Home > Students > Is the Secret Deal Between Your College & Your Bank Costing You?

Comments 0 Comments

It’s not all that hard to figure out: When your argument hits too close to home, the other side starts calling you names.

So when a vice president for government affairs of payments for the Financial Services Roundtable — the industry’s leading legislative advocate — calls the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau a “school yard bully” and accuses it of being “engaged in a shakedown” of colleges and universities for “being in cahoots” with banks and other financial services providers, my guess is that he’s less concerned about “students’ access to mainstream banking products” than he is about what the industry stands to lose if the regulatory and consumer-advocacy groups have their way.

The conflict has to do with the Obama administration’s plan to extend the U.S. Department of Education’s authority to regulate the use of a little piece of plastic known as a campus card.

The administration is doing that with good reason.

Campus cards are an affinity product, similar to Visa cards embossed with an airline’s logo or prepaid debit cards emblazoned with a famous athlete’s portrait. These campus cards, however, represent quite a bit more than a modest line of credit or the contents of a student’s bank account: It’s also used to conduit potentially significant sums of federal financial aid.

The issue isn’t so much the float that favors financial services institutions for as long as the money remains on deposit (undoubtedly in non-interest-bearing accounts). Nor does it really have to do with the bounty that the schools are paid for access to its captive audience of consumers. Rather, the scuffle has to do with the myriad fees the millions of students who use these cards every day might end up paying. We’re talking about swipe (per use), overdraft, inactivity and foreign-ATM fees, to name a few — a veritable jackpot of cash for institutions lucky enough to win an exclusive agreement with the college or university.

What I find especially interesting, however, is how the FSR has latched on to the CFPB’s call for greater transparency as yet another example of regulatory overreach. In fact, the assertion is as offensive as it is absurd, particularly when it frames it around a conjured image of a “…college freshman…reading stacks of contracts and legalese.”

What Students Stand to Gain

Transparency isn’t about chapter and verse, although access to that does indeed have value. It’s about disclosure: one of the many ethical practices that higher education institutions are supposed to be teaching our children. But disclosure aside, the meatier matters in this food fight really have to do with blended products and limited choice.

On the surface, campus cards make sense as a means for enhancing a school’s brand. Financial aid, however, is ultimately derived from taxpayer-backed government financing; while credit, debit, checking and prepaid accounts flow from the consumer. Why, then, are these two disparately funded account relationships combined into one? Is it because of ease and convenience? Or, perhaps, it’s the fee income? Moreover, if the students are responsible for every penny they borrow, is it right for them to also pay for the dollars that are subtracted from the very accounts into which the loan proceeds are deposited just because they exist?

It seems to me that a better course of action would be to separate the accounts that convey federal aid from those that facilitate the student’s day-to-day economic life. The government, financial services provider and school can decide how to share the economic benefits that accrue on the federally funded account, and the banks and schools can decide how to trade access for compensation with regard to the private accounts.

That brings me to my final point: consumer choice.

It’s less a matter of how much the schools stand to earn — a disclosure the schools should suck it up and make — than it is that the students are unable to reasonably compare products, services and costs when all they’re given is access to a sole provider. So what if their school earns a bounty when the products and services are competitively priced?

This closed system should be opened, if only because the schools shouldn’t try to teach students how to make informed decisions without empowering them to put that important knowledge to practical use.

More on Student Loans:

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not necessarily represent the views of the company or its affiliates.

Image: Wavebreakmedia Ltd 

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team