Search News


Browse Archives

News

Showdown on Student Aid Ethics

December 1, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

For the record, Dallas L. Martin's left arm was already in a sling at the start of a panel session Thursday on ethics in the student loan industry. So Raza Khan, president and co-founder of MyRichUncle, who sat to Martin's left and hammered Martin and the financial aid administrators he represents for their perceived moral shortcomings, can't be held responsible for Martin's damaged arm. But it would not be surprising if the president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators had some bruises, courtesy of Khan, after the event at the Consumer Bankers Association.

MyRichUncle, a relatively new player in the federal and private student loan market, has earned praise in some circles (among some student advocates and lawmakers) and scorn in others (especially among student-aid officials and lenders) for marketing materials implying that banks and other providers of student loans have offered “kickbacks or incentives” to get on colleges’ lists of “preferred lenders” and, more generally, that financial aid offices don’t necessarily have students’ best interests at heart. (In addition to the praise and scorn, MyRichUncle's tactics have also earned it plenty of headlines, which other lenders are quick to assert is probably not an accident.)

Thursday's session at the CBA Student Lending Conference, in Washington's Virginia suburbs, shed relatively little light or even heat on the issues that MyRichUncle has raised. But it did offer some intriguing theater, given that it put MyRichUncle on a dais alongside representives of the financial aid administrators and lenders that it has harshly criticized, in front of a largely hostile audience of guaranteed loan officials and aid officers. And it did so at a time when the Democrats who will control Congress come January have vowed to sharply step up their oversight of the student loan industry and the U.S. Education Department's regulation of it. 

Marke A. Thomas, a senior vice president at SunTrust Bank who moderated the panel session, introduced it by referring to 2006 as "the year of ethical issues," citing not just the issues MyRichUncle has raised but incidents like the now-aborted plan by another lender, EduCap, Inc., to sponsor a conference for financial aid officers on the Caribbean island of Nevis.  

Martin, who spoke first, began by recalling that when John Dean, who is special counsel for student lending to the Consumer Bankers Association, (NOTE: This corrects an earlier version of this article.) invited him to participate on the panel several weeks ago, he replied: "I always thought we were friends." Martin said he believed that the issues MyRichUncle and others had raised were "important for us all to take very seriously," because "whether those things are true or not, there are suspicions that cast aspersions on all of us."

He said -- and the lenders on the panel, Jon A. Veenis of Wells Fargo Education Financial Services and Willis J. Hulings III of the Education Resources Institute, largely echoed his views -- that while "the vast majority of people have behaved and behaved responsibly," there "have been some excesses" -- some lenders offering inappropriate incentives to student aid officers to promote their products, and a few financial aid officials asking for such incentives in exchange for favorable treatment.

The challenge for financial aid officers and lending officials alike, Martin said, is to "collectively make certain that we're all trying to abide by certain guidelines.... We can look at practices that are out there, and ask, How are we doing this? Are we being honest, are we being fair?"

Khan, who spoke next, began by noting that "they don't usually let the elephant in the room have a chance to speak." He then largely reiterated MyRichUncle's standard view, which is that students aren't necessarily getting the best advice from their financial aid offices because the aid administrators too often have conflicts of interest. But near the end of his PowerPoint presentation, he flipped to a slide that showed a bulletin board at NASFAA's annual meeting last summer on which lenders and other exhibitors posted notices about the gifts they were giving away to lucky winners during the convention.

With Martin at his side, lips pursed, Khan suggested that Martin and NASFAA might have more credibility in urging others to avoid conflicts if the organization stopped encouraging the giving of PDA's and other electronic devices. "Should the leader of this industry want to pursue change, he should perhaps look in its own house," Khan said. An uncomfortable silence followed.

Given a chance to respond at the end of the session, Martin described NASFAA's convention giveaways as "very typical of most trade associations," and "not necessarily out of line." But if he had his druthers, Martin said, "I'd just as soon it didn't happen. I personally would rather see gifts given to charity." Pressed further by Khan, Martin said that NASFAA's board would "continue to evaluate" its approach.

Perhaps more importantly, Martin suggested that it might be time for his organization and the Consumer Bankers Association to revive their efforts of several years ago to extend rules that govern ethics in the federal student loan programs to the private or alternative loan markets, too. Even a move like that might not fend off the heightened scrutiny that Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and other leaders of the new Democratic majority in Congress have promised to apply to lenders in the 110th Congress -- but it couldn’t hurt.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Showdown on Student Aid Ethics

  • What A LIVELY Debate
  • Posted by Alan Collinge , Founder at Studentloanjustice.org on December 1, 2006 at 9:31am EST
  • Good to hear such a lively debate happening.

    I'm stunned that anyone had the courage to say anything between bites of caviar at the Ritz Carlton.

  • Posted by kgotthardt on December 1, 2006 at 10:01am EST
  • 'Martin described NASFAA’s convention giveaways as “very typical of most trade associations,” and “not necessarily out of line.” ' But lending money to students, a transaction that changes their lives long-term, should not be treated in the "typical" way! We are not talking about the IT industry or selling cars here. We are talking about business activities that impact people's ability to earn a decent livelihood through education.

  • Posted by Jim on December 1, 2006 at 11:05am EST
  • "MyRichUncle" is no better then those institutions that they question. After all they are in a loan industry. They can direct market to the students and their family. They do not need to go through the financial aid office of any school, in the guise of financial aid. Lenders are loaning more and more money, is it for education, maybe, but it is to support a life style.
    I think lenders need to be accountable, who really cares if they give away free pencils?

    The loan industry is a business and it is done for a profit. If there is not a profit in it, then the lenders wouldn't do it. They aren't doing what they do "for the benefit of man kind".

    "MyRichUncl", is making noise to generate interest in their product, period. For one, I would not deal with them. If you want to change the industry, start with Congress and change the rules on loans. Make it harder to borrow money for education. Would fewer people go to college, maybe. Would it restrict access, maybe. At our university we see all types of students borrowing money that they really dont need, and guess what the financial aid office can't say no. It doesnt matter what lender it is and whether they gave us "free stuff."

    This whole idea of financial aid offices using lenders because of "gift" is just stupdi. Sorry, when you look at the products being offered by the lenders, most are the same, same rates, customeer rights, etc. As in any business, most financial aid offices work with the lenders who are most customer friendly.

    If there was no profit to be made, MyRichUncle wouldn't be doing what they are doing, period. There is no "expose" here, jsut smoke and mirrors. Making noise to get noticed. Good luck with that.

  • Student Loans Ponzi Scheme
  • Posted by TBD on December 1, 2006 at 11:30am EST
  • Student loans have basically become a Ponzi Scheme, with colleges sitting in the catbird seat. They let tuition and fees climb to unreasonable heights because they encourage moral hazard on the part of students and their families who don't (in current time) have to worry so much about outrageous fees, which are often $30,000 for majors that prepare students for $30,000 per annum jobs on graduation. They replace sliding scale prices and internal scholarships based on merit or need. They also encourage moral hazard on the part of campuses, who don't have to keep their spending under control. The blast of cash to students almost acts as an immediate kickback to reinforce getting the loan-- because it can be more than college expenses. Frequently the student loan amount is the price of a house. There's likely to be a major default event from the current period that will make the defaults of the 70s look minor.

  • Posted by EJ on December 1, 2006 at 12:10pm EST
  • You should do your homework before making a statement such as "There’s likely to be a major default event from the current period that will make the defaults of the 70s look minor" there are too many players concerned with default rates and to many due diligence regulations for the default rates of the 70's to ever happen again. It is easy to blame the colleges but the fact is everything is more expensive. My rich uncle is only looking for publicity; they are a credit based lending institution not a need based lender. Try to find their interest rates without actually applying for a loan. The reason they don't like financial aid offices is because for most borrowers they are a bad deal and the people in the program know that. So My Rich Uncle takes out full page adds and says that the preferred lender list is a way for financial aid people to take advantage of the program. In fact, ease of processing and student benefits are what gets a lender on a preferred list 999 times out of a thousand. Most financial aid counselors and directors have more character in their little finger then those that would promote My Rich Uncle. (I wonder how he got rich)

  • Defaults like the 70's
  • Posted by Alan Collinge , Founder at Studentloanjustice.org on December 1, 2006 at 2:35pm EST
  • I totally agree that this nation could potentially face a default explosion unmatched in history.

    Look at the numbers. The cost of college has far, far outpaced inflation since 1990. Students are graduating with record levels of debt.

    Further- and this is extremely important- one needs look no further than Al Lord's comments in the 2003 Sallie Mae annual report to see that defaulted loans are MORE profitable than loans which remain in good stead.

    Finally, inspect Sallie Mae's earnings and stock price in the aftermath of the DOT.COM recession. It actually accelerates.

    Due diligence? What the hell are you talking about? There is little or no real underwriting or due diligence to speak of for FFELP loans that means anything.

    Perhaps it is the commenter above who needs to do a bit of research.

  • Not so fast with default rates
  • Posted by Irons on December 1, 2006 at 4:30pm EST
  • Currently, default rates are only measured two years after repayment begins. Anyone who is delinquent, takes a forbearance or deferral, or defaults after the first two years of repayment, isn't counted in the official federal default numbers. So the measure isn't really that meaningful anyway.
    Until defaults are measured in an accurate way, the numbers will likely stay low.

  • Alleged Showdown
  • Posted by Skeptic on December 1, 2006 at 4:30pm EST
  • So Mr. Khan believes he is scoring points against the ethics of aid administrators by suggesting that NASFAA's practice of letting its conference vendors run raffles for PDAs is a conflict of interest? Rather than selling their souls, those aid administrators have merely invited post-conference marketing by the raffle sponsors by being so "unethical" as to have thrown their business cards into a bucket in hopes of being a lucky winner. Does anybody reading this story doubt that MyRichUncle also practices such marketing tactics? What is dismaying is the apparent reaction of the audience - stunned silence - are they unable to distinguish true bribery from a game of chance sideshow to garner attention? Also surprising is the apparent reluctance of the very capable Dallas Martin for responding with such restraint rather than in a way to make Mr. Khan want to crawl under the table in humiliation for trying such a silly attack against the people in the association Mr. Martin represents.

  • Underwriting student loans
  • Posted by Jack Olson on December 1, 2006 at 4:30pm EST
  • Student loans are unsecured debt, since you can't foreclose on or reposess a college education. This is why collection rules are stringent on these unsecured loans whose balances are usually in five figures and sometimes in six.

    Yet, how could the colleges and governments apply stricter underwriting standards to keep student borrowers out of the trap of loans they can neither discharge or repay? One big help would be mandatory disability insurance, since one of the most frequent complaints on Student Loan Justice's website come from student debtors who insist their medical disabilities prevent them from repaying their loans. Yes, this would ultimately add to the cost of the student loan. But, it would solve a large part of the default problem since so many defaulters attribute their defaults to medical disability.

  • Posted by C. Victoria Patrick on December 1, 2006 at 8:35pm EST
  • IT'S TIME FOR AN END TO THE "PREFERRED LENDER PROGRAM"
    For years, hundreds of schools have abused the preferred lender program by routinely refusing to honor parents' and students' choice of lenders who do not appear on the school's list.
    Some schools actually own up to such actions by openly admitting that they will not process applications of borrowers who choose lenders that are not on their list. Others are more subtle, telling parents and students that not choosing a "preferred lender" could mean that they will not receive their loan in time. Still others, say nothing, and simply illegally change the borrowers selection of a lender on the application itself.
    Regardless of whether or not schools are motivated by a desire to insure that various forms of lender payments continue or believe that their actions are in the best interest of their borrowers, the preferred lender game should be put to and end.

  • True Default Rates, and Prefered lender
  • Posted by Alan Collinge , Founder at StudentLoanJustice.Org on December 2, 2006 at 5:30am EST
  • I wholeheartedly agree with Iron's, and Patricks comments:

    1. What is the "true" default rate? Cohort is an easily manipulated metric. I have FOIA'd the Dept of Ed to find out the true default rate (They wouldn't just tell me). when I get the info (in a year or so), I will post my findings. I bet its over 10 percent. Perhaps well over. Because defaulted loans are such a big moneymaker for the lenders, and ED, however, they will keep this under wraps as long as possible.

    2. Absolutely get rid of preferred lender. Sallie Mae seems to have this locked up, and has for years. Not to mention the fact that at lease half of students still actually believe that Sallie is a government agency, and blindly sign whatever is put in front of them, in their quest to get registered.

    In a fair world, defaulted borrowers would, after a certain period of time in default, be allowed to repay what they originally borrowed, plus a reasonable amount of interest, OR the amount that the government paid for their loans, and nothing more. The costs to the borrower of living in default is extremely, extremely high, and this should be given a value.

    Those that never graduated should receive additional consideration.

    What no one is talking about however, is the obvious fix going forward: Decrease the guarantee to the lenders to perhaps 90%. This ensures that they have some stake in the good standing of the loan, and provide adequate customer service. (Sallie Mae's customer service is borderline criminally negligent, for instance).

    If the lenders can't live with this, then please tell me how bankers working with SBA, AG, DOT, or other federally guaranteed loans manage to eek out a living? These loans are almost never 100% securitized.

  • Posted by A Khan on January 6, 2007 at 5:05am EST
  • MyRichUncle is now one of the well known student lending companies. I think what they are doing is right, since according to several articles MRU couldn't get loans to their appicants because of the Financial Aid Administrators at particular universities. Any one would do what MyRichUncle has called out in the industry.