Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

The Basics: Just what the Heck Are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

By Vince Farrell, Huffington Post. Posted July 14, 2008.


A primer on the two lenders making news this week.
Advertisement

Everyone else is writing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so I figured I would as well. The two companies play a central, indeed, the central role in the mortgage marketplace. They don't make mortgages. They buy mortgages from originating banks and repackage them as bonds or keep them on their own balance sheets. The ones they package and sell are guaranteed by FNM or FRE for a fee. Between the two functions the companies touch over $5 trillion in mortgages. They do this with a far skinnier equity base than any other financial institution. Since they were always considered too big to fail and would be bailed out by the government in a time of trouble they have been able to borrow at lower interest rates than others.

Well, they got in trouble and the government is bailing them out. To oversimplify it, the companies have too little capital to handle the growing number of troubled mortgages they either own or guarantee. Without getting into details, the mortgages they are involved with are not sub prime, and are of generally very good quality. But in tough times even good loans go bad. If you take just the mortgages they own you come to a total of $1.7 trillion supported by core capital of about $70 billion. That is a leverage ratio of 24 to 1. Throw in the guaranteed stuff and you balloon to 68 to 1. You can have a very good book of mortgages with a very low default rate and still be out of business quickly with that leverage. It's lunacy.

The Treasury Secretary announced Sunday night that the companies can borrow from the NY Federal Reserve bank. FNM and FRE have access to the "discount window." They will pledge collateral for the loans. Secretary Paulson also said the government will pursue increasing the existing modest credit line the companies enjoy and will consider an equity investment. I figure the companies will try to raise capital themselves because if the government comes in with equity capital I hope it would be so dilutive as to ruin the existing common.

My guess is that this move buys time. The markets should settle down. A key indicator will be FRE's auction of three and six month paper early Monday morning. It should go off easily, but if it doesn't that would be a sign of big trouble. FRE's three month paper went out at 2.43 percent late Friday.

There are as many estimates as there are news articles this weekend as to what the level of losses might be as the housing market plays itself out. I have read everywhere from $20-30 billion to $100 billion. $20-30 billion the companies can handle. $100 billion needs a slug of capital, but the truth is no one really knows. I will mention that in the midst of Friday's chaotic marketplace, Smith Barney recommended buying both stocks. And, the Savings and Loan debacle of the late 1980's and early 1990's cost the government more than $100 billion. Not to minimize anything but there are solutions and "This too shall pass."

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: fannie mae, freddie mac

Vincent Farrell, Jr. is a Principal of Scotsman Capital Management LLC.



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Thank you!
Posted by: Robba29 on Jul 14, 2008 2:43 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've heard so much about these companies but never fully understood what they did. Thank you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"They will pledge collateral for the loans."
Posted by: Crazy H on Jul 14, 2008 4:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That would be the same property the buyers put up as collateral, I would assume.

The property whose value is dropping, leaving the government with more debt than their collateral is worth. Just like the buyers.

So, are they going to walk away and forfeit the mortgage?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have a better idea
Posted by: rickiey on Jul 14, 2008 10:07 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lets just pass an emergency law, that makes it illegal to buy someone elses LOAN.

Why do we do this? Because the mortgage company is built on risks that it isn't actually taking. People who take out loans, are taking all of the risks.

Lets say someone takes out a loan they can't afford. Who is at fault? Both the person who lent them the money, AND the person that borrowed it.

Well, the person that borrowed it, loses all of their money, and their home.

The mortgage company gets their home, their payments, and then sells the loan to someone else who tries to collect on it.

Or they get bailed out.

I have a better idea. If the mortage company takes the risk, then let them assume the result of the risk:

IF the loan goes into default, let the mortgage company foreclose and sell the home. They will take a loss. But the loan goes away when they foreclose. And they don't bailed out. In this case, the company loses. And if they lose enough, then they go bankrupt. Thats what is supposed to happen, when you take bad risks. Like, say, writing bad loans.

Sure, in my scenarion the person who took out the loan, loses as well. But they deserve too. Their decision; their loss. Same as the mortgage company.

The role of government is NOT to fix the bad decisions made by lenders. Let the lenders eat the losses, learn the lessons, and stop the bad practices. Or die in debt themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's another, much BIGGER problem
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Jul 20, 2008 10:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fanny and Freddy were subject to a "bear attack" on their stock. Washington first tried to go after the speculators who were shorting a large number of shares without actually having the shares. Then they limited it to Fanny and Freddy. Then they limited the inquiry to leave out the so-called "market makers" (who are likely to be the worst offenders).

It should be noted that Bear Sterns may have been victim to massive "naked shorting".

Now if you own a small cap stock that's been falling in price, you might ask yourself what you really own. Do you really own the stock? I'm now challenging my broker regarding shares improperly held in my account in "street name", as to whether I actually own the stock. The company in question says no.

For more information on this topic go to: businessjive.com. It isn't pretty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]