XML 29 R10.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

Significant Accounting Policies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2017
Accounting Policies [Abstract] |
Significant Accounting Policies | Significant Accounting Policies Use of Estimates and Assumptions The financial reporting and accounting policies of SLM Corporation conform to generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America (“GAAP”). The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Key accounting policies that include significant judgments and estimates include the valuation of allowance for loan losses, fair value measurements and derivative accounting. Consolidation The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of SLM Corporation and its majority-owned and controlled subsidiaries after eliminating the effects of intercompany accounts and transactions. We consolidate any variable interest entity (“VIE”) where we have determined we are the primary beneficiary. The primary beneficiary is the entity which has both: (1) the power to direct the activities of the VIE that most significantly impact the VIE’s economic performance and (2) the obligation to absorb losses or receive benefits of the entity that could potentially be significant to the VIE. Cash and Cash Equivalents Cash and cash equivalents include cash held in the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (the “FRB”) and commercial bank accounts, and other short-term liquid instruments with original maturities of three months or less. Fees associated with investing cash and cash equivalents are amortized into interest income using the effective interest rate method. Investments Investments consisted of mortgage-backed securities and Utah Housing Corporation bonds. We record our investment purchases and sales on a trade date basis. The amortized cost of debt securities is adjusted for amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts, which are amortized using the effective interest rate method. Our investments are classified as available-for-sale and reported at fair value. Unrealized gains or losses on available-for-sale investments are recorded in equity and are reported as a component of other comprehensive income (loss), net of applicable income taxes, unless a decline in the investment’s value is considered to be other-than-temporary, in which case the loss is recorded directly to earnings. Management reviews all investments at least quarterly to determine whether any impairment is other-than-temporary. Impairment is evaluated by considering several factors, including the length of time and extent to which the fair value has been less than cost, the financial condition and near-term prospects of the issuer, and the intent and ability to retain the investment to allow for an anticipated recovery in fair value. If, based on the analysis, it is determined that the impairment is other-than-temporary, the investment is written down to fair value and a loss is recognized through earnings. Loans Held for Investment Loans, consisting primarily of Private Education Loans and FFELP Loans, that we have the ability and intent to hold for the foreseeable future are classified as held for investment, and are carried at amortized cost. Amortized cost includes the unamortized premiums, discounts, and capitalized origination costs and fees, all of which are amortized to interest income as discussed under “Loan Interest Income.” Loans which are held for investment are reported net of an allowance for loan losses. Restricted Cash and Investments Restricted cash and investments primarily include amounts held in student loan securitization trusts and other secured borrowings. This cash must be used to make payments related to trust obligations. Amounts on deposit in these accounts are primarily the result of timing differences between when principal and interest is collected on the trust assets and when principal and interest is paid on trust liabilities. Allowance for Loan Losses We maintain an allowance for loan losses at an amount sufficient to absorb probable losses incurred in our portfolios, as well as regarding future loan commitments, at the reporting date based on a projection of estimated probable credit losses incurred in the portfolio. We consider a loan to be impaired when, based on current information, a loss has been incurred and it is probable that we will not receive all contractual amounts due. When making our assessment as to whether a loan is impaired, we also take into account more than insignificant delays in payment. We generally evaluate impaired loans on an aggregate basis by grouping similar loans. We analyze our portfolios to determine the effects that the various stages of delinquency and forbearance have on borrower default behavior and ultimate charge off. We estimate the allowance for loan losses for our loan portfolios using a roll rate analysis of delinquent and current accounts. A “roll rate analysis” is a technique used to estimate the likelihood that a loan receivable may progress through the various delinquency stages and ultimately charge off. We also take into account the current and future economic environment and certain other qualitative factors when calculating the allowance for loan losses. The evaluation of the allowance for loan losses is inherently subjective, as it requires material estimates that may be susceptible to significant changes. Our default estimates are based on a loss emergence period of one year for Private Education Loans and two years for FFELP Loans. A loss emergence period represents the expected period between the first occurrence of an event likely to cause a loss on a loan and the date the loan is expected to be charged off, taking into consideration account management practices that affect the timing of a loss, such as the usage of forbearance. The loss emergence period underlying the allowance for loan losses is subject to a number of assumptions. If actual future performance in delinquency, charge-offs and recoveries is significantly different than estimated, or account management assumptions or practices were to change, this could materially affect the estimate of the allowance for loan losses, the timing of when losses are recognized, and the related provision for credit losses on our consolidated statements of income. We utilize various models to determine an appropriate allowance for loan losses. Changes to model inputs are made as deemed necessary. These models are reviewed and validated periodically. Below we describe in further detail our policies and procedures for the allowance for loan losses as they relate to our Private Education Loan, Personal Loan, and FFELP Loan portfolios. Allowance for Private Education Loan Losses We maintain an allowance for loan losses at an amount sufficient to absorb probable losses incurred in our portfolios at the reporting date based on a projection of estimated probable credit losses incurred in the portfolio. In determining the allowance for loan losses on our Private Education Loans that are not troubled debt restructurings (“TDRs”), we estimate the principal amount of loans that will default over the next year (one year being the expected period between a loss event and default) using a roll rate model and how much we expect to recover over the same one-year period related to the defaulted amount. The expected defaults less our expected recoveries adjusted for any qualitative factors (discussed below) equal the allowance related to this portfolio. Our historical experience indicates that, on average, the time between the date that a customer experiences a default causing event (i.e., the loss trigger event) and the date that we charge off the unrecoverable portion of that loan is one year. In estimating both the non-TDR and TDR allowance amounts, we start with historical experience of customer delinquency and default behavior. We make judgments about which historical period to start with and then make further judgments about whether that historical experience is representative of future expectations and whether additional adjustments may be needed to those historical default rates. We also take certain other qualitative factors into consideration when calculating the allowance for loan losses. These qualitative factors include, but are not limited to, changes in the economic environment, changes in lending policies and procedures, including changes in underwriting standards and collection, charge-off and recovery practices not already included in the analysis, and the effect of other external factors such as legal and regulatory requirements on the level of estimated credit losses. Our non-TDR allowance for loan losses is estimated using an analysis of delinquent and current accounts. Our roll rate model is used to estimate the likelihood that a loan receivable may progress through the various delinquency stages and ultimately charge off. Once a charge-off forecast is estimated, a recovery assumption is layered on top. In estimating recoveries, we use both estimates of what we would receive from the sale of defaulted loans as well as historical borrower payment behavior to estimate the timing and amount of future recoveries on charged-off loans. The roll rate analysis model is based upon actual experience using the 120 day charge-off default aversion strategies. Once the quantitative calculation is performed, we review the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses and determine if qualitative adjustments need to be considered. In the fourth quarter of 2015, we stopped our previous practice of selling all defaulted loans to third-parties and began collecting on some defaulted loans in-house. It is our expectation that in the future we will continue to collect on defaulted loans in-house as well as sell defaulted loans to third-parties. Prior to this change in practice, we only used estimates of what we would receive from the sale of delinquent loans in estimating recoveries. For December 31, 2017 and 2016, we used both an estimate of recovery rates from in-house collections as well as expectations of future sales of defaulted loans to estimate the timing and amount of future recoveries on charged-off loans. In connection with the Spin-Off, the agreement under which the Bank previously made sales of defaulted loans to an affiliate was amended so that the Bank now has the right to require Navient to purchase (at fair value) loans only where (a) the borrower has a lending relationship with both the Bank and Navient (“Split Loans”) and (b) the Split Loans either (1) are more than 90 days past due; (2) have been restructured; (3) have been granted a hardship forbearance or more than six months of administrative forbearance; or (4) have a borrower or cosigner who has filed for bankruptcy. At December 31, 2017, we held approximately $48 million of Split Loans. Allowance for Personal Loans In December 2016, we began to acquire newly-originated personal loans (“Personal Loans”). We maintain an allowance for loan losses at an amount sufficient to absorb probable losses incurred in this portfolio at the reporting date based on a projection of estimated probable credit losses incurred in the portfolio. In determining the allowance for loan losses on our Personal Loan portfolio that are not TDRs, we estimate the principal amount of the loans that will default over the next twelve months (twelve months being the expected period between a loss event and default) and how much we expect to recover over the same twelve-month period related to the defaulted amounts. The expected defaults less our expected recoveries adjusted for any qualitative factors equal the allowance related to this portfolio. At December 31, 2017, and 2016, we held $393.7 million and $12.8 million, respectively, in Personal Loans, net of allowance. At December 31, 2017, there were no Personal Loans classified as TDRs. Troubled Debt Restructurings Separately, for our TDR portfolio, we estimate an allowance amount sufficient to cover life-of-loan expected losses through an impairment calculation based on the difference between the loan’s basis and the present value of expected future cash flows (which would include life-of-loan default and recovery assumptions) discounted at the loan’s original effective interest rate. Our TDR portfolio is comprised mostly of loans with interest rate reductions and loans with forbearance usage greater than three months, as further described below. We modify the terms of loans for certain borrowers when we believe such modifications may increase the ability and willingness of a borrower to make payments and thus increase the ultimate overall amount collected on a loan. These modifications generally take the form of a forbearance, a temporary interest rate reduction or an extended repayment plan. Until the fourth quarter of 2017, we generally considered a loan that was in full principal and interest repayment status which had received more than three months of forbearance in a 24-month period to be a TDR; however, during the first nine months after a loan had entered full principal and interest repayment status, we did not count up to the first six months of forbearance received during that period against the three-month policy limit. Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2017, we revised the policy described above for identifying when a loan should be classified as a TDR due to forbearance. Historically, all loans receiving forbearance under the thresholds described above were classified as TDRs. However, with the refinement, those loans with a FICO score above a certain threshold (based on the most recent quarterly FICO score refresh) that are granted a forbearance will not be classified as TDRs, while loans with a FICO score under the threshold (based on the most recent quarterly FICO score refresh) that are granted a forbearance will be classified as TDRs, once they reach our policy limit for forbearances described above (i.e., more than three months in a 24-month period, subject to the exceptions described for the first nine months after a loan enters full principal and interest repayment status).This change in our determination of when loans should be classified as TDRs does not affect any of our existing loans classified as TDRs and it does not change any of the existing thresholds regarding length of forbearance for becoming a TDR. Instead, it is an additional filter in the TDR analysis that is applied after the loan has met the requisite number of months in forbearance. This change was adopted prospectively beginning in the fourth quarter of 2017 and had an immaterial effect on the allowance for loan losses and provision for loan losses. A loan also becomes a TDR when it is modified to reduce the interest rate on the loan (regardless of when such modification occurs and/or whether such interest rate reduction is temporary). The majority of our loans that are considered TDRs involve a temporary forbearance of payments and do not change the contractual interest rate of the loan. Once a loan qualifies for TDR status, it remains a TDR for allowance purposes for the remainder of its life. As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, approximately 66 percent and 69 percent, respectively, of TDRs were classified as such due to their forbearance status. Key Credit Quality Indicators We determine the collectability of our Private Education Loan portfolio by evaluating certain risk characteristics. We consider credit score, existence of a cosigner, loan status and loan seasoning as the key credit quality indicators because they have the most significant effect on the determination of the adequacy of our allowance for loan losses. Credit scores are an indicator of the creditworthiness of borrowers and the higher the credit scores the more likely it is the borrowers will be able to make all of their contractual payments. Loan status affects the credit risk because a past due loan is more likely to result in a credit loss than a current loan. Additionally, loans in the deferred payment status have different credit risk profiles compared with those in current pay status. Loan seasoning affects credit risk because a loan with a history of making payments generally has a lower incidence of default than a loan with a history of making infrequent or no payments. The existence of a cosigner lowers the likelihood of default as well. We monitor and update these credit quality indicators in the analysis of the adequacy of our allowance for loan losses on a quarterly basis. For Personal Loans, we consider FICO scores at origination and seasoning to be our key credit quality indicators for the same reasons discussed above. Certain Private Education Loans do not require borrowers to begin repayment until six months after they have graduated or otherwise left school. Consequently, the loss estimates for these loans is generally low while the borrower is in school. At December 31, 2017 and 2016, 27 percent and 29 percent, respectively, of the principal balance in the Private Education Loan portfolio was related to borrowers who are in an in-school (fully deferred), grace, or deferment status and not required to make payments. As this population of borrowers leaves school, they will be required to begin payments on their loans, and the allowance for losses may change accordingly. Similar to the rules governing FFELP payment requirements, our collection policies allow for periods of nonpayment for borrowers requesting additional payment grace periods upon leaving school or experiencing temporary difficulty meeting payment obligations. This is referred to as forbearance status and is considered separately in the allowance for loan losses. The loss emergence period is in alignment with the typical collection cycle and takes into account these periods of nonpayment. As part of concluding on the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses, we review key allowance and loan metrics. The most relevant of these metrics considered are the allowance coverage of net charge-offs ratio; the allowance as a percentage of ending total loans and of ending loans in repayment; and delinquency and forbearance percentages. We consider a loan to be delinquent 31 days after the last payment was contractually due. We use a model to estimate the amount of uncollectible accrued interest on Private Education Loans and reserve for that amount against current period interest income. Allowance for FFELP Loan Losses FFELP Loans are insured as to their principal and accrued interest in the event of default subject to a risk-sharing level based on the date of loan disbursement. These insurance obligations are supported by contractual rights against the United States. For loans disbursed on or after July 1, 2006, we receive 97 percent reimbursement on all qualifying default claims. For loans disbursed after October 1, 1993, and before July 1, 2006, we receive 98 percent reimbursement. For loans disbursed prior to October 1, 1993, we receive 100 percent reimbursement. The allowance for FFELP Loan losses uses historical experience of customer default behavior and a two-year loss emergence period to estimate the credit losses incurred in the loan portfolio at the reporting date. We apply the default rate projections, net of applicable risk sharing, to each category for the current period to perform our quantitative calculation. Once the quantitative calculation is performed, we review the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses and determine if qualitative adjustments need to be considered. Deposits Our retail deposit accounts are principally certificates of deposit (“CDs”), money market deposit accounts (“MMDAs”) and high-yield savings (“HYS”) accounts. CDs are accounts that have a stipulated maturity and interest rate. Retail CDs may be withdrawn early, but a penalty is assessed. MMDA and HYS accounts are both interest and non-interest bearing accounts that have no maturity or expiration date. For retail MMDA and HYS accounts, the depositor may be required to give written notice of any intended withdrawal not less than seven days before the withdrawal is made, although this provision is not generally enforced. The Bank also includes brokered CDs in its funding base. Early withdrawal of brokered CDs is prohibited (except in the case of death or legal incapacity). Other deposit accounts include large interest-bearing omnibus accounts deposited in the Bank by commercial entities having custodial responsibilities for many underlying accounts. These omnibus accounts may be structured with or without fixed maturities, and may have fixed or variable interest rates. Upromise member accounts Upromise member accounts represent amounts owed to Upromise rewards members for rebates they have earned from qualifying purchases from Upromise’s participating merchants. These amounts are held in trust for the benefit of the members until distributed in accordance with the Upromise member’s request and/or the terms of the Upromise service agreement. Upromise, which acts as the trustee for the trust, has deposited a majority of the cash with the Bank pursuant to a money market deposit account agreement between the Bank and Upromise as trustee of the trust. Fair Value Measurement We use estimates of fair value in applying various accounting standards for our financial statements. Fair value measurements are used in one of four ways:
• | In the consolidated balance sheet with changes in fair value recorded in the consolidated statement of income;
• | In the consolidated balance sheet with changes in fair value recorded in the accumulated other comprehensive income section of the consolidated statement of changes in equity;
• | In the consolidated balance sheet for instruments carried at lower of cost or fair value with impairment charges recorded in the consolidated statement of income; and
• | In the notes to the consolidated financial statements.
Fair value is defined as the price to sell an asset or transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between willing and able market participants. In general, our policy in estimating fair value is to first look at observable market prices for identical assets and liabilities in active markets, where available. When these are not available, other inputs are used to model fair value such as prices of similar instruments, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, default rates and credit spreads (including for our liabilities), relying first on observable data from active markets. Depending on current market conditions, additional adjustments to fair value may be based on factors such as liquidity, credit, and bid/offer spreads. Transaction costs are not included in the determination of fair value. When possible, we seek to validate the model’s output to market transactions. Depending on the availability of observable inputs and prices, different valuation models could produce materially different fair value estimates. The values presented may not represent future fair values and may not be realizable. We categorize our fair value estimates based on a hierarchical framework associated with three levels of price transparency utilized in measuring financial instruments at fair value. Classification is based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value of the instrument. The three levels are as follows:
• | Level 1 — Quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that we have the ability to access at the measurement date. The types of financial instruments included in level 1 are highly liquid instruments with quoted prices.
• | Level 2 — Inputs from active markets, other than quoted prices for identical instruments, are used to determine fair value. Significant inputs are directly observable from active markets for substantially the full term of the asset or liability being valued.
• | Level 3 — Pricing inputs significant to the valuation are unobservable. Inputs are developed based on the best information available. However, significant judgment is required by us in developing the inputs.
Loan Interest Income For all loans, including impaired loans, classified as “held for investment,” we recognize interest income as earned, adjusted for the amortization of deferred direct origination and acquisition costs. This adjustment is recognized based upon the expected yield of the loan over its life after giving effect to prepayments and extensions. We consider our constant prepayment rate (“CPR”) estimates a significant accounting assumption used to measure the expected prepayment activity in our education loan portfolio. The estimates are based on a number of factors such as historical prepayment rates for loans with similar loan characteristics, assumptions about portfolio composition and loan terms, and the prepayment curve’s tendency to follow a ramp pattern (i.e., the prepayment rate typically increases during the in-school and early repayment periods, then stabilizes). The CPR measures the expected prepayment activity over the life of the loan and is applied as a flat-rate input assumption when used in forecasting. Additionally, interest earned on education loans reflects potential non-payment adjustments in accordance with our uncollectible interest recognition policy as discussed further in “Allowance for Loan Losses” of this Note 2. Because of this, we do not place loans in nonaccrual status prior to charge-off. We do not amortize any adjustments to the basis of education loans when they are classified as held-for-sale. Our CPR estimates include the effect of voluntary prepayments and consolidation (if the loans are consolidated to third parties), both of which shorten the lives of loans. CPR estimates also consider the utilization of deferment, forbearance, and extended repayment plans, which lengthen the lives of loans. We regularly evaluate the assumptions used to estimate the CPRs. In instances where there are changes to the assumptions, amortization of deferred direct origination and acquisition costs is adjusted on a cumulative basis to reflect the change since the origination or purchase of the loan. For the year ended December 31, 2017, our CPR for Private Education Loans was 5.94 percent, compared with a CPR of 5.00 percent for the year ended December 31, 2016. We also pay to the U.S. Department of Education (the “DOE”) an annual 105 basis point Consolidation Loan Rebate Fee on FFELP consolidation loans, which is netted against loan interest income. Additionally, interest earned on education loans reflects potential non-payment adjustments in accordance with our uncollectible interest recognition policy. We do not amortize any adjustments to the basis of education loans when they are classified as “held-for-sale.” We recognize certain fee income (primarily late fees) on education loans when earned according to the contractual provisions of the promissory notes, as well as our expectation of collectability. Fee income is recorded when earned in “other non-interest income” in the accompanying consolidated statements of income. Interest Expense Interest expense is based upon contractual interest rates adjusted for the amortization of issuance costs. We incur interest expense on interest bearing deposits comprised of non-maturity savings deposits, brokered and retail CDs, and brokered and retail MMDAs, as well as on unsecured and secured financings. Interest expense is recognized when amounts are contractually due to deposit and debt holders and is adjusted for net payments/receipts related to interest rate swap agreements that qualify and are designated hedges of interest bearing liabilities. Interest expense also includes the amortization of deferred gains and losses on closed hedge transactions that qualified as hedges. Amortization of debt issuance costs, premiums, discounts and terminated hedge-basis adjustments are recognized using the effective interest rate method. We incur certain fees related to our Private Education Loan asset-backed commercial paper facility (the “ABCP Facility”), including an unused ABCP Facility fee, and also incur fees related to our term asset-backed securities (“ABS”). These fees are included in interest expense. Refer to Note 8, “Deposits,” and Note 9, “Borrowings” for further details of our interest bearing liabilities. Gains on Sale of Loans, Net We may participate and sell loans to third-parties and affiliates, including entities that were related parties prior to the Spin-Off. These sales may occur through whole loan sales or securitization transactions that qualify for sales treatment. If a transfer of loans qualifies as a sale, we derecognize the loan and recognize a gain or loss as the difference between the carry basis of the loan sold and liabilities retained and the compensation received. We recognize the results of a transfer of loans based upon the settlement date of the transaction. These loans were initially recorded as held for investment, and were transferred to held-for-sale immediately prior to sale or securitization. We did not sell loans in 2017 and 2016. Prior to the Spin-Off, the Bank sold loans to an entity that is now a subsidiary of Navient when loans became 90 days delinquent and to facilitate securitization transactions. Subsequent to the Spin-Off, we sold loans through loan sales and securitization transactions with third-parties (including Navient) resulting in a net gain on sale of loans of $135 million for the year ended December 31, 2015. See Note 16, “Arrangements with Navient Corporation,” for further discussion regarding loan purchase agreements. Other Income Our Upromise subsidiary has a number of programs that encourage consumers to save for the cost of college education. We have established a consumer savings network, which is designed to promote college savings by consumers who are members of this program by encouraging them to purchase goods and services from the merchants that participate in the program. Participating merchants generally pay Upromise fees based on member purchase volume, either online or in stores, depending on the contractual arrangement with the merchant. We recognize revenue as marketing and administrative services are rendered, based upon contractually determined rates and member purchase volumes. Also included in other income are late fees on both Private Education Loans and FFELP Loans, which we recognize when the cash has been received, fees related to our credit card affinity program, income for servicing private student loans for third-parties and changes to our tax indemnification receivable from Navient. Securitization Accounting Our securitizations transactions use a two-step structure with a special purpose entity VIE that legally isolates the transferred assets from us in the event of bankruptcy or receivership. Transactions receiving sale treatment are also structured to ensure that the holders of the beneficial interests issued are not constrained from pledging or exchanging their interests, and that we do not maintain effective control over the transferred assets. If these criteria are not met, then the transaction is accounted for as an on-balance sheet secured borrowing. If a securitization qualifies as a sale, we then assess whether we are the primary beneficiary of the securitization trust and are required to consolidate such trust. We are considered the primary beneficiary if we have both: (1) the power to direct the activities of the VIE that most significantly impact the VIE’s economic performance and (2) the obligation to absorb losses or receive benefits of the entity that could potentially be significant to the VIE. There can be considerable judgment as it relates to determining the primary beneficiary of the VIEs. There are no “bright line” tests. Rather, the assessment of who has the power to direct the activities of the VIE that most significantly affect the VIE’s economic performance and who has the obligation to absorb losses or receive benefits of the entity that could potentially be significant to the VIE can be very qualitative and judgmental in nature. If we are the primary beneficiary, then no gain or loss is recognized. We have determined that as the servicer of Sallie Mae securitization trusts, we meet the first primary beneficiary criterion because we have the power to direct the activities of the VIE that most significantly impact the VIE’s economic performance. Irrespective of whether a securitization receives sale or on-balance sheet treatment, our continuing involvement with our securitization trusts is generally limited to:
• | Owning the equity certificates of certain trusts;
• | The servicing of the student loan assets within the securitization trusts, on both a pre- and post-default basis;
• | Our acting as administrator for the securitization transactions we sponsored;
• | Our responsibilities relative to representation and warranty violations; and
• | The option to exercise the clean-up call and purchase the student loans from the trust when the pool balance is 10 percent or less of the original pool balance.
In 2015 and 2014, we executed both secured financing and securitized loan sale transactions. Based upon our relationships with these securitizations, we believe the consolidation assessment is straightforward. We consolidated our secured financing transactions because either we did not meet the accounting criterion for sales treatment or we determined we were the primary beneficiary of the VIE because we retained (a) the residual interest in the securitization and therefore had the obligation to absorb losses or receive benefits of the entity that could potentially be significant to the VIE as well as (b) the power to direct the activities of the VIE in our role as servicer. For those accounted for as securitized loan sales, we were not the primary beneficiary because we have no obligation to absorb losses or receive benefits of the entity that could potentially be significant to the VIE. The investors in our securitization trusts have no recourse to our other assets should there be a failure of the trust to pay when due. Generally, the only recourse the securitization trusts have to us is in the event we breach a seller representation or warranty or our duties as master servicer and servicer, in which event we are obligated to repurchase the related loans from the trust. We did not record a servicing asset or servicing liability related to our securitization transactions because we determined the servicing fees we receive are at market rate. Derivative Accounting We account for our derivatives, consisting of interest rate swaps, at fair value on the consolidated balance sheets as either an asset or liability. Derivative positions are recorded as net positions by counterparty based on master netting arrangements (see Note 11, “Derivative Financial Instruments”), exclusive of accrued interest and cash collateral held or pledged. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange (the “CME”) and the London Clearing House (the “LCH”) made amendments to their respective rules that resulted in the prospective accounting treatment of certain daily payments historically treated as the posting of collateral (variation margin payments) being considered as the legal settlement of the outstanding exposure of the derivative. While the CME rule, which became effective in January 2017, is mandatory, the LCH allows a clearing member institution the option to adopt the rule changes on an individual contract or portfolio basis. As of December 31, 2017, $4.8 billion notional of our derivative contracts were cleared on the CME and $0.7 billion were cleared on the LCH. The derivative contracts cleared through the CME and LCH represent 87.6 percent and 12.4 percent, respectively, of our total notional derivative contracts of $5.5 billion at December 31, 2017. Under this new rule, for derivatives cleared through the CME, the net gain (loss) position includes the variation margin amounts as settlement of the derivative and not collateral against the fair value of the derivative. Interest income (expense) related to variation margin on derivatives that are not designated as hedging instruments or are designated as fair value relationships is recognized as a gain (loss) rather than as interest income (expense). Changes in fair value for derivatives not designated as hedging instruments will be presented as realized gains (losses). Our LCH clearing member institution has elected not to adopt the new rule change. Therefore, there has been no change to the accounting for the derivatives cleared through the LCH, and variation margin payments required to be exchanged based on the fair value of these derivatives remain accounted for as collateral. We determine the fair value for our derivative contracts primarily using pricing models that consider current market conditions and the contractual terms of the derivative contracts. These pricing models consider interest rates, time value, forward interest rate curves, and volatility factors. Inputs are generally from active financial markets. The majority of our derivatives qualify as effective hedges. For these derivatives, the relationship between the hedging instrument and the hedged items (including the hedged risk and method for assessing effectiveness), as well as the risk management objective and strategy for undertaking various hedge transactions at the inception of the hedging relationship, are documented. Each derivative is designated to a specific (or pool of) liability(ies) on the consolidated balance sheets, and is designated as either a “fair value” hedge or a “cash flow” hedge. Fair value hedges are designed to hedge our exposure to the changes in fair value of a fixed-rate liability. For effective fair value hedges, both the hedge and the hedged item (for the risk being hedged) are recorded at fair value with any difference reflecting ineffectiveness recorded immediately in the consolidated statements of income. Cash flow hedges are designed to hedge our exposure to variability in cash flows related to variable-rate deposits. The assessment of the hedge’s effectiveness is performed at inception and on an ongoing basis, using regression testing. For hedges of a pool of liabilities, tests are performed to demonstrate the similarity of individual instruments of the pool. When it is determined that a derivative is not currently an effective hedge, ineffectiveness is recognized for the full change in fair value of the derivative with no offsetting amount from the hedged item since the last time it was effective. If it is also determined the hedge will not be effective in the future, we discontinue the hedge accounting prospectively and begin amortization of any basis adjustments that exist related to the hedged item. Stock-Based Compensation We recognize stock-based compensation cost in our consolidated statements of income using the fair value method. Under this method, we determine the fair value of the stock-based compensation at the time of the grant and recognize the resulting compensation expense over the vesting period of the stock-based grant. We do not apply a forfeiture rate to our stock-based compensation expense, but rather record forfeitures when they occur. We record all excess tax benefits/deficiencies related to the settlement of employee stock-based compensation to the income tax expense line item on our consolidated statements of income. Income Taxes We account for income taxes under the asset and liability approach, which requires the recognition of deferred tax liabilities and assets for the expected future tax consequences of temporary differences between the carrying amounts and tax basis of our assets and liabilities. To the extent tax laws change, deferred tax assets and liabilities are adjusted in the period that the tax change is enacted. On December 22, 2017, President Trump signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “Tax Act”), which lowered federal corporate income tax rates from 35 percent to 21 percent, beginning January 1, 2018. Because the Tax Act was enacted during the fourth-quarter 2017, we were required to reflect the application of the lower tax rate in future years to our deferred assets, liabilities and indemnification receivables. We recognized additional discrete tax expense of $15 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, primarily due to the remeasurement of our deferred tax assets and liabilities following the enactment of the Tax Act. At December 31, 2017, our accounting for the Tax Act is complete under the SEC’s Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 118. Forthcoming guidance, such as regulations or technical corrections, could change how we interpreted provisions of the Tax Act. “Income tax expense (benefit)” includes (i) deferred tax expense (benefit), which represents the net change in the deferred tax asset or liability balance during the year when applicable, and (ii) current tax expense (benefit), which represents the amount of tax currently payable to or receivable from a tax authority plus amounts accrued for unrecognized tax benefits. Income tax expense (benefit) excludes the tax effects related to adjustments recorded in equity. An uncertain tax position is recognized only if it is more likely than not to be sustained upon examination based on the technical merits of the position. The amount of tax benefit recognized in the consolidated financial statements is the largest amount of benefit that is more than fifty percent likely of being sustained upon ultimate settlement of the uncertain tax position. We recognize interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits in income tax expense (benefit). In connection with the Spin-Off, we became the taxpayer legally responsible for $283 million of deferred taxes payable (installment payments due quarterly through 2018) in connection with gains recognized by pre-Spin-Off SLM on debt repurchases in prior years. As part of the tax sharing agreement between us and Navient, Navient agreed to fully pay us for these deferred taxes due. An indemnification receivable of $291 million was recorded in connection with the Spin-Off, which represented the fair value of the future payments under the agreement based on a discounted cash flow model. We accrue interest income on the indemnification receivable using the interest method. In connection with the Spin-Off, we also recorded a liability related to uncertain tax positions of $27 million for which we are indemnified by Navient. If there is an adjustment to the indemnified uncertain tax liability, an offsetting adjustment to the indemnification receivable will be recorded as pre-tax adjustment to other income in the income statement. As of the date of the Spin-Off on April 30, 2014, we recorded a liability of $310 million ($283 million related to deferred taxes and $27 million related to uncertain tax positions) and an indemnification receivable of $291 million ($310 million less the $19 million discount). As of December 31, 2017, with respect to those amounts recorded at the Spin-Off, the remaining liability balance is $62 million ($37 million related to deferred taxes and $25 million related to uncertain tax positions) and the remaining indemnification receivable balance is $60 million ($35 million related to deferred taxes and $25 million related to uncertain tax positions). In addition, we believe we are indemnified by Navient for uncertain tax positions relating to historical transactions among entities that are now subsidiaries of Navient that should have been recorded at the time of the Spin-Off. In 2016, we recorded adjustments that increased our tax indemnification receivable and income taxes payable by $120 million and increased our other income and income tax expense by $9 million, as we believe we are indemnified by Navient for these additional tax liabilities. Accordingly, there was no effect on equity or net income as a result of these corrections in the prior periods. These uncertain tax position liabilities and related assets are accounted for consistent with our existing accounting policies for these kinds of assets and liabilities. The remaining balance of the indemnification receivable related to these uncertain tax positions was $108 million at December 31, 2017. Reclassifications Certain reclassifications have been made to the balances as of and for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, to be consistent with classifications adopted for 2017, which had no effect on net income, total assets or total liabilities. Recently Issued and Adopted Accounting Pronouncements In March 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2016-09, “Compensation - Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting,” which amended the stock compensation guidance. The amendments simplified the accounting for the taxes related to stock-based compensation, including adjustments to how excess tax benefits and a company’s payments for tax withholdings should be classified. The standard became effective for fiscal periods beginning after December 15, 2016, with early adoption permitted. We adopted this standard effective January 1, 2017 and recorded an $8.5 million benefit in income tax expense because of this new standard. We previously recorded the excess tax benefits/deficiencies to the additional paid-in capital line item on our consolidated balance sheets. Under the new guidance, we also elected the option to no longer apply a forfeiture rate to our stock-based compensation expense, but to record forfeitures when they occur, and, as a result, under a modified retrospective basis we recorded a cumulative effect of the new stock compensation standard in total equity of $0.2 million, net of tax, in the first quarter of 2017. Recently Issued but Not Yet Adopted Accounting Pronouncements In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606).” The guidance in this ASU supersedes existing revenue recognition requirements in Topic 605, Revenue Recognition, including an assortment of transaction-specific and industry-specific rules. The new revenue recognition model is effective for the Company on January 1, 2018. This ASU establishes a principles-based model under which revenue from a contract is allocated to the distinct performance obligations within the contract and recognized in income as each performance obligation is satisfied. ASU Topic 606 does not apply to rights or obligations associated with financial instruments (for example, interest income from loans or investments, or interest expense on debt), and therefore our net interest income should not be affected. Certain of our fee income related to our Upromise rewards business is within the scope of these rules. Management has concluded that timing and measurement of fee income related to our Upromise rewards business will remain substantially unchanged under the new standard. This conclusion covers the vast majority of our revenue that is within the scope of the new standard. Upon adoption in 2018, management does not anticipate a restatement of prior period amounts. In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-08, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross versus Net).” The guidance in this ASU provides clarification on the principal versus agent concept in relation to revenue recognition guidance issued as part of ASU No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606).” Topic 606 requires a company to determine whether it is a principal or an agent in a transaction in which another party is involved in providing goods or services to a customer by evaluating the nature of its promise to the customer. ASU No. 2016-08 provides clarification for identifying the good, service or right being transferred in a revenue transaction and identifies the principal as the party that controls the good, service or right prior to its transfer to the customer. The ASU provides further clarity on how to evaluate control in this context. The new standard is effective for the Company on January 1, 2018. We have concluded that this ASU will not result in different conclusions regarding our revenue arrangements that involve a principal-agent relationship. In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-01, “Financial Instruments-Overall (Subtopic 825-10): Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities.” The ASU does not change the guidance for classifying and measuring investments in debt securities or loans. The standard requires entities to measure certain cost-method equity investments at fair value with changes in value recognized in net income. Equity investments that do not have readily determinable fair values will be carried at cost, less any impairment, plus or minus changes resulting from any observable price changes in orderly transactions for an identical or similar investment of the same issuer. This ASU requires public entities to use the exit price notion when measuring the fair value of financial instruments for disclosure purposes and requires separate presentation of financial assets and financial liabilities by measurement category and form of financial asset (i.e., securities or loans) on the balance sheet or the accompanying notes to the financial statements. We have concluded that the adoption in 2018 will not materially affect our consolidated financial statements. In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, “Leases,” a comprehensive new lease standard which will supersede previous lease guidance. The standard requires a lessee to recognize in its balance sheet assets and liabilities related to long-term leases that were classified as operating leases under previous guidance. An asset will be recognized related to the right to use the underlying asset and a liability will be recognized related to the obligation to make lease payments over the term of the lease. The standard also requires expanded disclosures surrounding leases. The standard is effective for fiscal periods beginning after December 15, 2018, and requires modified retrospective adoption, with early adoption permitted. The adoption of this guidance is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements. In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-13, “Financial Instruments-Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments.” This ASU eliminates the incurred loss threshold for initial recognition of credit impairment in current GAAP and replaces it with the expected loss concept. For all loans carried at amortized cost, we will be required to measure our allowance for loan losses based on our current estimate of all expected credit losses (“CECL”) over the remaining contractual term of the assets. Because it eliminates the incurred loss trigger, the new accounting guidance will require us, upon the origination of a loan, to record an estimate of all expected credit losses on that loan through an immediate charge to earnings. Updates to that estimate each period will be recorded through provision expense. The estimate of loan losses must be based on historical experience, current conditions and reasonable and supportable forecasts. The ASU does not mandate the use of any specific method for estimating credit loss, permitting companies to use judgment in selecting the approach that is most appropriate in their circumstances. The standard will become effective for us on January 1, 2020, with early adoption permitted no sooner than January 1, 2019. Upon adoption, a cumulative effect adjustment to retained earnings will be recorded as of the beginning of the first reporting period in which the guidance is effective in an amount necessary to adjust the allowance for loan losses to equal the current estimate of expected losses on financial assets held at that date. We have evaluated the standard and initiated implementation efforts. We recently identified our CECL systems solution provider and expect to finish implementing the system in 2018 and then run parallel to our current process in 2019, in preparation for the 2020 implementation date. Adoption of the standard will have a material impact on how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations, and on regulatory capital. The extent of the impact upon adoption will likely depend on the characteristics of our loan portfolio and economic conditions at that date, as well as forecasted conditions thereafter. In November 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-18, “Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230): Restricted Cash.” Whereas restricted cash balances have traditionally been excluded from the statement of cash flows, this ASU requires restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents to be included within the beginning and ending totals of cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash presented on the statement of cash flows for all periods presented. Restricted cash and restricted cash equivalent inflows and outflows with external parties are required to be classified within the operating, investing, and/or financing activity sections of the statement of cash flows, whereas transfers between cash and cash equivalents and restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents should no longer be presented on the statement of cash flows. ASU No. 2016-18 also requires (a) the nature of the restrictions to be disclosed to help provide information about the sources and uses of these balances during a reporting period and (b) a reconciliation of the cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash totals on the statement of cash flows to the related balance sheet line items when cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash are presented in more than one line item on the balance sheet. The reconciliation can be presented either on the face of the statement of cash flows or in the notes to the financial statements and must be provided for each period that a balance sheet is presented. The ASU will become effective for us on January 1, 2018, and is not expected to have a material impact to our statement of cash flows. In May 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-09, “Compensation-Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Scope of Modification Accounting, ” which clarifies what constitutes a modification of a share-based payment award. The ASU is effective for all entities for annual and interim periods in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, with early adoption permitted. We have concluded that the adoption in 2018 will not materially affect our consolidated financial statements. On August 28, 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-12, “Derivatives and Hedging: Targeted Improvements to Accounting for Hedging Activities,” which improves the financial reporting of hedging relationships to better portray the economic results of an entity's risk management activities in its financial statements and make certain targeted improvements to simplify the application of the hedge accounting guidance. The guidance expands the ability to hedge nonfinancial and financial risk components, reduces complexity in fair value hedges of interest rate risk, eliminates the requirement to separately measure and report hedge ineffectiveness, as well as eases certain hedge effectiveness assessment requirements. The effective date for the standard is January 1, 2019, with early adoption permitted. We are currently evaluating if we will adopt this standard prior to its final effective date, and we currently do not expect the adoption to materially affect our consolidated financial statements.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_AccountingPoliciesAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for all significant accounting policies of the reporting entity. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 235 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2122369 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_SignificantAccountingPoliciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration