It may not come as a surprise to you that President Biden’s debt relief program for students is coming under scrutiny. What likely will surprise you is the degree and range of the program’s short-sightedness and its myriad dubious goals.

Our friends at First Trust Advisory have looked into this and have written their comments. Hopefully, you will find them interesting and useful.

~ Ron

Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Robert Stein, Deputy Chief Economist

Date: 8/29/2022

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 1,000 points on Friday (8/29), caused apparently by Fed Chairman Jerome Powell’s attempt to use a brief speech to channel the ghost of Paul Volcker.  Obviously, this was part of the market’s worries, but the stage was set when the Biden Administration announced a student loan forgiveness program last week.  The more we learn about this, the worse it looks. 

The executive order would send an already very bad student loan system – a system designed more to create jobs for academics than to really help students – into overdrive, generating huge costs for taxpayers, soaring college prices, and a massive shift in resources toward the already bloated college sector, which already generates negative marginal value-added for both students and our country.

The Biden Administration says the changes would cost $240 billion in the next ten years.  The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says $440 – 600 billion.  A budget model from Wharton says $1 trillion.  But even that $1 trillion figure might be way too low.

The key is that, as bad as it is, the cancellation of some student debt that already exists is only a small part of the policy change.  The much bigger change, and the one that the market has finally begun to absorb, is limiting future payments on debts to 5% of income, but only after the borrower’s income rises above roughly $30,000 per year.  For example, if someone makes $70,000 per year, then no matter how much they borrow they’re limited to paying $2,000 per year (5% of the extra $40,000).  After twenty years, any remaining debt would simply disappear.

Think about the perverse incentives!  

For the vast majority of students, choosing this “income-based repayment” system would be a no-brainer. And once they pick it, they wouldn’t care at all whether their college charges $35,000 per year (tuition, room, board, and fees), $85,000, or even $150,000.  In fact, students would have an incentive to pick the priciest college with the best amenities they could find and pay for it all with federal loan money, because their repayments are capped.  If you always wanted Rodney Dangerfield’s dorm room from the movie Back to School, you’re in luck!

Meanwhile, students would have the incentive to take out loans greater than what they need because they can turn the excess into cash for “living expenses.”  Then they could use it to buy crypto, throw parties, or pretty much anything else.  Who cares?!?  The government would limit their future repayments.

And here’s what might be the worst part: colleges would have an incentive to enroll students even if they have horrible future job and earning prospects.  By enrolling people no matter how poorly prepared they are, a college can charge whatever they want and get huge checks from the federal government.  And the unprepared students won’t care because they really don’t have to pay it back.  In effect, colleges could create massive and perfectly legal money-laundering schemes.

We are not legal experts and do not know whether the new proposal will be implemented fully.  But, if it is, watch out: college costs are poised to skyrocket, and academia is courting a political backlash of enormous proportions.  Meanwhile, the market is attempting to digest just how far from economic reality politicians have become.  The political allocation of capital is a recipe for economic disaster.

Ron’s Market Minute – A Couple of Reminders

As markets continue to be volatile, it’s often a good idea to look at general market behavior, rather than looking at small chunks of market behavior.

So, first a reminder from Jeffrey Hirsh, the publisher of the Stock Trader’s Almanac.  (By the way, the Almanac is one of the largest collections of historical market data you might want to examine.) The month of September, in most years, is the weakest month of the market year. That does not give us any guarantees, but merely points to the historical fact that it’s pretty common for September to be weak.

And now a chart (of course!).  Another well-known collector of historical market facts (trivia) is Ned Davis. From time to time his publishing company produces an S&P Market* Composite, in which he averages the data from a one-year seasonal market cycle, the four-year Presidential market Cycle, and the 10-year average market cycle.  When those averages are compiled into one line — indicated by the blue line on the chart below — that line represents what could be considered an average market at this current point in history.

In addition to the blue line depicting the S&P Cycle Composite for 2022, Davis has added an orange line showing this year’s actual return result of the S&P return. As is common, the actual market returns are NOT exactly what the cycles would predict, however they are reasonably close – if not in magnitude, at least in direction. And this year’s chart shows a historical tendency for markets to peak in September, followed by a drawdown into October, and then (after the political ‘stuff’) a larger market rally into the year-end.

We do not know the future, but it’s encouraging during these volatile markets to note that the year (so far) seems to be following the historical precedent.  We’ll see.

Ronald P. Denk, CFP®
Investment Advisor
Denk Strategic Wealth Partners
10000 N. 31st Avenue, Suite D406A
Phoenix, AZ 85051
Phone (602) 252-8700
Fax (602) 252-8701
Toll-Free (877) The-Denk


This weekly article reflects news, commentary, opinions, viewpoints, analyses, and other information developed by Denk Strategic Wealth Partners for use with advisory clients only and/or select but unaffiliated third parties. DSWP provides Market Information for illustrative and informational purposes only. If you wish to receive this weekly commentary by email, please contact us at 602-252-8700 or by e-mail at If you are receiving this commentary via email and would prefer not to please let us know either by email or phone.

Ronald Denk is an Advisory Representative offering services through Denk Strategic Wealth Partners, A Registered Investment Advisor. He is also a Registered Representative, offering investments through Lincoln Financial Securities Corporation, Member FINRA/SIPC.

Denk Strategic Wealth Partners is not affiliated with Lincoln Financial Securities Corporation. Information in this commentary is the sole opinion of Denk Strategic Wealth Partners. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns. All market related investments involve various types of risk, which include but are not restricted to, credit risk, interest rate risk, volatility, going concern risk, and market risk.

The Update provides information of a general nature regarding legislative or other developments. None of the information contained herein is intended as legal advice or opinions relative to specific matters, facts, situations, or issues. Additional facts, information or future developments may affect the subjects addressed in this document. You should consult with an attorney, accountant or DSWP planner about your particular circumstances before acting on any of this information because it may not be applicable to your situation.

Lincoln Financial Securities and Denk Strategic Wealth Partners and their representatives do not offer tax advice. Please see your tax professional regarding your individual needs.

*The indices are representative of domestic markets and include the average performance of groups of widely held common stocks. Individuals cannot invest directly in any index and unlike investments, indices do not incur management fees, charges, or expenses, therefore specific index returns will be higher. Past performance is not indicative of future results.

Please see Denk Strategic Wealth Partners’ Client Relationship Summary here for succinct information about the relationships and services DSWP offers to retail investors, related fees and costs, specified conflicts of interest, standards of conduct, and disciplinary history, among other matters.

LFS’ Regulation Best Interest Disclosure Document, which describes LFS’ broker-dealer services, and other client disclosure documents can be found here <>.

Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns.