Category Archives: Letters to Regulators

No Thumbnail

Joint Letter: 62 Orgs Urge ED to Reject Changes that Weaken Accountability

Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund joined with 61 other organizations to tell the Department of Education that we are closely monitoring their ongoing efforts to recklessly deregulate higher education. As 62 organizations and advocates for students, families, taxpayers, veterans and service members, we wrote

No Thumbnail

Joint Letter: 68 Orgs Call on Dept of ED to Preserve Gainful Employment Rule

Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund joined with 67 other organizations working on behalf of students, consumers, vets, servicemembers, civil rights, & college access to urder Education Secretary Betsy Devos not to eliminate the gainful employment rule, which serves to defend students from high-cost, low-return career ed

No Thumbnail

Letter to the Regulators: AFR Submits Comment on Borrower Defense NPRM

“The Proposed Rule is a brazen attempt to dismantle more than 20 years of borrowers’ rights to a defense to repayment on their loans when schools break the law. This dismantling will do nothing more than unleash a new wave of waste, fraud and abuse. This country teaches people that education is a path to a better life. For far too many years, allowing Title IV funds to flow to institutions engaging in fraud has turned this dream into a nightmare for their students. If the Department continues down this path of dismantling the right to a borrower defense, its legacy will be condemning students to lives full of poverty, while allowing executives of predatory proprietary institutions to become wealthy at their expense.”

No Thumbnail

Joint Letter: SEC Broker Proposal Fails To Establish Strong Standard or Mitigate Conflicts

The rule’s most significant failing is that it does not establish a clear uniform best interest standard, one that is no less stringent than that found in the Investment Advisers’ Act, for all professionals who provide investment advice to retail clients. Instead, it adopts a weaker standard for broker-dealers that falls short of a true best interest standard and does not adequately address the conflicts of interest that too often are permitted to taint broker-dealers’ recommendations.