects; this is its missing-money problem. The FCRA measures lifetime fiscal effects well, but tells us nothing about subsidies.
By recording expected fiscal gains the moment a loan is made, moreover, the FCRA makes lending appear to be a magic money machine. Lending may pay off over time, but the gains do not happen the moment the loan’s ink is dry. Like any lender, the government must be patient to earn those returns. It must hold the loan, perhaps for many years, and bear the associated financial risk.
A Better Approach
For those reasons, I believe we should replace both approaches with a more accurate budgeting method, which I call expected returns. As the report and brief describe, the expected-returns approach forecasts the fiscal effects of a loan by projecting the government’s expected returns year by year, rather than collapsing them into a single value at the time the loan is made, as both the FCRA and fair value do.
Expected returns accurately track the fiscal effects of lending over time, thus avoiding both fair value’s missing-money problem and the FCRA’s magic-money-machine problem. It also provides a natural framework for reporting the fiscal effects of lending and the subsidies to borrowers. Expected returns would give policymakers and the public a more accurate assessment of federal lending than either of the approaches we use now.
*[This article was originally featured on Donald Marron’s blog.]
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
For more than 10 years, Fair Observer has been free, fair and independent. No billionaire owns us, no advertisers control us. We are a reader-supported nonprofit. Unlike many other publications, we keep our content free for readers regardless of where they live or whether they can afford to pay. We have no paywalls and no ads.
In the post-truth era of fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles, we publish a plurality of perspectives from around the world. Anyone can publish with us, but everyone goes through a rigorous editorial process. So, you get fact-checked, well-reasoned content instead of noise.
We publish 2,500+ voices from 90+ countries. We also conduct education and training programs on subjects ranging from digital media and journalism to writing and critical thinking. This doesn’t come cheap. Servers, editors, trainers and web developers cost money. Please consider supporting us on a regular basis as a recurring donor or a sustaining member.