Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) have similar purposes but different structures. Fannie Mae was founded in 1938 during the Great Depression for the purpose of purchasing and securitizing mortgages to keep funds flowing to institutions that lend money to home buyers. In 1968, the government converted Fannie into a private shareholder-owned corporation. Freddie Mac, on the other hand, was created in 1970 as a government-sponsored enterprise to expand the market for secondary mortgages in the US.
In September 2008, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) director James B Lockhart announced that Fannie and Freddie would be placed under the conservatorship of FHFA.
Fast forward to April 2009 and we hear discussions that Fannie and Freddie could be merged into a single entity. This would allow regulators to combine the 11,000 person workforces and reduce the total number of people at the new entity. They would also be shedding under-performing mortgage assets and reducing the bureaucracy of the two companies.
This may not happen now as the housing market has to first stabilize, so Fannie and Freddie will remain under government custody for the time being. So far, Freddie has received $44.6 billion in federal aid, three times that of Fannie Mae. The government has agreed to give Fannie and Freddie up to $400 billion through December 31 to keep them afloat. That agreement may need to be extended by Congress later this year.
Members of Congress are floating possible scenarios for Fannie and Freddie. Barney Frank wants to separate the private and public functions of Fannie and Freddie. Spencer Bachus of Alabama proposed letting the Federal Home Loan Banks take over some obligations of Fannie and Freddie. Federal Home Loan Banks are 12 government cooperatives that lend money at below market rates to more that 8,100 thrifts, commercial banks, insurance companies and credit unions.
So that's where we are at the moment. Proposals are being floated about in an effort to find the best way of reworking Fannie and Freddie.
Do you favor combining Fannie and Freddie?











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-15-2009 @ 11:55AM
Miguel said...
In all fairness, we really don't need these two entities anymore and can get by without both. They served their uses during the GD, but now are nothing more than just personal piggie banks for Frank and Dodd and the rest of the Democrats.
4-15-2009 @ 12:32PM
JH said...
Anything Barney Frank wants to do, simply do the opposite and you will be fine. He, and the rest of the Democrats are the reason we are in this mess in the first place. That is a FACT to those Liberals reading this shaking their heads. Do your research, the facts are there for you to see for yourself. Democrats know one thing. How to spend money and when things go wrong, they deny ever having any part of it, such as Barney Frank has been doing when being called out into the public spotlight and Maxine Waters for all going on record saying "Oh there is nothing wrong with Fannie and Freddie". Republicans saw it coming, even the Liberal in Conservative clothing McCain saw it, but the liberals just went on as if nothing was wrong, when in fact there were major problems. This country will need to rebound, and it will, but certainly not under Obama's watch.
4-15-2009 @ 1:50PM
Beltway Greg said...
Not so fast kids. Anything done well can be done. It's that simple. Of course Fannie and Freddie and Sallie and Ginnie are bloated relics that far over stepped their bounds. They aren't really any different from our banks or the consumers in our country. Barney Frank? Whatever. He is no more guilty than Chris Cox or Paulson or Greenspan or.......fill in the blank. Your average senator or congressman won the election but they didn't take the test. Most politicos are elected based on populist platforms not intellectual platforms. Sadly, many Americans can't figure out the 15% tip on their check at Bob Evans. Even Dick Cheney said, "deficits don't matter." The last true republican we had in the office was Bill Clinton. We actually had a surplus before Gdub took over and started sending checks to people and cutting taxes for the rich. His reaction to 9-11? Go out and spend. He had both a republican senate and congress for 6 years and what did he do? Invaded the wrong country. Thanks George. Citigroup cut folks, UBS cut folks , and now the well-connected at F & F are going to have to bite the bullet. Do they have a future? Of course. There will always be communities, projects, or individuals who are credit worthy but who either don't meet the criteria or really aren't big enough to warrant the attention of lenders. See: microcredit in the third world.
And in the meantime, "Try Jah Love."
from the group ThirdWorld, have a Red Stripe and chill out. This too shall pass and be glad you live in America.
Imagine, if a military operation had been launched against pirates during Gdub's term he would've invaded Disney looking for Captain Jack Sparrow.
4-15-2009 @ 6:57PM
Mike said...
I agree with the statement that Bush was a fiscal socialist (he entitled prescription drugs for example.) However Bush is spending pennies on the dime compared to what the Bamster and the Democrats are doing.
4-16-2009 @ 3:02AM
dirque said...
Ignoring labels. Republicans. Democrats. Socialism Conservative etc...
I think it's easy to criticize Obama despite him only being in office for almost 4 months because his policies are transparent.
In the previous 8 years, policies, spending, initiatives were cloaked under executive privilege, gag orders, press blackouts.
So much spending was hidden under Iraq appropriations which was not included in the Federal Budget.
I really approve of things Obama is willing to do. Infrastructure is a vital need in this country. We haven't had a spending spree on infrastructure since Eisenhower. And guess what- our roads and bridges and water supplies are falling apart because they were built- under Eisenhower.
Do you remember the Northeast blackout? The entire east coast in darkness because of one overloaded transformer. Something needs to be done, even if from a national security standpoint.
Do I believe Obama is using panic of the economic crisis to push through spending that otherwise wouldn't have been approved by the populace. Absolutely!
I also believed Bush invaded Iraq with the momentum from the 9/11 bombings. However, comparing the two, I prefer infrastructure to an occupation.
Defense wise- Why does it take a Democrat to retool our defense spending to fit the wars we're fighting?
I'm sorry but I see no way that the U.S. can complete investments in infrastructure while it can barely keep up with maintenance of antiquated structures of yesteryear.
Meanwhile European and Asian governments make amazing strides in railroads, telecommunications, and noncarbon based energy. E.g. solar panels in Germany, Maglevs in Japan, Cell phone coverage everywhere else in the world.
I don't care how America keeps ahead compared to the rest of the world. But I definitely want it be number one.
4-23-2009 @ 11:22AM
Lam arche Michael said...
These institutions still hold Student loans of mine that are over 10yrs old. GOD's law states that ALL loans be forgiven after 7yrs. lest a condition of SLAVERY develops. So these institutions or more specifically their OFFICERS are GUILTY and shall be DAMNED! Just like any and ALL BANKERS LENDING life time MORTGAGES! I THE LORD HAVE SPOKEN WITH THE SWORD OF MY MOUTH!!