Home > News > Fannie & Freddie Get a Stay of Execution… for Now

Comments 0 Comments
Advertiser Disclosure


Yet another ideological tug-of-war is happening in the Senate.

This one has to do with what was billed as a bipartisan effort to eliminate the Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) in favor of a private market solution for residential-mortgage loans.

A group of Democratic senators — Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Robert Menendez (N.J.) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio) — say they will not support the legislation to wind down the agencies introduced by Sens. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) as it’s currently drafted, even if both the House and the Obama administration are receptive to it.

Fannie and Freddie, as you may recall, are among the poster children for financial mismanagement in the run-up to the recent economic collapse. The companies were kept afloat with nearly $200 billion in taxpayer-backed loans that, to the two companies’ credit, have been fully repaid. And then some.

The great concern of the renegade senators is that the Johnson-Crapo bill falls short when it comes to helping lower- and moderate-income earners become homeowners. They also worry that the enhanced eligibility requirements the legislation prescribes would make mortgages more expensive for those who are able pass muster.

To the extent that home ownership continues to be a national priority — a debate that creeps onto op-ed pages whenever there’s talk about curtailing the tax deduction for mortgage interest — those concerns should certainly be addressed.

There is, however, another matter that deserves equal consideration. It has to do with the manner in which mortgages are financed by lenders after the fact.

The prospective legislation provides for government guarantees of the loans that financial services companies will be originating in Fannie and Freddie’s stead. But don’t confuse loan guarantees with loan funding. That money has to come from someplace — whether from bank customers whose deposits are used for institutional lending activities, or, more likely, from the capital markets in the form of structured-finance transactions, such as securitizations.

As we know from our experience with federally-guaranteed student loans that were originated in the private sector and later sold to others, investor interests are often at cross-purposes with those of borrowers. Financially distressed consumers, for example, need their loans to be restructured or modified in order to stave off default. Investors, on the other hand, are less than eager to embrace any arrangement that has the potential to diminish their rates of return. Consequently, the loan servicers, which are paid by the investors to administer these transactions, are unwilling to take remedial actions that conflict with the objectives of their benefactors.

The government, however, has a pretty big chip in this game: the value of its guarantee.

So why not call in that marker and require securitization structures to allow for loan modifications by distressed borrowers? In fact, wouldn’t it also make sense to preclude lenders from making claims against the government (and, by extension, the taxpayers) unless they have first done all they should to keep their problem loans afloat?

Sure, troubled-loan workout arrangements often will negatively affect investor rates of return. Then again, the value of the government’s ultimate backstop is what differentiates this investment from most others.

As lawmakers continue to debate the legislation that’s before them now, someone better have the guts to address the back-end of a process many seem hell-bent on changing.

Otherwise, these post-Fannie and Freddie residential mortgages will be second in line for the next round of bailouts. Right after student loans.

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not necessarily represent the views of the company or its affiliates.

More on Mortgages and Homebuying:

Image: AlexKosev

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team