Skip to main content

Fannie and Freddie are yours now

Well, it looks like the "crybaby capitalists" will get their way. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been taken over by the US Treasury Department, and the much-anticipated bailout of the "quasi-public" mortgage lending giants is now underway.

A quick overview of the government conservatorship:

"The U.S. government seized control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac after the biggest surge in mortgage defaults in at least three decades threatened to topple the companies making up almost half the U.S. home-loan market...

The FHFA will take over Fannie and Freddie under a so-called conservatorship, replacing their chief executives and eliminating their dividends. The Treasury will purchase up to $100 billion of senior-preferred stock in each company as needed to maintain a positive net worth. It will also provide secured short-term funding to Fannie, Freddie and 12 federal home-loan banks, and purchase mortgage-backed debt in the open market."


Unintentionally hilarious excerpt from that Bloomberg article:

"Fannie CEO Daniel Mudd, 50, and Freddie CEO Richard Syron, 64, will serve in a transition period as consultants."

Yes, please do consult us on how to better turn these companies around! Oh wait...

So why were Fannie and Freddie bailed out in the first place? Why not let these government sponsored lending agencies fail?

Well, besides the almost sacred nature of Fannie and Freddie's stated social mission (providing houses to all Americans), there was also the very big political and economic problem of their agency debt ownership (with which the Chinese are stuffed to the gills), as well as the frequently trumpeted spectre of worldwide financial collapse.

Take it Hank:

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are so large and so interwoven in our financial system that a failure of either of them would cause great turmoil in our financial markets here at home and around the globe,” Mr. Paulson said.

“This turmoil would directly and negatively impact household wealth: from family budgets, to home values, to savings for college and retirement. A failure would affect the ability of Americans to get home loans, auto loans and other consumer credit and business finance. And a failure would be harmful to economic growth and job creation.”

That is serious stuff. And quite a turnaround from a year ago when these subprime mortgage related problems were said to be - wait for it - "well contained".

In any case, Fannie and Freddie are the taxpayers' problem now. The cost to taxpayers for the government's backstop of Fannie and Freddie has been estimated at anywhere from "tens of billions" of dollars to $200 billion.

I could try and list all the reasons why this bailout, and others, should not happen, but I feel Peter Cohan has already done a great job of outlining all this in his Blogging Stocks article, "Five reasons the Fannie/Freddie bailout should not happen...and some reasons why it is anyway".

So what I'd like to do now is just offer up some of the articles and posts I've accumulated in my Fannie and Freddie folder. Maybe this will help us get a handle on the outcome of this bailout and how we arrived here in the first place. See the list below.

Related articles and posts:

1. "Winners, losers in the US takeover of Fannie/Freddie" - L.A. Times.

2. "Fannie and Freddie: an overview" - Finance Trends Matter.

3. "The Fannie Mae Gang" - Wall Street Journal.

4. "Fannie plan a 'disaster' says Jim Rogers" - Finance Trends Matter.

5. "Freddie, Fannie, and Curses on FDR" - Mises Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

Nasdaq credit rating junked.

S&P cut Nasdaq's credit rating to junk status citing debt burdens and its questionable strategy to buy a controlling interest in the London Stock Exchange. Financial Times reported that the exchange's counterparty credit & bank loan rating were lowered fromm BBB- (lowest investment grade rating) to BB+. The change will increase Nasdaq's borrowing costs should it wish to pursue aquisition targets. For an earlier look at the exchange consolidation trend that brought about Nasdaq's push for a stake in the LSE, please see "Exchange fever" .

Clean Money - John Rubino: Book review

Clean Money by John Rubino 274 pages. Hoboken, New Jersey John Wiley & Sons. 2009. 1st Edition. The bouyant stock market environment of the past several years is gone, and the financial wreckage of 2008 is still sharp in our minds as a new year starts to unfold. Given the recent across-the-board-declines in global stock markets (and most asset classes) that have left many investors shell-shocked, you might wonder if there is any good reason to consider the merits of a hot new investment theme, such as clean energy. However, we shouldn't be too hasty to write off all future stock investments. After all, the market declines of 2008 may continue into 2009, but they may also leave interesting investment opportunities in their wake. Which brings us to the subject of this review. John Rubino, author and editor of GreenStockInvesting.com , recently released a new book on renewable energy and clean-tech investing entitled, Clean Money: Picking Winners in the Green Tech Boom . In Clean ...

Jesse Livermore: How to Trade in Stocks (1940 Ed. E-book)

If you've been around markets for any length of time, you've probably heard of 20th century supertrader, Jesse Livermore . Today we're highlighting his rare 1940 work, How to Trade in Stocks (ebook, pdf). But first, a brief overview of Livermore's life and trading career (bio from Jesse Livermore's Wikipedia entry). "During his lifetime, Livermore gained and lost several multi-million dollar fortunes. Most notably, he was worth $3 million and $100 million after the 1907 and 1929 market crashes, respectively. He subsequently lost both fortunes. Apart from his success as a securities speculator, Livermore left traders a working philosophy for trading securities that emphasizes increasing the size of one's position as it goes in the right direction and cutting losses quickly. Ironically, Livermore sometimes did not follow his rules strictly. He claimed that lack of adherence to his own rules was the main reason for his losses after making his 1907 and...