What to do about Fannie and Freddie: Restructure -- or terminate?
Filed under: Company News, Investing, Fannie Mae
Fannie Mae's (FNH) report of a third-quarter loss of $19.76 billion and subsequent plea to the federal government for $15 billion in additional aid is sure to intensify a big question that so far has gone unanswered: What can be done to stem the bleeding at the giant mortgage lender and its sibling Freddie Mac (FRE)? Given this week's bankruptcy filing by CIT, which will probably lead to the loss of $2.3 billion in taxpayer money, Fannie Mae's request for another $15 billion will strike many as throwing more good money after bad.Fannie Mae had previously posted second-quarter losses of $14.8 billion, on top of $23.2 billion of red ink in the first quarter, leading Morningstar equity analyst Matthew Warren to write in a report: "Nothing fundamentally has changed with the situation at Fannie Mae, and we remain quite certain that the equity shares are worthless barring a ridiculous public policy decision on the part of the U.S. government."
As Warren foreshadowed, all eyes will be on the Obama administration as Fannie Mae's situation gets even worse. The percentage of loans the company owns that are considered in serious delinquency rose to 4.72 percent from 3.94 percent last quarter and foreclosed property acquisitions have more than doubled to 98,428.
In its quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission this week, Fannie admitted: "We are dependent on the continued support of Treasury in order to continue operating our business." The lender has already used $44.9 billion of the $200 billion aid package it received when placed under conservatorship last year.
The GAO Weighs In
Before much more of that money is used, Congress will undoubtedly ask what the administration's long-term plan for Fannie and Freddie is. The U.S. General Accounting Office released a report in September that explored options the government could take to deal with the problems at both enterprises.
The report suggested turning Fannie and Freddie back into government-sponsored for-profit enterprises with major restrictions to minimize risk. This would "eliminate or reduce mortgage portfolios, establish executive compensation limits, or convert the enterprises from shareholder-owned corporations to associations owned by lenders," said the report.
The GAO also suggested turning the mortgage companies into government agencies that would focus on purchasing qualifying mortgages and issuing mortgaged-backed securities, while eliminating their mortgage portfolios.
A last possibility was to privatize or terminate them. "This option would abolish the enterprises in their current form and disperse mortgage lending and risk management throughout the private sector," the report said. Of course, there are many ways to terminate the two organizations -- each with pros and cons.
Recapitalization Could Lead to Profitability
Investment bank Keefe, Bruyette & Woods (KBW) is floating the option of recapitalizing both entities and restructuring them in a way that could give them an opportunity to become profitable again.
"The only viable option to limit taxpayer expense and recapitalize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is to set up a Bad Fannie and Bad Freddie with the existing portfolios, and a new Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as cooperatives of bank mortgage lenders, along the lines of the other GSEs -- the Federal Home Loan Banks," analysts Bose George, Frederick Cannon and Jade Rahmani write in an October report.
KBW argues that banks that benefit from Fannie and Freddie guaranteed loans should pay for the privilege, giving the government an opportunity to eventually get out from under guaranteeing all of the loans.
The ownership structure of Fannie and Freddie "should be shifted over time to a cooperative of banks similar to the Federal Home Loan Bank system. Under such an approach, the banks that originate an agency-conforming loan would be required to retain 5% of the loan balance as an equity investment in either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Thus the new agencies would be recapitalized at a solid 5% level of the new expanded balance sheets under FAS 166/167. The capital would provide a significant buffer to bondholders in the new agencies from future losses," the report said.
On the Hook for Billions More
KBW said the returns on the stock investment in the newly created agencies would be modest, but any return would look pretty good for stocks that many analysts have been declared worthless.
Like with the options offered by the GAO, KBW's approach also has pros and cons, but a restructuring of Fannie and Freddie seems likely at some point, given the accelerating pace of foreclosures and the slow rate of economic recovery. If Fannie's current aid request is approved, taxpayers will be on the hook for $60 billion and own hundreds of thousands of homes in a housing market where prices may not rise for years.
The Obama administration can gamble on the recovery saving both entities, but cutting their losses might be the best bet for taxpayers.



























Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
11-06-2009 @ 4:13PM
studebakermon said...
cut the losses close Fannie Mae
Reply
11-07-2009 @ 12:21AM
KEN said...
HOW!?
11-06-2009 @ 4:49PM
Mingo said...
Freddie and Fannie were said to be in great shape a year ago thanks to Barney Frank. As we can see they are both in such bad shape and were both used to give out loans to people who had no money to pay it back. Time to stop this crazy way to use tax money to keep propping up losers. they will never make money so like the other banks or lending firms let them go. Maybe in the future when america is really back on its feet we can look at another company like them
Reply
11-06-2009 @ 5:03PM
Pat Kenmir said...
Giving more money to Fannie May or Freddie Mac is like going back to Los Vegas to gamble more money to try to get back the first gambling loses. A better solution would be to sell off all the bad housing loans at 50%. I bet the bad loan losses would disappear quickly. Tough choices for tough times. The Government would at least get 50% of the investment back, (taxpayer money). Another solution would be to RENT out homes instead of foreclousure, but make the payments at 50% of normal for at least 10years, after that the payments could rise by 10% per year, back to the original payment.
Reply
11-06-2009 @ 5:14PM
kdnorcutt said...
It is time to let them go. many banks and mortgage lenders can still produce loans using their underwriting guidelines for full document loans. these banks can now sell these loans to mortgage back securities through their investment brokers. most lagre banks have their own investment division. This will eliminate a cost to the tax payers and to the people geting mortgages by eliminating a middleman.
Reply
11-06-2009 @ 7:42PM
david50now said...
would this be along the way lehman brothers and goldman sachs did bussiness in the past. are you suggesting that the banks bundel more loans into this sweet little packages and sell them off and create another round of default swaps get off
11-06-2009 @ 6:06PM
tsimpson said...
One more example of a government managed entity, lossses, and more losses---just wait until they managing (screwing-up) the health care system. Who is worst, Barney Frank or Nancy P. In horse racing its labeled "1" and "1A."
Reply
11-06-2009 @ 6:28PM
Concerned said...
Fire Barney Franks and sell off. Then prosecute Franks, Dodd and others involved in shoddy loans.
Reply
11-06-2009 @ 7:01PM
Chuck Garrsion said...
Thanks to the Dems, obama and ACRON.
Giving loans out with no money down. This was a no brain er.
More tax payer money down the drain. Would like to see how many default loans for the Cash for Clunkers there is by years end.
This administration has wasted so much money.
Reply
11-06-2009 @ 7:34PM
david50now said...
screw-em for the screwing they gave! go after the bastards that screwed me out of my house! let-em fall no one bailed me out...screw-em and those fed bastards that backed em up
Reply
11-07-2009 @ 7:29AM
wizard said...
When forclosures are done, the structures should be destroyed and cleared...the land would be sold for long term development...reducing the competitive housing supply and stabilizing the values of homeowners who have conforming mortgages
Reply