Fannie and Freddie and the subprime mortgage fiasco: how much exposure?
However, both also hold pools of mortgage-backed securities not issued or guaranteed by them, as a result of "private placement." There is controversy among experts in this market segment about how much of the private placement portfolio should be classified as subprime or as "relatively risky." In general, experts seem to agree that a dominant share of the U.S. market for "private label issues" is attributable to subprime or risky loans.
Probably more important in evaluating the future impact on Fannie and Freddie is what Congress might require of them in the future. During the last two years, political pressure was already building on Fannie and Freddie to curtail the size of their total portfolios of income-generating mortgage-backed securities. Now, in 2007, politicians are beginning to call for "relief" for low-credit families that would enable them to keep their existing homes or buy "affordable housing." It is likely that Fannie and Freddie will be subject to intensifying political pressure to increase lending to low-income borrowers as a share of their total loan portfolios, to help ease the housing market downturn. This would, of course, increase the exposure of Fannie and Freddie to the riskiest segments of the housing market.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.; Federal National Mortgage Association|
|Publication:||The International Economy|
|Article Type:||Brief article|
|Date:||Mar 22, 2007|
|Previous Article:||Adios free trade?|
|Next Article:||Wise advice.|
|Walter Buczynski and Darrell Swanson.|
|NY Mortgage opens Westchester branch.|
|Homebuilders approve new housing regulation rules.|