(11) 98404-4242 | (11) 3875-2822



Yale Income Share Agreement

[Investors] could “buy” a portion of a person`s earnings prospects: to provide them with the funds needed to finance their education, provided they agree to pay the lender a certain fraction of their future income. In this way, a lender would recover more than its initial investment from relatively successful people, which would compensate for the inability to recover its initial investment from the unsuccessful one. In the 1970s, Yale University attempted a modified form of Friedman`s proposal with several cohorts of students. At Yale, instead of entering into individual contracts for a fixed number of years, all cohort members agreed to repay a percentage of income until the balance of the entire cohort was repaid. However, the system has left frustrated students paying more than their fair share by forcing them to make payments on behalf of their peers who were unable or unable to repay their loans. [6] Rhetoric and headlines often suggest that income-sharing agreements are an important part of the solution to the dizzying amounts of student debt. But organizations that make ISAs a reality on the ground for students may be more cautious about the new model. “It`s part of the concept of `risk sharing` and the idea that colleges should be in the hot seat, [which] is becoming increasingly popular in the federal debate,” Smith said. “Risk sharing is a concept supported by both parties.” Smith noted that ISAs backed by banks or traditional investors “don`t have the connection” and are “even more transactional.” Funding relationships directly between investors and students do not have the value that can be added when schools participate and share responsibility for student outcomes. Because investors are incentivized to allow students to pay lower portions of their income when they enroll in high-quality, low-cost educational programs, ISAs lead to a more efficient allocation of financial resources among colleges. [3] Revenue-sharing agreements are attracting the attention of legislators, although relatively few students have so far subscribed to the credit alternative. Two organizations with very different approaches want to change that.

The United States allows its citizens to enter into revenue-sharing agreements. Yale introduced the program in 1971 and by the end of the decade they had abandoned it. One of the biggest problems with the OPT was that it had a negative selection. Negative selection was one of the main problems of the program. Those with a low salary cap were more likely to opt for the program than those who thought their income would be much higher. This led to cohorts that had a higher percentage of people and ultimately paid less than necessary to repay the loans. [With a regular student loan], my nominal monthly payment is fixed, but my income could change or disappear altogether (which is sure only a monthly repetition of bad news). With a revenue-sharing agreement, the opposite is true: I don`t know what my nominal monthly payment will be over the entire term or how much I`ll pay in total, but I know I can still afford it. [11] Purdue is now experimenting with another form of financial support called a “revenue sharing agreement” (ISA). ISAs provide students with money to cover university fees and, in return, students agree to repay a percentage of their future income for a period of time – interest-free and limited.


No Comments

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.