Jump to content

Fannie Mae: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 101: Line 101:


===The mortgage crisis from late 2003===
===The mortgage crisis from late 2003===
Following their mission to meet federal Housing and Urban Development [[United States Department of Housing and Urban Development|(HUD)]] housing goals, GSE's such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks) have strived to improve home ownership of low and middle income families, underserved areas, and generally through special affordable methods such as "the ability to obtain a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with a low down payment... and the continuous availability of mortgage credit under a wide range of economic conditions." [http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/gse/reports/2002aharfmacnarrative.pdf (HUD 2002 Annual Housing Activities Report)] Then in 2003-2004 , the [[subprime mortgage crisis]] began.<ref name="LevitinWachter">A. J. Levitin, S. M. Wachter “Explaining the Housing Bubble”, online at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1669401)</ref>The market shifted away from regulated GSEs and radically toward Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) issued by unregulated private-label securitization conduits, typically operated by investment banks. The shift occurred as [[financial institution]]s sought to maintain earnings levels that had been elevated during 2001-2003 by an unprecedented refinancing boom due to historically low interest rates. Earnings depended on volume, so maintaining elevated earnings levels necessitated expanding the borrower pool using lower underwriting standards and new products that the GSEs would not (initially) securitize. Thus, the shift away from GSE securitization to private-label securitization (PLS) also corresponded with a shift in mortgage product type, from traditional, amortizing, fixed-rate mortgages (FRMs) to nontraditional, structurally riskier, nonamortizing, adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs), and in the start of a sharp deterioration in mortgage underwriting standards.<ref name="LevitinWachter">A. J. Levitin, S. M. Wachter “Explaining the Housing Bubble”, online at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1669401)</ref> The growth of PLS, however, forced the GSEs to lower their underwriting standards in an attempt to reclaim lost market share in order to please their private shareholders. Shareholder pressure pushed the GSEs into competition with PLS for market share, and the GSEs loosened their guarantee business underwriting standards in order to compete. In contrast, the wholly public FHA/Ginnie Mae maintained their underwriting standards and instead ceded market share.<ref name="LevitinWachter">A. J. Levitin, S. M. Wachter “Explaining the Housing Bubble”, online at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1669401)</ref>
Following their mission to meet federal Housing and Urban Development [[United States Department of Housing and Urban Development|(HUD)]] housing goals, GSE's such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks) have strived to improve home ownership of low and middle income families, underserved areas, and generally through special affordable methods such as "the ability to obtain a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with a low down payment... and the continuous availability of mortgage credit under a wide range of economic conditions." [http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/gse/reports/2002aharfmacnarrative.pdf (HUD 2002 Annual Housing Activities Report)] Then in 2003-2004 , the [[subprime mortgage crisis]] began.<ref name="LevitinWachter">A. J. Levitin, S. M. Wachter “Explaining the Housing Bubble”, online at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1669401)</ref>The market shifted away from regulated GSEs and radically toward Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) issued by unregulated private-label securitization conduits, typically operated by investment banks. The shift occurred as [[financial institution]]s sought to maintain earnings levels that had been elevated during 2001-2003 by an unprecedented refinancing boom due to historically low interest rates. Earnings depended on volume, so maintaining elevated earnings levels necessitated expanding the borrower pool using lower underwriting standards and new products that the GSEs would not (initially) securitize. Thus, the shift away from GSE securitization to private-label securitization (PLS) also corresponded with a shift in mortgage product type, from traditional, amortizing, [[Fixed rate mortgage|fixed-rate mortgages]] (FRMs) to nontraditional, structurally riskier, nonamortizing, adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs), and in the start of a sharp deterioration in mortgage underwriting standards.<ref name="LevitinWachter">A. J. Levitin, S. M. Wachter “Explaining the Housing Bubble”, online at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1669401)</ref> The growth of PLS, however, forced the GSEs to lower their underwriting standards in an attempt to reclaim lost market share in order to please their private shareholders. Shareholder pressure pushed the GSEs into competition with PLS for market share, and the GSEs loosened their guarantee business underwriting standards in order to compete. In contrast, the wholly public FHA/Ginnie Mae maintained their underwriting standards and instead ceded market share.<ref name="LevitinWachter">A. J. Levitin, S. M. Wachter “Explaining the Housing Bubble”, online at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1669401)</ref>


The growth of private-label securitization and lack of regulation in this part of the market resulted in the oversupply of underpriced housing finance<ref name="LevitinWachter">A. J. Levitin, S. M. Wachter “Explaining the Housing Bubble”, online at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1669401)</ref> that lead in 2006 to an increasing number of borrowers, often with poor credit that were unable to pay their mortgages - particularly with adjustable rate mortgages [[Adjustable-rate mortgage|(ARM)]], caused a precipitous increase in home foreclosures. As a result, home prices declined as increasing foreclosures added to the already large inventory of homes and stricter lending standards made it more and more difficult for borrowers to get mortgages. This depreciation in home prices led to growing losses for the GSEs, which back the majority of US mortgages. In July 2008, the government attempted to ease market fears by reiterating their view that "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play a central role in the US housing finance system". The [[Treasury Department]] and the [[Federal Reserve]] took steps to bolster confidence in the corporations, including granting both corporations access to Federal Reserve low-interest loans (at similar rates as commercial banks) and removing the prohibition on the Treasury Department to purchase the GSEs' stock. Despite these efforts, by August 2008, shares of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had tumbled more than 90% from their one-year prior levels.
The growth of private-label securitization and lack of regulation in this part of the market resulted in the oversupply of underpriced housing finance<ref name="LevitinWachter">A. J. Levitin, S. M. Wachter “Explaining the Housing Bubble”, online at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1669401)</ref> that lead in 2006 to an increasing number of borrowers, often with poor credit that were unable to pay their mortgages - particularly with adjustable rate mortgages [[Adjustable-rate mortgage|(ARM)]], caused a precipitous increase in home foreclosures. As a result, home prices declined as increasing foreclosures added to the already large inventory of homes and stricter lending standards made it more and more difficult for borrowers to get mortgages. This depreciation in home prices led to growing losses for the GSEs, which back the majority of US mortgages. In July 2008, the government attempted to ease market fears by reiterating their view that "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play a central role in the US housing finance system". The [[Treasury Department]] and the [[Federal Reserve]] took steps to bolster confidence in the corporations, including granting both corporations access to Federal Reserve low-interest loans (at similar rates as commercial banks) and removing the prohibition on the Treasury Department to purchase the GSEs' stock. Despite these efforts, by August 2008, shares of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had tumbled more than 90% from their one-year prior levels.

Revision as of 23:25, 5 November 2010

This article is about the Federal National Mortgage Association. For the Chicago-based confectionery, see Fannie May.
Further information: Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae)
Company typeGovernment-sponsored enterprise & Public company
Founded1938
Headquarters
Washington, D.C.
Key people
Mike Williams, CEO
RevenueIncrease US$29.1 Billion (FY 2009)[1]
Decrease US$-72.0 Billion (FY 2009)[1]
Total assetsDecrease US$869 Billion (FY 2009)[2]
Total equityDecrease US$-15.4 Billion (FY 2009)[2]
Number of employees
7,700 (2020) Edit this on Wikidata
WebsiteFannie Mae

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) (Template:Otcbb), commonly known as Fannie Mae, was set up as a stockholder-owned corporation chartered by Congress in 1968 as a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), but founded in 1938 during the Great Depression. The corporation's purpose is to expand the secondary mortgage market by securitizing mortgages in the form of mortgage-backed securities (MBS),[3] allowing lenders to reinvest their assets into more lending and in effect increasing the number of lenders in the mortgage market by reducing the reliance on thrifts.[4]

History

The Federal National Mortgage Association, colloquially known as Fannie Mae, was established in 1938 by amendments to the National Housing Act[5] after the Great Depression to create a liquid secondary mortgage market and thereby free the loan originators to originate more loans, primarily by buying Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insured mortgages.[6] In 1954, an amendment known as the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act[7] made Fannie Mae into "mixed-ownership corporation" meaning that federal government held the preferred stock while private investors held the common stock;[5] in 1968 it converted to a private corporation in order to remove its activity from the annual balance sheet of the federal budget.[8] In the 1968 change, Fannie Mae's predecessor (also called Fannie Mae) was split into the current Fannie Mae and the Government National Mortgage Association ("Ginnie Mae"). Ginnie Mae, which remained a government organization, supports FHA-insured mortgages as well as Veterans Administration (VA) and Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) insured mortgages, with the full faith and credit of the United States government.[9] In 1970, the federal government authorized Fannie Mae to purchase private mortgages, i.e. those not insured by the FHA, VA, or FmHA, and created the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), colloquially known as Freddie Mac, to compete with Fannie Mae and thus facilitate a more robust and efficient secondary mortgage market.[9]

In 1981 Fannie Mae issue its first mortgage passthrough and called it a mortgage-backed security.[10] Ginnie Mae had guaranteed the first mortgage passthrough security of an approved lender in 1968[11] and in 1971 Freddie Mac issued its first mortgage passthrough, called a participation certificate, composed primarily of private mortgages.[11]

In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas designated in the CRA of 1977.[12] Because of the increased ratio requirements, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans. Shareholders also pressured Fannie Mae to maintain its record profits.[12]

In 2000, because of a re-assessment of the housing market by HUD, anti-predatory lending rules were put into place that disallowed risky, high-cost loans from being credited toward affordable housing goals. In 2004, these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals.[13]

The intent was that Fannie Mae's enforcement of the underwriting standards they maintained for standard conforming mortgages would also provide safe and stable means of lending to buyers who did not have prime credit. As Daniel Mudd, then President and CEO of Fannie Mae, testified in 2007, instead the agency's underwriting requirements drove business into the arms of the private mortgage industry who marketed aggressive products without regard to future consequences: "We also set conservative underwriting standards for loans we finance to ensure the homebuyers can afford their loans over the long term. We sought to bring the standards we apply to the prime space to the subprime market with our industry partners primarily to expand our services to underserved families.

"Unfortunately, Fannie Mae-quality, safe loans in the subprime market did not become the standard, and the lending market moved away from us. Borrowers were offered a range of loans that layered teaser rates, interest-only, negative amortization and payment options and low-documentation requirements on top of floating-rate loans. In early 2005 we began sounding our concerns about this "layered-risk" lending. For example, Tom Lund, the head of our single-family mortgage business, publicly stated, "One of the things we don't feel good about right now as we look into this marketplace is more homebuyers being put into programs that have more risk. Those products are for more sophisticated buyers. Does it make sense for borrowers to take on risk they may not be aware of? Are we setting them up for failure? As a result, we gave up significant market share to our competitors. "[14]

In 1999, The New York Times reported that with the corporation's move towards the subprime market "Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s."[15] Alex Berenson of The New York Times reported in 2003 that Fannie Mae's risk is much larger than is commonly held.[16] Nassim Taleb wrote in The Black Swan: "The government-sponsored institution Fannie Mae, when I look at its risks, seems to be sitting on a barrel of dynamite, vulnerable to the slightest hiccup. But not to worry: their large staff of scientists deem these events 'unlikely'".[17]

On September 10, 2003, the Bush Administration recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis. Under the plan, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set capital-reserve requirements for the company and to determine whether the company is adequately managing the risks of its portfolios. The New York Times reported that the plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is broken.[citation needed] The Times also reported Democratic opposition to Bush's plan: "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." [18] Congress, controlled by Republicans during this period, did not introduce any legislation aimed at bringing this proposal into law until the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which did not proceed out of committee to the Senate.[19]

On January 26, 2005, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (S.190) was first introduced in the Senate by Sen. Chuck Hagel.[20] The Senate legislation was an effort to reform the existing GSE regulatory structure in light of the recent accounting problems and questionable management actions leading to considerable income restatements by the GSE's. After being reported favorably by the Senate's Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in July 2005, the bill was never considered by the full Senate for a vote.[21] Sen. John McCain's decision to become a cosponsor of S.190 almost a year later in 2006 was the last action taken regarding Sen. Hagel's bill in spite of developments since clearing the Senate Committee. Sen. McCain pointed out that Fannie Mae's regulator reported that profits were "illusions deliberately and systematically created by the company's senior management" in his floor statement giving support to S.190.[22][23]

At the same time, the House also introduced similar legislation, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 (H.R. 1461), in the Spring of 2005. The House Financial Services Committee had crafted changes and produced a Committee Report by July 2005 to the legislation. It was passed by the House in October in spite of President Bush's statement of policy opposed to the House version.[24] The legislation met with opposition from both Democrats and Republicans at that point and the Senate never took up the House passed version for consideration after that.[25]

Change in ownership structure September 7, 2008

On September 7, 2008, James Lockhart, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), announced that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were being placed into conservatorship of the FHFA. The action is "one of the most sweeping government interventions in private financial markets in decades".[26][27][28] As of 2008, Fannie Mae and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) owned or guaranteed about half or 56.8% of the U.S.'s $12 trillion mortgage market.[29]

Business mechanism

Fannie Mae headquarters at 4000 Wisconsin Avenue, NW in Washington, D.C.

Fannie Mae buys loans from approved mortgage sellers, either for cash or in exchange for a mortgage-backed security that comprises those loans and that, for a fee, carries Fannie Mae's guarantee of timely payment of interest and principal. The mortgage seller may hold that security or sell it. Fannie Mae may also securitize mortgages from its own loan portfolio and sell the resultant mortgage-backed security to investors in the secondary mortgage market, again with a guarantee that the stated principal and interest payments will be timely passed through to the investor. By purchasing the mortgages, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide banks and other financial institutions with fresh money to make new loans. This gives the United States housing and credit markets flexibility and liquidity.[30][verification needed]

In order for Fannie Mae to provide its guarantee to mortgage-backed securities it issues, it sets the guidelines for the loans that it will accept for purchase, called "conforming" loans. Mortgages that don't meet the guidelines are called "nonconforming". Fannie Mae produced an automated underwriting system (AUS) tool called Desktop Underwriter (DU) which lenders can use to automatically determine if a loan is conforming; Fannie Mae followed this program up in 2004 with Custom DU, which allows lenders to set custom underwriting rules to handle nonconforming loans as well.[31] The secondary market for nonconforming loans includes jumbo loans, which are mortgages larger than the maximum mortgage that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will purchase. In early 2008, the decision was made to allow TBA (To-be-announced)-eligible mortgage-backed securities to include up to 10% "jumbo" mortgages.[citation needed]

The mortgage crisis from late 2003

Following their mission to meet federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing goals, GSE's such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks) have strived to improve home ownership of low and middle income families, underserved areas, and generally through special affordable methods such as "the ability to obtain a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with a low down payment... and the continuous availability of mortgage credit under a wide range of economic conditions." (HUD 2002 Annual Housing Activities Report) Then in 2003-2004 , the subprime mortgage crisis began.[32]The market shifted away from regulated GSEs and radically toward Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) issued by unregulated private-label securitization conduits, typically operated by investment banks. The shift occurred as financial institutions sought to maintain earnings levels that had been elevated during 2001-2003 by an unprecedented refinancing boom due to historically low interest rates. Earnings depended on volume, so maintaining elevated earnings levels necessitated expanding the borrower pool using lower underwriting standards and new products that the GSEs would not (initially) securitize. Thus, the shift away from GSE securitization to private-label securitization (PLS) also corresponded with a shift in mortgage product type, from traditional, amortizing, fixed-rate mortgages (FRMs) to nontraditional, structurally riskier, nonamortizing, adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs), and in the start of a sharp deterioration in mortgage underwriting standards.[32] The growth of PLS, however, forced the GSEs to lower their underwriting standards in an attempt to reclaim lost market share in order to please their private shareholders. Shareholder pressure pushed the GSEs into competition with PLS for market share, and the GSEs loosened their guarantee business underwriting standards in order to compete. In contrast, the wholly public FHA/Ginnie Mae maintained their underwriting standards and instead ceded market share.[32]

The growth of private-label securitization and lack of regulation in this part of the market resulted in the oversupply of underpriced housing finance[32] that lead in 2006 to an increasing number of borrowers, often with poor credit that were unable to pay their mortgages - particularly with adjustable rate mortgages (ARM), caused a precipitous increase in home foreclosures. As a result, home prices declined as increasing foreclosures added to the already large inventory of homes and stricter lending standards made it more and more difficult for borrowers to get mortgages. This depreciation in home prices led to growing losses for the GSEs, which back the majority of US mortgages. In July 2008, the government attempted to ease market fears by reiterating their view that "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play a central role in the US housing finance system". The Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve took steps to bolster confidence in the corporations, including granting both corporations access to Federal Reserve low-interest loans (at similar rates as commercial banks) and removing the prohibition on the Treasury Department to purchase the GSEs' stock. Despite these efforts, by August 2008, shares of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had tumbled more than 90% from their one-year prior levels.

On Oct 21, 2010 FHFA estimates revealed that the bailout of Fredie Mac and Fannie Mae will likely cost taxpayers $224–360 billion in total, with over $150 billion already provided.[33]

Business

One part of Fannie Mae's income is generated through the positive interest rate spread between the rate paid to fund the purchase of mortgage investments and the return it earns on those retained mortgage investments. Fannie Mae's mortgage portfolio was in excess of $700 billion as of August 2008. Fannie Mae also earns a significant portion of its income from guaranty fees it receives as compensation for assuming the credit risk on the mortgage loans underlying its single-family Fannie Mae MBS and on the single-family mortgage loans held in its retained portfolio. Investors, or purchasers of Fannie Mae MBSs, are willing to let Fannie Mae keep this fee in exchange for assuming the credit risk; that is, Fannie Mae's guarantee that the scheduled principal and interest on the underlying loan will be paid even if the borrower defaults.

Fannie Mae's charter has historically prevented it from guaranteeing mortgages with a loan-to-values over 80% without mortgage insurance or a repurchase agreement with the lender;[5] however, in 2006 and 2007 Fannie Mae did purchase subprime and Alt-A loans as investments.[34]

Conforming loans

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have a limit on the maximum sized loan they will guarantee. This is known as the "conforming loan limit." The conforming loan limit for Fannie Mae, along with Freddie Mac, is set by Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), the regulator of both GSEs. OFHEO annually sets the limit of the size of a conforming loan based on the October to October changes in mean home price, above which a mortgage is considered a non-conforming jumbo loan. The conforming loan limit is 50 percent higher in Alaska and Hawaii. The GSEs only buy loans that are conforming to repackage into the secondary market, lowering the demand for non-conforming loans. By virtue of the law of supply and demand, then, it is harder for lenders to sell these loans in the secondary market; thus these types of loans tend to cost more to borrowers (typically 1/4 to 1/2 of a percent). Indeed, in 2008, since the demand for bonds not guaranteed by GSEs was almost non-existent, non-conforming loans were priced nearly 1% to 1.5% higher than conforming loans.

Guarantees and subsidies

Speculation that the U.S. government would bail out an insolvent Fannie Mae is a hypothesis that had never been tested until recently, when the subprime mortgage crisis hit the U.S.

On July 11, 2008, the New York Times reported that U.S. government officials were considering a plan for the U.S. government to take over Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac should their financial situations worsen due to the U.S. housing crisis.[29] The government officials also stated that the government had also considered calling for explicit government guarantee through legislation of $5 trillion on debt owned or guaranteed by the two companies.

Shares in U.S. mortgage finance firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac plunged on Friday, July 11, 2008, and market speculation mounted that the government was set to take them over to resolve their funding problems.

Shares continued to plummet[35] as investors became unsure about the adequacy of the capital held by Fannie Mae. U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson as well as the White House went on the air to defend the financial soundness of Fannie Mae. These statements by the GW Bush administration in 2008 were intended to prevent a total financial panic.

Fannie Mae and smaller Freddie Mac own or guarantee almost half of all home loans in the United States. They face billions of dollars in potential losses, and may need to raise additional, potentially substantial, amounts of new capital as the current downturn in the U.S. housing market continues.

Markets assume that the taxpayer will if necessary take on the burden of all their mortgages because they underpin the whole U.S. mortgage market. If they were to collapse, mortgages would be harder to obtain and much more expensive. U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has said the government's primary focus is in supporting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in their current form.[36]

No actual guarantees

Fannie Mae receives no direct government funding or backing; Fannie Mae securities carry no government guarantee of being repaid. This is explicitly stated in the law that authorizes GSEs, on the securities themselves, and in many public communications issued by Fannie Mae.

Neither the certificates nor payments of principal and interest on the certificates are guaranteed by the United States government. The certificates do not constitute a debt or obligation of the United States or any of its agencies or instrumentalities other than Fannie Mae.

The perception of government guarantees has allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to save billions in borrowing costs. Estimates by the Congressional Budget Office and the Treasury Department put the figure at about $2 billion per year.[37]

Assumed guarantees

There is a wide belief that FNMA securities are backed by some sort of implied federal guarantee, and a majority of investors believe that the government would prevent a disastrous default. Vernon L. Smith, 2002 Nobel Laureate in economics, has called FHLMC and FNMA "implicitly taxpayer-backed agencies".[38] The Economist has referred to "the implicit government guarantee"[39] of FHLMC and FNMA. In testimony before the House and Senate Banking Committee in 2004, Alan Greenspan expressed the belief that Fannie Mae's (weak) financial position was the result of markets believing that the U.S. Government would never allow Fannie Mae (or Freddie Mac) to fail.[40]

Federal subsidies

The FNMA receives no direct federal government aid. However, the corporation and the securities it issues are widely believed to be implicitly backed by the U.S. government. In 1996, the Congressional Budget Office wrote "there have been no federal appropriations for cash payments or guarantee subsidies. But in the place of federal funds the government provides considerable unpriced benefits to the enterprises... Government-sponsored enterprises are costly to the government and taxpayers... the benefit is currently worth $6.5 billion annually.".[41] Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are allowed to hold less capital than normal financial institutions: e.g., it is allowed to sell mortgage-backed securities with only half as much capital backing them up as would be required of other financial institutions. Specifically, regulations exist through the FDIC Bank Holding Company Act that govern the solvency of financial institutions. The regulations require normal financial institutions to maintain a capital/asset ratio greater than or equal to 3%.[42] The GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are exempt from this capital/asset ratio requirement and can, and often do, maintain a capital/asset ratio less than 3%. The additional leverage allows for greater returns in good times, but put the companies at greater risk in bad times, such as during the current subprime mortgage crisis. FNMA is also exempt from state and local taxes. In addition, FNMA and FHLMC are exempt from SEC filing requirements; however, both GSEs voluntarily file their SEC 10-K and 10-Q.

Money market funds have diversification requirements, so that not more than 5% of assets may be from the same issuer. That is, a worst-case default would drop a fund not more than five cents. However, these rules do not apply to Fannie and Freddie. It would not be unusual to find a fund that had the vast majority of its assets in Fannie and Freddie debt.

Accounting

FNMA is a financial corporation which uses derivatives to "hedge" its cash flow. Derivative products it uses include interest rate swaps and options to enter interest rate swaps ("pay-fixed swaps", "receive-fixed swaps", "basis swaps", "interest rate caps and swaptions", "forward starting swaps").

Duration gap is a financial and accounting term for the difference between the duration of assets and liabilities, and is typically used by banks, pension funds, or other financial institutions to measure their risk due to changes in the interest rate

"The company said that in April its average duration gap widened to plus 3 months in April from zero in March." "The Washington-based company aims to keep its duration gap between minus 6 months to plus 6 months. From September 2003 to March, the gap has run between plus to minus one month."

Conservatorship

Main article: Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

On September 7, 2008, Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director James B. Lockhart III announced pursuant to the financial analysis, assessments and statutory authority of the FHFA, he had placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the conservatorship of the FHFA. FHFA has stated that there are no plans to liquidate the company.[26][27] The announcement followed reports two days earlier that the Federal government was planning to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and had met with their CEOs on short notice.[43][44][45] Under plan announced September 7, 2008, the federal government, via the Federal Housing Finance Agency, placed the two firms into conservatorship, dismissed the firms' chief executive officers and boards of directors, and caused the issuance to the Treasury new senior preferred stock and common stock warrants amounting to 79.9% of each GSE. The value of the common stock and preferred stock to pre-conservatorship holders was greatly diminished by the suspension of future dividends on previously outstanding stock, in the effort to maintain the value of company debt and of mortgage-backed securities.[26][27][28][43] [44][45][46] The authority of the U.S. Treasury to advance funds for the purpose of stabilizing Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac is limited only by the amount of debt that the entire federal government is permitted by law to commit to. The July 30, 2008 law enabling expanded regulatory authority over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac increased the national debt ceiling US$ 800 billion, to a total of US$ 10.7 Trillion in anticipation of the potential need for the Treasury to have the flexibility to support the federal home loan banks.[47][48][49]

Scandals

Accounting scandal

In late 2004, Fannie Mae was under investigation for its accounting practices. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight released a report[50] on September 20, 2004, alleging widespread accounting errors.

Fannie Mae was expected to spend more than $1 billion in 2006 alone to complete its internal audit and bring it closer to compliance. The necessary restatement was expected to cost $10.8 billion, but was completed at a total cost of $6.3 billion in restated earnings as listed in Fannie Mae's Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Concerns with business and accounting practices at Fannie Mae predate the scandal itself. On June 15, 2000, the House Banking Subcommittee On Capital Markets, Securities And Government-Sponsored Enterprises held hearings on Fannie Mae.[51]

On December 18, 2006, U.S. regulators filed 101 civil charges against chief executive Franklin Raines; chief financial officer J. Timothy Howard; and the former controller Leanne G. Spencer. The three are accused of manipulating Fannie Mae earnings to maximize their bonuses. The lawsuit sought to recoup more than $115 million in bonus payments, collectively accrued by the trio from 1998–2004, and about $100 million in penalties for their involvement in the accounting scandal.

Conflict of interest

Further information: [[:Countrywide financial political loan scandal]]

In June 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported that two former CEOs of Fannie Mae, James A. Johnson and Franklin Raines had received loans below market rate from Countrywide Financial. Johnson and Raines both had close links with the Democratic Party. Fannie Mae was the biggest buyer of Countrywide's mortgages.[52]

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have given contributions to lawmakers currently sitting on committees that primarily regulate their industry: The House Financial Services Committee; the Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee; or the Senate Finance Committee.[citation needed] The others have seats on the powerful Appropriations or Ways & Means committees, are members of the congressional leadership or have run for president. Individual Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac employees made a large number contributions to Barack Obama in 2008, though he received less than one third the cash that John McCain did from Fannie Mae PACs.[53][54]

Leadership

Canadian equivalent

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) is a Crown corporation owned by the Government of Canada. The Corporation was founded after World War II to provide housing for returning soldiers. It later built and/or funded urban renewal projects in Canada's cities. Today, its main function is providing mortgage insurance of residential mortgage loans to Canadian home buyers. This insurance protects mortgage lenders against mortgage defaults on mortgages of less than 20% down.

Delisting

On June 16, 2010, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac announced their stocks would be delisted from the NYSE. The Federal Housing Finance Agency directed the delisting after Fannie's stock traded below $1 a share for over 30 days. Their stocks will continue to trade on the Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board as long as there is trader interest. Reports from the finance agency specified that the delisting had nothing to do with current or future company performance.

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Fannie Mae (FNM) annual SEC income statement filing via Wikinvest
  2. ^ a b Fannie Mae (FNM) annual SEC balance sheet filing via Wikinvest
  3. ^ "About Fannie Mae". Fendral National Mortgage Association. 2008-10-07. Retrieved 2008-10-28.
  4. ^ Fabozzi, Frank J.; Modigliani, Franco (1992), Mortgage and Mortgage-backed Securities Markets, Harvard Business School Press, p. 2, ISBN 0-87584-322-0
  5. ^ a b c 2006 Annual Report. Fannie Mae.
  6. ^ Fabozzi, Frank J.; Modigliani, Franco (1992), Mortgage and Mortgage-backed Securities Markets, Harvard Business School Press, pp. 19–20, ISBN 0-87584-322-0
  7. ^ According to Fannie Mae's timeline, the corporation continues to operate under the charter, although has been amended several times, notably a 1968 amendment which allowed Fannie to issue mortgage-backed securities. See 12 USC 1716-1723
  8. ^ Krishna Guha, Saskia Scholtes, James Politi: Saviours of the suburbs, Financial Times, June 4, 2008, page 13
  9. ^ a b Fabozzi, Frank J.; Modigliani, Franco (1992), Mortgage and Mortgage-backed Securities Markets, Harvard Business School Press, p. 20, ISBN 0-87584-322-0
  10. ^ Fabozzi, Frank J.; Modigliani, Franco (1992), Mortgage and Mortgage-backed Securities Markets, Harvard Business School Press, p. 23, ISBN 0-87584-322-0
  11. ^ a b Fabozzi, Frank J.; Modigliani, Franco (1992), Mortgage and Mortgage-backed Securities Markets, Harvard Business School Press, p. 21, ISBN 0-87584-322-0
  12. ^ a b Holmes, Steven A. (September 30, 1999). "Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending". New York Times.
  13. ^ Leonnig, Carol D. (June 10, 2008). "How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis". Washington Post.
  14. ^ Mudd, Daniel (April 17, 2007). "Opening Statement as Submitted to the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services". Fannie Mae.
  15. ^ Holmes, Steven A. (September 30, 1999). "Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 2008-10-16.
  16. ^ Berenson, Alex (August 7, 2003). "Fannie Mae's Loss Risk Is Larger, Computer Models Show". The New York Times.
  17. ^ The Black Swan: Quotes & Warnings that the Imbeciles Chose to Ignore
  18. ^ LABATON, STEPHEN (September 31, 2003). "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 2009-03-16. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  19. ^ Gill, Kathy (September 18, 2008). "Republican Congress Talked About Financial Reform, But Did Nothing". About.com.
  20. ^ "S. 190 Introductory Remarks", Sen. Chuck Hagel, 2005-01-26
  21. ^ "S. 190: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005". 109th Congress. GovTrack.us. 2005-07-28. Retrieved 2009-04-17.
  22. ^ "S. 190 Cosponsor Record". Congressional Record - 109th Congress. Library of Congress. 2006-05-25. Retrieved 2009-04-17.
  23. ^ "S. 190 Cosponsorship Statement", Sen. John McCain, 2006-05-25
  24. ^ "Statement of Administration Policy Opposed to H.R. 1461", (PDF), President George W. Bush, OMB - the White House, 2005-10-26
  25. ^ "H.R. 1461: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005". 109th Congress. GovTrack.us. 2005-10-31. Retrieved 2009-04-17.
  26. ^ a b c Lockhart, James B., III (2008-09-07). "Statement of FHFA Director James B. Lockhart". Federal Housing Finance Agency. Retrieved 2008-09-07.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  27. ^ a b c "Fact Sheet: Questions and Answers on Conservatorship" (PDF). Federal Housing Finance Agency. 2008-09-07. Retrieved 2008-09-07. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) [dead link]
  28. ^ a b Goldfarb, Zachary A. (2008-09-07). "Treasury to Rescue Fannie and Freddie: Regulators Seek to Keep Firms' Troubles From Setting Off Wave of Bank Failures". Washington Post. pp. A01. Retrieved 2008-09-07. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  29. ^ a b Duhigg, Charles, "Loan-Agency Woes Swell From a Trickle to a Torrent", The New York Times, Friday, July 11, 2008
  30. ^ Morgenson, Gretchen (2008-09-06). "Mortgage Giant Overstated the Size of Its Capital Base". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-09-07. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  31. ^ Krovvidy S. (2008). Custom DU: A Web-Based Business User-Driven Automated Underwriting System. AI Magazine. Free-full text (abstract).
  32. ^ a b c d A. J. Levitin, S. M. Wachter “Explaining the Housing Bubble”, online at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1669401)
  33. ^ http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2010-10-21-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-bailout_N.htm
  34. ^ Hilzenrath DS. (2008). Fannie's Perilous Pursuit of Subprime Loans. Washington Post.
  35. ^ Michael M. Grynbaum: Woes at Loan Agencies and Oil-Price Spike Roil Markets, New York Times, July 12, 2008
  36. ^ Paulson stands by Fannie and Freddie Statement by Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 2008-07-11
  37. ^ CATO Institute, November 17, 1997
  38. ^ Vernon L. Smith, The Clinton Housing Bubble, Wall Street Journal, December 18, 2007, p. A20
  39. ^ Fannie and Freddie ride again, The Economist, 2007-07-05
  40. ^ Fed Chief Warns of a Risk to Taxpayers, N.Y. Times, 2004-02-25
  41. ^ Congressional Budget Office, Assessing the Public Costs and Benefits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, May 1996
  42. ^ Capital Adequacy Guidelines for Bank Holding Companies: Tier 1 Leverage Measure, Appendix D to 12 C.F.R. Part 225, FDIC's Law, Regulations & Related Acts Index
  43. ^ a b Hilzenrath, David S. (2008-09-05). "Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac to be Put Under Federal Control, Sources Say". Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-09-05. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  44. ^ a b Labaton, Stephen (2008-09-05). "U.S. Rescue Seen at Hand for 2 Mortgage Giants". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-09-05. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  45. ^ a b Hilzenrath,, David S. (2008-09-06). "U.S. Nears Rescue Plan For Fannie And Freddie Deal Said to Involve Change of Leadership, Infusions of Capital". Washington Post. pp. A1. Retrieved 2008-09-06. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  46. ^ Paulson, Henry M., Jr. (2008-09-07). "Statement by Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. on Treasury and Federal Housing Finance Agency Action to Protect Financial Markets and Taxpayers". United States Department of the Treasury. Retrieved 2008-09-07. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  47. ^ Herszenhorn, David (2008-07-27). "Congress Sends Housing Relief Bill to President". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-09-06. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  48. ^ Herszenhorn, David M. (2008-07-31). "Bush Signs Sweeping Housing Bill". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-09-06. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  49. ^ See HR 3221, signed into law as Public Law 110-289: A bill to provide needed housing reform and for other purposes.
    Access to Legislative History: Library of Congress THOMAS: A bill to provide needed housing reform and for other purposes.
    White House pre-signing statement: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 3221 – Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (July 23, 2008 ). Executive office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington DC.
  50. ^ http://www.ofheo.gov/media/pdf/FNMfindingstodate17sept04.pdf [dead link]
  51. ^ 6-15-00, Statement of William Michael Cunningham
  52. ^ Countrywide Friends Got Good Loans - The Wall Street Journal
  53. ^ "Barack Obama's Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Connection". Fox News. 2008-09-16.
  54. ^ http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/obama-contributions-2.htm
  55. ^ CNN
  56. ^ "Feud over Fannie Mae". Time. February 27, 1978. Retrieved 2006-12-30. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fannie_Mae&oldid=395073826"