Home / Markets / Industries / Government
Friday, July 11, 2008
Fannie, Freddie Deny Liquidity Problems
FOXBusiness
Aiming to fight off market fears of insolvency, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac issued statements late Friday insisting they have adequate capital.
The statements from the government-sponsored mortgage giants were released minutes after the Federal Reserve denied having discussions with the companies on allowing them access to the central bank's emergency discount window.
"The Fed is following the situation closely," a spokesperson from the central bank told FOX Business. The statement conflicted earlier reports indicating Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Freddie that it and Fannie Mae would have access to the emergency funding.
The financial health of the two government-sponsored entities was the focal point of a tumultuous day on Wall Street.
Fannie insisted in a separate statement that its capital level "is substantially above" mandated levels. The company also said it raised $7.4 billion of additional capital in May, bringing its total to $14 billion since November 2007.
"In fact, we have more core capital, and a higher surplus over our regulatory requirement, than at any time in this company's history," said Chuck Greener, senior vice president of Fannie.
Freddie said in an e-mail that it is under no mandate to raise capital in the near-term, according to Reuters. The company also reportedly said it has several options to manage its capital, such as cutting its dividend. Freddie said it is "not on the threshold of conservatorship," refuting an earlier media report of a government takeover.
The liquidity statements are very significant as the market has begun to fear that Fannie and Freddie could fail. The fears have grown even as federal officials, and the companies themselves, have insisted the mortgage giants are adequately capitalized.
The New York Times reported in its Friday edition that the government is considering a takeover of both Fannie and Freddie if their financial situations deteriorate. Such a scenario would leave shareholders with little to no value.
Many on Wall Street believe Fannie and Freddie are too big and too important to the housing market to be allowed to fail. The government-sponsored companies own or back more than $5 trillion of U.S. mortgages. A failure would likely do very serious damage to the nation's already slumping housing market.
Fox Business Video
-
-
Helping Veterans Land Jobs
-
Jul 2, 2009
Baird on Helping Soldiers
-
-
-
President's Plans Working
-
Jul 2, 2009
Goodstein on Stimulus Success
-
-
-
Jackson Lives On
-
Jul 2, 2009
Beck on Future of Jackson
-
-
-
$20 Dollars a Gallon
-
Jul 2, 2009
Paying More to Save Economy
-
-
-
Looking for the Road to Recovery
-
Jul 2, 2009
Morris on Unemployment
-
FOX Translator
No data currently available.
No data currently available.
Some mutual funds want you to pay for the privilege of them (or your investment adviser) taking your money to invest. It's called a load, and it works like a cover charge to get into a nightclub. Luckily, there are such things as no-load funds. As the name implies, shares of these funds are sold without a fee paid to a broker or investment advisor.
The entire amount you invest in no-load funds goes to work for your returns. On the other hand, with load funds, right off the bat you're charged commission (not to mention other fees incurred over the life of the investment). Let's say, for example, you invest $25,000 into a load fund that charges a 5% commission. This costs you $1,250 off the top, bringing your actual investment down to only $23,750.
The often-cited horse race analogy argues against investing in load funds. Here's the logic behind it: Would you place a bet on a horse that had to start a race 200 yards behind the others? Well, maybe you would if you got a tip from a sketchy, trench coat-clad man in a dark alley. However, under most circumstances, it's not smart to put your money on that handicapped horse.
But some argue that at times that man in the trench coat (aka your broker) knows more about the horses than you do, and has a better shot at picking a winner. Also, sometimes these fees are unavoidable because some funds are available only through investment advisers.
Cost-benefit analysis can help determine when a load fund is worth it (in other words, when it will score you a load) and when it is better to "do it yourself" and avoid the fees. Load-fund fees range depending on share class and can cover a variety of costs, such as paper work and fund management.






