Table of Contents
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Form 10-K
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011
Commission File No.: 0-50231
Federal National Mortgage Association
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Fannie Mae
| Federally chartered corporation | 52-0883107 | |
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) |
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) | |
| 3900 Wisconsin Avenue, | 20016 | |
| NW Washington, DC (Address of principal executive offices) |
(Zip Code) | |
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:
(202) 752-7000
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
| Title of Each Class |
Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered | |
| None |
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
Common Stock, without par value
(Title of class)
8.25% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series T, stated value $25 per share
(Title of class)
8.75% Non-Cumulative Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock, Series 2008-1 stated value $50 per share
(Title of class)
Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series S, stated value $25 per share
(Title of class)
7.625% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series R, stated value $25 per share
(Title of class)
6.75% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series Q, stated value $25 per share
(Title of class)
Variable Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series P, stated value $25 per share
(Title of class)
Variable Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series O, stated value $50 per share
(Title of class)
5.375% Non-Cumulative Convertible Series 2004-1 Preferred Stock, stated value $100,000 per share
(Title of class)
5.50% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series N, stated value $50 per share
(Title of class)
4.75% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series M, stated value $50 per share
(Title of class)
5.125% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series L, stated value $50 per share
(Title of class)
5.375% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series I, stated value $50 per share
(Title of class)
5.81% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series H, stated value $50 per share
(Title of class)
Variable Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series G, stated value $50 per share
(Title of class)
Variable Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series F, stated value $50 per share
(Title of class)
5.10% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series E, stated value $50 per share
(Title of class)
5.25% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series D, stated value $50 per share
(Title of class)
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ¨ No þ
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes ¨ No þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes þ No ¨
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
| Large accelerated filer ¨ |
Accelerated filer þ | Non-accelerated filer ¨ (Do not check if a smaller reporting company) |
Smaller reporting company ¨ |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes ¨ No þ
The aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant computed by reference to the last reported sale price of the common stock quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board on June 30, 2011 (the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter) was approximately $383 million.
As of January 31, 2012, there were 1,158,072,058 shares of common stock of the registrant outstanding.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE: The information required by Item 11 in Part III will be included in an amendment to this annual report on Form 10-K filed on or before April 30, 2012.
Table of Contents
| PART I | 1 | |||||
| Item 1. | 1 | |||||
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | ||||||
| 5 | ||||||
| 22 | ||||||
| 23 | ||||||
| 32 | ||||||
| 37 | ||||||
| 42 | ||||||
| 50 | ||||||
| 51 | ||||||
| 52 | ||||||
| 53 | ||||||
| 53 | ||||||
| 53 | ||||||
| Item 1A. | 58 | |||||
| Item 1B. | 76 | |||||
| Item 2. | 76 | |||||
| Item 3. | 77 | |||||
| Item 4. | 78 | |||||
| PART II | 79 | |||||
| Item 5. | 79 | |||||
| Item 6. | 82 | |||||
| Item 7. | Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations |
85 | ||||
| 85 | ||||||
| 91 | ||||||
| 110 | ||||||
| 124 | ||||||
| 129 | ||||||
| 133 | ||||||
| 146 | ||||||
| 148 | ||||||
| 193 | ||||||
| 194 | ||||||
| Item 7A. | 197 | |||||
| Item 8. | 197 | |||||
| Item 9. | Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure |
197 | ||||
| Item 9A. | 197 | |||||
| Item 9B. | 203 | |||||
Table of Contents
| PART III | 203 | |||||
| Item 10. | 203 | |||||
| 203 | ||||||
| 207 | ||||||
| 211 | ||||||
| Item 11. | 213 | |||||
| Item 12. | Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters |
214 | ||||
| Item 13. | Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence |
216 | ||||
| Policies and Procedures Relating to Transactions with Related Persons |
216 | |||||
| 217 | ||||||
| 222 | ||||||
| Item 14. | 226 | |||||
| PART IV | 227 | |||||
| Item 15. | 227 | |||||
| INDEX TO EXHIBITS | E-1 | |||||
| INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS | F-1 | |||||
Table of Contents
MD&A TABLE REFERENCE
Table of Contents
| Table |
Description |
Page | ||||
| 37 | 142 | |||||
| 38 | 143 | |||||
| 39 | 144 | |||||
| 40 | 151 | |||||
| 41 | Risk Characteristics of Single-Family Conventional Business Volume and Guaranty Book of Business |
155 | ||||
| 42 | 160 | |||||
| 43 | 162 | |||||
| 44 | 163 | |||||
| 45 | Single-Family Conventional Serious Delinquency Rate Concentration Analysis |
164 | ||||
| 46 | 165 | |||||
| 47 | 166 | |||||
| 48 | Percentage of Loan Modifications That Were Current and Performing at One and Two Years Post-Modification | 167 | ||||
| 49 | 168 | |||||
| 50 | 169 | |||||
| 51 | 170 | |||||
| 52 | 171 | |||||
| 53 | 172 | |||||
| 54 | 173 | |||||
| 55 | 176 | |||||
| 56 | 178 | |||||
| 57 | 180 | |||||
| 58 | 181 | |||||
| 59 | 183 | |||||
| 60 | Interest Rate Sensitivity of Net Portfolio to Changes in Interest Rate Level and Slope of Yield Curve | 190 | ||||
| 61 | 191 | |||||
| 62 | 192 | |||||
Table of Contents
We have been under conservatorship, with the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) acting as conservator, since September 6, 2008. As conservator, FHFA succeeded to all rights, titles, powers and privileges of the company, and of any shareholder, officer or director of the company with respect to the company and its assets. The conservator has since delegated specified authorities to our Board of Directors and has delegated to management the authority to conduct our day-to-day operations. Our directors do not have any duties to any person or entity except to the conservator and, accordingly, are not obligated to consider the interests of the company, the holders of our equity or debt securities or the holders of Fannie Mae MBS unless specifically directed to do so by the conservator. We describe the rights and powers of the conservator, key provisions of our agreements with the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”), and their impact on shareholders in “Business—Conservatorship and Treasury Agreements.”
This report contains forward-looking statements, which are statements about matters that are not historical facts. Forward-looking statements often include words like “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” believe,” “seek,” “estimate,” “would,” “should,” “could,” “may” or similar words. Actual outcomes may differ materially from those reflected in our forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors including, but not limited to, those discussed in “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this report. Please review “Forward-Looking Statements” for more information on the forward-looking statements in this report.
You can find a “Glossary of Terms Used in This Report” in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (‘MD&A’).”
| INTRODUCTION |
Fannie Mae is a government-sponsored enterprise (“GSE”) that was chartered by Congress in 1938. Our public mission is to support liquidity and stability in the secondary mortgage market, where existing mortgage-related assets are purchased and sold, and increase the supply of affordable housing. Our charter does not permit us to originate loans and lend money directly to consumers in the primary mortgage market. Our most significant activity is securitizing mortgage loans originated by lenders into Fannie Mae mortgage-backed securities that we guarantee, which we refer to as Fannie Mae MBS. We also purchase mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities. We use the term “acquire” in this report to refer to both our securitizations and our purchases of mortgage-related assets. We obtain funds to support our business activities by issuing a variety of debt securities in the domestic and international capital markets. During 2011, we concentrated much of our efforts on providing liquidity and support to the mortgage market, growing the strong new book of business we have been acquiring since the beginning of 2009, and minimizing losses on loans we acquired prior to 2009. We describe our business activities below.
We are a corporation chartered by the U.S. Congress. Our conservator, FHFA, is a U.S. government agency. Treasury owns our senior preferred stock and a warrant to purchase 79.9% of our common stock. Moreover, Treasury has made a commitment under a senior preferred stock purchase agreement to provide us with funds under specified conditions and, after 2012, up to a maximum amount, to maintain a positive net worth. The U.S. government does not guarantee our securities or other obligations.
As a federally chartered corporation, we are subject to extensive regulation, supervision and examination by FHFA, and regulation by other federal agencies, including Treasury and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”).
The conservatorship we have been under since September 2008 has no specified termination date. There can be no assurance as to when or how the conservatorship will be terminated, whether we will continue to exist following conservatorship, or what changes to our business structure will be made during or following the conservatorship.
- 1 -
Table of Contents
Uncertainty about the future of our company and surrounding the compensation of our executives and other employees could jeopardize our ability to manage risks effectively, to operate our business in a safe and sound manner, to support the mortgage market and to help delinquent borrowers avoid foreclosure. Congressional action in 2011 and early 2012 included legislation that would place our employees on a government pay scale and would forbid bonus payments for senior executives. Such debate elevates voluntary turnover and impairs our ability to recruit qualified employees for critical roles in the company. A sudden and sharp decline in compensation would likely cause significant and swift employee turnover, restrict recruitment of qualified replacements and decrease engagement of remaining employees, which could have a material adverse effect on our ability to conduct business. See “Risk Factors” for further discussion of the risks to our business and our results of operations if we are unable to retain and hire qualified employees.
Our agreements with Treasury that provide for substantial U.S. government financial support also include covenants that significantly restrict our business activities. We provide additional information on the conservatorship, the provisions of our agreements with the Treasury, and its impact on our business below under “Conservatorship and Treasury Agreements” and “Risk Factors.”
Our common stock is traded in the over-the-counter market and quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board under the symbol “FNMA.” Our debt securities are actively traded in the over-the-counter market.
| RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE MARKET |
The U.S. Residential Mortgage Market
We conduct business in the U.S. residential mortgage market and the global securities market. Total U.S. residential mortgage debt outstanding, which includes $10.3 trillion of single-family mortgage debt outstanding, was estimated to be approximately $11.2 trillion as of September 30, 2011, the latest date for which information was available, according to the Federal Reserve. After increasing every quarter since record keeping began in 1952 until the second quarter of 2008, single-family mortgage debt outstanding has been steadily declining since then. We owned or guaranteed mortgage assets representing approximately 28.0% of total U.S. residential mortgage debt outstanding as of September 30, 2011.
We operate our business solely in the United States and its territories, and accordingly, we generate no revenue from and have no long-lived assets other than financial instruments in geographic locations other than the United States and its territories.
Housing and Mortgage Market and Economic Conditions
Economic growth picked up in the fourth quarter of 2011. The inflation-adjusted U.S. gross domestic product, or GDP, rose by 2.8% on an annualized basis during the quarter, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis advance estimate. The overall economy gained an estimated 472,000 jobs in the fourth quarter as a result of employment growth in the private sector. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as of February 2012, the economy created 1.8 million non-farm jobs in 2011. The unemployment rate was 8.5% in December 2011, compared with 9.0% in September 2011. In January 2012, nonfarm payrolls posted a strong increase of 243,000 jobs, and the unemployment rate declined further to 8.3%. In spite of the downside risks from Europe and elsewhere, we expect that housing will start to recover if the employment market continues to improve.
Total existing home sales rose 1.7% in 2011 from 2010, according to data available through January 2012, following a 3.5% decline in 2010, despite low mortgage rates and reduced home prices. Weak demand for homes, a weak labor market and elevated vacancy and foreclosure rates are the main obstacles to the housing recovery. Sales of foreclosed homes and preforeclosure, or “short,” sales (together, “distressed sales”) accounted for 32% of existing home sales in December 2011, compared to 36% in December 2010, according to the National Association of REALTORS®. Faced with fierce competition from distressed sales, new home sales declined in 2011 for the sixth consecutive year, falling 6.2% to a record low. Homebuilding activity was mixed in 2011, as single-family housing starts fell approximately 9% to a record low, while multifamily starts rose 54%.
- 2 -
Table of Contents
At the end of 2011, the number of months’ supply, or the inventory/sales ratio, was consistent with historical averages for both new and existing homes. While the demand for new homes was quite weak in 2011, the inventory was also very lean. The number of new homes available for sale reached an all-time low in December 2011, when, according to the Census’ December 2011 New Residential Sales Report, the months’ supply was 6.1 months. For existing homes, as a result of rising sales in the fourth quarter of 2011 and a persistent decline in the number of existing homes available for sale in the second half of 2011, the months’ supply fell sharply in the fourth quarter. According to the National Association of REALTORS® January 2012 Existing Home Sales Report, the months’ supply of existing unsold homes was 6.2 months as of December 31, 2011, compared with an 8.3 months’ supply as of September 30, 2011 and an 8.1 months’ supply as of December 31, 2010. Properties that are vacant and held off the market, combined with a portion of properties backing seriously delinquent mortgages not currently listed for sale, represent a significant shadow inventory putting downward pressure on home prices. The overall mortgage market serious delinquency rate, which has trended down since peaking in the fourth quarter of 2009, remained historically high at 7.7% as of December 31, 2011, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association National Delinquency Survey. We provide information about Fannie Mae’s serious delinquency rate, which also decreased during 2011, in “Executive Summary—Credit Performance.”
The table below presents several key indicators related to the total U.S. residential mortgage market.
Housing and Mortgage Market Indicators(1)
| % Change | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2011 | 2010 | ||||||||||||||||
| Home sales (units in thousands) |
4,562 | 4,513 | 4,715 | 1.1 | % | (4.3 | )% | |||||||||||||
| New home sales |
302 | 323 | 375 | (6.5 | ) | (13.9 | ) | |||||||||||||
| Existing home sales |
4,260 | 4,190 | 4,340 | 1.7 | (3.5 | ) | ||||||||||||||
| Home price depreciation based on Fannie Mae Home Price Index (“HPI”)(2) |
(3.2 | )% | (4.3 | )% | (4.7 | )% | — | — | ||||||||||||
| Annual average fixed-rate mortgage interest rate(3) |
4.5 | % | 4.7 | % | 5.0 | % | — | — | ||||||||||||
| Single-family mortgage originations (in billions) |
$ | 1,362 | $ | 1,701 | $ | 1,884 | (19.9 | ) | (9.7 | ) | ||||||||||
| Type of single-family mortgage origination: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Refinance share |
66 | % | 68 | % | 69 | % | — | — | ||||||||||||
| Adjustable-rate mortgage share |
6 | % | 5 | % | 4 | % | — | — | ||||||||||||
| Total U.S. residential mortgage debt outstanding (in billions)(4) |
$ | 11,177 | $ | 11,360 | $ | 11,712 | (1.6 | ) | (3.0 | ) | ||||||||||
| (1) | The sources of the housing and mortgage market data in this table are the Federal Reserve Board, the Bureau of the Census, HUD, the National Association of Realtors, and the Mortgage Bankers Association. Homes sales data are based on information available through January 2012. Single-family mortgage originations, as well as refinance shares, are based on February 2012 estimates from Fannie Mae’s Economic & Strategic Research group. The adjustable-rate mortgage share is based on mortgage applications data reported by the Mortgage Bankers Association. Certain previously reported data may have been changed to reflect revised historical data from any or all of these organizations. |
| (2) | Calculated internally using property data information on loans purchased by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other third-party home sales data. Fannie Mae’s HPI is a weighted repeat transactions index, measuring average price changes in repeat sales on the same properties. Fannie Mae’s HPI excludes prices on properties sold in foreclosure. The reported home price depreciation reflects the percentage change in Fannie Mae’s HPI from the fourth quarter of the prior year to the fourth quarter of the reported year. |
| (3) | Based on the annual average 30-year fixed-rate mortgage interest rate reported by Freddie Mac. |
| (4) | Information for 2011 is through September 30, 2011 and has been obtained from the Federal Reserve’s September 2011 mortgage debt outstanding release. |
The decline in home prices slowed in 2011. We estimate that home prices on a national basis declined by 3.2% overall in 2011, with a decline of 1.6% in the fourth quarter of 2011. We estimate that home prices have declined by 23% from their peak in the third quarter of 2006. Our home price estimates are based on preliminary data and are subject to change as additional data become available.
- 3 -
Table of Contents
We estimate that total single-family mortgage originations in 2011 decreased from 2010 levels by 20% to $1.4 trillion, with a purchase share of 34% and a refinance share of 66%.
Since the second quarter of 2008, single-family mortgage debt outstanding has been steadily declining due to a number of factors including declining home sales and prices, rising foreclosures, increased cash sales, and reduced home equity extraction. We anticipate another approximately 1.1% decline in single-family mortgage debt outstanding in 2012. Total U.S. residential mortgage debt outstanding fell during the third quarter of 2011 by an annualized rate of 2.1%.
Despite signs of stabilization and improvement, one out of thirteen borrowers was delinquent or in foreclosure during the fourth quarter of 2011, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association National Delinquency Survey. The housing market remains under pressure due to the high level of unemployment, which was a primary driver of the significant number of mortgage delinquencies and defaults in 2011. At the start of the recession in December 2007, the unemployment rate was 5.0%, based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate peaked at a 26-year high of 10.0% in October 2009, and remained as high as 8.3% in January 2012. We expect the unemployment rate to remain relatively flat in 2012.
The most comprehensive measure of the unemployment rate, which includes those working part-time who would rather work full-time (part-time workers for economic reasons) and those not looking for work but who want to work and are available for work (discouraged workers), was 15.1% in January 2012, substantially lower than the record high of 17.2% in October 2009.
The decline in home prices has left many homeowners with “negative equity” in their homes, which means their principal mortgage balance exceeds the current market value of their home. This increases the likelihood that borrowers will walk away from their mortgage obligations and that the loans will become delinquent and proceed to foreclosure. According to CoreLogic, approximately 11 million, or 22%, of all residential properties with mortgages were in a negative equity position in the third quarter of 2011. This potential supply also weighs on the supply/demand balance putting downward pressure on both home prices and rents. See “Risk Factors” for a description of risks to our business associated with the weak economy and housing market.
National multifamily market fundamentals, which include factors such as rents and vacancy rates, saw a second year of steady improvement during 2011, benefiting from increased rental demand coupled with limited new apartment supply. Vacancy rates continued to decline throughout most of 2011, bringing the sector back to pre-recession levels.
Based on preliminary third-party data, we estimate that the national multifamily vacancy rate fell to 6.25% in the fourth quarter of 2011, from 6.50% in the third quarter of 2011 and 7.25% in the fourth quarter of 2010. In addition, we estimate that average asking rents increased steadily for nearly two years, most recently increasing by 0.5% in the fourth quarter of 2011 on a national basis. The increase in overall rental demand was also reflected in an estimated increase of about 50,000 units in the net number of occupied rental units during the fourth quarter of 2011, according to preliminary data from Reis, Inc. That brings the total estimated net absorption for the year, (that is, the net change in the number of units occupied over the year), to 170,000 units.
Vacancy rates and rents are important to loan performance because multifamily loans are generally repaid from the cash flows generated by the underlying property. The year-long strengthening of these fundamentals helped boost property values and, in turn, spur apartment building sales during 2011 in most metropolitan areas.
While the strength of improving vacancy levels and rental rates will vary by metropolitan area, on a national basis the multifamily sector should continue to see steady demand in 2012. With job growth slowly improving, and, more importantly, the lack of new apartment supply becoming available over the next 12 to18 months, we expect that rental demand will continue to outstrip supply, thereby maintaining stable vacancy levels and healthy rent growth. As a result, the outlook remains steady for the multifamily sector over the coming year.
- 4 -
Table of Contents
| EXECUTIVE SUMMARY |
Please read this Executive Summary together with our MD&A and our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2011 and related notes.
Our Business Objectives and Strategy
Our Board of Directors and management consult with and receive direction from our conservator in establishing our business objectives and strategy, taking into consideration our role in addressing housing and mortgage market conditions. We face a variety of different objectives that potentially conflict, which limits our ability to fully achieve all of them. Our objectives include:
| • | providing liquidity, stability and affordability in the mortgage market; |
| • | minimizing credit losses from delinquent mortgages; |
| • | providing assistance to the mortgage market and to the struggling housing market; |
| • | limiting the amount of the investment Treasury must make under our senior preferred stock purchase agreement; |
| • | returning to long-term profitability before taking into account the payment of dividends on our senior preferred stock to Treasury; and |
| • | protecting the interests of the taxpayers. |
In addition to these objectives, our conservator recently announced strategic goals that we will pursue. On February 21, 2012, the Acting Director of FHFA sent a letter to Congress in which he wrote, “With the conservatorships [of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] operating for more than three years and no near-term resolution in sight, it is time to update and extend the goals and directions of the conservatorships.” He continued, “FHFA is contemplating next steps to build an infrastructure for the secondary mortgage market that is consistent with existing policy proposals and will support any outcome of the leading legislative proposals.” With his letter, Acting Director DeMarco provided a strategic plan for the next phase of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s conservatorships. The plan identifies three strategic goals for the next phase of the conservatorships:
| • | Build. Build a new infrastructure for the secondary mortgage market; |
| • | Contract. Gradually contract [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s] dominant presence in the marketplace while simplifying and shrinking their operations; and |
| • | Maintain. Maintain foreclosure prevention activities and credit availability for new and refinanced mortgages. |
As a result of our uncertain future and our status as a federally chartered corporation, we can be required to take actions in pursuit of objectives other than, or that conflict with, our business objectives. For example, as we discuss below in “Legislative and Regulatory Developments—Changes to Our Single-Family Guaranty Fee Pricing” in December 2011, Congress enacted the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 which, among other provisions, requires that we increase our single-family guaranty fees by at least 10 basis points and remit this increase to Treasury to fund extensions of employment tax reductions and unemployment benefits, rather than retaining this incremental revenue. In accordance with the strategic goals recently announced by FHFA, we also expect to increasingly focus on building a new infrastructure for the secondary mortgage market and on actions that will gradually decrease our presence in the marketplace while simplifying and shrinking our operations.
We are concentrating our efforts on providing liquidity and support to the mortgage market, growing the strong new book of business we have been acquiring since the beginning of 2009, minimizing our losses on loans we acquired prior to 2009, and, in support of minimizing our losses, providing assistance where feasible to struggling homeowners.
We will continue to need funds from Treasury as a result of a number of factors, including the dividends we are required to pay Treasury on the senior preferred stock, ongoing adverse conditions in the housing and mortgage
- 5 -
Table of Contents
markets and the deteriorated credit performance of loans in our mortgage credit book of business that we acquired prior to 2009. In his February 2012 letter to Congress, Acting Director DeMarco wrote, “[I]t is clear that the draws [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] have taken from the Treasury are so large they cannot be repaid under any foreseeable scenarios.” As a result of our draws, we do not expect to earn profits in excess of our annual dividend obligation to Treasury for the indefinite future.
There is significant uncertainty regarding the future of our company, including how long the company will continue to exist in its current form. The Administration, Congress and our regulators are considering options for the future state of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the U.S. government’s role in residential mortgage finance. In February 2011, Treasury and HUD released a report to Congress on reforming America’s housing finance market. The report provides that the Administration will work with FHFA to determine the best way to responsibly reduce Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s role in the market and ultimately wind down both institutions. The report emphasizes the importance of proceeding with a careful transition plan and providing the necessary financial support to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the transition period. On February 2, 2012, Treasury Secretary Geithner stated that the Administration intended to release new details around approaches to housing finance reform, including winding down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in the spring of 2012 and to work with Congressional leaders to explore options for legislation, but that he does not expect housing finance reform legislation to be enacted in 2012. In his February 2012 letter to Congress, Acting Director DeMarco states that achieving the strategic goals for the next phase of conservatorship will “prepare the foundation for a new, stronger housing finance system in the future. Although that future may not include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, at least as they are known today, this important work in conservatorship can be a lasting, positive legacy for the country and its housing system.” We discuss efforts to reform the GSEs and the housing finance system in more detail in “Legislative and Regulatory Developments—GSE Reform.”
In 2011 we refined and began implementing a plan designed to support the creation of a sustainable housing finance system by improving our business processes, infrastructure and organizational structure. We expect to continue implementing the plan in phases with goals of providing value to our customers, simplifying and standardizing our operating model, and reducing our costs.
To provide context for analyzing our consolidated financial statements and understanding our MD&A, we discuss the following topics in this executive summary:
| • | Our provision of liquidity and support to the mortgage market; |
| • | Our 2011 financial performance; |
| • | Our strong new book of business and expected losses on loans we acquired prior to 2009; |
| • | Our efforts to reduce losses on single-family loans we acquired prior to 2009, which we refer to as our “legacy book of business”; |
| • | Credit statistics for our single-family book of business; |
| • | Our liquidity position; and |
| • | Our outlook. |
Providing Liquidity and Support to the Mortgage Market
Our Liquidity and Support Activities
We provide liquidity and support to the U.S. mortgage market in a number of important ways:
| • | We serve as a stable source of liquidity for purchases of homes and financing of multifamily rental housing, as well as for refinancing existing mortgages. We provided approximately $2.3 trillion in liquidity to the mortgage market in 2009 through 2011 through our purchases and guarantees of loans, which enabled homeowners to refinance 6.6 million mortgages, 1.9 million households to purchase a home, and financing for over 1.1 million units of multifamily housing. |
| • | We are a consistent market presence as we continue to provide liquidity to the mortgage market even when other sources of capital have exited the market, as has been shown repeatedly over the last few years. We |
- 6 -
Table of Contents
| estimate Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae collectively guaranteed more than 99% of new single-family mortgage-related securities issuances in 2009 through 2011, which accounted for more than 85% of the single-family first-lien mortgages we currently estimate were originated in the United States in 2009 through 2011. Because our estimate of mortgage originations is subject to change as additional data become available, our estimated share of single-family first-lien mortgages for prior periods may change in the future, perhaps materially. |
| • | We have strengthened our underwriting and eligibility standards to support sustainable homeownership. Our support enables borrowers to have access to a variety of conforming mortgage products, including long-term, fixed-rate mortgages, such as the prepayable 30-year fixed-rate mortgage that protects homeowners from interest rate swings. |
| • | We helped over 900,000 homeowners retain their homes or otherwise avoid foreclosure in 2009 through 2011, which helped to support neighborhoods, home prices and the housing market. Moreover, borrowers’ ability to pay their modified loans has improved in recent periods as we have enhanced the structure of our modifications. For loans modified outside of the Administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”), one year after modification, 67% of modifications we made in the fourth quarter of 2010 were performing, compared with 50% of modifications in the fourth quarter of 2009. For loans modified under HAMP, one year after modification, 74% of our HAMP modifications made in the fourth quarter of 2010 were performing, compared with 73% of our HAMP modifications in the fourth quarter of 2009. |
| • | We helped borrowers refinance loans through our Refi Plus™ initiative, which provides expanded refinance opportunities for eligible Fannie Mae borrowers. We acquired approximately 732,000 loans refinanced under our Refi Plus initiative in 2011. Some borrowers may have increased their monthly payments as they took advantage of lower interest rates to reduce the terms of their loans, to switch from adjustable rates to fixed rates, or to switch from interest-only mortgages to fully amortizing mortgages. Even taking these refinancings into account, our acquisitions under Refi Plus reduced our borrowers’ monthly mortgage payments by an average of $166. |
| • | We support affordability in the multifamily rental market. Over 85% of the multifamily units we financed from 2009 through 2011 were affordable to families earning at or below the median income in their area. |
| • | In addition to purchasing and guaranteeing loans, we provide funds to the mortgage market through short-term financing and other activities. These activities are described in more detail in “Business Segments—Capital Markets.” |
2011 Acquisitions and Market Share
In 2011, we purchased or guaranteed approximately $653 billion in loans, measured by unpaid principal balance, which includes approximately $67 billion in delinquent loans we purchased from our single-family MBS trusts. These activities enabled our lender customers to finance approximately 2,680,000 single-family conventional loans and loans for approximately 423,000 units in multifamily properties during 2011.
We currently estimate that our single-family market share was 41% in 2011, compared with 36% in 2010. These amounts represent our single-family mortgage acquisitions for each year, excluding delinquent loans we purchased from our MBS trusts, as a percentage of the single-family first-lien mortgages we currently estimate were originated in the United States that year. Because our estimate of mortgage originations in prior periods is subject to change as additional data become available, these market share estimates may change in the future, perhaps materially.
We remained the largest single issuer of mortgage-related securities in the secondary market during the fourth quarter of 2011, with an estimated market share of new single-family mortgage-related securities issuances of 54%. Our estimated market share of new single-family mortgage-related securities issuances was 43% in the third quarter of 2011 and 49% in the fourth quarter of 2010. The estimated market share increase from the third quarter of 2011 to the fourth quarter of 2011 is largely the result of increased investor demand for Fannie Mae MBS.
- 7 -
Table of Contents
We remained a constant source of liquidity in the multifamily market. We owned or guaranteed approximately 21% of the outstanding debt on multifamily properties as of September 30, 2011 (the latest date for which information was available).
Summary of Our Financial Performance for 2011
Our financial results for 2011 reflect the continued weakness in the housing and mortgage markets, which remain under pressure from high levels of unemployment and underemployment, and the prolonged decline in home prices since their peak in the third quarter of 2006. Our credit-related expenses continue to be a key driver of our net losses for each period presented. The substantial majority of our credit-related expenses are from single-family loans we acquired prior to 2009, which decreased as a percentage of our single-family guaranty book of business to 47% as of December 31, 2011 from 60% as of December 31, 2010. Our credit-related expenses vary from period to period primarily based on changes in home prices, borrower payment behavior, the types and volumes of loss mitigation activities completed, and actual and estimated recoveries from our lender and mortgage insurer counterparties.
In addition, the decline in interest rates during 2011 resulted in significant fair value losses on our derivatives. These fair value losses on our derivatives were offset by fair value gains during 2011 related to our mortgage investments; however, only a portion of these investments is recorded at fair value in our financial statements. Derivative instruments are an integral part of how we manage interest rate risk and an inherent part of the cost of funding and hedging our mortgage investments. We expect high levels of period-to-period volatility in our results because our derivatives are recorded at fair value in our financial statements while some of the instruments they hedge are not recorded at fair value in our financial statements.
Total Comprehensive Loss
We recognized a total comprehensive loss of $16.4 billion for 2011, consisting of a net loss of $16.9 billion and other comprehensive income of $447 million. In comparison, our total comprehensive loss for 2010 was $10.6 billion, consisting of a net loss of $14.0 billion and other comprehensive income of $3.4 billion.
The increase in our net loss in 2011, as compared with 2010, was primarily due to an increase in net fair value losses and credit-related expenses, which were partially offset by an increase in net interest income. The primary drivers of these changes were:
| • | a $6.1 billion increase in net fair value losses primarily driven by losses on our risk management derivatives in 2011 due to a significant decline in swap rates during the period; |
| • | a $2.9 billion increase in net interest income driven by lower interest expense on debt, which was partially offset by lower interest income on loans and securities; |
| • | an $884 million increase in credit-related expenses primarily driven by a decline in actual and projected home prices. |
The $3.0 billion decline in our other comprehensive income was primarily driven by lower gains on the fair value of our available-for-sale securities due to widening credit spreads in 2011 compared with narrowing spreads in 2010.
See “Consolidated Results of Operations” for more information on our results.
Net Worth
Our net worth deficit of $4.6 billion as of December 31, 2011 reflects the recognition of our total comprehensive loss of $1.9 billion and our payment to Treasury of $2.6 billion in senior preferred stock dividends during the fourth quarter of 2011. The Acting Director of FHFA will submit a request to Treasury on our behalf for $4.6 billion to eliminate our net worth deficit.
In the fourth quarter of 2011, we received $7.8 billion in funds from Treasury to eliminate our net worth deficit as of September 30, 2011. Upon receipt of the additional funds requested to eliminate our net worth deficit as of
- 8 -
Table of Contents
December 31, 2011, the aggregate liquidation preference on the senior preferred stock will be $117.1 billion, which will require an annualized dividend payment of $11.7 billion. The amount of this dividend payment exceeds our reported annual net income for every year since our inception. Through December 31, 2011, we have paid an aggregate of $19.8 billion to Treasury in dividends on the senior preferred stock.
Table 1 below displays our senior preferred stock dividend payments to Treasury and Treasury draws since entering conservatorship in 2008.
Table 1: Treasury Dividend Payments and Draws
| 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | Cumulative Total |
||||||||||||||||
| (Dollars in billions) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Senior preferred stock dividends(1) |
$ | — | $ | 2.5 | $ | 7.7 | $ | 9.6 | $ | 19.8 | ||||||||||
| Treasury draws(2)(3) |
15.2 | 60.0 | 15.0 | 25.9 | (4) | 116.1 | ||||||||||||||
| Cumulative percentage of senior preferred stock dividends to Treasury draws |
0.2 | % | 3.3 | % | 11.3 | % | 17.1 | % | 17.1 | % | ||||||||||
| (1) | Represents total quarterly cash dividends paid to Treasury, during the periods presented, based on an annual rate of 10% per year on the aggregate liquidation preference of the senior preferred stock. |
| (2) | Represents the total draws received from Treasury and / or being requested based on our quarterly net worth deficits for the periods presented. Draw requests are funded in the quarter following each quarterly net worth deficit. |
| (3) | Treasury draws do not include the initial $1.0 billion liquidation preference of the senior preferred stock, for which we did not receive any cash proceeds. |
| (4) | The treasury draw to eliminate the 2011 fourth quarter net worth deficit was $4,571 million. |
Total Loss Reserves
Our total loss reserves, which reflect our estimate of the probable losses we have incurred in our guaranty book of business, including concessions we granted borrowers upon modification of their loans, increased to $76.9 billion as of December 31, 2011 from $75.6 billion as of September 30, 2011 and $66.3 billion as of December 31, 2010. Our total loss reserve coverage to total nonperforming loans was 31% as of December 31, 2011, compared with 30% as of September 30, 2011 and 26% as of December 31, 2010. The continued stress on a broad segment of borrowers from continued high levels of unemployment and underemployment and the prolonged decline in home prices have caused our total loss reserves to remain high for the past few years. In December 2011, we changed our definition of “total nonperforming loans.” Under our new definition, we no longer reflect in this amount (1) our allowance for loan losses or (2) our allowance for accrued interest receivable related to these individually impaired loans. The amounts we report for prior periods have been revised from amounts we previously disclosed as a result of this change.
Our Strong New Book of Business and Expected Losses on Our Legacy Book of Business
We refer to the single-family loans we have acquired since the beginning of 2009 as our “new single-family book of business” and the single-family loans we acquired prior to 2009 as our “legacy book of business.” In this section, we discuss our expectations regarding the profitability of our new single-family book of business, as well as the performance and credit profile of these loans to date. We also discuss our expectations regarding losses on the loans in our legacy book of business.
Factors that Could Cause Actual Results to be Materially Different from Our Estimates and Expectations
We present a number of estimates and expectations in this executive summary regarding the profitability of single-family loans we have acquired, our single-family credit losses and credit-related expenses, and our draws from and dividends to be paid to Treasury. These estimates and expectations are forward-looking statements based on our current assumptions regarding numerous factors, including future home prices and the future performance of our loans. Home prices are a key factor affecting the amount of credit losses and profitability we expect. As home prices decline, the loan-to-value ratios, or LTV ratios, on our loans shift higher, and both the
- 9 -
Table of Contents
probability of default and the severity of loss increase. Furthermore, the level of regional variation in home price declines affects our results, as we will incur greater credit losses if home prices decline more significantly in regions where we have a greater concentration of loans.
Our future estimates of our performance, as well as the actual amounts, may differ materially from our current estimates and expectations as a result of the timing and level of, as well as regional variation in, home price changes, changes in interest rates, unemployment, other macroeconomic variables, direct and indirect consequences resulting from failures by servicers to follow proper procedures in the administration of foreclosure cases, government policy, changes in generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), credit availability, social behaviors, the volume of loans we modify, the effectiveness of our loss mitigation strategies, management of our real-estate owned (“REO”) inventory and pursuit of contractual remedies, changes in the fair value of our assets and liabilities, impairments of our assets, and many other factors, including those discussed in “Risk Factors,” “Forward-Looking Statements” and elsewhere in this report. For example, if the economy were to enter a deep recession, we would expect actual outcomes to differ substantially from our current expectations.
Building a Strong New Single-Family Book of Business
In 2009, we began to see the effect of actions we took, beginning in 2008, to significantly strengthen our underwriting and eligibility standards and change our pricing to promote sustainable homeownership and stability in the housing market. As a result of these changes and other market dynamics, we reduced our acquisitions of loans with higher-risk attributes. Compared with the loans we acquired in 2005 through 2008, the loans in our new single-family book of business have had better overall credit risk profiles at the time we acquired them and, based on their performance so far, we expect loans in our new single-family book of business to perform well over their lifetime.
Table 2, which displays information about the credit risk profile of our single-family loan acquisitions according to when we acquired the loans, illustrates the improvement in the credit risk profile of loans we acquired beginning in 2009 compared with loans we acquired in 2005 through 2008. Based on our experience, we expect that loans with characteristics such as higher FICO credit scores and lower original LTV ratios (that is, more equity initially held by the borrowers in the underlying properties) will perform better than loans with risk characteristics such as higher original LTV ratios, lower FICO credit scores or interest-only payment features, and Alt-A loans. Table 2 also displays information about the percentage of our single-family loans that were seriously delinquent (three or more months past due or in the foreclosure process) at the end of the first year following their acquisition, as well as our current expectation for whether loans we acquired will be profitable over their lifetime, by which we mean that we expect our fee income on these loans to exceed our credit losses and administrative costs for them.
Table 2: Characteristics of Acquired Single-Family Conventional Loans by Acquisition Period(1)
| Weighted Average FICO Credit Score at Origination |
FICO Credit Score at Origination < 620 |
Original LTV Ratio |
Original LTV Ratio >90(2) |
Alt-A Loans(3) |
Interest- Only Loans |
SDQ Rate as of 4th quarter following Acquisition year |
Expectation for Profitability | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Year of Acquisition: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| New Single-Family Book of Business Acquisitions: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 |
762 | * | 69 | % | 9 | % | 1 | % | 1 | % | Not applicable | Profitable | ||||||||||||||||
| 2010 |
762 | * | 68 | % | 7 | % | 1 | % | 1 | % | 0.30% | Profitable | ||||||||||||||||
| 2009 |
761 | * | 67 | % | 4 | % | * | 1 | % | 0.32% | Profitable | |||||||||||||||||
| Weighted Average New Single-Family Book of Business Acquisitions |
|
762 |
|
|
* |
|
|
68 |
% |
|
6 |
% |
|
1 |
% |
|
1 |
% |
0.31% |
Profitable | ||||||||
| Legacy Single-Family Book of Business Acquisitions:(4) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2005-2008 |
722 | 5 | % | 73 | % | 11 | % | 14 | % | 12 | % | 3.04% | Not Profitable | |||||||||||||||
| 2001-2004(5) |
718 | 5 | % | 71 | % | 8 | % | 9 | % | 1 | % | 0.53% | Profitable | |||||||||||||||
- 10 -
Table of Contents
| * | Represents less than 0.5% of the total acquisitions. |
| (1) | Loans that meet more than one category are included in each applicable category. |
| (2) | The majority of loans that we acquired in our new single-family book of business between 2009 and 2011 with original LTV ratios over 90% were loans acquired under our Refi Plus initiative. See “Changes in the Credit Profile of our Single-Family Acquisitions” for further information on Refi Plus. |
| (3) | Newly originated Alt-A loans acquired in 2009 through 2011 consist of the refinance of existing loans. |
| (4) | Loans acquired prior to 2001, which comprised approximately 1% of our single-family conventional guaranty book of business as of December 31, 2011, are not included in this table. We expect loans we acquired prior to 2001, in the aggregate, to be profitable over their lifetime. |
| (5) | Although we do not expect loans we acquired in 2004 to be profitable over their lifetime, we expect loans we acquired in 2001 through 2004 will, in the aggregate, be profitable over their lifetime. We have combined loans acquired in 2004 with loans from prior years because we made significant changes to our acquisition policies that affected the loans we acquired in 2005 through 2008. We expect our credit losses from loans we acquired in 2004, which are due to home price declines and prolonged unemployment, will be significantly smaller than those generated by loans we acquired in 2005 through 2008. |
While Table 2 covers all of the single-family conventional loans we acquired in each period presented (or, in the case of the serious delinquency rate, those still in our book of business four quarters after the end of the year they were acquired), Table 3 displays information about loans that remained in our single-family conventional guaranty book of business as of December 31, 2011.
Table 3: Selected Credit Characteristics of Single-Family Conventional Loans Held, by Acquisition Period
| As of December 31, 2011 | ||||||||||||||||
| % of Single- Family Conventional Guaranty Book of Business(1) |
Current Estimated Mark-to-Market LTV Ratio(1) |
Current Mark-to-Market LTV Ratio >100%(1)(2) |
Serious Delinquency Rate(3) |
|||||||||||||
| Year of Acquisition: |
||||||||||||||||
| New Single-Family Book of Business: |
||||||||||||||||
| 2011 |
19 | % | 70 | % | 4 | % | 0.05 | % | ||||||||
| 2010 |
18 | 72 | 5 | 0.30 | ||||||||||||
| 2009 |
16 | 73 | 6 | 0.62 | ||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Total New Single-Family Book of Business |
53 | 71 | 5 | 0.31 | ||||||||||||
| Legacy Book of Business: |
||||||||||||||||
| 2005-2008 |
31 | 103 | 45 | 9.39 | ||||||||||||
| 2004 and prior |
16 | 60 | 8 | 3.32 | ||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Total Single-Family Book of Business |
100 | 79 | 18 | 3.91 | ||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| (1) | Calculated based on the aggregate unpaid principal balance of single-family loans for each category divided by the aggregate unpaid principal balance of loans in our single-family conventional guaranty book of business as of December 31, 2011. |
| (2) | The majority of loans in our new single-family book of business as of December 31, 2011 with mark-to-market LTV ratios over 100% were loans acquired under our Refi Plus initiative. See “Changes in the Credit Profile of our Single-Family Acquisitions” for further information on Refi Plus. |
| (3) | The serious delinquency rates for loans acquired in more recent years will be higher after the loans have aged, but we do not expect them to approach the levels of the December 31, 2011 serious delinquency rates of loans in our legacy book of business. |
- 11 -
Table of Contents
The performance we expect for our single-family loans
As Table 2 shows, we expect loans we have acquired since the beginning of 2009 to be profitable, in contrast to loans we acquired in 2005 through 2008. Our expectations regarding the ultimate performance of our loans are based on numerous expectations and assumptions, including those relating to expected changes in regional and national home prices, borrower behavior, public policy and other macroeconomic factors. If future conditions are more unfavorable than our expectations, loans we acquired in 2009, 2010 and 2011 could become unprofitable. For example, we expect that credit losses on these loans would exceed guaranty fee revenue if home prices declined nationally by approximately 10% from their December 2011 levels over the next five years, based on our home price index. See “Outlook” for our expectations regarding home price declines.
In our experience, an early predictor of the ultimate performance of a portfolio of loans is the rate at which the loans become seriously delinquent within a short period of time after acquisition. As Table 2 shows, the percentage of our 2009 and 2010 acquisitions that were seriously delinquent as of the end of the fourth quarter following their acquisition year was substantially lower than the average comparable serious delinquency rate for loans acquired in 2005 through 2008. Table 3 displays the serious delinquency rate for our loans as of December 31, 2011.
Changes in the Credit Profile of Our Single-Family Acquisitions
Single-family loans we purchased or guaranteed from 2005 through 2008 were acquired during a period when home prices were rising rapidly, peaked, and then started to decline sharply, and underwriting and eligibility standards were more relaxed than they are now. These loans were characterized by higher loan-to-value (“LTV”) ratios and lower FICO credit scores than loans we have acquired since January 1, 2009. In addition, many of these loans were Alt-A loans or had other higher-risk loan attributes such as interest-only payment features. As a result of the sharp declines in home prices, 45% of loans we acquired from 2005 through 2008, measured by unpaid principal balance, had mark-to-market LTV ratios that were greater than 100% as of December 31, 2011, which means the principal balance of the borrower’s primary mortgage exceeded the current market value of the borrower’s home. The percentage of borrowers who owed more than their home’s value is higher when second-lien loans are included. The sharp decline in home prices, the severe economic recession that began in December 2007 and continued through June 2009, and continuing high unemployment and underemployment have significantly and adversely impacted the performance of loans we acquired from 2005 through 2008. Our 2005 through 2008 acquisitions are becoming a smaller percentage of our single-family guaranty book of business, having decreased from 39% of our single-family guaranty book of business as of December 31, 2010 to 31% as of December 31, 2011.
Improvements in the credit risk profile of our acquisitions since the beginning of 2009 over acquisitions in prior years reflect changes that we made, beginning in 2008, to our pricing and eligibility standards and underwriting. These changes were intended to more accurately reflect the risk in the housing market and to significantly reduce our acquisitions of loans with higher-risk attributes. The improvements also reflect changes that mortgage insurers made to their eligibility standards. We believe the strong early performance of loans in our new single-family book of business despite the home price declines and high unemployment of the last few years is attributable to their strong credit risk profile.
The credit risk profile of loans in our new single-family book of business has been further influenced by the inclusion of a significant percentage of refinanced loans. One effect has been that the original LTV ratios of loans we acquired in each of 2010 and 2011 increased from the prior year as a result of our acquisition of loans with higher LTV ratios under our Refi Plus initiative. Refi Plus includes loans refinanced under the Home Affordable Refinance Program (“HARP”), which was established by the Administration to help borrowers who may otherwise be unable to refinance the mortgage loan on their primary residence due to a decline in home values. Original LTV ratios also increased in 2011 as a result of changes by mortgage insurers and the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) that improved the economics of obtaining private mortgage insurance and drove an increase in our market share of home purchase mortgages with LTV ratios greater than 80%. We discuss refinancings and their impact on credit risk characteristics, as well as other changes in the credit risk
- 12 -
Table of Contents
characteristics of our loan acquisitions, in more detail in “MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management.”
Whether the loans we acquire in the future will exhibit an overall credit profile similar to our more recent acquisitions will depend on a number of factors, including our future pricing and eligibility standards and those of mortgage insurers and FHA, the percentage of loan originations representing refinancings, our future objectives, government policy, market and competitive conditions, and the volume and characteristics of loans we acquire under the recently announced changes to the terms of HARP.
Expected Losses on Our Legacy Book of Business
The single-family credit losses we realized in 2009 through 2011, combined with the amounts we have reserved for single-family credit losses as of December 31, 2011, as described below, total approximately $140 billion. A substantial majority of these losses are attributable to single-family loans we purchased or guaranteed from 2005 through 2008.
While loans we acquired in 2005 through 2008 will give rise to additional credit losses that we will realize when the loans are charged off (upon foreclosure or our acceptance of a short sale or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure), we estimate that we have reserved for the substantial majority of the remaining losses on these loans. Even though we believe a substantial majority of the credit losses we have yet to realize on these loans has already been reflected in our results of operations as credit-related expenses, our credit-related expenses have remained high as weakness in the housing and mortgage markets continues. We expect that our credit-related expenses will continue to be high in 2012 but that, overall, our credit-related expenses will be lower in 2012 than in 2011. The amount of credit-related expenses we incur each period will be affected by changes in expected and actual home prices, modifications and foreclosure activity during the period.
We expect our loss reserves will remain significantly elevated relative to historical levels for an extended period because (1) we expect future defaults on loans in our legacy book of business and the resulting charge-offs will occur over a period of years and (2) a significant portion of our reserves represents concessions granted to borrowers upon modification of their loans and will remain in our reserves until the loans are fully repaid or default. In addition, given the large existing and anticipated supply of single-family homes in the market, we anticipate that it will take years before our REO inventory is reduced to pre-2008 levels.
We show how we calculate our realized credit losses in “Table 15: Credit Loss Performance Metrics.” Our reserves for credit losses described in this discussion consist of (1) our allowance for loan losses, (2) our allowance for accrued interest receivable, (3) our allowance for preforeclosure property taxes and insurance receivables, and (4) our reserve for guaranty losses (collectively, our “total loss reserves”), plus the portion of fair value losses on loans purchased out of unconsolidated MBS trusts reflected in our consolidated balance sheets that we estimate represents accelerated credit losses we expect to realize. For more information on our reserves for credit losses, see “Table 11: Total Loss Reserves.”
The fair value losses that we consider part of our reserves are not included in our “total loss reserves.” We recorded the majority of these fair value losses prior to our adoption in 2010 of accounting guidance on the transfers of financial assets and the consolidation of variable interest entities. Before we adopted this guidance, upon our acquisition of credit-impaired loans out of unconsolidated MBS trusts, we recorded fair value loss charge-offs against our reserve for guaranty losses. The amount of these charge-offs was the amount by which the acquisition cost of these loans exceeded their estimated fair value. We expect to realize a portion of these fair value losses as credit losses in the future (for loans that eventually involve foreclosures, short sales or deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure), yet these fair value losses have already reduced the mortgage loan balances reflected in our consolidated balance sheets and have effectively been recognized in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss through our provision for guaranty losses. We consider these fair value losses as an “effective reserve,” apart from our total loss reserves, to the extent that we expect to realize these amounts as credit losses on the acquired loans in the future.
- 13 -
Table of Contents
Reducing Credit Losses on Our Legacy Book of Business
To reduce the credit losses we ultimately incur on our legacy book of business, we have been focusing our efforts on the following strategies:
| • | Reducing defaults by offering borrowers solutions that enable them to keep their homes (“home retention solutions”); |
| • | Pursuing “foreclosure alternatives,” which help borrowers avoid foreclosure and reduce the severity of the losses we incur overall; |
| • | Efficiently managing timelines for home retention solutions, foreclosure alternatives, and foreclosures; |
| • | Improving servicing standards and servicers’ execution and consistency; |
| • | Managing our REO inventory to minimize costs and maximize sales proceeds; and |
| • | Pursuing contractual remedies from lenders, servicers and providers of credit enhancement. |
As we work to reduce credit losses, we also seek to assist distressed borrowers, help stabilize communities, and support the housing market. In dealing with distressed borrowers, we first seek home retention solutions before turning to foreclosure alternatives. When there is no viable home retention solution or foreclosure alternative that can be applied, we seek to move to foreclosure expeditiously. Prolonged delinquencies hurt local home values and destabilize communities, as these homes often go into disrepair. As a general rule, the longer borrowers remain delinquent, the greater our costs, and the more prices for surrounding homes deteriorate.
Reducing Defaults. Home retention solutions are a key element of our strategy to reduce defaults, and the majority of our home retention solutions are loan modifications. Successful modifications allow borrowers who were having problems making their pre-modification mortgage payments to remain in their homes. While loan modifications contribute to higher credit-related expenses in the near term, we believe that successful modifications (those that enable borrowers to remain current on their loans) will ultimately reduce our credit losses over the long term from what they otherwise would have been if we had taken the loans to foreclosure. We completed approximately 213,000 loan modifications in 2011, bringing the total number of loan modifications we have completed since January 2009 to over 715,000. The substantial majority of these modifications involved deferring or lowering borrowers’ monthly mortgage payments, which we believe increases the likelihood borrowers will be able to remain current on their modified loans. Borrowers’ ability to pay their modified loans has improved in recent periods as we have enhanced the structure of our modifications. For loans modified outside of HAMP, one year after modification, 67% of modifications we made in the fourth quarter of 2010 were performing, compared with 50% of our fourth quarter 2009 modifications. For loans modified under HAMP, one year after modification, 74% of our HAMP modifications made in the fourth quarter of 2010 were performing, compared with 73% of our HAMP modifications made in the fourth quarter of 2009. We began changing the structure of our non-HAMP modifications in 2010 to lower borrowers’ monthly mortgage payments to a greater extent, which improved the performance of our non-HAMP modifications overall. In addition, because post-modification performance was greater for our HAMP modifications than for our non-HAMP modifications, we began in September 2010 to include trial periods for our non-HAMP modifications, similar to those for HAMP modifications. Whether modifications are ultimately successful depends heavily on economic factors, such as unemployment rates, household wealth and income, and home prices, as well as borrowers’ willingness to pay their loans. See “Table 46: Statistics on Single-Family Loan Workouts” and the accompanying discussion for additional information on our home retention efforts, as well as our foreclosure alternatives. For a description of the impact of modifications on our credit-related expenses, see “Consolidated Results of Operations—Credit-Related Expenses—Provision for Credit Losses.”
Pursuing Foreclosure Alternatives. If we are unable to provide a viable home retention solution for a distressed borrower, we seek to offer a foreclosure alternative and complete it in a timely manner. Our foreclosure alternatives are primarily short sales, which are also known as preforeclosure sales, as well as deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure. Overall, these alternatives reduce the severity of our loss resulting from a borrower’s default while
- 14 -
Table of Contents
enabling the borrower to avoid going through a foreclosure. We provide information about the volume of foreclosure alternatives we completed in 2011 in “Table 4: Credit Statistics, Single-Family Guaranty Book of Business.”
Managing Timelines for Workouts and Foreclosures. We refer to home retention solutions and foreclosure alternatives as “workouts.” We believe that home retention solutions are most effective in preventing defaults when completed at an early stage of delinquency. Similarly, our foreclosure alternatives are more likely to be successful in reducing our loss severity if they are executed expeditiously. Accordingly, it is important to us for our servicers to work with delinquent borrowers early in the delinquency to determine whether home retention solutions or foreclosure alternatives will be viable and, where no workout solution is viable, to reduce delays in completing foreclosure.
Circumstances in the foreclosure environment have resulted in foreclosures proceeding at a slow pace. As a result of the housing market downturn that began in 2006 and significantly worsened in 2008, the volume of foreclosures to be processed by servicers and states significantly increased in 2009 and the first nine months of 2010. In October 2010, a number of single-family mortgage servicers temporarily halted some or all of the foreclosures they were processing after discovering deficiencies in their foreclosure processes and the processes of their service providers. In response to the foreclosure process deficiencies, some states changed their foreclosure processes to require additional review and verification of the accuracy of pending and future foreclosure filings. Some states also added requirements to the foreclosure process, including mediation processes and requirements to file new affidavits. Further, some state courts have issued rulings calling into question the validity of some existing foreclosure practices. These actions halted or significantly delayed not only existing, but new foreclosures. In addition to the new legislative, regulatory, and judicial requirements applicable to servicers generally, five of the nation’s largest mortgage servicers (Bank of America Corporation, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Company, Citigroup Inc., and Ally Financial Inc. (formerly GMAC)) have agreed in principle to implement certain new servicing and foreclosure practices as part of a settlement announced February 9, 2012, with the federal government and 49 state attorneys general.
While servicers have generally ended their outright foreclosure halts, they continue to process foreclosures at a slow pace as they update their procedures to remediate their process deficiencies and meet new legislative, regulatory and judicial requirements. Servicers and states are also dealing with the backlog of foreclosures resulting from these delays and from the elevated level of foreclosures resulting from the housing market downturn.
Foreclosures generally take longer to complete in states where judicial foreclosures are required than in states where non-judicial foreclosures are permitted. For foreclosures completed in 2011, measuring from the last monthly period for which the borrowers fully paid their mortgages to when we added the related properties to our REO inventory, the average number of days it took to ultimately foreclose ranged from a low of 391 days in Missouri, a non-judicial foreclosure state, to a high of 890 days in Florida, a judicial foreclosure state. As of December 31, 2011, Florida accounted for 30% of our loans that were in the foreclosure process.
The slow pace of foreclosures has significantly impacted our ability to reduce our serious delinquency rate. The serious delinquency rate for our single-family conventional loans decreased from 5.38% as of December 31, 2009 to 3.91% as of December 31, 2011, driven by our home retention solutions, as well as foreclosure alternatives and completed foreclosures. The decrease is also attributable to our acquisition of loans with stronger credit profiles since the beginning of 2009, as these loans are now more than 50% of our single-family guaranty book of business, resulting in a smaller percentage of our loans becoming seriously delinquent. While workouts reduced our population of seriously delinquent loans, for some seriously delinquent loans no workout solution is viable. Longer foreclosure timelines result in these loans remaining in our book of business for a longer time, which has caused our serious delinquency rate to decrease more slowly in the last year than it would have if the pace of foreclosures had been faster. Extended foreclosure timelines also increase our costs of holding loans in the foreclosure process. In addition, to the extent home prices decline while foreclosure proceedings are drawn out, the proceeds we ultimately receive from the sale of the foreclosed properties will be lower. We believe the
- 15 -
Table of Contents
changes in the foreclosure environment discussed above will continue to negatively affect our single-family serious delinquency rates, foreclosure timelines and credit-related expenses. Moreover, we believe these conditions will delay the recovery of the housing market because it will take longer to clear the market’s supply of distressed homes. Distressed homes typically sell at a discount compared to non-distressed homes and, therefore, a lingering population of distressed homes will continue to negatively affect overall home prices. See “Risk Factors” for further information about the potential impact of the foreclosure process deficiencies and resulting changes in the foreclosure environment on our business, results of operations, financial condition and net worth.
Improving Servicing Standards and Execution. The performance of our mortgage servicers is critical to our success in reducing defaults, completing foreclosure alternatives and managing workout and foreclosure timelines efficiently, because servicers are the primary point of contact with borrowers. Improving servicing standards is therefore a key aspect of our strategy to reduce our credit losses. We are taking a number of steps to improve the servicing of our delinquent loans.
| • | In June 2011, we issued new standards for mortgage servicers under FHFA’s Servicing Alignment Initiative. The initiative is aimed at establishing consistency in the servicing of delinquent loans owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Among other things, the new servicing standards, which became effective October 1, 2011, are designed to result in earlier, more frequent and more effective contact with borrowers and to improve servicer performance by providing servicers monetary incentives for exceeding loan workout benchmarks and by imposing fees on servicers for failing to meet loan workout benchmarks or foreclosure timelines. |
| • | In some cases, we transfer servicing on loan populations that include loans with higher-risk characteristics to special servicers with whom we have worked to develop high-touch protocols for servicing these loans. These protocols include lowering the ratio of loans per servicer employee, prescribing borrower outreach strategies to be used at early stages of delinquency, and providing distressed borrowers a single point of contact to resolve issues. Transferring servicing on higher-risk loans enables the borrowers (and loans) to benefit from these high-touch protocols while increasing the original servicer’s capacity to service the remaining loans, creating an opportunity to improve service to the remaining borrowers. |
| • | In September 2011, we issued our first ratings of servicers’ performance under our Servicer Total Achievement and Rewards (“STAR”) program. The STAR program is designed to encourage improvements in customer service and foreclosure prevention outcomes for homeowners by rating servicers on their performance in these areas. |
While we believe these steps will improve the servicing of our loans, ultimately we are dependent on servicers’ willingness, efficiency and ability to implement our home retention solutions and foreclosure alternatives, and to manage timelines for workouts and foreclosures.
Managing Our REO Inventory. Efficient management of our REO inventory of homes acquired through deed-in-lieu of foreclosure or foreclosure is another critical element of our strategy for reducing credit losses. Since January 2009, we have strengthened our REO sales capabilities by increasing resources, as we continue to manage our REO inventory to minimize costs and maximize sales proceeds. As Table 4 shows, the volume of our property dispositions increased in 2010 and 2011.
Neighborhood stabilization is a core principle in our approach to managing our REO inventory. As a result, we seek to keep properties in good condition and, in some cases, repair them to make them more marketable. Our goal is to obtain the highest price possible for the properties we sell. In 2011, we completed repairs to approximately 89,800 properties sold from our single-family REO inventory, at an average cost of approximately $6,200 per property. Repairing REO properties increases sales to owner occupants and increases financing options for REO buyers. In addition, we encourage homeownership through our “First Look” marketing period. During this “First Look” period, owner occupants, some nonprofit organizations and public entities may submit offers and purchase properties without competition from investors. Approximately 145,000 of the 244,000 single-family properties we sold in 2011 were purchased by owner occupants, nonprofit organizations or public entities.
- 16 -
Table of Contents
We currently lease properties to tenants who occupied the properties before we acquired them into our REO inventory, which can minimize disruption by providing additional time to find alternate housing, help stabilize local communities, provide us with rental income, and support our compliance with federal and state laws protecting tenants in foreclosed properties. As of December 31, 2011, over 9,000 tenants leased our REO properties.
The changing foreclosure environment discussed above has delayed our acquisitions of REO properties. Given the large number of seriously delinquent loans in our single-family guaranty book of business and the large existing and anticipated supply of single-family homes in the market, we expect it will take years before our REO inventory approaches pre-2008 levels.
In February 2012, FHFA announced that it was beginning the pilot phase of an REO initiative that will allow qualified investors to purchase pools of foreclosed properties from us with the requirement to rent the purchased properties for a specified number of years. During the pilot phase, we will offer for sale pools of various types of assets including rental properties, vacant properties and nonperforming loans with a focus on the hardest-hit areas. The pilot transactions are expected to provide insight into how the participation of private investors can maximize the value of foreclosed properties and stabilize communities. We do not yet know whether this initiative will have a material impact on our future REO sales and REO inventory levels.
Pursuing Contractual Remedies. We conduct targeted reviews of our loans and, when we discover loans that do not meet our underwriting or eligibility requirements, we may make demands for lenders to repurchase these loans or compensate us for losses sustained on the loans. We also make demands for lenders to repurchase or compensate us for loans for which the mortgage insurer rescinds coverage. The volume of our repurchase requests remained high in 2011, and we expect it to continue to remain high.
We requested lenders to repurchase from us or reimburse us for losses associated with loans with an unpaid principal balance of $23.8 billion during 2011. As of December 31, 2011, approximately 57% of these requests had been successfully resolved through repurchase, reimbursement or other remedies, and approximately 40% remained outstanding. Also as of December 31, 2011, approximately 90% of the $13.1 billion in repurchase requests we made in 2010, as measured by unpaid principal balance, had been successfully resolved, and approximately 5% remained outstanding. During 2011, lenders repurchased from us or reimbursed us for losses on approximately $11.5 billion in loans, measured by unpaid principal balance, pursuant to their contractual obligations. In addition, as of December 31, 2011, we had outstanding requests for lenders to repurchase from us or reimburse us for losses on $10.4 billion in loans, of which 30% had been outstanding for more than 120 days.
These dollar amounts represent the unpaid principal balance of the loans underlying the repurchase requests, not the actual amounts we have received or requested from the lenders. When lenders pay us for these requests, they pay us either to repurchase the loans or else to make us whole for our losses in cases where we have acquired and disposed of the property underlying the loans. Make-whole payments are typically for less than the unpaid principal balance because we have already recovered some of the original unpaid loan balance through the sale of the REO. As a result, our actual cash receipts relating to these outstanding repurchase requests are significantly lower than the unpaid principal balance of the loans.
In cases where a lender fails to timely honor its repurchase obligations to us, we may take additional steps to address the issue, including requiring the lender to post collateral, suspending all or a portion of our agreements with the lender, or even terminating our arrangements to acquire new loans from them. We discuss our repurchase requests and the steps we may take to address lenders’ failures to honor their repurchase obligations in “MD&A—Risk Management—Institutional Counterparty Credit Risk Management—Mortgage Seller/Servicers.”
We are also pursuing contractual remedies from providers of credit enhancement on our loans, including mortgage insurers. We received proceeds under our mortgage insurance policies for single-family loans of $5.8 billion in 2011. See “Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Institutional Counterparty Credit Risk
- 17 -
Table of Contents
Management” for a discussion of our repurchase and reimbursement requests and outstanding receivables from mortgage insurers, as well as the risk that one or more of these counterparties fails to fulfill its obligations to us.
Impact of Our Actions to Reduce Our Credit Losses. We believe the actions we have taken to stabilize the housing market and minimize our credit losses will reduce our future credit losses below what they otherwise would have been. However, continuing change in broader market conditions makes it difficult to predict how effective these actions ultimately will be in reducing our credit losses. Moreover, it will be difficult to measure the ultimate impact of our actions, given that current conditions in the housing market are unprecedented.
For more information on the strategies and actions we are taking to minimize our credit losses, see “Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management.”
Credit Performance
Table 4 presents information for each quarter of 2011 and for 2010 about the credit performance of mortgage loans in our single-family guaranty book of business and our workouts. The workout information in Table 4 does not reflect repayment plans and forbearances that have been initiated but not completed, nor does it reflect trial modifications that have not become permanent.
Table 4: Credit Statistics, Single-Family Guaranty Book of Business(1)
| 2011 | 2010 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Full | Full | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Year | Q4 | Q3 | Q2 | Q1 | Year | |||||||||||||||||||
| (Dollars in millions) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| As of the end of each period: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Serious delinquency rate(2) |
3.91 | % | 3.91 | % | 4.00 | % | 4.08 | % | 4.27 | % | 4.48 | % | ||||||||||||
| Seriously delinquent loan count |
690,911 | 690,911 | 708,847 | 729,772 | 767,161 | 801,640 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Nonperforming loans(3) |
$ | 248,379 | $ | 248,379 | $ | 248,134 | $ | 245,848 | $ | 248,444 | $ | 251,631 | ||||||||||||
| Foreclosed property inventory: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Number of properties |
118,528 | 118,528 | 122,616 | 135,719 | 153,224 | 162,489 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Carrying value |
$ | 9,692 | $ | 9,692 | $ | 11,039 | $ | 12,480 | $ | 14,086 | $ | 14,955 | ||||||||||||
| Combined loss reserves(4) |
$ | 71,512 | $ | 71,512 | $ | 70,741 | $ | 68,887 | $ | 66,240 | $ | 60,163 | ||||||||||||
| Total loss reserves (5) |
$ | 75,264 | $ | 75,264 | $ | 73,973 | $ | 73,116 | $ | 70,466 | $ | 64,469 | ||||||||||||
| During the period: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Foreclosed property (number of properties): |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Acquisitions(6) |
199,696 | 47,256 | 45,194 | 53,697 | 53,549 | 262,078 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Dispositions |
(243,657 | ) | (51,344 | ) | (58,297 | ) | (71,202 | ) | (62,814 | ) | (185,744 | ) | ||||||||||||
| Credit-related expenses(7) |
$ | 27,218 | $ | 5,397 | $ | 4,782 | $ | 5,933 | $ | 11,106 | $ | 26,420 | ||||||||||||
| Credit losses(8) |
$ | 18,346 | $ | 4,548 | $ | 4,384 | $ | 3,810 | $ | 5,604 | $ | 23,133 | ||||||||||||
| Loan workout activity (number of loans): |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Home retention loan workouts(9) |
248,658 | 60,453 | 68,227 | 59,019 | 60,959 | 440,276 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Short sales and deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure |
79,833 | 22,231 | 19,306 | 21,176 | 17,120 | 75,391 | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Total loan workouts |
328,491 | 82,684 | 87,533 | 80,195 | 78,079 | 515,667 | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Loan workouts as a percentage of delinquent loans in our guaranty book of business(10) |
27.05 | % | 27.24 | % | 28.39 | % | 25.71 | % | 25.01 | % | 37.30 | % | ||||||||||||
| (1) | Our single-family guaranty book of business consists of (a) single-family mortgage loans held in our mortgage portfolio, (b) single-family mortgage loans underlying Fannie Mae MBS, and (c) other credit enhancements that we provide on |
- 18 -
Table of Contents
| single-family mortgage assets, such as long-term standby commitments. It excludes non-Fannie Mae mortgage-related securities held in our mortgage portfolio for which we do not provide a guaranty. |
| (2) | Calculated based on the number of single-family conventional loans that are three or more months past due and loans that have been referred to foreclosure but not yet foreclosed upon, divided by the number of loans in our single-family conventional guaranty book of business. We include all of the single-family conventional loans that we own and those that back Fannie Mae MBS in the calculation of the single-family serious delinquency rate. |
| (3) | Represents the total amount of nonperforming loans including troubled debt restructurings and HomeSaver Advance (“HSA”) first-lien loans. A troubled debt restructuring is a restructuring of a mortgage loan in which a concession is granted to a borrower experiencing financial difficulty. HSA first-lien loans are unsecured personal loans in the amount of past due payments used to bring mortgage loans current. We generally classify loans as nonperforming when the payment of principal or interest on the loan is two months or more past due. In December 2011, we changed our definition of “total nonperforming loans.” Under our new definition, we no longer reflect in this amount (1) our allowance for loan losses or (2) our allowance for accrued interest receivable related to these individually impaired loans. The amounts we report for prior periods have been revised from amounts we previously disclosed as a result of this change. |
| (4) | Consists of the allowance for loan losses for loans recognized in our consolidated balance sheets and the reserve for guaranty losses related to both single-family loans backing Fannie Mae MBS that we do not consolidate in our consolidated balance sheets and single-family loans that we have guaranteed under long-term standby commitments. For additional information on the change in our loss reserves see “Consolidated Results of Operations—Credit-Related Expenses—Provision for Credit Losses.” |
| (5) | Consists of (a) the combined loss reserves, (b) allowance for accrued interest receivable, and (c) allowance for preforeclosure property taxes and insurance receivables. |
| (6) | Includes acquisitions through deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure. |
| (7) | Consists of the provision for loan losses, the provision (benefit) for guaranty losses and foreclosed property expense (income). |
| (8) | Consists of (a) charge-offs, net of recoveries and (b) foreclosed property expense; adjusted to exclude the impact of fair value losses resulting from credit-impaired loans acquired from MBS trusts. |
| (9) | Consists of (a) modifications, which do not include trial modifications or repayment plans or forbearances that have been initiated but not completed; (b) repayment plans and forbearances completed and (c) HomeSaver Advance first-lien loans. See “Table 46: Statistics on Single-Family Loan Workouts” in “Risk Management—Credit Risk Management” for additional information on our various types of loan workouts. |
| (10) | Calculated based on annualized problem loan workouts during the period as a percentage of delinquent loans in our single-family guaranty book of business as of the end of the period. |
Our single-family serious delinquency rate has decreased each quarter since the first quarter of 2010. The decrease in our serious delinquency rate is the result of home retention solutions, as well as foreclosure alternatives and completed foreclosures. The decrease is also attributable to our acquisition of loans with stronger credit profiles since the beginning of 2009, as these loans are now more than 50% of our single-family guaranty book of business, resulting in a smaller percentage of our loans becoming seriously delinquent.
Although our single-family serious delinquency rate has decreased significantly since the first quarter of 2010, our serious delinquency rate and the period of time that loans remain seriously delinquent has been negatively affected in recent periods by the increase in the average number of days it is taking to complete a foreclosure. As described in “Reducing Credit Losses on Our Legacy Book of Business—Managing Timelines for Workouts and Foreclosures,” high levels of foreclosures, continuing issues in the servicer foreclosure process and new legislative, regulatory and judicial requirements have lengthened the time it takes to foreclose on a mortgage loan in many states. We expect serious delinquency rates will continue to be affected in the future by home price changes, changes in other macroeconomic conditions, the length of the foreclosure process, the volume of loan modifications, and the extent to which borrowers with modified loans continue to make timely payments.
We provide additional information on our credit-related expenses in “Consolidated Results of Operations—Credit-Related Expenses” and on the credit performance of mortgage loans in our single-family book of business and our loan workouts in “Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management.”
- 19 -
Table of Contents
Liquidity
During 2011, we issued a variety of non-callable and callable debt securities in a wide range of maturities to achieve cost-efficient funding and to extend our debt maturity profile. We believe that our ready access to debt funding since the beginning of 2009 has been primarily due to the actions taken by the federal government to support us and the financial markets. Accordingly, we believe that continued federal government support of our business and the financial markets, as well as our status as a GSE, are essential to maintaining our access to debt funding. Changes or perceived changes in the government’s support could materially and adversely affect our ability to refinance our debt as it becomes due, which could have a material adverse impact on our liquidity, financial condition, results of operations and ability to continue as a going concern. Demand for our debt securities could decline in the future, as the Administration, Congress and our regulators debate our future. See “MD&A—Liquidity and Capital Management—Liquidity Management” for more information on our debt funding activities and “Risk Factors” for a discussion of the risks to our business posed by our reliance on the issuance of debt securities to fund our operations.
Outlook
Overall Market Conditions. We expect weakness in the housing and mortgage markets to continue in 2012. The high level of delinquent mortgage loans will ultimately result in high levels of foreclosures, which is likely to add to the excess housing inventory.
We expect that single-family default and severity rates, as well as the level of single-family foreclosures, will remain high in 2012. Despite signs of multifamily sector improvement at the national level, we expect multifamily charge-offs in 2012 to remain generally commensurate with 2011 levels as certain local markets and properties continue to exhibit weak fundamentals. Conditions may worsen if the unemployment rate increases on either a national or regional basis.
We expect that changes to HARP announced in October 2011, which we discuss in “Making Home Affordable Program,” will result in our acquiring more refinancings in 2012 than we would have acquired in the absence of the changes. However, we expect fewer refinancings overall in 2012 than in 2011 because a high number of mortgages have already refinanced to low rates in recent years. As a result, we expect our loan acquisitions for 2012 will be lower than in 2011. Our loan acquisitions also could be negatively affected by the decrease in the maximum size of loans we may acquire in specified high-cost areas from $729,750 to $625,500 beginning in the fourth quarter of 2011. As our acquisitions decline, our future revenues will be negatively impacted.
We estimate that total originations in the U.S. single-family mortgage market in 2012 will decrease from 2011 levels by approximately 23%, from an estimated $1.4 trillion to an estimated $1.1 trillion, and that the amount of originations in the U.S. single-family mortgage market that are refinancings will decline from approximately $896 billion to approximately $568 billion. Refinancings comprised approximately 76% of our single-family business volume in 2011, compared with 78% in 2010.
Home Price Declines. We estimate that U.S. home prices have declined by 23% from their peak in the third quarter of 2006. While the rate of decline in home prices has moderated in recent quarters, we expect that home prices on a national basis will decline further before stabilizing in 2013. We currently expect a peak-to-trough home price decline on a national basis ranging from 23% to 30%, but believe that it would take the occurrence of an additional adverse economic event to reach the high end of the range. Future home price changes may be very different from our estimates as a result of significant inherent uncertainty in the current market environment, including uncertainty about the effect of actions the federal government has taken and may take with respect to tax policies, mortgage finance programs and policies and housing finance reform; the management of the Federal Reserve’s MBS holdings; and the impact of those actions on home prices, unemployment and the general economic and interest rate environment. Because of these uncertainties, the actual home price decline we experience may differ significantly from these estimates. We also expect significant regional variation in home price declines and stabilization.
- 20 -
Table of Contents
Our estimates of home price declines are based on our home price index, which is calculated differently from the S&P/Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index and therefore results in different percentages for comparable declines. Our 23% to 30% peak-to-trough home price decline estimate corresponds to an approximate 32% to 40% peak-to-trough decline using the S&P/Case-Shiller index method. Our estimates differ from the S&P/Case-Shiller index in two principal ways: (1) our estimates weight expectations by number of properties, whereas the S&P/Case-Shiller index weights expectations based on property value, causing home price changes on higher priced homes to have a greater effect on the overall result; and (2) the S&P/Case-Shiller index includes sales of foreclosed homes while our estimates attempt to exclude foreclosed home sales, because we believe that differing maintenance practices and the forced nature of the sales make foreclosed home prices less representative of market values. We believe, however, that the impact of sales of foreclosed homes is indirectly reflected in our estimates as a result of their impact on the pricing of non- distressed sales. We estimate S&P/Case-Shiller comparison numbers by adjusting our internal home price estimates to compensate for the principal differences—weighting based on property value and including foreclosed property sales. In addition to these differences, our estimates are based on our own internally available data combined with publicly available data, and are therefore based on data collected nationwide, whereas the S&P/Case-Shiller index is based on publicly available data, which may be limited in certain geographic areas of the country. Our comparative calculations to the S&P/Case-Shiller index provided above are not adjusted to compensate for this data pool difference.
Credit-Related Expenses and Credit Losses. Our credit-related expenses, which include our provision for credit losses, reflect our recognition of losses on our loans. Through our provision for credit losses, we recognize credit-related expenses on loans in the period in which we determine that we have incurred a probable loss on the loans as of the end of the period, or in which we have granted concessions to the borrowers. Accordingly, our credit-related expenses in each period are affected by changes in actual and expected home prices, borrower payment behavior, the types and volumes of loss mitigation activities and foreclosures we complete, and estimated recoveries from our lender and mortgage insurer counterparties. Our credit losses, which include our charge-offs, net of recoveries, reflect our realization of losses on our loans. We realize losses on loans, through our charge-offs, when foreclosure sales are completed or when we accept short sales or deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure. We expect that our credit-related expenses will remain high in 2012 but that, overall, our credit-related expenses will be lower in 2012 than in 2011. We expect our credit losses in 2012 to remain high. To the extent delays in foreclosures continue in 2012, our realization of some credit losses will be delayed. We further describe our credit loss outlook in “Our Strong New Book of Business and Expected Losses on our Legacy Book of Business—Expected Losses on Our Legacy Book of Business.”
Uncertainty Regarding our Long-Term Financial Sustainability and Future Status. There is significant uncertainty in the current market environment, and any changes in the trends in macroeconomic factors that we currently anticipate, such as home prices and unemployment, may cause our future credit-related expenses and credit losses to vary significantly from our current expectations. Although Treasury’s funds under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement permit us to remain solvent and avoid receivership, the resulting dividend payments are substantial. We do not expect to earn profits in excess of our annual dividend obligation to Treasury for the indefinite future. In his February 2012 letter to Congress, the Acting Director of FHFA wrote, “[I]t is clear that the draws [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] have taken from the Treasury are so large they cannot be repaid under any foreseeable scenarios.” We expect to request additional draws under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement in future periods, which will further increase the dividends we owe to Treasury on the senior preferred stock. We expect that, over time, our dividend obligation to Treasury will constitute an increasing portion of our future draws under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement. As a result of these factors, there is significant uncertainty about our long-term financial sustainability.
In addition, there is significant uncertainty regarding the future of our company, including how long the company will continue to be in its current form, the extent of our role in the market, what form we will have, and what ownership interest, if any, our current common and preferred stockholders will hold in us after the conservatorship is terminated. We expect this uncertainty to continue. In February 2011, Treasury and HUD released a report to Congress on reforming America’s housing finance market. The report states that the Administration will work with FHFA to determine the best way to responsibly wind down both Fannie Mae and
- 21 -
Table of Contents
Freddie Mac. The report emphasizes the importance of providing the necessary financial support to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the transition period. On February 2, 2012, Treasury Secretary Geithner stated that the Administration intended to release new details around approaches to housing finance reform, including winding down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in the spring of 2012 and to work with Congressional leaders to explore options for legislation, but that he does not expect housing finance reform legislation to be enacted in 2012.
We cannot predict the prospects for the enactment, timing or content of legislative proposals regarding long-term reform of the GSEs. See “Legislative and Regulatory Developments” for a discussion of recent legislative reform of the financial services industry and proposals for GSE reform that could affect our business. See “Risk Factors” for a discussion of the risks to our business relating to the uncertain future of our company.
| MORTGAGE SECURITIZATIONS |
We support market liquidity by securitizing mortgage loans, which means we place loans in a trust and Fannie Mae MBS backed by the mortgage loans are then issued. We guarantee to the MBS trust that we will supplement amounts received by the MBS trust as required to permit timely payment of principal and interest on the trust certificates. In return for this guaranty, we receive guaranty fees.
Below we discuss (1) two broad categories of securitization transactions: lender swaps and portfolio securitizations; (2) features of our MBS trusts; (3) circumstances under which we purchase loans from MBS trusts; and (4) single-class and multi-class Fannie Mae MBS.
Lender Swaps and Portfolio Securitizations
We currently securitize a majority of the single-family and multifamily mortgage loans we acquire. Our securitization transactions primarily fall within two broad categories: lender swap transactions and portfolio securitizations.
Our most common type of securitization transaction is our “lender swap transaction.” Mortgage lenders that operate in the primary mortgage market generally deliver pools of mortgage loans to us in exchange for Fannie Mae MBS backed by these mortgage loans. A pool of mortgage loans is a group of mortgage loans with similar characteristics. After receiving the mortgage loans in a lender swap transaction, we place them in a trust that is established for the sole purpose of holding the mortgage loans separate and apart from our assets. We deliver to the lender (or its designee) Fannie Mae MBS that are backed by the pool of mortgage loans in the trust and that represent an undivided beneficial ownership interest in each of the mortgage loans. We guarantee to each MBS trust that we will supplement amounts received by the MBS trust as required to permit timely payment of principal and interest on the related Fannie Mae MBS. We retain a portion of the interest payment as the fee for providing our guaranty. Then, on behalf of the trust, we make monthly distributions to the Fannie Mae MBS certificateholders from the principal and interest payments and other collections on the underlying mortgage loans. The structured securitization transactions we describe below in “Business Segments—Capital Markets—Securitization Activities” involve a process that is very similar to the process involved in our lender swap securitizations.
In contrast to our lender swap securitizations, in which lenders deliver pools of mortgage loans to us that we immediately place in a trust for securitization, our “portfolio securitization transactions” involve creating and issuing Fannie Mae MBS using mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities that we hold in our mortgage portfolio.
Features of Our MBS Trusts
We serve as trustee for our MBS trusts, each of which is established for the sole purpose of holding mortgage loans separate and apart from our assets. Our MBS trusts hold either single-family or multifamily mortgage loans or mortgage-related securities. Each trust operates in accordance with a trust agreement or a trust indenture. Each MBS trust is also governed by an issue supplement documenting the formation of that MBS trust, the
- 22 -
Table of Contents
identification of its related assets and the issuance of the related Fannie Mae MBS. The trust agreement or the trust indenture, together with the issue supplement and any amendments, are considered the “trust documents” that govern an individual MBS trust.
Purchases of Loans from our MBS Trusts
Under the terms of our MBS trust documents, we have the option or, in some instances, the obligation, to purchase mortgage loans that meet specific criteria from an MBS trust. For example, we have the option under the terms of the trust documents to purchase a loan from an MBS trust if the loan is delinquent as to four or more consecutive monthly payments. We generally have the obligation to purchase a mortgage loan from an MBS trust when the mortgage loan is delinquent as to 24 consecutive monthly payments. Our acquisition cost for these loans is the unpaid principal balance of the loan plus accrued interest.
In deciding whether and when to exercise our option to purchase a loan from a single-family MBS trust, we consider a variety of factors, including: our legal ability to purchase loans under the terms of the trust documents; whether we have agreed to modify the loan, which we cannot do while it remains in the trust; our mission and public policy; our loss mitigation strategies and the exposure to credit losses we face under our guaranty; our cost of funds; the impact on our results of operations; relevant market yields; the accounting impact; the administrative costs associated with purchasing and holding the loans; counterparty exposure to lenders that have agreed to cover losses associated with delinquent loans; and general market conditions. The weight we give to these factors changes depending on market circumstances and other factors.
The cost of purchasing most delinquent loans from Fannie Mae MBS trusts and holding them in our portfolio is currently less than the cost of advancing delinquent payments to security holders. We generally purchase loans from MBS trusts as they become four or more consecutive monthly payments delinquent. During 2011, we purchased approximately $67 billion in delinquent loans from our single-family MBS trusts. We expect to continue purchasing loans from MBS trusts as they become four or more consecutive monthly payments delinquent subject to market conditions, economic benefit, servicer capacity, and other constraints, including the limit on the amount of mortgage assets that we may own pursuant to the senior preferred stock purchase agreement.
For our multifamily MBS trusts, we typically exercise our option to purchase a loan from the trust if the loan is delinquent, in whole or in part, as to four or more consecutive monthly payments.
Single-Class and Multi-Class Fannie Mae MBS
Fannie Mae MBS trusts may be single-class or multi-class. Single-class MBS are MBS in which the investors receive principal and interest payments in proportion to their percentage ownership of the MBS issuance. Multi-class MBS are MBS, including Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (“REMICs”), in which the cash flows on the underlying mortgage assets are divided, creating several classes of securities, each of which represents an undivided beneficial ownership interest in the assets of the related MBS trust and entitles the related holder to a specific portion of cash flows. Terms to maturity of some multi-class Fannie Mae MBS, particularly REMIC classes, may match or be shorter than the maturity of the underlying mortgage loans and/or mortgage-related securities. After these classes expire, cash flows received on the underlying mortgage assets are allocated to the remaining classes in accordance with the terms of the securities’ structures. As a result, each of the classes in a multi-class MBS may have a different coupon rate, average life, repayment sensitivity or final maturity. Structured Fannie Mae MBS are either multi-class MBS or single-class MBS that are typically resecuritizations of other single-class Fannie Mae MBS. In a resecuritization, pools of MBS are collected and securitized.
| BUSINESS SEGMENTS |
We have three business segments for management reporting purposes: Single-Family Credit Guaranty, Multifamily, and Capital Markets. In this report we refer to our business groups that run these segments as our “Single-Family business,” our “Multifamily business” and our “Capital Markets group.” These groups engage in complementary business activities in pursuing our mission of providing liquidity, stability and affordability to the
- 23 -
Table of Contents
U.S. housing market. These activities are summarized in the table below and described in more detail following this table. We also summarize in the table below the key sources of revenue for each of our segments and the primary expenses.
| Business Segment |
Primary Business Activities | Primary Revenues | Primary Expenses | |||
|
Single-Family Credit Guaranty, or Single-Family |
• Mortgage securitizations: Works with our lender customers to securitize single-family mortgage loans delivered to us by lenders into Fannie Mae MBS in lender swap transactions
• Mortgage acquisitions: Works with our Capital Markets group to facilitate the purchase of single-family mortgage loans
• Credit risk management: Prices and manages the credit risk on loans in our single-family guaranty book of business
• Credit loss management: Works to prevent foreclosures and reduce costs of defaulted loans through foreclosure alternatives, through management of foreclosures and REO, and through pursuing contractual remedies from lenders, servicers and providers of credit enhancement |
• Guaranty fees: Compensation for assuming and managing the credit risk on our single-family guaranty book of business
• Interest income not recognized: Consists of reimbursement costs for interest income not recognized for loans on nonaccrual status in our mortgage portfolio or in consolidated trusts, which are recorded as a reduction to our interest income
• Fee and other income: Compensation received for providing lender services |
• Credit-related expenses: Consists of provision for single-family loan losses, provision for single-family guaranty losses and foreclosed property expense on loans underlying our single-family guaranty book of business
• Administrative expenses: Consists of salaries and benefits, occupancy costs, professional services, and other expenses associated with the Single-Family business operations | |||
| Multifamily |
• Mortgage securitizations: Works with our lender customers to securitize multifamily mortgage loans delivered to us by lenders into Fannie Mae MBS in lender swap transactions
• Mortgage acquisitions: Works with our Capital Markets group to facilitate the purchase of multifamily mortgage loans
• Credit risk management: Prices and manages the credit risk on loans in our multifamily guaranty book of business
• Credit loss management: Works to prevent foreclosures and reduce costs of defaulted loans through foreclosure alternatives, through management of foreclosures and REO, and through pursuing contractual remedies from lenders, servicers and providers of credit enhancement |
• Guaranty fees: Compensation for assuming and managing the credit risk on our multifamily guaranty book of business
• Fee and other income: Compensation received for engaging in multifamily transactions and bond credit enhancements |
• Credit-related expenses: Consists of provision for multifamily loan losses, provision for multifamily guaranty losses and foreclosed property expense on loans underlying our multifamily guaranty book of business
• Administrative expenses: Consists of salaries and benefits, occupancy costs, professional services, and other expenses associated with our Multifamily business operations |
- 24 -
Table of Contents
| Business Segment |
Primary Business Activities | Primary Revenues | Primary Expenses | |||
| Capital Markets |
• Mortgage and other investments: Purchases mortgage assets and makes investments in non-mortgage interest-earning assets
• Mortgage securitizations: Purchases loans from a large group of lenders, securitizes them, and may sell the securities to dealers and investors
• Structured mortgage securitizations and other customer services: Issues structured Fannie Mae MBS for customers in exchange for a transaction fee and provides other fee-related services to our lender customers
• Interest rate risk management: Manages the interest rate risk on our portfolio by issuing a variety of debt securities in a wide range of maturities and by using derivatives |
• Net interest income: Generated from the difference between the interest income earned on our interest-earning assets and the interest expense associated with the debt funding those assets
• Fee and other income: Compensation received for providing structured transactions and other lender services |
• Fair value gains and losses: Primarily consists of fair value gains and losses on derivatives and trading securities
• Investment gains and losses: Primarily consists of gains and losses on the sale or securitization of mortgage assets
• Other-than-temporary impairment: Consists of impairment recognized on our investments
• Administrative expenses: Consists of salaries and benefits, occupancy costs, professional services, and other expenses associated with our Capital Markets business operations |
We are working on reorganizing our company by function rather than by business in order to improve our operational efficiencies and effectiveness. In future periods, we may change some of our management reporting and how we report our business segment results.
Revenues from our Business Segments
The following table displays the percentage of our total net revenues accounted for by our business segments for each of the last three years. Our prospective adoption in 2010 of revised accounting guidance on the consolidation of variable interest entities (“consolidation accounting guidance”) and transfers of financial assets had a significant impact on our financial statements. Also effective in 2010, we changed the presentation of segment financial information that is currently evaluated by management. As a result, our 2010 and 2011 segment results are not comparable to prior years’ segment results. We have not restated prior years’ results, nor have we presented 2010 and 2011 results under the old presentation, because we determined that it was impracticable to do so. For more information about changes in our segment reporting and the financial results and performance of each of our segments, please see “MD&A—Business Segment Results” and “Note 14, Segment Reporting.”
Business Segment Revenues(1)
| For the Year Ended December 31, |
||||||||||||
| 2011(2) | 2010(2) | 2009 | ||||||||||
| Single-Family Credit Guaranty |
28 | % | 12 | % | 39 | % | ||||||
| Multifamily(3) |
5 | 5 | 3 | |||||||||
| Capital Markets |
63 | 77 | 58 | |||||||||
| (1) | Amounts presented represent the percentage of our total net revenues accounted for by each of our business segments. |
| (2) | Segment results for 2011 and 2010 are not comparable with 2009 and prior years’ results. In addition, under our current segment reporting structure, the sum of net revenues for our three business segments does not equal our consolidated total |
- 25 -
Table of Contents
| net revenues because we separate the activity related to our consolidated trusts from the results generated by our three segments. |
| (3) | These amounts do not include the net interest income we earn on our multifamily investments in our mortgage portfolio, which is reflected in the revenues of our Capital Markets segment. |
Under the terms of our intracompany guaranty arrangement, Capital Markets receives reimbursements primarily from Single-Family for the contractual interest due on mortgage loans held in our portfolio when interest income on the loans is no longer recognized in accordance with our nonaccrual accounting policy. As a result, the substantial increase in the number of nonaccrual loans purchased from our consolidated MBS trusts beginning in 2010 significantly increased Capital Markets’ net revenue in 2010, while reducing the net revenues of Single-Family.
Single-Family Business
Our Single-Family business works with our lender customers to provide funds to the mortgage market by securitizing single-family mortgage loans into Fannie Mae MBS. Our Single-Family business also works with our Capital Markets group to facilitate the purchase of single-family mortgage loans for our mortgage portfolio. Our Single-Family business has primary responsibility for pricing and managing the credit risk on our single-family guaranty book of business, which consists of single-family mortgage loans underlying Fannie Mae MBS and single-family loans held in our mortgage portfolio.
A single-family loan is secured by a property with four or fewer residential units. Our Single-Family business and Capital Markets group securitize and purchase primarily conventional (not federally insured or guaranteed) single-family fixed-rate or adjustable-rate, first-lien mortgage loans, or mortgage-related securities backed by these types of loans. We also securitize or purchase loans insured by FHA, loans guaranteed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), loans guaranteed by the Rural Development Housing and Community Facilities Program of the Department of Agriculture (the “Department of Agriculture”), manufactured housing loans, subordinate-lien mortgage loans (for example, loans secured by second liens) and other mortgage-related securities.
Revenues for our Single-Family business are derived primarily from guaranty fees received as compensation for assuming the credit risk on the mortgage loans underlying single-family Fannie Mae MBS. We also allocate guaranty fee revenues to the Single-Family business for assuming and managing the credit risk on the single-family mortgage loans held in our portfolio. The aggregate amount of single-family guaranty fees we receive or that are allocated to our Single-Family business in any period depends on the amount of single-family Fannie Mae MBS outstanding and loans held in our mortgage portfolio during the period and the applicable guaranty fee rates. The amount of Fannie Mae MBS outstanding at any time is primarily determined by the rate at which we issue new Fannie Mae MBS and by the repayment rate for the loans underlying our outstanding Fannie Mae MBS. Other factors affecting the amount of Fannie Mae MBS outstanding are the extent to which (1) we purchase loans from our MBS trusts because of borrower defaults (with the amount of these purchases affected by the rate of borrower defaults on the loans and the extent of loan modification programs in which we engage) and (2) sellers and servicers repurchase loans from us upon our demand based on a breach in the selling representations and warranties provided upon delivery of the loans.
We describe the credit risk management process employed by our Single-Family business, including its key strategies in managing credit risk and key metrics used in measuring and evaluating our single-family credit risk in “MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Credit Risk Management.”
Single-Family Mortgage Securitizations and Acquisitions
Our Single-Family business securitizes single-family mortgage loans and issues single-class Fannie Mae MBS, which are described above in “Mortgage Securitizations—Single-Class and Multi-Class Fannie Mae MBS,” for our lender customers. Unlike our Capital Markets group, which securitizes loans from our portfolio, our Single-Family business securitizes loans solely in lender swap transactions, in which lenders deliver to us pools of
- 26 -
Table of Contents
mortgage loans, which are placed immediately in a trust, in exchange for Fannie Mae MBS backed by these loans. We describe lender swap transactions, and how they differ from portfolio securitizations, in “Mortgage Securitizations—Lender Swaps and Portfolio Securitizations.”
Loans from our lender customers are delivered to us through either our “flow” or “bulk” transaction channels. In our flow business, we enter into agreements that generally set agreed-upon guaranty fee prices for a lender’s future delivery of individual loans to us over a specified time period. Our bulk business generally consists of transactions in which a set of loans is delivered to us in bulk, typically with guaranty fees and other contract terms negotiated individually for each transaction.
Single-Family Mortgage Servicing, REO Management, and Lender Repurchases
Servicing
Generally, the servicing of the mortgage loans held in our mortgage portfolio or that back our Fannie Mae MBS is performed by mortgage servicers on our behalf. Typically, lenders who sell single-family mortgage loans to us service these loans for us. For loans we own or guarantee, the lender or servicer must obtain our approval before selling servicing rights to another servicer.
Our mortgage servicers typically collect and deliver principal and interest payments, administer escrow accounts, monitor and report delinquencies, perform default prevention activities, evaluate transfers of ownership interests, respond to requests for partial releases of security, and handle proceeds from casualty and condemnation losses. Our mortgage servicers are the primary point of contact for borrowers and perform a key role in the effective implementation of our homeownership assistance initiatives, negotiation of workouts of troubled loans, and loss mitigation activities. If necessary, mortgage servicers inspect and preserve properties and process foreclosures and bankruptcies. Because we generally delegate the servicing of our mortgage loans to mortgage servicers and do not have our own servicing function, our ability to actively manage troubled loans that we own or guarantee is limited. For more information on the risks of our reliance on servicers, refer to “Risk Factors” and “MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Institutional Counterparty Credit Risk Management.”
We compensate servicers primarily by permitting them to retain a specified portion of each interest payment on a serviced mortgage loan as a servicing fee. Servicers also generally retain prepayment premiums, assumption fees, late payment charges and other similar charges, to the extent they are collected from borrowers, as additional servicing compensation. We also compensate servicers for negotiating workouts on problem loans.
We discuss steps we have taken in 2011 to improve the servicing of our delinquent loans in “MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Acquisition and Servicing Policies and Underwriting and Servicing Standards.”
REO Management
In the event a loan defaults and we acquire a home through foreclosure or a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, we market and sell the home through local real estate professionals. Our primary objectives are both to minimize the severity of loss to Fannie Mae by maximizing sales prices and also to stabilize neighborhoods—to prevent empty homes from depressing home values. In cases where the property does not sell, we use alternative methods of disposition, including selling homes to cities, municipalities and other public entities, and selling properties in bulk or through public auctions.
Lender Repurchase Evaluations
We conduct post-purchase quality control file reviews to ensure that loans sold to and serviced for us meet our guidelines. If we discover violations through reviews, we issue repurchase demands to the seller and seek to collect on our repurchase claims.
- 27 -
Table of Contents
Multifamily Business
A core part of Fannie Mae’s mission is to support the U.S. multifamily housing market to help serve the nation’s rental housing needs, focusing on low- to middle-income households and communities. Multifamily mortgage loans relate to properties with five or more residential units, which may be apartment communities, cooperative properties or manufactured housing communities.
Our Multifamily business works with our lender customers to provide funds to the mortgage market by securitizing multifamily mortgage loans into Fannie Mae MBS. Through our Multifamily business, we provide liquidity and support to the U.S. multifamily housing market principally by securitizing or purchasing loans that finance multifamily rental housing properties. We also provide some limited debt financing for other construction and rehabilitation activity related to projects that complement this business. Our Multifamily business also works with our Capital Markets group to facilitate the purchase and securitization of multifamily mortgage loans and securities for Fannie Mae’s portfolio, as well as to facilitate portfolio securitization and resecuritization activities. Our multifamily guaranty book of business consists of multifamily mortgage loans underlying Fannie Mae MBS and multifamily loans and securities held in our mortgage portfolio. Our Multifamily business has primary responsibility for pricing the credit risk on our multifamily guaranty book of business and for managing the credit risk on multifamily loans and Fannie Mae MBS backed by multifamily loans that are held in our mortgage portfolio.
Revenues for our Multifamily business are derived from a variety of sources, including: (1) guaranty fees received as compensation for assuming the credit risk on the mortgage loans underlying multifamily Fannie Mae MBS and on the multifamily mortgage loans held in our portfolio and on other mortgage-related securities; (2) transaction fees associated with the multifamily business and (3) other bond credit enhancement related fees. Additionally, our Capital Markets group earns revenue that is related to our multifamily mortgage loans and securities held in our portfolio.
We describe the credit risk management process employed by our Multifamily business, along with our Multifamily Enterprise Risk Management group, including its key strategies in managing credit risk and key metrics used in measuring and evaluating our multifamily credit risk, in “MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Multifamily Mortgage Credit Risk Management.”
Key Characteristics of the Multifamily Mortgage Market and Multifamily Transactions
The multifamily mortgage market and our transactions in that market have a number of key characteristics that affect our multifamily activities and distinguish them from our activities in the single-family residential mortgage market.
| • | Funding sources: Unlike the single-family residential mortgage market in which the GSEs’ predominance makes us a driver of market standards and rates, the multifamily market is made up of a wide variety of lending sources, including commercial banks, life insurance companies, investment banks, small community banks, FHA, state and local housing finance agencies and the GSEs. |
| • | Number of lenders; lender relationships: In 2011, we executed multifamily transactions with 33 lenders. Of these, 25 lenders delivered loans to us under our Delegated Underwriting and Servicing, or DUS®, product line. In determining whether to do business with a multifamily lender, we consider the lender’s financial strength, multifamily underwriting and servicing experience, portfolio performance and willingness and ability to share in the risk of loss associated with the multifamily loans they originate. |
| • | Loan size: On average, loans in our multifamily guaranty book of business are several million dollars in size. A significant number of our multifamily loans are under $5 million, and some of our multifamily loans are greater than $25 million. |
| • | Collateral: Multifamily loans are collateralized by properties that generate cash flows and effectively operate as businesses, such as garden and high-rise apartment complexes, seniors housing communities, cooperatives, dedicated student housing and manufactured housing communities. |
- 28 -
Table of Contents
| • | Borrower profile: Most multifamily borrowers are for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships, real estate investment trusts and individuals who invest in real estate for cash flow and equity returns in exchange for their original investment in the asset. Multifamily loans are generally non-recourse to the borrower. When considering a multifamily borrower, creditworthiness is evaluated through a combination of quantitative and qualitative data including liquid assets, net worth, number of units owned, experience in a market and/or property type, multifamily portfolio performance, access to additional liquidity, debt maturities, asset/property management platform, senior management experience, reputation and lender exposure. |
| • | Borrower and lender investment: Borrowers are required to contribute cash equity into multifamily properties on which they borrow, while lenders generally share in any losses realized from the loans that we purchase. |
| • | Underwriting process: Multifamily loans require a detailed underwriting process due to factors that may include the size of the loan, the market, or the complexity of the collateral or transaction. |
| • | Term and lifecycle: In contrast to the standard 30-year single-family residential loan, multifamily loans typically have terms of 5, 7 or 10 years, with balloon payments due at maturity. |
| • | Prepayment terms: Multifamily Fannie Mae loans and MBS trade in a market in which investors expect commercial investment terms, particularly limitations on prepayments of loans and the imposition of prepayment premiums. |
Multifamily Mortgage Securitizations and Acquisitions
Our Multifamily business generally creates multifamily Fannie Mae MBS and acquires multifamily mortgage assets in the same manner as our Single-Family business, as described in “Single-Family Business—Mortgage Securitizations and Acquisitions.”
Delegated Underwriting and Servicing (DUS)
In an effort to promote product standardization in the multifamily marketplace, in 1988 Fannie Mae initiated the DUS product line for acquiring individual multifamily loans.
DUS is a unique business model in the commercial mortgage industry. The standard industry practice for a multifamily loan requires the purchaser or guarantor to underwrite or re-underwrite each loan prior to deciding whether to purchase or guaranty the loan. Under our model, DUS lenders are pre-approved and delegated the authority to underwrite and service loans on behalf of Fannie Mae. In exchange for this authority, DUS lenders are required to share with us the risk of loss over the life of the loan, generally retaining one-third of the underlying credit risk on each loan sold to Fannie Mae. Since DUS lenders share in the credit risk, the servicing fee to the lenders includes compensation for credit risk. Delegation permits lenders to respond to customers more rapidly, as the lender generally has the authority to approve a loan within prescribed parameters, which provides an important competitive advantage.
We believe our DUS model aligns the interests of the borrower, lender and Fannie Mae. Our current 25-member DUS lender network, which is comprised of large financial institutions and independent mortgage lenders, continues to be our principal source of multifamily loan deliveries.
Fannie Mae MBS secured by DUS loans are typically backed by a single mortgage loan, which is often a fixed-rate loan. Structuring MBS to be backed by a single multifamily loan facilitates securitizations by our smaller lenders.
Multifamily Mortgage Servicing
As with the servicing of single-family mortgages, multifamily mortgage servicing is typically performed by the lenders who sell the mortgages to us. Many of our multifamily mortgage servicers have agreed, as part of the
- 29 -
Table of Contents
DUS relationship, to accept loss sharing, which we believe increases the alignment of interests between us and our multifamily loan servicers. Because of our loss-sharing arrangements with our multifamily lenders, transfers of multifamily servicing rights are infrequent, and we carefully monitor all our servicing relationships and enforce our right to approve all servicing transfers. As a seller-servicer, the lender is responsible for evaluating the financial condition of properties and property owners, administering various types of agreements (including agreements regarding replacement reserves, completion or repair, and operations and maintenance), as well as conducting routine property inspections.
The Multifamily Markets in which We Operate
In the multifamily mortgage market, we aim to address the rental housing needs of a wide range of the population, from those at the lower end of the income range up through middle-income households. Our mission requires us to serve the market steadily, rather than moving in and out depending on market conditions. Through the secondary mortgage market, we support rental housing for the workforce, for senior citizens and students, and for families with the greatest economic need. Our Multifamily business is organized and operated as an integrated commercial real estate finance business, with dedicated teams that address the spectrum of multifamily housing finance needs, including the teams described below.
| • | To meet the growing need for smaller multifamily property financing, we have a team that focuses on the purchase and guarantee of multifamily loans up to $3 million ($5 million in high income areas). We purchase these loans from DUS lenders as well as small community banks and nonprofits or similar entities. Over the years, we have been an active purchaser of these loans from both DUS and non-DUS lenders and, as of December 31, 2011, they represented 69% of our multifamily guaranty book of business by loan count and 16% based on unpaid principal balance. |
| • | To serve low- and very low-income households, we also have a team that focuses exclusively on relationships with lenders financing privately-owned multifamily properties that receive public subsidies in exchange for maintaining long-term affordable rents. We enable borrowers to leverage housing programs and subsidies provided by local, state and federal agencies. These public subsidy programs are largely targeted to providing housing to families earning less than 60% of area median income (as defined by HUD) and are structured to ensure that the low and very low-income households who benefit from the subsidies pay no more than 30% of their gross monthly income for rent and utilities. As of December 31, 2011, this type of financing represented approximately 14% of our multifamily guaranty book of business, based on unpaid principal balance, including $16.1 billion in bond credit enhancements. |
Capital Markets
Our Capital Markets group manages our investment activity in mortgage-related assets and other interest-earning non-mortgage investments. We fund our investments primarily through proceeds we receive from the issuance of debt securities in the domestic and international capital markets. Our Capital Markets group has primary responsibility for managing the interest rate risk associated with our investments in mortgage assets.
The business model for our Capital Markets group has evolved in recent years. Our business activity is now focused on making short-term use of our balance sheet rather than long-term investments. As a result, our Capital Markets group works with lender customers to provide funds to the mortgage market through short-term financing and investing activities. Activities we are undertaking to provide liquidity to the mortgage market include the following:
| • | Whole Loan Conduit. Whole loan conduit activities involve our purchase of both single-family and multifamily loans principally for the purpose of securitizing them. We purchase loans from a large group of lenders and then securitize them as Fannie Mae MBS, which may then be sold to dealers and investors. |
| • | Early Funding. Lenders who deliver whole loans or pools of whole loans to us in exchange for MBS typically must wait between 30 and 45 days from the closing and settlement of the loans or pools and the issuance of the MBS. This delay may limit lenders’ ability to originate new loans. Under our early lender funding programs, we purchase whole loans or pools of loans on an accelerated basis, allowing lenders to |
- 30 -
Table of Contents
| receive quicker payment for the whole loans and pools, which replenishes their funds and allows them to originate more mortgage loans. |
| • | REMICs and Other Structured Securitizations. We issue structured Fannie Mae MBS (including REMICs), typically for our lender customers or securities dealer customers, in exchange for a transaction fee. |
| • | MBS Trading. We regularly enter into purchase and sale transactions with other market participants involving mortgage-backed securities issued by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae, which we refer to as “agency MBS”. These transactions can provide for the future delivery of mortgage-backed securities with underlying loans that share certain general characteristics (often referred to as the “TBA market”). These purchase and sale transactions also can provide for the future delivery of specifically identified mortgage-backed securities with underlying loans that have other characteristics considered desirable by some investors (often referred to as the “Specified Pools market”). Through our trading activity in the TBA and Specified Pools markets, we provide significant liquidity to the agency MBS markets. |
Securitization Activities
Our Capital Markets group is engaged in issuing both single-class and multi-class Fannie Mae MBS through both portfolio securitizations and structured securitizations involving third party assets.
| • | Portfolio securitizations. Our Capital Markets group creates single-class and multi-class Fannie Mae MBS from mortgage-related assets held in our mortgage portfolio. Our Capital Markets group may sell these Fannie Mae MBS into the secondary market or may retain the Fannie Mae MBS in our investment portfolio. |
| • | Structured securitizations: Our Capital Markets group creates single-class and multi-class structured Fannie Mae MBS, typically for our lender customers or securities dealer customers, in exchange for a transaction fee. In these transactions, the customer “swaps” a mortgage-related asset that it owns (typically a mortgage security) in exchange for a structured Fannie Mae MBS we issue. Our Capital Markets group earns transaction fees for creating structured Fannie Mae MBS for third parties. The process for issuing Fannie Mae MBS in a structured securitization is similar to the process involved in our lender swap securitizations. For more information about that process and how it differs from portfolio securitizations, please see “Mortgage Securitizations—Lender Swaps and Portfolio Securitizations.” |
For a description of single-class Fannie Mae MBS, please see “Mortgage Securitizations—Single-Class and Multi-Class Fannie Mae MBS.”
Other Customer Services
Our Capital Markets group provides our lender customers with services that include offering to purchase a wide variety of mortgage assets, including non-standard mortgage loan products; segregating customer portfolios to obtain optimal pricing for their mortgage loans; and assisting customers with hedging their mortgage business. These activities provide a significant flow of assets for our mortgage portfolio, help to create a broader market for our customers and enhance liquidity in the secondary mortgage market.
Mortgage Asset Portfolio
Although our Capital Markets group’s business activities are focused on short-term financing and investing, revenue from our Capital Markets group is derived primarily from the difference, or spread, between the interest we earn on our mortgage and non-mortgage investments and the interest we incur on the debt we issue to fund these assets. Our Capital Markets revenues are primarily derived from our mortgage asset portfolio. Over time, we expect these revenues to decrease as the maximum allowable amount of mortgage assets we may own decreases each year to 90% of the amount we were permitted to own the previous year under our senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury. See “Conservatorship and Treasury Agreements—Treasury Agreements—Covenants under Treasury Agreements” for more information on the decreasing limits on the amount of mortgage assets we are permitted to hold.
- 31 -
Table of Contents
We describe the interest rate risk management process employed by our Capital Markets group, including its key strategies in managing interest rate risk and key metrics used in measuring and evaluating our interest rate risk, in “MD&A—Risk Management—Market Risk Management, Including Interest Rate Risk.”
Investment and Financing Activities
Our Capital Markets group seeks to increase the liquidity of the mortgage market by maintaining a presence as an active investor in mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities and, in particular, supports the liquidity and value of Fannie Mae MBS in a variety of market conditions.
Our Capital Markets group funds its investments primarily through the issuance of a variety of debt securities in a wide range of maturities in the domestic and international capital markets. The most active investors in our debt securities include commercial bank portfolios and trust departments, investment fund managers, insurance companies, pension funds, state and local governments, and central banks. The approved dealers for underwriting various types of Fannie Mae debt securities may differ by funding program. See “MD&A—Liquidity and Capital Management—Liquidity Management” for information on the composition of our outstanding debt and a discussion of our liquidity and debt activity.
Our Capital Markets group’s investment and financing activities are affected by market conditions and the target rates of return that we expect to earn on the equity capital underlying our investments. Our investment activities also are subject to contractual limitations, including the provisions of the senior preferred stock agreement with Treasury, capital requirements (although our regulator has announced that these are not binding on us during conservatorship) and other regulatory constraints, to the extent described below under “Conservatorship and Treasury Agreements” and “Our Charter and Regulation of Our Activities.”
| CONSERVATORSHIP AND TREASURY AGREEMENTS |
Conservatorship
On September 6, 2008, the Director of FHFA appointed FHFA as our conservator, pursuant to its authority under the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by the Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008, or 2008 Reform Act (together, the “GSE Act”). The conservatorship is a statutory process designed to preserve and conserve our assets and property and put the company in a sound and solvent condition.
The conservatorship has no specified termination date and there continues to be uncertainty regarding the future of our company, including how long the company will continue to exist in its current form, the extent of our role in the market, what form we will have, and what ownership interest, if any, our current common and preferred stockholders will hold in us after the conservatorship is terminated. For more information on the risks to our business relating to the conservatorship and uncertainties regarding the future of our company and business, as well as the adverse effects of the conservatorship on the rights of holders of our common stock, please see “Risk Factors.”
Management of the Company during Conservatorship
Upon its appointment, the conservator immediately succeeded to (1) all rights, titles, powers and privileges of Fannie Mae, and of any shareholder, officer or director of Fannie Mae with respect to Fannie Mae and its assets, and (2) title to the books, records and assets of any other legal custodian of Fannie Mae. The conservator has since delegated specified authorities to our Board of Directors and has delegated to management the authority to conduct our day-to-day operations. The conservator retains the authority to withdraw its delegations at any time.
Our directors serve on behalf of the conservator and exercise their authority as directed by and with the approval, where required, of the conservator. Our directors do not have any duties to any person or entity except to the conservator. Accordingly, our directors are not obligated to consider the interests of the company, the holders of our equity or debt securities or the holders of Fannie Mae MBS unless specifically directed to do so by the
- 32 -
Table of Contents
conservator. In addition, the conservator directed the Board to consult with and obtain the approval of the conservator before taking action in specified areas, as described in “Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance—Corporate Governance—Conservatorship and Delegation of Authority to Board of Directors.”
Because we are in conservatorship, our common shareholders currently do not have the ability to elect directors or to vote on other matters. The conservator eliminated common and preferred stock dividends (other than dividends on the senior preferred stock issued to Treasury) during the conservatorship, and we are no longer managed with a strategy to maximize shareholder returns. In a letter to Congress dated February 2, 2010, the Acting Director of FHFA stated that we will be limited to continuing our existing core business activities and taking actions necessary to advance the goals of the conservatorship. The Acting Director also stated that FHFA does not expect that we will be a substantial buyer or seller of mortgages for our retained portfolio, except for purchases of delinquent mortgages out of our guaranteed MBS pools. For additional information about our business strategy and the goals of the conservatorship, please see “Executive Summary—Our Business Objectives and Strategy.”
Powers of the Conservator under the GSE Act
FHFA has broad powers when acting as our conservator. As conservator, FHFA can direct us to enter into contracts or enter into contracts on our behalf. Further, FHFA may transfer or sell any of our assets or liabilities (subject to limitations and post-transfer notice provisions for transfers of certain types of financial contracts), without any approval, assignment of rights or consent of any party. The GSE Act provides, however, that mortgage loans and mortgage-related assets that have been transferred to a Fannie Mae MBS trust must be held by the conservator for the beneficial owners of the Fannie Mae MBS and cannot be used to satisfy the general creditors of the company. As of February 29, 2012, FHFA has not exercised its power to transfer or sell our assets or liabilities. For more information on FHFA’s powers as conservator and the rules governing conservatorship and receivership operations for the GSEs, please see “Our Charter and Regulation of Our Activities—Regulation and Oversight of Our Activities—Receivership.”
Neither the conservatorship nor the terms of our agreements with Treasury change our obligation to make required payments on our debt securities or perform under our mortgage guaranty obligations.
Under the GSE Act, FHFA must place us into receivership if the Director of FHFA makes a written determination that our assets are less than our obligations (that is, we have a net worth deficit) or if we have not been paying our debts, in either case, for a period of 60 days. In addition, the Director of FHFA may place us in receivership at his discretion at any time for other reasons, including conditions that FHFA has already asserted existed at the time the Director of FHFA placed us into conservatorship. Placement into receivership would have a material adverse effect on holders of our common stock, preferred stock, debt securities and Fannie Mae MBS. Should we be placed into receivership, different assumptions would be required to determine the carrying value of our assets, which could lead to substantially different financial results. For more information on the risks to our business relating to conservatorship and uncertainties regarding the future of our business, see “Risk Factors.”
Treasury Agreements
On September 7, 2008, we, through FHFA, in its capacity as conservator, and Treasury entered into a senior preferred stock purchase agreement, which was subsequently amended on September 26, 2008, May 6, 2009 and December 24, 2009. Unless the context indicates otherwise, references in this report to the senior preferred stock purchase agreement refer to the agreement as amended through December 24, 2009. The terms of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, senior preferred stock and the warrant discussed below will continue to apply to us even if we are released from the conservatorship. Please see “Risk Factors” for a description of the risks to our business relating to the Treasury agreements, as well as the adverse effects of the senior preferred stock and the warrant on the rights of holders of our common stock and other series of preferred stock.
- 33 -
Table of Contents
Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement and Related Issuance of Senior Preferred Stock and Common Stock Warrant
Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement
Under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, we issued to Treasury (a) one million shares of Variable Liquidation Preference Senior Preferred Stock, Series 2008-2, which we refer to as the “senior preferred stock,” and (b) a warrant to purchase, for a nominal price, shares of common stock equal to 79.9% of the total number of shares of our common stock outstanding on a fully diluted basis at the time the warrant is exercised, which we refer to as the “warrant.”
The senior preferred stock and warrant were issued to Treasury as an initial commitment fee in consideration of the commitment from Treasury to provide funds to us under the terms and conditions set forth in the senior preferred stock purchase agreement. The senior preferred stock purchase agreement provides that, on a quarterly basis, we generally may draw funds up to the amount, if any, by which our total liabilities exceed our total assets, as reflected in our consolidated balance sheet, prepared in accordance with GAAP, for the applicable fiscal quarter (referred to as the “deficiency amount”).
On December 24, 2009, the maximum amount of Treasury’s funding commitment to us under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement was increased pursuant to an amendment to the agreement. The amendment provides that the $200 billion maximum amount of the commitment from Treasury will increase as necessary to accommodate any net worth deficiencies attributable to periods during 2010, 2011 and 2012. If we do not have a positive net worth as of December 31, 2012, then the amount of funding available under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement after 2012 will be $124.8 billion ($200 billion less $75.2 billion in cumulative draws for net worth deficiencies through December 31, 2009). In the event we have a positive net worth as of December 31, 2012, then the amount of funding available after 2012 under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement will depend on the size of that positive net worth relative to the cumulative draws for net worth deficiencies attributable to periods during 2010, 2011 and 2012, as follows:
| • | If our positive net worth as of December 31, 2012 is less than the cumulative draws for net worth deficiencies attributable to periods during 2010, 2011 and 2012, then the amount of available funding will be $124.8 billion less our positive net worth as of December 31, 2012. |
| • | If our positive net worth as of December 31, 2012 is greater than the cumulative draws for net worth deficiencies attributable to periods during 2010, 2011 and 2012, then the amount of available funding will be $124.8 billion less the cumulative draws attributable to periods during 2010, 2011 and 2012. |
In announcing the December 24, 2009 amendments to the senior preferred stock purchase agreement and to Treasury’s preferred stock purchase agreement with Freddie Mac, Treasury noted that the amendments “should leave no uncertainty about the Treasury’s commitment to support [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] as they continue to play a vital role in the housing market during this current crisis.” The senior preferred stock purchase agreement provides that the deficiency amount will be calculated differently if we become subject to receivership or other liquidation process. We discuss our net worth deficits and FHFA’s requests on our behalf for funds from Treasury in “Executive Summary—Summary of our Financial Performance for 2011.”
We were scheduled to begin paying a quarterly commitment fee to Treasury under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement on March 31, 2011; however, Treasury waived the quarterly commitment fee for each quarter of 2011 and the first quarter of 2012 due to the continued fragility of the mortgage market and Treasury’s belief that the imposition of the quarterly commitment fee would not generate increased compensation for taxpayers. In its notification to FHFA that it had waived the quarterly commitment fee for the first quarter of 2012, Treasury indicated that it will reevaluate the situation during the next calendar quarter to determine whether the quarterly commitment fee should then be set. The agreement provides that Treasury may waive the periodic commitment fee for up to one year at a time, in its sole discretion, based on adverse conditions in the U.S. mortgage market.
- 34 -
Table of Contents
The senior preferred stock purchase agreement provides that the amount of the quarterly commitment fee is to be set not later than December 31, 2010 with respect to the ensuing five-year period, is to be reset for every five years thereafter, and is to be determined with reference to the market value of Treasury’s funding commitment to Fannie Mae as then in effect. The agreement also provides that the amount of the quarterly commitment fee is to be mutually agreed by Treasury and Fannie Mae, subject to their reasonable discretion and in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. As of February 29, 2012, the quarterly commitment fee for the initial five-year period had not yet been established.
The senior preferred stock purchase agreement provides that the Treasury’s funding commitment will terminate under any of the following circumstances: (1) the completion of our liquidation and fulfillment of Treasury’s obligations under its funding commitment at that time, (2) the payment in full of, or reasonable provision for, all of our liabilities (whether or not contingent, including mortgage guaranty obligations), or (3) the funding by Treasury of the maximum amount that may be funded under the agreement. In addition, Treasury may terminate its funding commitment and declare the senior preferred stock purchase agreement null and void if a court vacates, modifies, amends, conditions, enjoins, stays or otherwise affects the appointment of the conservator or otherwise curtails the conservator’s powers. Treasury may not terminate its funding commitment under the agreement solely by reason of our being in conservatorship, receivership or other insolvency proceeding, or due to our financial condition or any adverse change in our financial condition.
The senior preferred stock purchase agreement provides that most provisions of the agreement may be waived or amended by mutual written agreement of the parties; however, no waiver or amendment of the agreement is permitted that would decrease Treasury’s aggregate funding commitment or add conditions to Treasury’s funding commitment if the waiver or amendment would adversely affect in any material respect the holders of our debt securities or guaranteed Fannie Mae MBS.
In the event of our default on payments with respect to our debt securities or guaranteed Fannie Mae MBS, if Treasury fails to perform its obligations under its funding commitment and if we and/or the conservator are not diligently pursuing remedies in respect of that failure, the holders of our debt securities or Fannie Mae MBS may file a claim in the United States Court of Federal Claims for relief requiring Treasury to fund to us the lesser of (1) the amount necessary to cure the payment defaults on our debt and Fannie Mae MBS and (2) the lesser of (a) the deficiency amount and (b) the maximum amount that may be funded under the agreement less the aggregate amount of funding previously provided under the commitment. Any payment that Treasury makes under those circumstances will be treated for all purposes as a draw under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement that will increase the liquidation preference of the senior preferred stock.
Senior Preferred Stock
Pursuant to the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, we issued one million shares of senior preferred stock to Treasury on September 8, 2008 with an aggregate initial liquidation preference of $1.0 billion. The stock’s liquidation preference is subject to adjustment. Dividends that are not paid in cash for any dividend period will accrue and be added to the liquidation preference. In addition, any amounts Treasury pays to us pursuant to its funding commitment under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement and any quarterly commitment fees that are either not paid in cash to Treasury or not waived by Treasury will be added to the liquidation preference. Accordingly, the aggregate liquidation preference of the senior preferred stock was $112.6 billion as of December 31, 2011 and will increase to $117.1 billion as a result of FHFA’s request on our behalf for funds to eliminate our net worth deficit as of December 31, 2011.
Treasury, as holder of the senior preferred stock, is entitled to receive, when, as and if declared by our Board of Directors, out of legally available funds, cumulative quarterly cash dividends at the annual rate of 10% per year on the then-current liquidation preference of the senior preferred stock. If at any time we fail to pay cash dividends in a timely manner, then immediately following such failure and for all dividend periods thereafter until the dividend period following the date on which we have paid in cash full cumulative dividends (including any unpaid dividends added to the liquidation preference), the dividend rate will be 12% per year.
- 35 -
Table of Contents
The senior preferred stock ranks ahead of our common stock and all other outstanding series of our preferred stock, as well as any capital stock we issue in the future, as to both dividends and rights upon liquidation. The senior preferred stock provides that we may not, at any time, declare or pay dividends on, make distributions with respect to, or redeem, purchase or acquire, or make a liquidation payment with respect to, any common stock or other securities ranking junior to the senior preferred stock unless (1) full cumulative dividends on the outstanding senior preferred stock (including any unpaid dividends added to the liquidation preference) have been declared and paid in cash, and (2) all amounts required to be paid with the net proceeds of any issuance of capital stock for cash (as described in the following paragraph) have been paid in cash. Shares of the senior preferred stock are not convertible. Shares of the senior preferred stock have no general or special voting rights, other than those set forth in the certificate of designation for the senior preferred stock or otherwise required by law. The consent of holders of at least two-thirds of all outstanding shares of senior preferred stock is generally required to amend the terms of the senior preferred stock or to create any class or series of stock that ranks prior to or on parity with the senior preferred stock.
We are not permitted to redeem the senior preferred stock prior to the termination of Treasury’s funding commitment under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement. Moreover, we are not permitted to pay down the liquidation preference of the outstanding shares of senior preferred stock except to the extent of (1) accrued and unpaid dividends previously added to the liquidation preference and not previously paid down; and (2) quarterly commitment fees previously added to the liquidation preference and not previously paid down. In addition, if we issue any shares of capital stock for cash while the senior preferred stock is outstanding, the net proceeds of the issuance must be used to pay down the liquidation preference of the senior preferred stock; however, the liquidation preference of each share of senior preferred stock may not be paid down below $1,000 per share prior to the termination of Treasury’s funding commitment. Following the termination of Treasury’s funding commitment, we may pay down the liquidation preference of all outstanding shares of senior preferred stock at any time, in whole or in part.
Common Stock Warrant
Pursuant to the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, on September 7, 2008, we, through FHFA, in its capacity as conservator, issued a warrant to purchase common stock to Treasury. The warrant gives Treasury the right to purchase shares of our common stock equal to 79.9% of the total number of shares of our common stock outstanding on a fully diluted basis on the date of exercise, for an exercise price of $0.00001 per share. The warrant may be exercised in whole or in part at any time on or before September 7, 2028.
Covenants under Treasury Agreements
The senior preferred stock purchase agreement and warrant contain covenants that significantly restrict our business activities and require the prior written consent of Treasury before we can take certain actions. These covenants prohibit us from:
| • | paying dividends or other distributions on or repurchasing our equity securities (other than the senior preferred stock or warrant); |
| • | issuing additional equity securities (except in limited instances); |
| • | selling, transferring, leasing or otherwise disposing of any assets, other than dispositions for fair market value, except in limited circumstances including if the transaction is in the ordinary course of business and consistent with past practice; |
| • | issuing subordinated debt; and |
| • | entering into any new compensation arrangements or increasing amounts or benefits payable under existing compensation arrangements for any of our executive officers (as defined by SEC rules) without the consent of the Director of FHFA, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury. |
- 36 -
Table of Contents
We also are subject to limits, which are described below, on the amount of mortgage assets that we may own and the total amount of our indebtedness. As a result, we can no longer obtain additional equity financing (other than pursuant to the senior preferred stock purchase agreement) and we are limited in the amount and type of debt financing we may obtain.
| • | Mortgage Asset Limit. We are restricted in the amount of mortgage assets that we may own. The maximum allowable amount was reduced by $81 billion to $729 billion on December 31, 2011. On each December 31 thereafter, we are required to reduce our mortgage assets to 90% of the maximum allowable amount that we were permitted to own as of December 31 of the immediately preceding calendar year, until the amount of our mortgage assets reaches $250 billion. Accordingly, the maximum allowable amount of mortgage assets we may own on December 31, 2012 is $656.1 billion. The definition of mortgage asset is based on the unpaid principal balance of such assets and does not reflect market valuation adjustments, allowance for loan losses, impairments, unamortized premiums and discounts and the impact of our consolidation of variable interest entities. Under this definition, our mortgage assets on December 31, 2011 were $708.4 billion. We disclose the amount of our mortgage assets on a monthly basis under the caption “Gross Mortgage Portfolio” in our Monthly Summaries, which are available on our Web site and announced in a press release. |
| • | Debt Limit. We are subject to a limit on the amount of our indebtedness. Our debt limit in 2011 was $972 billion and in 2012 is $874.8 billion. For every year thereafter, our debt cap will equal 120% of the amount of mortgage assets we are allowed to own on December 31 of the immediately preceding calendar year. The definition of indebtedness for purposes of our debt cap is based on the par value of each applicable loan and does not reflect the impact of consolidation of variable interest entities. Under this definition, our indebtedness as of December 31, 2011 was $742.3 billion. We disclose the amount of our indebtedness on a monthly basis under the caption “Total Debt Outstanding” in our Monthly Summaries, which are available on our Web site and announced in a press release. |
| LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS |
GSE Reform
Policymakers and others have focused significant attention in recent years on how to reform the nation’s housing finance system, including what role, if any, the GSEs should play. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), which was signed into law in July 2010, calls for enactment of meaningful structural reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Dodd-Frank Act also required the Treasury Secretary to submit a report to Congress with recommendations for ending the conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
In February 2011, Treasury and HUD released their report to Congress on reforming America’s housing finance market. The report provides that the Administration will work with FHFA to determine the best way to responsibly reduce Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s role in the market and ultimately wind down both institutions.
The report identifies a number of policy steps that could be used to wind down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, reduce the government’s role in housing finance and help bring private capital back to the mortgage market. These steps include (1) increasing guaranty fees, (2) gradually increasing the level of required down payments so that any mortgages insured by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac eventually have at least a 10% down payment, (3) reducing conforming loan limits to those established in the 2008 Reform Act, (4) encouraging Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to pursue additional credit loss protection and (5) reducing Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolios, consistent with Treasury’s senior preferred stock purchase agreements with the companies.
In addition, the report outlines three potential options for a new long-term structure for the housing finance system following the wind-down of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The first option would privatize housing finance almost entirely. The second option would add a government guaranty mechanism that could scale up during times of crisis. The third option would involve the government offering catastrophic reinsurance behind
- 37 -
Table of Contents
private mortgage guarantors. Each of these options assumes the continued presence of programs operated by FHA, the Department of Agriculture and the VA to assist targeted groups of borrowers. The report does not state whether or how the existing infrastructure or human capital of Fannie Mae may be used in the establishment of such a reformed system. The report emphasizes the importance of proceeding with a careful transition plan and providing the necessary financial support to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the transition period. A copy of the report can be found on the Housing Finance Reform section of Treasury’s Web site, www.Treasury.gov. We are providing Treasury’s Web site address solely for your information, and information appearing on Treasury’s Web site is not incorporated into this annual report on Form 10-K.
On February 2, 2012, Treasury Secretary Geithner stated that the Administration intended to release new details around approaches to housing finance reform, including winding down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in the spring of 2012 and to work with Congressional leaders to explore options for legislation, but that he does not expect housing finance reform legislation to be enacted in 2012.
During 2011, Congress held hearings on the future status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and members of Congress offered legislative proposals relating to the future status of the GSEs. We expect hearings on GSE reform to continue in 2012 and additional legislation to be considered and proposals to be discussed, including proposals that would result in a substantial change to our business structure or that involve Fannie Mae’s liquidation or dissolution. Several bills have been introduced that would place the GSEs into receivership after a period of time and either grant federal charters to new entities to engage in activities similar to those currently engaged in by the GSEs or leave secondary mortgage market activities to entities in the private sector. For example, legislation has been introduced in both the House of Representatives and the Senate that would require FHFA to make a determination within two years of enactment regarding whether the GSEs were financially viable and, if the GSEs were determined not to be financially viable, to place them into receivership. As drafted, these bills may upon enactment impair our ability to issue securities in the capital markets and therefore our ability to conduct our business, absent the federal government providing an explicit guarantee of our existing and future liabilities.
In addition to bills that seek to resolve the status of the GSEs, numerous bills have been introduced and considered that could constrain the current operations of the GSEs or alter the existing authority that FHFA or Treasury has over the enterprises. For example, the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises of the House Financial Services Committee has approved bills that would:
| • | suspend current compensation packages and apply a government pay scale for GSE employees; |
| • | require the GSEs to increase guaranty fees; |
| • | subject GSE loans to the risk retention standards in the Dodd-Frank Act; |
| • | require a quicker reduction of GSE portfolios than required under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement; |
| • | require Treasury to pre-approve all GSE debt issuances; |
| • | repeal the GSEs’ affordable housing goals; |
| • | provide additional authority to FHFA’s Inspector General; |
| • | prohibit FHFA from approving any new GSE products during conservatorship or receivership, with certain exceptions; |
| • | prevent Treasury from amending the senior preferred stock purchase agreement to reduce the current dividend rate on our senior preferred stock; |
| • | abolish the Affordable Housing Trust Fund that the GSEs are required to fund except when such contributions have been temporarily suspended by FHFA; |
- 38 -
Table of Contents
| • | require FHFA to identify mission critical assets of the GSEs and require the GSEs to dispose of non-mission critical assets; |
| • | cap the maximum aggregate amount of funds Treasury or any other agency or entity of the federal government can provide to the GSEs subject to certain qualifications; |
| • | grant FHFA the authority to revoke the enterprises’ charters following receivership under certain circumstances; and |
| • | subject the GSEs to the Freedom of Information Act. |
Of these bills that passed at a subcommittee level, the only one that has passed the full committee is the bill that would put GSE employees on a government pay scale. We expect additional legislation relating to the GSEs to be introduced and considered by Congress in 2012. We cannot predict the prospects for the enactment, timing or content of legislative proposals concerning the future status of the GSEs, their regulation or operations.
In sum, there continues to be uncertainty regarding the future of our company, including how long the company will continue to exist in its current form, the extent of our role in the market, what form we will have, and what ownership interest, if any, our current common and preferred stockholders will hold in us after the conservatorship is terminated. See “Risk Factors” for a discussion of the risks to our business relating to the uncertain future of our company. Also see “Risk Factors” for a discussion of how the uncertain future of our company may adversely affect our ability to retain and recruit well-qualified employees, including senior management.
Compensation
Legislation has been proposed in Congress that would alter the compensation programs for GSE employees. As discussed in “GSE Reform,” in 2011 the House Financial Services Committee passed a bill that would place all GSE employees on a pay scale similar to that provided for federal government employees. In addition, in 2012 the House and Senate passed separate versions of the STOCK Act to ban insider trading by members of Congress and other government officials, which included a provision prohibiting senior executives at the GSEs from receiving bonuses while the GSEs are in conservatorship. The two versions of the bill must now be reconciled and passed by each chamber before they are sent to the President for signature.
If legislation is adopted that results in a significant reduction in compensation to GSE employees, it could cause a substantial number of our most skilled and experienced employees to leave and further impair our ability to retain and attract employees in a competitive marketplace, as we discuss in “Risk Factors—Our business and results of operations may be materially adversely affected if we are unable to retain and hire qualified employees.” Additional legislative proposals related to compensation for GSE employees may be considered by Congress in 2012.
Financial Regulatory Reform Legislation: The Dodd-Frank Act
The Dodd-Frank Act is significantly changing the regulation of the financial services industry, including by its creation of new standards related to regulatory oversight of systemically important financial companies, derivatives transactions, asset-backed securitization, mortgage underwriting and consumer financial protection. The Dodd-Frank Act will directly affect our business because new and additional regulatory oversight and standards will apply to us. We may also be affected by provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and implementing regulations that impact the activities of our customers and counterparties in the financial services industry. Extensive regulatory guidance is still needed to implement and clarify many of the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and regulators have not completed the required administrative processes. It is therefore difficult to assess fully the impact of this legislation on our business and industry at this time. We discuss the potential risks to our business resulting from the Dodd-Frank Act in “Risk Factors.” Below we summarize some key provisions of the legislation, as well as some rules that have been proposed by various government agencies to implement
- 39 -
Table of Contents
provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. We are currently evaluating these proposed rules and how they may impact our business and the housing finance industry.
Enhanced supervision and prudential standards. The Dodd-Frank Act established the Financial Stability Oversight Council (the “FSOC”), chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury, to ensure that all financial companies whose failure could pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States—not just banks—will be subject to strong oversight. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the FSOC is responsible for designating systemically important nonbank financial companies, while the Federal Reserve is to establish stricter prudential standards that will apply to certain bank holding companies and to systemically important nonbank financial companies. The Federal Reserve must establish standards related to risk-based capital, leverage limits, liquidity, credit concentrations, resolution plans, reporting credit exposures and other risk management measures. On December 20, 2011, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System issued proposed rules addressing a number of these enhanced prudential standards. The Federal Reserve may also impose other standards related to contingent capital, enhanced public disclosure, short-term debt limits and other requirements as appropriate.
The FSOC has issued two notices of proposed rulemaking, most recently on October 11, 2011, describing the framework, process and criteria that will inform the FSOC’s designation of systemically important nonbank financial companies. Under the proposed rule, the FSOC will make such a designation if it determines that material financial distress at the nonbank financial company, or the nature, scope, size, scale, concentration, interconnectedness, or mix of the activities of the company, could pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States. FSOC action on the final designation criteria and process is expected this year. If we are designated as a systemically important nonbank financial company, we may become subject to certain enhanced prudential standards established by the Federal Reserve.
Depending on the scope and final form of these enhanced standards, and the extent to which they apply to our customers and other counterparties, their adoption and application could increase our costs and may adversely affect demand for our debt and Fannie Mae MBS.
Minimum Capital and Margin Requirements; Swap Transactions. The Dodd-Frank Act requires certain institutions meeting the definition of “swap dealer” or “major swap participant” to register with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”). The CFTC and SEC have issued a joint proposed rule that would, among other things, establish the definition of “major swap participant.” If we are determined to be a major swap participant, minimum capital and margin requirements would apply to our swap transactions, including transactions that are not subject to clearing. On April 28, 2011, the CFTC proposed rules governing minimum capital and margin requirements for swap dealers and major swap participants engaging in derivative trades that are not submitted for clearing to a derivatives clearing organization (“uncleared trades”). On April 12, 2011, the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), FHFA, the Farm Credit Administration and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency proposed rules under the Dodd-Frank Act governing margin and capital requirements applicable to entities that are subject to their oversight. These proposed rules would require that, for all uncleared trades, we collect from our counterparties and provide to our counterparties collateral in excess of the amounts we have historically collected or provided, regardless of whether we are deemed to be a major swap participant. In addition, even if we are not deemed to be a major swap participant, the Dodd-Frank Act includes provisions that may require us to submit new swap transactions for clearing to a derivatives clearing organization.
Ability to Repay. The Dodd-Frank Act requires creditors to determine that borrowers have a “reasonable ability to repay” mortgage loans prior to making such loans. On April 19, 2011, the Federal Reserve Board issued a proposed rule pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act that, among others things, requires creditors to determine a borrower’s “ability to repay” a mortgage loan under Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act. If a creditor fails to comply, a borrower may be able to offset amounts owed as part of a foreclosure or recoup monetary damages. The proposed rule offers several options for complying with the ability to repay requirement, including making loans that meet certain terms and characteristics (so-called “qualified mortgages”), which may provide creditors with special protection from liability. As proposed, a loan is generally a qualified mortgage if,
- 40 -
Table of Contents
among other things, the borrower’s income and assets are verified, the loan term does not exceed 30 years, the loan is fully amortizing with no negative amortization, interest-only or balloon features, and the loan is underwritten at the maximum interest rate applicable in the first five years of the loan, taking into account all mortgage-related obligations.
Risk Retention. The Dodd-Frank Act requires financial regulators to jointly prescribe regulations requiring securitizers and/or originators to maintain a portion of the credit risk in assets transferred, sold or conveyed through the issuance of asset-backed securities, with certain exceptions. On March 29, 2011, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, FHFA and HUD issued a joint proposed rule implementing these risk retention requirements. Under the proposed rule, securitizers would be required to retain at least 5% of the credit risk with respect to the assets they securitize. The proposed rule offers several options for compliance by parties with assets to securitize, one of which is to have either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac securitize the assets. As long as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (1) fully guarantees the assets, thereby taking on 100% of their credit risk, and (2) is in conservatorship or receivership at the time the assets are securitized, no further retention of credit risk is required. Certain mortgage loans meeting the definition of a “Qualified Residential Mortgage” are exempt from the requirements of the rule. Only mortgage loans that are first-lien mortgages on primary residences with loan-to-value ratios not exceeding 80% (75% for refinancings and 70% for cash-out refinancings) and that meet certain other underwriting requirements, would meet the definition of “Qualified Residential Mortgage” under the proposal.
Changes to Our Single-Family Guaranty Fee Pricing and Revenue
In December 2011, Congress enacted the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 which, among other provisions, requires that we increase our single-family guaranty fees by at least 10 basis points and remit this increase to Treasury, rather than retaining the incremental revenue. FHFA has announced that, effective April 1, 2012, the guaranty fee on all single-family residential mortgages delivered to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on or after that date for securitization will increase by 10 basis points. FHFA is analyzing whether additional guaranty fee increases may be necessary to comply with the law.
Consistent with the recommendation in the Administration’s report on ending the conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the February 21, 2012 letter from the Acting Director of FHFA to Congress, we expect that our single-family guaranty fees will increase in the future. We expect our future guaranty fees will incorporate private sector pricing considerations such as geographic pricing that contemplates differences in foreclosure laws across the states, pricing indicative of higher required minimum capital levels, and more significant pricing differentiation between higher-risk and lower-risk loans. These changes would be in addition to increases required in the recently enacted law, although we do not know the timing, form or extent of all of these changes.
Discontinuation of Our Retained Attorney Network
In October 2011, FHFA directed us to phase out the practice of requiring mortgage servicers to use our network of retained attorneys to perform default- and foreclosure-related legal services for our loans. FHFA also directed us to work with Freddie Mac, through FHFA’s Servicing Alignment Initiative, to develop and implement consistent requirements, policies and processes for default- and foreclosure-related legal services. As set forth in FHFA’s directive, we will conduct these activities over a transitional period and will seek to minimize disruption to pending matters. During the transitional period, servicers will continue to be directly responsible for managing the foreclosure process and monitoring network firm performance, in accordance with our current requirements and contractual arrangements. Phasing out the use of our retained attorney network may make it more difficult for us to oversee the performance of default- and foreclosure-related legal services for our loans, which may adversely impact our efforts to reduce our credit losses.
For information on additional regulatory matters affecting us, refer to “Our Charter and Regulation of Our Activities.”
- 41 -
Table of Contents
| OUR CHARTER AND REGULATION OF OUR ACTIVITIES |
Charter Act
We are a shareholder-owned corporation, originally established in 1938, organized and existing under the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act, as amended, which we refer to as the Charter Act or our charter. The Charter Act sets forth the activities that we are permitted to conduct, authorizes us to issue debt and equity securities, and describes our general corporate powers. The Charter Act states that our purposes are to:
| • | provide stability in the secondary market for residential mortgages; |
| • | respond appropriately to the private capital market; |
| • | provide ongoing assistance to the secondary market for residential mortgages (including activities relating to mortgages on housing for low- and moderate-income families involving a reasonable economic return that may be less than the return earned on other activities) by increasing the liquidity of mortgage investments and improving the distribution of investment capital available for residential mortgage financing; and |
| • | promote access to mortgage credit throughout the nation (including central cities, rural areas and underserved areas) by increasing the liquidity of mortgage investments and improving the distribution of investment capital available for residential mortgage financing. |
It is from these sections of the Charter Act that we derive our mission of providing liquidity, increasing stability and promoting affordability in the residential mortgage market. In addition to the alignment of our overall strategy with these purposes, all of our business activities must be permissible under the Charter Act. Our charter authorizes us to: purchase, service, sell, lend on the security of, and otherwise deal in certain mortgage loans; issue debt obligations and mortgage-related securities; and “do all things as are necessary or incidental to the proper management of [our] affairs and the proper conduct of [our] business.”
Loan Standards
Mortgage loans we purchase or securitize must meet the following standards required by the Charter Act.
| • | Principal Balance Limitations. Our charter permits us to purchase and securitize mortgage loans secured by either a single-family or multifamily property. Single-family conventional mortgage loans are subject to maximum original principal balance limits, known as “conforming loan limits.” The conforming loan limits are established each year based on the average prices of one-family residences. |
The national conforming loan limit for mortgages that finance one-family residences is $417,000 in 2012, as it was in 2011 and 2010, with higher limits for mortgages secured by two- to four-family residences and in four statutorily-designated states and territories (Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands). Higher loan limits also apply in high-cost areas (counties or county-equivalent areas) that are designated by FHFA annually. Our charter sets permanent loan limits for high-cost areas up to 150% of the national loan limit ($625,500 for a one-family residence; higher for two- to four-family residences and in the four statutorily-designated states and territories). A series of legislative acts temporarily increased our loan limits beginning in early 2008 in high-cost areas to up to 175% of the national loan limit ($729,750 for a one-family residence; higher for two- to four-family residences and in the four statutorily-designated states and territories). This temporary increase, which is no longer in effect, applied to loans originated through September 30, 2011.
No statutory limits apply to the maximum original principal balance of multifamily mortgage loans that we purchase or securitize. In addition, the Charter Act imposes no maximum original principal balance limits on loans we purchase or securitize that are insured by FHA or guaranteed by the VA.
| • | Loan-to-Value and Credit Enhancement Requirements. The Charter Act generally requires credit enhancement on any single-family conventional mortgage loan that we purchase or securitize if it has a loan-to-value ratio over 80% at the time of purchase. We also do not purchase or securitize second lien single-family mortgage loans when the combined loan-to-value ratio exceeds 80%, unless the second lien |
- 42 -
Table of Contents
| mortgage loan has credit enhancement in accordance with the requirements of the Charter Act. The credit enhancement required by our charter may take the form of one or more of the following: (1) insurance or a guaranty by a qualified insurer of the over-80% portion of the unpaid principal balance of the mortgage; (2) a seller’s agreement to repurchase or replace the mortgage in the event of default (for such period and under such circumstances as we may require); or (3) retention by the seller of at least a 10% participation interest in the mortgage. Regardless of loan-to-value ratio, the Charter Act does not require us to obtain credit enhancement to purchase or securitize loans insured by FHA or guaranteed by the VA. |
Authority of U.S. Treasury to Purchase GSE Securities
Pursuant to our charter, at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury, Treasury may purchase our obligations up to a maximum of $2.25 billion outstanding at any one time. Treasury temporarily received expanded authority, which expired on December 31, 2009, to purchase our obligations and other securities in unlimited amounts (up to the national debt limit) under the 2008 Reform Act. We describe Treasury’s investment in our senior preferred stock and a common stock warrant pursuant to this expanded temporary authority under “Conservatorship and Treasury Agreements—Treasury Agreements.”
Other Charter Act Provisions
The Charter Act has the following additional provisions.
| • | Issuances of Our Securities. We are authorized, upon the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, to issue debt obligations and mortgage-related securities. Neither the U.S. government nor any of its agencies guarantees, directly or indirectly, our debt or mortgage-related securities. |
| • | Exemptions for Our Securities. The Charter Act generally provides that our securities are exempt under the federal securities laws administered by the SEC. As a result, we are not required to file registration statements with the SEC under the Securities Act of 1933 with respect to offerings of any of our securities. Our non-equity securities are also exempt securities under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). However, our equity securities are not treated as exempted securities for purposes of Sections 12, 13, 14 or 16 of the Exchange Act. Consequently, we are required to file periodic and current reports with the SEC, including annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K. |
| • | Exemption from Specified Taxes. We are exempt from taxation by states, territories, counties, municipalities and local taxing authorities, except for taxation by those authorities on our real property. We are not exempt from the payment of federal corporate income taxes. |
| • | Other Limitations and Requirements. We may not originate mortgage loans or advance funds to a mortgage seller on an interim basis, using mortgage loans as collateral, pending the sale of the mortgages in the secondary market. In addition, we may only purchase or securitize mortgages on properties located in the United States and its territories. |
Regulation and Oversight of Our Activities
As a federally chartered corporation, we are subject to government regulation and oversight. FHFA is an independent agency of the federal government with general supervisory and regulatory authority over Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks (“FHLBs”). FHFA was established in July 2008, assuming the duties of our former safety and soundness regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (“OFHEO”), and our former mission regulator, HUD. HUD remains our regulator with respect to fair lending matters. Our regulators also include the SEC and Treasury.
The GSE Act provides FHFA with safety and soundness authority that is comparable to and in some respects broader than that of the federal banking agencies. Even if we were not in conservatorship, the GSE Act gives FHFA the authority to raise capital levels above statutory minimum levels, regulate the size and content of our portfolio and approve new mortgage products, among other things.
- 43 -
Table of Contents
FHFA is responsible for implementing the various provisions of the GSE Act. In general, we remain subject to existing regulations, orders and determinations until new ones are issued or made.
Capital. The GSE Act provides FHFA with broad authority to increase the level of our required minimum capital and to establish capital or reserve requirements for specific products and activities. FHFA also has broad authority to establish risk-based capital requirements, to ensure that we operate in a safe and sound manner and maintain sufficient capital and reserves. During the conservatorship, FHFA has suspended our capital classifications. We continue to submit capital reports to FHFA during the conservatorship, and FHFA continues to monitor our capital levels. We describe our capital requirements below under “Capital Adequacy Requirements.”
Portfolio. The GSE Act requires FHFA to establish standards governing our portfolio holdings, to ensure that they are backed by sufficient capital and consistent with our mission and safe and sound operations. FHFA is also required to monitor our portfolio and, in some circumstances, may require us to dispose of or acquire assets. In 2010, FHFA published a final rule adopting, as the standard for our portfolio holdings, the portfolio limits specified in the senior preferred stock purchase agreement described under “Treasury Agreements—Covenants under Treasury Agreements,” as it may be amended from time to time. The rule is effective for as long as we remain subject to the terms and obligations of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement.
New Products. The GSE Act requires us to obtain FHFA’s approval before initially offering any product, subject to certain exceptions. The GSE Act also requires us to provide FHFA with written notice before commencing any new activity. In July 2009, FHFA published an interim final rule implementing these provisions of the GSE Act. Subsequently, the Acting Director of FHFA concluded that permitting us to offer new products at this time is inconsistent with the goals of the conservatorship. He therefore instructed us not to submit requests for approval of new products under the interim final rule. We cannot predict when or if FHFA will permit us to submit new product requests under the rule.
Receivership. Under the GSE Act, FHFA must place us into receivership if it determines that our assets are less than our obligations for 60 days, or we have not been paying our debts as they become due for 60 days. FHFA has notified us that the measurement period for any mandatory receivership determination with respect to our assets and liabilities would commence no earlier than the SEC public filing deadline for our quarterly or annual financial statements and would continue for 60 calendar days thereafter. FHFA has advised us that if, during that 60-day period, we receive funds from Treasury in an amount at least equal to the deficiency amount under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, the Director of FHFA will not make a mandatory receivership determination.
In addition, we could be put into receivership at the discretion of the Director of FHFA at any time for other reasons, including conditions that FHFA has already asserted existed at the time the then-Director of FHFA placed us into conservatorship. The statutory grounds for discretionary appointment of a receiver include: a substantial dissipation of assets or earnings due to unsafe or unsound practices; the existence of an unsafe or unsound condition to transact business; an inability to meet our obligations in the ordinary course of business; a weakening of our condition due to unsafe or unsound practices or conditions; critical undercapitalization; the likelihood of losses that will deplete substantially all of our capital; or by consent.
In June 2011, FHFA issued a final rule establishing a framework for conservatorship and receivership operations for the GSEs. The rule is part of FHFA’s implementation of the powers provided by the 2008 Reform Act, and does not seek to anticipate or predict future conservatorships or receiverships. The final rule, which became effective on July 20, 2011, establishes procedures for conservatorship and receivership, and priorities of claims for contract parties and other claimants. For example, the final rule clarifies that:
| • | the powers of the conservator or receiver include continuing our mission and ensuring that our operations foster liquid, efficient, competitive and resilient national housing finance markets; |
| • | the conservator or receiver may disaffirm or repudiate any contract or lease to which we are a party for up to 18 months following the appointment of a conservator or receiver; |
- 44 -
Table of Contents
| • | we are prohibited from making capital distributions while in conservatorship unless authorized by the Director of FHFA; and |
| • | claims by current or former shareholders (including securities litigation claims) would receive the lowest priority in a receivership, behind: (1) administrative expenses of the receiver (or an immediately preceding conservator), (2) our other general or senior liabilities, and (3) obligations subordinated to those of general creditors. |
The rule also provides that FHFA, as conservator, will not pay securities litigation claims against us during conservatorship, unless the Director of FHFA determines it is in the interest of the conservatorship. An action, which was brought by the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against FHFA and Acting Director DeMarco challenging the rule’s provisions regarding nonpayment of securities litigation claims.
Prudential Management and Operational Standards. As required by the GSE Act, in June 2011, FHFA issued a proposed rule establishing prudential standards relating to the management and operations of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHLBs in the following ten areas: (1) internal controls and information systems; (2) independence and adequacy of internal audit systems; (3) management of market risk exposure; (4) management of market risk—measurement systems, risk limits, stress testing, and monitoring and reporting; (5) adequacy and maintenance of liquidity and reserves; (6) management of asset and investment portfolio growth; (7) investments and acquisitions of assets; (8) overall risk management processes; (9) management of credit and counterparty risk; and (10) maintenance of adequate records. These standards are proposed to be adopted as guidelines, which the Director of FHFA may modify, revoke or add to at any time by order. The proposed rule provides that FHFA may take specified remedial actions if a regulated entity fails to meet one or more of the standards, such as requiring the entity to submit a corrective plan or increasing its capital requirements.
Affordable Housing Goals and Duty to Serve. We discuss our affordable housing goals and our duty to serve underserved markets below under “Housing Goals and Duty to Serve Underserved Markets.”
Affordable Housing Allocations. The GSE Act requires us to set aside in each fiscal year an amount equal to 4.2 basis points for each dollar of the unpaid principal balance of our total new business acquisitions, and to allocate such amount to certain government funds. The GSE Act also allows FHFA to suspend allocations on a temporary basis. In November 2008, FHFA advised us that it was suspending our allocations until further notice.
Executive Compensation. The Charter Act requires that compensation of our executives be reasonable and comparable with the compensation of executives performing similar duties in similar businesses, except that a significant portion of potential compensation must be based on our performance. Further, the GSE Act directs FHFA to prohibit us from providing unreasonable or non-comparable compensation to our executive officers. FHFA may at any time review the reasonableness and comparability of an executive officer’s compensation and may require us to withhold any payment to the officer during such review. FHFA is also authorized to prohibit or limit certain golden parachute and indemnification payments to directors, officers and certain other parties. FHFA has issued rules relating to golden parachute payments, setting forth factors to be considered by the Director of FHFA in acting upon his authority to limit such payments.
Fair Lending. The GSE Act requires the Secretary of HUD to assure that the GSEs meet their fair lending obligations. Among other things, HUD is required to periodically review and comment on the underwriting and appraisal guidelines of each company to ensure consistency with the Fair Housing Act. HUD is currently conducting such a review.
Capital Adequacy Requirements
The GSE Act establishes capital adequacy requirements. The statutory capital framework incorporates two different quantitative assessments of capital—a minimum capital requirement and a risk-based capital
- 45 -
Table of Contents
requirement. The minimum capital requirement is ratio-based, while the risk-based capital requirement is based on simulated stress test performance. The GSE Act requires us to maintain sufficient capital to meet both of these requirements in order to be classified as “adequately capitalized.” However, during the conservatorship, FHFA has suspended capital classification of us and announced that our existing statutory and FHFA-directed regulatory capital requirements will not be binding. FHFA has advised us that, because we are under conservatorship, we will not be subject to corrective action requirements that would ordinarily result from our receiving a capital classification of “undercapitalized.”
Minimum Capital Requirement. Under the GSE Act, we must maintain an amount of core capital that equals or exceeds our minimum capital requirement. The GSE Act defines core capital as the sum of the stated value of outstanding common stock (common stock less treasury stock), the stated value of outstanding non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock, paid-in capital, and retained earnings, as determined in accordance with GAAP. Our minimum capital requirement is generally equal to the sum of 2.50% of on-balance sheet assets and 0.45% of off-balance sheet obligations. For purposes of minimum capital, FHFA has directed us to continue reporting loans backing Fannie Mae MBS held by third parties based on 0.45% of the unpaid principal balance regardless of whether these loans have been consolidated pursuant to accounting rules. FHFA retains authority under the GSE Act to raise the minimum capital requirement for any of our assets or activities.
Risk-Based Capital Requirement. The GSE Act requires FHFA to establish risk-based capital requirements for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to ensure that we operate in a safe and sound manner. Existing risk-based capital regulation ties our capital requirements to the risk in our book of business, as measured by a stress test model. The stress test simulates our financial performance over a ten-year period of severe economic conditions characterized by both extreme interest rate movements and high mortgage default rates. FHFA has stated that it does not intend to publish our risk-based capital level during the conservatorship and has discontinued stress test simulations under the existing rule. We continue to submit detailed profiles of our books of business to FHFA to support FHFA’s monitoring of our business activity and their research into future risk-based capital rules.
Critical Capital Requirement. The GSE Act also establishes a critical capital requirement, which is the amount of core capital below which we would be classified as “critically undercapitalized.” Under the GSE Act, such classification is a discretionary ground for appointing a conservator or receiver. Our critical capital requirement is generally equal to the sum of 1.25% of on-balance sheet assets and 0.25% of off-balance sheet obligations. FHFA has directed us, for purposes of critical capital, to continue reporting loans backing Fannie Mae MBS held by third parties based on 0.25% of the unpaid principal balance, notwithstanding our consolidation of substantially all of the loans backing these securities. FHFA has stated that it does not intend to publish our critical capital level during the conservatorship.
Bank Capital and Other Supervisory Standards. In the wake of the financial crisis and as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act and of actions by international bank regulators, the capital regime for the banking industry is undergoing major changes. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision finalized a set of revisions (known as Basel III) to the international capital requirements in December 2010. Basel III generally narrowed the definition of capital that can be used to meet risk-based standards and raises the amount of capital that must be held. On December 20, 2011, the Federal Reserve stated that it is working with the other U.S. banking regulators to implement the Basel III capital reforms in the United States.
The Dodd-Frank Act requires stronger regulation of major bank holding companies and nonbank financial companies designated for Federal Reserve supervision by the FSOC. The prudential standards for covered companies must include enhanced risk-based capital and leverage requirements, enhanced liquidity requirements, enhanced risk management and risk committee requirements, a requirement to submit a resolution plan, single-counterparty credit limits, stress tests, and a debt-to-equity limit for covered companies that the FSOC has determined pose a grave threat to financial stability.
Although the GSEs are not currently subject to bank capital requirements, any revised framework for GSE capital standards may be based on bank requirements, particularly if the GSEs are deemed to be systemically important financial companies subject to Federal Reserve oversight.
- 46 -
Table of Contents
Housing Goals and Duty to Serve Underserved Markets
Since 1993, we have been subject to housing goals. The structure of our housing goals changed in 2010 as a result of the 2008 Reform Act. The 2008 Reform Act also created a new duty for us to serve three underserved markets, which we discuss below.
Housing Goals
FHFA established the following single-family home purchase and refinance housing goal benchmarks for 2011 and 2010. A home purchase mortgage may be counted toward more than one home purchase benchmark.
| • | Low-Income Families Home Purchase Benchmark: At least 27% of our acquisitions of single-family owner-occupied mortgage loans financing home purchases must be affordable to low-income families (defined as families with income no higher than 80% of area median income). |
| • | Very Low-Income Families Home Purchase Benchmark: At least 8% of our acquisitions of single-family owner-occupied mortgage loans financing home purchases must be affordable to very low-income families (defined as families with income no higher than 50% of area median income). |
| • | Low-Income Areas Home Purchase Benchmarks: At least 24% of our acquisitions of single-family owner-occupied mortgage loans financing home purchases must be for families in low-income census tracts, for moderate-income families (defined as families with income no higher than 100% of area median income) in designated disaster areas or for moderate-income families in minority census tracts. In addition, at least 13% of our acquisitions of single-family owner-occupied purchase money mortgage loans must be for families in low-income census tracts or for moderate-income families in minority census tracts. |
| • | Low-Income Families Refinancing Benchmark: At least 21% of our acquisitions of single-family owner-occupied refinance mortgage loans must be affordable to low-income families, which may include qualifying permanent modifications of mortgages under HAMP completed during the year. |
If we do not meet these benchmarks, we may still meet our goals. Our single-family housing goals performance will be measured against these benchmarks and against goals-qualifying originations in the primary mortgage market. We will be in compliance with the housing goals if we meet either the benchmarks or market share measures.
FHFA also established a multifamily goal and subgoal. For each of 2011 and 2010, our multifamily mortgage acquisitions must finance at least 177,750 units affordable to low-income families, and at least 42,750 units affordable to very low-income families. There is no market-based alternative measurement for the multifamily goals.
Under FHFA’s rule establishing our housing goals, which was finalized in September 2010, FHFA made significant changes to prior housing goals regulations regarding the types of products that count towards the housing goals. Private-label mortgage-related securities, second liens and single-family government loans do not count towards the housing goals. In addition, only permanent modifications of mortgages under HAMP completed during the year count towards the housing goals; trial modifications will not be counted. Moreover, these modifications count only towards the single-family low-income families refinance goal, not any of the home purchase goals.
In adopting the rule establishing our housing goals, FHFA indicated “FHFA does not intend for [Fannie Mae] to undertake uneconomic or high-risk activities in support of the [housing] goals. However, the fact that [Fannie Mae is] in conservatorship should not be a justification for withdrawing support from these market segments.” If our efforts to meet our goals prove to be insufficient, FHFA determines whether the goals were feasible. If FHFA finds that our goals were feasible, we may become subject to a housing plan that could require us to take additional steps that could have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. The housing plan must describe the actions we would take to meet the goal in the next calendar year and be approved by FHFA. The potential penalties for failure to comply with housing plan requirements include a cease-and-desist order and civil
- 47 -
Table of Contents
money penalties. See “Risk Factors” for a description of how we may be unable to meet our housing goals and how actions we may take to meet these goals and other regulatory requirements could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.
The following table presents our performance against our single-family housing benchmarks and multifamily housing goals for 2011 and 2010, as well as our performance against market share measures for 2010. Our 2011 performance results have not yet been validated by FHFA.
Housing Goals Performance
| 2011 | 2010 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Result(1) | Bench- mark(2) |
Result | Bench- mark |
Single-Family Market Level |
||||||||||||||||
| Single-family housing goals:(3) |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Low-income families home purchases |
25.77 | % | 27 | % | 25.13 | % | 27 | % | 27.2 | % | ||||||||||
| Very low-income families home purchases |
7.56 | 8 | 7.24 | 8 | 8.1 | |||||||||||||||
| Low-income areas home purchases |
22.32 | 24 | 24.05 | 24 | 24.0 | |||||||||||||||
| Low-income and high-minority areas home purchases |
11.60 | 13 | 12.37 | 13 | 12.1 | |||||||||||||||
| Low-income families refinancing |
23.05 | 21 | 20.90 | 21 | 20.2 | |||||||||||||||
| Result(1) | Goal | Result | Goal | |||||||||||||
| (in units) | ||||||||||||||||
| Multifamily housing goals: |
||||||||||||||||
| Affordable to families with incomes no higher than 80% of area median income |
301,224 | 177,750 | 214,997 | 177,750 | ||||||||||||
| Affordable to families with incomes no higher than 50% of area median income |
84,244 | 42,750 | 53,908 | 42,750 | ||||||||||||
| (1) | Our 2011 results have not been validated by FHFA, and after validation they may differ from the results reported above. |
| (2) | Even if our results do not meet the 2011 benchmarks, we may still meet our goals. Our single-family housing goals performance is measured not only against these benchmarks, but also against the share of goals-qualifying originations in the primary mortgage market. We will be in compliance with the housing goals if we meet either the benchmarks or market share measures. The amount of goals-qualifying originations in the market during 2011 will not be available until the release of data reported by primary market originators under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act in the fall of 2012. |
| (3) | Our single-family results and benchmarks are expressed as a percentage of the total number of eligible mortgages acquired during the period. |
We believe we met our single-family low-income refinance benchmark for 2011, as well as our 2011 multifamily goals. As discussed above, we can meet our single-family goals either by meeting an established benchmark or by meeting a market share measure of goals-qualifying originations in the primary mortgage market. In consultation with FHFA, we are currently analyzing our performance against our goals. We will file our assessment of our 2011 housing goals performance with FHFA in mid-March.
To determine whether we ultimately met our 2011 single-family housing goals where our performance falls below benchmark levels, we and FHFA will have to compare our performance with that of goals-qualifying originations in the primary mortgage market after the release of data reported under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (“HMDA”). This release will be made in the fall of 2012. At that time it will be determined whether we met any additional goals based on the HMDA market data.
For 2010, FHFA has determined that we met our single-family low-income areas home purchase goals and our single-family refinance goal, as well as our 2010 multifamily goals. FHFA determined that we did not meet our single-family low-income home purchase goal or our single-family very low-income home purchase goal. Although FHFA determined that we did not meet these two goals and that their achievement was feasible, FHFA is not requiring us to submit a housing plan. FHFA stated that a housing plan is not required because of the significant changes to the housing goals structure for 2010 and Fannie Mae’s continued operation under conservatorship.
- 48 -
Table of Contents
Duty to Serve
The 2008 Reform Act created the duty to serve underserved markets in order for us and Freddie Mac to “provide leadership to the market in developing loan products and flexible underwriting guidelines to facilitate a secondary market for very low-, low-, and moderate-income families” with respect to three underserved markets: manufactured housing, affordable housing preservation, and rural areas.
The duty to serve is a new oversight responsibility for FHFA. The Director of FHFA is required to establish by regulation a method for evaluating and rating the performance by us and Freddie Mac of the duty to serve underserved markets. In June 2010, FHFA published its proposed rule to implement this duty. A final rule has not been issued.
Under the proposed rule, we would be required to submit an underserved markets plan at least 90 days before the plan’s effective date of January 1st of a particular year establishing benchmarks and objectives against which FHFA would evaluate and rate our performance. The plan term is two years. We will likely need to submit a plan as soon as practicable after the publication of the final rule that will be effective for the first plan period.
The 2008 Reform Act requires FHFA to separately evaluate the following four assessment factors:
| • | The loan product assessment factor requires evaluation of our “development of loan products, more flexible underwriting guidelines, and other innovative approaches to providing financing to each” underserved market. |
| • | The outreach assessment factor requires evaluation of “the extent of outreach to qualified loan sellers and other market participants.” We are expected to engage market participants and pursue relationships with qualified sellers that serve each underserved market. |
| • | The loan purchase assessment factor requires FHFA to consider the volume of loans acquired in each underserved market relative to the market opportunities available to us. The 2008 Reform Act prohibits the establishment of specific quantitative targets by FHFA. However, in its evaluation FHFA could consider the volume of loans acquired in past years. |
| • | The investment and grants assessment factor requires evaluation of the amount of investment and grants in projects that assist in meeting the needs of underserved markets. |
Under the proposed rule, FHFA would give the loan purchase and outreach assessment factors significant weight. Because we are in conservatorship, the investment and grants assessment factor would receive little or no weight. In addition, FHFA would consider the loan product assessment factor, even though we are currently prohibited from entering into new lines of business and developing new products. The proposed rule states that acquisitions and activities pursuant to the duty to serve should be profitable, even if less profitable than other activities.
FHFA would evaluate our performance on each assessment factor annually, and assign a rating of “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory” to each factor in each underserved market. The evaluation would be based on whether we have substantially met our benchmarks and objectives as outlined in our underserved markets plan. FHFA would also consider the impact of overall market conditions and other factors outside our control that could impact our ability to meet our benchmarks and objectives. Based on the assessment factor findings, FHFA would assign a rating of “in compliance” or “noncompliance” with the duty to serve each underserved market.
With some exceptions, the counting rules and other requirements would be similar to those established for the housing goals. For the loan purchase assessment factor, FHFA proposes to measure performance in terms of units rather than mortgages or unpaid principal balance. All single-family loans we acquire must meet the standards in the Interagency Statement on Subprime Mortgage Lending and the Interagency Guidance on Nontraditional Mortgage Product Risks. We are expected to review the operations of loan sellers to ensure compliance with these standards.
If we fail to comply with, or there is a substantial probability that we will not comply with, our duty to serve a particular underserved market in a given year, FHFA would determine whether the benchmarks and objectives in
- 49 -
Table of Contents
our underserved markets plan are or were feasible. If we fail to meet our duty to serve, and FHFA determines that the benchmarks and objectives in our underserved markets plan are or were feasible, then, in the Director’s discretion, we may be required to submit a housing plan. Under the proposed rule, the housing plan must describe the activities that we will take to comply with the duty to serve a particular underserved market for the next calendar year, or improvements and changes in operations that we will make during the remainder of the current year.
Under the proposed rule, we would be required to provide quarterly and annual reports on our performance and progress towards meeting our duty to serve.
See “Risk Factors” for a description of how changes we may make in our business strategies in order to meet our housing goals and duty to serve requirement may increase our credit losses and adversely affect our results of operations.
| MAKING HOME AFFORDABLE PROGRAM |
The Obama Administration’s Making Home Affordable Program, which was introduced in February 2009, is intended to provide assistance to homeowners and prevent foreclosures. Working with our conservator, we have devoted significant effort and resources to help distressed homeowners through initiatives that support the Making Home Affordable Program. Below we describe key aspects of the Making Home Affordable Program and our role in the program. For additional information about our activities under the program, please see “Business—Making Home Affordable Program” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009. For information about the program’s financial impact on us, please see “MD&A—Consolidated Results of Operations—Financial Impact of the Making Home Affordable Program on Fannie Mae.”
The Making Home Affordable Program is comprised primarily of a Home Affordable Refinance Program (“HARP”), under which we acquire or guarantee loans that are refinancings of mortgage loans we own or guarantee, and Freddie Mac does the same, and a Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”), which provides for the modification of mortgage loans owned or guaranteed by us or Freddie Mac, as well as other mortgage loans. These two programs were designed to expand the number of borrowers who can refinance or modify their mortgages to achieve a monthly payment that is more affordable now and into the future or to obtain a more stable loan product, such as a fixed-rate mortgage loan in lieu of an adjustable-rate mortgage loan. We participate in the Making Home Affordable Program, and our sellers and servicers offer HARP and HAMP to Fannie Mae borrowers. We also serve as Treasury’s program administrator for HAMP and other initiatives under the Making Home Affordable Program.
Changes to the Home Affordable Refinance Program
In the fourth quarter of 2011, FHFA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac announced changes to HARP aimed at making refinancing under the program easier and potentially less expensive for qualifying homeowners and encouraging lenders to participate in the program. While HARP previously limited eligibility to borrowers with mortgage loans for their primary residence that had LTV ratios greater than 80% but no greater than 125%, the new HARP guidelines remove that ceiling when a borrower refinances into a new fixed-rate mortgage. Other changes to HARP include:
| • | eliminating risk-based fees for borrowers who refinance into loans with terms up to 20 years and lowering fees for other borrowers to no more than 75 basis points; |
| • | eliminating the need for a new property appraisal in many cases; |
| • | extending the ending date for HARP from June 2012 to December 2013; and |
| • | reducing the extent to which lenders will be liable for violations of representations and warranties in connection with refinancings under HARP. |
At this time, we do not know how many eligible borrowers are likely to refinance under the program and, therefore, how many HARP loans we will acquire.
- 50 -
Table of Contents
Our Role as Program Administrator
Treasury has engaged us to serve as program administrator for HAMP and other initiatives under the Making Home Affordable Program. Our principal activities as program administrator include the following:
| • | Implementing the guidelines and policies of the Treasury program; |
| • | Preparing the requisite forms, tools and training to facilitate efficient loan modifications by servicers; |
| • | Creating, making available and managing the process for servicers to report modification activity and program performance; |
| • | Calculating incentive compensation consistent with program guidelines; |
| • | Acting as record-keeper for executed loan modifications and program administration; |
| • | Coordinating with Treasury and other parties toward achievement of the program’s goals, including assisting with development and implementation of updates to the program and initiatives expanding the program’s reach; and |
| • | Performing other tasks as directed by Treasury from time to time. |
In our capacity as program administrator for the program, we support over 100 servicers that have signed up to participate with respect to non-agency loans under the program. To help servicers implement the program, we have provided information and resources through a Web site dedicated to servicers under the program. We have also communicated information about the program to servicers and helped servicers implement and integrate the program with new systems and processes. As program administrator, we have taken the following steps to help servicers implement the program:
| • | dedicated Fannie Mae personnel to work closely with participating servicers; |
| • | established a servicer support call center; |
| • | conducted ongoing conference calls with the leadership of participating servicers; |
| • | provided training through live Web seminars and recorded tutorials; and |
| • | made checklists and job aids available on the program Web site. |
On January 27, 2012, the Administration announced an extension of HAMP for an additional year through December 31, 2013. The Acting Director of FHFA has directed us to continue modifying loans under HAMP through that date, and our role as program administrator will be extended accordingly.
| OUR CUSTOMERS |
Our principal customers are lenders that operate within the primary mortgage market where mortgage loans are originated and funds are loaned to borrowers. Our customers include mortgage banking companies, savings and loan associations, savings banks, commercial banks, credit unions, community banks, insurance companies, and state and local housing finance agencies. Lenders originating mortgages in the primary mortgage market often sell them in the secondary mortgage market in the form of whole loans or in the form of mortgage-related securities.
During 2011, approximately 1,000 lenders delivered single-family mortgage loans to us, either for securitization or for purchase. We acquire a significant portion of our single-family mortgage loans from several large mortgage lenders. During 2011, our top five lender customers, in the aggregate, accounted for approximately 60% of our single-family business volume, while our top five lender customers accounted for approximately 62% of our single-family business volume in 2010. Three lender customers, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA and Bank of America, N.A., including their respective affiliates, in the aggregate accounted for more than 48% of our single-family business volume for 2011. In this report, we may refer to Bank of America, N.A. and its affiliates, collectively and individually, as “Bank of America.”
- 51 -
Table of Contents
Bank of America, which accounted for approximately 12% of our single-family business volume in 2011, is the seller/servicer with whom we have the most repurchase requests outstanding. In the fourth quarter of 2011, Bank of America slowed the pace of its repurchases. As a result, the already high volume of our outstanding repurchase requests with Bank of America increased substantially. At this time, we do not know what impact these issues will ultimately have on our future business with Bank of America. We discuss these developments in “MD&A—Risk Management—Institutional Counterparty Credit Risk Management—Mortgage Seller/Servicers.”
Due to ongoing consolidation within the mortgage industry, as well as the number of mortgage lenders that have gone out of business since 2006, we, as well as our competitors, will obtain business from a decreasing number of large mortgage lenders. We will seek to provide liquidity to a broader, more diverse set of mortgage lenders. However, to the extent we become more reliant on a smaller number of lender customers, our negotiating leverage with these customers could decrease. In addition, many of our lender customers are experiencing financial and liquidity problems, which may affect the volume of business they are able to generate and their ability to honor our repurchase requests. Several of our large lender customers have exited from correspondent or broker lending, focusing instead on lending through their retail channels, which may also affect the volume of business they are able to generate. We discuss the risks that customer concentration poses to our business in “Risk Factors.”
| COMPETITION |
Historically, our competitors have included Freddie Mac, FHA, Ginnie Mae (which primarily guarantees securities backed by FHA-insured loans), the twelve FHLBs, financial institutions, securities dealers, insurance companies, pension funds, investment funds and other investors. During 2008, almost all of our competitors, other than Freddie Mac, FHA, Ginnie Mae and the FHLBs, dramatically reduced or ceased their activities in the residential mortgage finance business. We remained the largest single issuer of mortgage-related securities in the secondary market in 2011. During 2011, our primary competitors for the issuance of mortgage-related securities were Ginnie Mae and Freddie Mac. We currently estimate that our single-family market share was 41% in 2011, compared with 36% in 2010. These amounts represent our single-family mortgage acquisitions for each year, excluding delinquent loans we purchased from our MBS trusts, as a percentage of the single-family first-lien mortgages we currently estimate were originated in the United States that year. Because our estimate of mortgage originations in prior periods is subject to change as additional data become available, these market share estimates may change in the future, perhaps materially.
We compete to acquire mortgage assets in the secondary market both for securitization into Fannie Mae MBS and, to a significantly lesser extent, for our investment portfolio. We also compete for the issuance of mortgage-related securities to investors. Competition in these areas is affected by many factors, including the amount of residential mortgage loans offered for sale in the secondary market by loan originators and other market participants, the nature of the residential mortgage loans offered for sale (for example, whether the loans represent refinancings), the current demand for mortgage assets from mortgage investors, the interest rate risk investors are willing to assume and the yields they will require as a result, and the credit risk and prices associated with available mortgage investments.
Competition to acquire mortgage assets is significantly affected by pricing and eligibility standards. We compete with Freddie Mac and, especially for loans with higher LTV ratios, with FHA. FHA is also able to acquire loans with higher original principal balances than we are permitted to acquire, as a result of the September 30, 2011 expiration of a temporary increase in our loan limits. We expect our guaranty fees may increase in coming years, which would likely affect our competitive environment. See “Our Charter and Regulation of Our Activities–Loan Standards” for more information about our loan limits, and “Legislative and Regulatory Developments—Changes to Our Single-Family Guaranty Fee Pricing and Revenue,” for a discussion of anticipated pricing increases.
We also compete for low-cost debt funding with institutions that hold mortgage portfolios, including Freddie Mac and the FHLBs.
- 52 -
Table of Contents
Although we do not know the structure that long-term GSE reform will ultimately take, we expect that, if our company continues, we will face more competition in the future. Please see “Legislative and Regulatory Developments—GSE Reform” for discussions of GSE reform, recent legislative reform of the financial services industry that is likely to affect our business and the role of private capital in the mortgage markets.
| EMPLOYEES |
As of January 31, 2012, we employed approximately 7,000 personnel, including full-time and part-time employees, term employees and employees on leave.
| WHERE YOU CAN FIND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION |
We make available free of charge through our Web site our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and all other SEC reports and amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file the material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Our Web site address is www.fanniemae.com. Materials that we file with the SEC are also available from the SEC’s Web site, www.sec.gov. You may also request copies of any filing from us, at no cost, by calling the Fannie Mae Fixed-Income Securities Helpline at (800) 237-8627 or (202) 752-7115 or by writing to Fannie Mae, Attention: Fixed-Income Securities, 3900 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Area 2H-3S, Washington, DC 20016.
All references in this report to our Web site addresses or the Web site address of the SEC are provided solely for your information. Information appearing on our Web site or on the SEC’s Web site is not incorporated into this annual report on Form 10-K.
| FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS |
This report includes statements that constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Exchange Act. In addition, our senior management may from time to time make forward-looking statements orally to analysts, investors, the news media and others. Forward-looking statements often include words such as “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” “believe,” “seek,” “estimate,” “forecast,” “project,” “would,” “should,” “could,” “may,” “prospects,” or similar words.
Among the forward-looking statements in this report are statements relating to:
| • | Our expectation that housing will start to recover if the employment market continues to improve; |
| • | Our anticipation of an approximately 1.1% decline in single-family mortgage debt outstanding in 2012; |
| • | Our expectation that the unemployment rate will remain relatively flat in 2012; |
| • | Our expectation that, while the strength of improving vacancy levels and rental rates will vary by metropolitan area, on a national basis the multifamily sector should continue to see steady demand in 2012; |
| • | Our expectation that rental demand for multifamily housing will continue to outstrip supply, thereby maintaining stable vacancy levels and healthy rent growth, given job growth slowly improving, and, more importantly, the lack of new apartment supply becoming available over the next 12 to 18 months; |
| • | Our expectation that, as a result, the outlook remains steady for the multifamily sector at the national level over the coming year; |
| • | Our expectation that we will increasingly focus on building a new infrastructure for the secondary mortgage market and on actions that will gradually decrease our presence in the marketplace while simplifying and shrinking our operations; |
| • | Our expectation that we will experience high levels of period-to-period volatility in our results because our derivatives are recorded at fair value in our financial statements while some of the instruments they hedge are not recorded at fair value in our financial statements; |
- 53 -
Table of Contents
| • | Our expectation, based on their performance so far, that loans in our new single-family book of business will perform well over their lifetime; |
| • | Our expectation that the serious delinquency rates for single-family loans acquired in recent years will be higher after the loans have aged, but not as high as the December 31, 2011 serious delinquency rates of loans in our legacy book of business; |
| • | Our expectations regarding whether loans we acquired in specific years, individually or aggregated by ranges of years, will be profitable over their lifetime, by which we mean that we expect our fee income on these loans to exceed our credit losses and administrative costs for them; |
| • | Our belief that credit losses on loans we have acquired since 2009 would exceed guaranty fee revenue if home prices declined nationally by approximately 10% from their December 2011 levels over the next five years, based on our home price index; |
| • | Our expectations regarding the credit profile of loans we acquire in the future, and the factors that will influence their credit profile; |
| • | Our estimate that, while single-family loans that we acquired from 2005 through 2008 will give rise to additional credit losses that we will realize when the loans are charged off (upon foreclosure or our acceptance of a short sale or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure), we have reserved for the substantial majority of the remaining losses on these loans; |
| • | Our expectation that our loss reserves will remain significantly elevated relative to historical levels for an extended period because (1) we expect future defaults on loans in our legacy book of business and the resulting charge-offs will occur over a period of years and (2) a significant portion of our reserves represents concessions granted to borrowers upon modification of their loans and will remain in our reserves until the loans are fully paid or default; |
| • | Our expectation that it will take years before our REO inventory approaches pre-2008 levels; |
| • | Our estimate that we will realize as credit losses over two-thirds of the fair value losses on loans purchased out of unconsolidated MBS trusts that are reflected in our consolidated balance sheets, and eventually recover the remaining nearly one-third, either through net interest income for loans that cure or through foreclosed property income for loans where the sale of the collateral exceeds our recorded investment in the loan; |
| • | Our belief that successful modifications will ultimately reduce our credit losses over the long term from what they otherwise would have been if we had taken the loans to foreclosure; |
| • | Our belief that foreclosure delays resulting from changes in the foreclosure environment will continue to negatively impact our foreclosure timelines, credit-related expenses and single-family serious delinquency rates, and will delay the recovery of the housing market; |
| • | Our expectation that serious delinquency rates will continue to be affected in the future by home price changes, changes in other macroeconomic conditions, the length of the foreclosure process, the volume of loan modifications and the extent to which borrowers with modified loans continue to make timely payments; |
| • | Our belief that continued federal government support of our business and the financial markets, as well as our status as a GSE, are essential to maintaining our access to debt funding; |
| • | Our expectation that changes or perceived changes in the government’s support could materially and adversely affect our ability to refinance our debt as it becomes due, which could have a material adverse impact on our liquidity, financial condition, results of operations and ability to continue as a going concern; |
| • | Our expectation that weakness in the housing and mortgage markets will continue in 2012; |
| • | Our expectation that the high level of delinquent mortgage loans will ultimately result in high levels of foreclosures, which is likely to add to the excess housing inventory; |
- 54 -
Table of Contents
| • | Our expectation that home sales are unlikely to rise until the unemployment rate improves further; |
| • | Our expectation that single-family default and severity rates, as well as the level of single-family foreclosures, will remain high in 2012; |
| • | Our expectation that, despite signs of multifamily sector improvement at the national level, our multifamily charge-offs in 2012 will remain generally commensurate with 2011 levels as certain local markets and properties continue to exhibit weak fundamentals; |
| • | Our expectations that changes to HARP announced in October 2011 will result in our acquiring more refinancings in 2012 than we would have acquired in the absence of the changes, but that we will acquire fewer refinancings overall in 2012 than in 2011 because a high number of mortgages have already refinanced to low rates in recent years; |
| • | Our expectation that our loan acquisitions overall for 2012 will be lower than in 2011; |
| • | Our belief that our loan acquisitions could be negatively affected by the decrease in the fourth quarter of 2011in the maximum size loan we may acquire in specified high-cost areas; |
| • | Our expectation that our future revenues will be negatively impacted to the extent our acquisitions decline; |
| • | Our estimation that total originations in the U.S. single-family mortgage market in 2012 will decrease from 2011 levels by approximately 23%, from an estimated $1.4 trillion to an estimated $1.1 trillion, and that the amount of originations in the U.S. single-family mortgage market that are refinancings will decline from approximately $896 billion to approximately $568 billion; |
| • | Our expectation that home prices on a national basis will decline further before stabilizing in 2013; |
| • | Our expectation of a peak-to-trough home price decline on a national basis ranging from 23% to 30%, with the occurrence of an additional adverse economic event needed to reach the high end of the range; |
| • | Our expectations regarding regional variations in home price declines and stabilization; |
| • | Our expectation that our credit-related expenses will continue to be high in 2012 but that, overall, our credit-related expenses will be lower in 2012 than in 2011; |
| • | Our expectation that our credit losses in 2012 will remain high; |
| • | Our expectation that we will not earn profits in excess of our annual dividend obligation to Treasury for the indefinite future; |
| • | Our expectation that the Acting Director of FHFA will submit a request to Treasury on our behalf to eliminate our net worth deficit as of December 31, 2011; |
| • | Our expectation that we will request additional draws under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement in future periods, which will further increase the dividends we owe to Treasury on the senior preferred stock; |
| • | Our expectation that over time our dividend obligation to Treasury will constitute an increasing portion of our future draws under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement; |
| • | Our expectation that uncertainty regarding the future of our company will continue; |
| • | Our expectation that we will continue to purchase loans from MBS trusts as they become four or more consecutive monthly payments delinquent subject to market conditions, economic benefit, servicer capacity, and other factors, including the limit on mortgage assets that we may own pursuant to the senior preferred stock purchase agreement; |
| • | Our expectations that revenues derived from our mortgage asset portfolio will decrease over time as the maximum allowable amount of mortgage assets we may own decreases each year to 90% of the amount we were permitted to own the previous year under our senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury; |
- 55 -
Table of Contents
| • | Our expectation that Congressional hearings on GSE reform will continue in 2012 and additional legislation will be considered and proposals will be discussed, including proposals that would result in a substantial change to our business structure or that involve Fannie Mae’s liquidation or dissolution; |
| • | Our belief that, as drafted, bills introduced in Congress that would require FHFA to make a determination within two years of enactment regarding whether the GSEs were financially viable and, if the GSEs were determined to be not financially viable, to place them into receivership may upon enactment impair our ability to issue securities in the capital markets and therefore our ability to conduct our business, absent the federal government providing an explicit guarantee of our existing and future liabilities; |
| • | Our expectation that the Dodd-Frank Act will directly affect our business because new and additional regulatory oversight and standards will apply to us, and that we may also be affected by provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and implementing regulations that impact the activities of our customers and counterparties in the financial services industry; |
| • | Our expectation that, if we are designated as a systemically important nonbank financial company, we may become subject to certain enhanced prudential standards established by the Federal Reserve; |
| • | Our expectation that the adoption and application or enhanced supervision and prudential standards under the Dodd-Frank Act could increase our costs and may adversely affect demand for our debt and MBS; |
| • | Our expectation that our single-family guaranty fees may change in the future in addition to increases required in the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011; |
| • | Our expectation that our future guaranty fees will incorporate private sector pricing considerations such as geographic pricing that contemplates differences in foreclosure laws across the states, pricing indicative of higher required minimum capital levels, and more significant pricing differentiation between higher-risk and lower-risk loans; |
| • | Our expectations that increases in our single-family guaranty fees will affect our competitive environment; |
| • | Our expectations regarding the impact of FHFA’s directive that we phase out the practice of requiring mortgage servicers to use our network of retained attorneys to perform default- and foreclosure-related legal services for our loans; |
| • | Our expectations regarding a transitional period as we discontinue our retained attorney network; |
| • | Our expectation that we will seek to provide liquidity to a broader, more diversified set of mortgage lenders; |
| • | Our expectation that, although we do not know the structure that long-term GSE reform will ultimately take, if our company continues we will face more competition in the future; |
| • | Our expectation that we will continue to need funding from Treasury, and that FHFA will request additional funds from Treasury on our behalf, to avoid triggering FHFA’s obligation to place us into receivership; |
| • | Our expectations regarding compensation we will pay our executives in the future; |
| • | Our expectation that deterioration in the credit performance of mortgage loans that we own or that back Fannie Mae MBS will continue and result in additional credit-related expenses; |
| • | Our expectation that we will experience additional other-than-temporary impairment write-downs of our investments in private-label mortgage-related securities; |
| • | Our expectation that our acquisitions of Alt-A mortgage loans (which are limited to refinancings of existing Fannie Mae loans) will continue to be minimal in future periods and the percentage of the book of business attributable to Alt-A will continue to decrease over time; |
| • | Our expectation that Refi Plus loans will perform better than the loans they replace because Refi Plus loans reduce the borrowers’ monthly payments or otherwise should provide more sustainability than the borrowers’ old loans (for example, by having a fixed rate instead of an adjustable rate); |
- 56 -
Table of Contents
| • | Our expectation that our mortgage portfolio will continue to decrease due to the restrictions on the amount of mortgage assets we may own under the terms of our senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury; |
| • | Our expectation that the current market premium portion of our current estimate of the fair value of our book of business will not impact future Treasury draws, which is based on our intention generally not to have other parties assume the credit risk inherent in our book of business; |
| • | Our expectation that, although our funding needs may vary from quarter to quarter depending on market conditions, our debt funding needs will decline in future periods as we reduce the size of our mortgage portfolio in compliance with the requirement of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement; |
| • | Our intention to repay our short-term and long-term debt obligations as they become due primarily through proceeds from the issuance of additional debt securities; |
| • | Our intention to use funds we receive from Treasury under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement to pay our debt obligations and to pay dividends on the senior preferred stock; |
| • | Our expectations regarding our credit ratings and their impact on us as set forth in “MD&A—Liquidity and Capital Management—Liquidity Management—Credit Ratings”; |
| • | Our expectation that the volume of our workouts and foreclosure alternatives will remain high throughout 2012; |
| • | Our belief that the performance of our workouts will be highly dependent on economic factors, such as unemployment rates, household wealth and income, and home prices; |
| • | Our expectation that the amount of our outstanding repurchase requests to seller/servicers will remain high, and that we may be unable to recover on all outstanding loan repurchase obligations resulting from seller/servicers’ breaches of contractual obligations; |
| • | Our expectation that the change in our agreement with Bank of America will not be material to our business or results of operations; |
| • | Our expectations regarding recoveries from our lenders under risk sharing arrangements, and the possibility that we may require a lender to pledge collateral to secure its recourse obligations; |
| • | Our beliefs regarding whether our financial guarantor counterparties will be able to fully meet their obligations to us in the future; |
| • | Our expectation that we will be required to submit certain interest rate swaps for clearing to a derivatives clearing organization in the future and that our institutional credit risk exposure to the Chicago Mercantile Exchange or other comparable exchanges or trading facilities and their members is likely to increase in the future; and |
| • | Our expectations regarding amounts we expect to receive from Treasury for our work as program administrator, as well as amounts we expect to receive to be passed through to third-party vendors engaged by us in connection with HAMP and other initiatives under the Making Home Affordable Program. |
Forward-looking statements reflect our management’s expectations or predictions of future conditions, events or results based on various assumptions and management’s estimates of trends and economic factors in the markets in which we are active, as well as our business plans. They are not guarantees of future performance. By their nature, forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties. Our actual results and financial condition may differ, possibly materially, from the anticipated results and financial condition indicated in these forward-looking statements. There are a number of factors that could cause actual conditions, events or results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements contained in this report, including, but not limited to, the following: the uncertainty of our future; legislative and regulatory changes affecting us; challenges we face in retaining and hiring qualified employees; the deteriorated credit performance of many loans in our guaranty book of business; the conservatorship and its effect on our business; the investment by Treasury and its effect on our business; adverse effects from activities we undertake to support the mortgage market and help borrowers; limitations on our ability to access the debt capital markets; further disruptions in the housing and credit markets; defaults by one or more institutional counterparties; our reliance on mortgage
- 57 -
Table of Contents
servicers; deficiencies in servicer and law firm foreclosure processes and the consequences of those deficiencies; guidance by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”); operational control weaknesses; our reliance on models; the level and volatility of interest rates and credit spreads; changes in the structure and regulation of the financial services industry; and those factors described in this report, including those factors described in “Risk Factors.”
Readers are cautioned to place forward-looking statements in this report or that we make from time to time into proper context by carefully considering the factors discussed in “Risk Factors.” These forward-looking statements are representative only as of the date they are made, and we undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required under the federal securities laws.
This section identifies specific risks that should be considered carefully in evaluating our business. The risks described in “Risks Relating to Our Business” are specific to us and our business, while those described in “Risks Relating to Our Industry” relate to the industry in which we operate. Refer to “MD&A—Risk Management” for a more detailed description of the primary risks to our business and how we seek to manage those risks.
The risks we face could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and net worth, and could cause our actual results to differ materially from our past results or the results contemplated by forward-looking statements contained in this report. In addition to the risks we discuss below, we face risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently believe to be immaterial.
| RISKS RELATING TO OUR BUSINESS |
The future of our company is uncertain.
There is significant uncertainty regarding the future of our company, including how long the company will continue to exist in its current form, the extent of our role in the market, what form we will have, and what ownership interest, if any, our current common and preferred stockholders will hold in us after the conservatorship is terminated.
In February 2011, Treasury and HUD released a report to Congress on ending the conservatorships of the GSEs and reforming America’s housing finance market. The report provides that the Administration will work with FHFA to determine the best way to responsibly reduce Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s role in the market and ultimately wind down both institutions. The report also addresses three options for a reformed housing finance system. The report does not state whether or how the existing infrastructure or human capital of Fannie Mae may be used in the establishment of such a reformed system. The report emphasizes the importance of proceeding with a careful transition plan and providing the necessary financial support to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the transition period. On February 2, 2012, Treasury Secretary Geithner stated that the Administration intended to release new details around approaches to housing finance reform, including winding down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in the spring of 2012 and to work with Congressional leaders to explore options for legislation, but that he does not expect housing finance reform legislation to be enacted in 2012. In his February 2012 letter to Congress, the Acting Director of FHFA wrote that, with “no near-term resolution [of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s conservatorships] in sight, it is time to update and extend the goals and directions of the conservatorships.” He provided a strategic plan for the next phase of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s conservatorships that included, among its three strategic goals for the next phase of the conservatorships, gradually contracting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s dominant presence in the marketplace while simplifying and shrinking their operations.
The Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises of the House Financial Services Committee has approved numerous bills that could constrain the current operations of the GSEs or alter the existing authority that FHFA or Treasury has over the enterprises. In addition, several bills have been introduced
- 58 -
Table of Contents
in the Senate and House of Representatives that would place the GSEs into receivership after a period of time and either grant federal charters to new entities to engage in activities similar to those currently engaged in by the GSEs or leave secondary mortgage market activities to entities in the private sector. We expect that Congress will continue to hold hearings and consider legislation in 2012 on the future status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including proposals that would result in a substantial change to our business structure, our operations, or that involve Fannie Mae’s liquidation or dissolution. We cannot predict the prospects for the enactment, timing or content of legislative proposals regarding the future status of the GSEs. See “MD&A—Legislative and Regulatory Developments—GSE Reform” for more information about the Treasury report and Congressional proposals regarding reform of the GSEs.
We expect FHFA to request additional funds from Treasury on our behalf to ensure we maintain a positive net worth and avoid mandatory receivership. The dividends we must pay or that accrue on Treasury’s investments are substantial and are expected to increase, and we likely will not be able to fund them through net income.
When Treasury provides the additional $4.6 billion FHFA is requesting on our behalf to cure our net worth deficit as of December 31, 2011, the aggregate liquidation preference on the senior preferred stock will be $117.1 billion, and will require an annualized dividend of $11.7 billion. The prospective $11.7 billion annual dividend obligation exceeds our reported annual net income for every year since our inception. Our ability to maintain a positive net worth has been and continues to be adversely affected by market conditions. To the extent we have a negative net worth as of the end of future fiscal quarters, we expect that FHFA will request on our behalf additional funds from Treasury under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement. Further funds from Treasury under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement will increase the liquidation preference of and the dividends we owe on our senior preferred stock and, therefore, we will need additional funds from Treasury in order to meet our dividend obligation to Treasury.
In addition, we were scheduled to begin paying a quarterly commitment fee to Treasury under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement beginning on March 31, 2011. Although Treasury has waived the quarterly commitment fee for each quarter of 2011 and the first quarter of 2012 due to the continued fragility of the mortgage market and Treasury’s belief that the imposition of the quarterly commitment fee would not generate increased compensation for taxpayers, Treasury indicated that it will reevaluate the situation during the next calendar quarter to determine whether the quarterly commitment fee should then be set. The aggregate liquidation preference and dividend obligations relating to the preferred stock also will increase by the amount of any required dividend on the senior preferred stock that we fail to pay in cash and by the amount of any required quarterly commitment fee on the senior preferred stock that we fail to pay. The substantial dividend obligations and potentially substantial quarterly commitment fees on the senior preferred stock, coupled with our effective inability to pay down draws under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, will continue to strain our financial resources and have an adverse impact on our results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and net worth, both in the short and long term.
Our regulator is authorized or required to place us into receivership under specified conditions, which would result in the liquidation of our assets. Amounts recovered from the liquidation will likely be insufficient to repay the liquidation preference of any series of our preferred stock or to provide any proceeds to common shareholders.
FHFA has an obligation to place us into receivership if the Director of FHFA makes a written determination that our assets are less than our obligations for a period of 60 days after the filing deadline for our Form 10-K or Form 10-Q with the SEC. Because of the credit-related expenses we expect to incur on our legacy book of business and our dividend obligation to Treasury, we will continue to need funding from Treasury to avoid triggering FHFA’s obligation. Although Treasury committed to providing us funds in accordance with the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, Treasury may not provide these funds to us within the required 60 days if it has exhausted its borrowing authority or if there is a government shutdown. In addition, we could be put into receivership at the discretion of the Director of FHFA at any time for other reasons, including conditions that FHFA has already asserted existed at the time the former Director of FHFA placed us into conservatorship.
- 59 -
Table of Contents
A receivership would terminate the conservatorship. In addition to the powers FHFA has as our conservator, the appointment of FHFA as our receiver would terminate all rights and claims that our shareholders and creditors may have against our assets or under our charter arising from their status as shareholders or creditors, except for their right to payment, resolution or other satisfaction of their claims as permitted under the GSE Act. Unlike a conservatorship, the purpose of which is to conserve our assets and return us to a sound and solvent condition, the purpose of a receivership is to liquidate our assets and resolve claims against us.
To the extent we are placed into receivership and do not or cannot fulfill our guaranty to the holders of our Fannie Mae MBS, the MBS holders could become unsecured creditors of ours with respect to claims made under our guaranty.
In the event of a liquidation of our assets, only after payment of the administrative expenses of the receiver and the immediately preceding conservator, the secured and unsecured claims against the company (including repaying all outstanding debt obligations), and the liquidation preference of the senior preferred stock, would any liquidation proceeds be available to repay the liquidation preference on any other series of preferred stock. Finally, only after the liquidation preference on all series of preferred stock is repaid would any liquidation proceeds be available for distribution to the holders of our common stock. It is unlikely that there would be sufficient proceeds to repay the liquidation preference of any series of our preferred stock or to make any distribution to the holders of our common stock.
Our business and results of operations may be materially adversely affected if we are unable to retain and hire qualified employees.
Our business processes are highly dependent on the talents and efforts of our employees. The uncertainty of our future, limitations on employee compensation, our inability to offer equity compensation, the heightened scrutiny of our actions by Congress and regulators and the working environment created thereby, and our conservatorship have had and are likely to continue to have an adverse effect on our ability to retain and recruit well-qualified employees. We have already had significant departures by various members of executive management since shortly before we entered into conservatorship in September 2008, including two Chief Executive Officers and three Chief Financial Officers. In addition, in January 2012, our current Chief Executive Officer announced that he will step down from his position when our Board of Directors names a successor. Further turnover in key management positions and challenges in integrating new management could harm our ability to manage our business effectively and ultimately adversely affect our financial performance.
A particular threat to employee retention and hiring is the possibility of new legislation limiting executive or employee compensation. The Financial Services Committee of the House of Representatives approved a bill that would put our employees on a federal government pay scale, and both the House and the Senate approved legislation that would prohibit senior executives from receiving bonuses during conservatorship. If this or similar legislation were to become law, our employees could experience a sudden and sharp decrease in compensation. The Acting Director of FHFA stated on November 15, 2011 that this “would certainly risk a substantial exodus of talent, the best leaving first in many instances. [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] likely would suffer a rapidly growing vacancy list and replacements with lesser skills and no experience in their specific jobs. A significant increase in safety and soundness risks and in costly operational failures would, in my opinion, be highly likely.” The Acting Director observed, “Should the risks I fear materialize, FHFA might well be forced to limit [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s] business activities. Some of the business [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] would be unable to undertake might simply not occur, with potential disruption in housing markets and the economy.” We face competition from within the financial services industry and from businesses outside of the financial services industry for qualified employees. Additionally, an improving economy is likely to put additional pressures on turnover, as attractive opportunities become available to our employees. Our competitors for talent are able to provide market-based compensation and to link employees’ pay to performance. The constraints on our compensation could adversely affect our ability to attract qualified candidates. While we engage in succession planning for our senior management and other critical positions and have been able to fill a number of important positions internally, our inability to offer market-based compensation would jeopardize our ability to fill vacant positions internally.
- 60 -
Table of Contents
If we are unable to retain, promote and attract employees with the necessary skills and talent, we would face increased risks for operational failures. Our ability to conduct our business and our results of operations would likely be materially adversely affected.
Since 2008, we have experienced substantial deterioration in the credit performance of mortgage loans that we own or that back our guaranteed Fannie Mae MBS, and we expect this deterioration to continue and result in additional credit-related expenses.
Deterioration in the credit performance of mortgage loans we own or that back our guaranteed Fannie Mae MBS has increased our risk of incurring credit losses and credit-related expenses as a result of borrowers failing to make required payments of principal and interest on their mortgage loans.
Conditions in the housing market continue to contribute to deterioration in the credit performance of our legacy book of business, resulting in elevated serious delinquency rates and negatively impacting default rates and average loan loss severity on the mortgage loans we hold or that back our guaranteed Fannie Mae MBS. Increases in delinquencies, default rates and loss severity cause us to experience higher credit-related expenses. The credit performance of our single-family book of business has also been negatively affected by the extent and duration of the decline in home prices and high unemployment. Home price declines, adverse market conditions and continuing high levels of unemployment also have affected and may continue to affect the credit performance of and future results for our broader book of business. Further, home price declines have resulted in a large number of borrowers with “negative equity” in their properties (that is, they owe more on their mortgage loans than their houses are worth), which increases the likelihood that either these borrowers will strategically default on their mortgage loans even if they have the ability to continue to pay the loans or that distressed homeowners will sell their homes in a “short sale” for significantly less than the unpaid amount of the loans. We present detailed information about the risk characteristics of our single-family conventional guaranty book of business in “MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Mortgage Credit Risk Management,” and we present detailed information on our 2011 credit-related expenses, credit losses and results of operations in “MD&A—Consolidated Results of Operations.”
Adverse credit performance trends may increase, particularly if we experience further national and regional declines in home prices, weak economic conditions and high unemployment.
We expect further losses and write-downs relating to our investment securities.
We have experienced significant fair value losses and other-than-temporary impairment write-downs relating to our investment securities and recorded significant other-than-temporary impairment write-downs of some of our available-for-sale securities. A substantial portion of these fair value losses and write-downs related to our investments in private-label mortgage-related securities backed by Alt-A and subprime mortgage loans and, in the case of fair value losses, our investments in commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”) due to the decline in home prices and the weak economy. We expect to experience additional other-than-temporary impairment write-downs of our investments in private-label mortgage-related securities. See “MD&A—Consolidated Balance Sheet Analysis— Investments in Mortgage-Related Securities—Investments in Private-Label Mortgage-Related Securities” for detailed information on our investments in private-label mortgage-related securities backed by Alt-A and subprime mortgage loans.
If the market for securities we hold in our investment portfolio is not liquid, we must use a greater amount of management judgment to value these securities. Later valuations and any price we ultimately would realize if we were to sell these securities could be materially lower than the estimated fair value at which we carry them on our balance sheet.
Any of the above factors could require us to record additional write-downs in the value of our investment portfolio, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and net worth.
- 61 -
Table of Contents
Our business activities are significantly affected by the conservatorship and the senior preferred stock purchase agreement.
We are currently under the control of our conservator, FHFA, and we do not know when or how the conservatorship will be terminated. As conservator, FHFA can direct us to enter into contracts or enter into contracts on our behalf, and generally has the power to transfer or sell any of our assets or liabilities. In addition, our directors do not have any duties to any person or entity except to the conservator. Accordingly, our directors are not obligated to consider the interests of the company, the holders of our equity or debt securities or the holders of Fannie Mae MBS in making or approving a decision unless specifically directed to do so by the conservator.
The conservator has determined that while we are in conservatorship, we will be limited to continuing our existing core business activities and taking actions necessary to advance the goals of the conservatorship. In view of the conservatorship and the reasons stated for its establishment, it is likely that our business model and strategic objectives will continue to change, possibly significantly, including in pursuit of our public mission and other non-financial objectives. Our conservator recently announced that one of the strategic goals for the next phase of our and Freddie Mac’s conservatorships is to gradually contract our dominant presence in the marketplace while simplifying and shrinking our operations. Among other things, we are likely to experience significant changes in the size, growth and characteristics of our guarantor and investment activities, and we could further change our operational objectives, including our pricing strategy in our core mortgage guaranty business. Accordingly, our strategic and operational focus going forward may not be consistent with the investment objectives of our investors. In addition, we may be directed to engage in activities that are operationally difficult, costly to implement or unprofitable.
The senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury includes a number of covenants that significantly restrict our business activities. We cannot, without the prior written consent of Treasury: pay dividends (except on the senior preferred stock); sell, issue, purchase or redeem Fannie Mae equity securities; sell, transfer, lease or otherwise dispose of assets in specified situations; engage in transactions with affiliates other than on arm’s-length terms or in the ordinary course of business; issue subordinated debt; or incur indebtedness that would result in our aggregate indebtedness exceeding 120% of the amount of mortgage assets we are allowed to own. In deciding whether to consent to any request for approval it receives from us under the agreement, Treasury has the right to withhold its consent for any reason and is not required by the agreement to consider any particular factors, including whether or not management believes that the transaction would benefit the company. For example, in November 2009, Treasury withheld its consent under these covenants to our proposed transfer of interests in low-income housing tax credit (“LIHTC”) investments, eliminating our ability to transfer the assets for value and resulting in our recognizing a $5 billion loss in that quarter. Pursuant to the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, the maximum allowable amount of mortgage assets we were permitted to own on December 31, 2011 was $729 billion. (Our mortgage assets were approximately $708.4 billion as of that date.) On December 31, 2012, and each December 31 thereafter, our mortgage assets may not exceed 90% of the maximum allowable amount that we were permitted to own as of December 31 of the immediately preceding calendar year. The maximum allowable amount is reduced annually until it reaches $250 billion. This limit on the amount of mortgage assets we are permitted to hold could constrain the amount of delinquent loans we purchase from single-family MBS trusts, which could increase our costs.
We discuss the powers of the conservator, the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, and their impact on us and shareholders in “Business—Conservatorship and Treasury Agreements.” These factors may adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and net worth.
The conservatorship and investment by Treasury have had, and will continue to have, a material adverse effect on our common and preferred shareholders.
We do not know when or how the conservatorship will be terminated. Moreover, even if the conservatorship is terminated, we remain subject to the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, senior preferred stock and warrant, which can only be cancelled or modified by mutual consent of Treasury and the conservator.
- 62 -
Table of Contents
The conservatorship and investment by Treasury have had, and will continue to have, material adverse effects on our common and preferred shareholders, including the following:
No voting rights during conservatorship. The rights and powers of our shareholders are suspended during the conservatorship. The conservatorship has no specified termination date. During the conservatorship, our common shareholders do not have the ability to elect directors or to vote on other matters unless the conservator delegates this authority to them.
Dividends to common and preferred shareholders, other than to Treasury, have been eliminated. Under the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, dividends may not be paid to common or preferred shareholders (other than on the senior preferred stock) without the consent of Treasury, regardless of whether we are in conservatorship.
Liquidation preference of senior preferred stock will increase, likely substantially. The senior preferred stock ranks prior to our common stock and all other series of our preferred stock, as well as any capital stock we issue in the future, as to both dividends and distributions upon liquidation. Accordingly, if we are liquidated, the senior preferred stock is entitled to its then-current liquidation preference, plus any accrued but unpaid dividends, before any distribution is made to the holders of our common stock or other preferred stock. The liquidation preference on the senior preferred stock will increase to $117.1 billion when Treasury provides the additional $4.6 billion FHFA is requesting on our behalf. The liquidation preference could increase substantially as we draw on Treasury’s funding commitment, if we do not pay dividends owed on the senior preferred stock or if we do not pay the quarterly commitment fee under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement. If we are liquidated, it is unlikely that there would be sufficient funds remaining after payment of amounts to our creditors and to Treasury as holder of the senior preferred stock to make any distribution to holders of our common stock and other preferred stock.
Exercise of the Treasury warrant would substantially dilute investment of current shareholders. If Treasury exercises its warrant to purchase shares of our common stock equal to 79.9% of the total number of shares of our common stock outstanding on a fully diluted basis, the ownership interest in the company of our then existing common shareholders will be substantially diluted, and we would thereafter have a controlling shareholder.
No longer managed for the benefit of shareholders. Because we are in conservatorship, we are no longer managed with a strategy to maximize shareholder returns.
For additional description of the restrictions on us and the risks to our shareholders, see “Business—Conservatorship and Treasury Agreements.”
We may undertake efforts that adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and net worth.
In conservatorship our business is no longer managed with a strategy to maximize shareholder returns while fulfilling our mission. Our conservator has directed us to focus primarily on minimizing our credit losses from delinquent mortgages and providing assistance to struggling homeowners to help them remain in their homes. More recently, our conservator has announced two additional strategic goals for the next phase of our conservatorship—building a new infrastructure for the secondary mortgage market and gradually contracting our dominant presence in the marketplace while simplifying and shrinking our operations. In pursuit of these or other goals prescribed by our conservator, we may take a variety of actions that could adversely affect our economic returns, possibly significantly, such as encouraging increased competition in our markets; reducing the risk-based fees we charge for certain types of loans; modifying loans to defer principal, lower the interest rate or extend the maturity; or engaging in principal reduction. We are already taking some of these actions. These activities may have short- and long-term adverse effects on our business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and net worth.
Other agencies of the U.S. government or Congress also may ask us to undertake significant efforts to support the housing and mortgage markets, as well as struggling homeowners. They may also ask us to take actions in
- 63 -
Table of Contents
support of other goals. For example, as we discuss in “Business—Legislative and Regulatory Developments—Changes to Our Single-Family Guaranty Fee Pricing” in December 2011, Congress enacted the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 which, among other provisions, requires that we increase our single-family guaranty fees by at least 10 basis points and remit this increase to Treasury to fund extensions of employment tax reductions and unemployment benefits, rather than retaining this incremental revenue. We anticipate that implementing this fee increase and remitting the increase to Treasury will involve operational burden and could increase our operational risk.
We may be unable to meet our housing goals and duty to serve requirements, and actions we take to meet those requirements may adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and net worth.
To meet our housing goals obligations, a portion of the mortgage loans we acquire must be for low- and very-low income families, families in low-income census tracts and moderate-income families in minority census tracts or designated disaster areas. In addition, when a final duty-to-serve rule is issued, we will have a duty to serve three underserved markets: manufactured housing, affordable housing preservation and rural areas. We may take actions to meet these obligations that could increase our credit losses and credit-related expenses. If we fail to meet our housing goals in a given year and FHFA finds that they were feasible, or if we fail to comply with our duty to serve requirements, we may become subject to a housing plan that could require us to take additional steps that could have an adverse effect on our financial condition. The housing plan must describe the actions we would take to meet the goals and/or duty to serve in the next calendar year and be approved by FHFA. With respect to our housing goals, the potential penalties for failure to comply with housing plan requirements are a cease-and-desist order and civil money penalties.
Mortgage market conditions during 2011 negatively affected our ability to meet our single-family goals. These conditions included reduced levels of single-family borrowing by low-income purchasers, an increase in the share of mortgages made to moderate-income borrowers due to low interest rates, continuing high unemployment, strengthened underwriting and eligibility standards, increased standards of private mortgage insurers and the increased role of FHA in acquiring goals-qualifying mortgage loans. Some or all of these conditions, which may continue in 2012, likely contributed to our failure to meet two of our single-family home purchase goals for 2010. We cannot predict the impact that market conditions during 2012 will have on our ability to meet our 2012 housing goals and duty to serve requirements.
For more information about our housing goals and duty to serve requirements, as well as our 2011 and 2010 housing goals performance, please see “Business—Our Charter and Regulation of Our Activities—Housing Goals and Duty to Serve Underserved Markets.”
Limitations on our ability to access the debt capital markets could have a material adverse effect on our ability to fund our operations and generate net interest income.
Our ability to fund our business depends primarily on our ongoing access to the debt capital markets. Our level of net interest income depends on how much lower our cost of funds is compared to what we earn on our mortgage assets. Market concerns about matters such as the extent of government support for our business, the future of our business (including future profitability, future structure, regulatory actions and GSE status) and the creditworthiness of the U.S. government could cause a severe negative effect on our access to the unsecured debt markets, particularly for long-term debt. We believe that our ability in 2010 and 2011 to issue debt of varying maturities at attractive pricing resulted from federal government support of us and the financial markets. As a result, we believe that our status as a GSE and continued federal government support is essential to maintaining our access to debt funding. Changes or perceived changes in the government’s support of us or the markets could have a material adverse effect on our ability to fund our operations. As recently as September 2011, the Federal Reserve announced that, to help support conditions in mortgage markets, it will reinvest principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities. However, there can be no assurance that the government will continue to support us or the markets, or that our current level of access to debt funding will continue. In addition, due to our reliance on the U.S. government’s
- 64 -
Table of Contents
support, our access to debt funding also could be materially adversely affected by a change or perceived change in the creditworthiness of the U.S. government.
Future changes or disruptions in the financial markets could significantly change the amount, mix and cost of funds we obtain, as well as our liquidity position. If we are unable to issue both short- and long-term debt securities at attractive rates and in amounts sufficient to operate our business and meet our obligations, it likely would interfere with the operation of our business and have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, results of operations, financial condition and net worth.
Our liquidity contingency plans may be difficult or impossible to execute during a liquidity crisis.
We believe that our liquidity contingency plans may be difficult or impossible to execute during a liquidity crisis. If we cannot access the unsecured debt markets, our ability to repay maturing indebtedness and fund our operations could be eliminated or significantly impaired. In this event, our alternative sources of liquidity—consisting of our cash and other investments portfolio and the unencumbered mortgage assets in our mortgage portfolio—may not be sufficient to meet our liquidity needs.
We believe that the amount of mortgage-related assets that we could successfully sell or borrow against in the event of a liquidity crisis or significant market disruption is substantially lower than the amount of mortgage-related assets we hold. Due to the large size of our portfolio of mortgage assets, current market conditions and the significant amount of distressed assets in our mortgage portfolio, there would likely be insufficient market demand for large amounts of these assets over a prolonged period of time, which would limit our ability to borrow against or sell these assets.
To the extent that we are able to obtain funding by pledging or selling mortgage-related securities as collateral, we anticipate that a discount would be applied that would reduce the value assigned to those securities. Depending on market conditions at the time, this discount could result in proceeds significantly lower than the current market value of these securities and could thereby reduce the amount of financing we obtain. In addition, our primary source of collateral is Fannie Mae MBS that we own. In the event of a liquidity crisis in which the future of our company is uncertain, counterparties may be unwilling to accept Fannie Mae MBS as collateral. As a result, we may not be able to sell or borrow against these securities in sufficient amounts to meet our liquidity needs.
A decrease in the credit ratings on our senior unsecured debt could have an adverse effect on our ability to issue debt on reasonable terms and trigger additional collateral requirements, and would likely do so if such a decrease were not based on a similar action on the credit ratings of the U.S. government.
Credit ratings on our senior unsecured debt, as well as the credit ratings of the U.S. government, are primary factors that could affect our borrowing costs and our access to the debt capital markets. Credit ratings on our debt are subject to revision or withdrawal at any time by the rating agencies. Actions by governmental entities impacting the support we receive from Treasury could adversely affect the credit ratings on our senior unsecured debt.
On August 5, 2011, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services (“S&P”) lowered the long-term sovereign credit rating on the U.S. to “AA+.” As a result of this action, and because we directly rely on the U.S. government for capital support, on August 8, 2011, S&P lowered our long-term senior debt rating to “AA+” with a negative outlook. Previously, our long-term senior debt had been rated by S&P as “AAA” and had been on CreditWatch Negative. S&P affirmed our short-term senior debt rating of “A-1+” and removed it from CreditWatch Negative. In assigning a negative outlook on the U.S. government’s long-term debt rating, S&P noted that it may lower the U.S. government’s long-term debt rating to “AA” within the next two years if it sees less reduction in spending than agreed to or higher interest rates, or if new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than S&P currently assumes. If S&P further lowers the U.S. government’s long-term debt rating, we expect that S&P would lower our long-term debt rating correspondingly.
After the U.S. government’s statutory debt limit was raised on August 2, 2011, Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”) confirmed the U.S. government’s rating and our long-term debt ratings. Moody’s also removed the
- 65 -
Table of Contents
designation that these ratings were under review for possible downgrade. Moody’s revised the outlook for both the U.S. government’s rating and our long-term debt ratings to negative. In assigning the negative outlook to the U.S. government’s rating, Moody’s indicated there would be a risk of a downgrade if (1) there is a weakening in fiscal discipline in the coming year; (2) further fiscal consolidation measures are not adopted in 2013; (3) the economic outlook deteriorates significantly; or (4) there is an appreciable rise in the U.S. government’s funding costs over and above what is currently expected. On November 28, 2011, Fitch Ratings Limited (“Fitch”) affirmed the long-term issuer default rating and senior unsecured debt rating of Fannie Mae at “AAA,” but revised its ratings outlook on Fannie Mae’s long-term issuer default rating to Negative from Stable. This action followed a similar action by Fitch on the United States sovereign rating. As of February 23, 2012 our long-term debt continued to be rated “Aaa” by Moody’s and “AAA” by Fitch.
S&P, Moody’s and Fitch have all indicated that they would likely lower their ratings on the debt of Fannie Mae and certain other government-related entities if they were to lower their ratings on the U.S. government.
We currently cannot predict whether one or more of these rating agencies will downgrade our debt ratings in the future, nor can we predict the potential impact. Although S&P’s downgrade of our credit rating has not increased our borrowing costs or limited our access to the debt capital markets to date, an additional reduction in our credit ratings could have a material adverse impact on our access to debt funding or on the cost of our debt funding, and would likely do so if it were not based on a similar action on the credit ratings of the U.S. government. An additional reduction in our credit ratings may also trigger additional collateral requirements under our derivatives contracts and other borrowing arrangements and materially adversely affect our liquidity, our ability to conduct our normal business operations, our financial condition and our results of operations. Our credit ratings and ratings outlook are included in “MD&A—Liquidity and Capital Management—Liquidity Management—Credit Ratings.”
Deterioration in the credit quality of, or defaults by, one or more of our institutional counterparties could result in financial losses, business disruption and decreased ability to manage risk.
We face the risk that one or more of our institutional counterparties may fail to fulfill their contractual obligations to us. Unfavorable market conditions since 2008 have adversely affected the liquidity and financial condition of our institutional counterparties. Our primary exposures to institutional counterparty risk are with mortgage seller/servicers that service the loans we hold in our mortgage portfolio or that back our Fannie Mae MBS; seller/servicers that are obligated to repurchase loans from us or reimburse us for losses in certain circumstances; third-party providers of credit enhancement on the mortgage assets that we hold in our mortgage portfolio or that back our Fannie Mae MBS, including mortgage insurers, lenders with risk sharing arrangements and financial guarantors; issuers of securities held in our cash and other investments portfolio; and derivatives counterparties.
We may have multiple exposures to one counterparty as many of our counterparties provide several types of services to us. For example, our lender customers or their affiliates also act as derivatives counterparties, mortgage servicers, custodial depository institutions or document custodians. Accordingly, if one of these counterparties were to become insolvent or otherwise default on its obligations to us, it could harm our business and financial results in a variety of ways.
An institutional counterparty may default in its obligations to us for a number of reasons, such as changes in financial condition that affect its credit rating, a reduction in liquidity, operational failures or insolvency. A number of our institutional counterparties are currently experiencing financial difficulties that may negatively affect the ability of these counterparties to meet their obligations to us and the amount or quality of the products or services they provide to us. Counterparty defaults or limitations on their ability to do business with us could result in significant financial losses or hamper our ability to do business, which would adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and net worth. For example, failure by a significant seller/servicer counterparty, or a number of seller/servicers, to fulfill repurchase obligations to us could result in a significant increase in our credit losses and have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.
- 66 -
Table of Contents
We routinely execute a high volume of transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry. Many of the transactions we engage in with these counterparties expose us to credit risk relating to the possibility of a default by our counterparties. In addition, to the extent these transactions are secured, our credit risk may be exacerbated to the extent that the collateral we hold cannot be realized or can be liquidated only at prices too low to recover the full amount of the loan or derivative exposure. We have exposure to these financial institutions in the form of unsecured debt instruments and derivatives transactions. As a result, we could incur losses relating to defaults under these instruments or relating to impairments to the carrying value of our assets represented by these instruments. These losses could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and net worth.
We depend on our ability to enter into derivatives transactions in order to manage the duration and prepayment risk of our mortgage portfolio. If we lose access to our derivatives counterparties, it could adversely affect our ability to manage these risks, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and net worth.
Given the deteriorated credit quality of many of our mortgage insurer counterparties, we may incur losses as a result of claims under our mortgage insurance policies not being paid in full or at all, and we may face business disruptions and increased concentration risk.
We rely heavily on mortgage insurers to provide insurance against borrower defaults on single-family conventional mortgage loans with LTV ratios over 80% at the time of acquisition. The already weak financial condition of many of our mortgage insurer counterparties deteriorated at an accelerated pace during the second half of 2011, which increased the significant risk that these counterparties will fail to fulfill their obligations to pay our claims under insurance policies.
As of February 29, 2012, three of our mortgage insurance counterparties—Triad Guaranty Insurance Corporation (“Triad”), Republic Mortgage Insurance Company (“RMIC”), and PMI Mortgage Insurance Co. (“PMI”)—have publicly disclosed that they are in run-off. A mortgage insurer that is in run-off continues to collect premiums on its existing insurance business, but no longer writes new insurance. This increases the risk that the mortgage insurer will fail to pay our claims under insurance policies, and could also cause the quality and speed of its claims processing to deteriorate. In 2008, Triad ceased issuing commitments for new mortgage insurance and, under an order received from its regulator, is now paying 60% of claims under its mortgage guaranty insurance policies and deferring the remaining 40% by the creation of deferred payment obligations, which may be paid in the future. In October 2011, PMI began partially deferring claims payments, and in January 2012, RMIC began partially deferring claims payments. Both PMI and RMIC are paying 50% of claims, with the remaining 50% deferred as policyholder claims. It is uncertain when, and if, regulators for Triad, RMIC or PMI will allow deferred policyholder claims to be paid or increase the amount paid on claims.
In addition to our three mortgage insurers in run-off, one mortgage insurer, Genworth Mortgage Insurance Corporation, disclosed that, absent a waiver, it estimated that it would not meet state regulatory capital requirements for its main insurance writing entity as of December 31, 2011. An additional two of our mortgage insurance counterparties (Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation and Radian Guaranty Inc.) have disclosed that, in the absence of additional capital contributions to their insurance writing entity, their capital might fall below state regulatory capital requirements in the future. These three mortgage insurers, together with our three mortgage insurers in run-off, provided a combined $74.1 billion, or 81%, of our risk in force mortgage insurance coverage of our single-family guaranty book of business as of December 31, 2011. We do not know how long certain of our mortgage insurer counterparties will remain below their state-imposed risk-to-capital limits. If mortgage insurers are not able to raise capital and they exceed their risk-to-capital limits, they will likely be forced into run-off or receivership unless they can secure and maintain waivers from their state regulators.
Some mortgage insurers have explored corporate restructurings, which are intended to provide relief from risk-to-capital limits in certain states. A restructuring plan that would involve contributing capital to a subsidiary would result in less liquidity available to its parent company to pay claims on its existing book of business and an increased risk that its parent company will not pay its claims in full in the future.
- 67 -
Table of Contents
Our loss reserves take into account our assessment of our mortgage insurer counterparties’ ability to fulfill their obligations to us. If our assessment of their claims-paying abilities worsens significantly, it could result in a significant increase in our loss reserves and our credit losses.
Many mortgage insurers stopped insuring new mortgages with higher loan-to-value ratios or with lower borrower credit scores or on select property types, which contributed to the reduction in our business volumes for high loan-to-value ratio loans. As our charter generally requires us to obtain credit enhancement on single-family conventional mortgage loans with loan-to-value ratios over 80% at the time of purchase, an inability to find suitable credit enhancement may inhibit our ability to pursue new business opportunities, meet our housing goals and otherwise support the housing and mortgage markets. For example, where mortgage insurance or other credit enhancement is not available, we may be hindered in our ability to refinance loans into more affordable loans. In addition, access to fewer mortgage insurer counterparties will increase our concentration risk with the remaining mortgage insurers in the industry.
The loss of business volume from a key lender customer could adversely affect our business and result in a decrease in our revenues.
Our ability to generate revenue from the purchase and securitization of mortgage loans depends on our ability to acquire a steady flow of mortgage loans from the originators of those loans. We acquire most of our mortgage loans through mortgage purchase volume commitments that are negotiated annually or semiannually with lender customers and that establish a minimum level of mortgage volume that these customers will deliver to us. We acquire a significant portion of our mortgage loans from several large mortgage lenders. During 2011, our top five lender customers, in the aggregate, accounted for approximately 60% of our single-family business volume, with three of our customers accounting for greater than 48% of our single-family business volume. Accordingly, maintaining our current business relationships and business volumes with our top lender customers is important to our business.
The mortgage industry has been consolidating and a decreasing number of large lenders originate most single-family mortgages. The loss of business from any one of our major lender customers could adversely affect our revenues and the liquidity of Fannie Mae MBS, which in turn could have an adverse effect on their market value. In addition, as we become more reliant on a smaller number of lender customers, our negotiating leverage with these customers could decrease, which could diminish our ability to price our products optimally. Decreased liquidity in the housing finance market in general increases the risk that a shock to the availability of mortgage credit could occur, which could materially, adversely affect our business and results of operations.
In addition, the volume of business generated by our customers has been or may be affected by a number of factors, including (1) financial and liquidity problems that many of our lender customers are experiencing or may experience in the future, (2) our lender customers’ strengthening of their lending criteria, and (3) departures by several large lender customers from correspondent or broker lending. To the extent our key lender customers significantly reduce the volume or quality of mortgage loans that the lender delivers to us or that we are willing to buy from them, we could lose significant business volume that we might be unable to replace, which could adversely affect our business and result in a decrease in our revenues. Our demands that our lender customers repurchase or compensate us for losses on loans that do not meet our underwriting and eligibility standards may strain our relationships with our lender customers and may also result in our customers reducing the volume of loans they provide us. A significant reduction in the volume of mortgage loans that we securitize could reduce the liquidity of Fannie Mae MBS, which in turn could have an adverse effect on their market value.
Our reliance on third parties to service our mortgage loans may impede our efforts to keep people in their homes and adversely affect the re-performance rate of loans we modify.
Mortgage servicers, or their agents and contractors, typically are the primary point of contact for borrowers as we delegate servicing responsibilities to them. We rely on these mortgage servicers to identify and contact troubled borrowers as early as possible, to assess the situation and offer appropriate options for resolving the problem and to successfully implement a solution. The demands placed on experienced mortgage loan servicers to service
- 68 -
Table of Contents
delinquent loans, including loans eligible for the Making Home Affordable Program, have increased significantly across the industry, straining servicer capacity. To the extent that mortgage servicers are hampered by limited resources or other factors, they may not be successful in conducting their servicing activities in a manner that fully accomplishes our objectives within the timeframe we desire. Further, our servicers have advised us that they have not been able to reach many of the borrowers who may need help with their mortgage loans even when repeated efforts have been made to contact the borrower.
For these reasons, our ability to actively manage the troubled loans that we own or guarantee, and to implement our homeownership assistance and foreclosure prevention efforts quickly and effectively, may be limited by our reliance on our mortgage servicers. Our inability to effectively manage these loans and implement these efforts could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.
Changes in the foreclosure environment and our reliance on servicers and their counsel and other service providers to complete foreclosures could continue to have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and net worth.
Circumstances in the foreclosure environment over the last few years have resulted in foreclosures proceeding at a slow pace. As a result of the housing market downturn that began in 2006 and significantly worsened in 2008, servicers and states faced significant increases in the volume of foreclosures in 2009 and the first nine months of 2010. In October 2010, a number of single-family mortgage servicers temporarily halted some or all of the foreclosures they were processing after discovering deficiencies in their own and their service providers’ foreclosure processes. The servicer foreclosure process deficiencies have generated significant concern and have been reviewed by various government agencies and the various state attorneys general. On February 9, 2012, a settlement was announced between five of the nation’s largest mortgage servicers (Bank of America Corporation, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Company, Citigroup Inc., and Ally Financial Inc. (formerly GMAC)) and the federal government and 49 state attorneys general. The announced settlement, among other things, will require implementation by those mortgage servicers of certain new servicing and foreclosure practices. Although servicers have generally ended their outright foreclosure halts, the processing of foreclosures continues to be slow in many states due to continuing issues in the servicer foreclosure process, including efforts by servicers to comply with regulatory consent orders and requirements, recent changes in state foreclosure laws, court rules and proceedings, and the pipeline of foreclosures resulting from these delays and the elevated level of foreclosures caused by the housing market downturn. In addition, court budget cuts in Florida and other states could further delay the processing of foreclosures.
These changes in the foreclosure environment have negatively affected our foreclosure timelines, credit-related expenses and single-family serious delinquency rates, and we expect they will continue to do so. We believe these changes will also delay the recovery of the housing market. These changes could also negatively affect the value of the private-label securities we hold and result in additional impairments on these securities. In addition, the failure of our servicers or their service providers to apply prudent and effective process controls and to comply with legal and other requirements in the foreclosure process poses operational, reputational and legal risks for us.
In addition, FHFA directed us in October 2011 to phase out the practice of requiring mortgage servicers to use our network of retained attorneys to perform default- and foreclosure-related legal services for our loans. Phasing out the requirement that servicers use our retained attorney network may negatively impact the performance of default- and foreclosure-related legal services for our loans, which may adversely impact our efforts to reduce our credit losses.
Challenges to the MERS® company, system and processes could pose operational, reputational and legal risks for us.
MERSCORP, Inc. (“MERSCORP”) is a privately held company that maintains an electronic registry (the “MERS System”) that tracks servicing rights and ownership of loans in the United States. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), a wholly owned subsidiary of MERSCORP, Inc., can serve as a nominee
- 69 -
Table of Contents
for the owner of a mortgage loan and, in that role, become the mortgagee of record for the loan in local land records. Fannie Mae seller/servicers may choose to use MERS as a nominee; however, we have prohibited servicers from initiating foreclosures on Fannie Mae loans in MERS’s name. Approximately half of the loans we own or guarantee are registered in MERS’s name and the related servicing rights are tracked in the MERS System. The MERS System is widely used by participants in the mortgage finance industry. Along with a number of other organizations in the mortgage finance industry, we are a shareholder of MERSCORP.
Several legal challenges have been made disputing MERS’s ability to initiate foreclosures, act as nominee in local land records, and/or assign mortgages or take other action on behalf of the loan owner. These challenges seek judicial relief ranging from money damages to injunctive/declaratory relief seeking the prevention of mortgage assignments by MERS and/or the voiding of completed foreclosures in which MERS appeared in the chain of title. These challenges have focused public attention on MERS and on how loans are recorded in local land records. As a result, these challenges could negatively affect MERS’s ability to serve as the mortgagee of record in some jurisdictions, which could cause additional costs and time in the recordation process. These challenges also could result in court decisions that substantially delay new or pending foreclosures, or void completed foreclosures in certain jurisdictions, which would require that we re-foreclose on the affected properties, thereby increasing our costs and lengthening the time it takes for us to foreclose on and dispose of the properties.
In addition, where MERS is the mortgagee of record, it must execute assignments of mortgages, affidavits and other legal documents in connection with foreclosure proceedings. As a result, investigations by governmental authorities and others into the servicer foreclosure process deficiencies discussed above may impact MERS. In April 2011, federal banking regulators and FHFA announced that they were taking enforcement action against MERS and MERSCORP to address significant weaknesses in, among other things, oversight, management supervision and corporate governance at MERS and MERSCORP that were uncovered as part of the regulators’ review of mortgage servicers’ foreclosure processing. Failures by MERS or MERSCORP to apply prudent and effective process controls and to comply with legal and other requirements could pose counterparty, operational, reputational and legal risks for us. If investigations or new regulation or legislation restricts servicers’ use of MERS, our counterparties may be required to record all mortgage transfers in land records, incurring additional costs and time in the recordation process. At this time, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these legal challenges to, or the enforcement action against, MERS and MERSCORP or the impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.
Changes in accounting standards can be difficult to predict and can materially impact how we record and report our financial results.
Our accounting policies and methods are fundamental to how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. From time to time, FASB changes the financial accounting and reporting standards that govern the preparation of our financial statements. In addition, those who set or interpret accounting guidance may amend or even reverse their previous interpretations or positions on how this guidance should be applied. These changes can be difficult to predict and expensive to implement, can divert management’s attention from other matters, and can materially impact how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations.
Material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting could result in errors in our reported results or disclosures that are not complete or accurate.
Management has determined that, as of the date of this filing, we have ineffective disclosure controls and procedures and a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. In addition, our independent registered public accounting firm, Deloitte & Touche LLP, has expressed an adverse opinion on our internal control over financial reporting because of the material weakness. Our ineffective disclosure controls and procedures and material weakness could result in errors in our reported results or disclosures that are not complete or accurate, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and operations.
- 70 -
Table of Contents
Our material weakness relates specifically to the impact of the conservatorship on our disclosure controls and procedures. Because we are under the control of FHFA, some of the information that we may need to meet our disclosure obligations may be solely within the knowledge of FHFA. As our conservator, FHFA has the power to take actions without our knowledge that could be material to our shareholders and other stakeholders, and could significantly affect our financial performance or our continued existence as an ongoing business. Because FHFA currently functions as both our regulator and our conservator, there are inherent structural limitations on our ability to design, implement, test or operate effective disclosure controls and procedures relating to information within FHFA’s knowledge. As a result, we have not been able to update our disclosure controls and procedures in a manner that adequately ensures the accumulation and communication to management of information known to FHFA that is needed to meet our disclosure obligations under the federal securities laws, including disclosures affecting our financial statements. Given the structural nature of this material weakness, it is likely that we will not remediate this weakness while we are under conservatorship. See “Controls and Procedures” for further discussion of management’s conclusions on our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting.
A failure in our operational systems or infrastructure, or those of third parties, could materially adversely affect our business, impair our liquidity, cause financial losses and harm our reputation.
Shortcomings or failures in our internal processes, people or systems could have a material adverse effect on our risk management, liquidity, financial statement reliability, financial condition and results of operations; disrupt our business; and result in legislative or regulatory intervention, liability to customers, financial losses and damage to our reputation. For example, our business is highly dependent on our ability to manage and process, on a daily basis, an extremely large number of transactions, many of which are highly complex, across numerous and diverse markets and in an environment in which we must make frequent changes to our core processes in response to changing external conditions. These transactions are subject to various legal, accounting and regulatory standards. Our financial, accounting, data processing or other operating systems and facilities may fail to operate properly or become disabled, adversely affecting our ability to process these transactions. In addition, we rely on information provided by third parties in processing many of our transactions, and that information may be incorrect or we may fail to properly manage or analyze it.
We rely upon business processes that are highly dependent on people, legacy technology and the use of numerous complex systems and models to manage our business and produce books and records upon which our financial statements are prepared. This reliance increases the risk that we may be exposed to financial, reputational or other losses as a result of inadequately designed internal processes or systems, or failed execution of our systems. While we continue to enhance our technology, operational controls and organizational structure in order to reduce our operational risk, these actions may not be effective to manage these risks and may create additional operational risk as we execute these enhancements. In addition, our increased use of third-party service providers for some of our business functions increases the risk that an operational failure by a third party will adversely affect us.
We also face the risk of operational failure, termination or capacity constraints of any of the clearing agents, exchanges, clearinghouses or other financial intermediaries we use to facilitate our securities and derivatives transactions. Any such failure, termination or constraint could adversely affect our ability to effect transactions or manage our exposure to risk, and could have a significant adverse impact on our business, liquidity, financial condition, net worth and results of operations.
Our operations rely on the secure processing, storage and transmission of confidential and other information in our computer systems and networks. Our computer systems, software and networks may be vulnerable to breaches, unauthorized access, misuse, computer viruses or other malicious code and other events that could have a security impact. If one or more such events occurs, this could jeopardize our or our customers’ or counterparties’ confidential and other information processed and stored in, and transmitted through, our computer systems and networks, or otherwise cause interruptions or malfunctions in our, our customers’, our counterparties’ or third parties’ operations, which could result in significant losses, reputational damage, litigation, regulatory fines or penalties, or adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, we may be
- 71 -
Table of Contents
required to expend significant additional resources to modify our protective measures or to investigate and remediate vulnerabilities or other exposures arising from operational and security risks.
Since the conservatorship began, we have experienced, and we expect we may continue to experience, substantial changes in our management, employees and business structure and practices. These changes could increase our operational risk and result in business interruptions and financial losses. In addition, due to events that are wholly or partially beyond our control, our systems could fail to operate properly, which could lead to financial losses, business disruptions, legal and regulatory sanctions and reputational damage.
In many cases, our accounting policies and methods, which are fundamental to how we report our financial condition and results of operations, require management to make judgments and estimates about matters that are inherently uncertain. Management also relies on models in making these estimates.
Our accounting policies and methods are fundamental to how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. Our management must exercise judgment in applying many of these accounting policies and methods so that these policies and methods comply with GAAP and reflect management’s judgment of the most appropriate manner to report our financial condition and results of operations. In some cases, management must select the appropriate accounting policy or method from two or more alternatives, any of which might be reasonable under the circumstances but might affect the amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses that we report. See “Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” for a description of our significant accounting policies.
We have identified three accounting policies as critical to the presentation of our financial condition and results of operations. These accounting policies are described in “MD&A—Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates.” We believe these policies are critical because they require management to make particularly subjective or complex judgments about matters that are inherently uncertain and because of the likelihood that materially different amounts would be reported under different conditions or using different assumptions.
Because our financial statements involve estimates for amounts that are very large, even a small change in the estimate can have a significant impact for the reporting period. For example, because our total loss reserves are so large, even a change that has a small impact relative to the size of our loss reserves can have a meaningful impact on our results for the quarter in which we make the change.
Due to the complexity of the critical accounting policies we have identified, our accounting methods relating to these policies involve substantial use of models. Models are inherently imperfect predictors of actual results because they are based on assumptions, including assumptions about future events. Our models may not include assumptions that reflect very positive or very negative market conditions and, accordingly, our actual results could differ significantly from those generated by our models. As a result of the above factors, the estimates that we use to prepare our financial statements, as well as our estimates of our future results of operations, may be inaccurate, perhaps significantly.
Failure of our models to produce reliable results may adversely affect our ability to manage risk and make effective business decisions.
We make significant use of quantitative models to measure and monitor our risk exposures and to manage our business. For example, we use models to measure and monitor our exposures to interest rate, credit and market risks, and to forecast credit losses. The information provided by these models is used in making business decisions relating to strategies, initiatives, transactions, pricing and products.
Models are inherently imperfect predictors of actual results because they are based on historical data and assumptions regarding factors such as future loan demand, borrower behavior, creditworthiness and home price trends. Other potential sources of inaccurate or inappropriate model results include errors in computer code, bad data, misuse of data, or use of a model for a purpose outside the scope of the model’s design. Modeling often assumes that historical data or experience can be relied upon as a basis for forecasting future events, an assumption that may be especially tenuous in the face of unprecedented events.
- 72 -
Table of Contents
Given the challenges of predicting future behavior, management judgment is used at every stage of the modeling process, from model design decisions regarding core underlying assumptions, to interpreting and applying final model output. To control for these inherent imperfections, our primary models are vetted by an independent model risk oversight team within our Enterprise Risk Division.
When market conditions change quickly and in unforeseen ways, there is an increased risk that the model assumptions and data inputs for our models are not representative of the most recent market conditions. Under such circumstances, we must rely on management judgment to make adjustments or overrides to our models. A formal model update is typically an extensive process that involves basic research, testing, independent validation and production implementation. In a rapidly changing environment, it may not be possible to update existing models quickly enough to properly account for the most recently available data and events. Management adjustments to modeled results are applied within the confines of the governance structure provided by a combination of our model risk oversight team and our business, finance, and risk committees.
If our models fail to produce reliable results on an ongoing basis, we may not make appropriate risk management decisions, including decisions affecting loan purchases, management of credit losses, guaranty fee pricing, asset and liability management and the management of our net worth. Any of these decisions could adversely affect our businesses, results of operations, liquidity, net worth and financial condition. Furthermore, strategies we employ to manage and govern the risks associated with our use of models may not be effective or fully reliable.
Changes in interest rates or our loss of the ability to manage interest rate risk successfully could adversely affect our net interest income and increase interest rate risk.
We fund our operations primarily through the issuance of debt and invest our funds primarily in mortgage-related assets that permit mortgage borrowers to prepay their mortgages at any time. These business activities expose us to market risk, which is the risk of adverse changes in the fair value of financial instruments resulting from changes in market conditions. Our most significant market risks are interest rate risk and prepayment risk. We describe these risks in more detail in “MD&A—Risk Management—Market Risk Management, Including Interest Rate Risk Management.” Changes in interest rates affect both the value of our mortgage assets and prepayment rates on our mortgage loans.
Changes in interest rates could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and net worth. Our ability to manage interest rate risk depends on our ability to issue debt instruments with a range of maturities and other features, including call provisions, at attractive rates and to engage in derivatives transactions. We must exercise judgment in selecting the amount, type and mix of debt and derivatives instruments that will most effectively manage our interest rate risk. The amount, type and mix of financial instruments that are available to us may not offset possible future changes in the spread between our borrowing costs and the interest we earn on our mortgage assets.
Our business is subject to laws and regulations that restrict our activities and operations, which may prohibit us from undertaking activities that management believes would benefit our business and limit our ability to diversify our business.
As a federally chartered corporation, we are subject to the limitations imposed by the Charter Act, extensive regulation, supervision and examination by FHFA and regulation by other federal agencies, including Treasury, HUD and the SEC. As a company under conservatorship, our primary regulator has management authority over us in its role as our conservator. We are also subject to other laws and regulations that affect our business, including those regarding taxation and privacy.
The Charter Act defines our permissible business activities. For example, we may not originate mortgage loans or purchase single-family loans in excess of the conforming loan limits, and our business is limited to the U.S. housing finance sector. In addition, our conservator has determined that, while in conservatorship, we will not be permitted to engage in new products and will be limited to continuing our existing business activities and taking actions necessary to advance the goals of the conservatorship. As a result of these limitations on our
- 73 -
Table of Contents
ability to diversify our operations, our financial condition and results of operations depend almost entirely on conditions in a single sector of the U.S. economy, specifically, the U.S. housing market. The weak and unstable condition of the U.S. housing market in recent years has therefore had a significant adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and net worth, which is likely to continue.
We could be required to pay substantial judgments, settlements or other penalties as a result of civil litigation.
We are a party to a number of lawsuits. We are unable at this time to estimate our potential liability in these matters, but may be required to pay substantial judgments, settlements or other penalties and incur significant expenses in connection with these lawsuits, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and net worth. In addition, responding to these lawsuits may divert significant internal resources away from managing our business. More information regarding these lawsuits is included in “Legal Proceedings” and “Note 19, Commitments and Contingencies.”
An active trading market in our equity securities may cease to exist, which would adversely affect the market price and liquidity of our common and preferred stock.
Our common stock and preferred stock are now traded exclusively in the over-the-counter market. We cannot predict the actions of market makers, investors or other market participants, and can offer no assurances that the market for our securities will be stable. If there is no active trading market in our equity securities, the market price and liquidity of the securities will be adversely affected.
Mortgage fraud could result in significant financial losses and harm to our reputation.
We use a process of delegated underwriting in which lenders make specific representations and warranties about the characteristics of the mortgage loans we purchase and securitize. As a result, we do not independently verify most borrower information that is provided to us. This exposes us to the risk that one or more of the parties involved in a transaction (the borrower, seller, broker, appraiser, title agent, lender or servicer) will engage in fraud by misrepresenting facts about a mortgage loan. Similarly, we rely on delegated servicing of loans and use of a variety of external resources to manage our REO. We have experienced financial losses resulting from mortgage fraud, including institutional fraud perpetrated by counterparties. In the future, we may experience additional financial losses or reputational damage as a result of mortgage fraud.
| RISKS RELATING TO OUR INDUSTRY |
A further decline in U.S. home prices or activity in the U.S. housing market would likely cause higher credit losses and credit-related expenses, and lower business volumes.
We expect weakness in the real estate financial markets to continue in 2012. The deterioration in the credit condition of outstanding mortgages will result in the foreclosure of some troubled loans, which is likely to add to excess inventory of unsold homes. We also expect heightened default and severity rates to continue during this period, and home prices, particularly in some geographic areas, may decline further. Any resulting increase in delinquencies or defaults, or in loss severity, will likely result in a higher level of credit losses and credit-related expenses, which in turn will adversely affect our results of operations, net worth and financial condition.
Our business volume is affected by the rate of growth in total U.S. residential mortgage debt outstanding and the size of the U.S. residential mortgage market. The rate of growth in total U.S. residential mortgage debt outstanding has declined substantially in response to the reduced activity in the housing market and declines in home prices, and we expect single-family mortgage debt outstanding to decrease by approximately 1.1% in 2012. A decline in the rate of growth in mortgage debt outstanding reduces the unpaid principal balance of mortgage loans available for us to purchase or securitize, which in turn could reduce our net interest income and guaranty fee income. Even if we are able to increase our share of the secondary mortgage market, it may not be sufficient to make up for the decline in the rate of growth in mortgage originations, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.
- 74 -
Table of Contents
The Dodd-Frank Act and regulatory changes in the financial services industry may negatively impact our business.
The Dodd-Frank Act is significantly changing the regulation of the financial services industry, including by the creation of new standards related to regulatory oversight of systemically important financial companies, derivatives transactions, asset-backed securitization, mortgage underwriting and consumer financial protection. This legislation will directly and indirectly affect many aspects of our business and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and net worth. The Dodd-Frank Act and related regulatory changes could require us to change certain business practices, cause us to incur significant additional costs, limit the products we offer, require us to increase our regulatory capital or otherwise adversely affect our business. Additionally, implementation of this legislation will result in increased supervision and more comprehensive regulation of our customers and counterparties in the financial services industry, which may have a significant impact on the business practices of our customers and counterparties, as well as on our counterparty credit risk.
Examples of aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act and related future regulatory changes that, if applicable, may significantly affect us include mandatory clearing of certain derivatives transactions, which could impose significant additional costs on us; minimum standards for residential mortgage loans, which could subject us to increased legal risk for loans we purchase or guarantee; and the development of credit risk retention regulations applicable to residential mortgage loan securitizations, which could impact the types and volume of loans sold to us. Enhanced prudential standards that become applicable to certain bank holding companies and nonbank financial companies could affect investor demand for our debt and MBS securities. We could also be designated as a systemically important nonbank financial company subject to supervision and regulation by the Federal Reserve. If this were to occur, the Federal Reserve would have the authority to examine us and could impose stricter prudential standards on us, including risk-based capital requirements, leverage limits, liquidity requirements, credit concentration limits, resolution plan and credit exposure reporting requirements, overall risk management requirements, contingent capital requirements, enhanced public disclosures and short-term debt limits. Regulators have been seeking public comment regarding the criteria for designating nonbank financial companies for heightened supervision.
Because federal agencies have not completed the extensive rulemaking processes needed to implement and clarify many of the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, it is difficult to assess fully the impact of this legislation on our business and industry at this time, nor can we predict what similar changes to statutes or regulations will occur in the future.
Revisions by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision to international capital requirements, referred to as Basel III, may also have a significant impact on us or on the business practices of our customers and counterparties. Depending on how they are implemented by regulators, the Basel III rules could be the basis for a revised framework for GSE capital standards that could increase our capital requirements. The Basel III capital and liquidity rules could also affect investor demand for our debt and MBS securities, and could limit some lenders’ ability to count their rights to service mortgage loans toward meeting their regulatory capital requirements, which may reduce the economic value of mortgage servicing rights. As a result, a number of our customers and counterparties may change their business practices.
In addition, the actions of Treasury, the CFTC, the SEC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve and international central banking authorities directly or indirectly impact financial institutions’ cost of funds for lending, capital-raising and investment activities, which could increase our borrowing costs or make borrowing more difficult for us. Changes in monetary policy are beyond our control and difficult to anticipate.
Legislative and regulatory changes could affect us in substantial and unforeseeable ways and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and net worth. In particular, these changes could affect our ability to issue debt and may reduce our customer base.
- 75 -
Table of Contents
Structural changes in the financial services industry may negatively impact our business.
The financial market crisis resulted in mergers of some of our most significant institutional counterparties. Consolidation within the financial services industry has increased and may continue to increase our concentration risk to counterparties in this industry, and we are and may become more reliant on a smaller number of institutional counterparties. This both increases our risk exposure to any individual counterparty and decreases our negotiating leverage with these counterparties. The structural changes in the financial services industry could affect us in substantial and unforeseeable ways and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and net worth.
The occurrence of a major natural or other disaster in the United States could negatively impact our credit losses and credit-related expenses or disrupt our business operations in the affected geographic area.
We conduct our business in the residential and multifamily mortgage markets and own or guarantee the performance of mortgage loans throughout the United States. The occurrence of a major natural or environmental disaster, terrorist attack, pandemic, or similar event (a “major disruptive event”) in a regional geographic area of the United States could negatively impact our credit losses and credit-related expenses in the affected area.
The occurrence of a major disruptive event could negatively impact a geographic area in a number of different ways, depending on the nature of the event. A major disruptive event that either damages or destroys residential or multifamily real estate securing mortgage loans in our book of business or negatively impacts the ability of borrowers to continue to make principal and interest payments on mortgage loans in our book of business could increase our delinquency rates, default rates and average loan loss severity of our book of business in the affected region or regions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and net worth. While we attempt to create a geographically diverse mortgage credit book of business, there can be no assurance that a major disruptive event, depending on its magnitude, scope and nature, will not generate significant credit losses and credit-related expenses.
Additionally, the contingency plans and facilities that we have in place may be insufficient to prevent an adverse effect on our ability to conduct business, which could lead to financial losses. If a disruption occurs and our senior management or other employees are unable to occupy our offices, communicate with other personnel or travel to other locations, our ability to interact with each other and with our customers may suffer, and we may not be successful in implementing contingency plans that depend on communication or travel.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
None.
| Item 2. Properties |
We own our principal office, which is located at 3900 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, as well as additional Washington, DC facilities at 3939 Wisconsin Avenue, NW and 4250 Connecticut Avenue, NW. We also own two office facilities in Herndon, Virginia, as well as two additional facilities located in Reston, Virginia; and Urbana, Maryland. These owned facilities contain a total of approximately 1,459,000 square feet of space. We lease the land underlying the 4250 Connecticut Avenue building pursuant to a ground lease that automatically renews on July 1, 2029 for an additional 49 years unless we elect to terminate the lease by providing notice to the landlord of our decision to terminate at least one year prior to the automatic renewal date. In addition, we lease approximately 429,000 square feet of office space, including a conference center, at 4000 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, which is adjacent to our principal office. The present lease term for the office space at 4000 Wisconsin Avenue expires in April 2013 and we have one additional 5-year renewal option remaining under the original lease. The lease term for the conference center at 4000 Wisconsin Avenue expires in April 2018. We also lease an additional approximately 317,000 square feet of office space at three other locations in Washington, DC and Virginia. We maintain approximately 723,000 square feet of office space in leased premises in Pasadena, California; Irvine, California; Atlanta, Georgia; Chicago, Illinois; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and three facilities in Dallas, Texas.
- 76 -
Table of Contents
This item describes our material legal proceedings. We describe additional material legal proceedings in “Note 19, Commitments and Contingencies,” which is incorporated herein by reference. In addition to the matters specifically described or incorporated by reference in this item, we are involved in a number of legal and regulatory proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business that do not have a material impact on our business. Litigation claims and proceedings of all types are subject to many factors that generally cannot be predicted accurately.
We record reserves for legal claims when losses associated with the claims become probable and the amounts can be reasonably estimated. The actual costs of resolving legal claims may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts reserved for those claims. For matters where the likelihood or extent of a loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably estimated, we do not recognize in our consolidated financial statements the potential liability that may result from these matters. We presently cannot determine the ultimate resolution of the matters described below or incorporated by reference into this discussion. We have recorded a reserve for legal claims related to those matters when we were able to determine a loss was both probable and reasonably estimable. If certain of these matters are determined against us, it could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity and financial condition, including our net worth.
Shareholder Derivative Litigation
Three shareholder derivative cases, filed at various times between June 2007 and June 2008, naming certain of our current and former directors and officers as defendants, and Fannie Mae as a nominal defendant, are currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: Kellmer v. Raines, et al. (filed June 29, 2007); Middleton v. Raines, et al. (filed July 6, 2007); and Agnes v. Raines, et al. (filed June 25, 2008). The cases rely on factual allegations that Fannie Mae’s accounting statements were inconsistent with the GAAP requirements relating to hedge accounting and the amortization of premiums and discounts. Agnes relies on factual allegations that defendants wrongfully failed to disclose our exposure to the subprime mortgage crisis and that the Board improperly authorized the company to buy back $100 million in shares while the stock price was artificially inflated. Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of Fannie Mae, various forms of monetary and non-monetary relief, including unspecified money damages (including restitution, legal fees and expenses, disgorgement and punitive damages); corporate governance changes; an accounting; and attaching, impounding or imposing a constructive trust on the individual defendants’ assets. Pursuant to a June 25, 2009 order, FHFA, as our conservator, substituted itself for shareholder plaintiffs in all of these actions. On July 27, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Kellmer and Middleton with prejudice and Agnes without prejudice. FHFA filed motions to reconsider the decisions dismissing Kellmer and Middleton with prejudice, and those motions were denied on October 22, 2010. FHFA appealed that denial on November 22, 2010. Plaintiffs Kellmer and Agnes also appealed the substitution and the dismissal orders. On January 20, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an order in the Kellmer appeal granting FHFA’s motions for the voluntary dismissal of defendants Kenneth M. Duberstein, Frederic Malek and Patrick Swygert. On that same day, in the Middleton appeal, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an order granting FHFA’s motions for the voluntary dismissal of defendants Stephen Ashley, Kenneth Duberstein, Thomas Gerrity, Ann Korologos, Frederic Malek, Donald Marron, Anne Mulcahy, Joe Pickett, Leslie Rahl, Patrick Swygert, and John Wulff. The remaining parties have fully briefed the appeals and the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument on the appeals on February 16, 2012.
FHFA Private-Label Mortgage-Related Securities Litigation
In the third quarter of 2011, FHFA, as conservator for us and for Freddie Mac, filed 16 lawsuits on behalf of us and Freddie Mac against various financial institutions, their officers and affiliated and unaffiliated underwriters who were responsible for marketing and selling private-label mortgage-related securities to us. The lawsuits seek to recover losses we and Freddie Mac incurred on the securities. FHFA filed 13 of these lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York—against Bank of America Corp.; Barclays Bank PLC; Citigroup, Inc.; Credit Suisse Holdings (USA), Inc.; Deutsche Bank AG; First Horizon National Corporation;
- 77 -
Table of Contents
Goldman, Sachs & Co.; HSBC North America Holdings Inc.; JPMorgan Chase & Co.; Merrill Lynch & Co.; Nomura Holding America Inc.; SG Americas, Inc.; and UBS Americas Inc. (“UBS”) and against certain related entities and individuals. Two lawsuits—against Countrywide Financial Corporation (“Countrywide”) and Morgan Stanley—were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of New York, and one—against The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC (“RBS”)—was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The lawsuit against UBS was filed on July 27, 2011, and all the others were filed on September 2, 2011. The lawsuits allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws and state common law by making material misstatements and omissions in the offering documents for the securities that were sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regarding the characteristics of the loans underlying the securities. The complaints also allege state securities law violations and some allege common law fraud. The complaints seek, among other things, rescission and recovery of consideration paid for the securities at issue in the lawsuits, monetary damages and, in certain cases, punitive damages for common law fraud.
Defendants in the two cases filed in New York state court removed those cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and FHFA filed motions to remand the cases back to state court. On February 7, 2012, the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the Countrywide case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for inclusion in a multidistrict proceeding involving other actions pending against Countrywide.
On November 16, 2011, all of the cases pending in the Southern District of New York were transferred to one judge in the district, Judge Cote. Judge Cote stayed the time to answer or move to dismiss all of the cases except the UBS case. On December 2, 2011, defendants in the UBS case filed a motion to dismiss. On December 21, 2011, FHFA filed an amended complaint in the UBS case. On December 2, 2011, defendants in the RBS case pending in the District of Connecticut filed a motion to dismiss. On February 1, 2012, FHFA filed an amended complaint in the RBS case.
Investigation by the Office of Inspector General of FHFA and the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia
In October 2011, we received notice of an ongoing investigation by the Office of Inspector General of FHFA (“FHFA OIG”) and the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia with regard to a multifamily agreement with The Related Companies, L.P. The financial impact of the agreement was not material to our financial statements. In connection with the investigation, we have received subpoenas for documents from the FHFA OIG. We are cooperating with this investigation.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
None.
- 78 -
Table of Contents
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of
Equity Securities
Our common stock is traded in the over-the-counter market and quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board under the ticker symbol “FNMA.” The transfer agent and registrar for our common stock is Computershare, P.O. Box 43078, Providence, Rhode Island 02940.
Common Stock Data
The following table displays, for the periods indicated, the high and low prices per share of our common stock as reported in the Bloomberg Financial Markets service. For periods prior to our stock’s delisting from the NYSE on July 8, 2010, these are high and low sales prices reported in the consolidated transaction reporting system. For periods on or after July 8, 2010, these prices represent high and low trade prices. No dividends were declared on shares of our common stock during the periods indicated.
| Quarter |
High | Low | ||||||
| 2010 |
||||||||
| First Quarter |
$ | 1.23 | $ | 0.91 | ||||
| Second Quarter |
1.36 | 0.34 | ||||||
| Third Quarter |
0.42 | 0.19 | ||||||
| Fourth Quarter |
0.47 | 0.27 | ||||||
| 2011 |
||||||||
| First Quarter |
$ | 0.96 | $ | 0.30 | ||||
| Second Quarter |
0.50 | 0.32 | ||||||
| Third Quarter |
0.39 | 0.23 | ||||||
| Fourth Quarter |
0.27 | 0.19 | ||||||
Dividends
Our payment of dividends is subject to the following restrictions:
Restrictions Relating to Conservatorship. Our conservator announced on September 7, 2008 that we would not pay any dividends on the common stock or on any series of preferred stock, other than the senior preferred stock.
Restrictions Under Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement. The senior preferred stock purchase agreement prohibits us from declaring or paying any dividends on Fannie Mae equity securities without the prior written consent of Treasury.
Statutory Restrictions. Under the GSE Act, FHFA has authority to prohibit capital distributions, including payment of dividends, if we fail to meet our capital requirements. If FHFA classifies us as significantly undercapitalized, approval of the Director of FHFA is required for any dividend payment. Under the GSE Act, we are not permitted to make a capital distribution if, after making the distribution, we would be undercapitalized, except the Director of FHFA may permit us to repurchase shares if the repurchase is made in connection with the issuance of additional shares or obligations in at least an equivalent amount and will reduce our financial obligations or otherwise improve our financial condition.
Restrictions Relating to Subordinated Debt. During any period in which we defer payment of interest on qualifying subordinated debt, we may not declare or pay dividends on, or redeem, purchase or acquire, our common stock or preferred stock.
- 79 -
Table of Contents
Restrictions Relating to Preferred Stock. Payment of dividends on our common stock is also subject to the prior payment of dividends on our preferred stock and our senior preferred stock. Payment of dividends on all outstanding preferred stock, other than the senior preferred stock, is also subject to the prior payment of dividends on the senior preferred stock.
See “MD&A—Liquidity and Capital Management” for information on dividends declared and paid to Treasury on the senior preferred stock.
Holders
As of January 31, 2012, we had approximately 15,000 registered holders of record of our common stock, including holders of our restricted stock. In addition, as of January 31, 2012, Treasury held a warrant giving it the right to purchase shares of our common stock equal to 79.9% of the total number of shares of our common stock outstanding on a fully diluted basis on the date of exercise.
Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities
Under the terms of our senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury, we are prohibited from selling or issuing our equity interests, other than as required by (and pursuant to) the terms of a binding agreement in effect on September 7, 2008, without the prior written consent of Treasury.
We previously provided stock compensation to employees and members of the Board of Directors under the Fannie Mae Stock Compensation Plan of 1993 and the Fannie Mae Stock Compensation Plan of 2003 (the “Stock Compensation Plans”). During the quarter ended December 31, 2011, 1,157 restricted stock units vested, as a result of which 786 shares of common stock were issued, and 371 shares of common stock that otherwise would have been issued were withheld by us in lieu of requiring the recipients to pay us the withholding taxes due upon vesting. All of these restricted stock units were granted prior to our entering into conservatorship. Restricted stock units granted under the Plans typically vest in equal annual installments over three or four years beginning on the first anniversary of the date of grant. Each restricted stock unit represents the right to receive a share of common stock at the time of vesting. As a result, restricted stock units are generally similar to restricted stock, except that restricted stock units do not confer voting rights on their holders. All restricted stock units were granted to persons who were employees or members of the Board of Directors of Fannie Mae.
The securities we issue are “exempted securities” under laws administered by the SEC to the same extent as securities that are obligations of, or are guaranteed as to principal and interest by, the United States, except that, under the GSE Act, our equity securities are not treated as exempted securities for purposes of Section 12, 13, 14 or 16 of the Exchange Act. As a result, our securities offerings are exempt from SEC registration requirements and we do not file registration statements or prospectuses with the SEC under the Securities Act with respect to our securities offerings.
Information about Certain Securities Issuances by Fannie Mae
Pursuant to SEC regulations, public companies are required to disclose certain information when they incur a material direct financial obligation or become directly or contingently liable for a material obligation under an off-balance sheet arrangement. The disclosure must be made in a current report on Form 8-K under Item 2.03 or, if the obligation is incurred in connection with certain types of securities offerings, in prospectuses for that offering that are filed with the SEC.
Because the securities we issue are exempted securities, we do not file registration statements or prospectuses with the SEC with respect to our securities offerings. To comply with the disclosure requirements of Form 8-K relating to the incurrence of material financial obligations, we report our incurrence of these types of obligations either in offering circulars or prospectuses (or supplements thereto) that we post on our Web site or in a current report on Form 8-K that we file with the SEC, in accordance with a “no-action” letter we received from the SEC staff in 2004. In cases where the information is disclosed in a prospectus or offering circular posted on our Web
- 80 -
Table of Contents
site, the document will be posted on our Web site within the same time period that a prospectus for a non-exempt securities offering would be required to be filed with the SEC.
The Web site address for disclosure about our debt securities is www.fanniemae.com/debtsearch. From this address, investors can access the offering circular and related supplements for debt securities offerings under Fannie Mae’s universal debt facility, including pricing supplements for individual issuances of debt securities.
Disclosure about our obligations pursuant to some of the MBS we issue, some of which may be off-balance sheet obligations, can be found at www.fanniemae.com/mbsdisclosure. From this address, investors can access information and documents about our MBS, including prospectuses and related prospectus supplements.
We are providing our Web site address solely for your information. Information appearing on our Web site is not incorporated into this annual report on Form 10-K.
Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer
The following table displays shares of our common stock we repurchased during the fourth quarter of 2011.
| Total Number of Shares Purchased(1) |
Average Price Paid per Share |
Total Number
of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Program(2) |
Maximum Number of Shares that May Yet be Purchased Under the Program(2) |
|||||||||||||
| (Shares in thousands) | ||||||||||||||||
| 2011 |
||||||||||||||||
| October 1-31 |
— | $ | — | — | — | |||||||||||
| November 1-30 |
2 | 0.22 | — | — | ||||||||||||
| December 1-31 |
3 | 0.21 | — | — | ||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Total |
5 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| (1) | Consists of shares of common stock reacquired from employees to pay an aggregate of approximately $950 in withholding taxes due upon the vesting of previously issued restricted stock. |
| (2) | We do not have any publicly announced share repurchase program under which we could purchase our common stock. |
- 81 -
Table of Contents
| Item 6. | Selected Financial Data |
The selected consolidated financial data displayed below are summarized from our results of operations for the five-year period ended December 31, 2011, as well as selected consolidated balance sheet data as of the end of each year within this five-year period. Certain prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation. This data should be reviewed in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and related notes and with the MD&A included in this annual report on Form 10-K.
As discussed in “MD&A—Consolidated Results of Operations,” prospectively adopting the consolidation accounting guidance on January 1, 2010 had a significant impact on the presentation and comparability of our consolidated financial statements due to the consolidation of the substantial majority of our single-class securitization trusts and the elimination of previously recorded deferred revenue from our guaranty arrangements. While some line items in our consolidated financial statements were not impacted, others were impacted significantly, which reduces the comparability of our results for 2011 and 2010 with the results for prior years.
| For the Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | ||||||||||||||||
| (Dollars and shares in millions, except per share amounts) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Statement of operations data: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Net revenues(1) |
$ | 20,444 | $ | 17,493 | $ | 22,494 | $ | 17,436 | $ | 11,205 | ||||||||||
| Net other-than-temporary impairments |
(308 | ) | (722 | ) | (9,861 | ) | (6,974 | ) | (814 | ) | ||||||||||
| Investment gains (losses), net |
506 | 346 | 1,458 | (246 | ) | (53 | ) | |||||||||||||
| Fair value losses, net(2) |
(6,621 | ) | (511 | ) | (2,811 | ) | (20,129 | ) | (4,668 | ) | ||||||||||
| Administrative expenses |
(2,370 | ) | (2,597 | ) | (2,207 | ) | (1,979 | ) | (2,669 | ) | ||||||||||
| Credit-related expenses(3) |
(27,498 | ) | (26,614 | ) | (73,536 | ) | (29,809 | ) | (5,012 | ) | ||||||||||
| Other expenses, net(4) |
(151 | ) | (642 | ) | (7,060 | ) | (1,776 | ) | (2,476 | ) | ||||||||||
| (Benefit) provision for federal income taxes |
(90 | ) | (82 | ) | (985 | ) | 13,749 | (3,091 | ) | |||||||||||
| Net loss attributable to Fannie Mae |
(16,855 | ) | (14,014 | ) | (71,969 | ) | (58,707 | ) | (2,050 | ) | ||||||||||
| Preferred stock dividends and issuance costs at redemption |
(9,614 | ) | (7,704 | ) | (2,474 | ) | (1,069 | ) | (513 | ) | ||||||||||
| Net loss attributable to common stockholders |
(26,469 | ) | (21,718 | ) | (74,443 | ) | (59,776 | ) | (2,563 | ) | ||||||||||
| Common share data: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Loss per share: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Basic and Diluted |
$ | (4.61 | ) | $ | (3.81 | ) | $ | (13.11 | ) | $ | (24.04 | ) | $ | (2.63 | ) | |||||
| Weighted-average common shares outstanding:(5) |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Basic and Diluted |
5,737 | 5,694 | 5,680 | 2,487 | 973 | |||||||||||||||
| Cash dividends declared per share |
$ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | 0.75 | $ | 1.90 | ||||||||||
| New business acquisition data: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Fannie Mae MBS issues acquired by third parties(6) |
$ | 478,870 | $ | 497,975 | $ | 496,067 | $ | 434,711 | $ | 563,648 | ||||||||||
| Mortgage portfolio purchases(7) |
173,978 | 357,573 | 327,578 | 196,645 | 182,471 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| New business acquisitions |
$ | 652,848 | $ | 855,548 | $ | 823,645 | $ | 631,356 | $ | 746,119 | ||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
- 82 -
Table of Contents
| As of December 31, | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | ||||||||||||||||
| (Dollars in millions) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Balance sheet data: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Investments in securities: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Fannie Mae MBS |
$ | 24,274 | $ | 30,226 | $ | 229,169 | $ | 234,250 | $ | 179,401 | ||||||||||
| Other agency MBS |
16,744 | 19,951 | 43,905 | 35,440 | 32,957 | |||||||||||||||
| Mortgage revenue bonds |
10,978 | 11,650 | 13,446 | 13,183 | 16,213 | |||||||||||||||
| Other mortgage-related securities |
49,936 | 56,668 | 54,265 | 56,781 | 90,827 | |||||||||||||||
| Non-mortgage-related securities |
49,848 | 32,753 | 8,882 | 17,640 | 38,115 | |||||||||||||||
| Mortgage loans:(8) |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Loans held for sale |
311 | 915 | 18,462 | 13,270 | 7,008 | |||||||||||||||
| Loans held for investment, net of allowance |
2,898,310 | 2,922,805 | 376,099 | 412,142 | 396,516 | |||||||||||||||
| Total assets |
3,211,484 | 3,221,972 | 869,141 | 912,404 | 879,389 | |||||||||||||||
| Short-term debt |
151,725 | 157,243 | 200,437 | 330,991 | 234,160 | |||||||||||||||
| Long-term debt |
3,038,147 | 3,039,757 | 574,117 | 539,402 | 562,139 | |||||||||||||||
| Total liabilities |
3,216,055 | 3,224,489 | 884,422 | 927,561 | 835,271 | |||||||||||||||
| Senior preferred stock |
112,578 | 88,600 | 60,900 | 1,000 | — | |||||||||||||||
| Preferred stock |
19,130 | 20,204 | 20,348 | 21,222 | 16,913 | |||||||||||||||
| Total Fannie Mae stockholders’ (deficit) equity |
(4,624 | ) | (2,599 | ) | (15,372 | ) | (15,314 | ) | 44,011 | |||||||||||
| Net worth (deficit) surplus(9) |
(4,571 | ) | (2,517 | ) | (15,281 | ) | (15,157 | ) | 44,118 | |||||||||||
| Book of business data: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Total mortgage assets(10) |
$ | 3,065,616 | $ | 3,099,250 | $ | 769,252 | $ | 792,196 | $ | 727,903 | ||||||||||
| Unconsolidated Fannie Mae MBS, held by third parties(11) |
19,612 | 21,323 | 2,432,789 | 2,289,459 | 2,118,909 | |||||||||||||||
| Other guarantees(12) |
42,406 | 35,619 | 27,624 | 27,809 | 41,588 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Mortgage credit book of business |
$ | 3,127,634 | $ | 3,156,192 | $ | 3,229,665 | $ | 3,109,464 | $ | 2,888,400 | ||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Guaranty book of business(13) |
$ | 3,037,549 | $ | 3,054,488 | $ | 3,097,201 | $ | 2,975,710 | $ | 2,744,237 | ||||||||||
| Credit quality: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Total nonperforming loans(14)(15) |
$ | 251,949 | $ | 253,579 | $ | 222,064 | $ | 119,955 | $ | 27,254 | ||||||||||
| Total loss reserves |
76,938 | 66,251 | 64,891 | 24,753 | 3,391 | |||||||||||||||
| Total loss reserves as a percentage of total guaranty book of business |
2.53 | % | 2.17 | % | 2.10 | % | 0.83 | % | 0.12 | % | ||||||||||
| Total loss reserves as a percentage of total nonperforming loans(15) |
30.54 | 26.13 | 29.22 | 20.64 | 12.44 | |||||||||||||||
| For the Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | ||||||||||||||||
| Performance ratios: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Net interest yield(16) |
0.60 | % | 0.51 | % | 1.65 | % | 1.03 | % | 0.57 | % | ||||||||||
| Average effective guaranty fee rate (in basis points)(17) |
N/A | N/A | 27.6 | bp | 31.0 | bp | 23.7 | bp | ||||||||||||
| Credit loss ratio (in basis points)(18) |
61.3 | bp | 77.4 | bp | 44.6 | bp | 22.7 | bp | 5.3 | bp | ||||||||||
| Return on assets(19) |
(0.82 | )% | (0.67 | )% | (8.27 | )% | (6.77 | )% | (0.30 | )% | ||||||||||
| (1) | Consists of net interest income and fee and other income. |
| (2) | Consists of the following: (a) derivatives fair value gains (losses), net; (b) trading securities gains (losses), net; (c) hedged mortgage assets gains (losses), net; (d) debt foreign exchange gains (losses), net; (e) debt fair value gains (losses), net; and (f) mortgage loans fair value losses, net. |
- 83 -
Table of Contents
| (3) | Consists of provision for loan losses, provision for guaranty losses and foreclosed property expense. |
| (4) | Consists of the following: (a) debt extinguishment gains (losses), net; (b) gains (losses) from partnership investments; and (c) losses on certain guaranty contracts. |
| (5) | Includes the weighted-average shares of common stock that would be issuable upon the full exercise of the warrant issued to Treasury from the date of conservatorship through the end of the period for 2008 and for the full year for 2009, 2010, and 2011. Because the warrant’s exercise price of $0.00001 per share is considered non-substantive (compared to the market price of our common stock), the warrant was evaluated based on its substance over form. It was determined to have characteristics of non-voting common stock, and thus is included in the computation of basic and diluted loss per share. |
| (6) | Reflects unpaid principal balance of Fannie Mae MBS issued and guaranteed by us during the reporting period less: (a) securitizations of mortgage loans held in our mortgage portfolio during the reporting period and (b) Fannie Mae MBS purchased for our mortgage portfolio during the reporting period. |
| (7) | Reflects unpaid principal balance of mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities we purchased for our mortgage portfolio during the reporting period. Includes acquisition of mortgage-related securities accounted for as the extinguishment of debt because the entity underlying the mortgage-related securities has been consolidated in our consolidated balance sheets. For 2011 and 2010, includes unpaid principal balance of approximately $67 billion and $217 billion, respectively, of delinquent loans purchased from our single-family MBS trusts. Under our MBS trust documents, we have the option to purchase from MBS trusts loans that are delinquent as to four or more consecutive monthly payments. |
| (8) | Mortgage loans consist solely of domestic residential real-estate mortgages. |
| (9) | Total assets less total liabilities. |
| (10) | Reflects unpaid principal balance of mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities reported in our consolidated balance sheets. The principal balance of resecuritized Fannie Mae MBS is included only once in the reported amount. As a result of our adoption of the consolidation accounting guidance as of January 1, 2010, we reflect a substantial majority of our Fannie Mae MBS as mortgage assets and the balance as unconsolidated Fannie Mae MBS. |
| (11) | Reflects unpaid principal balance of unconsolidated Fannie Mae MBS, held by third-party investors. The principal balance of resecuritized Fannie Mae MBS is included only once in the reported amount. |
| (12) | Primarily includes long-term standby commitments we have issued and single-family and multifamily credit enhancements we have provided that are not otherwise reflected in the table. |
| (13) | Reflects mortgage credit book of business less non-Fannie Mae mortgage-related securities held in our investment portfolio for which we do not provide a guaranty. |
| (14) | Consists of on-balance sheet nonperforming loans held in our mortgage assets and off-balance sheet nonperforming loans in unconsolidated Fannie Mae MBS trusts held by third parties. Includes all nonaccrual loans, as well as troubled debt restructurings (“TDR”) and HomeSaver Advance first-lien loans on accrual status. See “MD&A-Consolidated Results of Operations-Credit-Related Expenses-Nonperforming Loans” for a discussion of our nonperforming loans. |
| (15) | In December 2011, we changed our definition of “total nonperforming loans.” Under our new definition, we no longer reflect in this amount (1) our allowance for loan losses or (2) our allowance for accrued interest receivable related to these individually impaired loans. The amounts we report for prior periods have been revised from amounts we previously disclosed as a result of this change. |
| (16) | Calculated based on net interest income for the reporting period divided by the average balance of total interest-earning assets during the period, expressed as a percentage. |
| (17) | Calculated based on guaranty fee income for the reporting period divided by average outstanding Fannie Mae MBS and other guarantees during the period, expressed in basis points. After the adoption of consolidation accounting guidance on January 1, 2010, guaranty fee income is significantly less than prior years, making average effective guarantee fee rate an inconsequential performance ratio after 2009. |
| (18) | Consists of (a) charge-offs, net of recoveries and (b) foreclosed property expense for the reporting period (adjusted to exclude the impact of fair value losses resulting from credit-impaired loans acquired from MBS trusts and HomeSaver Advance loans) divided by the average guaranty book of business during the period, expressed in basis points. See “MD&A-Consolidated Results of Operations-Credit-Related Expenses-Credit Loss Performance Metrics” for a discussion of how our credit loss metrics are calculated. |
| (19) | Calculated based on net loss available to common stockholders for the reporting period divided by average total assets during the period, expressed as a percentage. Average balances for purposes of ratio calculations are based on balances at the beginning of the year and at the end of each quarter for each year shown. |
- 84 -
Table of Contents
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
You should read this MD&A in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2011 and related notes, and with “Business—Executive Summary.”
This report contains forward-looking statements that are based upon management’s current expectations and are subject to significant uncertainties and changes in circumstances. Please review “Business—Forward-Looking Statements” for more information on the forward-looking statements in this report and “Risk Factors” for a discussion of factors that could cause our actual results to differ, perhaps materially, from our forward-looking statements. Please also see “Glossary of Terms Used in This Report.”
| CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ESTIMATES |
The preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP requires management to make a number of judgments, estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amount of assets, liabilities, income and expenses in the consolidated financial statements. Understanding our accounting policies and the extent to which we use management judgment and estimates in applying these policies is integral to understanding our financial statements. We describe our most significant accounting policies in “Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.”
We evaluate our critical accounting estimates and judgments required by our policies on an ongoing basis and update them as necessary based on changing conditions. Management has discussed any significant changes in judgments and assumptions in applying our critical accounting policies with the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors. See “Risk Factors” for a discussion of the risk associated with the use of models. We have identified three of our accounting policies as critical because they involve significant judgments and assumptions about highly complex and inherently uncertain matters, and the use of reasonably different estimates and assumptions could have a material impact on our reported results of operations or financial condition. These critical accounting policies and estimates are as follows:
| • | Fair Value Measurement |
| • | Other-Than-Temporary Impairment of Investment Securities |
| • | Total Loss Reserves |
Fair Value Measurement
The use of fair value to measure our assets and liabilities is fundamental to our financial statements and is a critical accounting estimate because we account for and record a portion of our assets and liabilities at fair value. In determining fair value, we use various valuation techniques. We describe the valuation techniques and inputs used to determine the fair value of our assets and liabilities and disclose their carrying value and fair value in “Note 18, Fair Value.”
The fair value accounting rules provide a three-level fair value hierarchy for classifying financial instruments. This hierarchy is based on whether the inputs to the valuation techniques used to measure fair value are observable or unobservable. Each asset or liability is assigned to a level based on the lowest level of any input that is significant to its fair value measurement. The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are described below:
Level 1: Quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.
Level 2: Observable market-based inputs, other than quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities.
Level 3: Unobservable inputs.
The majority of the financial instruments that we report at fair value in our consolidated financial statements fall within the Level 2 category and are valued primarily utilizing inputs and assumptions that are observable in the
- 85 -
Table of Contents
marketplace, that can be derived from observable market data or that can be corroborated by recent trading activity of similar instruments with similar characteristics. For example, we generally request non-binding prices from at least three independent pricing services to estimate the fair value of our trading and available-for-sale securities at an individual security level. We use the average of these prices to determine the fair value.
In the absence of such information or if we are not able to corroborate these prices by other available, relevant market information, we estimate their fair values based on single source quotations from brokers or dealers or by using internal calculations or discounted cash flow techniques that incorporate inputs, such as prepayment rates, discount rates and delinquency, default and cumulative loss expectations, that are implied by market prices for si