popa bar abba,
To answer your question; the costs of a child from k-12 (which is thirteen years) generally for most yeshivas will probably cost the parents a lot more then 80k.
We can proceed with this discussion with the assumption that I understand the securities market.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Your suggestion was that the parents borrow all the money upfront, and then pay it back with interest over 13 years. You think it will benefit the schools more than the amount the borrow, since the schools will have the time value of the money all that time (of course they will, and it will be coming from the parents).
Your idea boils down to three points:
1. Making parents borrow the money on the market, to place the responsibility on them.
2. Combining them into securities so that the ones with better ability to borrow will effectively subsidize the ones with lesser ability to borrow. (I guess your purpose here is to hide the subsidy.)
3. Giving the schools all the money upfront, so that they can charge less because they will get the time value of the money.
Point 1 makes sense only if you think the problem is parents avoiding their duty, and not that parents simply don’t have the ability.
Point 2 makes no sense, since you are simply shifting the subsidy from one way to another.
Point 3 makes no sense at all, and is what I was attacking before. There is no reason to give the creditors a piece of the action, by borrowing from them at higher rates than the school itself could borrow.
Squeak thought you meant they should borrow on a 30 year loan, which would sort of make sense, since then you’d spread the cost of education past when your kids leave school. This would make sense if you think that parents get more ability to pay later in life. I am not convinced this is true.