
Hedge funds could make billions from a Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spin-off
A long-held stake by a handful of hedge funds may finally yield returns under the Trump administration, but it risks sending shockwaves through America's $12 trillion mortgage market.
Last month, President Donald Trump said he had plans to take mortgage financing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac public. Such a move would end 17 years of federal government conservatorship over the two companies, which have played a central role in America's housing finance system by providing liquidity to the mortgage market.
Some experts warn that severing Fannie and Freddie from government control could raise mortgage rates and restrict access to popular mortgage products — like the 30-year fixed loan — at a time when housing affordability remains out of reach for many Americans. Last week, Senate Democrats sent a letter to William Pulte, who leads the Federal Housing Finance Agency, asking him to pause efforts to take the two public, citing the risk that it could increase costs for homebuyers.
A group of investors has been anxiously awaiting the day Fannie and Freddie return to the public markets. None has been more vocal than billionaire investor Bill Ackman, whose hedge fund, Pershing Square Capital, is one of the largest holders of common shares in Fannie and Freddie.
'We have been leading the charge on behalf of all (Fannie and Freddie) shareholders to help them to exit from conservatorship,' Ackman posted on social media on Tuesday. A representative for Ackman pointed to his commentary on social media when asked about Pershing Square's current stake.
Ackman isn't the only hedge fund investor who bet on Fannie and Freddie after the government seized them during the 2008 financial crisis, when both were on the brink of collapse.
Other investors, including billionaire hedge fund managers Carl Icahn and John Paulson, have previously disclosed stakes in Fannie and Freddie, though neither responded to CNN's request for information about the current size of their stakes.
Taking the two mortgage giants public may be challenging, said Lori Goodman, a fellow at the Urban Institute, who has studied the history of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Together, Fannie and Freddie's total net worth is more than $150 billion. Goodman estimates any public offering of Fannie and Freddie shares would likely eclipse the largest IPO in history: state-owned oil company Saudi Aramco, which raised $26 billion when it went public in 2019.
'This is an enormously complicated undertaking,' she said.
Fannie and Freddie were never meant to permanently remain in a conservatorship arrangement, but Trump failed in an initial attempt to spin them off during his first administration.
Investors are wagering that his next try will be successful. Shares of Fannie (FNMA) and Freddie (FMCC), which trade over the counter, surged after Trump was elected in November. In the last year, shares of Fannie's stock are up nearly 500% and Freddie's gained nearly 400%.
Fannie and Freddie essentially grease the wheels of America's home lending market, one of the world's largest, by buying mortgages from lenders and repackaging them for investors. This helps enable a reliable flow of money to mortgage lenders, allowing them to offer more affordable rates to would-be homebuyers. Today, the mortgage giants guarantee more than half of America's mortgages, according to the FHFA.
Goodman said she expects that any plan to take the companies public would lead to higher borrowing costs for homebuyers.
The risk is that spinning off Fannie and Freddie could unsettle investors without the assurance of a government backstop, like the one provided during the 2008 crisis. In response, lenders might demand higher rates, especially from lower-income borrowers.
'You've got a trillion-dollar mortgage-backed securities market, both single-family and multi-family, that they're a critical part of,' Goodman said of Fannie and Freddie. 'You can't tamper with the government guarantee without upsetting that huge market.'
Last month, Trump addressed the issue of the government's guarantee, writing on social media: 'I am working on TAKING THESE AMAZING COMPANIES PUBLIC, but I want to be clear, the U.S. Government will keep its implicit GUARANTEES, and I will stay strong in my position on overseeing them as President.'
But a social media post might not be enough to assure investors in the multitrillion-dollar mortgage-backed securities market, Goodman said. It is possible that Fannie and Freddie could pay a fee to assure the government's guarantee long-term, but that cost would also likely be passed on to homebuyers, she added.
Any rise in mortgage rates would likely be unwelcome news to prospective homebuyers, who have been grappling with elevated borrowing costs since the Federal Reserve hiked its benchmark interest rate in 2022 to combat inflation. Mortgage rates, which track the 10-year Treasury yield, have recently been climbing again as growing concerns about the national debt and Trump's tariff policy have fueled fears of an economic slowdown.
Democrats have criticized the Trump administration's plans to overhaul Fannie and Freddie. Last week's letter to Pulte, the Federal Housing Finance Agency director, accused the Trump administration of being primarily motivated by 'rewarding President Trump's billionaire campaign contributors.'
'We have serious concerns that you plan to make significant changes to the Enterprises in a way that would put investor profits over the homes of millions of Americans,' Senate Democrats wrote in the letter.
There is also the question of whether it makes sense to release Fannie and Freddie into the public market in their current form, said Norbert Michel, a director at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
'This system of privatized profit and socialized loss is what led to the 2008 crisis in the first place,' Michel said. 'Under no circumstances should they be released as they were prior.'
'That was a bad system. We should not have that system,' he added.
It remains unclear what exactly the Trump administration plans to do with Fannie and Freddie, which means it's also unclear whether hedge fund stakes, such as Ackman's, are worth anything at all.
That's because, as part of the conservatorship agreement, the US Treasury owns a preferential stake in Fannie and Freddie that takes priority over all other shareholders: Fannie and Freddie must pay back a $190 billion debt to the government for its bailout assistance before it can exit its conservatorship, which would prevent other shareholders from making a profit.
Ackman has advocated for the removal of the government's preferred shares, arguing that Fannie and Freddie have already paid back more money than it cost to bail them out. Since entering conservatorship, the two companies have paid $301 billion in dividends to the Treasury.
'(Fannie and Freddie) shareholders don't have their hands out. The opposite is the case,' Ackman wrote last week on social media. '(Fannie and Freddie) shareholders are simply seeking credit for payments that have already been made to the government so that a release from conservatorship can occur.'
But financial analysts say investing in Fannie and Freddie is risky.
'At the moment, on an economic basis, the private shareholders' equity is about negative $200 billion, because that is what Fannie and Freddie owe the government,' said Bose George, a managing director at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, a boutique investment banking company. 'Owning the shares is speculative because you're making an assumption that the government is going to forgive this debt.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why the Warner Bros. Discovery merger was doomed from the start
Warner Bros. Discovery's split is the latest proof that conglomerates are deeply out of fashion. Glomming diverse operations together smooths out profits through business cycles. It mutualizes economic risk. But it also mutualizes scandal, tainting a corporate empire with the real or perceived sins of one subsidiary. And with President Donald Trump looking for points of leverage, corporate sprawl is a real liability. ABC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC are blips on the bottom lines of Warner Bros., Disney, Paramount, and Comcast. But they're lightning rods for controversy — Trump has sued two of those channels and complains constantly about the other two — and suck up executives' time and attention. News channels were never cash cows, but at least they were trophy assets that were fun to own. Not so much these days. It's not just the president: These companies' broad footprints leave no easy choices in the culture wars. Hollywood talent, middle-America cruise passengers, coders building streaming apps, and the guy installing your cable all get mad about different things. Conglomerates have lots of ways to get in trouble. This isn't entirely a new problem. In 1996, Martin Scorsese was shopping a movie about the Dalai Lama. Universal Studios, which was owned by Seagram at the time, passed. 'I don't need to have my spirits and wine business thrown out of China,' then-CEO Edgar Bronfman said. His fears were well-founded, and a preview of what we're seeing now: Disney made the movie, and landed on a Chinese blacklist that threatened the opening of its Shanghai theme park. Breakups like those announced by Warner Bros. Discovery and Comcast might be freeing for both sides. The next time Trump criticizes MSNBC, he can't threaten Comcast with (hypothetically) OSHA agents descending on Universal Orlando. Mark Lazarus, who will run Comcast's new cable spinoff, will be more exposed to political pressure without a corporate parent. But he can decide what to put on MSNBC without wondering what it will do to Harry Potter theme parks. For the second time in seven years and the third time this century, a company that bought the Warner Bros. entertainment empire wishes it had not. Failures to foresee tectonic changes — and the lure of media moguldom — has turned one of the most storied names in Hollywood into a dealmaking albatross. The split unwinds the 2022 merger of CNN and HBO owner WarnerMedia with Discovery, a jumble of cable channels offering humbler fare. It was a bet that content companies needed to be bigger to compete with Netflix, and that consumers would want to watch , Anderson Cooper's war zone dispatches, and in the same place. Its previous owner, AT&T, bought what was then called Time Warner in 2018 for about $100 billion, including debt, and almost immediately regretted it. In 2021, it struck a deal to sell it to Discovery for a package of cash and stock worth about $43 billion — a roughly $40 billion writedown (AT&T has disputed the latter number.) Go back further, and its predecessor was party to what is widely considered the worst corporate merger in history, the union of AOL and Time Warner in 2001. The M&A math is a bit hard to decipher, but a business worth around $100 billion to AT&T seven years ago is now roughly half of Warner Bros. Discovery, which trades at $24 billion today. It's not even the good half: Cable is in long-term decline, and CEO David Zaslav's parting gift to SpinCo is a 20% stake in the more valuable studio and streaming businesses that will stay behind. Why do companies keep getting this so wrong? After all, Netflix launched its streaming service in 2007, and Bob Iger first sounded the alarm about cord-cutting in 2015. AOL presaged the confluence of tech and media, but broadband killed dial-up and the dot-com bubble burst. AT&T, too, was onto something when it aimed to deliver shows directly to people's phones. But it was outmaneuvered by nimbler streamers, slowed down by a creaking debt load, culture clashes, and the Justice Department. Tech giants like Amazon have paid up for sports rights, a key part of the cable bundle. The result is a cable business melting faster than bosses expected. The winner in all this? Rupert Murdoch, who agreed to sell 21st Century Fox — a collection of cable channels plus a movie studio, more or less identical to Warner Bros. — to Disney for $71 billion in 2017, at what would prove to be the top. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data


New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Fetterman Calls California Protests ‘Anarchy' as He Criticizes Democrats
Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania warned fellow Democrats that they could face a political backlash if they were seen as failing to sufficiently condemn acts of violence by protesters in Southern California, which local officials have said were limited. On Monday, he posted a photo on social media of a car engulfed in flames and a masked, shirtless person waving a Mexican flag. He suggested that Democrats — many of whom have in fact criticized acts of destruction or violence — should go further in denouncing unruly demonstrations. 'This is anarchy and true chaos,' he wrote. 'My party loses the moral high ground when we refuse to condemn setting cars on fire, destroying buildings, and assaulting law enforcement.' Local officials in California have described the violence as limited, under control and exacerbated by President Trump's decision to federalize the National Guard and deploy troops over the governor's objection. 'I unapologetically stand for free speech, peaceful demonstrations, and immigration — but this is not that,' Mr. Fetterman wrote. 'This is anarchy and true chaos.' Mr. Fetterman, elected in 2022, has become one of the Democrats whom Republicans love to quote as he has broken with some of his party's orthodoxies. He checked himself into a hospital for depression early in his first year in office, and his mental health has recently been the subject of both concern and scrutiny. Democrats on Capitol Hill tried to shrug off his latest comments on Tuesday. 'Everyone is entitled to their opinion,' said Representative Yvette D. Clarke of New York, the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Some praise appeared to arrive, however, from Elon Musk, the owner of the social media site X, where Mr. Fetterman made his comment. Mr. Musk replied to the post with an American flag emoji.


New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Trump's Flawed Message to Los Angeles
President Trump thinks he's sending a message. By deploying waves of National Guard officers and active duty Marines to Los Angeles, he's trying to show that he's powerful and in control, that anyone who protests his policies will pay a price. This is a classic deterrence strategy: hit hard in one place to scare Americans into staying home. But this strategy often backfires. If the majority of protests in Los Angeles reject violence, Mr. Trump may end up proving the opposite of what he intended: that he's afraid, that the protesters are disciplined and that the threat isn't the people — it's him. Counterinsurgency experts have long understood this dynamic. If you want to radicalize a population, there is no faster way than to use disproportionate force against civilians. David Kilcullen, a former senior adviser to General David Petraeus in Iraq, made this clear: Heavy-handed state violence doesn't pacify dissent, it inflames it. Another federal authority, the F.B.I., learned this lesson the hard way. In 1992 at Ruby Ridge in Idaho, an F.B.I. sniper shot and killed the wife of Randy Weaver while she stood in the doorway of her home, holding her baby. The F.B.I. had been called in to back up U.S. marshals who were engaged in a standoff with Mr. Weaver, whom they were trying to arrest on a fugitive warrant. A year later in Waco, Texas, federal agents engaged in a 51-day standoff with the Branch Davidians, a religious sect whose leader, David Koresh, was being investigated for alleged child abuse and the unlawful stockpiling of weapons. The siege ended in disaster: The compound went up in flames and more than 75 people, including at least 20 children, died. Public trust in federal law enforcement plummeted. Militias exploded in size and number. Timothy McVeigh later cited Waco as one of the reasons he bombed the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995. Since then, the F.B.I. has trod carefully when confronting American civilians, especially armed ones. In 2014, after the Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy had long refused to pay federal grazing fees and hundreds of armed supporters faced off with federal agents, law enforcement backed down rather than risk another Waco. And two years after that, during the 2016 occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon (this time led by Mr. Bundy's sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy), the bureau showed patience. For weeks agents avoided direct confrontation, choosing instead to wait, negotiate and de-escalate. It turns out that this strategy is more effective in avoiding violence. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.