Home > Students > Unstacking the Deck for Student Loan Borrowers

Comments 0 Comments

The proliferation of mandatory arbitration clauses in our everyday borrowing, purchasing and even working lives is once again making news.

In their excellent New York Times series, business writers Jessica Silver-Greenberg, Robert Gebeloff and Michael Corkery note that the use of this constitutional-rights-limiting language has become commonplace to the point that we’ve come to accept it without challenge.

Why? Because we have no choice but to do so.

I first wrote about this matter more than a year ago. I was trying to understand why so few class-action lawsuits were initiated despite the enormous volume of grievous complaints that had been (and continue to be) lodged against companies that administer public and private student loan agreements.

Then I learned that it’s because the governing documents subject such disputes to individual arbitration.

There’s an awful lot of money at stake here, as the industry’s defenders are making plain with fresh attack ads. Still, aggrieved borrowers have little recourse but to wait for others to take up the battle: Until the Justice Department challenges practices it deems “unfair and deceptive,” the Department of Education cites and fines its transgressing subcontractors, Congress elects to legislate a permanent solution, or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau addresses the issue as the Dodd-Frank Act authorized it to do (which is what’s made the agency the target of the aforementioned ad campaign).

For student borrowers, however, the use of arbitration clauses in education-related loan agreements is just one more example of how the financial-services industry has tipped the scale in its own favor. A case in point is the virtual inability to discharge these debt obligations in bankruptcy. Thanks to an effective lobbying effort by college-tuition lenders and others, Congress assured second-class citizenship for student borrowers within the context of its 2005 overhaul of the bankruptcy statutes.

So between a sympathetic judiciary that paved the way for these Constitution-subverting clauses to spread beyond what, arguably, the framers of the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 originally intended and a legislative branch that appears all too willing to accommodate the economic interests of its financial-industry benefactors, higher-education borrowers have been dealt a really bad hand.

The damage, however, is not limited to the surrender of these rights and strategies. It’s that the concept of good-faith negotiation has been fundamentally undermined.

Think about it. Why should a lender resolve a payment problem when it’s assured that it will ultimately collect all that it’s owed — and then some — even if it has to wait to garnish the borrower’s Social Security benefits to do so? Moreover, what’s to stop that same lender (or its agents) from pushing the limits of acceptable practices with as many customers as it can when it knows that their ability to band together in protest has been neutralized?

The notion of negotiating in good faith has become obsolete because there is no longer a compelling reason for that to occur, unless…

Nary has a week gone by without some mention of the $1.2 trillion student loan debacle-in-waiting. Yet despite all that talk, little has been done to legislate a universal restructuring of these loans (i.e., interest rate reductions in tandem with repayment term extensions) so that they are more likely to be repaid in full.

Why? Because lower rates and longer durations translate into higher federal deficits and diminished investor returns.

But what if instead of complaining about the game, we insisted on reshuffling the deck? What if we restored dischargeability and jury trials for education-related debts? I’ll wager that not only will we experience a renaissance of good-faith negotiations, but we’ll also see quick action taken on restructuring the entire student-loan portfolio.

Why? Because given a newly altered legal landscape coupled with the uncollateralized nature of these loans, lenders will be more apt to take that deal than their chances in court.

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: michaeljung

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