Last updated 1 week ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) are the foundational, if largely invisible, pillars of the entire U.S. housing finance system.
Their essential function is to ensure that the thousands of banks, credit unions, and mortgage companies that make loans have a constant and reliable supply of capital to continue lending.
By purchasing mortgages from lenders and packaging them into securities for sale to global investors, they create a vast, liquid secondary market that currently supports around 70% of all home loans in the United States.
This vital role masks a central paradox that makes these institutions unique in the global economy. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are, on paper, shareholder-owned companies whose stocks trade on public markets. Yet since the financial crisis of 2008, they have been under the complete control of the federal government through a legal arrangement known as conservatorship.
They are private entities run as public utilities, profit-making machines whose profits have, for years, been entirely swept into the U.S. Treasury. This unprecedented status is the result of a long and complex history, a story of unintended consequences where a series of government decisions, each with a specific goal, combined to create a unique and ultimately flawed system.
The system’s collapse had global repercussions, and its future remains one of the most significant unresolved issues from the 2008 financial crisis.
A New Deal Solution: The Birth of Fannie Mae
The Great Depression Crisis
The story of Fannie Mae begins in the depths of the Great Depression, when the American dream of homeownership had turned into a national nightmare. The U.S. housing market was paralyzed.
With staggering unemployment, families across the country could no longer make their mortgage payments. By 1933, an estimated 20% to 25% of the nation’s outstanding mortgage debt was in default, leading to a wave of foreclosures that saw nearly a quarter of all homeowners lose their homes.
The structure of mortgage lending at the time made the crisis worse. Most home loans were short-term, typically for five to ten years, with a large “balloon payment” of the remaining principal due at the end.
In a functioning economy, homeowners would simply refinance into a new loan. But with banks failing and credit markets frozen, refinancing was impossible. Lenders, facing massive losses, were unwilling to issue new loans, bringing housing construction to a virtual standstill.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal administration responded with a series of interventions. The National Housing Act of 1934 created the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), which didn’t lend money but instead insured private lenders against losses from mortgage defaults.
This was a crucial first step, but it wasn’t enough. Banks were still hesitant to tie up their limited capital in long-term mortgages, even insured ones. What was missing was a mechanism for them to sell these loans and replenish their funds to make new ones.
The government recognized that a lack of an efficient “secondary mortgage market”—a market for buying and selling existing mortgages—was keeping private capital on the sidelines.
Fannie Mae is Born
To solve this capital markets failure, Congress amended the National Housing Act. On February 10, 1938, the National Mortgage Association of Washington was chartered, soon renamed the Federal National Mortgage Association, and colloquially known as Fannie Mae.
Legally, it was established as a wholly-owned corporation of the federal government, initially under the Reconstruction Finance Corporation with $10 million in capital and later moved to the Housing and Home Finance Agency.
Its purpose was explicit and revolutionary: to create and maintain an active secondary market for insured mortgages.
How It Worked
Fannie Mae’s initial function was a sophisticated financial intervention designed to unfreeze the credit markets. It used its government funding to buy FHA-insured mortgages from the banks, savings and loans, and other institutions that had originated them.
This act of purchasing the loans injected immediate cash—or “liquidity”—back into the banking system. With their capital replenished, lenders could “rinse and repeat,” using the funds to make new loans to new homebuyers.
This process established a continuous flow of mortgage money at more favorable interest rates. It was instrumental in popularizing the long-term, self-amortizing, low-down-payment mortgage that became the standard for American homeownership.
In 1944, its authority was expanded to include loans guaranteed by the Veterans Administration (VA). For its first three decades, Fannie Mae was the sole operator in this secondary market, holding a government-chartered monopoly.
This intervention was not primarily a social housing program; it was a targeted effort to fix a broken capital market. In doing so, it established a lasting principle: that the federal government had a vital role in ensuring the liquidity and stability of the mortgage market.
The Hybrid Model: Privatization and Creating Freddie Mac
The Budget Pressure
For thirty years, Fannie Mae operated as a successful government agency. However, by the late 1960s, a new political and fiscal reality emerged. The Johnson administration was grappling with the immense costs of the Vietnam War and its Great Society domestic programs.
With the federal budget under severe strain, officials sought creative ways to reduce on-the-books government spending. As a federal agency, Fannie Mae’s significant debt holdings were counted as part of the national debt.
Privatizing the entity offered a clever accounting solution: move its billions in liabilities off the federal balance sheet without dismantling its crucial market function. This politically expedient goal, rather than a free-market ideology, was the primary driver behind the most significant transformation in Fannie Mae’s history.
The 1968 Split
The vehicle for this change was the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968. On September 1 of that year, the original government-owned Fannie Mae was partitioned into two separate and distinct corporations:
The Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae): This entity remained a wholly-owned government corporation within the newly created Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Its mission was narrowly focused on guaranteeing securities backed only by loans already insured or guaranteed by federal agencies like the FHA and VA.
Ginnie Mae’s securities carry the explicit “full faith and credit” of the U.S. government, meaning they are a direct obligation of the taxpayer.
The “New” Fannie Mae: This corporation was spun off as a new type of entity: a Government-Sponsored Enterprise (GSE). It became a privately owned, publicly traded company with its shares listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
While now owned by private shareholders, it retained its federal charter, which mandated it serve a public purpose. Its business scope was vastly expanded, as it was now authorized to purchase and securitize “conventional” mortgages—those not insured by the government—which constituted the majority of the market.
Most importantly for the federal budget, its massive debt was no longer a liability of the U.S. government.
What is a GSE?
The creation of the new Fannie Mae institutionalized the unique and often misunderstood concept of the Government-Sponsored Enterprise. A GSE is a financial services corporation created by an act of Congress to enhance the flow of credit to specific sectors of the economy, such as housing, agriculture, or education.
They are hybrid entities: privately owned and managed for profit, but operating under a public charter that confers special privileges unavailable to purely private firms. These advantages typically include a line of credit with the U.S. Treasury, exemption from state and local income taxes, and exemption from costly Securities and Exchange Commission registration requirements.
Creating Competition: Freddie Mac Arrives
For two years following its privatization, Fannie Mae once again held a monopoly over the secondary market for both government-backed and conventional mortgages. To foster competition and further expand the availability of mortgage funds, Congress passed the Emergency Home Finance Act of 1970.
This legislation created the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, or Freddie Mac. Freddie Mac was chartered with a similar mission to Fannie Mae but was initially designed to serve a different part of the financial industry.
While Fannie Mae primarily purchased mortgages from large commercial banks, Freddie Mac’s main purpose was to create a secondary market for the nation’s savings and loan associations, or “thrifts,” which were smaller, community-based lenders.
This created a duopoly that would dominate the U.S. housing finance system for the next four decades.
The Fatal Flaw: The Implicit Guarantee
The creation of these two private, for-profit GSEs introduced a critical and ultimately fatal ambiguity into the financial system: the “implicit guarantee.”
Although the mortgage-backed securities and corporate debt issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contained clear disclaimers stating they were not guaranteed by the U.S. government, the financial markets operated as if they were.
Investors worldwide believed that because of their congressional charters and their systemic importance to the U.S. economy, the federal government would never allow them to fail. This perception acted as a powerful, unwritten insurance policy.
It allowed the GSEs to borrow money at interest rates nearly as low as the U.S. Treasury itself, giving them a massive funding advantage over any purely private competitor. This advantage fueled their explosive growth and immense profitability.
However, it also created a severe “moral hazard”—an economic term for the incentive to take on excessive risk when the potential profits are private but the potential losses are public.
The GSEs’ management knew that if their bets paid off, their shareholders and executives would be rewarded handsomely; if they failed, the taxpayer would be forced to step in and cover the losses.
Timeline of Key Changes
| Year | Event | Fannie Mae Status | Freddie Mac Status | Key Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1938 | National Housing Act Amendment | Government corporation | N/A | Created to establish secondary market during Great Depression |
| 1968 | Housing and Urban Development Act | Publicly traded GSE | N/A | Privatized to move debt off federal budget; created Ginnie Mae |
| 1970 | Emergency Home Finance Act | Publicly traded GSE | Publicly chartered GSE | Created Freddie Mac for competition and to serve savings & loans |
| 1989 | FIRREA | Publicly traded GSE | Publicly traded GSE | Freddie Mac board restructured to be shareholder-elected |
| 2008 | HERA | Under conservatorship | Under conservatorship | Government took control during financial crisis |
The GSEs at Their Peak: Dominance and Risk
By the 1990s, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had become the undisputed titans of the U.S. mortgage market. Their business model was a powerful engine that operated in two distinct but interconnected ways.
The Credit Guarantee Business
This was their core, mission-driven activity. The GSEs would purchase “conforming loans”—mortgages that met their strict standards for size, credit quality, and underwriting—from the lenders who originated them.
They would then pool thousands of these individual loans together and issue Mortgage-Backed Securities to investors in the global capital markets. For a fee, known as a “guarantee fee” or “g-fee,” the GSEs would guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest on these securities, even if the underlying homeowners defaulted.
This business was relatively low-risk and generated a steady stream of income.
The Portfolio Investment Business
This was a far riskier and more complex operation. In addition to creating and guaranteeing mortgage-backed securities, the GSEs also used their cheap borrowing advantage to purchase and hold massive investment portfolios for their own accounts.
They would issue trillions of dollars in their own corporate bonds, known as “agency debt,” at very low interest rates and use the proceeds to buy mortgages and mortgage-backed securities.
Their profit came from the “spread” between the interest they earned on their portfolio assets and the low interest they paid on their debt. This business exposed them to significant interest rate risk and, crucially, to credit risk.
The Public Mission Requirements
The GSEs’ dual identity as public-mission entities and private-profit machines was codified in the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992. This act created a new, dedicated safety-and-soundness regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, but also formally mandated that the GSEs meet specific “affordable housing goals” set by HUD.
These goals required Fannie and Freddie to ensure that a certain percentage of the mortgages they purchased were for homes bought by low- and moderate-income families or located in underserved communities.
The Road to Crisis
The tension between maximizing shareholder profit and meeting public housing goals reached a breaking point during the housing bubble of the early 2000s. The GSEs found themselves caught in a pincer movement.
On one side, Wall Street was creating a flood of new, highly profitable, but extremely risky mortgage products, such as subprime loans (for borrowers with poor credit) and Alt-A loans (which required little to no income documentation). These were packaged into “private-label” mortgage-backed securities by investment banks.
On the other side, political pressure from Congress and HUD to meet and expand the affordable housing goals was intense.
The GSEs’ role in the ensuing crisis is complex and highly debated. They did not originate subprime loans directly, and their own guaranteed securities did not contain loans that met the technical definition of “subprime.”
However, to satisfy both shareholder demands for ever-increasing profits and Washington’s demands for affordable lending, they became the largest single buyers of the riskiest products the bubble produced.
They used their massive investment portfolios to purchase hundreds of billions of dollars worth of private-label, subprime mortgage-backed securities created by Wall Street. This strategy allowed them to hit both targets simultaneously: these securities were viewed as highly profitable investments that also helped them meet their affordable housing goals.
A fatal feedback loop was created. Wall Street had a massive, government-backed buyer for its toxic assets, and the GSEs had a way to satisfy their conflicting mandates.
By the end of 2007, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owned over $300 billion in private-label and commercial mortgage securities, of which $133 billion were backed by subprime single-family loans.
While they didn’t start the fire, the GSEs used their government-backed funding advantage to purchase massive amounts of fuel, concentrating the bubble’s risk directly onto a foundation supported by the American taxpayer.
The Collapse: Crisis and Government Takeover
When the Bubble Burst
When the U.S. housing bubble burst in 2007 and 2008, the consequences of the GSEs’ risk-taking became brutally apparent. As homeowners defaulted on their subprime and Alt-A mortgages in unprecedented numbers, the value of the private-label mortgage-backed securities held in Fannie and Freddie’s massive investment portfolios collapsed.
The losses were staggering. In 2008 alone, Fannie and Freddie lost a combined $47 billion in their single-family mortgage businesses. Fannie Mae’s total losses for the year approached $59 billion, while Freddie Mac’s exceeded $50 billion.
These losses rapidly erased their thin capital reserves, pushing them toward insolvency.
The failure of the GSEs was not an option. At the time, they owned or guaranteed over $5 trillion in mortgage assets, representing more than half of the entire U.S. market. Their collapse would have triggered a catastrophic chain reaction throughout the global financial system, which held their debt and mortgage-backed securities as supposedly safe investments.
Emergency Legislation
With the GSEs hemorrhaging money and confidence in their debt collapsing, the federal government was forced to act. On July 30, 2008, President George W. Bush signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.
This sweeping legislation created a new and powerful regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, by merging the previous regulator with the mission-oversight functions of HUD. Crucially, the law granted the FHFA the explicit legal authority to place the GSEs into conservatorship or receivership if they became financially unsound.
The Government Takes Control
The moment of truth for the implicit guarantee arrived on September 6, 2008. With the consent of the companies’ boards of directors, the FHFA director exercised this new authority and placed both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into federal conservatorship.
Conservatorship is a legal process in which a government agency takes control of a troubled company to stabilize its operations. In this case, the FHFA became the conservator, assuming all the rights, titles, powers, and privileges of the companies’ management, boards of directors, and shareholders.
The stated goal was to “preserve and conserve their assets and property and restore them to a sound and solvent condition” so they could continue their mission of providing liquidity to the mortgage market. In effect, the U.S. government nationalized the two largest financial institutions in the country.
The long-debated “implicit guarantee” had become painfully explicit.
The Taxpayer Bailout
To prevent immediate insolvency and ensure the GSEs could continue to fund the mortgage market, the U.S. Treasury stepped in with a massive financial backstop. On September 7, 2008, the day after the conservatorship began, the Treasury executed Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements with each company.
The terms of this bailout were designed not only to stabilize the firms but also to protect taxpayers and fundamentally alter the ownership structure:
Capital Injection: The Treasury committed to provide up to $100 billion in capital to each GSE (an amount later increased and ultimately uncapped) to ensure they maintained a positive net worth. The total taxpayer infusion would eventually reach a combined $191.4 billion.
Senior Preferred Stock: In exchange for this commitment, the Treasury received $1 billion in senior preferred stock from each company. This stock had priority over all other classes of stock and was entitled to a 10% cash dividend per year.
Warrants for Common Stock: Most critically, the Treasury also received warrants to purchase 79.9% of the common stock of each company for a nominal price. This provision effectively gave the American taxpayer ownership of the vast majority of any future profits or value if the companies recovered.
This structure was a deliberate policy choice. The government rescued the function of Fannie and Freddie—providing liquidity to the mortgage market—but it simultaneously wiped out the economic interest of the private shareholders who had profited during the years of excessive risk-taking.
The bailout was not a restoration of the old system; it was the creation of a new one, with the taxpayer firmly in control.
Life Under Government Control
The Net Worth Sweep
For the first few years of conservatorship, the GSEs continued to lose money and draw on the Treasury’s financial support. However, as the housing market began to stabilize and recover, they returned to profitability.
This created a new dilemma. Under the original bailout terms, the 10% dividend owed to the Treasury was so large that the companies might have to borrow more money from the Treasury just to make their dividend payments—a circular and unsustainable arrangement.
To address this, on August 17, 2012, the Treasury and FHFA executed the Third Amendment to the bailout agreements. This amendment radically changed the dividend formula.
Instead of a fixed 10% dividend, the GSEs were now required to pay the Treasury their entire net worth each quarter, minus a small, declining capital buffer. This policy became known as the “Net Worth Sweep.”
The stated rationale was to ensure taxpayers were fully compensated and to end the circular borrowing. However, this was more than a technical change; it was a de facto decision to transform the GSEs from entities being rehabilitated for an eventual release into permanent public revenue generators.
Legal Battles
The Net Worth Sweep had profound consequences. By design, it prevented Fannie and Freddie from rebuilding their own capital, as every dollar of profit was immediately sent to the Treasury. This effectively locked them into conservatorship indefinitely, as they could never accumulate the massive capital reserves needed to operate safely without a government backstop.
This decision ignited over a decade of ferocious legal battles launched by the GSEs’ remaining private shareholders. They argued that the sweep was an illegal seizure of their property, breaching the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in their stock contracts.
The litigation wound its way through the entire federal court system, including a 2021 Supreme Court decision in Collins v. Yellen which found the FHFA’s leadership structure unconstitutional but did not invalidate the sweep itself.
Finally, in a landmark verdict in August 2023, a federal jury found that the FHFA had indeed breached its contract with shareholders and awarded them $612.4 million in damages. This verdict was upheld by a federal judge in March 2025.
Ending the Sweep
Even before the final court rulings, policymakers began to recognize that the Net Worth Sweep was unsustainable if the goal was ever to end the conservatorship. In December 2017, the FHFA and Treasury modified the agreements to allow the GSEs to retain a $3 billion capital buffer each.
The decisive shift came in September 2019, when the agreements were amended again to formally suspend the sweep. This landmark change allowed Fannie and Freddie to begin retaining all their earnings to build up the substantial capital reserves required for an eventual exit from government control.
Current Financial Status
Today, the GSEs are financial powerhouses. As of the second quarter of 2025, Fannie Mae reported a net income of $3.3 billion and had accumulated a total net worth of $101.6 billion.
For the first quarter of 2025, Freddie Mac reported $2.8 billion in net income and a net worth of $62 billion.
They have paid the Treasury over $300 billion in dividends, far exceeding the $191.4 billion they drew down in the bailout. Despite this impressive recovery, they remain significantly undercapitalized according to the FHFA’s stringent post-crisis regulatory framework and are still years away from having enough private capital to operate safely without the government’s financial backstop.
Financial Recovery Timeline
| Metric | Pre-Crisis (2006) | Crisis (2008) | Current (2025) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fannie Mae Net Income | Profitable | -$58.7 billion | $3.3 billion (Q2) |
| Freddie Mac Net Income | Profitable | -$50.1 billion | $2.8 billion (Q1) |
| Fannie Mae Net Worth | Positive | Negative | $101.6 billion (Q2) |
| Freddie Mac Net Worth | Positive | Negative | $62.0 billion (Q1) |
| Combined Taxpayer Draw | $0 | ~$17 billion | $191.4 billion (total) |
| Combined Dividend Payments | $0 | $0 | >$301 billion (total) |
The Unresolved Future
The conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, intended as a temporary emergency measure, has now lasted for 17 years. Their future remains the single largest piece of unfinished business from the 2008 financial crisis.
The core dilemma is how to design a system that preserves their essential function—providing stable liquidity for the U.S. mortgage market, particularly for the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage—while permanently protecting taxpayers from the risks that led to the last collapse.
There is broad consensus that the old model failed, but deep disagreement on what should replace it. The debate generally revolves around two primary options.
Option 1: Recapitalize and Release
This approach, often favored by free-market advocates and some policymakers, involves allowing the GSEs to continue retaining their earnings until they have built up enough private capital to meet the FHFA’s stringent new regulatory requirements.
Once they are deemed financially sound, they would be released from government control and operate as fully private corporations, with the Treasury selling its 79.9% stake to private investors.
Arguments For: Proponents argue that privatization would finally remove trillions of dollars in liability from the government’s books, protecting taxpayers from future bailouts. They believe that private competition would spur innovation in mortgage products, increase operational efficiency, and ultimately benefit consumers.
The sale of the government’s massive equity stake could also generate a significant windfall for the U.S. Treasury.
Arguments Against: Critics of full privatization warn that it would be a dangerous mistake. Without a government guarantee—either implicit or explicit—the GSEs’ borrowing costs would inevitably rise. This increase would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher mortgage rates, making homeownership less affordable.
Furthermore, they argue that purely private companies would have no incentive to serve less profitable markets or to continue providing liquidity during a financial crisis, precisely when it’s needed most. Private capital would likely flee the market in a downturn, threatening the availability of the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage.
Option 2: The Public Utility Model
A leading alternative is to restructure the GSEs into one or more regulated public utilities. This model acknowledges that the secondary mortgage market is a natural monopoly or duopoly that requires a government backstop to function effectively, especially in times of stress.
How It Would Work: Under this model, the GSEs would remain shareholder-owned but would be subject to much tighter regulation, similar to an electric or water utility. Their profits, products, and capital levels would be strictly controlled by their regulator.
In exchange for these limitations, their mortgage-backed securities would be backed by an explicit, paid-for government guarantee. This would formalize the government’s role, eliminating the ambiguity of the old “implicit guarantee” and charging the companies an insurance premium for the taxpayer backstop.
Arguments For: Advocates, including the influential National Association of REALTORS®, contend this model offers the best of both worlds. It would provide the market stability of a government guarantee, ensuring the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage remains available in all economic cycles.
At the same time, it would eliminate the moral hazard of the old system by making the guarantee explicit and paid-for, while using private capital and management for operational efficiency.
Arguments Against: Opponents of the utility model worry that it could entrench a government-dominated system, stifle innovation, and be less efficient than a truly competitive private market. They argue that it would still leave taxpayers on the hook for catastrophic losses, even with an explicit guarantee fee.
The Challenge of Change
The entire debate is constrained by the system the GSEs themselves created over the past 80 years. They were so successful in making the 30-year, fixed-rate, pre-payable mortgage the bedrock of American housing finance that it’s now nearly impossible for most stakeholders to envision a system without an entity performing their exact function.
The entire ecosystem of lenders, builders, real estate agents, and global investors is built around the existence of a government-backed secondary market that will reliably purchase and guarantee these specific loans.
This “path dependency” means that any realistic reform is not about creating a new system from scratch, but about deciding how to best own, regulate, and price the risks of the system we are already locked into.
The unresolved legal and funding status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is therefore not just a financial loose end; it’s a fundamental question about the proper role of government in one of the most important markets in the American economy.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.