Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Who They Are

freddie&FannieFannie Mae and Freddie Mac are publicly traded companies that guarantee the majority of new mortgages in the U.S. They are key players in the government’s foreclosure-prevention initiative.

Fannie Mae, officially the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., were taken over by the government in 2008 after billions of dollars in losses and years of mismanagement.

Fannie and Freddie operate in the secondary mortgage market. They don’t sell mortgages directly to homeowners; they buy mortgages from banks and other lenders, which can use the money to issue new home mortgages.

To increase access to home loans, Fannie was created as a federal agency in 1938 and chartered by Congress in 1968, followed by Freddie in 1970. But they also are publicly traded corporations and — before their taxpayer bailout — had a duty to maximize shareholder return.

Those divergent missions were criticized as a "fundamentally flawed" business model by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which Congress created to examine the causes of the economic crisis that began in 2007.

Fannie and Freddie loosened underwriting standards leading up to the financial crisis, buying and guaranteeing riskier loans and ramping up purchases of mortgage-backed securities to please Wall Street analysts and to "ensure generous compensation for their executives and employees," the commission determined.

By 2007, the commission said, the companies had $5 trillion in mortgages resting on razor-thin capital.

The commission found that the companies used their political power for decades to Freddie Macward off effective regulation and oversight, spending $164 million on lobbying from 1999 through 2008. It concluded, however, that although Fannie and Freddie contributed to the financial crisis, they were not the primary cause.

With the housing market in turmoil in 2007 and 2008, Fannie and Freddie reported billions of dollars in losses. They were placed in conservatorship under the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) in September 2008.

Since then, the Treasury Department has provided $169 billion to cover their losses (with repayments the net cost to taxpayers is $141 billion). The total could rise to $363 billion, the FHFA said. Other estimates put the total closer to $390 billion.

Fannie and Freddie’s future is unclear. The Obama administration and Republicans in Congress agree that Fannie and Freddie should be abolished. Last February, President Obama proposed gradually phasing them out and gave Congress options for shrinking the government’s role in housing finance.

To Rent or Buy

RentOrBuy

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are often just misunderstood

freddie_fannieFannie and Freddie – misunderstood?

“The mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not blameless in the foreclosure crisis, but the case against them is also often misunderstood and exaggerated,” opines Kevin Park, a doctoral student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in a piece about the history and evolution of the two government sponsored entities (GSEs) in modern times.

Three years ago, Fannie and Freddie were placed into conservatorship under the Federal Housing Finance Agency and Park notes that together, the two institutions hold roughly $5.3 trillion in home mortgages.Various efforts have been made to wind down or abolish Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with those efforts accelerating as the two steal headlines over the FHFA approved nearly $13 million in bonuses to Fannie and Freddie execs just days before quarterly reports were released, revealing that Freddie Mac who lost $4.4 billion in the third quarter requested an additional $6 billion, while Fannie Mae lost $5.1 billion and requested an additional $7.8 billion.

Questionable cause of Fannie & Freddie’s failure

Park argues, however, that Fannie and Freddie aren’t exactly the bad guys in the housing market. It looks like they’re going to be the scapegoat though, according to Park’s take on the GSEs.  ”The causes behind their failure have been and will continue to be much debated. Below is a discussion of facts related to Fannie and Freddie’s role in the current housing crisis. The accumulation of evidence suggests that profit, not policy, pushed these players like many others into treacherous territory and risky products not borrowers led to their collapse.”

Park’s full argument is below and features insightful charts and easy to understand language:

20% Downpayments Don’t Always Make Cents

down_paymentDespite the “doom and gloom” in today’s headlines, in the current economic climate, homeownership is more affordable than ever, thanks to low interest rates and lower home values. For those buyers who manage to have a 20% (or more) downpayment, they believe this will get them the lowest monthly mortgage payment. However, simply because buyers can afford to put down this amount does not necessarily mean they should.

Those buyers who have saved enough to put 20%—or more—down on the purchase of a home may want to consider another approach—preserving some of their cash for savings, investing or other purposes. It may sound counterintuitive, but with today’s interest rates and the competitive pricing of private mortgage insurance (MI), borrowers can retain some of their money by putting less money down on a home—say only 10%—and still get a low monthly payment.

Real estate professionals have a responsibility to all home buyers to help them evaluate their purchasing power based on existing assets as well as future need. The right counsel can help home buyers leverage their current assets while keeping sufficient reserve for any immediate or future financial needs, not to mention all the trips to the local big box hardware store that seem to come standard for any new homeowner.

As a real estate professional, I guide my home buyers throughout the transaction process. At the very beginning, it is imperative to look at the borrower’s overall financial picture—taking into consideration current cash flow, debt and all future financial obligations.

leveraging-SmallIt is important to think beyond just interest rates and downpayment, as these are not the only keys to securing the lowest possible mortgage payment. By having a general understanding of the current financing options, you can better understand what a buyer can responsibly afford, which, in some instances may be more than they think.

While I am not a financial advisor, by asking these types of questions, I help make sure my buyers better frame conversations with their loan officer.

While in the past the adage was, “The more you borrow, the more you leverage,” in today’s financial times, the scenario is much different. Today, borrowers can leverage private MI to put as little as 5% down on a home and still have a competitive payment. And for those potential buyers who have stayed out of the market over worries of declining property values, they can still purchase a home without funneling all of their available cash into the downpayment. By utilizing this strategy, home buyers are able to leverage their current assets, while still keeping sufficient cash reserve.

So, while putting 20% down on a home doesn’t always make sense (or dollars), buying at a time of high affordability does. And by understanding the current financing options available to buyers, and helping them discuss what those options mean for their downpayment needs or monthly payments,I help point them in the right direction with their loan officer, overcome their investment fears and make the sale, all while helping them achieve their goals.

I’m here to help – 206-713-3244 or email me.