Item 1A. Risk Factors
Item 1A. Risk Factors
An investment in our stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the risks set forth in the “Risk Factors” section of our Annual Report and the other information set forth in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, our Annual Report, and the additional information in the other reports we file with the SEC. If any of the risks contained in those reports actually occur, our business, results of operation, financial condition, and liquidity could be harmed, the value of our securities could decline, and you could lose all or part of your investment. With the exception of the following, there have been no material changes in the risk factors set forth in the “Risk Factors” section of our Annual Report.
Our subsidiary institutions’ failure to meet financial responsibility standards may result in additional regulatory requirements that may negatively impact cash flow or the loss of eligibility by one of our institutions to participate in Title IV programs.
To participate in Title IV programs, an eligible institution must satisfy specific measures of financial responsibility prescribed by ED or post a letter of credit in favor of ED, and possibly accept other conditions, such as provisional certification, additional reporting requirements, or regulatory oversight of its participation in Title IV programs. ED’s annual evaluations for compliance with financial responsibility standards include a composite score calculation based on line items from an institution’s audited financial statements. Generally, an institution’s composite score must be at 1.5 or above for the institution to be deemed financially responsible. Under certain circumstances, institutions with a composite score less than 1.5 may be able to establish financial responsibility on an alternative basis by complying with various conditions. A composite score between 1.0 and 1.4 is considered by ED to be in the “zone”. An institution in the “zone” may still participate in Title IV programs as a financially responsible institution through the “zone alternative” or the “financial protection alternative” as set forth in ED regulations. For purposes of evaluating the financial responsibility of our institutions, including the composite score calculation, we supply consolidated financial statements to ED because ED does not review each of our institution’s financial statements separately. Failure to meet ED’s financial responsibility standards or being subject to zone alternative requirements could adversely affect our results of operations and our operations.
On March 4, 2024, ED notified us that according to its calculations, we had a 2022 consolidated composite score of 1.1 and our institutions were therefore in the “zone.” We disagree with ED’s calculation and conclusion and submitted a rebuttal to ED on March 18, 2024. On April 10, 2024, ED issued a response to our rebuttal, indicating that ED does not agree with our position and reiterating that our institutions must establish financial responsibility on an alternative basis. On April 17, 2024, we timely informed ED that although we continue to disagree with its composite score methodology with respect to deferred tax assets, we select the “zone alternative” as the alternative basis on which we establish financial responsibility. Under the zone alternative, we are required to: (i) make Title IV disbursements to eligible students and parents under the heightened cash monitoring payment method, or HCM1, pursuant to which we would be required to first make disbursements to eligible students and parents and pay any credit balances before we request or receive funds from ED for the amount of those disbursements; (ii) notify ED of certain events, such as an adverse action taken by any of our institution’s accreditors or state authorizing agencies; (iii) provide regular reports to ED relating to our institution’s current operations and future plans; and (iv) require our auditors to express an opinion on our compliance with the requirements under the zone alternative. In addition, our institutions will be required to seek ED’s approval prior to adding educational programs or a new location at which the institution offers or will offer 50 percent or more of an educational program.
If our institutions are in the zone for three consecutive fiscal years, then in the fourth consecutive fiscal year they must achieve a composite score of at least 1.5. If they do not achieve that score, they will be required to comply with either the “provisional certification alternative” or the “financial protection alternative” as a condition of continued Title IV participation. Under the provisional certification alternative, each of our institutions would continue to participate in Title IV programs under provisional certification and would be required to (i) provide ED with financial protection of at least 10% of the Title IV funding that the institution received during its most recently completed fiscal year, (ii) demonstrate that the institution was current on its debt payments and has met all of its financial obligations as required under the regulations for its two most recently completed fiscal years, and (iii) continue to comply with the zone alternative requirements. Under the financial protection alternative, each of our institutions would be required to provide financial protection of at least 50% of the Title IV funding that it received during its most recently completed fiscal year.
A determination that we are in the zone could also result in additional adverse regulatory and accreditor requirements and actions, including with respect to State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement, or SARA, eligibility. Institutions with composite scores below 1.5 do not qualify for approval from SARA unless, in the case of scores above 1.0, the home state exercises its discretion to consider additional financial information. Eligibility for SARA is determined separately for each of our institutions by the SARA portal agency in the institution’s home state. If the respective SARA portal agency for APUS, RU, or HCN were not to renew the institution’s approval due to a low composite score, we would need to obtain approval or
42
exemptions in states in which the affected institution offers distance education programs or discontinue the affected institution’s offerings to students in such states. In addition, some states have adopted financial standards that are similar to ED’s composite score, which means an affected institution may be unable to obtain licensure in that state if it were to lose SARA participation. And, because composite scores are viewed as a measure of financial responsibility, other regulators or accreditors could more generally consider a composite score that is in the “zone” negatively, which could have an impact on their interactions with us and what they permit us to do.
An obligation to post a letter of credit, or to accept other conditions, such as a change in our system of Title IV payment from ED for purposes of disbursement, as a result of not meeting financial responsibility standards, could increase our costs of regulatory compliance, or affect our cash flow.
If we are unable to effectively market our programs or expand into new markets at APUS, our results of operations would be negatively affected.
Our marketing strategy for APUS traditionally focused on building long-term, mutually beneficial relationships with businesses, other organizations, and individuals in military, military-affiliated, and public service communities. We must continue to develop and expand marketing channels that attract college-ready students unaffiliated with the military who may perform well at APUS, including in order to maintain compliance with the 90/10 Rule, while continuing to attract military and military-affiliated students. However, we have experienced challenges attracting such students, and there is no assurance that we will be able to do so on a cost-effective basis or to prevent a further decline in non-military enrollments at APUS.
Furthermore, because APUS’s tuition is generally lower than that of most of its competitors, it has fewer dollars to spend per student on marketing and advertising than its competitors. Our pricing structure and margin profile may limit the availability of financial resources to be used for marketing and enrollment in general. Nevertheless, we have tried to, and may in the future try to, implement new marketing tactics and channels, including those with which we have no experience, and there is no guarantee that our marketing and branding efforts will achieve the desired results. If we are unable to develop and optimize marketing and advertising programs that are effective in developing awareness of our institutions and the programs we offer and their value propositions and are unable to enroll and retain qualified students in military and non-military markets, our enrollments would suffer, and there could be a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
In April 2024, APU announced its intention to expand its reach to become a global digital university that integrates emerging technologies and enhanced teaching and learning opportunities for faculty and students, adopted a new visual identity, a new tagline: Digital Learning for Real Life TM , an expanded global focus, and a suite of digital student services. In connection with this transition and rebranding initiative, APU aims to provide students with highly collaborative learning experiences, AI-powered classroom support, and personalized digital services. This transition and rebranding initiative may be difficult to complete, divert management attention, and require us to expend resources and incur expenses. Additionally, despite APU’s efforts, this transition and rebranding initiative may not yield increased enrollments, and, even if it does, any increased enrollments may not offset expenses we incur, and could potentially impact the mix of students attracted to APU, which could have a negative effect on our compliance with the “90/10 Rule.” If APU fails to successfully rebrand into a global digital university or incurs substantial expenses in an unsuccessful attempt to do so, we may fail to attract new enrollments to the extent necessary to realize a sufficient return on our efforts. Accordingly, our business, results of operations, and financial condition could be impacted.
RU’s planned and actual closure of campuses or termination of programs on certain campuses may adversely impact RU and us.
Effective July 1, 2024, RU closed its Lake Elmo, Minnesota campus and moved all enrolled students at the campus to RU’s Eagan, Minnesota campus, which is located less than 10 miles from the Lake Elmo campus. There can be no assurance that students will find the transfer suitable. In addition, in May 2024, RU notified the Wisconsin Educational Approval Program, or EAP, that it intends to voluntarily close its Green Bay and Wausau, Wisconsin campuses, effective December 31, 2025, and 2026, respectively. Taken together, these actions are expected to directly impact approximately 90 students, or less than 1% of RU’s current total enrollment.
RU’s Bloomington, Minnesota ADN program had been subject to adverse action and heightened scrutiny from regulators as a result of a continued failure to meet applicable regulatory and accreditor requirements. In August 2023, RU decided to voluntarily pause new enrollments beginning in November 2023. On December 29, 2023, RU informed the Minnesota Board of Nursing, or MBN, that it intends to voluntarily close the Bloomington, Minnesota ADN program, effective June 15, 2024. The MBN approved the voluntary closure of the Bloomington, Minnesota ADN program at its February 1, 2024 meeting. For all students enrolled in the Bloomington, Minnesota ADN program graduating after June 2024, their enrollment
43
record was transferred to RU’s St. Cloud, Minnesota ADN program. As of June 30, 2024, there are no longer any enrollments in this program.
As RU evaluates its other campuses and programs, it could make similar consolidation and closure decisions about other campuses or programs. The closure of RU’s Green Bay and Wausau, Wisconsin and Lake Elmo, Minnesota campuses, its Bloomington, Minnesota ADN program, or any consolidation and closure of other campuses or programs may have an adverse impact on RU’s enrollments and reputation, which could further impact RU’s enrollments, operations, cash flows, and financial condition. Consolidation and closure decisions could also adversely impact online enrollment in the areas surrounding the closed campuses. In addition, any future consolidation and closure could have a more significant impact on RU’s overall student body than these closures.
44
Text extracted from the filing as submitted to EDGAR. Formatting, tables and exhibits are simplified for reading; the original document is authoritative for anything you rely on.