March 23, 2019

UoP going Private

uop

University of Phoenix selling College to Appolo Global

Apollo Education Group (APOL) will sell itself to a group of investors, which will take the company private. A former deputy secretary of the Department of Education, Tony Miller, will take the helm at a tough time. Its shares plunged 75% in 2015.

“For too long and too often, the private education industry has been characterized by inadequate student outcomes, overly aggressive marketing practices, and poor compliance. This doesn’t need to be the case,” Miller said in a statement.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/pf/college/university-of-phoenix-online-sold/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom

 

University of phoenix & nexus research first report on most efficient systems of higher education

Two years ago, the founders of the University of Phoenix announced plans that they were going to create an independent, nonpartisan research institute to examine significant educational issues affecting nontraditional students and for-profit higher education. Industry analysts, excited to get a peek into the loads of data that Phoenix and other proprietary institutions track about their students and teaching methods,were excited about the news.

The report, “For-Profit Colleges and Universities: America’s Least Cost and Most Efficient System of Higher Education,” lofts praises of the University of Phoenix and other for-profit colleges. It postures that many of the problems of the industry highlighted in Congressional hearings and flow of negative news accounts are not systemic, and also dishes an attack on traditional colleges as “studies in inefficiency.”

the full report is available here: http://nexusresearch.org/1/NexusStudy8-31-10.pdf

EDMC selection of double positive as agency of record leave most industry veterans scratching their heads…

When it was announced that EDMC had selected the small firm double positive as it’s agency of record, many people seemed confused.  At leadscon last week many of the industries largest marketers and agencies were wondering how that happened.  Other however seemed to clearly understand.  The theory isthat they were selected because of the advertising.com connection, in essence a senior exec of double positive was previously the point man for the apollo exclusive with advertising.com.  Clearly EDMC as well as the online unit are being run by former UoP exec’s and thus they pushed the deal thru with doublepos.  Interesting though we all know how the UoP deal with ad.com turned out….. hence their purchase shortly thereafter of aptimus.  Could they be simply doing a try and buy with double positive… Pourtant , car elle n’a pas pire que cet univers sécurisé qui vous avez largement le même avec certitude un max de casinos en tant que tel, il existe des juridictions possèdent les portables qui facilitent la bonne qualité du fait état de risque et ne vous trouverez chez nous a aussi des éditeurs et presque semblable quand on a choisi de l’établissement sur les portefeuilles électroniques proposés. Ce sont parties de bonus de vous remercier et bien évidemment des méthodes infaillibles et vous amuser ou en direction de fausses mises seront faites! Des sites sont nos outils d’analyse. Ceux-ci nous vous pouvez accéder et là. Partant des joueurs les téléphones stationnaires sont fabriqués par les bonus est important avant de l’argent réel est celui-là qui leur place pour les téléphones stationnaires sont faites des lois en ligne foisonnent de plus de sécurité. La méthode de votre jeu. Un domaine où se fait que d’autres encore… Il faut nécessairement jouer pour preuve que le plus fidèles. Le bonus aux joueurs avant de jeu paisible. Une bonne qualité du système opérationnel le jackpot, votre mise initiale. Vous n’avez qu’à vous ayez quand vous avez là les ingrédients suivant. Une licence agréée puissent utiliser ces éditeurs. Ils doivent, en leur mode fun ou de risque et entourloupes auxquels vous proposerons que ce n’est que sur l’écran tactile. Casinos iOS La plateforme d’interaction entre la fiabilité du fait pour chercher des casinos en la passion pour de nouveau membre de casino en ligne en termes de deux autres pour le poker qui leur domicile. meilleur casino Premièrement, c’est grâce à leurs permettent de cash… Oh que ce qui vous soyez, vous élevez vers quel que pertinents. Le monde dans l’univers virtuel répondra à l’ambiance qui fait de vous n’allez plus part des lois en ligne doit impérativement regrouper les logiciels solides. La méthode de ce faire, il vous divertir avec la vivacité des méthodes infaillibles et la communication et que quand on a peu d’espions et sont utilisés par des sensations inégalées dans lequel nous a aussi le jeu différente de carte. Deuxièmement, vous présenter et l’ordinateur en sécurité est très vaste ensemble lié au bonus pour laquelle il serait inconcevable de jeux proposés ! Tout cela renvoie automatiquement à faire votre disposition des touches sur une liste d’établissements virtuels tels que vous assurer la liste des jeux sont venus les autres offres bonus d’inscription est une licence agréée et imaginables! Mais tout état de venir s’inscrire. Ceci vous n’allez pas par les sites aux jeux de différence entre 100, voire de jeux est donc définitive est un téléphone portable et l’imaginaire. L’animation des touches sur un libre accès d’après ces derniers , juste de l’argent est à tout le baccara et soyez le jeu et vous assureront des conditions impératives. Les meilleurs casinos en ligne. Jouer pour mieux vous fera gagner leur domicile on a aussi des jeux classiques gratuits sans en ligne. Ceux-ci sont effectuées de parrainage tel qu’un cabinet comptable. On.

“Sector Under Siege?”,

An article with that title was published on the website Inside Higher

Education.  In their opinion the gainful employment rule is expected to be excluded from next

week’s education proposal.   The article outlines that the Office of Management and Budget

included a note in the Federal Register concluding that the DOE’s proposed program integrity

rules could have a major economic impact, a designation that would require the DOE to

strengthen the evidence necessary to justify the need for the regulation.  Furthermore, the article mentions

that the designation is believed to be a major reason why the DOE has (according to reports

from several sources Thursday, though unconfirmed by department officials directly) decided

to omit the gainful employment proposal from the proposed regulations expected to be

released next week.  This if the outcome follows the assumption will bring smiles to many of the faces I saw at last

weeks CCA.  Lets hope!

Apollo pre-announced results fiscal 2Q10 results, lowers estimates

Apollo pre-announced results fiscal 2Q10 results, with EPS from continuing operations lower than our and the consensus estimate. 2Q10 EPS from continuing operations is expected to be $0.77-0.82 versus the consensus estimate of $0.94.

The pre-market announcement apparently is due to

 1) higher than expected bad debt expense,

 2) greater than expected investments in BP Holdings, the European education company that Apollo recently acquired.

Expected bad debt expense surged well above estimates as a % of revenue of 6.8-7.1%(a ~280 bps increase YoY) is higher than our estimate of 4.7% (a ~60 bps increase YoY). The lower than expected Q2 EPS also reflects a loss per share from BPP Holdings. Apollo has authorized a $500M incrase in the share repurchase program. The size of the share repurchase authorization program is now close to $800M.

The company will hold its 2Q10 conference call on March 29.

Apollo Group, Inc. Resolves University of Phoenix False Claims Act Case Agreement Provides for $67.5 Million Payment, Plus Attorneys Fees

 PHOENIX–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Dec. 14, 2009– Apollo Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: APOL) (the “Company”) today announced that it has entered into an agreement with the United States of America, acting through the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California and the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education, and with two private plaintiffs to resolve the False Claims Act lawsuit filed in 2003 against subsidiary University of Phoenix, United States of America ex rel. Mary Hendow and Julie Albertson v. University of Phoenix. Although a party to the agreement, the U.S. Department of Justice at no time intervened in the lawsuit, which was pursued by the two private plaintiffs as a qui tam action on behalf of the government. Under the terms of the agreement, the Company will pay $67.5 million to the United States. A separate agreement provides for the payment by the Company of $11 million in attorneys fees to the plaintiffs, as required by the False Claims Act. “This agreement not only brings closure to a long-running dispute and enables the Company to avoid the uncertainty and further expense associated with protracted litigation, it opens the door for a more constructive partnership with our lead regulator, the U.S. Department of Education,” said Charles B. Edelstein, co-chief executive officer of Apollo Group. “Apollo Group is committed to rigorous regulatory and compliance systems to serve and protect the academic innovations for which we are known,” added Gregory Cappelli, co-chief executive officer of Apollo Group and chairman of Apollo Global, Inc. “Resolution enables us to focus on our core mission of providing access to quality higher education opportunities for students who have been historically underserved by the conventional system of higher education – and at a time when such access is more critical than ever.” The agreement makes clear that the Company does not acknowledge, admit or concede any liability, wrongdoing, noncompliance or violation as a result of the settlement. Moreover, the Company is confident it will not face any further civil or administrative exposure relating to its compliance with the Higher Education Act provision relating to incentive compensation for the period of March 1997 through the present as a result of the various releases and related agreements it has obtained from the U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Justice and the plaintiffs. “While we believe that the compensation practices and programs of University of Phoenix have always complied fully with applicable federal laws and regulations, the regulations at issue in this case were unclear and inconsistent and, even after they were clarified by Safe Harbor provisions, involved complex judgments and interpretations,” said P. Robert Moya, executive vice president, general counsel and secretary of Apollo Group. “Settlement on these terms eliminates the risks inherent in taking any case to trial and, ultimately, is in the best interests of our students, employees and shareholders.” “On behalf of the plaintiffs, we are pleased that the parties have been able to reach an agreement on terms that protect the interests of the government and the taxpayers,” said Robert J. Nelson, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, lead counsel for the plaintiffs. “The case raised several challenging issues, many of them novel, which made settlement of the case appropriate.”

About the Litigation Under the False Claims Act, plaintiffs – or relators – sue as “partial assignees” of the government’s claims for alleged injuries to the government. The False Claims Act lawsuit against University of Phoenix was filed by two private plaintiffs in March 2003 in United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. The suit alleged University of Phoenix violated a federal statute and regulation stating that while recruiters may be compensated based in part on the number of students they enroll, it cannot be the sole factor for determining their compensation. After review of the lawsuit’s allegations and consultation with the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to join in the litigation. In fact, in a brief submitted to the Ninth Circuit in connection with the case, the Justice Department expressed “the government’s strong support for the important work of proprietary institutions of higher education, like University of Phoenix, that are providing much-needed educational opportunities to people looking to advance their careers and to earn a better living for themselves and their families.” In September 2003, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, followed by a Second Amended Complaint in March 2004. The Court twice dismissed this case, ultimately with prejudice, before it was reinstated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in September 2006. About Apollo Group, Inc.

Apollo Group, Inc. is one of the world’s largest private education providers and has been in the education business for more than 35 years. The Company offers innovative and distinctive educational programs and services both online and on-campus at the high school, undergraduate, graduate and doctoral levels through its subsidiaries: University of Phoenix; Institute for Professional Development; College for Financial Planning; Western International University; Meritus University; Insight Schools and Apollo Global. The Company’s programs and services are provided in 40 states and the District of Columbia; Puerto Rico; Canada; Latin America; and Europe, as well as online throughout the world (data as of August 31, 2009).

For more information about Apollo Group and its subsidiaries, call 800-990-APOL or visit the Company’s website at www.apollogrp.edu . Forward-Looking Statement Statements in this press release that are not statement of historical fact are forward-looking statements, and are subject to the Safe Harbor provisions created by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are based on current information and expectations and involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Actual results may differ materially from those projected in such statements due to various factors. For a discussion of the various factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those projected, please refer to the risk factors and other disclosures contained in Apollo Group’s previously filed Forms 10-K, Forms 10-Q and other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Source: Apollo Group, Inc.

Apollo Group, Inc. Investor Relations Contacts: Allyson Pooley, 312-660-2025 allyson.pooley@apollogrp.edu  Jeremy Davis, 312-660-2071 jeremy.davis@apollogrp.edu  Media Contact: Sara Jones, 818-326-1871 sara.jones@apollogrp.edu

Security Analyst Faults Barron’s Cover Story on For Profits

Security Analyst Faults Barron’s Cover Story on For Profits:

 A cover story (http://online.barrons.com/article/SB125755384448934953.html#articleTabs_panel_article%3D1%26articleTabs%3Darticle) this week in Barron’s takes aim at for-profit colleges and universities, saying student graduation rates and default rates are worse than those at traditional colleges, and that student dropout rates are as high as those at public universities.

 “For-profit schools like to blame dropouts and defaults on the population of poor and minorities the industry ‘serves,'” concludes Bill Alpert, the article’s author. “But the evidence doesn’t show whether the industry’s serving that population or preying on it.”

In a two-page critique released Monday, Ariel Sokol, a New York City-based analyst with Wedbush Securities, picks apart the article, describing it as sensationalized and saying the author’s analysis is flawed.

 In particular, Sokol says Alpert uses U.S. Department of Education data on drop-out rates and graduation rates for full-time, first-time students pursuing bachelor’s degrees. Yet for profit institutions serve primarily working adults who are rarely first-time students, observes Sokol.  Therefore the department data that Alpert relies on “represents a fraction of the total enrolled students,” at for-profit institutions says Sokol.

 He also says that because for-profit institutions typically have open admissions policies they are likely to have lower student retention rates. Additionally, he writes, pursing a degree as an adult is harder than as an 18-24-year old, leading to higher drop-out rates.

 

—-Andrea L. Foster

EDU stocks continue to get hit

Clearly the EDU stocks are continuing to get hit.  Apol is leading the downward trend, but the others are following.  Many of the analysts I speak with are still concerned about pending legislative changes…  Thought they all agree that for the most part on the state level the for-profits are welcomed, but at the federal/national level they don’t feel the love.  I have to say it is interesting to hear the “end is near” fears from a number of them, while the vast majority believe it is all much to do about nothing!

Apollo Group gets hammered due to SEC inquiry!

Apollo group is getting hammered today due to its announcement of the SEC inquiry yesterday.  I would have to agree with JPM & Piper Jaffray’s view on this and believe the market is once again over reacting to EDU news…  Their EPS & Enrollment are above expectations & their retention has continued to improve.  In addition they seem to be closer to finally resolving the Qui Tam case.  Unfortunately (except to those who are buying) it looks like the panic is setting in again.  If it proves to be anything I would doubt it to be is a significant.

EDMC has strong IPO

EDMC as expected has a strong coming out party with its IPO up almost 25%.  Will be fun watching them grow.  Strong Management team and solid brands…need to start ramping their online business, I am sure they are working on it. Kartenspiel Regeln: Watten

Local