student loans

Education For We, the People Or For Private Profit?

Dave Johnson — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 19:18:01 -0500

In his press conference today President Obama said the economic focus is no longer saving the economy from crisis, but "jumpstarting" it to make a dent in unemployment. He listed education as one of the pillars of that effort. Later in the press conference he talked about making colleges and universities being open not just to people who are well-to-do, but to all of us.

Progressives For A We, The People Economy

Progressives believe that a We, the People economy works best when we act as a community where "we are all in this together," and watch out and take care of each other. We mutually benefit from this approach: the better off we all are, the better off we all are. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe we should all be on our own, looking out for only ourselves and our families, and it is up to each of us, alone, to take "personal responsibility" for our own success.

Our differing approaches to education reflect these different philosophies. Progressives believe that education is good for all of us, and should be available to all of us. We believe that the economy does better when more of us can receive a good education, whether this brings a vocational or advanced degree, in a community college or a university. We try to enact policies that make this education affordable for everyone.

Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that "the government" (We, the People) has no business helping people. So they resist providing free public or university education. They call this "socialism."

And so America's conflict continues, one side asking for public investment in all of us for the long-term benefit of We, the People while the other side tries to harvest the public good for the short-term benefit of a few.

Compromise With Conservatives

A compromise of sorts has existed in recent decades in which the government helps students get loans, enabling them to go to more expensive schools. But these loans increasingly leave students with a very high debt to pay off after they graduate. In recent years students are graduating with more student loan debt than they can reasonably be expected to pay off.

Result: Increasing Debt

CNBC reports: Student loans leave crushing debt burden

The cost of a college education is rising faster than the cost of medical care and as much as three times as fast as consumer prices in general. But that's just the beginning of the price of admission. This is the story of a debt crisis few are talking about.

Americans now owe more on their student loans than they do on their credit cards — a debt fast approaching $1 trillion with no end in sight.

Please read the entire CNBC report on the crushing debt load that students are taking on, just to get an education that will help our economy. Here is a clip of the video available at the link:

USA Today reports: Student loan debt exceeds credit card debt in USA,

Total student loan debt exceeds total credit card debt in this country, with $850 billion outstanding, according to Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of FinAid.org and FastWeb.com, websites that provide information about student aid and scholarships.

Consumers owe about $828 billion in revolving credit, including credit card debt, according to seasonally adjusted numbers in a report on July credit from the Federal Reserve.

Result: Increasing Defaults

With the increasing debt load and the resulting crushing monthly payments come increasing defaults. From the Dept. of Education, Student Loan Default Rates Increase,

"This data confirms what we already know: that many students are struggling to pay back their student loans during very difficult economic times. That's why the Administration has expanded programs like income based repayment and Pell grants to help students in financial need," said U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

And, of course, along with the for-profit privatization of what should be a public function, and the compromise of federal help for loans comes the companies profiting from federal dollars.

"The data also tells us that students attending for-profit schools are the most likely to default," Duncan continued. "While for-profit schools have profited and prospered thanks to federal dollars, some of their students have not. Far too many for-profit schools are saddling students with debt they cannot afford in exchange for degrees and certificates they cannot use. This is a disservice to students and taxpayers, and undermines the valuable work being done by the for-profit education industry as a whole," Duncan continued.

Result: Increasing Quick-Buck For-Profit Scams

Along with increasing and crushing debt and defaults another problem has cropped up. Just like with the housing bubble, the private predators have arrived to prey on the public. Private schools like Kaplan University are increasingly scamming their students with schemes reminiscent of the worst of the housing bubble, running up loan debt greater than any job they would ever get could pay, even hitting them with excessive fees and outright fraudulent charges. A Huffington Post report of their investigation of Kaplan University, At Kaplan University, 'Guerilla Registration' Leaves Students Deep In Debt, exposes Kaplan's practice of "guerilla registration" in which they register students and charge them tuition for classes they don't want or take, even in some cases after they have withdrawn from the school. And then they send the debt collectors after them for the money.

Despite having attended only two online sessions, Castillo had remained officially enrolled at Kaplan for nearly a year after her withdrawal.

Far from an aberration, Castillo's experience typifies the results of a practice known informally inside Kaplan as "guerilla registration": academic advisors have long enrolled students in classes they never take, without their consent and sometimes even after they have sought to withdraw from the university, in order to maximize the company's revenues, according to interviews with former employees.

Please read the whole Huffington Post report, there is much, much more there. Kaplan University, by the way, is owned by The Washington Post company.

Speaking of Kaplan, this is also in the news: NY Times, E.E.O.C. Sues Kaplan Over Hiring,

Sending a sharp warning to employers nationwide, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the Kaplan Higher Education Corporation on Tuesday, accusing it of discriminating against black job applicants through the way it uses credit histories in its hiring process.

. . . In the E.E.O.C.’s suit, which was filed in federal district court in Cleveland, the agency said that since at least January 2008, Kaplan had rejected job applicants based on their credit history, with a “significant disparate impact” on blacks.

. . . The E.E.O.C. typically brings discrimination cases only when it is convinced that serious abuse has occurred.

Resources:

Demos: Student Loans and Student Loan Debt, links to Demos resources and research on this issue.

The Project On Student Debt

Backdoor Bailout, Tea Party Fakeout: The GOP's Secret $90 Billion Gift to Wall Street

Richard Eskow — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:15:48 -0400

GOP candidates are making a point of running against "bailouts" this year. Yet even as they rail about rescuing big banks, they're working on a plan that would slip those same banks an estimated $90 billion in taxpayer money ... and that's just in the first ten years.

"Fiscal conservatism," anyone?

It was always hypocritical to slam a bailout that they and their party initiated. But it turns out they were just warming up. Now they're trying to pull a fast one on the American public, tapping Tea Party rage about big government spending even as they prepare to slip the big bankers some big bucks. They're planning to siphon off $90 billion meant for America's college students and their families and give it to Wall Street.

Any Tea Partier who votes for these guys is being played for a sucker.

The Republican repeal plan wouldn't just put tens of billions of public dollars in bank coffers. It would also raise the maximum amount a graduate is forced to pay each year from 10% to 15% of income. And it would extend the length of time before their debt is forgiven from 20 to 25 years.

Your GOP: Sending billions in taxpayer money to rich bankers, and squeezing young people starting out in life. Call it the New Populism.

Small government? Less spending? The Republican Party's backdoor bailout of wealthy bankers is bigger than the auto industry bailout. It's bigger than the home loan program. It's bigger than the lending program for small businesses. And unlike those programs, it serves no social purpose at all.

This week two Republican Senatorial candidates were the latest to push this secret subsidy for Wall Street. Washington's Dino Rossi and Mark Kirk in Illinois were obviously working from the same playbook, since they made almost identical points while declaring their opposition to this year's student loan reform. "You know, part of the takeover of government has been part of the student loans," said Rossi. "I don't think that we should adopt legislation that the Congress has moved forward to have a complete government takeover of all student loans," said Kirk.

Kirk and Rossi are talking about this year's student loan reform. That program eliminated a cushy deal that gave private banks a percentage of government loan funds for "administering" loans (they weren't actually lending the money). They performed their administrative duties both inefficiently and unethically. What's more, the banks took a portion of their vig and spent it on lobbyists in order to keep the pot sweetened for themselves. It didn't work - but if the GOP has its way, it'll work next year.

You're not seeing a "populist" uprising on the Right. You're seeing lobbyist and billionaire money at work, channeling genuine frustration and anger into an electoral plan designed to help bankers get even richer.

The "government takeover" argument is ridiculous, of course. In this case they're talking about a government takeover ... of government. This is the public's money, and it's intended to be lent to students and their families so that the dream of an ever-more-expensive college education is available to more families. Taxpayers support this program so much that neither Kirk nor Rossi could afford to criticize it. But not too many of those taxpayers would support taking billions of their dollars and funneling it to Wall Street, as the GOP would do.

The "complete government takeover" statements are also absolutely false, since private students loans are still available. (See Pat Garafolo's excellent pieces on Rossi and Kirk for more detail.)

When private bankers managed the student loan process, it was filled with rampant corruption that included kickbacks to school administrators. Millions of dollars meant for students were also stuffed in the pockets of lobbyists and politicians. (Details here.) And as for that 'privatization' mantra we keep hearing from the GOP, consider this: The government created and funded Sallie Mae to help students get these government loans, and then privatized it. The result was a taxpayer-created and financed company that bought itself three private jets, paid bloated executive salaries, and threw government money at Washington pols (including a quarter of a million dollars for George W. Bush's inauguration).

(We've got more information on the loan program, and a rundown on the 'private' Sallie Mae Corporation that includes a photo of one of those jets and their ID numbers.)

Because of our current hard times - hard times brought about by the very same bankers who would get billions under the GOP plan - our student loan program is even more important than ever. Unemployment and under-employment for college graduates is soaring. The average college graduate's debt in 2009 was $24,000, up 6% from the year before, and that's before the full impact of the economic downturn. Diverting billions in Federal student loan money to Wall Street under these circumstances is nothing short of obscene.

But the GOP has made it clear that they're in the bankers' back pockets. Sen. John Cornyn, head of the Republican Senate campaign committee, indicated they would immediately move to repeal the financial reform bill if they gained power. That would give their banker friends free reign to exploit consumers and take even greater risks with the economy. This $90 billion giveaway of government money - our money - is just part of a larger pattern.

While neither Kirk nor Rossi were originally Tea Party candidates, they've both made their peace with the movement. Unnamed "tea party activists" from the State of Washington issued a letter of support for Rossi, while the formerly centrist Mark Kirk has flip-flopped on multiple issues in the last few months in order to pass Tea Party muster. Both candidates are part of a larger GOP plan to use anti-spending, anti-bank rhetoric in order to spend billions on subsidizing banks.

Billions for bankers, benefit cuts for students. A "privatization" scheme that lets a few people get rich off government programs, promoted in the name of "less spending" and "less taxes." That's the system that these Republicans want to bring back and even expand. They want to use student loan money as a piggy bank for rich piggies, tapping taxpayer dollars to to enrich their pals.

So my question for the Tea Party rank and file is this: Are you going to let the big banks and their politician cronies play you like this? Are you going to be a sucker? They've got $90 billion that says you will.

______________

About the table: The Department of Education Arne Duncan estimates the bank subsidy was costing approximately $9 billion per year, including the interest banks were able to collect . Given the rapid and ingoing increases in college tuitions, it's not unreasonable to think that the total amount could be wind up being much more than either figure. I used the data compiled by the New York Times for the other figures. In every case, I used the highest possible figures for the final cost of each program, to make my estimates as conservative as possible. (I stayed away from TARP, even though we're told it's making a profit, because the total cost is still unknown.)

The result was clear: This GOP's planned Wall Street giveaway the biggest and costliest of all the programs listed.

This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project.

Money-Changers In The Senate

Isaiah J. Poole — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:55:10 -0400

The student loan industry faces a serious challenge from advocates who question the reason for its existence, which is premised on massive, inefficient government subsidies.

Leading student lender Sallie Mae reported profits of $324 million last year on the strength of its student loan business, which is heavily subsidized through the Federal Family Education Loan program (FFEL). Sallie Mae originated $21 billion worth of loans backed by the program in 2009; other major lenders profiting from the program include Citigroup, Nelnet, JP Morgan, and Wells Fargo.

Meanwhile, by ending the program with the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA), the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the federal government would save $68 billion—money that would otherwise subsidize these banks' profits. The CBO score also estimates that students would pay significantly lower interest rates on their loans.

With billions in profits on the line, banks have waged an intensive, multimillion-dollar political and lobbying campaign to maintain the status quo: subsidies for the banks, at students' expense.

Their expensive campaign has won them some support. On March 9, six Democratic senators—Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark.; Mark Warner, D-Va.; Tom Carper, D-Del.; Ben Nelson, D-Neb.; Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Jim Webb, D-Va.—sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make him "aware of our concern" about reform efforts and urging consideration of "potential alternative legislative proposals."

What would prompt six senators to oppose efforts aimed at reducing lending costs by cutting out superfluous money-changers? The answer, of course, is the power of money, as deployed through a combination of campaign contributions and strategic lobbyist hires.

This report documents the extensive ties between the six senators and major players in the student loan industry. Among the findings:

The report estimates that the student loan industry has spent $15 million in the past year on a political campaign to rescue multibillion-dollar profits. Banks have waged an expensive and sophisticated battle to defeat SAFRA with campaign contributions, lobbying of congress and the CBO, help from major industry associations, and shadowy front groups to escape accountability.
At least six former staffers to the six Senators who signed the letter to Reid are currently lobbying for the student loan industry: Kelly Bingel (former chief of staff to Blanche Lincoln); Bill Leighty (former chief of staff to Mark Warner); Amy Tejral (former legislative director for Ben Nelson); Oscar Ramirez (gubernatorial campaign staffer for Mark Warner); Timothy Casey (legislative aide to Tom Carper); and Paul Brathwaite (Carper staffer).
Lenders have employed front groups to lobby on their behalf. The Business Roundtable, the Consumer Bankers Association, the American Bankers Association, and the Chamber of Commerce (including CEO Tom Donohue) have all lobbied around student aid reform on behalf of unidentified lenders. Major lenders associated with these groups include JP Morgan, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Sallie Mae, and Bank of America.
Student lenders and their lobbyists have showered the six senators with tens of thousands in campaign contributions over the last year, including $15,000 from the PACs of Sallie Mae and Nelnet alone. In the past, the senators have also been top recipients of loan industry largess: Sallie Mae and Nelnet both maxed out to Bill Nelson in the space of three days during his 2006 campaign; two of Tom Carper's three top career contributors are JP Morgan and Citigroup -- both major players in the student loan industry; Ben Nelson has received $19,000 from Nelnet's PAC in the past ten years.
Jim Webb, Carper, and Ben Nelson sided with banks, and against students, on a key education measure in 2007. Nelson also sponsored a failed 2007 amendment that would have maintained government subsidies to private student lenders.

The report documents a host of additional ties between the six senatorial defenders of the status quo and the main organs of the student loan industry.

Given that deeply indebted students and young adults have little discretionary income to devote to catered dinners for senators and campaign coffers, we can only hope that transparency and accountability will balance the scales.

Single-Lender for Student Loans: A Good Thing

Armand Biroonak — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:45:22 -0400

Government in many instances can do it better. Student loan reform –that awaits passage through reconciliation –will end tens of billions in wasteful bank subsidies and give much of the savings to students (via Pell Grants). How? By the federal government cutting out the middleman –ending the Federal Family Education Loan program (FFELP) that pays private lenders to dole out loans, when the government can do it for cheaper through direct lending. In other words, a single-lender system for student loans.

But bankers and their allies in Congress do not like this idea one bit. The student loan lobby is making its final push to kill student loan reform, proposing a last-ditch alternative plan to keep their profits.

So-called fiscal conservatives such as House Republican leader, John Boehner, decry the possibility of yet another “government takeover,” while drumming up false rhetoric that student loan reform means “saddling our children and grandchildren with billions of dollars in added debt.” The reality conservatives choose to ignore: government does it better, with an estimated cost savings with student loan reform projected at $67 billion over the next decade. The savings was estimated to be nearly $90 billion last fall too, but with so many colleges beginning the switch to direct lending early, the government has begun to realize savings now.

And to be fair, a few in the banking industry see reform as sensible. BOK Financial Corporation’s chairman, George Kaiser, wrote in Politico earlier this week, “I have long felt there is something morally wrong with the subsidy provided to banks and other lenders through FFELP…Fiscal responsibility should oblige the federal government to secure services at the lowest cost, consistent with service quality."

However, not all Democrats see reform as a good thing. Senators Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), and Jim Webb (D-Va.) all worry about job losses that come with direct lending, even though reform still preserves a role for lenders to service loans. See my rebuttal to them here.

We are getting very close to achieving student loan reform, but help ensure that your representative gets the message, LOUD AND CLEAR. Who do they stand with, students? Or banks? Hold them accountable by clicking on this.

Backgrounder: The Student Aid And Fiscal Responsibility Act

Armand Biroonak — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:42:40 -0500

Facts You Should Know

Tuition and fees have increased more than 60 percent (adjusted for inflation) since just 2000.
Average student debt is now over $23,000, a 24 percent increase since 2004.
In the 2008-09 academic year, student borrowing grew about 25 percent over the previous year, to $75.1 billion.
The U.S. now ranks near the bottom among industrialized nations in the percentage of 25-34 year olds with an associate’s degree or higher.
One in five American students pursuing a bachelor’s degree never finish.
In 1977, the maximum Pell Grant covered 77 percent of total public college costs. Now, it has dropped to 32 percent.
Between 1.4 million and 2.4 million bachelor’s degrees would be lost this decade among college-qualified high school graduates as a result of financial barriers.

The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act seeks to provide relief to millions of students, parents and workers struggling to obtain a college degree or training for a better job.

The maximum Pell Grant would increase to $5,500 in 2010 and $6,900 in 2019 as a result of a $40 billion investment in the program. As a result, several hundred thousand more students would qualify for aid and, with that, the opportunities that a degree will afford them.

The Perkins Loan program would be strengthened under SAFRA. These are low-cost loans available to adults, and the legislation would allow students who need additional aid to work with their schools to get these loans from the federal government instead of risky private loans.

Community colleges and worker retraining get new funding under SAFRA. The United States is projected to have a shortfall of 16 million college graduates by 2025. SAFRA will revitalize community colleges by updating facilities and creating free and accessible online curriculum, as well as building partnerships between schools and businesses.

All federal student loans would be awarded through the Direct Loan program as a result of SAFRA. That more efficiently utilizes the government’s education dollars. This reform in studentlending eliminates borrowers’ dependence on market conditions, while also saving $87 billion to invest back in education support and reducing the deficit.

SAFRA would keep interest rates low for lower income students and their families who qualify for subsidized Stafford loans by applying a variable rate beginning in 2012, rather than increasing them from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent.

The Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form would be simplified. By reducing the number of questions on the form, students and families would encounter fewer potential roadblocks to their getting aid.

Finally, historically black and minority-serving institutions would be boosted with a $1.2 billion investment under SAFRA to support college access and completion among disadvantaged students.

Students Pinched By Recession

Armand Biroonak — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:51:59 -0500

The effects of the recession have been far reaching –that is no secret of course –but the picture for students in this downturn is only beginning to be painted more clearly. According to the Higher Education Research Institute’s annual survey of college freshman, students are really feeling the financial squeeze unlike ever before.

About two-thirds of incoming students said they had “some” or “major” concern about their ability to pay for their education. The percentage of those with “some” concern — 55.4 — was at its highest level since 1971. Financial concerns also affected students' college choice, with 41.6 percent reporting that cost was a "very important" factor in choosing which college to attend, the highest level since this question was added to the survey five years ago.

These worries among entering freshman are understandable. Students were more likely than previous freshmen to have a parent who was unemployed and less likely to find employment to help cover costs. Coupled with rising tuition, over 60 percent since 2000, and cuts to state supported financial aid, students have been forced to borrow more and more to finance their education. In 2008 (the latest available data), students have taken out nearly $100 billion worth of loans –this is a 95 percent increase from 2000. This rise was not because of an enormous influx of new students either, in the same period total enrollment at degree granting institutions rose by only a third.

Unfortunately, the mood of the next incoming freshmen class will likely be no better. State budgets for the coming fiscal year will be equally anemic or even weaker, as the recession takes a bigger bite out of state treasuries. This will surely lead to another round of budget cuts, including funding for higher education and tuition hikes –driving up student debt or shutting the door to higher education completely because of the lack of affordability. Just one example, the University of California system announced last November, a 32% tuition hike for fall 2010.

There is a bright spot though, the Campaign for College Affordability, our partner, is working on behalf of students to help pass the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act that expands Pell Grants and ends billions in wasteful bank subsidies, instead reinvesting much of it in students. Visit their site here.

Back to School, Students Turn to Loans for Help

Armand Biroonak — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:54:41 -0400

Students are borrowing more than ever to pay for college. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, for the 2008-09 academic year, students borrowed nearly 25 percent more than the previous year to pay for school, borrowing a total of over $75 billion. But as the economy worsens and states continue to slash higher education spending, this upcoming year will certainly be worse.

Why?

To begin with, the bad economy translates to fewer jobs available for students. Job openings that students traditionally apply for either are filled by more experienced workers or have vanished completely. This has helped push the current unemployment rate for 16 to 24 year olds over 18 percent. And considering how nearly half of full-time students and over 80 percent of part-time college students rely on jobs while in school –the dismal job market thus pressures them to borrow more. I of course neglect the impact of parents losing jobs, but its effect is easy to predict.

A second, more important reason is cash strapped states are cutting student aid and hiking tuition. Already 32 states have announced such measures, leaving students to foot the bill. In Michigan, the state has frozen merit awards to nearly 97,000 students. In Illinois, 145,000 need-based students have been told that their aid will be cut in half. And to highlight this trend once more, Pennsylvania is slashing aid for over 170,000 of its students.

These cuts will be extremely painful when considering in prior years nearly two-thirds of students nationwide received some form of financial aid.

Meanwhile, with states’ belt-tightening they are jacking up tuition. Tuition hikes of course are sadly, nothing new –the average tuition at a public four-year university has already increased 29% between 2000 and 2007. But by next year, states warn they will raise tuition again, and quite dramatically. For example, Cal State, California’s largest post-secondary system, announced a 20 percent increase for 2010 and Florida’s public universities tell of a 15 percent increase.

These radical actions are sure to leave students and parents in a vulnerable position. The unpredictability of next semester's costs and dwindling aid packages lead to a scramble for money by individuals, and as we can see by the latest data, a turn to borrowing.

Moreover, with state budgets appearing increasingly gloomy for 2010, college affordability will only grow worse. Already, the Obama administration has shown a commitment to higher education, with a historic increase in Pell Grants. Now is the time though for further action to be taken. Obama must make clear that states can no longer privatize the education system by slashing aid and hiking tuition, resulting in more students taking on loans. The solution is for the administration to incentivize and reward ‘good state’ behavior (that avoids harmful cost cutting) by offering stop-gap measures to plug the hole in states’ budgets. But Obama must act quickly as state finances are disappearing by the day.

COHEAO and NACUBO Survey Reveals Perkins Loan Shortfalls

OurFuture.org Staff — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 06:56:28 -0500

Of the institutions that responded to the survey, 28 percent indicated that they expected their institution to have a shortfall in their Perkins Loan fund on June 30, 2008, which would require their institution to make a loan to the fund. Another 18 percent were unsure if they would have a shortfall.

The institutions expecting a shortfall are primarily small, private institutions. 68 percent of the 76 institutions are private, four-year institutions, and more than 60 percent have a full-time equivalent student enrollment of 5,000 students or less.

The average projected shortfall anticipated at these institutions is $560,304, or a median of $200,000. Thirty-one percent of institutions anticipated that collections in the upcoming fiscal year would be sufficient to fully repay their institution’s loan to the fund. However, 37 percent indicated that they did not believe that collections would be sufficient.

Colleges and universities are finding themselves in this unprecedented situation due to several factors over the last few years, including the lack of new capital contributions by the federal government and large swings in the number of borrowers choosing to consolidate Perkins loans with their other federally guaranteed loans after leaving school.

This shortfall situation will require institutions to find institutional dollars to lend to their Perkins fund. Even at institutions that do not have shortfalls, students are likely to receive much less support from the Perkins Loan program next year.

Sallie Mae to Quit Offering Federal Loan Consolidations

Alex Carter — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:26:54 -0400

Sallie Mae, the nation’s largest student-loan company, is taking another step away from the government-backed student-loan business, further exacerbating the sense of crisis hanging over the industry.

Parents are Very Concerned about Paying for Their Children's College

Alex Carter — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:21:41 -0400

According to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, 70 percent of parents surveyed were “very concerned” about how they would pay for college; only 6 percent were not concerned.