Apollo Group Inc., the parent company of the University of Phoenix, the largest for-profit college in the country, announced on Tuesday that the Securities and Exchange Commission has launched an “informal inquiry” into the company’s revenue accounting practices.
This new probe, being conducted by the SEC’s enforcement unit, marks the second time this year that the SEC has targeted Apollo’s accounting operations for investigation. In February, the corporate finance division of the SEC also revealed it was reviewing Apollo’s revenue recognition practices.
“The ‘revenue recognition’ issue revolves around how Apollo determines when a student drops out of a class and how much income Apollo can leave on its balance sheet, and for how long,” The Associated Press explains in its reporting on the new SEC inquiry (“Ahead of the Bell: Apollo Shares Sink on SEC Probe,” Oct. 28, 2009).
Nearly 90 percent of Apollo’s income — most of which is generated from student tuition — comes from federal student loans and other government financial aid. Federal student aid accounted for roughly 86 percent of the company’s revenue in the 2009 fiscal year, Bloomberg reports, up from 82 percent in fiscal 2008 and 48 percent in fiscal 2001 (“Apollo Shares Plunge as SEC Starts Accounting Inquiry,” Oct. 28, 2009).
Apollo Defends Accounting Policies
In a conference call with investors on the same day that it released the news of the SEC probe, Apollo defended its accounting practices (webcast of Apollo’s fourth-quarter 2009 earnings conference call, Oct. 27, 2009).
Analysts on the call directed questions toward Apollo’s revenue recognition policies, asking the company about its attendance records and how revenue is booked when a student drops a class.
Apollo responded that it stops recognizing revenue not immediately upon a student’s withdrawal from a course but only once a tuition refund is processed. The company books full tuition revenue for a course if a student attends more than 60 percent of the class sessions. In the case that a refund is delayed for any reason, the company will make the necessary revenue adjustments, Apollo said.
“The policies are straightforward and they are in accordance with GAAP — all of them,” said Apollo’s chief financial officer, Brian Swartz, referring to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, the standard financial accounting guidelines that publicly traded companies are required to follow.
Analysts: SEC Targeting of More For-Profit Institutions Unlikely
After Apollo’s announcement of the SEC inquiry, the company’s shares plunged nearly 20 percent to their lowest levels in more than 19 months in New York trading.
But blowback from the news of the government’s scrutiny didn’t remain limited to Apollo: Shares of other for-profit education companies traded lower yesterday, the day after Apollo’s announcement, The Wall Street Journal reported, as investors questioned whether the SEC probe into Apollo is a precursor for an industry-wide crackdown (“Education Stocks Drop After Apollo Announces SEC Probe,” Oct. 28, 2009).
“For-profit colleges have come under fire numerous times for their methods of recognizing revenue,” the article in The Wall Street Journal notes.
Perhaps with this history in mind, “some investors have opted to scrutinize the company’s practices on student refunds and bad-debt expense, the implication being that this could be the beginning of an industry-wide review of practices,” a Wedbush Morgan analyst wrote in a note to investors Wednesday.
However, the Wedbush Morgan note went on to caution, “we remind investors that it’s plausible that the issue could equally relate to other parts of the business.”
Trace Urdan, who follows Apollo for the Signal Hill Capital Group, believes a larger regulatory examination into for-profit colleges is something to be taken into consideration. “I think there’s sort of two possibilities,” Urdan told The Arizona Republic. “Either the SEC’s got something on Apollo specifically and they’re moving in, or there’s something related to the industry” (“Apollo in Accounting Investigation,” Oct. 28, 2009).
Other analysts, however, feel the SEC action doesn’t represent anything broader in scope than a check into Apollo itself.
While downgrading their ratings of Apollo, analysts at Morgan Stanley noted there’s no reason to believe the SEC investigation signals a larger industry issue, The Wall Street Journal reported. And in a note to clients, RBC Capital markets analyst Robert Wetenhall asserted that his firm is confident the SEC accounting probe is specific to Apollo.
“We feel that the issues that are affecting Apollo are unique to it and not applicable to the broader sector” of for-profit education companies, Wetenhall said.
Analysts at Deutsche Bank, consulting with financial legal expert David Seide, concurred. In their estimation, the StreetInsider reported, the SEC issue “is probably company-specific, not part of an industry-wide sweep, as the SEC enforcement division focuses on potential violations, not policy” (“Apollo Group Can’t Find Traction After Disclosing SEC Probe,” Oct. 29, 2009).
Seide “did not rule out an industry sweep, but this seems like a lower-probability event.”
A Move Toward Increased Oversight of For-Profit Colleges?
Some market-watchers wonder if the SEC probe of Apollo, while not ushering in a federal swoop-down on for-profit colleges, may still be an indication of significant changes in regulatory attitudes toward these schools looming in the wings of the White House.
In this view, the SEC inquiry may have arisen out of the move toward generally increased consumer financial protections within the new government administration.
“It is no secret to insiders that the Bush-era education team has been favorable to for-profit education,” Citron Research declared, noting that Sally Stroup, the assistant secretary for post-secondary education during the Bush administration and the highest-ranking official overseeing for-profit schools, was a lobbyist for the University of Phoenix for eight years (“Citron Releases the Document That the Apollo Group Does Not Want You or the U.S. Government to See,” Jan. 13, 2009).
Citron has been fiercely critical of what it argues are Apollo’s fraudulent business practices and unethical, strong-arm recruitment tactics (“Citron Exposes Apollo’s Big Dirty Secret,” March 4, 2009).
“Count on the Obama administration to take a fresh, critical look” at Apollo, Citron predicted in January. “As the largest single recipient of student loans in this country, [Apollo] is a for-profit institution whose insiders have sold hundreds of millions of dollars of stock while collecting over 75 percent of their revenue from government-guaranteed loan funds, while delivering an education of questionable value amid a history of unsavory business practices.”
Continuing Legal Embroilments for Apollo
The changed tenor at the White House notwithstanding, specialists in financial circles say the SEC’s investigation into Apollo may never go any further than the current “informal inquiry.”
“We do not believe a formal inquiry or fraud allegations are a foregone conclusion,” Deutsche Bank analysts told the StreetInsider.
In fact, out of the roughly 800 informal investigations initiated each year by the SEC against corporations and individuals, only slightly more than half, about 450, result in formal investigations, the StreetInsider reports. Just 100 result in actions.
At the same time, even if this newly launched SEC review of Apollo’s accounting practices fades away with no further repercussions, corporate observers can’t escape the fact that this latest government probe is adding yet another chapter in a growing string of recent legal troubles for the company:
This new probe, being conducted by the SEC’s enforcement unit, marks the second time this year that the SEC has targeted Apollo’s accounting operations for investigation. In February, the corporate finance division of the SEC also revealed it was reviewing Apollo’s revenue recognition practices.
“The ‘revenue recognition’ issue revolves around how Apollo determines when a student drops out of a class and how much income Apollo can leave on its balance sheet, and for how long,” The Associated Press explains in its reporting on the new SEC inquiry (“Ahead of the Bell: Apollo Shares Sink on SEC Probe,” Oct. 28, 2009).
Nearly 90 percent of Apollo’s income — most of which is generated from student tuition — comes from federal student loans and other government financial aid. Federal student aid accounted for roughly 86 percent of the company’s revenue in the 2009 fiscal year, Bloomberg reports, up from 82 percent in fiscal 2008 and 48 percent in fiscal 2001 (“Apollo Shares Plunge as SEC Starts Accounting Inquiry,” Oct. 28, 2009).
Apollo Defends Accounting Policies
In a conference call with investors on the same day that it released the news of the SEC probe, Apollo defended its accounting practices (webcast of Apollo’s fourth-quarter 2009 earnings conference call, Oct. 27, 2009).
Analysts on the call directed questions toward Apollo’s revenue recognition policies, asking the company about its attendance records and how revenue is booked when a student drops a class.
Apollo responded that it stops recognizing revenue not immediately upon a student’s withdrawal from a course but only once a tuition refund is processed. The company books full tuition revenue for a course if a student attends more than 60 percent of the class sessions. In the case that a refund is delayed for any reason, the company will make the necessary revenue adjustments, Apollo said.
“The policies are straightforward and they are in accordance with GAAP — all of them,” said Apollo’s chief financial officer, Brian Swartz, referring to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, the standard financial accounting guidelines that publicly traded companies are required to follow.
Analysts: SEC Targeting of More For-Profit Institutions Unlikely
After Apollo’s announcement of the SEC inquiry, the company’s shares plunged nearly 20 percent to their lowest levels in more than 19 months in New York trading.
But blowback from the news of the government’s scrutiny didn’t remain limited to Apollo: Shares of other for-profit education companies traded lower yesterday, the day after Apollo’s announcement, The Wall Street Journal reported, as investors questioned whether the SEC probe into Apollo is a precursor for an industry-wide crackdown (“Education Stocks Drop After Apollo Announces SEC Probe,” Oct. 28, 2009).
“For-profit colleges have come under fire numerous times for their methods of recognizing revenue,” the article in The Wall Street Journal notes.
Perhaps with this history in mind, “some investors have opted to scrutinize the company’s practices on student refunds and bad-debt expense, the implication being that this could be the beginning of an industry-wide review of practices,” a Wedbush Morgan analyst wrote in a note to investors Wednesday.
However, the Wedbush Morgan note went on to caution, “we remind investors that it’s plausible that the issue could equally relate to other parts of the business.”
Trace Urdan, who follows Apollo for the Signal Hill Capital Group, believes a larger regulatory examination into for-profit colleges is something to be taken into consideration. “I think there’s sort of two possibilities,” Urdan told The Arizona Republic. “Either the SEC’s got something on Apollo specifically and they’re moving in, or there’s something related to the industry” (“Apollo in Accounting Investigation,” Oct. 28, 2009).
Other analysts, however, feel the SEC action doesn’t represent anything broader in scope than a check into Apollo itself.
While downgrading their ratings of Apollo, analysts at Morgan Stanley noted there’s no reason to believe the SEC investigation signals a larger industry issue, The Wall Street Journal reported. And in a note to clients, RBC Capital markets analyst Robert Wetenhall asserted that his firm is confident the SEC accounting probe is specific to Apollo.
“We feel that the issues that are affecting Apollo are unique to it and not applicable to the broader sector” of for-profit education companies, Wetenhall said.
Analysts at Deutsche Bank, consulting with financial legal expert David Seide, concurred. In their estimation, the StreetInsider reported, the SEC issue “is probably company-specific, not part of an industry-wide sweep, as the SEC enforcement division focuses on potential violations, not policy” (“Apollo Group Can’t Find Traction After Disclosing SEC Probe,” Oct. 29, 2009).
Seide “did not rule out an industry sweep, but this seems like a lower-probability event.”
A Move Toward Increased Oversight of For-Profit Colleges?
Some market-watchers wonder if the SEC probe of Apollo, while not ushering in a federal swoop-down on for-profit colleges, may still be an indication of significant changes in regulatory attitudes toward these schools looming in the wings of the White House.
In this view, the SEC inquiry may have arisen out of the move toward generally increased consumer financial protections within the new government administration.
“It is no secret to insiders that the Bush-era education team has been favorable to for-profit education,” Citron Research declared, noting that Sally Stroup, the assistant secretary for post-secondary education during the Bush administration and the highest-ranking official overseeing for-profit schools, was a lobbyist for the University of Phoenix for eight years (“Citron Releases the Document That the Apollo Group Does Not Want You or the U.S. Government to See,” Jan. 13, 2009).
Citron has been fiercely critical of what it argues are Apollo’s fraudulent business practices and unethical, strong-arm recruitment tactics (“Citron Exposes Apollo’s Big Dirty Secret,” March 4, 2009).
“Count on the Obama administration to take a fresh, critical look” at Apollo, Citron predicted in January. “As the largest single recipient of student loans in this country, [Apollo] is a for-profit institution whose insiders have sold hundreds of millions of dollars of stock while collecting over 75 percent of their revenue from government-guaranteed loan funds, while delivering an education of questionable value amid a history of unsavory business practices.”
Continuing Legal Embroilments for Apollo
The changed tenor at the White House notwithstanding, specialists in financial circles say the SEC’s investigation into Apollo may never go any further than the current “informal inquiry.”
“We do not believe a formal inquiry or fraud allegations are a foregone conclusion,” Deutsche Bank analysts told the StreetInsider.
In fact, out of the roughly 800 informal investigations initiated each year by the SEC against corporations and individuals, only slightly more than half, about 450, result in formal investigations, the StreetInsider reports. Just 100 result in actions.
At the same time, even if this newly launched SEC review of Apollo’s accounting practices fades away with no further repercussions, corporate observers can’t escape the fact that this latest government probe is adding yet another chapter in a growing string of recent legal troubles for the company:
- Sued by employees: In its fourth-quarter and year-end earnings report issued on Tuesday, the same report in which it disclosed the SEC inquiry, Apollo also revealed it took a charge of $80.5 million for the quarter to cover a possible settlement pending in a federal whistleblower suit (“Apollo Group, Inc. Reports Fiscal 2009 Fourth-Quarter and Year-End Results,” Oct. 27, 2009).
The lawsuit, brought in 2003 by two former University of Phoenix enrollment counselors, accuses the University of Phoenix of violating a federal ban that prohibits schools from paying recruiters based on the number of students the recruiter enrolls.
Apollo paid $9.8 million to the U.S. Department of Education in 2004 to settle alleged violations of the same rule, Bloomberg reports.
- Sued by shareholders: That same year that Apollo settled with the Education Department for illegal recruiting, Apollo officials, after receiving a scathing report from government regulators on the company’s recruitment practices, decided not to publicly disclose the contents of the government report, out of concern for the potential negative reaction from shareholders.
The decision to hold back this information led to a securities class-action lawsuit from Apollo shareholders, accusing the company of misrepresenting and of failing to disclose “material adverse facts.”
In January 2008, a federal jury unanimously found Apollo guilty of securities fraud for misleading investors, delivering a verdict of $277.5 million, although the judgment was overturned seven months later on appeal.
- Sued by students: Apollo has also been taken to court by its students: In December 2008, three former University of Phoenix students filed a federal class-action lawsuit against Apollo and the University of Phoenix, accusing the institutions of improperly denying them the use of federal student loans, in violation of the Higher Education Act.
The students alleged that, when they dropped courses shortly after enrolling, the University of Phoenix returned all of their federal student loan funds to the lenders without the students’ “knowledge or consent,” even though the students had already incurred tuition charges. The school then demanded immediate repayment from the students for the partial tuition owed.
By charging the students directly and not allowing them to use their federal student loans as payment, the complaint stated, the University of Phoenix denied these students the borrower protections and more generous loan repayment terms offered by the federal government.
Returning the students’ federal student loan money was also a “transparent attempt” by the University of Phoenix to unlawfully manipulate its federal student loan default rate, the lawsuit charged, since students who don’t finish their education are at the highest risk of defaulting on their student loans. In this case, the school effectively prevented these high-risk students from defaulting on federal student loans. If the students failed to pay their tuition charges, they would be defaulting on a debt to the school, not to the government — a default that wouldn’t affect the school’s eligibility for federal funds.
For-profit schools, the GAO found, exhibited a tendency to admit unqualified students who are more likely than other students to drop out, as well as a pattern of allowing students to remain enrolled despite a lack of academic progress.
On the company’s Tuesday conference call, Apollo’s co-chief executive, Chas Edelstein, assured investors that the company is working to “ensure that only students who have a reasonable chance to succeed enroll in our universities,” as a means of trying to scale down the number of students who default on their student loans.
Apollo’s bad-debt expense — defaulted student loans the company has written off as uncollectable — rose to 4.2 percent in the fourth quarter, up from 3 percent.
Bookmark this article:
