The House Financial Services Committee, in a vote of 39 to 29, approved the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009 (H.R. 3126), a centerpiece of the Obama administration’s pursuit to overhaul the nation’s financial regulatory system. The approved legislation would create a new federal agency, the CFPA, which would have the authority to write new consumer protection rules in the arenas of lending and credit, including private student loans (“House Panel Moves to Regulate Private Student Loans,” Oct. 26, 2009).
Gap loans, however, could potentially be exempted from the CFPA’s oversight due to language included in the bill meant to shield small businesses and local merchants that extend credit to their customers. A proposed amendment to the CFPA Act that would have clarified that gap loans are subject to CFPA regulation was narrowly defeated in the House committee by a vote of 35 to 33.
Gap Financing on the Rise at For-Profit Schools
“Gap” student loans — so-called because they’re intended to cover students’ financing gaps, any college costs that aren’t covered by a student’s financial aid (scholarships, grants, federal student loans) — are increasingly being offered by for-profit colleges and vocational schools to boost enrollment as these institutions encounter a swelling influx of unemployed and low-income students looking to return to school to obtain a higher-earning degree, learn a new trade, or acquire additional training for their résumé.
“Because the economic meltdown has made it harder for students to get bank loans, several of these schools are increasingly stepping in, financing degrees in the same way a furniture store or used-car dealer might extend credit to customers,” explains Justin Pope, an education writer for The Associated Press (“For-Profit Colleges’ Increased Lending Prompts Concerns,” Aug. 15, 2009).
For-profit schools, also known as “proprietary” colleges, that provide gap financing, which include national heavyweights ITT Technical Institutes, Corinthian Colleges, and Career Education Corp., say that their financing programs allow students to attend school who wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford a college education.
But these gap financing programs are risky and expensive for students, consumer advocates maintain. Gap loans typically carry high interest rates, sometimes in the double digits, and large monthly payments that the schools’ generally low-income students often aren’t able to handle — all while allowing the schools to reap hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal money from the federal financial aid that students use to pay the bulk of their attendance costs.
“I believe we have an obligation to ensure that these schools are not allowed to continue to prey on students,” said Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who sponsored the defeated CFPA amendment. “By subjecting these schools to CFPA’s authority, the quality of the student loans these schools provide will improve” (“House Panel Approves Expanded Oversight of Private Student Loans,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct. 22, 2009).
Consumer Groups Push for Regulation of Gap Financing
Consumer and student advocate groups, concerned about the potential for student loans made by proprietary schools to be exempted from the CFPA legislation under the bill’s small-business clause, had been lobbying in support of the Waters-sponsored amendment to explicitly bring gap loans under the authority of the CFPA.
“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 (“Regulating Private Student Loans,” Inside Higher Ed, Oct. 19, 2009).
Asher and TICAS joined a number of other consumer and student advocacy groups in drafting a letter earlier this month to Rep. Barney Frank, the Democratic chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, urging the committee to clarify that school-sponsored loans wouldn’t be shielded from the CFPA’s reach (letter to Rep. Barney Frank regarding H.R. 3126, Oct. 7, 2009).
“To effectively protect consumers, the CFPA must have full authority to regulate private student loans regardless of the institution offering them,” the groups wrote. “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.”
Gap Loans vs. Gap ‘Financing’: The Non–Student Loan
Proprietary colleges argued against the Waters amendment, saying that gap student loans are already regulated by the federal Truth in Lending Act.
New TILA rules, mandated under last year’s Higher Education Opportunity Act (H.R. 4137) and which will go into effect in February, will require student lenders to disclose more details about their private loan programs, including interest rates and estimated monthly payments, and to inform applicants for private student loans about federal student loan options.
Consumer advocates, however, hold that TILA regulations aren’t sufficient and that the stricter oversight of the CFPA is necessary in order to protect student loan borrowers.
In pushing for the Waters amendment, consumer and student advocacy groups pointed to the move being made by some schools to offer their gap funding under the auspices of “consumer financing” rather than as a student loan program. By structuring their gap funding programs as consumer financing rather than as private student loans, schools are able to skirt the student loan–specific requirements, regulations, and borrower disclosures mandated by the Higher Education Opportunity Act.
“It’s very alarming,” said Deanne Loonin, director of student loan borrower assistance project at the National Consumer Law Center. Schools “can structure the products in all kinds of ways — things like revolving credit lines, unsecured loans, even secured loans. It’s this new thing, and we’re worried about it.”
One for-profit school, Colorado-based Westwood College, is currently defending itself against a class-action lawsuit brought by students accusing the school of fraud in its student financing. The lawsuit charges Westwood with violating state banking laws. Westwood’s student financing program carries a relatively high interest rate of 18 percent, but the school doesn’t call its financing student loans.
The For-Profit Risk
Students at proprietary colleges are particularly vulnerable to the schools’ high-interest loans and financing programs, consumer and student groups say, because of who these students are: lower-income, higher-risk borrowers.
Low-income students, who tend to drop out of college in greater numbers than higher-income students, generally end up struggling to repay their student loans. And for-profit colleges, with their student populations that skew toward lower income levels, on average have lower graduation rates and higher loan default rates than other schools.
In 2007–08, students at proprietary colleges defaulted on their student loans at a rate of 11.1 percent, according to the Department of Education, compared to a default rate of 6.0 percent for students at public nonprofit colleges and universities and a rate of 3.8 percent for students at private nonprofit institutions.
Students at for-profit schools are also taking on increasingly higher debt loads: The percentage of proprietary college students borrowing at least $40,000 nearly tripled to 30 percent between 2003–04 and 2007–08, says Mark Kantrowitz, founder of the financial aid website, FinAid.org. The proportion of proprietary college students taking out private student loans has also come near to tripling, rising to 43 percent from 15 percent in that same time period, according to an analysis of federal data by the nonprofit group Education Sector.
Nonetheless, critics charge, as long as proprietary schools can continue to bring in significant federal funds with each student, the schools have little incentive to refine their lending practices to ensure that students aren’t taking on unmanageable debt.
“Consider, for example, a school charging $10,000, hoping to enroll a student who has lined up $9,000 in aid from the government and elsewhere,” writes Pope. “Even if the school loses half of the $1,000 it lends to get the student in the door, it comes out $9,000 ahead.”
And “for many of these students, if you don’t apply these thousand dollars, they’re not coming to school,” says Jeff Silber, an industry analyst with BMO Capital Markets.
From the school’s perspective, you’re realizing “all those other revenues,” he elaborates, “even if you write off $500 [of that $1,000] right away. … Financially it still makes sense to do this.”
And with last week’s defeat of the CFPA amendment, the stage is set for schools to press on with their gap financing programs, having sidestepped, at least for now, the impending shadow of the CFPA and increased federal oversight.
Bookmark this article:
