Commentary on the economy, the markets, and business

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac rejoin the federal government

Can someone explain why the government created companies that are now run by private shareholders? I'm having trouble understanding what the advantage is. Taxpayers are still clearly at risk so it seems that the shareholders can capitalize and then, should something go wrong, taxpayers will have to bail them out. Wouldn't it be better to have these institutions run by the government entirely?

Those excellent questions about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were asked Saturday by commenter Justin C. This (Sunday) morning, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) director James Lockhart officially unveiled their answer to the last one. Yes, they effectively said, it would be better to have the two giant mortgage lenders run by the government--at least for now.

freddie2.JPG
I bailed out Freddie Mac, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt

"Government support needs to be either explicit or non-existent," Paulson said today. Through the end of 2009, at least, it's going to be explicit. The FHFA has taken over the two companies as a conservator, and Treasury has entered into contracts in which it pledges to keep Fannie and Freddie solvent and they in turn give Treasury the right to acquire up to 79.9% of their common stock for a nominal fee. Treasury also committed to buy lots of the companies' mortgage-backed securities for the next couple of years, which should keep mortgage rates down. Both companies will be getting new CEOs (former Merrill Lyncher and TIAA-CREFer Herb Allison at Fannie and former U.S. Bancorper David Moffett at Freddie) and are suspending all dividend payments, but their common and preferred stock will continue to trade.

(More after the break.)


Determining what that stock is worth will be an interesting guessing game for investors over the coming months. Basically, the more taxpayer money is used to shore up either Fannie or Freddie, the less the stock will be worth. Freddie, with big questions being raised about the adequacy of its capital reserves, currently looks to be the more likely of the two to need major intervention.

Concerns that a collapse in price of the companies' preferred shares might wipe out a lot of banks that own those shares--which I wrote about yesterday--were partially dismissed today by Paulson. "[W]hile many institutions hold common or preferred shares of these two GSEs," he said, "only a limited number of smaller institutions have holdings that are significant compared to their capital."

But back to Justin C's questions. Why were Fannie and Freddie allowed to operate as private companies with implicit government backing? The history is that Fannie, created as a government agency (the Federal National Mortgage Association) in 1938, was privatized during LBJ's administration to get its debts off the federal government's books. Then Congress created Freddie (originally the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.) so Fannie wouldn't have a monopoly.

So basically the motivation behind the creation of these strange public-private entities was an accounting subterfuge. Their debts weren't counted as government debt, but investors assumed that they were guaranteed by the government. In the 1970s Fannie and Freddie were both still reasonably small enterprises, so this wasn't that big a deal. But the collapse of the S&L industry in the 1980s left them the dominant force in the U.S. mortgage market. And until recently they (particularly Fannie) were able to wield their wealth and lobbying prowess to fend off all Congressional attempts to rein them in.

It should be noted that the two firms did a lot of good, too. For one thing, they made it possible for tens millions of Americans to buy homes more cheaply than they could have otherwise. Fannie and Freddie don't make loans themselves, but buy them from banks and mortgage brokers and then either repackage them as mortgage-backed securities to be sold to investors or hold on to them. And rates on the loans that the two firms are allowed to buy (generally fixed-rate loans below a certain size) are invariably lower than on the loans they can't.

Fannie and Freddie also can't really be blamed for the insanity that overtook mortgage markets from 2004 through 2006. Both firms were under pressure to cut back on their lending after some accounting shenanigans, and their underwriting standards generally kept them away from the riskiest sorts of loans. Their market share plummeted as Wall Street firms eagerly snapped up hundreds of billions of dollars worth of mortgage junk.

Now, with Wall Street licking its wounds and banks and thrifts lending cautiously, Fannie, Freddie and the more explicitly government-guaranteed partnership of Ginnie Mae and the Federal Housing Administration are pretty much the only things keeping housing markets going.

The main reason Fannie and Freddie are in trouble despite their limited exposure to the last crazy years of the housing bubble is because neither regulators nor either firm's risk managers ever contemplated a situation where house prices nationwide would drop 25% or 30%--as seems likely to happen before the current housing swoon runs its course. This failure to plan for a housing bust was unconscionable. But at the same time, if the Feds were to punish Fannie and Freddie for it by forcing them to stop buying mortgages, house prices would drop even more, making the situation even worse. Hence the bailout, and the particular form it has taken.

It is times like these that make the need for government-backed mortgage providers glaringly obvious. What's far less clear is what they should do with themselves during the good times. As Paulson said this morning, that'll be the next Administration's job to figure out.

Update: Yet more Fanniefreddiefun here.

  • Print
  • Comment
Comments (13)
Post a Comment »
  • 1

    Justin,

    Am I the only one who thinks this is horrible? I think the number that tax payers are on the hook here is for something like $200 billion!!!

    I would rather the housing market just be allowed to stall rather than continue this path down moral hazard. Yeah, the markets would freeze up and there would be a good deal of pain. But life is tough, and the sooner we all understand that nothing comes free, cheap or easy the better off America will be.

    I probably sound like a crazy Republican, but I am just a moderate democrat that is radically fiscally conservative. Don't worry, I'm not running for office in the near or future, and I would never get elected because of my beliefs and there harsh consequences.

  • 2

    Okay, if Fannie and Freddie made it possible for tens of millions of Americans to buy homes more cheaply, then have they in fact contributed to the housing inflation of the recent past we are now paying for? Is the very existence of Fannie and Freddie part of the problem, rather than part of the solution?

  • 3

    Justin,
    The claim that this bailout is somehow good for home buyers defies math. Sure interest rates will be lower, but that will only prop up the principle, ie the actual price.

    The home buyer is the last person this bailout benefits. The big beneficiaries are the banks, the home owner and the home seller. Second to those are the mortgage brokers, realtors, wall street and home builders. All who benefit from Americans going into deep lifetime debt.

    The general strategy of this govt is to keep home prices from becoming truly affordable. Hasn't there already been enough government subsidies to the housing industry?

  • 4

    I'm not sure that Fannie and Freddie behaved any worse than the mortgage industry as a whole. After all, they don't even originate mortgages, they just buy and package those originated by banks. The question of an implied government guarantee (now real), and whether they did their risk management conservatively enough is appropriate; but shouldn't a large part of the blame be shouldered by the oversight agency as well? A government sponsored agency needs to be actively regulated. It seems that the regulation part of the equation was woefully neglected. The Fannie/Freddie bailout is no different from the Bears Sterns bailout. It's just potentially bigger in magnitude, and reflects the true dimensions of the mortgage crisis brought about by a host of players.

  • 5

    True Believer,
    Justin didn't say that the bailout benefits homebuyers. He said that the traditional role of FNMA and FHLMC in keeping rates lower helped home buyers in the past (and in general).

  • 6

    True Believer,

    I think you are correct. There should be no more government subsidies for the housing industry or the banking/investment enterprises that engaged in this tomfoolery.

    Recall, that Bush has already said that Wall Street got drunk!! You don't spike the punch bowl in that case...you take it away!!

    This reminds of the story about the guy that went to an AA meeting, and while walking in, asked can I get a 'hair of the dog' before I have to quit drinking?

    This is mind numbing in so many ways to me. Why is our government doing this bailout?

  • 7

    Nouriel Roubini called this whole scenario. He nailed this one two years ago.

  • 8

    Some folks will question the wisdom of this, but I think the government should run all of society's important businesses. Who else can guarantee us our security except the federal government? Like many others, I need to be able to sleep at night knowing my investments won't be worthless when I wake up. It's better this way - trust me.

  • 9

    I don't care how much sugar coating they apply, this does absolutely nothing for anyone except those who have invested in these long-term debt packages very cutely disguised as securities. This takes creative accounting into the realm of fraud, plain and simple. First, someone somehow stopped the age old requirements of verifying employment and income before granting mortgages, second, the federal government poured $trillions into the economy disguised as war spending creating a false economy, third, the rules, regulations and safeguards regulating business practices have been stripped away leaving a wide open free-for-all environment. How in the world can Paulson obligate our nation to potentially $trillions of debt without the approval of Congress??? Have we become a nation of cowboys free to roam spending freely answering to nobody??? This entire process along with this administration stinks to high heaven of the utmost corruption and thievery of our nation's finances. If the stock market rallies tomorrow the nation is dead on arrival as investors will reap profits from today and if the stock market dies tomorrow then the world will know, America is on borrowed time.

  • 10

    The problem I see with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is that they were allowed to get too big. Even with the subsequent creation of Freddie Mac to avoid a monopoly by Fannie Mae a monopoly was still created. The two virtually became one. Twins, combined at the head. Driven by greed and greater profitability Irresponsible mortgage brokers and mortgage bankers became lax in their borrowers requirements knowing their loans were covered by either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. There should have been a limit imposed by these agencies. After all the subsequent establishment of Freddie acknowledged the problems a monopoly would cause. Someone was asleep behind the wheel.

  • 11

    We all love to hate "big government" --until something goes wrong, and then we all cry "Save Me, Save Me!" FNMA and FHLMC were "privatized" and now look at the mess we're in. A mortgage industry without any government control is like a freight train running downhill without any brakes. Sooner or later there's going to be a crash.

  • 12

    The Republicans seem to have a nack for creating disaster both actively and inactively.

    In foreign affairs, jump on the gun inappropriately and launch a prolonged, expensive, unnecessary war.

    In finance, stiffle control and regulation, do nothing until it blows up in your face.

  • 13

    Thanks for your answer!

Add Your Comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Curious Capitalist Daily E-mail

Get e-mail updates from TIME's The Curious Capitalist in your inbox and never miss a day.

Quotes of the Day »

Get & Share
LORI HAAS, whose daughter was wounded in the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings, on a new report finding that officials warned their families more than an hour and a half before the rest of the campus and released locked-down students who were later killed