Home > Students > Student Loan Servicers Aren’t the Only Problem…

Comments 0 Comments

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced Thursday that it’s launching a public inquiry into student loan industry practices that make repayment “a stressful or harmful process for borrowers.”

So, in its search for ways to make that repayment process something other than today’s less-than-awesome experience, the bureau is soliciting comments on student loan servicing policies, procedures and practices. Those includes the role that compensation programs may play in driving certain behaviors, the extent to which regulatory oversight may need to be augmented and the reasons that fundamentally important information isn’t getting to relief-seeking borrowers.

Although the bureau’s intentions are good and the inquiry it’s launching has the potential to favorably influence public policy, we’re kidding ourselves if we believe that this problem begins and ends with the loan servicers. It doesn’t, for the simple reason that these companies are merely acting at the behest of those that have much more at stake.

I’m talking about the note-holders: lenders—including the federal government—and investors, who continue to finance a good portion of this lending activity after-the-fact. These are the ones who ultimately call the shots because they have the most capital at risk, in the form of the unpaid loan balances.

This is not to say that some over-zealous servicers don’t take undue advantage of incentive-compensation programs. Let’s just not forget who put these rewards into effect in the first place, the negatively-amortizing forbearances that may well be a byproduct of that and, of course, the Truth in Lending Act exemptions that make things even worse.

All that in mind, here are five actions that policymakers and regulators should take for the benefit of the vast majority of student borrowers who are trying to do the right thing.

1. Equal Accountability

Loan servicers are hired guns. So it’s reasonable to presume that the entities that engage their services are either in agreement with or behind the policies and protocols that govern their work. Consequently, these entities (the note-holders, in this instance) should be held equally responsible for any misdeeds committed on their behalf.

2. Reasonable Compensation

Given the high level of payment delinquency and default, loan administrators must be made to respond more quickly and address remittance problems more completely. One way to achieve that result would be to pay increasingly lower servicing fees for loans that are increasingly past due. And to dissuade servicers from shunting distressed borrowers into anything other than permanently restructured arrangements, all temporary accommodations should continue to be counted as delinquent until routine payments have resumed.

3. Rational Restructuring

There is no point in granting relief today that leaves the borrower with an even higher bill he or she won’t be able to pay tomorrow, which is why short-term accommodations that incorporate negative amortization should be prohibited. In cases where temporary relief is truly appropriate, however, lenders should either structure these forbearances with interest-only payments to prevent the loan balance from increasing or forgo assessing interest altogether during that period.

4. Appropriate Protections

Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act, is very specific about the manner in which certain consumer loan remittances are credited: principal and interest before all other assessments. Otherwise, the potential for fee pyramiding exists, where crediting an unremitted late-payment fee first will cause the principal or interest portion to come up short, which in turn will trigger yet another late-payment fee. Although Reg Z prohibits fee pyramiding on mortgages, Title IV (federal) student loans are exempt. This exemption should be repealed if for no other reason than it is immoral.

5. Fair Resolutions

Like many other forms of consumer finance, student loan contracts typically contain a provision in which borrowers have no choice but to agree to waive their right to a trial by jury and instead have their disputes privately resolved by a panel of “experts.” This provision also precludes the ability to file class action suits. Interestingly, Reg Z was amended to prohibit mandatory arbitration for residential-mortgage-loan applications as of June 1, 2013. Here too, student borrowers deserve the same consideration.

No doubt, the CFPB will get an earful on the subject of student loan servicing—both from the standpoint of those who are genuinely frustrated in their efforts to honor their obligations and from a financial services industry that is desperately seeking to preserve the generous latitudes and income it currently enjoys. But wouldn’t we all be better off with a more balanced approach—one that fairly compensates lenders and servicers for their fair treatment of those who, when you think about it, are responsible for that very same compensation?

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

More on Student Loans:

Image: Purestock

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