아래 차트는 동일한 고려 사항을 검토하지만 이번에는 가장 유리한 ISA 조건(소득 상환 비율 및 대출 조건과 관련하여)을 받는 가상의 항공 우주 엔지니어를 대상으로 합니다.

결과에서 알 수 있듯이 항공 우주 엔지니어가 해당 분야의 평균 초기 급여(~$60,000) 근처에 있는 한 연방 학자금 대출을 사용하여 앞서 나갈 것입니다. 그러나 흥미롭게도 그들이 평균보다 약간 낮거나 상당히 적은 수입을 얻는다면(예:사용된 할인율에 따라 $26,000-$53,000 이내), ISA의 낮은 지불 비율과 더 짧은 회수 기간이 유리할 수 있습니다. . 이 경우 차이의 크기는 크지 않지만(최대 NPV 차이는 $35,000 소득 및 3% 할인율에서 ISA에 찬성하여 대략 $13,000), 이 경우에는 더 많은 것으로 보입니다. 고소득 분야에 진입했지만 불행히도 평균 이하의 직업을 갖게 된 사람을 위한 그럴듯한 하방 보호.

하지만 이전의 경우와 마찬가지로 단점 보호는 학생이 신경 쓸 수 있는 전부가 아닙니다. 현금 흐름에 대한 전반적인 부담에 대한 질문도 있습니다. 이 경우 이전에 영어 전공에 대해 설명된 것과 동일한 역학을 여전히 볼 수 있습니다. As soon as income crosses the $20k threshold, burdens immediately jump to the full repayment level of roughly 7%. However, because the overall percentage of income owed is much lower for an aerospace engineer when compared to an English major financing the same amount of tuition, the difference between the maximums under various scenarios is less pronounced. Nonetheless, it would be fair to say that ISAs still place a larger burden on one’s cash flows when compared to a traditional Federal loan. To the extent that the ISA ends up as the lower-cost option, it’s only because of the ISA relief in the later years (after the ISA term ends, but while the Federal student loan payments may have had to continue) and not in the early years (when the ISA still has a higher cash flow burden).

Based on the findings above (and assuming that one is comparing federal loans to an ISA that is similar in nature to the Purdue ISA), it seems safe to say that Federal loans should generally be preferred to ISAs. There may be some niche cases in which students may want to consider ISAs first (e.g., situations in which individuals know ahead of time they will not be able to achieve even the average earnings in their field of study, or perhaps in cases such as an engineer who would like to take 10 to 15 years out of the workforce to raise children). But, generally speaking, the flexible features built into Federal loans provide equal (if not superior) outcomes in terms of both overall repayment and cash flow protection.

However, Federal loans may often fall short of what a student needs to fully fund their education, and this is particularly true for students who are attending more expensive private institutions. As a result, it may be best to think of ISAs not as a replacement for traditional Federal loans, but as a replacement for their more expensive and less flexible supplemental funding sources, such as private student loans.

A Direct Comparison of ISAs vs. Private Loans

For the purposes of comparing ISAs versus private student loans, the same framework is used as above, with the exception that a private student loan, with an 8% fixed interest rate and no flexible payment provisions, replaces the federal loan.

When comparing overall financial burdens, we can see that the ISA option is no longer a clear loss for our English major across all initial income levels.

Note:The same $26,500 tuition funding level is assumed just for the sake of consistency, although this may or may not reflect a typical funding need for supplemental funds based on an individual’s circumstances.

In this case, we see that our English major is better off with an ISA if their initial income level ends up being less than roughly $30,000. The reason that this is so different is that there is no longer any potential benefit of loan forgiveness for lower-income individuals when using private student loans. At income levels below $16,000, our English major comes out roughly $23k to $33k ahead with the ISA in terms of NPV, depending on what discount rate is used. At the same time, for incomes above $30,000, our English major still quickly comes out far behind with the ISA, given how much cheaper even an 8% interest rate is when compared to the “effective” interest rate built into an ISA structure (that takes an ever-higher percentage of the ever-higher income). If our English major ends up changing fields or just securing a very high paying entry-level job for English majors of $70k, they would end up somewhere between $32k and $48k worse off in NPV terms, depending on the discount rate used.

Of course, as was the case before, NPV differences only tell part of the story.

Note:Results for incomes below $10,000 were omitted for the purposes of making this chart readable.

When we examine the differences in cash flow burden between ISAs (which do have income-driven protections built in) and private loans (which do not have income-driven protections), we can quickly see that ISAs do provide some real relief in terms of potential cash flow burdens, at least at lower income levels. At incomes below $20k, the English major pays nothing towards their ISA, whereas private loan burdens could claim 30% or more of one’s cash flow. Even despite the relatively high 12%-of-income burden that the English major occurs immediately at $20k in income, it isn’t until reaching initial income levels of roughly $30k that a private loan burden would reach levels roughly as “low.” Of course, beyond the roughly $30k income level, the overall cash flow burden of private loans is substantially lower than paying a percentage of income (on ever-higher income levels), and the burden of private loans continues to decline as income increases.

(Note:One factor not captured here is the potential taxation of ISA funds. As discussed in the ISA overview above, how ISAs are eventually treated from a tax perspective, if/when forgiveness ultimately comes into play, would be a significant factor worth considering.)

We see similar dynamics for our aerospace engineer.

At lower income levels, our engineer comes out ahead with the ISA, thanks largely to its percentage-of-income cap and its relief for those with less than $20,000 of income. Although in this case, the engineer actually comes out ahead with an ISA up until income levels of roughly $60k.

From a cash flow perspective, little difference exists between the English major and the engineer, with the exception of the lower ISA cash flow burden for the engineer. But that lower percentage leads to an even higher income crossover before the ISA for the engineer is worse than taking out traditional private loans. The crossover point for maximum cash flow obligations occurs at roughly $54,000 in income, and the difference between either strategy is less pronounced over much of the potential income spectrum.

When Is An ISA Best To Finance College Tuition?

As the results make clear, using an ISA is virtually never superior to Federal student loans, for those who can take advantage of such loans in the first place. In practice, the income protections of Federal student loans programs – through various income-driven repayment plan options – provide more generous protection than ISAs for those who don’t end up with strong earnings after college. And the ISA is simply more expensive for those who do end out with superior earnings after college, given the percentage-of-income formula of ISAs in the first place.

By contrast, the decision of whether to use an ISA in lieu of a private loan is less clear than the Federal loan comparison. On the one hand, there are very real potential reductions in one’s total repayment obligation and cash flow burden should they end up unemployed or underemployed when using an ISA. However, should an individual come out at or above average in income, there’s also a substantial cost associated with such agreements (at least as considered here) compared to “just” borrowing with private loans and repaying them later.

The decision, then, is not unlike any other risk/reward tradeoffs that we must consider. All else being equal, the more risk-averse one is, the more attractive ISAs are going to look in lieu of private loans, as ISAs are a means to reduce the downside risk (of low income) by trading off some upside potential (more payments for the ISA if income does end out being above-average after college).

The one clear case we can make for using ISAs is to use an ISA when one can engage in adverse selection (for the ISA lender), effectively "gaming the system" with their own knowledge of their current and future plans. Specifically, at least with respect to the Purdue agreement, the clearest ISA scenario seems to be someone who is going to college but has a plan or strong desire to be a stay-at-home parent thereafter. This is private knowledge that an individual has about their own preferences, which counterparties in an ISA will never be privy to. Of course, this type of adverse selection also threatens the viability of ISAs overall, and we’ve yet to see any examples of ISAs that have managed this adverse selection problem and been successful over a long time horizon. Nonetheless, whether ISAs are viable in the long run doesn’t make any difference for someone who has access to funding via such means today, and those who know they wish to stay at home as a parent in the future may be able to grab some college funding they’ll never need to repay.

Students may also wish to consider what their own attributes suggest about what their personal ROI from attending college may be. As Bryan Caplan highlights in his book, The Case Against Education , college ROIs vary substantially by student quality. Caplan separates students into quality categories as follows:excellent (a student with the typical traits of an individual who completes a master’s degree), good (a student with traits typical of an individual who completes a bachelor’s degree), fair (a student with traits typical of an individual who completes high school), and poor (a student with traits typical of an individual who does not complete high school). “Traits” in this case could largely be boiled down to intelligence (e.g., IQ) and work ethic (e.g., conscientiousness). Caplan estimates that an excellent student would be at roughly the 82 ^nd percentile of cognitive ability, whereas a poor-quality student would be about the 24 ^th percentile.

As Caplan explains, ROI in this context refers to:

This can be a hard topic to be honest about, but the reality is that student quality is going to influence how realistic it is for a given individual to achieve “average” outcomes for an individual majoring in their discipline at a particular school. Individuals who are “above average” relative to their peers (which is different than above average relative to the population, as all physics majors at Harvard are likely well above “average” at the population level, but, by definition, half of them are below average relative to their peers) are more likely to experience better financial outcomes. As a result, all else being equal, higher quality students should be more inclined to pursue traditional debt financing, rather than give up a future percentage of their likely-to-be-above-average income with an ISA. Of course, ISAs could also start pricing based on GPA, ACT/SAT, etc., which may reduce the potential returns to adverse selection on this dimension.

Students with nontraditional career options may also want to give ISAs particular consideration. For instance, a student who plans to join a family real estate business after graduation may be able to structure their compensation in a manner that is advantageous for the purposes of reporting income (or rather, not reporting income as earned income) within the terms of an ISA (e.g., by participating in the real estate income as rental income via Schedule E, which isn’t part of the ISA income calculation).

Another consideration that will increasingly come up is the discrepancies between costs by major. Generally freshman and those who have not declared a major are excluded from ISA programs (presumably due to high rates of dropping out of certain majors, such as engineering, among incoming freshman), and it’s not clear how all programs will choose to handle situations such as dual majors (no guidelines appear to be listed on Purdue’s website, but a call to Purdue’s financial aid office suggested that applicants can choose which of their majors they wish to use when applying for Purdue’s ISA).

So long as one can successfully pull it off, dual majoring in, say, psychology (0.45% share per $1k over 116 months) and applied statistics (0.30% share per $1k over 96 months) could be worthwhile for a student who can then get ISA funding based on statistics even though their true interest (and future career aspiration) is psychology. (Notably, it’s also not clear what would happen if a student was an applied statistics major at the time of applying but abandoned that second major prior to graduation.) Of course, this is again a problem that programs will need to address, via pricing or otherwise, in order to remain viable long-term, but it’s nonetheless an opportunity for students who do wish to pursue an ISA to potentially secure better terms for themselves.

As should always be the case, the fine print on these Income Share Agreements is tremendously important as well. As more universities and private ISA providers roll out their own programs, individuals will need to pay careful attention to the actual agreement they are signing, and the specific terms of that agreement.

Ultimately, it is still too early to say what type of influence ISAs will have on college funding in the long run. However, they seem to have captured a lot of public interest, and many people seem to intuitively feel that ISAs have better characteristics when compared to traditional debt financing. But this is less clear when we actually dig into the details of such agreements. Compared to Federal loans, there’s probably little reason to pursue ISAs, unless one has some personal knowledge that allows for significant adverse selection against the ISA funder (and in favor of themselves, based on the exact ISA rules). Compared to private loans, though, there is some very real downside protection for ISAs in terms of total repayment obligation and cash flow protection, but this comes at a fairly significant long-term cost so long as one achieves at least “average” (or higher) income outcomes in the long run after college.