FMCC - Freddie Mac

Other OTC - Other OTC Delayed Price. Currency in USD
3.7000
-0.1000 (-2.63%)
At close: 4:00PM EDT
Stock chart is not supported by your current browser
Previous Close3.8000
Open3.7600
Bid0.0000 x 0
Ask0.0000 x 0
Day's Range3.7000 - 4.0400
52 Week Range0.9800 - 4.0400
Volume12,492,481
Avg. Volume2,892,243
Market Cap2.405B
Beta (3Y Monthly)2.80
PE Ratio (TTM)N/A
EPS (TTM)-0.2500
Earnings DateOct 29, 2019 - Nov 4, 2019
Forward Dividend & YieldN/A (N/A)
Ex-Dividend Date2008-06-12
1y Target Est4.00
Trade prices are not sourced from all markets
  • Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Won't Go to Market Until End of 2020, FHFA Director Says
    Bloomberg

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Won't Go to Market Until End of 2020, FHFA Director Says

    Sep.16 -- Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Mark Calabria discusses the outlook for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with Bloomberg's Vonnie Quinn on "Bloomberg Markets."

  • GlobeNewswire

    Freddie Mac Single-Family CRT Hits $50 Billion of Credit Risk Transferred

    MCLEAN, Va., Sept. 17, 2019 -- Freddie Mac today announced that its Single-Family Credit Risk Transfer (CRT) programs have surpassed the $50 billion mark in transferring credit.

  • FHFA says Fannie and Freddie must direct over one-third of multifamily loans towards affordable housing
    MarketWatch

    FHFA says Fannie and Freddie must direct over one-third of multifamily loans towards affordable housing

    Over a third of the multifamily loans the two firms purchase must now be directed toward affordable housing.

  • Does September Rate Spike Mean 2019 Mortgage Refi Boom Is Over?
    The Basis Point

    Does September Rate Spike Mean 2019 Mortgage Refi Boom Is Over?

    Rates spiked 0.4% last week, so is 2019 mortgage refi boom over? Let's take a look at where rates are, and where they might go as we move into Fall.

  • FX Empire

    U.S Mortgage Rates Rise as Geopolitical Risk Abates

    Mortgage rates climbed last week as the trade war and Brexit jitters eased. It’s all in the hands of the FED this week.

  • 5 major changes the Trump administration wants to make to housing finance
    MarketWatch

    5 major changes the Trump administration wants to make to housing finance

    Creating competitors to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and loosening mortgage regulations are among the proposed reform.

  • Moody's

    New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority -- Moody's assigns Aaa to New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority's Single Family Mortgage Program Class I Bonds, 2019 Series F (Tax-Exempt) (Non-AMT)

    Moody's Investors Service ("Moody's") assigns a rating of Aaa to the proposed $120,000,000 of New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority (the "Authority") Single Family Mortgage Program Class I Bonds, 2019 Series F (Tax-Exempt) (Non-AMT).

  • Reuters

    UPDATE 1-Fannie, Freddie regulator changes caps on multifamily loans

    The Federal Housing Finance Agency said on Friday it revised the limits on what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy for their multifamily business into the end of 2020 in an effort to address a shortage in affordable housing. The new multifamily loan purchase caps for the two government-sponsored enterprises will be $100 billion each for a total of $200 billion for the five-quarter period through the final quarter of 2020, FHFA said. The new limits apply to all multifamily business with no exclusions, the regulator said.

  • Barrons.com

    Mortgage Rates Have Jumped This Week

    President Trump has called for negative interest rates — but that wouldn’t necessarily be a boon for housing

  • Don’t Mess With Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
    Bloomberg

    Don’t Mess With Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

    (Bloomberg Opinion) -- It’s official: The Trump administration has a plan to deal with mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — by returning them to the same quasi-governmental form that set them up for failure in the 2008 financial crisis. If executed, it’s likely to be a win for a small coterie of hedge funds, and a big loss for everybody else.Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play a central role in U.S. housing finance. By guaranteeing payments of interest and principal on home loans (in return for a fee), they make the ubiquitous 30-year mortgage possible. For decades, they operated as a public-private hybrid. Their congressional charter to promote homeownership created a perception of government backing, which allowed them to get by with extremely little capital and deliver outsize profits to their private shareholders. The perception became reality after the housing bust, when they suffered overwhelming losses and the government had to rescue them at taxpayer expense.Since then, as wards of the state, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have actually done quite well. They have supported lending throughout the recession and recovery, boosted fees to better cover their risks, and paid more than $300 billion in dividends to the Treasury. Yet a rump of private shareholders, including hedge funds that have bought in since the crash, keeps clamoring for a piece of the profits. And legislators keep coming up with — and failing to agree on — sweeping plans to reform the companies and reduce the government’s involvement in the mortgage market.Now, in the absence of congressional action, President Donald Trump’s administration might go it alone. Its plan, released last week by the Treasury, is to put the companies back into private hands, but this time with an explicit government backstop. This means the companies would retain more of their earnings — potentially a huge windfall for the private shareholders. The resulting structure would be much the same as before the crisis: Shareholders would reap profits until the next housing bust, when taxpayers would again be on the hook — only more firmly than last time — to cover losses.Granted, the Treasury plan does call for shareholders to take on more risk in the form of added equity capital. It also requires the government to charge a fee large enough, supposedly, to compensate taxpayers for providing a backstop. This was how the old system was meant to work, and it failed. Such a setup gives the private shareholders every incentive to press for low fees and light capital requirements. Experience suggests they’re very likely to get their way.There are better options. For example, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could be merged into a single, fully government-owned corporation that would transfer most of its credit risk to private investors, retaining just the catastrophic risk that only the government can bear. This would get private capital involved without letting it so easily shift risk to taxpayers. Pricing the guarantee correctly would be easier. This in turn would promote more competition from completely private lending channels. As it happens, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have already been moving in this direction, issuing special credit-risk-transfer securities and creating a common mortgage-securitization platform.The Trump administration’s plan for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac still has a long way to go. There are many details to iron out and various political forces to align. As the idea moves forward, one can only hope that inertia will prevail: Doing nothing would be better than this.\--Editors: Mark Whitehouse, Clive Crook.To contact the senior editor responsible for Bloomberg Opinion’s editorials: David Shipley at davidshipley@bloomberg.net, .Editorials are written by the Bloomberg Opinion editorial board.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

  • Moody's

    CIM Trust 2019-INV3 -- Moody's assigns provisional ratings to Prime RMBS issued by CIM Trust 2019-INV3

    Moody's Investors Service ("Moody's") has assigned provisional ratings to 24 classes of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) issued by CIM Trust (CIM) 2019-INV3. CIM Trust 2019-INV3, the fourth rated transaction sponsored by Chimera Investment Corporation (Chimera or the Sponsor) in 2019, is a prime RMBS securitization of primarily fixed-rate agency-eligible mortgages secured by first liens on non-owner occupied residential investor properties with original term to maturity of up to 30 years. As of the cut-off date of September 1, 2019, the pool contains of 1405 mortgage loans with an aggregate principal balance of $353,199,022 secured by one- to four-family residential properties, planned unit developments, townhouses and condominiums.

  • Deutsche Bank is first to settle bond-rigging lawsuit, amid federal probe
    Reuters

    Deutsche Bank is first to settle bond-rigging lawsuit, amid federal probe

    Deutsche Bank AG will pay $15 million to resolve claims it conspired to rig prices of bonds issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac , becoming the first of 16 financial services companies to settle litigation by investors. The German bank did not admit wrongdoing in agreeing to the settlement, which also requires that it bolster its antitrust compliance procedures and cooperate with the investors. The settlement was disclosed in filings late Wednesday in Manhattan federal court.

  • Mortgage rates have jumped this week — but could they one day fall to zero?
    MarketWatch

    Mortgage rates have jumped this week — but could they one day fall to zero?

    President Trump has called for negative interest rates — but that wouldn’t be a boon for housing necessarily.

  • Deutsche Bank Emerges as Whistle-Blower in Bond-Rig Probe
    Bloomberg

    Deutsche Bank Emerges as Whistle-Blower in Bond-Rig Probe

    (Bloomberg) -- Deutsche Bank AG is cooperating with the Justice Department’s antitrust investigation into whether several of the largest global banks conspired to rig trading in unsecured bonds issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.The bank earned leniency by providing information about other banks accused of rigging trading in the bonds. The cooperation deal emerged Thursday when Pennsylvania’s Treasurer, Joe Torsella, announced that Deutsche Bank had agreed to pay $15 million to resolve allegations in a civil lawsuit filed in federal court in Manhattan, that accuses traders at about a dozen large banks of rigging the bond prices.According to the deal, the German lender came forward in May to assist Pennsylvania and other plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit. Under federal law, companies seeking criminal leniency in antitrust matters, which includes immunity from prosecution, can also limit their financial exposure by assisting price-fixing victims seeking damages.Deutsche Bank’s settlement, which requires the bank to install an antitrust compliance program, shows that the bank has been providing the Justice Department with electronic chats and other evidence that could be used to prosecute individuals and institutions. It also suggests that the bank, which is the middle of multiple criminal investigations by the Justice Department, is looking to win some good will with investigators.In late May, lawyers accusing the banks of manipulating the bond prices said in a court filing that they were working with a cooperator who was providing “smoking gun” evidence including electronic chats. Though they didn’t name Deutsche Bank at the time, examples of chats in the filing were between traders at Deutsche Bank and others at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley and BNP Paribas SA.The lawsuit accuses financial institutions of ripping off pension funds and others from 2009 to 2016.Torsella said the settlement on Thursday was “an important first step, but just a first step, toward greater accountability on Wall Street.” He said government-sponsored-entity (GSE) bonds like those of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “are foundational to public investment portfolios, particularly for state governments, school districts, county governments and local municipalities.”“We’re pleased to have resolved the matter,” said Troy Gravitt, a Deutsche Bank spokesman.The Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into whether some traders manipulated prices in the market for unsecured bonds issued by Fannie and Freddie, the government-backed companies whose financing underlies most U.S. home purchases, Bloomberg News reported last year. No individuals or banks have been charged.The market for their agency debt -- which finances the companies’ operations but doesn’t directly fund mortgages -- runs into the hundreds of billions of dollars.The lawsuit in Manhattan alleges that the chats about the pricing of the bonds in the secondary market also directly implicate Bank of America Corp. and its Merrill Lynch subsidiary, Barclays Plc, Cantor Fitzgerald LP, Citigroup Inc., Credit Suisse Group AG, First Tennessee Bank NA, HSBC Holdings Plc, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Nomura Holdings Inc., TD Securities Inc. and UBS Group AG.In addition to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, these GSE bonds finance the Federal Farm Credit Banks and the Federal Home Loan Banks.Deutsche Bank approached the lead counsel for the plaintiffs on May 8 and said it was willing to provide them with cooperation materials pursuant to a federal law that allows companies to seek criminal leniency in antitrust matters, the settlement agreement said. The law also limits the financial exposure of companies that assist price-fixing victims seeking compensation.Judge Jed Rakoff in federal court in Manhattan ruled this month that the case against BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley could move forward. He dismissed the other financial institutions from the case but allowed the plaintiffs to seek to bring additional evidence forward that could bring those institutions back in to the case, which they did in a filing on Tuesday.Earlier:Wall Street Informant Turned Over Chats in Fannie Bond CaseWall Street’s Legal Nemesis Is Sidelined in Fannie Rigging CaseFannie Bond-Rigging Suit Lists 27 Traders Without Accusing ThemTrading in Fannie, Freddie Bonds Said to Be Probed by U.S.(Updates with bank assisting criminal investigation in fourth paragraph.)\--With assistance from Gwen Everett.To contact the reporter on this story: Tom Schoenberg in Washington at tschoenberg@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Jeffrey D Grocott at jgrocott2@bloomberg.net, David S. JoachimFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

  • Reuters

    UPDATE 2-Deutsche Bank is first to settle bond-rigging lawsuit, amid federal probe

    Deutsche Bank AG will pay $15 million to resolve claims it conspired to rig prices of bonds issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac , becoming the first of 16 financial services companies to settle litigation by investors. The German bank did not admit wrongdoing in agreeing to the settlement, which also requires that it bolster its antitrust compliance procedures and cooperate with the investors. Investors including Pennsylvania Treasurer Joe Torsella accused several of the world's largest banks of exploiting their market dominance to overcharge for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds from Jan. 1, 2009 to Jan. 1, 2016, and secure more profit for themselves.

  • GlobeNewswire

    Freddie Mac Prices $1.2 Billion Multifamily K-Deal, K-097

    MCLEAN, Va., Sept. 12, 2019 -- Freddie Mac (OTCQB: FMCC) recently priced a new offering of Structured Pass-Through Certificates (K Certificates), which are backed by underlying.

  • GlobeNewswire

    Mortgage Rates Increase

    Freddie Mac (FMCC) today released the results of its Primary Mortgage Market® (PMMS®), showing that the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage (FRM) rate averaged 3.56 percent. While this is an increase from last week, this is the first time 30-year fixed mortgage rates have been under 3.6 percent over four consecutive weeks since the fourth quarter of 2016. Sam Khater, Freddie Mac’s Chief Economist says, “Pipeline purchase demand continues to improve heading into the late fall with purchase mortgage applications up nine percent from a year ago.

  • Reuters

    U.S. Treasury eyes action on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac by month's end -Mnuchin

    U.S. housing regulators and the Treasury Department were actively negotiating a profit sweep of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Thursday. "That's something that the FHFA (Federal Housing Finance Agency) and we are working on.

  • Financial Times

    Deutsche Bank settles US mortgage bond rigging case

    Deutsche Bank has become the first lender to settle civil claims of allegedly rigging US mortgage bond markets, resolving one of the lender’s many legal headaches for $15m. Deutsche was one of 16 financial institutions sued for breaking antitrust laws by allegedly using their dominant position to inflate prices and overcharge investors for mortgage bonds issued by the government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Pennsylvania Treasurer, which brought the case against Deutsche along with other civil plaintiffs, said the bank’s speedy settlement “reflects Deutsche Bank’s early co-operation in this suit”.

  • GlobeNewswire

    Freddie Mac Prices $718 Million Multifamily K-Deal, K-F67

    Freddie Mac (FMCC) recently priced a new offering of Structured Pass-Through Certificates (K Certificates) backed by floating-rate multifamily mortgages with ten-year terms. The approximately $718 million in K Certificates (K-F67 Certificates) are expected to settle on or about September 24, 2019.

  • Benzinga

    Analyst Raises Fannie Mae Price Target Following Mnuchin Comments

    Federal National Mortgage Association (OTC: FNMA) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (OTC: FMCC) are having another big day on Wednesday after investors got some much-needed clarification following last week’s release of a somewhat lackluster Trump administration housing reform plan. On Friday after the market close, an appellate court overturned a previous ruling upholding the legality of the Treasury’s “net worth sweep” of Fannie and Freddie’s profits.

  • Bloomberg

    Hedge Funds Get a Crack at Weakening the Administrative State

    (Bloomberg Opinion) -- It’s not often that hedge funds and the Constitution come up in the same sentence — let alone the same judicial opinion. But the two are very much in play in an important opinion issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.In it, the court handed a win to hedge funds that are challenging the 2012 decision by the Federal Housing Finance Agency to make Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac transfer their profits to the U.S. Treasury in perpetuity — a transformation of those previously quasi-private entities known as the net worth sweep.At the same time, the court also held that it was unconstitutional for Congress to make the head of the FHFA removable by the president only for cause.These two separate parts of the court’s decision are independently important. Both or one or neither could eventually reach the Supreme Court.One is based on the interpretation of the statutes creating the FHFA. The other is based on the Constitution. In principle, you could be interested in one and ignore the other.But that would be a grave mistake. What’s most interesting about these two parts of the opinion is that they are ideologically connected, even if they are on the surface legally independent.Both parts reflect the rise of a strand of conservative judicial thought that questions the very foundations of the administrative state — and thus of agencies like the FHFA. The judges who subscribe to this approach are inclined to limit the powers of agencies to make substantive policy decisions like the net worth sweep, which fundamentally changed the character of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The very same judges, following the same approach, also oppose agency independence of the kind that Congress creates when it makes an agency head removable only for cause.This trend is something you need to be aware of whether you’re someone who makes a living trading in regulated markets or someone who cares about how the courts are re-configuring the constitutional structure of the administrative state.To explain the connection between the two parts of the case, let me briefly simplify (or really, oversimplify) what the appeals court did.With respect to the net worth sweep, the court said that the FHFA’s statutory powers as receiver and conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not authorize the agency to transfer substantially all the capital of the two entities into the Treasury. In essence, the court said, it was lawful for the FHFA to bail out the two government-sponsored enterprises, and lawful for Treasury to take a hefty fee for doing so. But the net worth sweep, the court said, was really a liquidation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s assets -- and that liquidation went beyond the powers granted by Congress.To reach this conclusion required an extremely cramped and narrow reading of the statutes that created the FHFA. Several other courts of appeal have rejected challenges to FHFA authority based on analogous arguments. By its own account, the Fifth Circuit has now created a split with at least two of the circuits. Such circuit splits can eventually lead to the Supreme Court weighing in to decide the issue.What seems to have motivated the court is that the net worth sweep amounted to a serious policy decision about the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The court reasoned that the point of the net worth sweep was to block the possibility that Fannie and Freddie could ever go private again. In the court’s telling, this policy goal wasn’t consistent with the FHFA’s powers.But under traditional administrative law principles, agency powers to make substantive policy decisions are typically treated with significant deference by the courts.  If the FHFA is a receiver and a conservator for Fannie and Freddie, that would ordinarily be enough to let it make major, permanent changes to their structure and business model.In short, what motivated the Fifth Circuit’s ruling on the net worth sweep was a revisionist, conservative theory of administrative law — one that seeks to interpret agencies’ authorities much more narrowly than in the past.That same ideological turn with respect to the administrative state was also more obviously visible in the court’s constitutional ruling about whether Congress can make the FHFA an independent agency by protecting its director from presidential removal except for cause. Without getting into the constitutional precedent, the gist is that until now, the Supreme Court has been willing to uphold the creation of so-called independent agencies, run by heads who are appointed by the president but who cannot be removed except for cause.The Fifth Circuit said that the FHFA enjoyed a “unique constellation of insulating features” that made its independence a violation of the separation of powers. This was based on a highly dubious interpretation of a 2010 Supreme Court opinion, Free Enterprise Fund  v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.Essentially, the Fifth Circuit was making new constitutional law to the effect that an independent agency can’t be too independent. Again, this view creates a split between different appeals courts, and may have to go to the Supreme Court for resolution.The ideological basis for this attack on independent agencies is grounded in the idea that the Framers’ three-branch structure of government can’t be expanded to include independent agencies, which the conservatives like to call a “headless fourth branch” that is not accountable to voters. Justice Neil Gorsuch is leading the push for a rollback of administrative structures like independent agencies that he considers unconstitutional. There’s a lively and growing debate among scholars of administrative and constitutional law about how far Gorsuch can take the counter-revolution against the administrative state.The takeaway from the Fifth Circuit opinion is that this isn’t just some abstract debate among scholars about the future of constitutional law. It’s a debate whose gravitational pull extends to big-ticket litigation brought by hedge funds making predictions that are linked to its outcome. It represents that rarest of situations: when you can trade on the meaning of the Constitution.To contact the author of this story: Noah Feldman at nfeldman7@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Sarah Green Carmichael at sgreencarmic@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a professor of law at Harvard University and was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter. His books include “The Three Lives of James Madison: Genius, Partisan, President.” For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

  • Strategic Value Investing: Bill Miller
    GuruFocus.com

    Strategic Value Investing: Bill Miller

    A story of the rise, fall and perhaps redemption of a value fund manager Continue reading...