Privatizing Fannie And Freddie: Rationales And Credit Impacts
All week, markets and politicians been dissecting the President Trump's proposal to privatize Fannie and Freddie. As they support 70% of the U.S. mortgage market, it is important to consider the credit markets impacts and risks for the U.S. These are still hard to work out until the rationale becomes clear, beyond removing the FHFA as conservator.
Since their creation, the two main GSEs have been quintessential mixed-ownership corporations. In 1938, FNMA was established as a standalone company in the New Deal. It was acquired in 1950 by the entity that became the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development with two classes of shares: preferred, held by the U.S. Treasury, and common, non-voting, held by a network of mortgage lenders.
In 1968, Fannie was reorganized and split into a successor FNMA and Ginnie Mae. The successor FNMA was listed on the New York Stock Exchange and chartered to purchase, bundle and sell residential mortgages as securities (RMBS). GNMA became part of HUD. Its function: to guarantee payments on securitizations backed by mortgages issued under programs by U.S. government departments like HUD, Veterans Affairs and Agriculture.
FHLMC was created in 1970 along lines similar to FNMA—publicly traded, earning guarantee fees on loan portfolios, with HUD oversight—but its client network is smaller banks and credit unions rather than large banks. Originally, FHLMC was owned by the Federal Home Loan Banks, but under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 it became independent. In 1995, FHLMC diversified into making markets in subprime mortgage collateral.
In 2008, Fannie and Freddie suffered material losses on their combined mortgage portfolio of USD 1.5 TN. They were bailed out, delisted from the NYSE on July 7, 2010, placed under FHFA's conservatorship, and began trading on OTC markets the next day. The stock of both institutions remains publicly investible alongside their residential mortgage-backed securities and corporate bonds. So there must be more to the current proposal than giving American investors access.
The Big Beautiful Bill will shrink the U.S. tax base if it passes the Senate. Could privatizing these mortgage giants fill the gap with new, incremental tax revenues? It is hard to say without a concrete deal structure in place. However, the mortgage giants already pay taxes on operating income, as well as paying federal, state and local taxes on securities' earned interest. So the motivation to privatize is not obviously tax-related.
It may have more to do with the U.S. Treasury currently owning the GSE preferreds as well as warrants on 80% of common stock. If pricing on a future IPO were to hit or exceed the target, the U.S. government could reap a one-time, massive windfall. Arranging banks would profit handsomely as well. A USD Trillion IPO (Chairman Pulte's estimate) could generate fees in the range of USD 40 to 70 Billion. That's plenty of incentive for a successful initial offering.
But for most Americans, what matters more is what happens in the aftermarket.
First, what would be the go-forward impact on rates for homebuyers?
The more common theory is that the replacement entities, being purely profit-driven and maybe facing higher funding costs, would drive up rates—and up again as supply shrinks. A minority viewpoint says rates will go down as privatization drives innovation. The reality is—we can predict given a concrete exit plan, but without one, we just can't know.
Second, and intimately linked, is the status of the U.S. guarantee.
This decision would impact the entire credit market ecosystem starting with borrowers, whose numbers would shrink as government support goes away. If the new entities were to retain U.S. support in some form, the impacts on bank market microstructure and the competitive playing field are less clear; but don't expect the status quo to continue. Would a distributed ecosystem form anew, or would intense, uneven competition transform the U.S. bank market where only giants survive?
Related to the status of the guarantee is how potential backlash could impact the U.S. government rating, which Moody's just downgraded to Aa1. Would global bond investors view sudden withdrawal as a default, regardless of the legal definition? And in this same point, will GNMA and its guarantee continue? The answer directly impacts home affordability for veterans, rural homeowners and disadvantaged groups.
Third, are the potential changes to the GSE's current information disclosure regime.
This question is not yet debated in the media but it should be. The go-forward disclosure package could have the greatest impact on aftermarket performance. Bonds are most active in the capital structure of GSEs today. Their required bond disclosures comply with the very best practices in the world that were created in the U.S. public securitization markets. Will the disclosures continue? Will the public have access to them after the IPO? Or will the financial position of the new players become more opaque as information disclosures lag changes in financial performance? We have seen this movie before in the GFC. It did not end well.
Fourth, the operational impacts of privatization are unclear.
Will the 30-year fixed rate model made in the 1930s continue or gradually be replaced by loan structures benefitting borrowers less and lenders more—floating rate indices, shorter and longer maturities, different funding formulas? Will a forward-settled market replace the To Be Announced market that FNMA and FHLMC currently use? The TBA market today allows sellers to fund their origination pipelines and buyers to lock in prices before transaction specifics are settled because the guarantee equalizes the potential risk between offerings. The cost benefits, which can be quite substantial, may disappear if the guarantee goes away.
Fifth are what Donald Rumsfeld called unknown-unknowns.
If the first four categories of unknowns are known (with the possible exception of #3), news unfolding daily shines a light on impacts we have not yet thought of. Was Moody's downgrade of FNMA a reflection of recent past performance, or does it also anticipate future shocks to the organization? Does the introduction of an anti-crime unit with AI fraud detection technology materially impact how ?
WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 27: William Pulte, nominee for Director of the Federal Housing Finance ... More Agency testifies at a hearing of the Senate Banking Committee on February 27, 2025 at the Dirksen Senate Building in Washington, DC.
When FHFA Director Bill Pulte says, 'what we're trying to do…is take cost out of the system and get homes so they can be affordable again,' is he referring to the current interest rate levels or foreshadowing a collapse in prices? These scenarios have drastically different economic consequences.
Finally, when President Trump says, 'the U.S. will keep its implicit GUARANTEES,' the key word seems to me to be the one in small caps: implicit. Equities are story paper, but bonds are based on contracts; and it is hard to assign a financial value, positive or negative, to implicit support.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
a minute ago
- Axios
What historians say is at risk if Trump expands his culture war beyond Smithsonian
Politics & Policy A White House official told Axios that President Trump intends to expand his review of American museums for "woke" ideology beyond the Smithsonian Institution. Why it matters: The size and scope of Trump's inquiries represents an unprecedented level of museum oversight in the nearly 250 years of American democracy, historians say. It also represents an escalation of the president's attack on cultural institutions. Here's what historians and curators fear could happen if Trump reframes museums through his perspective. What exactly does the president have in mind? Trump said that the "Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL" on Truth Social earlier this week. He then directed his attorneys to conduct a comprehensive review of the museum system, similar to the process officials have conducted at colleges and universities. What they're saying:"President Trump will explore all options and avenues to get the Woke out of the Smithsonian and hold them accountable," a White House official told Axios. "He will start with the Smithsonian and then go from there," they continued. Reality check: The Smithsonian is not a federal agency under control of the president, according to the institution. It's an independent institution, governed by a Board of Regents, which is composed of seventeen members, including the Vice President. Trump has no authority over private museums. Yes, but: The president could freeze the federal funding that some private museums receive, the way he has for schools that don't align with his anti-diversity views on education. What does Trump's perception of American history look like? Trump claims that there has been a "widespread effort to rewrite our Nation's history" over the past decade. He insists that these efforts "undermine" America's achievements by casting its founding principles as "inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed." Historians say the administration's singular, sanitized approach to the past, focusing solely on America's positive moments misses out on the nuance of American history and excludes the lived experiences of Black, Indigenous, Latino, and LGBTQ+ people. Friction point:"That is anti-democratic," Beth English, executive director of the Organization of American Historians told Axios, referring to the administration's push to stifle and sanitize information, debate and historical facts. "It's not education, right?" English questioned. "It begins to kind of veer into the space of indoctrination, selecting, sort of a selective memory of what is and isn't going to be part of our national story." Why is Trump's push to install political appointees to review museums problematic? Curators said distilling history into accurate, engaging examples that the public can understand requires a level of expertise that an untrained political appointee likely lacks. The majority of curators at national museums have PhDs, or have been trained in museum studies through rigorous degree programs and research. "It's not like people are creating exhibitions to tell a story, to win a political agenda," Omar Eaton-Martinez, former board president of the Association of African American Museums said. "People are actually curating exhibitions based on scholarship that is supported by evidence," he continued. Don't museums reframe and reevaluate history all the time? Historians say museums expanding their collections isn't evidence of nefarious behavior, but rather, it's simply how the static nature of history grows. Zoom out: Collections have increasingly included the perspectives of sociologists, psychologists and other social scientists over the past few decades, in addition to more thorough reviews of census records, genealogy, oral histories, archeology, objects, and images. "We're constantly building on prior scholarship to help ask more nuanced questions about a topic," Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association said. "We're always peeling back the layers of the onion, so to speak." Black, Indigenous and Latin scholars have been digging into their respective histories for centuries, and those experiences have been recognized and incorporated into museums in recent decades. That includes history that was once ignored, such as the burning of records in thriving Black neighborhoods such as the massacres in Tulsa, Oklahoma or Rosewood, Florida; the forced removal of Indigenous nations from one part of America to another during the " trail of tears"; and urban renewal projects to upgrade cities that ultimately gentrify communities of color. What funding and programs has Trump already taken aim at? The Trump administration has taken aggressive action to reduce the staffing and funding available for the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS,) the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the National Endowment for the Arts. Stunning stat: IMLS's acting director testified in court that the administration cancelled roughly 92% of the agency's Grants to States. Only 100 grants remain out of the original 1,200 managed by the institute prior to Trump's executive order. The president also attempted to fire Kim Sajet, the director of the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, earlier this year due to her support of diversity initiatives, despite not having the authority to do so. The Smithsonian has legal authority over personnel decisions, but Sajet eventually decided to step down in the weeks following Trump's announcement. What other times has an American museum pivoted after political influence? An exorbitant amount of debate goes into exhibit decision-making, so museums have already determined the best way to display potential controversies. When museums modify exhibits, it's typically due to public pressure, and has never been under significant force from the president. Case in point: The Smithsonian's 90s exhibit on Enola Gay, the B-29 bomber that dropped the atomic bomb, sparked opposition from veterans and members of Congress on how to interpret the bomb's dropping and America's role in World War II. The bottom line:"These kinds of controversies exist frequently, and that's a good thing, because public debate about the nation's past is healthy," James Grossman, former executive director of the American Historical Association told Axios. "But the President of the United States has no business telling museums what to exhibit, telling teachers what to teach, and has no business telling Americans what to think," Grossman continued.
Boston Globe
a minute ago
- Boston Globe
Thank you, Massachusetts millionaires!
It's time to thank the people involved in the millionaires tax — including the millionaires — without whom Massachusetts would not continue to be among the 'Our state thrives on eds and meds, and those are things particularly under the axe,' said Phineas Baxandall, research director at the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center. 'It's fortuitous that some counterbalance from the Fair Share income has been there.' For the second year in a row, revenues from the surtax have Advertisement The Fair Share Amendment specifies that revenues collected on taxable income — not assets — above $1 million be spent only on education and transportation. In the fiscal year just ended, revenues from the surtax Now other high-income states — which tend to be blue states — are A cautionary note: Proponents of the Fair Share Amendment intended that its benefits be used to enhance programs in education and transportation, not substitute for shortfalls. 'These investments have been life-changing for individuals and communities,' said Max Page, president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, a central player in the Raise Up coalition that fought for the surtax. 'That's why I am concerned that it not become simply a way to backfill cuts by Trump.' Advertisement The idea, he said, 'was not just to prevent cuts; it was always to build a better society.' After voters in Massachusetts passed a hefty cigarette tax in 1992, legislators It's difficult to know whether the surtax is driving rich people from the state. But A state that invests in its future is a state that believes in itself. Despite serious headwinds from Trump's baneful policies, Massachusetts is working to stay a healthy, brainy, welcoming place, a place that values innovation, a clean environment, and world-class health care and education. A place where everybody — from multimillionaires on down – wants to live. Renée Loth's column appears regularly in the Globe.
Boston Globe
a minute ago
- Boston Globe
California is set to act fast after Texas advances congressional maps to boost Republicans
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The added complexity is because California has a voter-approved independent commission that Newsom himself backed before Trump's latest redistricting maneuver. Only the state's voters can override the map that commission approved in 2021. But Newsom said extraordinary steps are required to counter Texas and other Republican-led states that Trump is pushing to revise maps. Advertisement 'This is a new Democratic Party, this is a new day, this is new energy out there all across this country,' Newsom said Wednesday on a call with reporters. 'And we're going to fight fire with fire.' Texas Democratic lawmakers, vastly outnumbered in that state's legislature, delayed approval of the new map by 15 days by fleeing Texas earlier this month in protest. They were assigned round-the-clock police monitoring upon their return to ensure they attended Wednesday's session. Advertisement That session ended with an 88-52 party-line vote approving the map after more than eight hours of debate. Democrats have also vowed to challenge the new Texas map in court and complained that Republicans made the political power move before passing legislation responding to deadly floods that swept the state last month. A battle for the US House control waged via redistricting In a sign of Democrats' stiffening redistricting resolve, former President Barack Obama on Tuesday night backed Newsom's bid to redraw the California map, saying it was a necessary step to stave off the GOP's Texas move. 'I think that approach is a smart, measured approach,' Obama said during a fundraiser for the Democratic Party's main redistricting arm. The incumbent president's party usually loses congressional seats in the midterm election. On a national level, the partisan makeup of existing districts puts Democrats within three seats of a majority. Trump is going beyond Texas in his push to remake the map. He's pushed Republican leaders in conservative states like Indiana and Missouri to also try to create new Republican seats. Ohio Republicans were already revising their map before Texas moved. Democrats, meanwhile, are mulling reopening Maryland's and New York's maps as well. However, more Democratic-run states have commission systems like California's or other redistricting limits than Republican ones do, leaving the GOP with a freer hand to swiftly redraw maps. New York, for example, can't draw new maps until 2028, and even then, only with voter approval. The struggle for — and against — Texas redistricting Texas Republicans openly said they were acting in their party's interest. State Rep. Todd Hunter, who wrote the legislation formally creating the new map, noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed politicians to redraw districts for nakedly partisan purposes. Advertisement There was little that outnumbered Democrats could do other than fume and threaten a lawsuit to block the map. Because the Supreme Court has blessed purely partisan gerrymandering, the only way opponents can stop the new Texas map would be by arguing it violates the Voting Rights Act requirement to keep minority communities together so they can select representatives of their choice. House Republicans' frustration at the Democrats' flight and ability to delay the vote was palpable during the Wednesday vote. House Speaker Dustin Burrows announced as debate started that doors to the chamber were locked and any member leaving was required to have a permission slip. The doors were only unlocked after final passage more than eight hours later. Republicans issued civil arrest warrants to bring the Democrats back after they left the state Aug. 3, and Abbott asked the state Supreme Court to oust several Democrats from office. The lawmakers also face a fine of $500 for every day they were absent. Associated Press journalists John Hanna in Topeka, Kansas, and Sara Cline in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, contributed to this report.
