저자: UnrivaledInvesting채널진행자 · 외국인
요약 보기
패니메이(FNMA)·프레디맥(FMCC)은 정부지원기관으로 주택담보대출 보증 사업을 하며, 2008년 구제금융 이후 정부가 수익을 냈다. 트럼프 행정부 하에서 지분 매각·상장(패니 약 50억달러, 프레디 약 150억달러 IPO 가정)이 추진될 수 있고, 자본비율 2.5%가 적용되면 주당 가치가 30달러 이상이 가능하다는 시각이다. 현재 주가 6~7달러 대비 큰 상승 여지를 강조한다. 다만 자본요건(2.5% vs 4%)과 정책 불확실성이 핵심 리스크로 제시된다.
다듬은 글
Late last year, I released a video about how Bill Ackman's investments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could turn out to be the best investments or stocks of 2025. Since then, Fannie Mae (FNMA) has risen by more than 100 % and Freddie Mac by more than 80% , and just earlier this week, Bill Ackman confirmed his thesis on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, suggesting that they have the potential to grow by hundreds of percent.
He called his presentation “ The Art of the Deal,” a reference to Donald Trump’s book, hinting that this time Trump would make it possible to revalue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to much higher multiples— hundreds of percent higher than they are now. I will tell you about the key points of billionaire Bill Ackman's presentation, and at the end of the video I will share my own thoughts.
Let's break this down right now. , please like, click the subscribe button, and let's get started. So Fannie and Freddie are GSEs, government- sponsored enterprises. They guarantee over 50% of the US residential mortgage lending market. These are complex businesses. However, Bill Ackman brilliantly simplifies them to a concise point: they help convert long-term, illiquid mortgages— such as the 30-year fixed-rate mortgages used to buy a home—into a basket of highly liquid mortgage-backed securities.
In addition, they provide insurance. Fannie and Freddie insure this basket, covering the credit risks of the underlying mortgage loans within it. Thus, they facilitate the sale of mortgage-backed securities on global capital markets. The advantage is that this provides access to cheaper financing, as investors around the world seek to purchase these securities, as well as long-term, fixed-rate financing.
It is important to understand that many global markets do not have the 30-year fixed- rate mortgage that is available in the US. Many countries have, for example, a 5-year floating rate, and that makes up a large part of the market. So, I would say, this is a unique feature of the US market, which is made possible by the fact that investors have some guarantees, some kind of insurance, that they will not lose money when buying these mortgage-backed securities.
So, their entire business model boils down to insuring mortgage securities, for which they receive a certain premium, a kind of guarantee commission. And historically, if you look at the situation from the height of a few decades, you will understand that this is a less risky business than it seems, because if you take a traditional home purchase, say, for $100.
Let's just take a conditional figure—$100—as an example. The homeowner needs to put down $20 first, which is the same 20 percent. The mortgage will be 80% of the total purchase price, i.e. $80. Therefore, any losses will first be fully covered by the homeowner's equity before they affect the mortgage.
So historically, it's a very low- risk business— mortgage insurance with a guarantee that the loan will be fully secured. And Bill Ackman rightly observes: "Look, if they hadn't gotten involved with subprime and alt-A loans, these lower- quality loans, they would have had almost enough capital to cover the losses during the financial crisis." This is a very interesting observation.
But they didn't limit themselves to better quality loans . They got involved in lower, worse quality loans— subprime loans . As a result, they suffered losses of tens of billions of dollars, as seen in the period from 2008 until around 2013, when both companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, became profitable again.
And during that period of significant losses, both companies went into receivership, and the US Treasury Department was forced to invest a lot of money. You see the initial infusions for Fannie and Freddie: $70 billion and $121 billion, respectively. But the important thing is that they returned this money, and the original terms provided for a 10 percent dividend .
They got that 10% dividend plus, essentially, a cash withdrawal, a bonus that wasn't part of the original deal, for a total of $25 billion from Fannie and Freddie. So the US government actually made an additional profit —we're talking a return on investment of just over 10 percent from bailing out Fannie and Freddie during the Great Financial Crisis.
If you look at the companies that received state investments, many of them, even all of them, have already left the care of the state. They left state ownership. They are now traded on the stock exchange or have been bought out by other companies. So, this begs the question: why are Fannie and Freddie still under the government's wing?
Why don't they become separate, free, de facto public companies, without this state oversight that requires them to reinvest all their capital or at least limits their ability to pay dividends to shareholders ? So what's stopping this? Well, that's interesting . During the previous administration, Donald Trump wrote a letter.
And this, in my opinion , was after the end of his term. It was in 2021 when he wrote: “My administration would also sell the state shares of these huge companies at great profits and fully privatize them.” "The idea that the government can steal money from its citizens is socialism and a travesty perpetrated by the Obama and Biden administrations." This is an extremely interesting moment.
So, this was written in 2021. That is, during Biden's term. I say this not to politicize, but to show that Donald Trump tried to see things through, trying to make Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac public companies accessible to American citizens again, where investors could more easily buy shares and cash flows would return to shareholders, but he failed to do so.
This time, and this partly explains why these stocks are rising so rapidly , the likelihood of this happening during a second term is higher , especially given his previous statements. Now you may ask: shouldn't Congress intervene? Bill Ekman claims that it actually isn't. It all comes down to the Treasury Department and the FHFA, which I'll talk about in a moment.
Another key issue is how much capital do they actually need? Because the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has proposed a high bar, suggesting that relative to the trillions of dollars in mortgage obligations they guarantee, they may need to have 4% equity. The problem is that 4% is much higher than it has been historically, and these costs will likely be passed on to homeowners in the form of additional thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in interest or fees.
So 4% is probably too burdensome. Bill Ekman suggests 2.5%. So, this is a key aspect of the thesis that creates uncertainty. That's what's at stake— what will be the capital required to maintain these institutions. And if Ackman is right and they only need, say, 2.5% for Fannie Mae, then based on the retained earnings of that business for the next year and its available capital, if you can convert some of their liabilities into equity, plus do an IPO for about $5 billion, that's perfectly acceptable to Fannie Mae.
Together, you would get the same capital ratio of 2.5% relative to their $4.6 trillion in assets and the guarantees they have. So Fannie Mae could return to the public markets with just a $5 billion investment. This is very interesting. Freddie Mac is in worse shape than Fannie Mae, so they would need a similar scheme to reach that 2.5%, they would need about $15 billion in public investment to get to that level.
But this is not unprecedented. You can see that there have already been several different IPOs worth billions of dollars in the past. So, in my opinion, one can easily expect a Fannie Mae IPO of $ 5 billion in 2026 or a Freddie Mac IPO of $15 billion in 2027. We'll see. But I would say the path is clear, and Fannie Mae is probably the less risky of the two, just in terms of the amount of capital required.
And if Bill Ackman is right that we only need to achieve that 2.5%, then we are talking about the possibility of earning about $2–3 per share in the next decade. And then the question becomes: Okay, if Fannie Mae can earn $2 to $3 a share, what multiple is reasonable for a business that is, perhaps, a very slow-growing but very stable, insurance type of business?
He thinks you'll get about $35 per share using a multiple of about 15, based on some future earnings figure. You know, this logic makes sense to me. This pretty much coincides with what I talked about in my last video. You can talk about dividends and using a certain discount, but overall, if you look at the current share price in the $6-7 range compared to a possible IPO price of $30 or so, it indicates the potential for FNMA shares to grow by hundreds of percent.
He also believes that if this were to happen, it would be a huge victory for Donald Trump and the citizens of the United States, as the Treasury, having significant investments in Fannie and Freddie, could later sell its stake, receiving billions of dollars in revenue. So, in addition to this profitable investment, where they have already made double-digit returns, they could make an additional $300 billion over the next decade from selling their stake in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
This would be quite profitable , not to mention the positive effect of removing the trillions of dollars of liabilities that Fannie Mae and Freddie have on their balance sheets. That is, removing them from the US government's balance sheets, as now it would be just Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This, you know, is a pretty interesting opportunity.
What I think about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. lso a short advertisement. Earlier this month, Henrik, a premium subscriber, wrote: "Thank you for creating this service. Subscribing to your platform is the best financial decision I have ever made in my life." Following him, Michael, another premium subscriber, wrote: "So far the subscription has paid for itself in 3 months.
Looking forward to what the future brings." Me too, Michael. And if you are looking for interesting ideas, visit Unrivaled Investing. When I review companies, I usually have a very simple checklist. It filters out over 90% of companies. I am looking for a founder-led business, with transparent management and clear growth .
I would say that Fannie and Freddie do not fit this profile. However, in my portfolio, I am open to special situations, and I believe that Fannie and Freddie fall right into the category of " special situations" with the potential for hundreds of percent growth when you think, "maybe this will work." So, thinking about it, looking at the concept that Bill Ackman proposed, it seems reasonable to me.
You know, looking at this, the assumption of a share price over $30 , he says 35 by the end of 2026, I think that's quite possible, especially compared to a price of $6 or $7 . So I see it as an asymmetrical situation, and that's why I find it quite interesting. There are few situations where you can say, "Um, you know, worst case scenario you're stuck in a rut where it's not entirely clear where things are going." The price goes back to one, so you could lose a lot.
But on the other hand, you can also multiply your money, and perhaps , in a very optimistic scenario, you will get much more than 15 times. Investors might say, "Look how stable this business is." It's like a utility company. Maybe closer to 20 or 25 times. So I would say there is growth potential even beyond what Bill Ackman is talking about, but that requires addressing the uncertainty of how much capital will be brought into this business .
Will it be 2.5%, or will it be the FHFA proposal of 4 % that was under the Biden administration? Or could it be something even better? Maybe 2% or 1.5%? Because when you have something like that , they come to market very quickly. So you have these dynamics, and the latest thing that's also news is that President Trump is nominating Bill Pulte, the grandson of the developer Pulte Home Builders, to be the regulator of the FHFA.
So I think bringing in someone who has experience in capital markets, who is not an academic or a lifelong politician, to oversee this unit increases the chances, in my opinion, of getting a deal done. So it's not surprising to see Fannie and Freddie continue their rapid growth. I hope this video about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was helpful to you .
If so, please don't forget to like and subscribe. Thank you very much for watching Unrivaled Investing.
Comments 0