Back to GetFilings.com

Use these links to rapidly review the document
Table of Contents

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

Commission File Number 001-31825

The First Marblehead Corporation
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

        Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes ý    No o

        Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

Yes o    No ý

        As of February 4, 2004, the registrant had 61,786,750 shares of Common Stock, $0.01 par value per share, outstanding.

THE FIRST MARBLEHEAD CORPORATION

Table of Contents

Part I. Financial Information

2

Part I.    Financial Information

Item 1—Financial Statements

THE FIRST MARBLEHEAD CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(unaudited)

See accompanying notes to unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

3

THE FIRST MARBLEHEAD CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(unaudited)

See accompanying notes to unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

4

THE FIRST MARBLEHEAD CORPORATION

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
(unaudited)

See accompanying notes to unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

5

THE FIRST MARBLEHEAD CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(unaudited)

See accompanying notes to unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

6

THE FIRST MARBLEHEAD CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(1) Nature of Business and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Basis of Presentation

        The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of The First Marblehead Corporation (FMC, and together with its subsidiaries, the Company) have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP) for interim financial information. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by GAAP for complete consolidated financial statements. In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting of only normal recurring accruals) considered necessary for a fair statement of the results for the interim periods have been included. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Interim results are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected for the entire fiscal year. All significant intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. These unaudited financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited financial statements and related notes filed as Exhibit 99.1 to the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed on November 14, 2003. Certain prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform with current period presentation.

Student Loan Market Seasonality and Revenue Related to Securitization Transactions

        Origination of student loans is generally subject to seasonal trends, with the volume of loan applications increasing with the approach of tuition payment dates. In general, the Company processes the greatest application volume during the summer months, as students and their families seek to borrow money in order to pay tuition costs for the fall semester or the entire school year. The Company also tends to process increased volume of loan applications during November and December, as students and their families seek to borrow money to pay tuition costs for the spring semester. This seasonality of loan originations impacts the amount of processing fees from TERI that the Company earns in a particular quarter.

        Consistent with the Company's past practice of conducting securitization transactions in our second and fourth fiscal quarters, the Company did not conduct a securitization transaction during the first quarter of either fiscal 2004 or fiscal 2003. Therefore, during these quarters the Company did not generate any up-front structural advisory fees, additional structural advisory fees or residual fee revenues from new securitization transactions.

Initial Public Offering

        In September 2003, the Company filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the Securities and Exchange Commission registering 14,375,000 shares of the Company's common stock, including:

•

6,875,000 shares offered by the Company;



•

5,625,000 shares offered by the Company's selling stockholders;



•

1,031,250 shares that the underwriters had the option to purchase from the Company to cover over-allotments; and



•

843,750 shares that the underwriters had the option to purchase from certain selling stockholders to cover over-allotments.

7

        All of the 14,375,000 shares were sold on November 5, 2003 at a price to the public of $16.00 per share. Net proceeds of the initial public offering to the Company, after underwriting discounts but excluding offering expenses, were approximately $117.6 million. The Company did not receive any of the proceeds of the sale of the shares sold by the selling stockholders.

Concentrations

TERI

        In its role as guarantor in the private education lending market, The Education Resources Institute, Inc. (TERI) agrees to reimburse lenders for unpaid principal and interest on defaulted loans. TERI is the exclusive provider of borrower default guarantees for our clients' private student loans, with limited exceptions. As of December 31, 2003, TERI had a Baa3 counterparty rating from Moody's Investors Service, which is the lowest investment grade rating, and an insurer financial strength rating of A+ from Fitch Ratings. If these ratings are lowered, the Company's clients may not wish to enter into guarantee arrangements with TERI. In addition, the Company may receive lower structural advisory fees because the costs of credit enhancement for the asset-backed securitizations that the Company structures could increase.

PHEAA

        There are currently six TERI-approved loan servicers. The Company currently utilizes three of these servicers. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA) currently services a majority of all loans for which the Company facilitates origination. This arrangement allows the Company to increase the volume of loans in its clients' loan programs without incurring the overhead investment in servicing operations. As with any external service provider, there are risks associated with inadequate or untimely services. In addition, if the Company's relationship with PHEAA terminates, the Company would either need to expand or develop a relationship with another TERI-approved loan servicer, which could be time-consuming and costly.

Significant Customers

        During the three and six month periods ended December 31, 2003, processing fees from TERI represented approximately 9% and 17%, respectively, of total service revenue. Over the same periods, securitization fees from the December 2003 securitization through NCSLT 2003 represented approximately 89% and 79%, respectively, of total service revenue. The Company did not recognize more than 10% of total service revenue from any other customer.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

        The preparation of the Company's financial statements requires the Company to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting periods. The Company bases its estimates and judgments on historical experience and on various other factors, and actual results may differ from these estimates under varying assumptions or conditions.

        On an ongoing basis, the Company evaluates its estimates and judgments, particularly as they relate to accounting policies that the Company believes are most "critical"—that is, those that are most

8

important to the portrayal of the Company's financial condition and results of operations. These require the Company's most difficult, subjective and complex judgments, often requiring the Company to make estimates about the effect of matters that are inherently uncertain. These accounting policies involve the recognition and valuation of the Company's service revenue related to the securitizations that it structures for its clients, as well as the valuation of goodwill and intangible assets. The Company also considers its policy with respect to the determination of whether or not to consolidate the securitization trusts that it facilitates to be a critical accounting policy. See "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Application of Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates".

(2) Stock Options

        The Company uses the intrinsic value method to account for stock options and provides pro forma net earnings disclosures as if the fair-value-based method had been applied.

        For purposes of pro forma disclosures, the estimated fair value of the stock options is amortized to expense over the vesting period of the options. The Company's consolidated pro forma net income and net income per share for the three and six month periods ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, had the

9

Company elected to recognize compensation expense for the granting of options under SFAS No. 123 using the Black-Scholes option pricing model, are as follows:

10

        The fair value of the options was estimated at the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following weighted-average assumptions for the three and six month periods ending December 31, 2003 and 2002:

*

No options granted during this period.

        The Company accounts for non-employee stock-based awards in which goods or services are the consideration received for the equity instruments issued based on the fair value of the consideration received or the fair value of the equity instruments issued, whichever is more reliably measurable.

(3) Service Receivables

        Structural advisory fees and residuals receivables represent the present value of additional structural advisory fees and residuals expected to be collected over the life of the student loan, net of prepayment, default and recovery estimates. The fees are paid to the Company from the various separate securitization trusts (NCT trusts) established by The National Collegiate Trust, from The National Collegiate Master Student Loan Trust I (NCMSLT), and from The National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2003-1 (NCSLT 2003). Processing fees receivable from TERI represents amounts due from TERI for expenses incurred by First Marblehead Education Resources, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of FMC, on TERI's behalf.

        The Company did not conduct any securitization transactions in its first quarter of either fiscal 2004 or 2003. The Company does, on a quarterly basis, update its estimate of the present value of its structural advisory fees and residuals receivables, to reflect the passage of time, any change in discount rates used to estimate their present value, and any changes to the trust performance metrics that the Company considers in its present value estimates, such as default, recovery, prepayment and forward LIBOR rates.

        For the NCT trusts and NCMSLT, the Company made no changes in its assumptions regarding default rates, prepayment rates and recovery rates in the first six months of either fiscal 2004 or 2003. For the private label loans securitized in December 2003 in NCSLT 2003, the Company used a default rate assumption of 9.06%, a prepayment rate assumption of 7%, and a recovery rate assumption of 40%.

11

        The Company uses an implied forward one-month LIBOR curve to estimate trust cash flows. During the six month period ended December 31, 2003, the rates along the implied forward one-month LIBOR curve increased between 15 and 110 basis points. These increases in rates resulted in an increase in the average life of the underlying trust assets, thereby having an effect of increasing the fair market value of the structural advisory fees and residuals receivables during the period. The impact of changing LIBOR rates in the six month period ended December 31, 2002 did not have a material impact on the fair market value of these receivables during that period.

        The Company bases the discount rate that it uses to calculate the present value of its additional structural advisory fees on the 10-year U.S. Treasury rate plus 200 basis points. From July 1 to December 31, 2003, this rate increased by 92 basis points from 5.33% to 6.25%. From July 1 to December 31, 2002, this rate decreased by 83 basis points from 6.86% to 6.03%. A decrease in the 10-year U.S. Treasury rate has the effect of increasing the fair market value of the Company's structural advisory fees receivable, while an increase in the rate has the opposite effect on the Company's estimate of their fair market value. In determining an appropriate discount rate for valuing residuals, the Company reviews the rates used by student loan securitizers, as well as rates used in the much broader commercial mortgage-backed securities, or CMBS, market. The Company believes that CMBS residuals are valued at 800 to 1200 basis points over comparable maturity U.S. Treasury Notes, with 15-year maturity asset pools valued toward the lower discount rate and 30-year maturity asset pools valued more toward the higher discount rate. The Company believes that the 12% discount rate it uses is appropriate given the maximum 24-year life of the trust assets and residuals.

        The following table summarizes the changes in the structural advisory fees receivable for the six month periods ended December 31, 2003 and 2002:

        The following table summarizes the changes in the residuals receivables for the six month periods ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively:

12

        The principal balance of loans facilitated and available to the Company for later securitization at December 31, 2003 and June 30, 2003 totaled $385.8 million and $160.4 million, respectively.

        The effect on the fair market value of the structural advisory fees and residuals receivables (excluding the $8.5 million up-front structural advisory fee receivable that the Company expects to receive in July 2004) based on variations of 10% or 20%, except for the forward LIBOR rates, which are based on variations of 1% and 2% from the forward LIBOR rates at December 31, 2003, from the assumed levels for each key assumption are as follows:

13

(4) Related Party Transactions

        On March 4, 2002, the Company advanced an unsecured loan to a non-executive employee in the amount of $40,000 to be repaid over 5 years at 6% interest per year through payroll deductions, of which $32,268 and $35,444 was outstanding at December 31, 2003 and June 30, 2003, respectively.

        At December 31, 2003 and June 30, 2003, Milestone Capital Management (MCM), an institutional money management firm was managing approximately $139.0 million and $15.8 million, respectively, of cash and cash equivalents for the Company and charging its standard fees for its services. One of the Company's directors is a director of MCM. Members of the director's immediate family own approximately 40% of MCM's outstanding equity.

(5) Borrowings from Related Parties

(a) Line of Credit

        The Company entered into a $975,000 revolving line of credit with a bank effective April 24, 2002 of which none was outstanding at December 31, 2003 or June 30, 2003. The line of credit matured on April 24, 2003 and was renewed through December 31, 2003 subject to the same terms and conditions, with interest payable at 1% above the highest published Wall Street Journal prime rate. The terms of the line of credit required that: the Company maintain accurate books and records; the assets be free of all liens, encumbrances and financing not approved by the lender; and when there was a balance outstanding under the line, no dividends or payments of principal and interest on any loans held by any guarantor, officer, director or stockholder could be made. A member of the board of directors of the Company is also a director and significant stockholder of a company that owns the bank. The Company believes that the line of credit was on substantially the same terms as those prevailing at the same time for comparable transactions with third parties. The Company did not renew this credit facility upon its expiration.

(b) Notes Payable to Related Parties

        The Company utilized borrowings with conditional warrants totaling $5.5 million from stockholders and certain affiliates to fund the acquisition of TERI's loan processing operations. The notes payable were to mature on May 30, 2004, with interest payable quarterly, at an annual rate of 10% of the current principal balance. Additional interest was required to be paid at a rate of 15% of the outstanding balance as of June 1 of the previous year each May 30 until maturity. The terms of the borrowings required quarterly condensed financial statement reporting within 60 days of quarter-end, reporting of cash flow activities within 30 days of month-end, and audited financial statements within 180 days of year-end. The notes were paid in full on May 30, 2003. The notes would have entitled each stockholder to a portion of 22,072,000 of conditional warrants that provided the right to purchase up to a specified number of shares of FMC's common stock at an exercise price of $0.25 per share if the notes were at any time in default, including for non-payment of the additional interest. The value ascribed to the warrants, which expired prior to becoming exercisable, was not material.

(c) Notes Payable to TERI

        In connection with the acquisition of TERI's loan processing operations, the Company entered into a Note Payable Agreement with TERI on June 20, 2001, amounting to $3.9 million, $2.0 million of which relates to the acquisition of TERI's software and network assets and $1.9 million of which relates to the workforce-in-place. Principal and interest at an annual rate of 6% are payable in 120 monthly

14

installments of $43,298 commencing on July 20, 2001 and ending on June 20, 2011. The note payable is secured by the software and network assets and workforce-in-place intangible assets. The outstanding balance of this note payable at December 31, 2003 and June 30, 2003 amounted to $3.1 million and $3.3 million, respectively.

        The Company also entered into a second note payable, amounting to $4.0 million, with TERI on June 20, 2001 to fund the acquisition of TERI's loan database. Principal and interest at an annual rate of 6% are payable in 120 monthly installments of $44,408 commencing on July 20, 2001 and ending on June 20, 2011. The note payable is secured by the loan database. The outstanding balance of this note payable at December 31, 2003 and June 30, 2003 amounted to $3.2 million and $3.4 million, respectively.

(6) Other Borrowings

(a) Revolving Line of Credit

        On August 28, 2003, the Company entered into an agreement with Fleet National Bank (Bank) to establish a revolving line of credit in the amount of $10 million, which includes a sub-limit for letters of credit. The proceeds are available for working capital and general corporate purposes. The revolving credit facility matures on August 28, 2005, with interest currently payable, at the Company's option, at the Bank's prime rate or the London Interbank Offered Rate, or LIBOR, plus 2%. The revolving credit line contains financial covenants, including minimum trailing 12-month up-front structural advisory fees, minimum tangible net worth, maximum liabilities to net worth ratios and minimum cash flow to debt service ratios, as well as certain financial reporting covenants. This agreement restricts the Company's ability to pay cash dividends in the event it is in default. At December 31, 2003, the Company had no borrowings outstanding under the revolving line of credit. The Bank has also issued on the Company's behalf three irrevocable letters of credit in the aggregate amount of $943,000 in lieu of security deposits for the lease and sublease of office space. Third party beneficiaries have not drawn upon this revolving credit facility. These letters of credit reduce the amount the Company may borrow under this revolving credit facility.

(b) Note Payable Related to December 2003 Securitization

        In December 2003, we received $7.0 million of the $8.5 million up-front structural advisory fee payment that we expect to receive in July 2004 by assigning the right to the first $7,250,000 of the July 2004 payment to the lead underwriter of the December 2003 securitization. This transaction was structured in the form of a $7.25 million note, and is further collateralized by the first $6.3 million of residual cash flow from the December 2003 securitization as well as $700,000 of restricted cash.

(7) Stockholders' Equity

Equity Transactions

        An executive officer of the Company had an agreement with two principal stockholders of the Company relating to shares of common stock of the Company owned by these stockholders. Pursuant to this agreement, the executive officer earned non-cash compensation of $900,000 through June 30, 2003. The executive officer earned additional non-cash compensation of approximately $1.6 million

15

during the first quarter of fiscal 2004. On September 30, 2003, the agreement was terminated in exchange for vested options issued by these two principal stockholders.

Authorized Shares

        In July 2003, the Board of Directors approved, and in August 2003 the stockholders approved, an increase in the total number of shares of common stock which the Company is authorized to issue from 14,280,440 to 25,000,000. In October 2003, the Board of Directors and stockholders approved an increase in the total number of shares of common stock which the Company is authorized to issue from 25,000,000 to 100,000,000.

2002 Director Stock Plan

        In September 2002, the Board of Directors approved, and in August 2003 the stockholders approved, a 2002 Director Stock Plan and reserved 200,000 shares of common stock for issuance to the Company's non-employee directors. As of December 31, 2003, 40,000 options have been issued under this plan.

2003 Stock Incentive Plan

        In September 2003, the Board of Directors and stockholders approved a 2003 Stock Incentive Plan and reserved 1,200,000 shares of common stock for issuance under this plan. As of December 31, 2003, no options had been issued under this plan.

Offering

        On September 2, 2003, the Board of Directors authorized management to proceed with an initial public offering. The costs associated with the initial public offering were capitalized and deducted from the proceeds upon the sale and issuance of stock. These costs totaled approximately $11.4 million, including underwriters' discounts. At June 30, 2003, capitalized offering costs amounted to approximately $72,000.

Stock Splits

        In August 2003, the stockholders approved a 10-for-1 stock split which became effective on August 25, 2003. As such, all prior period share data have been retroactively adjusted to reflect the stock split.

        In October 2003, the Board of Directors approved a 4-for-1 stock split to be effected as a stock dividend immediately prior to the effectiveness of the initial public offering. On October 29, 2003, the stockholders became entitled to payment of such stock dividend. All share data has been retroactively adjusted to reflect this stock split.

2003 Employee Stock Purchase Plan

        In October 2003, the Board of Directors and stockholders approved a 2003 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and authorized the issuance of up to a total of 400,000 shares of the Company's common stock to participating employees. Employees who own 5% or more of the Company's common stock are not eligible to participate under the purchase plan. Participation in the plan is voluntary.

16

(8) New Accounting Pronouncements

        In May 2003, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued SFAS No. 150, "Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of both Liabilities and Equity." SFAS No. 150 establishes new standards for how an issuer classifies and measures certain financial instruments with characteristics of both debt and equity. It requires that an issuer classify three classes of freestanding financial instruments that embody obligations for the issuer as a liability or, in some cases, assets. This statement generally is effective for financial instruments entered into or modified after May 31, 2003 and for contracts in existence at the start of the first interim period beginning after June 15, 2003. The adoption of this standard, a portion of which has been indefinitely deferred, did not and is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations, earnings per share or cash flows.

        In December 2002, the FASB issued SFAS No. 148, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation—Transition and Disclosure." SFAS No. 148 amends SFAS No. 123, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation" to provide alternative methods of transition when companies elect to change from the intrinsic method to the fair value method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation, including stock options. In addition, this statement amends the disclosure requirement of SFAS No. 123 to require prominent disclosures in both annual and interim financial statements about the fair value based method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation and the effect of the method used on reported results. This statement is effective for fiscal years ended after December 15, 2002 and the disclosures to be provided in interim financial reports are required for interim periods beginning after December 15, 2002. The Company currently uses the intrinsic method of accounting for stock options and has not yet determined if it will change to the fair value method of accounting for employee stock options.

        Beginning July 1, 2003, and for securitization trusts created after January 31, 2003, the Company applies FASB Interpretation (FIN) No. 46, "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, an interpretation of ARB No. 51," in assessing consolidation. FIN No. 46 provides a new framework for identifying variable interest entities and determining when a company should include the assets, liabilities, non-controlling interests and results of activities of a variable interest entity in its consolidated financial statements. At December 31, 2003, the securitization trusts created after January 31, 2003 have either met the criteria to be a qualified special-purpose entity (QSPE), as defined in paragraph 35 of SFAS No. 140, "Accounting for the Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities," or the Company has determined that it is not the primary beneficiary of the securitization trusts, as defined by FIN No. 46. Accordingly, the Company did not consolidate these existing securitization trusts in these financial statements. In addition, the securitization trusts created prior to January 31, 2003 have been amended in order for them to be considered QSPEs.

        On December 24, 2003, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation (FIN) No. 46 (revised December 2003), "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities" (FIN No. 46R), which addresses how a business enterprise should evaluate whether it has a controlling interest in an entity through means other than voting rights and accordingly should consolidate the entity. FIN No. 46R will replace FIN No. 46. Public companies must apply either FIN No. 46 or FIN No. 46R immediately to entities created after January 31, 2003 and no later than the end of the first reporting period that ends after December 15, 2003 to entities considered to be special-purpose entities. The adoption of FIN No. 46R is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations, earnings per share or cash flows.

17

        In June 2003, the FASB issued an Exposure Draft, "Qualifying Special-Purpose Entities and Isolation of Transferred Assets—an amendment of FASB Statement No. 140." This proposal would, among other things, change the requirements that an entity must meet to be considered a QSPE. The Company is monitoring the status of this Exposure Draft to assess the impact to the Company's financial condition and results of operations.

        In December 2003, the FASB issued revised SFAS Statement No. 132. This statement reforms the disclosure requirements contained in SFAS No. 132, which it replaces. It requires additional disclosures to those in the original SFAS No. 132 about the assets, obligations, cash flows, and net periodic benefit cost of defined benefit pension plans and other defined benefit post retirement plans. This statement is effective for financial statements with fiscal years ending after December 15, 2003. The interim-period disclosures required by this statement are effective for interim periods beginning after December 15, 2003. The adoption of this statement is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations, earnings per share or cash flows.

18

Item 2—Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

        You should read the following discussion together with our financial statements and accompanying notes included in this quarterly report. In addition to the historical information, the following discussion contains forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated by the forward-looking statements due to factors including, but not limited to, those set forth under "Factors That May Affect Future Results" below.

Executive Summary

        We provide outsourcing services for private education lending in the United States. We provide services in connection with each of the five typical phases of the student loan lifecycle, offering our clients a single point of interface for:

•

program design and marketing;



•

borrower inquiry and application;



•

loan origination and disbursement;



•

loan securitization; and



•

loan servicing.

We receive fees for the services we provide in connection with both processing our clients' private student loans and structuring and administering securitizations of those loans. Securitization refers to the technique of pooling loans and selling them to a special purpose, bankruptcy remote entity, typically a trust, which issues securities to investors backed by those loans.

        We do not take a direct ownership interest in the loans our clients generate, nor do we serve as a lender or guarantor with respect to any loan programs that we facilitate. We assist the lenders in our loan programs in selecting the underwriting criteria used in deciding whether a student loan will be made to an applicant. However, each lender has ultimate control over the selection of these criteria, and in providing our services we are obligated by contract to observe them. Although we oversee loan servicing as a component of our administrative duties, we do not act as a loan servicer.

        We currently focus on facilitating private student loans for undergraduate, graduate and professional education, although we believe we can enhance our service offerings for continuing education programs, primary and secondary schools, career training and study abroad programs. During the first six months of fiscal 2004, we processed over 300,000 loan applications and facilitated $981 million in loan disbursements at over 4,000 schools. We have provided structural, advisory and other services for 20 securitization transactions since our formation in 1991.

        We offer services in connection with loan programs targeted at two major marketing channels:

•

Private label programs that:



•

lenders market directly to prospective student borrowers and their families;



•

lenders market directly to educational institutions; and



•

businesses, unions, affinity groups and other organizations offer to their employees or members.



•

Guaranteed Access to Education, or GATE, programs that educational institutions offer directly to their students.

        During the first six months of fiscal 2004, we securitized only private label loans. We expect we will securitize GATE loans, including those we facilitated during the first six months of our fiscal year, in

19

our fourth fiscal quarter. Our private label programs contributed $86.0 million, or 94.1%, of our total service revenue in fiscal 2003, while our GATE programs contributed $5.4 million, or 5.9%, of our total service revenue in fiscal 2003.

        In June 2001, we significantly enhanced our risk management and loan processing capabilities through a strategic relationship with The Education Resources Institute, Inc., or TERI, the nation's oldest and largest guarantor of private student loans. We acquired TERI's loan processing operations, including its historical database, but not its investment assets or guarantee liabilities. In connection with this acquisition, 161 members of TERI's staff became our employees. In addition, we entered into a master servicing agreement pursuant to which TERI engages us to provide loan origination and processing services with respect to the loans generated through the private label programs we facilitate, as well as other TERI-guaranteed loans. TERI reimburses us for the expenses we incur in providing these services. This agreement has a term through June 2006 and provides that either party may unilaterally exercise a right to renew the contract for an additional five-year term. Under the terms of a master loan guarantee agreement that we entered into with TERI, we also agreed to provide to TERI 25% of the residual interest in the securitizations of TERI-guaranteed loans that we facilitate in the future, and a right of first refusal to guarantee our private label clients' existing and future loan programs.

        The primary driver of our results of operations and financial condition is the volume of loans for which we provide outsourcing services from loan origination through securitization. We facilitated the securitization of $532 million of student loans during the first six months of fiscal 2004, up from $226 million for the same period last year.

        In the first six months of fiscal 2004, we facilitated disbursement of approximately 112,000 loans in an aggregate principal amount in excess of $981 million. Approximately $747 million of this amount was available to us for securitization. In the comparable period of fiscal 2003, we facilitated disbursement of approximately 76,000 loans in an aggregate principal amount of approximately $601 million. Approximately $384 million of this amount was available to us for securitization.

        The dollar volume of the loans that we facilitated in the first six months of fiscal 2004 increased 63% as compared to the same period last year. The loans that we facilitated that are available to us for securitization increased 95% in the first six months of fiscal 2004 as compared to the same period in fiscal 2003.

        Although we offer our clients a fully integrated suite of outsourcing services, we do not charge separate fees for many of these services. Moreover, although we receive fees for providing loan processing services to TERI in connection with TERI-guaranteed loans, these fees represent reimbursement of the direct expenses we incur. Accordingly, we do not earn a profit on these fees. Although we provide these various services without charging a separate fee, or at "cost" in the case of TERI-guaranteed loans, we generally enter into agreements with the private label lenders, and Bank of America, N.A. in the case of GATE programs, giving us the exclusive right to securitize the loans that they do not intend to hold, and we receive structural advisory fees and residuals for facilitating securitizations of these loans. Our level of profitability depends on these structural advisory fees and residuals. We discuss the manner in which we recognize them in our revenue in greater detail below. We may in the future enter into arrangements with private label lenders under which we provide outsourcing services, but do not have the exclusive right to securitize the loans that they originate.

        Changes in any of the following factors can materially affect our financial results:

•

the demand for private education financing;



•

the competition for providing private education financing;



•

the education financing preferences of students and their families;

20

•

applicable laws and regulations, which may affect the terms upon which our clients agree to make private student loans;



•

the private student loan securitization market, including the costs or availability of financing;



•

the general interest rate environment, including its effect on our discount rates;



•

borrower default rates; and



•

prepayment rates on private student loans, including prepayments through loan consolidation.

Application of Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

        Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations discusses our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting periods. We base our estimates and judgments on historical experience and on various other factors that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results may differ from these estimates under varying assumptions or conditions.

        Our significant accounting policies are more fully described in Note 2 of the notes to consolidated financial statements included in exhibit 99.1 to our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2003, which includes a summary of the accounting policies we use in preparing our consolidated financial statements. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates and judgments, particularly as they relate to accounting policies that we believe are most "critical"—that is, those that are most important to the portrayal of our financial condition and results of operations. These require our most difficult, subjective and complex judgments, often requiring us to make estimates about the effect of matters that are inherently uncertain. These accounting policies involve the recognition and valuation of our service revenue related to the securitizations that we structure for our clients, as well as the valuation of goodwill and intangible assets. We also consider our policy with respect to the determination of whether or not to consolidate the securitization trusts that we facilitate to be a critical accounting policy.

Service Revenue

        For a discussion of our revenue recognition policy, see "—Recognition and Valuation of Service Revenue."

        Because there are no quoted market prices for our additional structural advisory fees and residuals receivables, we use the following key assumptions to estimate their values:

•

the discount rate, which we use to calculate the present value of our additional structural advisory fees and residuals;



•

the annual compound rate of student loan prepayments, which we refer to as the constant prepayment rate, or CPR;



•

the trend of interest rates over the life of the loan pool; and



•

expected defaults, net of recoveries.

        We base these estimates on our proprietary historical data, third-party data and our industry experience, adjusting for specific program and borrower characteristics such as loan type, borrower creditworthiness and trends in loan consolidation. We recognize the revenue associated with our processing fees from TERI and our administrative and other fees as we perform these services.

21

        The following table shows the loan performance assumptions at December 31, 2003:

        In selecting loan performance assumptions, we consider the underlying creditworthiness of the student loan borrowers as well as the type of loans being securitized. We analyze creditworthiness in several tiers, and select appropriate loan performance assumptions based on these tiers. For example, approximately four percent of the loans securitized in NCSLT 2003 represent a new product line offered this fiscal year by some of our private label clients. This new product line includes co-signed loans for which the co-signer has a lower credit score than our other tiered products. We worked, in consultation with TERI and our bank clients, to structure and price these loan products to reflect their increased default risk. Accordingly, the interest rate being charged on these loans and the segregated reserves that TERI provided NCSLT 2003 to cover projected default exposure on these loans are greater than those provided for our clients' other loan products. The inclusion of these new loans in NCSLT 2003 also resulted in an estimated overall default rate for NCSLT 2003 that is 98 basis points higher than what we estimated for NCMSLT.

        Our private label loan programs, under which approximately 80% of the borrowers have creditworthy co-borrowers, typically have an extensive credit underwriting process. GATE programs historically have had a borrower approval rate of approximately 97% as a result of the credit support provided by the participating schools. Accordingly, we believe that borrowers in our private label programs will prepay at a higher rate and default at a lower rate than borrowers in our GATE programs. We also monitor trends in loan performance over time, and make adjustments we believe are necessary to value properly our receivables balance.

        We do not believe we can accurately determine the market price of residuals generated by a pool of securitized student loans. To our knowledge, there have been no market transactions in this type of asset. In determining an appropriate discount rate for valuing residuals, we reviewed the rates used by student loan securitizers, such as SLM Corporation, and rates used in the much broader commercial mortgage-backed securities, or CMBS, market, where actual trades have occurred. We believe that CMBS residuals are valued at 800 to 1200 basis points over comparable maturity U.S. Treasury Notes, with 15-year maturity asset pools valued more toward the lower discount rate and 30-year maturity asset pools valued more toward the higher discount rate. We believe that the 12% discount rate we use is appropriate given the maximum 24-year life of the trust assets and residuals.

        At December 31, 2003 we used a 6.25% discount rate and at June 30, 2003, we used a 5.33% discount rate for valuing structural advisory fees. Based on the priority payment status of structural advisory fees in the flow of funds out of the securitization trust, we believe these fees are comparable to interest payable on double-B or triple-B rated, intermediate-term corporate debt securities. Based on market quotes on such securities, we believe a spread over comparable maturity U.S. Treasury Notes of 200 basis points is an appropriate discount rate in valuing these projected cash flows.

        Other than this change in the discount rate to be applied to structural advisory fees, we did not change any other loan performance assumptions regarding discount rates, recovery rates, CPR rates, or discount rates for the NCT trusts or NCMSLT from what we used at June 30, 2003.

        Our statistics on GATE loan prepayments over the last few years have shown a gradual increase in prepayments. Therefore, during fiscal 2003, we increased our estimate of the GATE loan prepayment

22

rate from three to four percent. We used this four percent prepayment rate to value the 2003 GATE loan securitizations, and during fiscal 2003 we updated GATE structural advisory fees and residuals receivables balances from prior securitizations to reflect this increased prepayment assumption.

Goodwill and Intangible Assets

        We have recorded goodwill, representing the fair value of the workforce-in-place as well as certain direct acquisition costs, as the excess of the purchase price we paid for TERI's loan processing operations over the estimated fair value of the net assets of the business we acquired. In addition, we recorded as an intangible asset the fair value of the proprietary loan database that we acquired. The database currently contains eight years of monthly loan payment history for each loan originated, including among other things, how much interest and principal each borrower paid each month, whether the borrower paid on time, was delinquent or defaulted on their obligation to pay, if they requested a deferment of payments for a period of time, when the borrower made their final payment and their credit information which resulted in our client's decision to make the loan. The database also includes this information for defaulted loans, as well as credit characteristics on all TERI-guaranteed loans, for nine additional years. We use the information in the database to construct portfolio default and delinquency trends, and to assist our clients in loan pricing. Under the terms of the acquisition of TERI's loan processing operations, we pay TERI a monthly fee, which is recorded as an intangible asset, in consideration for the right to receive updates to the loan database we acquired for a term ending in June 2006, with a renewal option for an additional five-year period.

        We do not amortize goodwill. We evaluate goodwill for impairment on at least an annual basis. We consider the following factors in assessing goodwill for impairment: increases in private label loan volume facilitated and securitized, the number of private label customers and revenue and profitability related to private label loans. Impairment, if any, would be determined based upon a discounted cash flow analysis, using a discount rate commensurate with the risks involved.

        We amortize the acquisition cost of the proprietary loan database over its estimated useful life of five years, using the straight-line method. Capitalized costs paid to TERI for monthly database updates are amortized over five years from the date of capitalization. We review this acquisition cost for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the asset may not be recoverable.

        Any changes in the estimates that we use to determine the carrying value of our goodwill and intangible assets or which adversely affect their value or estimated life could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. At December 31, 2003, goodwill totaled $3.2 million and net intangible assets totaled $3.4 million.

Consolidation

        Our consolidated financial statements include the accounts of First Marblehead and its subsidiaries, after eliminating intercompany accounts and transactions. Prior to July 1, 2003, in accordance with various Emerging Issues Task Force issues and related interpretations, we did not consolidate the securitization trusts. We considered, among other things, the following factors in assessing consolidation of the securitization trusts:

•

we do not have unilateral decision making abilities related to significant matters affecting the securitization trusts, such as asset acquisition, prepayment of debt, placement of debt obligations, and modification of trust documents;



•

we do not have substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership, as TERI and the respective colleges provide substantially all of the student loan guarantees;

23

•

we are a facilitator of securitization transactions, for which we receive market based fees, and we are not the transferor of assets to the securitization trusts; and



•

our continuing involvement in the trusts is limited to a passive residual interest and our role as an administrator for the trust for which we receive market-based fees.

        Beginning July 1, 2003, and for securitization trusts created after January 31, 2003, we have applied Financial Standards Accounting Board Interpretation, or FIN, No. 46, "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, an interpretation of ARB No. 51," in assessing consolidation. FIN No. 46 provides a new framework for identifying variable interest entities and determining when a company should include the assets, liabilities, non-controlling interests and results of activities of a variable interest entity in its consolidated financial statements. The securitization trusts created after January 31, 2003 have either met the criteria to be a Qualified Special Purpose Entity, or QSPE, as defined in paragraph 35 of SFAS No. 140, "Accounting for the Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities," or we have determined that we are not the primary beneficiary of the securitization trusts, as defined by FIN No. 46. Accordingly, we did not consolidate the existing securitization trusts in our financial statements. In addition, the securitization trusts created prior to January 31, 2003 have been amended in order for them to be considered QSPEs.

        On December 24, 2003, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation (FIN) No. 46 (revised December 2003), "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities" (FIN No. 46R), which addresses how a business enterprise should evaluate whether it has a controlling interest in an entity through means other than voting rights and accordingly should consolidate the entity. FIN No. 46R will replace FIN No. 46. Public companies must apply either FIN No. 46 or FIN No. 46R immediately to entities created after January 31, 2003 and no later than the end of the first reporting period that ends after December 15, 2003 to entities considered to be special-purpose entities. The adoption of FIN No. 46R is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations, earnings per share or cash flows.

        FASB has issued an Exposure Draft, "Qualifying Special-Purpose Entities and Isolation of Transferred Assets, an amendment of FASB Statement No. 140." This proposal would, among other things, change the requirements that an entity must meet to be considered a QSPE. We are monitoring the status of the exposure draft to assess the expected impact on us.

Securitizations and Related Revenue

        We structure and facilitate securitization transactions for our clients through a series of bankruptcy remote, special purpose trusts. The trusts purchase private student loans from the originating lenders, which relinquish to the trust their ownership interest in the loans. The debt instruments that the trusts issue to finance the purchase of these student loans are obligations of the trusts, rather than our obligations or those of originating lenders. To date, we have utilized the following special purpose entities for the securitizations we have structured:

•

The National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2003-1, or NCSLT 2003, was formed in December 2003 to purchase exclusively TERI-guaranteed private label loans.



•

The National Collegiate Master Student Loan Trust I, or NCMSLT, was formed in fiscal 2002 to purchase exclusively TERI-guaranteed private label loans.



•

The National Collegiate Trust, or NCT, was formed in fiscal 1993 and has established separate securitization trusts, which we refer to as the NCT trusts, that have purchased primarily GATE loans and a limited number of TERI-guaranteed and other loans.

        In the future, we may securitize private label or GATE loans using new trust vehicles.

24

        Under the terms of some of our contracts with key lender clients, we have an obligation to securitize periodically, typically twice per year, the private student loans that these clients originate. We may agree with certain lenders to securitize more frequently in the future. If we do not honor our obligations to these lenders, we may be required to pay liquidated damages, generally not exceeding an amount equal to 1% of the face amount of the loans available for securitization.

        We receive several types of fees in connection with our securitization services:

•

Structural advisory fees.  We charge structural advisory fees that are paid in two portions:



•

Up-front.  We receive a portion of the structural advisory fees at the time the securitization trust purchases the loans or soon thereafter. For these fees, we structure the securities sold in the securitization, coordinate the attorneys, accountants, trustees, loan servicers, loan originators and other transaction participants and prepare the cash flow modeling for rating agencies and financial guarantee insurers. In recent securitizations, these fees have ranged from 4.7% to 6.7% of the principal and capitalized interest of the loans securitized; and



•

Additional.  We receive a portion of the structural advisory fees over time, based on the amount of loans outstanding in the trust from time to time over the life of the loan. This portion accumulates monthly from the date of a securitization transaction at a rate of 15 basis points per year. We begin to receive this additional portion, plus interest, once the ratio of trust assets to trust liabilities, which we refer to as the "parity ratio," reaches a stipulated level, which ranges from 103.0% to 105.0%. We currently expect to receive the additional fees beginning five to seven years after the date of a particular securitization transaction.



•

Residuals.  We also have the right to receive a portion of the residual interests that these trusts create. This interest is junior in priority to the rights of the holders of the debt sold in the securitizations and entitles us to receive:



•

in connection with the securitizations in NCSLT 2003, 75% of the residual cash flows once a parity ratio of 103.0% is reached and maintained;



•

in connection with securitizations in NCMSLT, 75% of the residual cash flows once a parity ratio of 103.5% is reached and maintained; and



•

in connection with securitizations in the NCT trusts, our share of residual cash flows once all of the debtholders of the securitization trust have been repaid, plus, in the case of securitized GATE loans, 10% of the residual cash flows.

Our residual interest derives almost exclusively from the services we perform in connection with each securitization rather than from a direct cash contribution to the securitization trust. We contributed no funding to NCSLT 2003 or NCMSLT, the trusts that have securitized solely TERI-guaranteed private label loans. In connection with the three most recent securitizations of GATE loans in the NCT trusts, in order to accommodate a limited number of schools, we invested in the aggregate approximately one-third of our GATE-related up-front structural advisory fees to eliminate the risk exposure of those schools. These investments, which reduced our up-front structural advisory fees that would have been recognized in these periods, totaled $2.0 million, $1.8 million and $1.2 million in fiscal 2003, 2002 and 2001, respectively. In fiscal 2003, our investment comprised 5.6% of our total up-front structural advisory fees. In exchange for these investments, we received the rights to the residual interest that these schools would otherwise hold in the trust and accounted for these rights as residuals, consistent with the manner in which we account for our other residuals. The value of these residual interests is primarily affected by the loan performance at each school. In the case of securitizations in NCSLT 2003 and NCMSLT, we currently expect to receive the residuals beginning approximately five years after the date of a

25

particular securitization. In the case of securitizations in the NCT trusts, we currently expect to receive the residuals beginning 12 to 15 years after the date of a particular securitization.

•

Administrative and other fees.  We receive administrative fees from the trusts ranging from 5 to 20 basis points per year of the student loan balance in the trust for daily management of the trusts and for the services we provide in obtaining information from the loan servicer and reporting this and other information to the parties related to the securitization. In addition, in connection with some securitizations, we receive other fees from originating lenders when their loans are purchased by the securitization trust. To date, these other fees have not been material.

Processing Fees from TERI

        We provide outsourcing services to TERI, including loan origination, customer service, default prevention, default processing and administrative services under a master servicing agreement between TERI and us. We recognize as revenue the monthly reimbursement that TERI provides us for the expenses we incur in providing these services.

Recognition and Valuation of Service Revenue

        We recognize up-front structural advisory fees as revenue at the time the securitization trust purchases the loans. In order for the securitization trust to purchase the loans, all of the applicable services must be performed, rating agencies must deliver their ratings letters, transaction counsel must deliver the required legal opinions and the underwriters must receive the debt securities created by the securitization trust. These events indicate that the securitization transaction has been properly structured and loans have been properly sold to the securitization trust.

        As required under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, we also recognize additional structural advisory fees and residuals as revenue at that time, as they are deemed to be earned at the time of the securitization and before we actually receive payment. These amounts are deemed earned because evidence of an arrangement exists, we have provided the services, the fee is fixed and determinable based upon a discounted cash flow analysis, there are no future contingencies or obligations and collection is reasonably assured. We estimate the present value of the additional structural advisory fees and residuals based on certain assumptions we make about the timing and amount of payment.

        Statement of Financial Accounting Standards, or SFAS, No. 140 requires us to measure the additional structural advisory fees and residuals like investments in debt securities classified as available-for-sale or trading under SFAS No. 115, similar to retained interests in securitizations. Accordingly, we record additional structural advisory fees and residuals receivables on our balance sheet at fair value using a discounted cash flow model. We estimate the fair value both initially and each subsequent quarter and reflect the change in value in earnings for that period.

        Because there are no quoted market prices for our additional structural advisory fees and residuals receivables, we use certain key assumptions to estimate their values. See "Application of Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates-Service Revenue."

        We recognize administrative and other fees, as well as processing fees from TERI, as revenue at the time that we perform the underlying services.

26

Quarterly Fluctuations

        Our quarterly revenue, operating results and profitability have varied and are expected to continue to vary on a quarterly basis primarily because of the timing of the securitizations that we structure. During the first six months of fiscal 2004, we facilitated a securitization in our second fiscal quarter. In fiscal 2003, we facilitated securitizations in the second and fourth fiscal quarters. In addition, during the third quarter of fiscal 2003, NCMSLT utilized funds raised in the second quarter securitization to acquire additional student loans from our clients, which generated service revenue for us in the third quarter. We do not expect any trusts to conduct a similar acquisition during the third quarter of fiscal 2004, and we expect that we will incur a net loss during the quarter. The following table sets forth our quarterly service revenue and net income (loss) for the first two quarters of fiscal 2004 and the four quarters of fiscal 2003:

Results of Operations

Revenue Related to Securitization Transactions

        Consistent with our past practice of conducting securitization transactions in our second and fourth fiscal quarters, we did not conduct a securitization transaction during the first quarter of either fiscal 2004 or fiscal 2003. Therefore, during these quarters we did not generate any up-front structural advisory fees, additional structural advisory fees or residual fee revenues from new securitization transactions. In addition, we securitized only private label loans during the second quarter of our fiscal year, and expect to securitize GATE loans as well as additional private label loans during our fourth fiscal quarter.

        The following table sets forth for the first six months of fiscal years 2004 and 2003 (by dollar amount and as a percentage of the total volume of loans securitized):

•

the total volume of private label loans securitized and the securitization-related service revenue components, other than administrative and other fees; and



•

updates to reflect any adjustment to additional structural advisory fees and residuals from prior trusts.

27

(1)

Represents principal and accrued interest.

(2)

Trust updates reflect changes resulting from the passage of time, which results in accretion of the discounting inherent in the present value estimates of additional structural advisory fees and residuals, as well as changes in assumptions underlying our estimates of the fair value of these service revenue components.

Structural Advisory Fees

        Structural advisory fees increased to $38.7 million for the first six months of fiscal 2004 from $15.6 million for the comparable period last year. The increase in structural advisory fees was primarily a result of an increase in securitization volume, as well as an increase in the advisory fee rates as a percentage of the loan volume securitized.

        Up-front structural advisory fees.    The up-front component of structural advisory fees increased to $33.0 million for the first six months of fiscal 2004 from $13.1 million for the comparable period last year. In fiscal 2004, we collected $24.5 million of the up-front structural advisory fee in December 2003, at the time the securitization transaction closed, and we expect to receive a second payment of approximately $8.5 million in July 2004. We recorded this second payment as a structural advisory fee receivable at December 31, 2003. In December 2003, we received a $7.0 million advance on the July 2004 payment from the lead underwriter in the securitization (See "—Notes Payable"). The entire $13.1 million up-front structural advisory fee from the November 2002 securitization was collected at the time the securitization transaction closed. The increase in the up-front structural advisory fees was primarily a result of an increase in securitization volume. In addition, the up-front structural advisory fee rates increased to 6.2% during the first six months of fiscal 2004 from 5.8% for the same period last year.

        The following table reflects the increase in up-front structural advisory fees attributable to the increases in securitization volume and changes in the fee rates:

        As of December 31, 2003, NCSLT 2003 and NCMSLT are both Qualified Special Purpose Entities, or QSPEs. In regards to a QSPE, a company would not need to include the assets, liabilities, non-controlling interests and results of activities of such entity in its consolidated financial statements. The Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, has issued an Exposure Draft, "Qualifying Special-Purpose Entities and Isolation of Transferred Assets, an amendment of FASB Statement No. 140." This proposal would, among other things, change the requirements that an entity must meet in order to be considered a QSPE. Given the uncertainties associated with the pending FASB Exposure

28

Draft, we decided to close NCMSLT and use discrete trusts, such as NCSLT 2003, for the December 2003 as well as future securitizations. See "—Consolidation."

        Additional Structural Advisory Fees.    The additional component of structural advisory fees increased to $5.7 million during the first six months of fiscal 2004 from $2.5 million during the same period last year. The increase in additional structural advisory fees was primarily a result of an increase in securitization volume, and, to a lesser extent, an increase in the additional structural advisory fee rate between periods.

        The following tables summarize the changes in the fair value of additional structural advisory fees (excluding the $8.5 million up-front structural advisory fee receivable from the December 2003 securitization that we expect to receive in July 2004) for the three and six month periods ended December 31, 2003 and 2002:

        During the first six months of fiscal 2004, the fair value of our additional structural advisory fees decreased by approximately $0.2 million, as the accretion of the discounting inherent in these present value estimates and the impact of upward movement in the implied forward one-month LIBOR curve were more than offset by the effect of the increase in the discount rate during the period. During the first six months of fiscal 2003, the fair value of our additional structural advisory fees increased by approximately $0.4 million, as both the accretion of the discounting inherent in these present value estimates and a decrease in the discount rate contributed to an increase in the value of these receivables.

        On a quarterly basis, we update our estimate of the present value of our additional structural advisory fees. In doing so, we give effect for the passage of time, which results in the accretion of the discounting inherent in these present value estimates, and we also adjust for any change in the discount rate that we use in estimating the present value of these receivables.

        We base the discount rate that we use to calculate the present value of our additional structural advisory fees on the 10-year U.S. Treasury rate plus 200 basis points. The 10-year Treasury rate plus 2% equaled 6.25% at December 31, 2003, 5.95% at September 30, 2003, 5.33% at June 30, 2003, 6.03% at December 31, 2002, 5.87% at September 30, 2002 and 6.86% at June 30, 2002. A decrease in the 10-year U.S. Treasury rate has the effect of increasing the fair market value of our structural advisory fees receivable, while an increase in the rate has the opposite effect on our estimate of their fair market value.

29

        On an ongoing basis, we monitor the performance of trust assets, including default, recovery, prepayment and forward LIBOR rates experience, which we also consider in our estimates. We use an implied forward one-month LIBOR curve to estimate trust cash flows. During the six month period ended December 31, 2003, the rates along the implied forward one-month LIBOR curve increased between 15 and 110 basis points. These increases in rates resulted in an increase in the average life of the underlying trust assets, thereby having an effect of increasing the fair market value of the structural advisory fees and residuals receivables during the period. The impact of changing LIBOR rates in the six month period ended December 31, 2002 did not have a material impact on the fair market value of additional structural advisory fees receivable during that period. For a discussion of the assumptions we make in estimating our additional structural advisory fees receivable, see "—Application of Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates—Service Revenue."

        We made no changes in our assumptions regarding default rates, prepayment rates and recovery rates for the NCMSLT or NCT Trusts in the first six months of either fiscal 2004 or 2003.

Residuals

        Residuals increased to $32.5 million for the first six months of fiscal 2004 from $13.4 million for the same period last year. The increase in residuals is primarily a result of an increase in securitization volume.

        The following tables summarize the changes in the fair value of residuals receivable for the three and six month periods ended December 31, 2003 and 2002:

        During the first six months of fiscal 2004 and 2003, the fair value of our residual receivables increased by approximately $2.8 million and $0.8 million, respectively, due to the passage of time and the impact of movement in the implied forward one-month LIBOR curve. The amount of this fair value adjustment increased between periods as the underlying receivables balance increased. We expect that adjustments for the passage of time will continue to increase as we conduct more securitization transactions and thereby add to the residual revenues that we discount to present value.

        On a quarterly basis, we update our estimate of the present value of our residuals. In doing so, we give effect for the passage of time, which results in the accretion of the discounting inherent in these present value estimates, and we also adjust for any change in the discount rate that we use in

30

estimating the present value of these receivables. We used a 12% discount factor during fiscal 2004 and 2003.

        On an ongoing basis, we monitor the performance of trust assets, including default, recovery, prepayment and forward LIBOR rates experience, which we also consider in our estimates. We use an implied forward one-month LIBOR curve to estimate trust cash flows. During the six month period ended December 31, 2003, the rates along the implied forward one-month LIBOR curve increased between 15 and 110 basis points. These increases in rates resulted in an increase in the average life of the underlying trust assets, thereby having an effect of increasing the fair market value of the residuals receivables during the period. The impact of changing LIBOR rates in the six month period ended December 31, 2002 did not have a material impact on the fair market value of residuals receivable during that period. For a discussion of the assumptions we make in estimating our residuals, see "—Application of Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates—Service Revenue."

        In determining an appropriate discount rate for valuing residuals, we review the rates used by student loan securitizers, as well as rates used in the much broader commercial mortgage-backed securities, or CMBS, market. We believe that CMBS residuals are valued at 800 to 1200 basis points over comparable maturity U.S. Treasury Notes, with 15-year maturity asset pools valued toward the lower discount rate and 30-year maturity asset pools valued more toward the higher discount rate. We believe that the 12% discount rate we use is appropriate given the maximum 24-year life of the trust assets and residuals.

Administrative and other fees

        Administrative and other fees increased to approximately $0.5 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2004 from approximately $0.3 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2003, and increased to approximately $0.8 million for the first six months of fiscal 2004 from approximately $0.7 million for the first six months of fiscal 2003. Administrative fees charged to the securitization trusts increased by approximately $0.1 million between the three month periods and $0.3 million between the six month periods, reflecting the higher student loan balances in the trusts and an increase in the administrative fee rate charged to the NCT trusts between periods from 10 basis points to 20 basis points. We expect that our administrative fees will continue to increase as the student loan balances in the securitization trusts continue to increase. Other processing fees decreased by approximately $0.2 million for the second quarter and by approximately $0.4 million for the first six months of the fiscal year as we stopped charging a loan origination fee on certain private label loans at the end of fiscal 2003. In the second quarter of fiscal 2004, we charged a private label client approximately $0.2 million for call center expenses directly related to its loan program offerings, which we recorded as other fee revenue.

Processing Fees from TERI

        Processing fees from TERI increased to $7.1 million for the second quarter of fiscal 2004 from $4.6 million for the second quarter of fiscal 2003, and increased to $15.0 million for the first six months of fiscal 2004 from $9.9 million for the first six months of fiscal 2003. This increase was attributable to the growth in private label loan facilitations, which increased to $336 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2004 from $204 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2003, and increased to $931 million for the first six months of fiscal 2004 from $563 million for the first six months of fiscal 2003. We expect that our processing fees from TERI will continue to increase as we devote additional personnel and other resources to facilitate expected increases in private label loan volumes.

Operating Expenses

        Total operating expenses increased to $15.5 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2004 from $8.3 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2003. Total operating expenses for the six months ended

31

December 31, 2003 increased to $30.7 million as compared to $16.8 million for the same period last year.

        Compensation and benefits increased to $7.8 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2004 from $4.6 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2003, and increased to $16.7 million for the first six months of fiscal 2004 from $9.1 million during the same period last year. General and administrative expenses increased to $7.7 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2004 from $3.7 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2003, and increased to $14.0 million for the first six months of fiscal 2004 as compared to $7.7 million for the same period last year.

        Compensation and benefits and general and administrative expenses increased between periods primarily as a result of an increase in the number of personnel, as we continued to hire additional personnel to meet the operating requirements from our growing loan processing and securitization activities. In addition, in the first quarter of fiscal 2004, we incurred a non-cash compensation charge of $1.64 million related to an agreement between an executive officer and two of our principal stockholders related to shares of our common stock owned by these stockholders which, under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the executive officer is deemed to have earned from us. We do not expect to take any future charges related to this agreement as it was terminated on September 30, 2003 in exchange for vested options issued by these stockholders. Furthermore, as our financial performance improves, we expect to award higher performance-based cash compensation to our employees. As a result, we have increased our bonus accrual related to performance-based compensation during the first six months of fiscal 2004 by approximately $2.0 million.

        General and administrative expenses increased during fiscal 2004 as compared to fiscal 2003 as a result of an increase in professional fees, consulting fees, call center expenses, and credit bureau fees. Professional fees increased to $1.4 million for the three months ended December 31, 2003 compared to $0.5 million for the three month period ended December 31, 2002, and increased to $1.8 million for the six months ended December 31, 2002 compared to $0.9 million for the same six month period last year. This increase was primarily a result of increased legal and accounting fees related to the creation of securitization trusts and increased professional fees associated with being a company with publicly traded securities. Consulting fees increased to $1.3 million for the three months ended December 31, 2003 compared to $0.5 million for the three month period ended December 31, 2002, and increased to $2.5 million for the six months ended December 31, 2003 compared to $1.1 million for the six month period last year. This increase resulted as we have engaged additional outside consultants to assist us with our business development, marketing and process redesign work. Call center and temporary staffing expenses increased to $0.8 million for the three months ended December 31, 2003 compared to $0.3 million for the three months ended December 31, 2002, and increased to $1.9 million for the six months ended December 31, 2003 compared to $1.1 million for the same period last year, as loan origination volumes have increased between the periods. Credit bureau fees increased to approximately $0.4 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2004 compared to $0.2 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2003, and increased to $1.1 million for the six months ended December 31, 2003 compared to $0.6 million for the six months ended December 31, 2002 as a result of increased loan applications processed.

        We expect that our operating expenses will continue to increase as we devote additional resources to the expected increasing loan volumes facilitated for our existing and new clients.

32

        The following table summarizes the components of operating expenses, both those reimbursed and not reimbursed by TERI under our master servicing agreement, for the three and six month periods ended December 31, 2003 and 2002:

Other (Income) Expense

Interest (income) expense, net

        We recorded net interest income during the second quarter of fiscal 2004 of $42,000 compared to net interest expense during the same period last year of $361,000. During the first six months of fiscal 2004, we recorded net interest expense of $57,000 compared to net interest expense during the first six months of fiscal 2003 of $734,000. The reduction in interest expense was primarily the result of the repayment on May 30, 2003 of approximately $4.5 million borrowed from stockholders and certain of their affiliates in June 2001 related to the acquisition of TERI's loan processing operations, offset by interest paid on our $6.5 million of borrowings on our line of credit during October 2003. In addition, interest income is derived from our investment of excess cash, including the net proceeds of our initial public offering which we received on November 5, 2003.

Income Tax Expense

        Income tax expense increased to $25.5 million for the second quarter of fiscal 2004 from approximately $10.2 million for the second quarter of fiscal 2003, and for the six months ended December 31, 2003 increased to $22.7 million from $9.2 million for the same period last year. The increase in income tax expense was due to the increase in pre-tax income between periods, partially offset by a decrease in the effective tax rate. The effective tax rate for the six month period changed from 42% last year to 40% this year due primarily to the impact of non-cash compensation charges during the first quarter of fiscal 2004 related to an agreement with an executive officer.

Financial Condition, Liquidity and Capital Resources

        Our liquidity requirements have historically consisted, and we expect that they will continue to consist, of capital expenditures, working capital, business development expenses, general corporate expenses and potential acquisitions.

        In September 2003, we filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the Securities and Exchange Commission registering 14,375,000 shares of our common stock, including:

•

6,875,000 shares offered by us;



•

5,625,000 shares offered by selling stockholders;

33

•

1,031,250 shares that the underwriters had the option to purchase from us to cover over-allotments; and



•

843,750 shares that the underwriters had the option to purchase from certain selling stockholders to cover over-allotments.

        All of the 14,375,000 shares were sold on November 5, 2003 at a price to the public of $16.00 per share in our initial public offering. Net proceeds of the initial public offering to us were approximately $117.6 million, after underwriting discounts but excluding offering expenses paid or payable by us. We did not receive any of the proceeds of the sale of the shares sold by the selling stockholders.

        With respect to our liquidity and capital resources, the up-front structural advisory fees we earned from the securitization trusts in the first six months of fiscal 2004 and 2003 amounted to $33.0 million and $13.1 million, respectively. In addition, securitization-related revenue during the first six months of fiscal 2004 and 2003 amounted to 82% and 73%, respectively, of total service revenue.

34

Cash and Cash Equivalents

        At December 31, 2003, we had $142.0 million in cash and cash equivalents and at June 30, 2003 we had $18.3 million in cash and cash equivalents. Cash and cash equivalents includes balances in money market funds and securities purchased under resale agreements with original maturities of three months or less. We also included in cash and cash equivalents $0.7 million of restricted cash that provides partial collateral for a $7.25 million note payable that we issued in December 2003 described below under "Notes Payable."

Structural Advisory Fees and Residuals Receivables

        Our structural advisory fees and residuals receivables increased to $101.1 million at December 31, 2003 from $54.4 million at June 30, 2003, primarily as a result of the additional structural advisory fees and residuals receivable generated from the December 2003 securitization. The December 31, 2003 structural advisory fees receivable balance also includes $8.5 million of up-front structural advisory fees from the December 2003 securitization which we expect to receive in July 2004. For a discussion of our borrowing related to the $8.5 million payment we expect to receive in July 2004, see "—Notes Payable."

        We record structural advisory fees and residuals receivables on our balance sheet at fair value based on certain assumptions we make about the timing and amount of payment. On a quarterly basis, we update our estimate of the present value of our additional structural advisory fees and residuals receivable. In doing so, we give effect for the passage of time, which results in the accretion of the discounting inherent in these present value estimates. On an ongoing basis, we monitor the performance of trust assets, including prepayment, default and recovery rates experience, which we also consider in our estimates.

Property and Equipment, net

        During the first six months of fiscal 2004, our property and equipment, net increased by $2.4 million, as we spent $2.2 million on the relocation of our corporate headquarters and $1.0 million on the expansion of our processing facilities, offset by $0.9 million of depreciation expense recorded during the period.

Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses

        We had accounts payable and accrued expenses of $14.4 million at December 31, 2003 and $13.6 million at June 30, 2003. During the first six months of fiscal 2004 we paid $8.6 million of income taxes accrued at June 30, 2003, and recorded accrued tax expenses of $7.1 million related to our income before income taxes generated during the period. Our accounts payable were $0.8 million higher at December 31, 2003, primarily as a result of unpaid invoices related to our initial public offering and the relocation of our corporate headquarters.

Net Deferred Tax Liability

        We have a net deferred tax liability because, under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, we recognize additional structural advisory fees and residuals in income earlier than for tax purposes. Our deferred tax liability increased primarily as a result of additional structural advisory fee and residual revenue recognized over the first six months of fiscal 2004, offset in part by a decrease due to the tax effect of the non-cash compensation charges we recognized related to an agreement with an executive officer.

Notes Payable

        We had notes payable of $13.6 million at December 31, 2003 and $6.7 million in June 30, 2003. During the second quarter of fiscal 2004, we received $7.0 million of the $8.5 million up-front

35

structural advisory fee payment that we expect to receive in July 2004 by assigning the right to the first $7.25 million of the July 2004 payment to the lead underwriter of the December 2003 securitization. This transaction was structured in the form of a $7.25 million note, and is further collateralized by the first $6.3 million of residual cash flow from the December 2003 securitization, as well as $700,000 of restricted cash. The remaining balance in notes payable relates to two acquisition notes we issued to acquire TERI's loan processing operations in 2001. At December 31, 2003 and June 30, 2003, these acquisition notes had an aggregate outstanding principal balance of $6.3 million and $6.7 million, respectively.

Cash Flows

        We had net cash inflows from operations for the six months ended December 31, 2003 of $4.8 million, compared to net cash inflows from operations for the six months ended December 31, 2002 of $8.6 million. Cash provided by operations resulted primarily from our net income and an increase in our net deferred tax liability, offset by increases in our structural advisory fees and residuals receivables.

        We used $3.6 million of net cash in investing activities for the six months ended December 31, 2003. The principal use of net cash was capital expenditures, primarily computer and office equipment to allow us to service an increasing volume of loan applications, and to a lesser extent, payments for loan database updates from TERI.

        We had net cash inflows from financing activities of $122.4 million for the six months ended December 31, 2003. The net proceeds from our initial public offering in November 2003 totaled $115.1 million. We also issued a $7.25 million note and received $7.0 million in cash from the lead underwriter of our December 2003 securitization to monetize a substantial portion of the $8.5 million up-front structural advisory fee payment from the securitization that we expect to receive in July 2004. Net cash we received upon exercise of options to purchase our common stock was also a source of cash flow from financing activities during the six month period ended December 31, 2003, and net cash we received upon exercise of options and warrants to purchase our common stock was also a source of cash flow from financing activities during the six months ended December 31, 2002. The use of cash for financing activities during both periods reflected payments under the notes that we issued to TERI in connection with the loan processing operations acquisition.

        We expect that our capital expenditure requirements for fiscal 2004 will be approximately $8.5 million. We expect to use these funds primarily for the expansion of our loan processing operations, purchase of computer and office equipment, and leasehold improvements to our corporate headquarters. We currently have capital expenditure commitments over the next 12 months of approximately $0.5 million.

Borrowings

        In June 2001, we issued two acquisition notes to TERI totaling $7.9 million to acquire TERI's loan processing operations as well as its workforce-in-place. Principal and interest at an annual rate of 6% is payable on these notes in 120 monthly payments of $87,706 commencing on July 20, 2001 and ending on June 20, 2011. At December 31, 2003, outstanding principal on these notes totaled $6.3 million as compared to $6.7 million at June 30, 2003.

        In addition, in June 2001, we borrowed $5.5 million from stockholders and certain affiliates of a stockholder to supplement the financing of the acquisition of TERI's loan processing operations and for working capital purposes. These notes were due to mature on May 30, 2004, with interest payable quarterly at an annual rate of 10% of the current principal balance. We were required to pay additional interest at a rate of 15% of the outstanding balance as of June 1 of the previous year each May 30 until maturity. We repaid these notes in full on May 30, 2003.

36

        Effective April 24, 2002, we entered into a $975,000 revolving line of credit with a bank, none of which was outstanding on December 31, 2003 or June 30, 2003. The line of credit was extended to December 31, 2003, with interest payable annually at the greater of 6% or 1% above the highest published Wall Street Journal prime rate. A member of our board of directors is a director and majority stockholder of the company that owns the bank that provided this line of credit. We believe that the terms of the line of credit were substantially the same as those prevailing at the time we entered into this credit arrangement as we would have received from other banks for a comparable transaction. We did not renew this revolving line of credit when it expired.

        On August 28, 2003, we entered into a $10 million revolving credit facility with Fleet National Bank. The revolving credit facility matures on August 28, 2005, with interest currently payable, at our option, at the bank's prime rate or the London Interbank Offered Rate, or LIBOR, plus 2%. The revolving credit line contains financial covenants, including:

•

minimum trailing 12-month up-front structural advisory fees of not less than $25 to $30 million;



•

minimum tangible net worth of not less than $40 million through June 30, 2004 and the sum of 100% of consolidated tangible net worth plus 85% of consolidated net income, thereafter;



•

a maximum liabilities to net worth ratio of not greater than 1.15 to 1.00; and



•

a minimum cash flow to debt service ratio of not less than 1.50 to 1.00,

as well as certain financial reporting covenants. We expect to be able to meet these financial and reporting requirements during the term of the revolving credit facility and are currently in compliance with these covenants. This agreement restricts our ability to pay cash dividends in the event we are in default. As of December 31, 2003, we had no balance outstanding under the revolving credit facility. The maximum annual commitment fee is $25,000. The bank has issued on our behalf three irrevocable letters of credit in the aggregate amount of $943,000 in lieu of security deposits for the lease and sublease of office space. The third party beneficiaries have not drawn upon this revolving credit facility. These letters of credit reduce the amount we may borrow under this revolving credit facility.

        On December 29, 2003, we issued a $7.25 million note to the lead underwriter on our December 2003 securitization to monetize a substantial portion of the second up-front structural advisory fee payment which we expect to receive in July 2004. The first $7.25 million of that payment will be used to repay the note. The note is further collateralized by $700,000 of restricted cash and a security interest in the first $6.3 million of residual payments scheduled to come from the residual revenues on the December 2003 securitization.

Short-term Funding Requirements

        We expect to fund our short-term liquidity requirements through cash flow from operations and the proceeds of our initial public offering, which we closed on November 5, 2003. We believe, based on our current operating plan and the proceeds of our initial public offering, that our current cash and other short-term investments will be sufficient to fund our operations for the foreseeable future. In addition, we may use our credit facility as a source of short-term liquidity if the need arises.

Long-term Funding Requirements

        We expect to fund the growth of our business through cash flow from operations and through issuances of common stock, promissory notes or other securities. We expect to assess our financing alternatives periodically and access the capital markets opportunistically. If our existing resources are insufficient to satisfy our liquidity requirements, or if we enter into an acquisition or strategic arrangement with another company, we may need to sell additional equity or debt securities. Any sale of additional equity or debt securities may result in additional dilution to our stockholders, and we cannot be certain that additional public or private financing will be available in amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. If we are unable to obtain this additional financing, we may be required to

37

delay, reduce the scope of, or eliminate one or more aspects of our business development activities, which could harm the growth of our business.

        From our inception, we have raised approximately $144.9 million from the sale of common stock and promissory notes, including approximately $117.6 million in net proceeds from our initial public offering after underwriting discounts but before offering expenses payable by us.

        Our actual liquidity and capital funding requirements may depend on numerous factors, including:

•

our facilities expansion needs;



•

the extent to which our services gain increased market acceptance and remain competitive; and



•

the costs and timing of acquisitions of complementary businesses.

        If we are not able to obtain adequate funding when needed, we may have to delay further expansion of our business.

Off-Balance Sheet Transactions

        We offer outsourcing services in connection with the lifecycle of a private student loan, from program design and marketing through loan administration and, ultimately, to the sale and securitization of the loans. We also structure and facilitate the securitization of loans for our clients through a series of bankruptcy remote, special purpose trusts.

        We do not utilize these trusts as a means to transfer assets or liabilities from our balance sheet to those of the trusts because we are not the originator of the securitized student loans or the issuer of the related debt. We do not serve as lender, guarantor or loan servicer. Specifically, these trusts purchase such student loans from third-party financial institutions, the financing of which is provided through the issuance of asset-backed securities.

        The principal uses of these trusts are to:

•

generate sources of liquidity for our clients' assets sold into such trusts and to reduce their credit risk;



•

make available more funds to students and colleges; and



•

leverage the capital markets to reduce borrowing costs to students.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

        In January 2003, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, issued FASB Interpretation, or FIN, No. 46, "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, an interpretation of ARB No. 51." FIN No. 46 provides a new framework for identifying variable interest entities, or VIEs, and determining when a company should include the assets, liabilities, noncontrolling interests and results of activities of a VIE in its consolidated financial statements. FIN No. 46 was effective immediately for VIEs created after January 31, 2003, and effective July 1, 2003 for the Company for VIEs it created before February 1, 2003. Adoption of this statement did not materially affect our financial condition, results of operations, earnings per share or cash flows. For additional information regarding the Company's adoption of FIN No. 46, see "—Consolidation."

        In May 2003, the FASB issued SFAS No. 150, "Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of both Liabilities and Equity." SFAS No. 150 establishes new standards for how an issuer classifies and measures certain financial instruments with characteristics of both debt and equity. It requires that an issuer classify three classes of freestanding financial instruments that embody obligations for the issuer as a liability or, in some cases, assets. This statement generally is effective for financial instruments entered into or modified after May 31, 2003 and for contracts in existence at the start of the first interim period beginning after June 15, 2003. The adoption of this standard did not and is not expected to have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations, earnings per share or cash flows.

38

        In December 2002, the FASB issued SFAS No. 148, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation—Transition and Disclosure." SFAS No. 148 amends SFAS No. 123, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation" to provide alternative methods of transition when companies elect to change from the intrinsic method to the fair value method of accounting for stock- based employee compensation, including stock options. In addition, SFAS No. 148 amends the disclosure requirement of SFAS No. 123 to require prominent disclosures in both annual and interim financial statements about the fair value based method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation and the effect of the method used on reported results. The statement is effective for fiscal years ended after December 15, 2002 and the disclosures to be provided in interim financial reports are required for interim periods beginning after December 15, 2002. We currently use the intrinsic method of accounting for stock options and have not yet determined if we will change the intrinsic value method to the fair value method of accounting for employee stock options. For additional information regarding our accounting for stock compensation, including a tabular presentation of the effects on our net income and earnings per share had we utilized the fair value method of accounting for stock options and other stock compensation, see "Stock Options" in Note 2 to the notes to unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements included in this quarterly report.

        On December 24, 2003, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation (FIN) No. 46 (revised December 2003), "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities" (FIN No. 46R), which addresses how a business enterprise should evaluate whether it has a controlling interest in an entity through means other than voting rights and accordingly should consolidate the entity. FIN No. 46R will replace FIN No. 46. Public companies must apply either FIN No. 46 or FIN No. 46R immediately to entities created after January 31, 2003 and no later than the end of the first reporting period that ends after December 15, 2003 to entities considered to be special-purpose entities. We expect that the adoption of FIN No. 46R will not have a material impact on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations, earnings per share or cash flows.

Inflation

        Inflation was not a material factor in either revenue or operating expenses during the periods presented.

Forward-Looking Statements

        This quarterly report on Form 10-Q includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. For this purpose, any statements contained herein regarding our strategy, future operations, financial position, future revenues, projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives of management, other than statements of historical facts, are forward-looking statements. The words "anticipates," "believes," "estimates," "expects," "intends," "may," "plans," "projects," "will," "would" and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. We cannot guarantee that we actually will achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements. There are a number of important factors that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those disclosed in the forward-looking statements we make. These important factors include our "critical accounting estimates" and the risk factors set forth below under the caption "Factors That May Affect Future Results." Although we may elect to update forward-looking statements in the future, we specifically disclaim any obligation to do so, even if our estimates change, and readers should not rely on those forward-looking statements as representing our views as of any date subsequent to the date of this quarterly report.

39

Factors That May Affect Future Results

Risks Related to our Business

We derive a significant portion of our revenue and substantially all of our income from structuring securitization transactions; our financial results and future growth would be adversely affected if we are unable to structure securitizations.

        Securitization refers to the technique of pooling loans and selling them to a special purpose, bankruptcy remote entity, typically a trust, which issues securities to investors backed by those loans. We have provided structural advisory and other services for 20 loan securitizations since our formation in 1991 and we receive fees for these services. In connection with securitizations, we receive compensation in the form of structural advisory fees, residuals and administrative fees for management of the trusts. The amount and timing of the fees we recognize are affected, in part, by the size and composition of loan pools to be securitized, the return expectations of investors and assumptions we make regarding loan portfolio performance, including defaults, recoveries, and prepayments. Securitization-related revenue constituted 82% of our total service revenues for the first six months of fiscal 2004, 76% of our total service revenue in fiscal 2003 and 66% of our total service revenue in fiscal 2002. Substantially all of our net income in those fiscal years was attributable to securitization-related revenue.

The timing of our securitization activities will greatly affect our quarterly financial results.

        Our quarterly revenue, operating results and profitability have varied and are expected to continue to vary significantly on a quarterly basis. In fiscal 2003, we recognized 7% of our total service revenue in the first fiscal quarter, and 36%, 17%, and 40%, respectively, of our total service revenue in the three successive quarters. Our quarterly revenue varies primarily because of the timing of the securitizations that we structure. During the first six months of fiscal 2004, we facilitated no securitizations in our first fiscal quarter, and one securitization in our second quarter. We do not expect to conduct another securitization until our fourth fiscal quarter of 2004. In fiscal 2003, we facilitated securitizations in the second and fourth quarters. During the third quarter of fiscal 2003, one of the securitization trusts used funds raised in the second quarter securitization to acquire student loans from our clients, which generated service revenue for us in the third quarter. See "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Quarterly Fluctuations." The timing of our securitization activities is affected to some degree by the seasonality of student loan applications and loan originations. Origination of student loans is generally subject to seasonal trends, with the volume of loan applications increasing with the approach of tuition payment dates.

A number of factors, some of which are beyond our control, may adversely affect our securitization activities and thereby adversely affect our results of operations.

        Our financial performance and future growth depend in part on our continued success in structuring securitizations. Several factors may affect both our ability to structure securitizations and the revenue we generate for providing our structural advisory and other services, including the following:

•

degradation of the credit quality and performance in the loan portfolios of the trusts we structure could reduce or eliminate investor demand for securitizations that we facilitate in the future;



•

unwillingness of financial guarantee providers to continue to provide credit insurance in the securitizations that we structure or in student loan-backed securitizations generally;



•

adverse performance of, or other problems with, student loan-backed securitizations that other parties facilitate could impact pricing or demand for our securitizations; and

40

•

any material downgrading or withdrawal of ratings given to securities previously issued in securitizations that we structured could reduce demand for additional securitizations that we structure.

        A significant portion of the securities issued since 1998 in securitization transactions that we structured were sold to asset-backed commercial paper conduits. If these or similar asset-backed conduits cease to purchase securities in the securitizations that we structure, we may experience a delay in the timing of our securitizations as we seek to find alternate channels of distribution.

        Under the terms of some of our contracts with key lender clients, we have an obligation to securitize loans originated by those lenders periodically, typically twice per year. We may agree with certain lenders to securitize more frequently in the future. If we do not honor these obligations, we may be required to pay liquidated or other damages, which could adversely affect our results of operations.

In connection with our recognition of revenue from securitization transactions, if the estimates we make, and the assumptions on which we rely, in preparing our financial statements prove inaccurate, our actual results may vary from those reflected in our financial statements.

        Our financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of our assets, liabilities, revenue and expenses, the amount of fees we accrue and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities.

        We receive structural advisory fees for our services in connection with securitization transactions. We receive an up-front portion of these structural advisory fees when the securitization trust purchases the loans. We receive an additional portion of these structural advisory fees over time, based on the amount of loans outstanding in the trust from time to time over the life of the loans. We also have the right to receive a portion of the residual interests that the trust creates. As required under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, we recognize as revenue the present value of the additional portion of the structural advisory fees and residuals at the time the securitization trust purchases the loans because they are deemed to be earned before they are actually paid to us. We record additional structural advisory fees and residuals as receivables on our balance sheet at fair value. Accounting rules require that these receivables be marked-to-market. We estimate the fair value both initially and each subsequent quarter and reflect the change in value in earnings for that period. Our key assumptions to estimate the value include prepayment and discount rates, interest rate trends and the expected credit losses from the underlying securitized loan portfolio, net of recoveries. If our assumptions are wrong, the additional structural advisory fees and residuals that we receive from the trusts could be significantly less than reflected in our current financial statements, and we may incur a material negative adjustment to our earnings in the period in which our assumptions change.

        Our residuals in each securitization we have facilitated are subordinate to securities issued to investors in such securitizations and may fail to generate any revenue for us if the securitized assets only generate enough revenue to pay the investors.

In structuring and facilitating securitizations of our clients' loans and as holders of rights to receive residual cash flows in those trusts, we may incur liabilities to investors in the asset-backed securities those trusts issue.

        We have facilitated and structured a number of different special purpose trusts that have been used in securitizations to finance student loans that our clients originate. Under applicable state and federal securities laws, if investors incur losses as a result of purchasing asset-backed securities that those trusts issue, we could be deemed responsible and could be liable to those investors for damages.

41

If we failed to cause the trusts to disclose correctly all material information regarding an investment in the asset-backed securities or if the trust made statements that were misleading in any material respect in information delivered to investors, it is possible that we could be held responsible for that information or omission. In addition, under various agreements entered into with underwriters or financial guarantee insurers of those asset-backed securities, we are contractually bound to indemnify those persons if investors are successful in seeking to recover losses from those parties and the trusts are found to have made materially misleading statements or to have omitted material information.

        We do not maintain reserves or insurance against this potential liability. If we are liable for losses investors incur in any of the securitizations that we facilitate or structure, our profitability or financial position could be materially adversely affected.

If our relationships with key clients terminate, our revenue and results of operations would be adversely affected.

        We structure and support private student loan programs for commercial banks, including Bank One N.A. Structural advisory fees and residuals from securitization of Bank One private label loans represented approximately 53% of our total service revenue for the first six months of fiscal 2004, approximately 70% of our total service revenue for the first six months of fiscal 2003, and approximately 59% of our total service revenue for all of fiscal 2003. Our current agreement with Bank One is scheduled to terminate in 2007. However, Bank One has the right to terminate our agreement on short notice, generally 30 days or less, if we materially breach our agreement, including our failure to perform at service levels specified in those contracts. A significant decline in services to Bank One could reduce the overall volume of loans we facilitate, which could be difficult to replace through arrangements with other lenders. Our revenue, business and financial results would suffer as a result.

If our relationship with TERI terminates, our business could be adversely affected.

        In June 2001, we purchased the loan processing operations of TERI and entered into a series of agreements to govern future securitizations of TERI-guaranteed loans. TERI continues to provide private student loan guarantee, education information and counseling services for students, and is the exclusive third-party provider of borrower default guarantees for our clients' private label loans. We have entered into an agreement to provide various services to TERI and received fees from TERI for services performed of $15.0 million, or 17% of total service revenue, for the first six months of fiscal 2004, and $20.6 million, or 23% of our total service revenue, for fiscal 2003. In addition, we have agreed to undertake on a best-efforts basis to arrange or facilitate securitizations for a limited category of TERI-guaranteed loans and have the right to receive structural advisory and other fees in connection with these securitizations. We also have entered into an agreement to receive from TERI updated information about the performance of the student loans it has guaranteed to allow us to supplement our database. Each of these agreements with TERI has an initial term through June 2006 with a renewal option exercisable by either party for an additional five-year term. If our agreements with TERI terminate for any reason, or if TERI fails to comply with its obligations, our business would be adversely affected and the value of our intangible assets could be impaired for the following reasons:

•

we may not be able to offer our clients guarantee services from another guarantor and, accordingly, our access to loans and our opportunities to structure securitization transactions may diminish significantly;



•

we may not be successful in establishing an arrangement with a third party to provide the warranties that TERI currently provides to lenders related to origination services. In such case, we may be required to provide such warranties; and



•

if TERI is unable to provide guarantee services, the financial guarantee insurance coverage we obtain in securitization transactions could be more costly, if it is available at all.

42

        In such events, demand for our services, including opportunities to structure and facilitate securitization transactions, could decline, which would adversely affect our business. In addition, the value of the loan pools in the securitization transactions we facilitate could decline and the value of our residuals could be reduced.

Our business could be adversely affected if TERI's ratings are downgraded, if TERI fails to maintain its not-for-profit status or if TERI's not-for-profit status ceased to be a competitive advantage.

        In its role as guarantor in the private education lending market, TERI agrees to reimburse lenders for unpaid principal and interest on defaulted loans. TERI is the exclusive provider of borrower default guarantees for our clients' private student loans. As of the date of this quarterly report, TERI had a Baa3 counterparty rating from Moody's Investors Service, which is the lowest investment grade rating, and an insurer financial strength rating of A+ from Fitch Ratings. If these ratings are lowered, our clients may not wish to enter into guarantee arrangements with TERI. In addition, we may receive lower structural advisory fees because the costs of obtaining financial guarantee insurance for the asset-backed securitizations that we structure could increase. In such case, our business would be adversely affected.

        TERI is a not-for-profit organization and, as a result, borrowers have been deemed unable to discharge in bankruptcy proceedings loans that TERI guarantees. If TERI loses its not for-profit status, and TERI-guaranteed student loans become dischargeable in bankruptcy, recovery rates on these loans could decline. In such event, our business could be adversely affected for the following reasons:

•

our residuals in the securitization trusts could decline because of increased default rates and collection costs; and



•

the securitization transactions that we structure could be on less favorable terms because investors and financial guarantee insurers could become more concerned with default and recovery rates.

        Assuming that TERI retains its not-for-profit status, TERI's position as the leading provider of private education loan guarantees could be adversely affected if the U.S. federal bankruptcy laws are amended to make student loans generally non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, as provided in legislation currently before the U.S. Congress. If such an amendment were enacted:

•

lenders who would currently seek a guarantee from a not-for-profit entity such as TERI in order for their private student loans to become non-dischargeable in bankruptcy may cease to do so; and



•

TERI would cease to have this competitive advantage over potential for-profit providers of the services that TERI provides.

        As a result of these impacts on TERI, lenders might be less inclined to utilize the TERI-guaranteed private label loan programs, which could, in turn, harm our business and results of operations.

Our business could be adversely affected if PHEAA fails to provide adequate or timely services or if our relationship with PHEAA terminates.

        Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, or PHEAA, currently services a majority of all loans whose origination we facilitate. This arrangement allows us to increase the volume of loans in our clients' loan programs without incurring the overhead investment in servicing operations. As with any external service provider, there are risks associated with inadequate or untimely services. We regularly monitor the servicing portfolio reports, including delinquencies and defaults. A substantial increase in the delinquency rate could adversely affect our ability to access profitably the securitization markets for

43

our clients' loans. In addition, if our relationship with PHEAA terminates, we would need to develop a relationship with another loan servicer, which could be time-consuming and costly. In such event, our business could be adversely affected. Although we periodically review the costs associated with establishing servicing operations to service loans, we have no plans to establish and perform servicing operations at this time.

The outsourcing services market for education lending is highly competitive, and if we are not able to compete effectively, our revenue and results of operations may be adversely affected.

        We assist national and regional financial institutions and educational institutions, as well as businesses and other organizations in structuring and supporting their private education loan programs. In providing our services, we receive fees for services we provide primarily in connection with the securitization of our clients' loans. The outsourcing services market in which we operate includes a large number of service providers, some of which have greater financial, technical and marketing resources, larger customer bases, greater name recognition and more established relationships with their clients than we have. Larger competitors with greater financial resources may be better able to respond to the need for technological changes, compete for skilled professionals, build upon efficiencies based on a larger volume of loan transactions, fund internal growth and compete for market share generally. We may face competition from our clients if they choose to provide directly the services that we currently provide, and from third parties who decide to expand their services to include the suite of services that we provide. We are aware of two competitors, SLM Corporation, or Sallie Mae, and Servus Financial Corporation, an affiliate of Wells Fargo Company, which offer a similar range of services to lenders. Our business could also be adversely affected if Sallie Mae seeks to market more aggressively to third parties the full range of services for private loan programs that we provide. If we are not able to compete effectively, our revenue and results of operations may be adversely affected. In addition, if third parties choose to provide the range of services that we provide, pricing for our services may become more competitive, which could lower our profitability.

        Historically, lenders in the education loan market have focused their lending activities on federal loans because of the relative size of the federal loan market and because the federal government guarantees repayment of these loans, thereby significantly limiting the lenders' credit risk. The demand for our services could decline if lenders place additional emphasis on the private education loan market and offer the services we provide.

The growth of our business could be adversely affected if annual and aggregate limitations under federal student loan programs increase.

        We focus our business exclusively on the market for private education loans, and more than 90% of our business is concentrated in loan programs for post-secondary education. The availability of loans that the federal government originates or guarantees affects the demand for private student loans because students and their families often rely on private loans to bridge the gap between available funds, including family savings, grants and federal and state loans, and the costs of post-secondary education. The federal government currently places both annual and aggregate limitations on the amount of federal loans that any student can receive, and these limitations are adjusted in connection with funding authorizations from the United States Congress for programs under the Higher Education Act. The limitations on federal student loans have not been adjusted since 1992, and Congress could increase the limitations as early as 2004. If Congress increases either the annual or aggregate loan limitations, or otherwise increases the funding available under federal student loan programs, demand for private student loans could weaken, which could adversely affect the volume of private loans and the securitization transactions that we facilitate and structure and, as a result, the growth of our business.

44

Access to alternative means of financing the costs of education may reduce demand for private student loans.

        The demand for private student loans could weaken if student borrowers use other vehicles to bridge the gap between available funds and costs of post-secondary education. These vehicles include, among others:

•

home equity loans, under which families borrow money based on the value of their real estate;



•

pre-paid tuition plans, which allow students to pay tuition at today's rates to cover tuition costs in the future;



•

529 plans, which are state-sponsored investment plans that allow a family to save funds for education expenses; and



•

education IRAs, now known as Coverdell Education Savings Accounts, under which a holder can make annual contributions for education savings.

        If demand for private student loans weakens, we would experience reduced demand for our services, which would seriously harm our financial results.

If competitors acquire or develop a student loan database or advanced loan information processing systems, our business could be adversely affected.

        We own proprietary databases of historical information on private student loan performance that we use to help us establish the pricing provisions of new loan programs, determine the terms of securitization transactions and establish the present value of the structural advisory fees and residuals that we recognize as revenue. We also have developed a proprietary loan information processing system to enhance our application processing and loan origination capabilities. Our student loan databases and loan information processing system provide us with a competitive advantage in offering our services. Third parties could create or acquire databases and systems such as ours. For example, as lenders and other organizations in the student loan market originate or service loans, they compile over time information for their own student loan performance database. If a third party creates or acquires a student loan database or develops a loan information processing system, our competitive positioning, ability to attract new clients and business could be adversely affected.

If our clients do not successfully market and sell student loans, our business will be adversely affected.

        We provide outsourcing services to lenders and educational institutions, as well as businesses and other organizations in structuring and supporting their private education loan programs. We rely on our clients to market and sell education loans to student borrowers. If they do not devote sufficient time and resources to their marketing efforts, or if they are otherwise not successful in these efforts, then we may experience a reduction in the volume of loans that we process and securitize, and our business will be adversely affected.

Changes in interest rates could affect the value of our additional structural advisory fees and residuals receivables, as well as demand for private student loans and our services.

        Student loans typically carry floating interest rates. Higher interest rates could increase the cost of the loan to the borrower, which in turn, could cause an increase in prepayment and default rates for outstanding student loans. If this occurs, we may experience a decline in the value of our additional structural advisory fees and residuals receivables in connection with the securitizations that we facilitate. In addition, most of the student loans that our clients originate carry floating rates of interest tied to prevailing short-term interest rates. An increase in interest rates could reduce borrowing for education generally, which, in turn, could cause the overall demand for our services to decline.

45

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our proprietary database and information systems and processes, the value of our services and technology will be adversely affected.

        We rely on trade secret laws and restrictions on disclosure to protect our proprietary database and information systems and processes. We have entered into confidentiality agreements with third parties and with some of our employees to maintain the confidentiality of our trade secrets and proprietary information. These methods may neither effectively prevent disclosure of our confidential information nor provide meaningful protection for our confidential information if there is unauthorized use or disclosure.

        We own no patents and have filed no patent applications with respect to our proprietary database or loan information processing systems. Accordingly, our technology is not covered by patents that would preclude or inhibit competitors from entering our market. Monitoring unauthorized use of the systems and processes that we developed is difficult, and we cannot be certain that the steps that we have taken will prevent unauthorized use of our technology. Furthermore, others may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our proprietary information. If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our proprietary information and know-how, the value of our technology and services will be adversely affected.

An interruption in or breach of our information systems may result in lost business.

        We rely heavily upon communications and information systems to conduct our business. As we implement our growth strategy and increase our volume of business, that reliance will increase. Any failure or interruption, or breach in security, of our information systems or the third-party information systems on which we rely could cause underwriting or other delays and could result in fewer loan applications being received, slower processing of applications and reduced efficiency in loan processing. A failure, interruption or breach in security could also result in an obligation to notify clients in states such as California that require such notification, with possible civil liability resulting from such failure, interruption or breach. We cannot assure you that such failures, interruptions or breaches will not occur, or if they do occur that we or the third parties on whom we rely will adequately address them. We have implemented precautionary measures to avoid systems outages and to minimize the effects of any data or telephone systems interruptions, but we have not instituted fully redundant systems. The occurrence of any failure, interruption or breach could significantly harm our business.

The loan origination process is becoming increasingly dependent upon technological advancement, and we could lose clients and market share if we are not able to keep pace with rapid changes in technology.

        Our ability to handle an increasing volume of transactions is based in large part on the advanced systems and processes we have implemented and developed. The loan origination process is becoming increasingly dependent upon technological advancement such as the ability to process loans over the Internet, accept electronic signatures and provide process updates instantly. Our future success depends in part on our ability to develop and implement technology solutions that anticipate and keep pace with these and other continuing changes in technology, industry standards and client preferences. We may not be successful in anticipating or responding to these developments on a timely basis. If competitors introduce products, services, systems and processes that are better than ours or that gain greater market acceptance, those that we offer or use may become obsolete or noncompetitive. Any one of these circumstances could have a material adverse effect on our ability to obtain and retain key clients.

        We may be required to expend significant funds to develop or acquire new technologies. If we cannot offer new technologies as quickly as our competitors, we could lose clients and market share. We also could lose market share if our competitors develop more cost-effective technologies than those we offer or develop.

46

We have expanded our operations rapidly in recent years, and if we fail to manage effectively our growth, our financial results could be adversely affected.

        The number of our employees increased to 310 regular employees and 47 seasonal employees as of December 31, 2003 from 217 regular employees and 2 seasonal employees as of December 31, 2002. Many of these employees have very limited experience with us and a limited understanding of our systems and controls. From our inception to December 31, 2003, our assets have grown to $261.5 million, and our revenue increased to $87.0 million for the first six months of fiscal 2004, from $40.0 million for the first six months of fiscal 2003. Our growth may place a strain on our management systems and resources. We must continue to refine and expand our business development capabilities, our systems and processes and our access to financing sources. As we grow, we must continue to hire, train, supervise and manage new employees. We cannot assure you that we will be able to:

•

meet our capital needs;



•

expand our systems effectively;



•

allocate our human resources optimally;



•

identify and hire qualified employees; or



•

incorporate effectively the components of any business that we may acquire in our effort to achieve growth.

        If we are unable to manage our growth, our operations and our financial results could be adversely affected.

If we become subject to the licensing laws of any jurisdiction or any additional government regulation, our compliance costs could increase significantly.

        Although we are subject to certain state and federal consumer protection laws, which are subject to change, we believe our operations do not require us to be licensed with any regulatory body as of the date of this quarterly report. The Massachusetts Division of Banks ruled that our business with TERI is not subject to licensure because, as a provider of loan origination outsourcing services, we do not conduct lending business with consumers in our own name and our processing centers are not generally open to the public.

        The Massachusetts Small Loan Act requires any person that is engaged, for compensation, in the business of making small loans, or in aiding or assisting the borrower or the lender in procuring or making such loans, to obtain a license. Under the statute, the business of making small loans includes the making of loans of $6,000 or less with interest rates and expenses of more than 12% per year. We could become subject to the Small Loan Act in the future if, for example, interest rates exceed 12% or the Massachusetts Division of Banks revokes its previous determination that our operations are exempt.

        We could also become subject to licensing laws due to changes in existing federal and state regulations. The Massachusetts legislature could, for example, modify the statutory requirements under the Small Loan Act. If the Massachusetts legislature, or any other state or federal regulatory authority, changes existing laws and rules, or enacts new laws or rules, we could be forced to make changes in our relationships with lenders, educational institutions, guarantors, servicers or the trusts involved in the securitizations that we facilitate. Specifically, changes in existing laws and rules could also require us to implement additional or different programs and information technology systems and could impose licensing, capital and reserve requirements and additional costs, including administrative, compliance and third-party service costs.

        We could also become subject to licensing laws in Massachusetts and other states if we engage in licensable activities in the future, such as loan guarantees, or if our operations became sufficiently

47

localized in other states to trigger licensing. We have consulted with national counsel regarding state laws outside of Massachusetts governing the licensing of loan brokers and loan arrangers. As a result of that legal review, we have consulted with local counsel in relevant states. Based on the advice of local counsel and, in some states, additional informal advice from state regulators, we have concluded that no such licenses are required in any but two states, where we are seeking formal regulatory opinions similar to the Massachusetts Division of Banks' ruling. While we have not received formal licensing rulings from states other than Massachusetts, as of the date of this quarterly report, we do not believe that any other state would have jurisdiction over our operations because:

•

all of our contracts with consumers are conducted in the name of federal and state chartered financial institutions, which generally are exempt from additional licensure of the business of lending, or in the name of TERI, which has satisfied Massachusetts licensure requirements; and



•

our contacts with borrowers outside of Massachusetts occur exclusively in interstate commerce, through the mail, by phone and through the Internet.

        If the rulings we have sought are not favorable or if another state where we have received favorable guidance changes its position and asserts jurisdiction over our business, we will proceed with licensing in the affected state. Our activities in that state could be curtailed pending processing of a licensing application and we could be subject to civil or criminal penalties.

        We believe that our consultations with national and local counsel have identified all material licensing and regulatory requirements that could apply to our business outside of Massachusetts. The risk remains, however, that an unusual regulatory regime could exist in a state that would permit such state, even if we were not physically present, to assert successfully jurisdiction over our operations for services we provide through the mail, by phone, through the Internet or by other remote means. Our failure to comply with such requirements could subject us to civil or criminal penalties and could curtail our ability to continue to conduct business in that jurisdiction. In addition, compliance with such requirements could involve additional costs. Either of these consequences could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

        In addition, other organizations with which we work, including TERI, are subject to licensing and extensive governmental regulations, including truth-in-lending laws and other consumer protection regulations. From time to time we have, and we may in the future, become responsible for compliance with these regulations under contractual arrangements with our clients. If we fail to comply with these regulations, we could be subject to civil or criminal penalties.

Failure to comply with consumer protection laws could subject us to civil and criminal penalties and affect the value of our assets.

        The federal government and state governments regulate extensively the financial institutions and other entities that originate loans in the student loan market. These regulations include usury, disclosure, credit reporting, identity theft, privacy, fraud and abuse and other laws to protect borrowers. Violations of the laws or regulations governing our operations or the operation of TERI or our other clients could result in the imposition of civil or criminal penalties, the cancellation of our contracts to provide services or exclusion from participating in education loan programs. These penalties or exclusions, were they to occur, would negatively impair our ability to operate our business. In addition, the loan assets held by securitization trusts that we have structured could be adversely impacted by violation of consumer protection laws. In such event, the value of our residual interests could also be adversely impacted. In some cases, such violations may render the loan assets unenforceable.

48

The price of our common stock may be volatile.

        Prior to our initial public offering, which we closed on November 5, 2003, there was no public trading market for our common stock. The trading market for our common stock is therefore immature, and the trading price of our common stock may fluctuate substantially. These fluctuations could cause you to lose part or all of any investment in our shares of common stock. Those factors that could cause fluctuations include, but are not limited to, the following:

•

difficulties we may encounter in the securitizations that we structure or the loss of opportunities to structure securitization transactions;



•

price and volume fluctuations in the overall stock market from time to time;



•

significant volatility in the market price and trading volume of financial services and process outsourcing companies;



•

actual or anticipated changes in our earnings or fluctuations in our operating results or in the expectations of securities analysts;



•

general economic conditions and trends;



•

major catastrophic events;



•

loss of a significant client or clients;



•

sales of large blocks of our stock; or



•

departures of key personnel.