Search News


Browse Archives

News

Regulating Private Student Loans

October 19, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Exhorted by consumer groups, the Obama administration and its Democratic allies in Congress are moving to create a federal Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which is designed to regulate credit card fees and other forms of consumer credit that get comparatively little oversight from existing federal agencies.

Advocates for students have argued that the new agency could fill what they say are significant gaps in the government's ability to regulate non-federal student loans, which grew steadily in popularity as college tuitions rose throughout this decade.

But as the House of Representatives drafts its version of legislation to create the new agency, a broad coalition of groups are concerned that lawmakers may ignore a burgeoning form of alternative loans: those that for-profit colleges make directly to students to fill gaps in their ability to pay.

They are urging Congressional Democrats to clarify that a planned exemption in the bill designed to shield local merchants from excessive regulation would not apply to publicly traded higher education companies that are directly giving students tens of millions of dollars in small loans, often structured as consumer financing rather than student loans, and sometimes at double digit interest rates.

"To effectively protect consumers, the CFPA must have full authority to regulate private student loans regardless of the institution offering them," the groups wrote in a letter this month to Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. "For consumers, a private student loan can pose the same serious risks whether issued by a financial institution or by a school. The CFPA should apply and enforce standards based upon the product and not the issuing institution."

A spokeswoman for Frank said that the committee would continue drafting the legislation this week, but that she could not comment on a report by a Wall Street analyst that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), a long-time critic of for-profit higher education, would introduce an amendment to specifically subject loans made by the colleges to regulation under the proposed new agency.

For-profit college officials say the groups misrepresent the nature of the loans, which they say are designed to fill the gap (often as little as $1,000) between the federal aid the students qualify for and the cost of their educations, funds that have been harder for students to come by since the tightened credit markets crimped the availability of other private student loans. They also point out that relatively few colleges provide such financing, and argue that private student loans -- including those issued by institutions -- are already regulated, thanks to changes made in last year's renewal of the Higher Education Act.

'Gap' Loans and Federal Regulation

The full extent of for-profit colleges' "gap" loans, as they are often called, is, like much of the world of non-federal student loans, hard to gauge, precisely because they have historically been little regulated. In the wake of the 2007 scrutiny of student loans prompted by New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo and Congressional Democrats, Congress took initial steps toward increasing federal oversight in last year's Higher Education Opportunity Act. The law makes private student loans subject to regulation under Regulation Z of the Truth in Lending Act beginning next February, imposing numerous new reporting and other requirements on providers of such loans.

But the facts that students are increasingly turning to such loans to pay ever-rising college tuitions, and that private student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy -- the subject of a House hearing last month -- have continued to stimulate calls for greater federal oversight of private loans.

As conceived by the Obama administration and Congressional allies, the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency would flesh out the federal government's ability to regulate various types of consumer credit for which existing U.S. agencies have limited authority -- including non-federal student loans offered by lenders.

Ironically, the poor economy and the new Higher Education Act rules on private loans have driven large numbers of traditional providers of private loans out of the market, and in their place, several of the major for-profit higher education companies have started making loans directly to students or stepped up the extent to which they do so.

The loans are designed to help students cover the part of their tuition bills that federal aid does not -- and to help the institutions themselves comply with a federal law that requires no more than 90 percent of their tuition revenue to come from federal sources.

But the loans are risky; an Associated Press article last month noted that two large providers of such loans, Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and ITT Educational Services, Inc., had noted in securities reports that they expected students to default on as many as half of their "gap" loans, based on the students' credit scores.

Facts like those -- and the reality that significant numbers of low-income students drop out of college (for financial as well as academic reasons) and end up struggling to repay their loans as a result -- pique the concerns of groups like the Institute for College Access & Success and the National Consumer Law Center, which are among the signers of last month's letter to Frank.

"Private student loans are one of the riskiest ways to pay for college, yet a growing number of students have private student loans as well as, or instead of, federal student loans," the groups wrote. "Private student loans are expensive, mostly variable-rate loans that cost more for those who can least afford them. They lack the fixed rates, consumer protections and flexible repayment options of federal student loans, and are not financial aid any more than a credit card is when used to pay for textbooks or tuition."

The groups say they are concerned that major for-profit colleges would fall under the umbrella of language that Frank included in a draft of his Consumer Financial Protection Agency legislation to placate small merchants that extend credit to their customers (see page 67 in this draft bill). "We just want to make sure that the risky financial products that some colleges, for-profits in particular, have been making to students are still covered by this agency, and not undercut by a well-intentioned suggestion of how to make sure that the neighborhood grocer isn’t unfairly and unduly impacted" by increased regulation, said Lauren Asher, president of the Institute for College Access & Success.

"It’s one thing to be able to buy your eggs and butter on credit," Asher said. "It's another to be sold a very risky financial product" to pay for an expensive college education.

Harris Miller, president and CEO of the Career College Association, which represents for-profit colleges, said the consumer groups' complaints are "disingenuous at best," given that "the institutional loans referred to in the letter are already covered by federal law, with limited exceptions, under TILA." And while Frank envisions the new agency filling gaps in areas where "existing regulatory systems apparently have failed to work properly to protect consumers," Miller wrote in an e-mail message, "there is no evidence presented in the letter or elsewhere that higher education institutional loans by not for profit or for profit institutions have caused consumer problems."

Trace A. Urdan, an analyst of for-profit higher education at Signal Hill, said in an e-mail message that restricting the ability of for-profit colleges to make small loans to their students could make it impossible for thousands of needy students to get the vocational training they need.

"The harm would accrue to those in greatest need of professional training, and for that reason it is a harmful policy direction," he said of attempts to end such lending. "To imagine that a student who is seeking the training in order to obtain a job that pays $14 per hour has $1,500 sitting around gathering dust shows a real lack of understanding of who these students are."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Regulating Private Student Loans

  • Private Loans for College
  • Posted by collegeloanconsultant on October 19, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • The for-profit schools' loans should be a major concern for Congress. These schools offer very little value for their tuition costs. Quite often, a student can receive the same (or better) education from a community college within a 10 mile radius of a technical school, for a fraction of the price.

    These schools make money because of the federal funds they receive. They do not care how many graduates default on their institutional loans, while they can collect Pell grant and federal student loan money. These total much more than their costs for what they offer. And (unlike some community colleges) they are not afraid that Congress will pull the plug on their money due to high defaults. In the unlikely event that happens, they will just set up shop under a different name.

  • Why the CFPA should cover all private student loans
  • Posted by Lauren Asher , President at The Institute for College Access & Success on October 19, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT
  • The Institute for College Access & Success and the 31 other organizations that signed the letter to Chairman Frank believe all private student loans should be covered by the CFPA, regardless of the institution offering the loan.

    CFPA coverage of private student loans does not create any additional requirements - it would simply give the authority to interpret and enforce current consumer protection laws, which is currently scattered across multiple agencies with other missions, to the CFPA whose sole mission will be protecting consumers from unfair and deceptive products and practices. For example, the CFPA would ensure that the new TILA regulations mandated by the HEOA last year are enforced. Read the full coalition letter at http://projectonstudentdebt.org/files/pub/LtrtoFrank_CFPA_pls_10-08-09.pdf.

    Your article notes, as other articles have before, that one of the for-profit college motivations in making school loans is to meet the requirement that at least 10% of their revenue come from non-federal sources. If the schools wished only to help these students, they could discount their tuition instead of making loans they expect a majority will not be able to repay.

  • Posted by Trace Urdan at Signal Hill Capital Group on October 19, 2009 at 5:00pm EDT
  • Ms. Asher's note suggests her organization has no agenda to restrict student lending to the proprietary school sector, but her butter & eggs quote in the story belie this claim. By characterizing these loans as "risky" and the education as "expensive," she inserts two generalized judgments that have no basis. The educations offered are no more expensive than any private four-year institution that does not benefit from a tax-based subsidy. In fact in most cases, the proprietary school programs are less expensive than those offered by their private, not-for-profit peers. Furthermore, the loans are only "risky" if the programs they are intended to fund fail to provide appropriate training to gain employment. Yet these schools pass this test in the market everyday.

    I know the Institute for College Access & Success is a well-intentioned organization. But its very mission assumes two premises that I, for one, don't accept. The first is that graduating with debt is a bad thing. Of all the things that an individual might borrow money for -- a post-secondary education that enhances one's earning power seems to me the most appropriate. The second, is that the American tax payer is best served subsidizing schools that graduate 20% of their students rather than allowing the market to fund schools (that pay taxes) and graduate 60% of their students. The fact is that states are increasingly unable to subsidize their schools at a rate sufficient to absorb the demand. Free schooling is a noble idea, but increasingly unfeasible.

    Finally Ms. Asher's assumption that proprietary schools can discount their way out of the 90/10 requirement is inaccurate. They cannot.

  • talking about an agenda
  • Posted by the watcher on October 19, 2009 at 8:30pm EDT
  • Trace--

    With all due respect Trace, aren't you to have some objectivity in your role as an analyst? Seems like you're just another cheerleader for the industry. Is there anything for profits can do that you won't forgive?

  • Posted by Trace Urdan on October 20, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT
  • Dear Watcher:

    I grant that some IHE readers might be getting sick of me, but do I really have to suffer this criticism from someone that won't even sign their name?

    At the heart of our investment thesis is the question of whether there is real value for money in the product provided by this category of for-profit schools. I believe there is, (or else I wouldn't keep at this job) and so am a vigorous defender of the category against those who would judge it with an ill-informed sneer that assumes no role for capitalism in education. The defense is one I have arrived at after 12 years of watching these companies and their tax-subsidized competitors closely.

    That said, I have seen many schools betray the fundamental value proposition and go off the rails and have called them on those errors as vociferously as anyone. But those errors are the fault of management, not the model.

    I believe quite strongly that the model of a no-nonsense, career-oriented education, where the focus on students and student outcomes is sharpened with a profit motive, is enormously effective and in many cases superior even to a not-for-profit model. That the school companies rely on federal loan programs is true. But no more so than not-for-profit or tax-subsidized schools.

    The for-profit schools already compete on a playing field that is tilted against them. If you would have them compete without federal aid (which goes by the way to the student, not the school) then eliminate that aid for everyone and let's see who can best deliver a quality, outcomes-oriented education at a reasonable price and best serve our nation's interests.

    As for my criticism of Ms. Waters' proposed amendment, it shocks my conscience that she should be so ready to condescend to the constituents she purports to serve. I wish there were some outrage reserved for the noblesse oblige attitude of this particular style of "consumer protection."

  • Posted by Sarah Evans , recent college grad on October 23, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • Some of the disagreement in this debate over the question of educational funding seems to be stemming from more basic assumptions about the questions being presented. Uncovering these underlying assumptions is key in understanding each other in this debate (you addressed a couple, Trace--graduating with debt is bad, and funding under-performing schools is a must because of the populations they generally serve). Other assumptions people are reasoning under include personal responses to: is higher education a basic right to be handed out or a privilege with risks and personal responsibilities? Does the responsibility of paying for their own schooling (either beforehand, as they go, or by paying off debt after) make students take their schooling more seriously and make them more likely to finish? Is higher education for everyone?
    Certainly, capitalism takes a role in the provision and access of higher education. To thwart in some ways this is possible, and some countries do so, but the options when you take that route are limited: 1. the overall quality and value of the education received is greatly reduced until it becomes essentially pointless, or 2. a system is set up in which only the select receive higher education based on past performance (Germany has such a system; if you think child-education in the US is competitive, check them out). Like anything, the role of supply and demand is a reality, and people get more out of what they work for themselves (though some assistance is not necessarily inappropriate).
    To desire that everyone obtain a higher education is noble and worth working toward but is NOT something that the government will be able to effectively. For this to happen will require community and private action, not the heavy-handed intervention of an institution much too large for the job: our government. Our government was not designed to micromanage the daily affairs of its citizens and states nor the business institutions within them (nor is it very effective at it; sort of like using a hammer to swat a fly).
    If for-private colleges are slipping through loopholes that currently do a proper job of protecting consumers, why don't we close the consumer protection loophole WITHIN EXISTING LEGISLATION using institutions already existing to do the job. To create a whole new government agency to regulate the exception is absurd, and will create yet another big (and expensive) redundancy in our already agency-bloated federal system that will make it harder for legitimate businesses to operate.
    The bigger the proposed fix, the greater and more far-reaching the consequences. Please, consider the consequences BEFORE making a decision. What might happen if this passes? So far, I see nothing limiting the language of "private lender". Does this mean that parents who help fund their child's education must either provide the funds as a straight-out gift or be considered a private lender (with all the red tape and trouble that comes with it)?

  • Posted by John G.L. Stewart on October 23, 2009 at 4:45pm EDT
  • Trace Urdan wrote:

    "The harm would accrue to those in greatest need of professional training, and for that reason it is a harmful policy direction."

    "To imagine that a student who is seeking the training in order to obtain a job that pays $14/hour has $1500 sitting around gathering dust shows a real lack of understanding of who these students are."

    Are you serious? Any credibility that you had in your comparison to for-profit and (nominally) not-for-profit schools was blown away with these quotes.

    The day I see a proprietary school in a suburb, away from a strip mall, and with a socio-economically and culturally diverse study body is the day I will take the for-profit sector seriously. The day for-profit schools stop incessant advertising during Maury Povich and Jerry Springer is the day I will take them seriously. While there might be several success stories that you can point to, the evidence suggests that the majority of for-profit schools negatively impact a certain segment of our population.

    Think of them in the same way state lotteries operate. A few winners, thousands more losers. State lotteries have studied extensively, and the consensus among researchers is that they are a regressive tax on low-income citizens.

    It appears that interest groups aligned with for-profit education are intent on maintaining the business model while ignoring the real concerns of educators and advocacy organizations that deal with the fallout after students leave proprietary schools without the credential and in substantial debt. This leads to the widening of the gap between the two, when they are actually working towards the same goal - helping individuals achieve economic self-sufficiency through (vocational) education. I would like to the the gap between the for-profit sector and the access sector close, but unfortunately, the drive for the almighty dollar no matter the cost will continue to leave the sides miles apart for the forseeable future.

  • Posted by LongandStrong on October 24, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
  • Dear Mr Stewart,

    Why don't you call DeVry and ask them what their placement rate in the students field of choice and starting salary is.

    I will save you the time - approx 91% and 42k, the latter of which might be more than you pull down.

    Have a great day.

    LS

  • Posted by consumer on November 5, 2009 at 11:30am EST
  • Trace- 90/10 rule does not apply to non-profits, huge benefit. Institutional loans only benefit 90/10 when student repays. i.e.: they graduate, get a job, pay back; the foundation of education. non-profits make just as much as for-profits (before taxes).