Home > Student Loans > Are Student Loan Servicers the Bad Guys or the Fall Guys?

Comments 1 Comment

There is plenty of blame to go around for the student-loan-debt debacle, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau along with the Departments of Education and Treasury are particularly interested in the role that the loan-servicing industry has played.

In its recent report on student loan payment performance, the CFPB analyzed some 30,000 comments it received from borrowers, financial services providers, law enforcement officials, banking regulators, policy experts and organizations that represent students, lenders, servicing companies and, of course, the schools.

The crux of the matter, according to the bureau, is that “there are no consistent, market-wide federal standards for student loan servicing and servicers generally have discretion to determine policies related to many aspects of servicing operations.” Hence the myriad complaints about incomplete or inaccurate information, payment processing issues and other problems—which vary in degree among loan-servicing companies—that contribute to the extraordinarily high level of payment delinquency and loan default that is emblematic of the second largest form of consumer-financing in the U.S.

The bureau’s report culminates in a series of reform recommendations to policymakers and a jointly issued statement of principles on student-loan servicing by the bureau and its governmental department collaborators: Servicers are to be consistent in their approach to the tasks at hand; information and recommendations are to be accurate and actionable; all servicers (for-profit and not-for-profit alike) will be held accountable for their missteps, and higher-quality performance-related data is to be made freely available.

The thing that most bothers me about this and earlier reports on the matter of loan-servicing malfeasance is the notion that servicers are exclusively at fault.

Don’t get me wrong. From all that I’ve read and heard firsthand from debtors who are actively dealing with many of the issues cited in the CFPB report, it’s hard not to conclude that even if they aren’t deliberately deceitful, some of these companies are at the very least hopelessly incompetent. But what about those who also stand to benefit from these injurious practices?

I’m talking about the noteholders — governmental and private sector alike, including investors to whom the loans are later sold — that hire these companies in the first place.

Let’s start by separating the policies and protocols that deal with the servicers’ internal operations (such as those that govern levels of approval and the order in which certain tasks are to be performed) from those that are contract-specific (such as policies and/or practices that are calculatingly designed to maximize financial rewards).

In the absence of those regulations that the bureau and others lament have yet to be enacted, loan servicers should at the very least be held accountable for improper actions that exclusively benefit the subcontractor, and jointly held responsible with the noteholders for those that benefit both.

That’s the least we can do. My preference, though, would be to hold both parties equally accountable in all things and let them sort that out in accordance with the binding terms of their contracts. After all, that’s why God invented indemnification clauses: Each party assures and holds harmless the other for the negative consequences of their individual actions. Doing so will also inspire each to more thoroughly underwrite and thoughtfully contemplate the qualifications and motivations of the other.

While we’re at it, let’s also align consumer loans that are second in size to residential mortgages with that form of financing by granting protections to student-loan borrowers that are consistent with those of homebuyers.

Specifically, mandatory arbitration should be prohibited (as the CFPB is contemplating, at least for class actions) so consumers may regain their constitutional right to trial by jury, among other things (including the right to file class-action suits). So too should we reverse the exclusions that federal student loans currently enjoy under the Truth in Lending Act, such as for late-payment-fee pyramiding, which can occur when a consumer’s loan payment is not first credited against unpaid principal and interest.

In fact, why not establish a universal protocol for the application of all remitted payments so principal and interest are credited first, outstanding fees (such as for late charges and bounced checks) second, and any remaining value is then automatically applied against principal?

As it now stands, unless the borrower formally instructs otherwise, the servicer may elect to credit the additional payment amount against the borrower’s future installments, which is akin to paying interest that has yet to be earned by the lender.

And, while we’re on the subject of universally applied protocols, let’s also address the matter of co-signed loans, which is more of an issue in the private sector than it is with Federal Direct and Federal Family Education Loan programs. Requiring a second signatory at the outset of the agreement is reasonable: Applications from young borrowers with limited earnings and scant credit histories typically require the support of those with more to offer in exchange for what is, in effect, an uncollateralized borrowing.

But is it fair to keep that co-borrower on the hook after the primary borrower has established his or her credit creds? I think not, especially when one considers the virtual inability to discharge education-related debts in bankruptcy.

A more equitable approach would be to mandate annual reviews to commence after two or three years of reasonably prompt payment history, for the purpose of releasing the co-signer from his or her obligation. I emphasize the word reasonably because in this context, it’s unreasonable to expect that first-time borrowers won’t miss a due date or two as they acclimate to post-college life.

Look, whether or not you agree with the manner in which the business of higher education is conducted — escalating tuition prices, the easy-credit policies that helped bring us to this point or the apparent unwillingness of our elected officials to address this problem once and for all — let’s not make it even harder for borrowers to do what the majority of them intend: to honor their obligations.
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: Wavebreak Media

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.

  • Credible News

    Reminds me of the mortgage meltdown — Sheila Bair was constantly urging subprime noteholders to come to grips with reality and let servicers do more for borrowers because in the long run, it was in their own best interest.

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

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.

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