The “borrower defense” final rule (Final Rule) issued by the Dept. of Education in November 2016 took effect at noon yesterday after Judge Randolph D. Moss of the D.C. federal district court refused to grant the renewed motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools (CAPPS) seeking to preliminary enjoin the arbitration ban and class action waiver provisions in the Final Rule.  CAPPS had sought to block the provisions from taking effect pending the resolution of the lawsuit filed by CAPPS against the ED and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to overturn the Final Rule.  Judge Moss found that CAPPS had filed to show that any of its members was likely to suffer an irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction.

Shortly before the Final Rule’s initial July 1, 2017 effective date, CAPPS filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to which the ED responded by issuing a stay of the Final Rule under Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).  The Section 705 stay was followed by the ED’s issuance of an interim final rule delaying the effective date until July 1, 2018 and the promulgation of a final rule further delaying the effective date until July 1, 2019 (Final Rule Delay).

On September 12, 2018, Judge Moss issued an opinion and order in Bauer v. DeVos, another case challenging the Final Rule in which he ruled that the ED’s rationale for issuing the Section 705 stay was arbitrary and capricious and that in issuing the Final Rule Delay, the ED had improperly invoked the good cause exception to the Higher Education Act’s negotiated rulemaking requirement.  The case consolidated two separate lawsuits filed after the ED’s issuance of the Section 705 stay, with one filed by two individual plaintiffs and the other by a coalition of nineteen states and the District of Columbia.  Both lawsuits were subsequently amended to challenge not only the Section 705 stay but also the other actions taken by the ED to delay the Final Rule’s effective date.  While Judge Moss vacated the Section 705 stay, he stayed the vacatur until 5 p.m. on October 12, 2018.

After the ED filed a notice with the court in June 2017 regarding its initial delay of the Final Rule’s effective date until July 1, 2018, CAPPS withdrew its motion for preliminary injunction.  Following the court’s decision in Bauer, CAPPS filed its renewed motion for a preliminary injunction.  In his decision denying CAPPS’ motion, Judge Moss stated that on October 12, the court extended the stay of the vacatur until noon on October 16.

The Final Rule broadly addresses the ability of a student to assert a school’s misconduct as a defense to repayment of a federal student loan.  It does not apply to private loans.  The Final Rule includes a ban on all pre-dispute arbitration agreements for borrower defense claims by schools receiving Title IV assistance under the Higher Education Act (HEA) and a new federal standard for evaluating borrower defenses to repayment of Direct Loans (i.e. federal student loans made by the ED).  Both mandatory and voluntary pre-dispute arbitration agreements are prohibited by the rule, whether or not they contain opt-out clauses, and schools are prohibited from relying on any pre-dispute arbitration or other agreement to block a borrower from asserting a borrower defense claim in a class action lawsuit until the court has denied class certification and the time for any interlocutory review has elapsed or the review has been resolved.  The prohibition applies retroactively to pre-dispute arbitration or other agreements addressing class actions entered into before July 1, 2017.

It would seem that because the Final Rule is now effective, the new federal standard it establishes for evaluating defenses to repayment would be applicable in actions seeking to collect on Direct Loans disbursed on or after July 1, 2017 or to recover amounts previously collected on such loans.  However, because the arbitration ban and class action provisions of the Final Rule are requirements with which a school must comply as a condition of receiving Title IV assistance, the ED presumably could waive such requirements (as well as other provisions subject to ED enforcement such as the actions and events in the Final Rule that can trigger a requirement for a school to provide a letter of credit or other financial protection to the ED to insure against future borrower defense claims and other liabilities to the ED.)

Earlier this week, Judge Randolph D. Moss of the D.C. federal district court heard oral argument on the renewed motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools (CAPPS) seeking to preliminary enjoin the arbitration ban and class action waiver provisions in the “borrower defense” final rule (Final Rule) issued by the Dept. of Education in November 2016 pending the resolution of the lawsuit filed by CAPPS against the ED and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to overturn the Final Rule.

Shortly before the Final Rule’s initial July 1, 2017 effective date, CAPPS filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to which the ED responded by issuing a stay of the Final Rule under Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).  The Section 705 stay was followed by the ED’s issuance of an interim final rule delaying the effective date until July 1, 2018 and the promulgation of a final rule further delaying the effective date until July 1, 2019 (Final Rule Delay).

On September 12, 2018, Judge Moss issued an opinion and order in Bauer v. DeVos, another case challenging the Final Rule in which he ruled that the ED’s rationale for issuing the Section 705 stay was arbitrary and capricious and that in issuing the Final Rule Delay, the ED had improperly invoked the good cause exception to the Higher Education Act’s negotiated rulemaking requirement.  The case consolidated two separate lawsuits filed after the ED’s issuance of the Section 705 stay, with one filed by two individual plaintiffs and the other by a coalition of nineteen states and the District of Columbia.  Both lawsuits were subsequently amended to challenge not only the Section 705 stay but also the other actions taken by the ED to delay the Final Rule’s effective date.  While Judge Moss vacated the Section 705 stay, he stayed the vacatur until 5 p.m. on October 12, 2018.

After the ED filed a notice with the court in June 2017 regarding its initial delay of the Final Rule’s effective date until July 1, 2018, CAPPS withdrew its motion for preliminary injunction.  Following the court’s decision in Bauer, CAPPS filed its renewed motion for a preliminary injunction.  Oral argument on the renewed motion was held on October 9, 2018.  According to a Politico report, Judge Moss, who was appointed by President Obama under whose administration the Final Rule was promulgated, was skeptical about arguments made by CAPPs that its member colleges would be irreparably harmed if the Final Rule took effect, questioning whether some potential harm to the schools was too speculative or premature for him to address.

The Final Rule broadly addresses the ability of a student to assert a school’s misconduct as a defense to repayment of a federal student loan.  It includes a ban on all pre-dispute arbitration agreements for borrower defense claims by schools receiving Title IV assistance under the Higher Education Act (HEA) and a new federal standard for evaluating borrower defenses to repayment of Direct Loans (i.e. federal student loans made by the ED).  Both mandatory and voluntary pre-dispute arbitration agreements are prohibited by the rule, whether or not they contain opt-out clauses, and schools are prohibited from relying on any pre-dispute arbitration or other agreement to block a borrower from asserting a borrower defense claim in a class action lawsuit until the court has denied class certification and the time for any interlocutory review has elapsed or the review has been resolved.  The prohibition applies retroactively to pre-dispute arbitration or other agreements addressing class actions entered into before July 1, 2017.

On August 31, 2018, following negotiated rulemaking, the ED published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would rescind the Final Rule and replace it with the “Institutional Accountability regulations” contained in the proposal.  Among the major changes to the Final Rule that would be made by the proposal is the removal of the Final Rule’s ban on the use of pre-dispute arbitration agreements and class action waivers.

As of now, Judge Moss’s ruling in Bauer creates the possibility that the Final Rule could become effective as soon as 5:00 p.m. tomorrow.  It seems likely that there will be further developments in the CAPPS litigation before that time.

 

On September 28, 2018, the Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation issued a notice advising companies servicing student loans of Maryland borrowers to provide their contact information to the state’s new Student Loan Ombudsman by November 15, 2015.

Maryland’s “Financial Consumer Protection Act of 2018” went into effect on October 1, 2015. The Act imposes a number of new regulations, and also creates the post of Student Loan Ombudsman. Under the Act, all loan servicers engaged in servicing student loans made to Maryland residents must provide the Ombudsman with the name, phone number and e-mail address of the individual designated to represent the servicer in communications with the Ombudsman. The deadline to comply with this requirement is November 15, 2018.

The Ombudsman is charged with receiving and working to resolve complaints submitted by student borrowers. The Ombudsman will also analyze and compile data related to such complaints, and the analysis of that data will be disclosed to the public along with the names of student loan servicers engaging in any abusive, unfair, deceptive or fraudulent practices.

In addition to its responsibilities related to student borrower complaints, the Ombudsman will also engage in educational efforts with both students and the state legislature. With respect to students, the Ombudsman will help student loan borrowers to understand their rights and responsibilities under the terms of their student loans. The Ombudsman is also directed to establish a student loan borrower education course by October 1, 2019.

The Ombudsman will also provide annual reports to the governor and Maryland General Assembly, along with making recommendations for statutory and regulatory procedures to resolve student loan borrower issues. These recommendations are to include an assessment of whether Maryland should require licensing or registration of student loan servicers.

California Governor Jerry Brown has signed into law Assembly Bill 38, which significantly modifies the scope, administration, and servicing requirements of the state’s Student Loan Servicing Act.  The bill was approved by the California Assembly 55-23-2 and the California Senate 28-11-1 with the intent to “build upon existing law to ensure that the Student Loan Servicing Act’s goals are met as the federal government enacts new regulations.”  The bill contains no provisions delaying its immediate effectiveness.

In its most dramatic change, the bill narrows the scope of the Act by adding an exemption and redefining several terms.  The bill carves out from coverage guaranty agencies engaged in default aversion through an agreement with the Secretary of Education and redefines “student loan servicer” to exclude a debt collector who exclusively services defaulted student loans—federal loans where no payment has been received for 270 days or more and private student loans in default according to the terms of the borrower’s agreement.  The Act also adds a section to clarify that any person claiming an exemption or an exception from a definition has the burden of proving that exemption or exception.

Reflecting these changes, the licensing trigger has been restricted to those who “engage in the business of servicing a student loan in this state.”  The previous definition included any person “directly or indirectly” engaged in servicing.  However, an out-of-state entity is still deemed to be servicing “in this state” if it services loans to California residents.  In further modifying the Act’s scope, the term “student loan” has also been changed from a loan made “primarily” to finance a postsecondary education to a loan made “solely” to finance a postsecondary education.

The bill also provides significant licensing changes. Now, the commissioner may require that applications, filings, and assessments be completed through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System & Registry (NMLS).  The commissioner is further empowered  to waive or modify NMLS requirements, use NMLS “as a channeling agent for requesting information from and distributing information to” the Department of Justice and other governmental agencies, and to create a process by which licensees may challenge information entered into the NMLS by the commissioner.

The criteria for denying a license application have been clarified, and now include: failure to meet a material requirement for issuance of a license; violations of a similar regulatory scheme of California or a foreign jurisdiction; liability in any civil action by final judgment or an administrative judgment by any public agency within the past seven years; and failure to establish that the business will be operated honestly, fairly, efficiently, and in accordance with the requirements of the Act.  Additionally, applicants must now appoint the commissioner as an agent for service of process.

With respect to servicing requirements, the bill extends the timeframe within which a servicer must acknowledge a borrower’s Qualified Written Request (QWR) to ten business days.  Previously, the Act and the most recent round of regulations required that servicers acknowledge a QWR within five business days, except when the servicer fulfilled the borrower’s request within that period.

CFPB Acting Director Mick Mulvaney recently responded to former CFPB Student Loan Ombudsman Seth Frotman’s vocal departure from the Bureau.  As previously reported, Frotman tendered his resignation in a letter—also delivered to members of Congress—which accused Mulvaney of being derelict in his oversight of the “student loan market.”  Among other things,  Frotman accused Mulvaney of undercutting enforcement, undermining the Bureau’s independence, and shielding “bad actors” from scrutiny—collectively, “us[ing] the Bureau to serve the wishes of the most powerful financial companies in America.”

In an interview addressing the letter, Mulvaney has emphasized that he is focused on the explicit statutory authority provided in the Dodd-Frank Act, including the limitations on his oversight of student loans.  When asked about Frotman’s resignation, Mulvaney responded that he “never met the gentleman” and “doesn’t know who he is.”  Mulvaney has served as Acting Director since November 2017.  Frotman joined the Bureau during its creation in 2011 to focus on military lending issues as a senior advisor to Holly Petraeus (the Assistant Director for the Office of Servicemember Affairs) and transitioned to the Private Education Loan Ombudsman in April 2016.  Mulvaney added, “I talked to his supervisor who met with him on a regular basis during the nine months I’ve [been] there; [Frotman] never complained about anything that was happening at the Bureau, so I think he was more interested in getting his name in the paper.”

In his resignation letter, Frotman noted that the “Student Loan Ombudsman,” statutorily created by Section 1035 of the Dodd-Frank Act, was authorized to “provide timely assistance to borrowers,” “compile and analyze” borrower complaints, and “make appropriate recommendations” to the Director of the CFPB, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of the Treasury, and Congressional committees regarding student loans.  Frotman, however, omits any mention of statutory limits to the Ombudsman’s authority.  Section 1035—titled “Private Education Loan Ombudsman”—directs the Ombudsman to “provide timely assistance to borrowers of private education loans,” “compile and analyze data on borrower complaints regarding private education loans” and to “receive, review, and attempt to resolve informally complaints from borrowers of [private education] loans.”

With respect to federal student loans, Section 1035 of the Dodd Frank Act only contemplates the Private Education Loan Ombudsman’s cooperation with the Department of Education’s student loan ombudsman through a memorandum of understanding (MOU).  Mulvaney noted the somewhat informal nature of the MOU created during the Obama administration, referring to it as a “handshake agreement.”  Arguably signaling an intent to defer to the Department of Education on federal student loan issues, Mulvaney stated that the issue he is most “worr[ied] about [is] the growth in …student loans” because federal involvement in the market has created a “disconnect between the making of a loan and the repaying of [a] loan.”

The District of Columbia Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking (DISB) published its final rules under the Student Loan Ombudsman Establishment and Servicing Regulation Amendment Act of 2016.  The final rules became effective when published in the D.C. Register on August 10, 2018.

The rules are unchanged from the latest revisions.  In its notice of publication, the DISB explained that it rejected proposals to create a multi-year licensing period and to allow additional time for servicers to provide requested records to the Commissioner because the Department had disposed of the same issues in prior rounds of rulemaking.

Seth Frotman, the CFPB’s Student Loan Ombudsman, has sent a letter to CFPB Acting Director Mulvaney tendering his resignation effective September 1, 2018.  (In addition to Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and Department of Education Secretary DeVos, Mr. Frotman’s letter indicates that copies were sent to various Senate and House lawmakers.)

In his letter, Mr. Frotman is highly critical of the CFPB’s actions in the student loan arena.  He comments that the Bureau’s current leadership “has abandoned its duty to fairly and robustly enforce the law,”  “has made its priorities clear—it will protect the misguided goals of the Trump Administration to the detriment of student loan borrowers,” and “has turned its back on young people and their financial futures.”

 

 

The Department of Education has issued a proposal that would rescind the “Borrower Defense” final rule issued by the ED in November 2016 and replace it with the “Institutional Accountability regulations” contained in the proposal.  Among the major changes to the final rule that would be made by the proposal is the removal of the final rule’s ban on the use of pre-dispute arbitration agreements  and class action waivers for borrower defense claims by schools receiving Title IV assistance under the Higher Education Act (HEA).  Comments on the proposal are due by August 30, 2018.

Although the final rule had an initial effective date of July 1, 2017, there has been a series of postponements of the effective date.  A final rule published by the ED in February 2018 established July 1, 2019 as the current effective date.  In the supplementary information accompanying the proposal, the ED indicates that the negotiated rulemaking committee it established to develop proposed revisions to the 2016 final rule did not reach a consensus on the proposal.

The proposal includes the following significant changes to the 2016 final rule:

  • The final rule created a new federal standard for a “borrower defense” asserted with respect to Direct Loans and loans repaid by Direct Consolidated Loans.  A Direct Loan is a federal student loan made by the ED under the Direct Loan Program and a Direct Consolidated Loan is a federal student loan made by the ED under the Direct Loan Program that repays multiple Direct Loans or other specified loans.  A “borrower defense” includes a defense to repayment of amounts owed on such loans and a right to recover amounts previously collected on such loans.  Before 2015, the ED interpreted the Higher Education Act (HEA) to only allow a borrower to raise a “borrower defense” as a defense to repayment in a collection action.  The final rule codified the ED’s new 2015 interpretation that also allowed a borrower to raise a borrower defense in an affirmative claim for loan relief.  In the proposal, the ED seeks comment on whether it should return to its pre-2015 interpretation and only allow “defensive” claims from defaulted borrowers who are in a collections proceeding or accept both “defensive” and “affirmative” claims, including claims from borrowers still in repayment.
  • Prior to the 2016 final rule, a borrower defense could only be asserted based on an act or omission of a school that would give rise to a cause of action against the school under applicable state law.  The final rule created a new federal standard for Direct Loans disbursed after the final rule’s effective date under which a borrower defense could be a non-default, favorable contested judgment against a school, a school’s breach of contract, or a substantial misrepresentation made by a school on which the borrower reasonably relied to his or her detriment when deciding to attend or continue attending the school or deciding to take a Direct Loan.  The proposal would create a different federal standard for defenses to repayment based upon misrepresentations and would remove a breach of contract or judgment as a basis for borrower defense relief.  Instead, a judgment or breach could be considered evidence of a misrepresentation to the extent it bears on an act or omission related to the educational services provided.  Under the proposed federal standard, a defense to payment could only be based on a misrepresentation on which the borrower reasonably relied in deciding to obtain a Direct Loan, or a loan repaid by a Direct Consolidation Loan, for the student to enroll or continue enrollment in a program at the school and the borrower suffered financial harm as a result of the school’s misrepresentation.  A misrepresentation would be defined as a statement, act, or omission by a school to a borrower that is false, misleading, or deceptive, and made with knowledge of its false, misleading, or deceptive nature or with reckless disregard for the truth, and that directly and clearly relates to the making of a Direct Loan, or a loan repaid by a Direct Consolidation Loan, for enrollment at the school or to the provision of educational services for which the loan was made.
  • Under the 2016 final rule, a borrower defense claim based on a substantial misrepresentation could be asserted at any time but, to recover amounts previously collected on a Direct Loan, it had to be asserted not later than six years after the borrower discovered, or reasonably could have discovered, the information constituting the substantial misrepresentation.  The proposal would allow a borrower to assert a defense to payment at any time once the loan is in collections, including to recover amounts previously collected on a Direct Loan.  If the ED decides to continue to allow affirmative borrower defense claims, it proposes to only allow such claims to be filed within three years of the end date of the borrower’s enrollment at the school alleged to have made the misrepresentation.
  • The 2016 final rule bans both mandatory and voluntary pre-dispute arbitration agreements, whether or not they contain opt-out clauses, and class action waivers for borrower defense claims by schools receiving Title IV assistance under the HEA.  In adopting the final rule, the ED rejected the argument that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) barred the ED from including a ban on class action waivers or mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements.  When the final rule was adopted, we expressed our strongly-held view that the ED’s position was incorrect and that the final rule’s arbitration provisions were preempted by the FAA.  In stark contrast, the proposal would allow schools to use pre-dispute arbitration agreements or class action waivers as a condition to enrollment.  Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2018 decision in Epic Systems, the ED states that it believes “the Supreme Court’s recent affirmation of the Federal policy in favor of arbitration may warrant a different approach to these regulations.”  The ED also references Congress’ disapproval of the CFPB’s arbitration rule pursuant to the Congressional Review Act and states that “[i]n light of Congress’ clear action, the Department believes a change in its position to align with the strong Federal policy in favor of arbitration is appropriate.”  The ED’s supplementary information describes the potential advantages of arbitration, including that it can be quicker than litigation and “allow borrowers to obtain greater relief than they would in a consumer class action case where attorneys often benefit most.”  The proposal would require schools using pre-dispute arbitration agreements or class action waivers to satisfy the following conditions:
    • The school must make available on its website where information about admissions and costs is presented (which cannot solely be an intranet website), a plain language disclosure that the agreement or waiver is a condition of enrollment.
    • As part of entrance counseling, a school must provide: a description of its dispute resolution process that the borrower has agreed to pursue as a condition of enrollment, including the name and contact information for the individual or office that the borrower can contact regarding a dispute; a written description of how and when the agreement or waiver applies, how the borrower enters into the arbitration process or, for class action waivers, alternative processes the borrower can pursue to seek redress; and who to contact with borrower questions.

The proposal also includes changes relating to an array of other subjects such as: the charging of collection costs to defaulted borrowers by guaranty agencies; the capitalization of interest on loans sold by guaranty agencies after the completion of loan rehabilitation; financial responsibility provisions that establish the conditions or events that have or may have an adverse material effect on a school’s financial condition and which warrant the school’s provision of a letter of credit or other financial protection to the ED; the circumstances under which borrowers can qualify for a closed school discharge; and actions by the ED against schools to collect loan amounts discharged based on successful borrower defense claims or to obtain reimbursement of discharge amounts repaid to borrowers by the ED based on such claims.

 

 

The California Department of Business Oversight (DBO) has published a second round of modifications to its proposed regulations under the State’s Student Loan Servicing Act.  As previously covered, the DBO published its first round of revised rules last month.

The latest revisions to the regulations clarify servicer responsibilities related to application of payments, borrower communications and handling of qualified written requests (QWRs), and recordkeeping requirements, among other miscellaneous changes.

Payments

The initial regulations provided that a servicer must credit any online payment the same day it is paid by the borrower, if paid before the daily cut off time for same day crediting posted on the servicer’s website, or the next day, if paid after the posted cut off time.  These requirements, which were unmodified by the first round of revisions, have now been changed to clarify that servicers must only apply payments the same or next business day, depending on whether received before or after the published cut off time.

Borrower Communications and Qualified Written Requests

The Act requires that a servicer respond to QWRs by acknowledging receipt of the request within five business days and, within 30 days, providing information relating to the request and an explanation of any account action, if applicable.  The first round of revised regulations added the limitation that a servicer is only required to send a borrower a total of three notices for duplicative requests.  The latest revisions add two additional provisions.  First, servicers are only required to send an acknowledgement of receipt within five days if the action requested by the borrower has not been taken within five days of receipt.  Second, servicers may designate a specific electronic or physical address to which QWRs must be sent.  If designated, however, this information must be posted on the servicer’s website.

The revised regulations also further specify what is required of customer service representatives.  Now, federal and private loan servicer representatives must inform callers about alternative repayment plans if the caller inquires about repayment options.  Federal loan servicers must now also inform callers about loan forgiveness benefits, if the caller inquires about repayment options.  These regulations have evolved significantly.  The initial regulations required that representatives “be capable of discussing” alternative repayment plan and loan forgiveness benefits with callers, and be trained in the difference between forbearance and alternative repayment plans.  The latest revisions have added specific triggers for discussing repayment options—and forgiveness benefits for federal loans.

Servicer Records

The first round of revisions eliminated the DBO’s specific record keeping formatting requirements.  In its place, the latest round of revisions has added the general requirement that the books and records required by the act must be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.  The new revisions also change the information required as part of the aggregate student loan servicing report to require the number of monthly payments required to repay the loan.

The modifications are subject to comment until July 25, 2018.  As with the first round, the revisions will not be effective until approved by the Office of Administrative Law and filed with the Secretary of State.

The CFPB has issued a new report, “Data Point: Final Student Loan Payments and Broader Household Borrowing,” which looks at repayment patterns for student loans and how borrowers who have repaid their student loans subsequently use credit.  The CFPB’s analysis focuses on borrowers when they first pay off individual student loans.  The report uses data from the Bureau’s Consumer Credit Panel, a nationally-representative sample of approximately five million de-identified credit records maintained by one of the three nationwide credit reporting companies.

Key findings include the following:

  • Most borrowers paying off a student loan do so before the scheduled due date of the final payment, often with a single large final payment.  The median final payment made on a student loan is 55 times larger than the scheduled payment (implying a payoff at least 55 months ahead of schedule), with 94 percent of final payments exceeding the scheduled payment and only 6 percent of loans paid off with the final few payments equal to the scheduled payments.
  • Most borrowers paying off a student loan early also simultaneously reduce their credit card balances and make large payments on their other student loans.  These borrowers are also 31 percent more likely to take out their first mortgage loan in the year following the payoff.  While this evidence shows that early student loan payoffs coincide with increased home purchases, the simultaneous reduction in credit card and other student loan balances suggests that increased wealth or income may influence when borrowers pay off student loans, reduce credit card balances, and purchase homes.
  • Most borrowers who pay off a student loan by making all of the scheduled payments pay down other debts in the months following payoff rather than take on new debt.  Those borrowers with additional student loans put 24 percent and 16 percent of their newly-available funds toward, respectively, paying down their other student loans faster and reducing credit card balances.  Unlike borrowers paying off a student loan early, borrowers paying off on schedule are not more likely to take out a mortgage for the first time.

The CFPB observes that because the results discussed in the report show that repayment of one type of debt directly affects payments and borrowing on other kinds of debt, “policies and products that change repayment terms or balances for one credit product are likely to have spillover effects on  others, either enhancing the intended effects (e.g. payment relief, increased credit access) or leading to compensating shifts (e.g. reallocated payments or borrowing).”  As a result, the CFPB believes that analyzing borrower behavior across all liabilities can improve its understanding of the underlying mechanisms that influence behavior and allow it to more accurately predict the impact of new policies or products on consumers and the overall marketplace.

The CFPB also notes that while its analysis focuses on student loan borrowers who successfully pay off their loans, similar approaches could be applied to struggling student borrowers and might shed light on how borrowers use other credit products to cope with their student debt, how their access to other credit may be inhibited, and how available repayment plans and other programs change these outcomes.