Last updated 4 days ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
At the heart of the American housing market lie two financial giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which together form the bedrock that allows millions of Americans to buy homes. Since the 2008 financial crisis, these companies have been under direct U.S. government control, a temporary solution that has stretched for nearly two decades.
Today, a high-stakes debate rages in Washington over their future: Should the government end this control—a process known as exiting conservatorship—and return them to the private sector by selling their stock on the public market?
This represents a fundamental clash between two competing visions for the U.S. housing market. One vision prioritizes free-market principles, arguing that privatization will foster competition, spur innovation, and remove trillions of dollars in risk from American taxpayers.
The opposing vision prioritizes housing stability and affordability, warning that a return to a purely profit-driven model could raise mortgage costs, make loans harder to get, and jeopardize the government’s ability to support homeownership for all Americans.
The Privatization Debate at a Glance
Arguments FOR Privatization (Selling Stock)
- Reduces taxpayer risk by taking trillions in mortgage debt off the government’s books
- Could generate a massive financial windfall for the U.S. Treasury
- Promotes private sector competition and innovation in the mortgage industry
- Unlocks significant value for private shareholders who invested in the companies
Arguments AGAINST Privatization (Selling Stock)
- Likely to increase mortgage rates for millions of American homebuyers
- Could reduce access to credit, especially for first-time and lower-income borrowers
- Jeopardizes the GSEs’ mission to support affordable and rental housing
- May not solve the “too big to fail” problem, leaving taxpayers exposed to future bailouts
What Are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
To understand the debate over their future, it’s essential to understand what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are and the critical role they play in the U.S. economy. They aren’t ordinary companies; they’re unique entities created by the government to serve a national purpose.
A Public Mission, A Hybrid Structure
The Federal National Mortgage Association, or “Fannie Mae,” and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, or “Freddie Mac,” are Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). This means they’re hybrid organizations, blending the characteristics of a private, shareholder-owned company with a public mission chartered by Congress.
Their origins trace back to the Great Depression. Fannie Mae was created in 1938 as a government agency to provide reliable funding for home loans when the mortgage market had collapsed. In 1968, as part of a budget reorganization, Fannie Mae was converted into a for-profit, shareholder-owned corporation.
Two years later, in 1970, Congress created Freddie Mac to provide competition for Fannie Mae and further expand the mortgage market. Though they became private companies, they retained their special government charters and the benefits that came with them.
How They Keep the Money Flowing
Fannie and Freddie don’t lend money directly to homebuyers. You can’t walk into a Fannie Mae office and apply for a mortgage. Instead, they operate in what’s called the “secondary mortgage market.”
The process works like this:
A homebuyer gets a mortgage from a primary lender, such as a local bank, credit union, or mortgage company.
Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac then buys that mortgage from the lender.
This purchase gives the original lender fresh cash, which it can then use to make more loans to other homebuyers.
This continuous cycle provides what’s known as liquidity—a steady, reliable flow of money—to the housing market. It’s been described as the “grease that makes the whole mortgage finance system work.” By creating a nationwide market for mortgages, the GSEs ensure that a lender in a small town has access to the same pool of capital as a large bank in a major city, helping keep mortgage funds available everywhere.
The Power of Mortgage-Backed Securities
After buying thousands of individual mortgages, the GSEs bundle them together into large pools and sell shares in these pools to investors around the world. These investments are known as Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS).
The crucial function the GSEs perform is guaranteeing the timely payment of principal and interest on these MBS, even if some homeowners in the pool default on their loans. This guarantee makes MBS an extremely safe and attractive investment, comparable to U.S. Treasury bonds. This safety draws vast amounts of global capital into the U.S. housing system.
This entire structure is the primary reason that the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is a standard product in the United States, unlike in many other countries. Lenders are willing to offer these long-term loans with locked-in rates because they know they can sell them to Fannie and Freddie, transferring the long-term risk off their own books.
Without the GSEs, mortgages would likely be more expensive, have shorter terms (like 5 or 10 years), and feature variable rates, making home financing less predictable and less affordable for many families. The very fabric of American homeownership—and by extension, the economic geography of the suburbs and the primary vehicle for middle-class wealth creation—is built upon the stability this system provides.
A Dual Mandate: Profit and Public Purpose
The hybrid nature of the GSEs created an inherent and ultimately explosive tension. As privately owned companies (before 2008), they had a legal duty to their shareholders to maximize profits. At the same time, their congressional charters gave them a public mission: to promote affordable housing and serve communities often overlooked by traditional finance.
This public mission isn’t just a suggestion; it’s a legal requirement enforced through “affordable housing goals” set by their regulator. These goals mandate that a certain percentage of the mortgages they purchase must be for low- and moderate-income families, properties in underserved areas, or specific housing types like manufactured homes and affordable rental apartments.
This structure was fundamentally unstable. The GSEs benefited from an “implicit guarantee” from the federal government; investors widely believed that because of their government charter, Washington would never allow them to fail.
This perception allowed them to borrow money more cheaply than any true private competitor. This created classic moral hazard: the GSEs were incentivized to take on greater risks to boost profits for their shareholders, knowing that any catastrophic losses would ultimately be socialized and borne by taxpayers.
The profits were privatized, while the risk was public. The 2008 crisis wasn’t an unforeseen accident but a direct and predictable consequence of this flawed design.
The 2008 Crisis and Government Takeover
The inherent conflict between the GSEs’ profit motive and their public mission reached a breaking point in the mid-2000s, leading to a government takeover that continues today.
The Road to Ruin
In the years leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, Fannie and Freddie faced increasing competition from Wall Street firms that were creating and selling their own mortgage-backed securities, often packed with risky subprime loans.
To compete and satisfy shareholder demands for high returns, the GSEs began lowering their own underwriting standards, purchasing billions of dollars in these riskier mortgages, including subprime and “Alt-A” loans.
When the U.S. housing bubble burst, homeowners began defaulting in record numbers, and the value of these mortgages plummeted. Fannie and Freddie, having loaded their portfolios with these toxic assets, faced staggering, multi-billion-dollar losses that threatened their solvency.
The Bailout and Conservatorship
The potential collapse of Fannie and Freddie posed a systemic risk to the entire global financial system. If they failed, the flow of money into the U.S. mortgage market would have frozen, making it nearly impossible to get a home loan and causing complete housing market collapse.
To prevent this catastrophe, in September 2008, the U.S. government took decisive action. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), a new, stronger regulator created by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, placed both Fannie and Freddie into government conservatorship.
Conservatorship is a legal process, similar to bankruptcy reorganization for a financial firm, where the government takes control of a troubled company to stabilize its operations. The U.S. Treasury Department simultaneously committed to injecting up to $200 billion in capital to ensure they could continue meeting their obligations, an amount that would eventually reach $187.5 billion.
This action officially put the American taxpayer on the hook for the GSEs’ massive liabilities. A comprehensive history of this period is available from the FHFA’s Office of the Inspector General.
Life Under Government Control
Under conservatorship, the FHFA assumed all the powers 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 can continue to fulfill their statutory missions.”
The existing common and preferred stocks of Fannie and Freddie became virtually worthless, and the companies were delisted from the New York Stock Exchange.
This historic intervention had a paradoxical effect. While intended to resolve the failure of the “public-private” model, the takeover made the government’s role in housing more direct and dominant than ever.
Before 2008, the government’s support was implicit; after 2008, it became fully explicit. Today, the federal government, through the GSEs and other agencies like the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), guarantees or insures roughly 70% of the entire U.S. mortgage market.
The crisis didn’t shrink the government’s footprint in housing; it massively expanded and entrenched it.
The Treasury’s Stake and the “Net Worth Sweep”
The government’s bailout was structured through a series of contracts known as the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (PSPAs). In exchange for the capital injection, the Treasury received two key assets: senior preferred stock, giving it first claim on the companies’ assets, and warrants to purchase 79.9% of their common stock.
As the housing market recovered and the GSEs returned to profitability, a 2012 amendment to the PSPAs instituted a controversial policy known as the “net worth sweep.” This required Fannie and Freddie to send nearly all of their quarterly profits to the U.S. Treasury as dividend payments.
While this ensured taxpayers were compensated for the bailout—the GSEs have since paid the Treasury more than the $187.5 billion they received—it also created a new problem. The sweep prevented the companies from rebuilding their own capital reserves, the financial cushion necessary to absorb future losses and operate independently.
This policy effectively trapped the GSEs in conservatorship indefinitely. It also spawned a new political battle, as hedge funds and other investors who had purchased the nearly worthless stock for pennies on the dollar filed lawsuits against the government, arguing the sweep was illegal seizure of their property rights.
In recent years, the PSPA has been amended again to allow Fannie and Freddie to begin retaining their earnings to build capital, a critical first step toward any potential exit from government control.
The Case for Privatization
Proponents of ending the conservatorship and selling Fannie and Freddie’s stock on the open market make their case from several angles, arguing it would benefit taxpayers, the economy, and investors.
Ending the “Permanent Bailout”
The core argument for privatization is to get the American taxpayer off the hook for the trillions of dollars in mortgage debt that Fannie and Freddie guarantee. Under the current conservatorship, this massive financial liability sits implicitly on the federal government’s balance sheet.
If another severe housing crisis were to occur, taxpayers would once again be responsible for covering the losses. Privatization, advocates argue, would transfer this risk from the public sector to private shareholders and the broader financial market, who would be responsible for absorbing future losses.
This would end what some see as a “permanent bailout” structure.
A Massive Treasury Windfall
The U.S. government’s stake in Fannie and Freddie is immensely valuable. The Treasury holds warrants for nearly 80% of the companies’ common stock and a massive senior preferred stock position with a liquidation preference now valued at over $340 billion.
A public offering or structured sale of this stake could generate a historic financial windfall for the federal government, with some estimates projecting proceeds in the hundreds of billions of dollars. These funds could be used to pay down the national debt, reduce the federal deficit, or fund other government priorities.
One bipartisan proposal from the group Housing for US suggests that a projected $250 billion from a sale could be used to establish a program to build 3.5 million affordable housing units for middle-class workers.
Spurring Innovation and Competition
Advocates for privatization contend that the current government-controlled duopoly is bureaucratic, inefficient, and stifles innovation. A fully privatized and competitive secondary mortgage market could foster development of new and more flexible mortgage products, drive adoption of more efficient financial technology, and streamline the entire mortgage process from application to closing.
This increased competition could, in theory, lead to better service and lower costs for some consumers.
However, this argument for “innovation” comes with a significant historical caveat. The last major wave of financial innovation in the mortgage market, prior to 2008, consisted of complex and poorly understood subprime and exotic loan products that were a primary cause of the financial crisis.
The “boring,” standardized 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, which the GSEs have championed for decades, is valued precisely for its stability and predictability, not its novelty. A push for innovation in a purely profit-driven market could reintroduce the very types of high-risk products that the post-crisis regulatory framework was designed to prevent.
Creating a Level Playing Field
A key goal outlined in the U.S. Treasury’s housing reform plan is to eliminate the special statutory privileges that Fannie and Freddie have historically enjoyed. These advantages, such as exemptions from state and local taxes and lower borrowing costs due to their government affiliation, have given them an insurmountable edge over private competitors.
By repealing these privileges and re-chartering the GSEs on the same terms as any other private firm, the government could create a truly level playing field, allowing for genuine private-sector competition in the business of guaranteeing mortgages.
Unlocking Shareholder Value
After the 2008 government takeover, the common and preferred stock of Fannie and Freddie collapsed in value. In the years since, hedge funds and other speculative investors have purchased large quantities of this stock for pennies on the dollar, betting on an eventual exit from conservatorship.
These investors argue that the conservatorship was intended to be a temporary measure and that with the companies now highly profitable, their rights as shareholders should be restored. A recapitalization and public offering would cause the value of their shares to skyrocket, resulting in enormous profits.
They contend that this isn’t a bailout for them, but rather the rightful return on a high-risk investment in the companies’ recovery.
Arguments Against Privatization
Opponents of privatization warn that ending government control could have severe negative consequences for American homebuyers, the housing market, and the financial system as a whole.
The Threat of Higher Mortgage Rates
The most significant and widely cited risk of privatization is the near certainty of higher mortgage rates for American families. The GSEs’ current government backing allows them to borrow money at very low costs, and this benefit is passed on to consumers in the form of lower mortgage interest rates.
A fully private Fannie and Freddie, without this government support, would have to pay more to raise capital from investors. These higher funding costs would inevitably be passed on to borrowers.
Moody’s economist Mark Zandi has estimated that without the government guarantee, mortgage rates would rise by 60 to 90 basis points (0.60% to 0.90%), a substantial increase that would make homeownership significantly less affordable for millions.
Shrinking Access to Credit
Beyond just higher rates, a privatized system driven purely by profit would likely lead to tighter credit standards. To maximize returns and minimize risk for their shareholders, private entities would have a strong incentive to lend only to the most creditworthy borrowers with high incomes, pristine credit scores, and large down payments.
This could make it much more difficult for many creditworthy Americans—particularly first-time homebuyers, families with moderate incomes, and those in rural or underserved communities—to qualify for a mortgage.
The iconic 30-year fixed-rate mortgage itself could become a rarer, more expensive product, as private companies are historically reluctant to take on the risk of locking in an interest rate for such a long period.
This outcome could inadvertently shift risk back to the taxpayer through a different channel. As conventional mortgages become harder to obtain, many borrowers would likely turn to the main alternative: loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), a fully government-owned agency.
This would not eliminate taxpayer exposure to the housing market but simply transfer it from the GSEs to the FHA, which is explicitly backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. This would be less a reduction of government risk and more of a financial shell game.
The Affordable Housing Mission at Risk
A core part of the GSEs’ public mission is to promote affordable housing. They’re currently required by law to meet specific “affordable housing goals,” which ensure they serve low- and moderate-income families and finance affordable rental properties.
They often achieve this through a system of cross-subsidization, where they use slightly higher fees from low-risk loans to make it possible to guarantee loans for higher-risk, mission-oriented borrowers.
A private company, with a primary duty to its shareholders, would have every incentive to abandon these less profitable activities. Programs designed to help first-time buyers or support rental housing could be scaled back or eliminated entirely in the pursuit of higher returns.
This raises a fundamental question at the heart of the debate: the privatization of Fannie and Freddie isn’t just a financial restructuring but a philosophical choice about the role of government in promoting social equity through housing.
The outcome will have profound implications for fair housing and the ability of all Americans to find decent, affordable places to live.
“Too Big to Fail” Returns
Critics of privatization argue that it wouldn’t solve the “too big to fail” problem but would instead recreate it. Fannie and Freddie are so large and so central to the U.S. housing market—together backing roughly half of all mortgages—that the government could simply never allow them to fail, regardless of their ownership structure.
If a privatized Fannie and Freddie were to face insolvency in a future crisis, the federal government would almost certainly be forced to step in with another bailout to prevent a systemic economic collapse.
The market knows this. As a result, even as private entities, the GSEs would likely continue to benefit from an “implicit guarantee” from the government. This would resurrect the exact moral hazard that led to the 2008 crisis: private shareholders and executives would be free to take excessive risks to maximize profits, knowing that taxpayers would be forced to cover any catastrophic losses.
Risk of Market Instability
The process of transitioning the GSEs out of a nearly two-decade-long conservatorship is extraordinarily complex and fraught with risk. A rushed or poorly managed exit could trigger massive instability in the U.S. housing market, which is a cornerstone of the national economy.
The legal and operational hurdles involved in recapitalizing the companies and resolving the Treasury’s financial stake are immense. Any misstep could spook investors, disrupt the flow of mortgage capital, and have cascading negative effects across the entire economy.
Given that the current system, while imperfect, has provided stability for over a decade, opponents question the wisdom of undertaking such a risky and disruptive transformation.
How Would Privatization Actually Work?
Moving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac out of government control isn’t as simple as flipping a switch. It’s a monumental undertaking involving immense financial, legal, and political challenges. Any path to privatization must navigate three core issues: recapitalization, the Treasury’s stake, and the nature of the future government guarantee.
The Mountain of Capital
Before Fannie and Freddie can be released from conservatorship, they must be “recapitalized”—that is, they must build up a massive financial cushion to ensure they can withstand a future severe economic downturn without needing another taxpayer bailout.
The FHFA has established a new Enterprise Regulatory Capital Framework that requires the GSEs to hold a combined total of more than $300 billion in capital.
There are two main ways to build this capital:
Retain Earnings: The GSEs could slowly build up their capital reserves by retaining their profits over many years. However, given their current earnings rate, this process alone could take a very long time.
Raise Private Capital: The faster alternative is to raise the necessary funds from private investors. This would likely involve one of the largest Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) in history, where the government would sell new shares of the companies to the public.
The Treasury’s $340 Billion Question
The single greatest obstacle to privatization is the U.S. Treasury’s enormous financial stake in the companies, a legacy of the 2008 bailout. The Treasury holds senior preferred stock with a liquidation preference—a claim on the companies’ assets—that has grown to over $340 billion.
This massive claim must be resolved before any new private investors would be willing to contribute the hundreds of billions needed for recapitalization. No investor wants to be last in line behind the U.S. government.
There are several potential, and highly contentious, ways to resolve this:
Repayment: The GSEs could attempt to repay the full amount, though their ability to generate such a vast sum is questionable.
Conversion: The Treasury could agree to convert its senior preferred stock into common stock, becoming a majority common shareholder. It could then sell these shares to the public over time.
Forgiveness: The Treasury could forgive a portion or all of the $340 billion obligation. This would clear the way for new private capital but would be politically explosive, as it would be portrayed as a massive giveaway to the benefit of hedge funds and other shareholders. Such a move would almost certainly require an act of Congress.
The Guarantee Dilemma
The central question for the future of the housing market is what kind of government guarantee, if any, would exist after privatization. This is the crux of the “too big to fail” problem.
Explicit Guarantee: The government could create an explicit, paid-for guarantee on the mortgage-backed securities issued by a privatized Fannie and Freddie, similar to the guarantee that currently exists for securities issued by Ginnie Mae (a fully government-owned corporation).
This would provide maximum stability to the mortgage market and help keep interest rates relatively low. However, it would require Congress to pass legislation, and it would mean that taxpayers are still officially on the hook, though they would be compensated for this risk through a guarantee fee.
Implicit Guarantee: If the GSEs are released from conservatorship without a new law creating an explicit guarantee, the market would almost certainly continue to believe that the government would step in to rescue them in a crisis. This is the “implicit guarantee” that existed before 2008.
Many analysts view this as the worst possible outcome: taxpayers would still be exposed to the risk of a future bailout, but they would receive no compensation for providing this backstop. The uncertainty associated with an implicit guarantee would also likely lead to higher mortgage rates than a clear, explicit one.
Two Roads to Reform
The final piece of the puzzle is how reform is enacted. There are two potential paths, each with its own advantages and disadvantages.
The Administrative Path
The Treasury and the FHFA could use their existing legal authorities as regulator and conservator to end the conservatorship without passing a new law through Congress. This approach is faster and avoids the gridlock of Washington.
However, it’s also more limited in scope. It’s unclear whether the administration could unilaterally create a durable, explicit government guarantee. Furthermore, any administrative reforms could simply be reversed by a future administration with different policy goals, leaving the market in a state of perpetual uncertainty.
The Legislative Path
The most durable and comprehensive solution would be for Congress to pass a major housing finance reform bill. Such a law could completely redesign the system, permanently resolve the GSEs’ status, and create a clear, explicit government guarantee.
However, this has proven to be politically impossible for over a decade. The issue is extraordinarily complex, and the deep partisan divisions over the proper role of government in the housing market have led to repeated legislative stalemates.
A recent bill, the End of GSE Conservatorship Preparation Act of 2023 (H.R. 5549), was introduced to require the Treasury to at least submit a formal plan to Congress, but comprehensive action remains elusive.
This complex interplay of challenges creates a difficult “chicken and egg” problem. To attract the massive private capital needed for recapitalization, investors demand certainty about the future government guarantee. But to provide that certainty, especially through an explicit guarantee, Congress likely needs to act.
Congress, in turn, is hesitant to take on such a politically fraught issue without a clear and viable plan that demonstrates private capital is ready and willing to step in.
This circular dilemma is a primary reason why, despite years of debate, the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remains one of the great unfinished pieces of business from the 2008 financial crisis.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.