Skip Navigation
 

Meet Fannie And Freddie

<%=_author %>

By

Padraig O'Hannelly

From the Fool blog

The Right Financial Decision

Published in Your Money on 14 July 2008

What are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and what's all the fuss about?

With the turmoil in American mortgage market over the weekend, just what are Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNA) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE), and what's all the fuss about?

What are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Behind the cringe-worthy folksiness of their names lie two of the world's most important financial institutions.

These are government-sponsored entities (GSEs), a strange hybrid of share-holder company and government agency. While there is no explicit government guarantee, it seems to be understood that the state will come to their rescue if necessary -- more about that below.

Their purpose, in addition to making a profit for shareholders, is to promote home ownership. Because of their GSE status and tax concessions, they have access to very cheap money which they make available at a higher price to mortgage providers.

They also provide mortgage guarantees, which facilitate a secondary market in mortgages, enabling them to be parceled up and traded.

Fannie Mae, the Federal National Mortgage Association, was founded in 1938 as part of President Roosevelt's New Deal after the Great Depression. Its website proclaims: “We are in the American Dream business”, with references to family and community. Motherhood and apple pie are not explicitly mentioned, but like the government guarantee they seem to be implied.

Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, was founded in 1970.

Together, they account for approximately $5 trillion of America's $12 trillion in mortgage lending.

What went wrong?

The proximate cause of the Friday's falls in share prices was the collapse of IndyMac, a mortgage bank in California. This was similar to the Northern Rock situation in UK -- doubts over the quality of the balance sheet leading to a run on the bank, except that in this case the government stepped in immediately and took it over.

These fears rippled through the sector, with shares in Fannie and Freddie falling nearly 50% during the day, although they subsequently recovered some of that loss.

However, this was just the latest phase in a long decline for both companies. Freddie was the first to peak, in November '06, and has fallen 89% to Friday's close. Fannie was still on a high as recently as September '07, but has since fallen about 85%. Both shares are reportedly at seventeen-year lows.

To some extent, the mortgage crisis is a result of Fannie and Freddie's facilitation of the mortgage trading business. While the ability to sell mortgages on in the secondary market does help lower the cost to home-owners, it can also reduce the quality of due diligence on the part of mortgage providers. If mortgages can be easily sold on, thanks to guarantee from Fannie Mae,  why bother properly assessing the risks? But the risks are still there, now on Fannie and Freddie's books, and that's the big concern.

Both companies deny that they have problems with cash-flow, or with the value of their loans.

What can be done?

On Sunday, the US Treasury Secretary announced that he will ask Congress to approve a plan to allow the state to buy shares in both companies, and to provide additional lines of credit. Although denying that they need help, the companies have welcomed the move.

This is effectively the gilt-edged state guarantee that was understood by many to exist. They are often considered too big and too important to be allowed to fail.

But is it that easy?

Just throwing money at them may not be the solution. Some regard both institutions as effectively insolvent. If they collapsed, the resulting turmoil would throw the US housing market into even greater turmoil, and the dollar would plummet as overseas investors would lose confidence.

But keeping them afloat by piling more debts onto the US taxpayer could have a similar effect, albeit more slowly. If a full rescue is eventually required, the sums involved are huge even by the standards of the American budget. As The Economist points out, not only are they too big to fail, they may also be too big to rescue.

Because of the size of the problem, however this plays out it will have repercussions around the world.

More: Will Barratt Bounce Back?

Compare mortgages via Fool.co.uk

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

FedAche 14 Jul 2008, 10:44pm

Can anybody out there help with this qustion?

Of ALL mortgages (around $12B)how much of it is "Junky" Subprime, Alt-A, high LTV and etc that is held by Fannie and Freddie?

Iniq 15 Jul 2008, 8:06am

How much is a trillion, please?

If a billion is a thousand million nowadays instead of a million million which it always used to be in the UK, can I assume that a trillion is a thousand thousand million - i.e., what always used to be a billion in this country?

DamoAL7 15 Jul 2008, 9:26am

Inig
Unfortunatly, it's Americanese - some UK papers were publishing the figure as $2500 million, to get the factual figure correct

realist2008 15 Jul 2008, 9:52am

Not helpful is it, if there's a 1000x uncertainty? The financial convention is now:

1 Trillion = 1 with 12 zeros, a thousand Billions.
1 Billion = 1 with 9 zeros, a thousand millions.
1 Million = 1 with 6 zeros. a thousand thousands (So you can see why the Brits thought it was consistent with this terminology to that their Billion was a million millions)

But this 'naming of very large numbers' started they were needed for cosmology, not mortgages or news headlines!

MonsterMixer 15 Jul 2008, 3:36pm

The question isn't really surrounding Freddie and Fanny, which were always going to be bailed out, it's concerning the other banks being bashed. Here I'm thinking about banks such as Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Zions - regional banks with large exposure to badly hit housing markets. Also certain investment banks with large exposure such as Lehman Bros, even banks such as Citi.

The Federal Reserve will be under immense pressure to also take on debt obligations from these companies - if the event arises - and obviously to insure depositors as under law.

Some peeps I know are talking about a possible ultimate scenario - the US defaulting on its soverign debt years down the line.

Iniq 15 Jul 2008, 11:49pm

It is a pity there isn't some way of ensuring that lenders who were daft enough to provide 110% mortgaes to borrowers with completely inadequate incomes lose every penny of their OWN money - instead of losing ours.

What went wrong with the credit rating companies? How did companies with books full of sub-prime loans manage to retain AAA investment status?

Shouldn't someone sue Standard and Poors, or whoever it was that was asleep at the wheel?

Join the conversation

Instructions

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: <b>bold</b>, <i>quoted text</i>. All other tags will be removed from your post.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.