Trump Asks Bank CEOs to Pitch Fannie, Freddie Stock Offering
The World's Data Center Capital Has Residents Surrounded
An Abandoned Art-Deco Landmark in Buffalo Awaits Revival
We Should All Be Biking Along the Beach
Budapest's Most Historic Site Gets a Controversial Rebuild
San Francisco in Talks With Vanderbilt for Downtown Campus
Trump is asking chief executive officers for their pitches on monetizing mortgage giants Fannie Mae (FNMA, FNMAS, FNMAO, FNMAL) and Freddie Mac (FMCC), including a major public offering of stock, according to people familiar with the matter.
Last week, Trump invited JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon to meet him at the White House. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO David Solomon was set to meet with Trump on Thursday afternoon, and Bank of America Corp. CEO Brian Moynihan is also expected to meet the president in coming days. Talks are likely to include other banks as well, the people said.
Officially named the Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., the two entities are massive financial organs of the US housing system. The companies have been under government conservatorship since the 2008 financial crisis. Fannie and Freddie have both returned to steady profitability, with earnings being retained.
Trump said in May that he's giving 'very serious consideration to bringing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac public.' Small portions of the stock already trade publicly, but a vast majority of the firms' shares are held by the government.
After Bloomberg reported on the talks with bankers, shares of both companies rose in extended trading on light volume as of 4:30 p.m. in New York, with Fannie Mae climbing 14% and Freddie Mac advancing 5.7%.
Policymakers in Washington have struggled for years with what to do with the so-called government-sponsored enterprises — one of the last loose ends from the crisis era. Efforts to overhaul the US housing finance system and release the mortgage giants from government control have repeatedly foundered in Congress amid concerns about the potential impact on mortgage costs and the companies' role in financing affordable housing.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report last week finding that the sale of Fannie and Freddie would be a mixed bag for the government, at least in terms of accounting. The government could make $206 billion from its stake in the companies, the CBO said, but only if they were put in receivership.
Hedge funds and other investors have long called for the US to release the pair from conservatorship, which could provide a windfall for shareholders. Analysts have said it could be one of the biggest public offerings ever — meaning it would probably offer hefty fees for the banks picked to lead it.
Many complex details would have to be worked out for any such plan, including what stake would initially be offered in any sale, and how investors who hold existing shares would be treated.
Trump is asking the CEOs to offer their ideas on the strategy for taking the organizations public and how their banks might play a role, the people said, asking not to be identified discussing private information. The administration also has conferred with Wells Fargo & Co. as it speaks with lenders, one person said.
A spokesperson for the White House had no immediate comment. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, asked earlier Thursday about Trump's meeting with Solomon, declined to detail the purpose. 'I won't discuss the president's private meetings from this podium,' she said.
Spokespeople for the banks declined to comment or didn't respond to messages.
—With assistance from Yizhu Wang, Patrick Clark and Katy O'Donnell.
(Updates with Wells Fargo in 11th paragraph.)
Burning Man Is Burning Through Cash
Russia Builds a New Web Around Kremlin's Handpicked Super App
Everyone Loves to Hate Wind Power. Scotland Found a Way to Make It Pay Off
It's Not Just Tokyo and Kyoto: Tourists Descend on Rural Japan
Cage-Free Eggs Are Booming in the US, Despite Cost and Trump's Efforts
©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Sign up for the Yahoo Finance Morning Brief
By subscribing, you are agreeing to Yahoo's
Terms
and
Privacy Policy
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New Photos Reveal Iconic White House Rose Garden Paved Over After Trump Makeover
President Donald Trump'slong-promised overhaul of the White House Rose Garden became reality in photos taken this week. The green lawn at the center of the garden, used for decades for White House events, has been replaced with what appeared to be white stone. Some foliage remained, with rose bushes and hedges bordering the new patio area. The changes fulfilled Trump's former vow to pave over the garden. He said the grass got too wet and the terrain made it hard for women to walk in high heels. This is the second time the Rose Garden has undergone big changes with Trump in office. In 2020, First Lady Melania Trump oversaw her own Rose Garden makeover, which involved adding pathways, planting new rose bushes and tearing out some of the garden's previous vegetation, including its beloved crab apple trees. While her updates drew some backlash at the time, the changes weren't nearly as stark as her husband's new redesign. This week, critics blasted the garden's new look on social media. That said, some people liked it, with fans noting that it includes drains shaped like American flags. Revamping the garden isn't the only thing on Trump's White House renovation docket. He also plans spend $200 million tearing down the East Wing to construct a ballroom. Related... New Photos Show Gravel Laid Over White House Rose Garden As Trump Reno Takes Root Trump Is Tearing Up Part Of The White House To Build A $200 Million Ballroom Trump Makes Good On His Much-Criticized Rose Garden Pledge
TechCrunch
9 minutes ago
- TechCrunch
Anthropic cuts off OpenAI's access to its Claude models
In Brief Anthropic has revoked OpenAI's access to its Claude family of AI models, according to a report in Wired. Sources told Wired that OpenAI was connecting Claude to internal tools that allowed the company to compare Claude's performance to its own models in categories like coding, writing, and safety. TechCrunch has reached out to Anthropic and OpenAI for comment. In a statement to Wired, an Anthropic spokesperson said, 'OpenAI's own technical staff were also using our coding tools ahead of the launch of GPT-5,' which is apparently 'a direct violation of our terms of service.' (Anthropic's commercial terms forbid companies from using Claude to build competing services.) Meanwhile, an OpenAI spokesperson said, 'While we respect Anthropic's decision to cut off our API access, it's disappointing considering our API remains available to them.' Anthropic executives had already shown resistance to providing access to competitors, with Chief Science Officer Jared Kaplan previously justifying the company's decision to cut off Windsurf (a rumored OpenAI acquisition target, subsequently acquired by Cognition) by saying, 'I think it would be odd for us to be selling Claude to OpenAI.'
CNN
10 minutes ago
- CNN
The Trump administration takes a very Orwellian turn
Donald Trump FacebookTweetLink Back in March, President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeted at the Smithsonian Institution that began as follows: 'Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation's history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth.' Despite the high-minded rhetoric, many worried the order was instead a thinly veiled effort to rewrite history more to Trump's liking. The order, for example, cited a desire to remove 'improper ideology' – an ominous phrase, if there ever was one – from properties like the Smithsonian. Those concerns were certainly bolstered this week. We learned that some historical information that recently vanished from the Smithsonian just so happens to have been objective history that Trump really dislikes: a reference to his two impeachments. The Smithsonian said that a board containing the information was removed from the National Museum of American History last month after a review of the museum's 'legacy content.' The board had been placed in front of an existing impeachment exhibit in September 2021. Just to drive this home: The exhibit itself is about 'Limits of Presidential Power.' And suddenly examples of the biggest efforts by Congress to limit Trump's were gone. It wasn't immediately clear that the board was removed pursuant to Trump's executive order. The Washington Post, which broke the news, reported that a source said the content review came after pressure from the White House to remove an art museum director. In other words, we don't know all the details of precisely how this went down – including whether the removal was specifically requested, or whether museum officials decided it might be a good way to placate Trump amid pressure. The Smithsonian says an updated version of the exhibit will ultimately mention all impeachment efforts, including Trump's. But it's all pretty Orwellian. And it's not the only example. Trump has always been rather blatant about his efforts to rewrite history with self-serving falsehoods and rather shameless in applying pressure on the people who would serve as impartial referees of the current narrative. But this week has taken things to another level. On Friday, Trump fired the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This came just hours after that agency delivered Trump some very bad news: the worst non-Covid three-month jobs numbers since 2010. Some Trump allies have attempted to put a good face on this, arguing that Dr. Erika McEntarfer's removal was warranted because large revisions in the job numbers betrayed shoddy work. But as he did with the firing of then-FBI Director James B. Comey eight years ago, Trump quickly undermined all that. He told Newsmax that 'we fired her because we didn't believe the numbers today.' To the extent Trump did lay out an actual evidence-based case for firing McEntarfer, that evidence was conspiratorial and wrong, as CNN's Daniel Dale documented Friday. And even some Republican senators acknowledged this might be precisely as draconian and self-serving as it looked. Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, for one, called it 'kind of impetuous' to fire the BLS head before finding out whether the new numbers were actually wrong. 'It's not the statistician's fault if the numbers are accurate and that they're not what the president had hoped for,' said Lummis, who is not often a Trump critic. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina added that if Trump 'just did it because they didn't like the numbers, they ought to grow up.' Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska both worried that Trump's move would make it so people can't trust the data the administration is putting out. And that's the real problem here. It's not so much that Trump appears to be firing someone as retaliation; it's the message it sends to everyone else in a similar position. The message is that you might want that data and those conclusions to be to Trump's liking, or else. It's a recipe for getting plenty of unreliable data and conclusions. And even to the extent that information is solid, it will seed suspicions about the books having been cooked – both among regular Americans and, crucially, among those making key decisions that impact the economy. What happens if the next jobs report is great? Will the markets believe it? We've certainly seen plenty of rather blunt Trump efforts to control such narratives and rewrite history before. A sampling: He engaged in a yearslong effort to make Jan. 6 defendants who attacked the Capitol in his name out to be sympathetic patriots, even calling them 'hostages,' before pardoning them. His administration's efforts to weed out diversity, equity and inclusion from the government often ensnared things that merely celebrated Black people and women. He and his administration have at times taken rather dim views of the free speech rights of those who disagree with them, including talking about mere protests – i.e. not necessarily violence – as being 'illegal.' A loyalist US attorney at one point threatened to pursue people who criticized then-Trump ally Elon Musk even for non-criminal behavior. Trump has repeatedly suggested criticism of judges he likes should be illegal, despite regularly attacking judges he doesn't like. His term began with the portraits of military leaders who clashed with him being removed from the Pentagon. It also began with a massive purge of independent inspectors general charged with holding the administration to account. All of it reinforces the idea that Trump is trying to consolidate power by pursuing rather heavy-handed and blatant tactics. But if there's a week that really drove home how blunt these efforts can be, it might be this one.
